MPs want to ditch historic oath to Queen

The Telegraph ^ | 8/8/2008 | Laura Clout

[bruinbirdman]

A group of MPs is calling for the oath of allegiance to the Queen be scrapped.

The 22 MPs want the Commons and the Lords to be allowed to swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than to the monarch.

The cross-party group, led by Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, says MPs' "principal duty" should be to the people who elected them.

The unofficial campaign caused dismay among Royalist MPs, one of whom accused the group of "constitutional vandalism".

Currently, MPs must take the oath at the start of a new parliament, swearing on a bible or an equivalent sacred text.

Much amended down the centuries, the current wording is: "I [name] swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

Those with no religion, or those like Quakers whose religion makes oaths objectionable, are able to affirm.

The coalition is campaigning for an alternative oath allowing MPs to, "swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation and to pledge to uphold the law, rather than one pledging personal allegiance to the serving monarch."

Peter Bottomley, the former Conservative Transport Minister, said he would support a proposal for the oath to be made voluntary.

However Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP for Torridge and West Devon said: "This is an act of uncomprehending constitutional vandalism. The Queen is the centre of the British constitution."

Republican sentiment among MPs has grown steadily, and there have been previous calls for modernisation of the oath.

One occasion the MP for Bolsover murmured: "I can't swear allegiance to a Queen who refuses to pay taxes."

Irish republicans have always rejected the historic oath and so are unable to take their seats in the Chamber.

[SunkenCiv]

[self-ping]

[Nathan Zachary]

"Do their constituents happen to be Muslims?"

Bingo! You've revealed the real reason behind this challenge. Muslims do not want to swear allegiance to queen and country. They only swear allegiance to Islam, it's rock god "Allah", and it's disgusting little pedophile prophet, Mohammad, the mass murdering bandit and thief, and swear to follow in his footsteps waging war against all mankind advancing "Allah's" cause, no matter how bloody.

Ishaq:204 "Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind."
Ishaq:471 "We are steadfast trusting Him. We have a Prophet by whom we will conquer all men."
Ishaq:208"... Now we bind ourselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances."

Qur'an:8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"

But islam is a religion of peace, dontchaknow...

[Nathan Zachary]

"Good, there is no role for monarchy in a modern democracy."

That all depends on what replaces it. So be careful what you wish for.

[BBell]

It wasn’t an example I was responding to post no.2, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!

[NurdlyPeon]

Good, there is no role for monarchy in a modern democracy.

They do have a role, but they are not living up to it. The monarchy is a symbol of Briton. Their history, their grandeur, their nobility, their link to their past, and as a symbol to rally the country in times of crisis. Sadly, the current crop of duffie (duffuses?) is not living up to the responsibilities that go along with the job. Taking an oath of loyalty to the Queen reminds the MPs that they are but a link in a chain that extends back hundreds of years. When you don't have that, you go into the type of free-form thinking that leads to handing your country over to Muslims. That's what happens when you start to lose the symbols of your national identity.

[bruinbirdman]

"Who or what are they loyal to? "

We have a flag, they have a Queen.

yitbos

[frankiep]

I’ve heard those arguments from monarchists before and they do not convince me one bit. No matter how you look at it, it is still nothing more than exhalting someone to an incredible amount of power, prestige, wealth, and influence over an entire nation simply because he/she was lucky to be born into a certain family. As if that isn’t enough, all of this, and everything that goes along with it, is paid for and maintained by tax money provided by the ‘commoners’ who are required by law to kiss the ass of the monarch they financially support. Sorry, but my American sensibility does not allow me to see how such a system is anything but ridiculous at best and immoral at worst.

[BBell]

How about this:

Off with your head!!

It seems historically neutral.

[AnAmericanMother]

Wrong head.

That's the execution of Louis XVI.

In the full picture you can see the French troops in the foreground.

That's backwards -- the disloyal anti-royalists (like the men who killed Charles I) should be going to the scaffold (not the block - that's reserved for peers.)

[Nathan Zachary]

"Our politican, if not ethnic, ancestors were right to kick those inbred twits out. Here’s looking forward to the UK becoming the Republic of Great Britain. Its about time!"

Unfortuately, that's not the ambition of these people. The goal is to turn the UK into a Republic of Islam, ruled by a caliphate and governed by Sharia law, the word of "Allah" and ways of Allah's Apostle, Mohammad the terrible.

[AnAmericanMother]

Dead link.

[AnAmericanMother]

I just explained, most of the Queen's income is from the Duchy of Cornwall and its real estate holdings in the City and Chelsea.

Unless you want to ban the inheritance of real property? That might be a bit extreme.

As far as power, it's a constitutional monarchy and they basically have none.

And, anyhow, the Queen voluntarily pays taxes on her royal income, and has since the 1990s to my knowledge. Her father George VI and Queen Victoria did the same.

You need to study the system a little, so you can work with facts and not feelings.

[Clemenza]

Not quite. The Liberal MPs are direct ancestors of the radical Whigs. They are wrong on many issues, but right here.

Charles Windsor Saxe-Coburg, private citizen, sounds good right now.

[AnAmericanMother]

Ah, the link showed up eventually.

I was thinking of Alice and the Queen as well.

Sometimes I wonder if Eliz. II wishes that she could just "shorten" a few people as Eliz. I used to do . . . .

[BBell]

I know it's Louis XVI. I guess I should be more careful here in what pictures I post. I just like that it had “off with their heads” on it. The first thing I thought of when I read post no.2 was Alice in Wonderland (Looking Glass what ever). I really did not think anyone here would be so serious about it. The muzzie angle worries me more. And what was my dead link anyway?

[americanophile]

They ought to just get rid of the Queen while they're at it...or course we're all republicans here. It seems to me particularly sad to have to take an oath to this queen...a woman who has the capacity to do infinite good in the world vis-a-vis her status, but chooses to do absolutely nothing. The Queen could be traveling the world working to help humanitarian causes, promote Western ideals and values, and be a force for good in the world...instead she sits in her palaces with not a care in the world. At very least she ought to dismiss the miscreant Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as she alone is empowered to do. If England must have a monarch, we should hope for one with a better sense of his/her English heritage, his/her unique role as the head of the Church of England, and a true sense of noblesse oblige in the modern world. To whom much is given, much is expected.

[BBell]

Are you physic?

[Clemenza]

Cromwell was a puritan, ie a member of the "religious right." The royalist forces were largely Anglicans and Catholics. Maybe if Charles would have conceded more power to Parliament, the Civil War wouldn't have broken out.

You do know that Cromwell's body was dug-up and torn limb from limb after the Restoration.

Nice to see that we have royalists here in the US. I assume that you would have supported George III back in the day. I would have been a radical republican myself.

Leave the monarchy to backward societies like Saudi Arabia. Let the Hanover/Windsor Saxe-Coburg family become private citizens like anyone else.

[Humble Servant]

” Irish republicans have always rejected the historic oath and so are unable to take their seats in the Chamber. “

Erin go breá!

[bruinbirdman]

"Unfortuately, that's not the ambition of these people. The goal is to turn the UK into a Republic of Islam, ..."

The goal has been fulfilled with the signing of the Lisbon EUrotopia Treaty/Constitution. UK, apparently, is a state of the EUSSR.

Hmm. Wonder how Australia figgers alliegence to the Queen vis a vis loyalty to EUSSR.

yitbos