Posted on 08/07/2008 8:28:30 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I'd just as soon Charles wasn't king of anything (he strikes me as a rather dense and tone-deaf twit) but the English manage to get rid of the really stupid ones (see Edward VIII, the execrable Albert Victor, and so forth).
Well, those wanting to do away with this aren’t exactly pledged to liberty. They’re the far-left of that country.
True enough. Of course, though, there are many simple things in life they never get to have...if the Queen wanted to get together with a senior ladies group at church and go window shopping, for example, she couldn’t exactly do that. I wouldn’t want that kind of a life - some things all the money in the world cannot make up for.
It's an interesting thing - she has an incredible amount of power she could never get away with using...great power and no power at the same time, essentially.
I don't agree with the concept of monarchy, but given the cultural conflicts going on, the Queen is a prominent national symbol that is no doubt helping to keep Britain what it is - Britain.
I'm not sure that concessions to Parliament would have done anything but embolden the radicals. In much the same way, concessions to Islamic radicals do nothing but embolden them to seek more concessions and eventually the heads of the infidels. They are not interested in negotiations, only power.
The Levellers and Fifth Monarchy Men were already seeking to overthrow the monarchy and the peerage and set in place a religious government (run of course by them). But the majority in Parliament (probably horrified when they realized what they had done) asked Cromwell to be king. He had the good sense to refuse the title, but ran the country as a de facto king. (He also severely quashed and executed the radicals, as Charles had failed to do.) His son Richard inherited the job of Lord Protector (showing that it was a de facto monarchy) but couldn't manage it, hence the Restoration.
Cromwell's body wasn't torn limb from limb, he was beheaded post mortem, the body thrown into a quicklime pit and the head displayed at Westminster until somebody stole it. It was eventually buried at his old college in Cambridge.
Wrt the American Revolution, the problem wasn't George III, bless his dim little head, but Parliament. Monetary exploitation of colonies without representation almost always leads to difficulties once the colonists realize they are being had.
I wouldn't have stood with the radical republicans like Sam Adams and his ilk. THOSE are the kind of folks who bring you the French Revolution . . . and Sam would have done something of the kind if his cousin John and other cooler heads had not prevailed (Sam was instrumental in precipitating the Boston Massacre, and it was after that that he was shuffled off to a quiet job out of the mainstream.)
Under the circumstances, I would have stood with the Virginians and Georgians (including my collateral ancestor George Walton) who reluctantly severed ties with Britain.
Correction: it was George V, not George VI, who was the last to have the title Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The title was changed to Windsor on account of anti-German feeling in WWI. Hence the Kaiser’s quip that he had gone to the theater to see “The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha”.
And what of the Queen's staff, and the staff of every other member of the royal family? Who pays for that? Not only that, but I doubt that the around the clock protection for every member of the royal family, both in Britain and while travelling, is paid for out of their investments and real estate holdings. I'm sure there are many other similar things like this that is paid for by virtue of the Queen or Prince writing a personal check out of the family bank account.
As far as power, it's a constitutional monarchy and they basically have none.
Then why all the fuss? That just makes the whole thing all the more silly.
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.
How nice. I wish I could voluntarily decide to pay, or not to pay, taxes. However I was born to parents who are mere commoners so I don't have the option.
You need to study the system a little, so you can work with facts and not feelings.
The facts are that monarchs are granted a status of great prestige and influence over an entire nation simply by virtue of their birth. They did nothing whatsoever to earn any titles, tributes, and privileges other than have parents, who had the right parents, who had the right parents, etc. And I know enough about the system of monarchies to know that many people have risked everything to escape them, and that bloody wars have been fought to break away from them. As you said though, the British monarchy today has basically no power, in which case I have to ask why even bother keeping it around then....
I think you nailed it. I don’t have a monarchist bone in my body (or maybe I do?), but it saddens me to see this and to think of England without its royals. It’s so easy to hack away at tradition. Tradition is a total sitting duck for the postmodern mindset, which can’t even perceive the deep and subtle benefits of it.
If they had somebody elected instead of a royal doing all the PR and travel that the royals do, the taxpayers would still be paying for staff and the equivalent of secret service. (They don't have the level of protection that, say, the American president has, which is why some loon was able to walk into Queen Elizabeth's bedroom in the middle of the night some years ago.) So that point is really irrelevant.
And there are all sorts of breaks in the lines of royal succession, due to incompetents who lost the job (in addition to the twits mentioned above, you have idiots like James II). There were other incompetents (like George IV) who almost made Britain turn republic in disgust but died in time to avoid that result. So inheritance alone is not the issue, it's more complicated than that.
If you want to criticize the British monarchy (and monarchy in general) there are plenty of valid grounds. But don't work from feelings and emotion, it's not very persuasive.
We have Queens as well. They live in San Francisco... :)
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 Parliament could just get rid of the whole royalist appendix, but then Britain would lose a major source of tourist interest.
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."This is really interesting:
Peter Bottomley, the former Conservative Transport Minister, said he would support a proposal for the oath to be made voluntary... Irish republicans have always rejected the historic oath and so are unable to take their seats in the Chamber.Why can't they be more like us, and have an elected lawmaking body which is sworn in with oaths, but don't actually take the oaths seriously? I mean, to borrow one from Sam Kinison, someone should be doing rimshots during the vows.
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."Great that this came up as the Labour majority is falling apart, eh?
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."Hey, the Queen should be having her money taken away for her own good, just like the rest of the Britons.
So a German family (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until WWI), that inherited the throne from a Norman-French dynasty that usurped it from a native English ruler is the symbol of Britain. And it’s a family that probably has had very few British members.
Mountbatten was the name assumed by the royals around the time of WWI, when the name was Battenburg. The PR folks wanted it changed since the name Battenburg, correctly, linked the British royal family to the Germans. Of course, the two countries were at war and Germans were the Huns.
Since you are a royal historian you know how many “continental” kings and queens Victoria was related to.
Prince Philip and his son, the presumptive next king, are so closely related to the Russian Czar’s line that Philip’s DNA was used to verify the identities of corpses recovered in Russia and thought to be the executed Czar and his family.
Pledging allegiance to Britain by pledging allegiance to the queen may be a form helpful to national unity, but in actuality, it is a pledge to a family that attained regal status throughout Europe.
The British royal family is very sensitive to these links; witness the change of their names from Battenburg. That sensitivity relates to their retaining the throne, with national interest a distinctly secondary consideration.
FReegards!
You are right about the current royal family in Britain being a German family. The family is of German descent-—descended from George I of the House of Hanover. The dynasty was known as the Hanoverian dynasty until Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. English monarchs serving after that (descendants of Victoria and Albert) were known as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until World War I. During WWI, the family changed its name to Windsor.
As for the Norman-French dynasty, you must be referring to the Stuart family, which was from Scotland. The first monarch of the Stuart family to rule England was James I and the last Stuart monarch in England was Anne. The native English ruler, therefore, was Elizabeth I of the Tudor family, which was a native English family. She was the last ruler from that dynasty, because she had no heirs (since she never married) and the rest of Henry VIII’s children had no heirs either. As for the idea of usurping the throne from a native English ruler, James I, a native of Scotland and a member of the Stuart family, became king after Elizabeth I died. His family did not usurp the throne. Of course, James I’s mother, Mary Queen of Scots, tried to usurp the throne, but Elizabeth I, who was her cousin, had her imprisoned and later executed. But you are right about the current family being of German descent. It is ironic that a family of German descent is the symbol of Britain. Frankly, I wish that Elizabeth I had married and had children and possibly therefore grandchildren, etc. Then Britain would still have an English family on the throne. The Tudor family would still be the symbol of Britain if that happened, and that family would be a real symbol of Britain, just as it was under Elizabeth I. If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would bet you a dollar that if the Tudor family ruled England today, the Muslim terrorists living in Britain wouldn’t be there now. In fact, there wouldn’t be any Muslims there at all if the Tudor family still ruled England. As for the panty-waist Archbishop of Canterbury, the Tudor rulers wouldn’t have put up with him, either. He would not have been appointed in the first place.
Some symbol of Britain the current royal family is. I would like to say to them, “Begone, and let an English family with more backbone and more morals take the throne.”
Leaving aside some quibbles about 'every need and want tended to' (debatable), nor do most Britons - until we consider the alternatives. As somebody once said about something else, the monarchy is the worst possible system for appointing our head of state except all the others. I find that when, as happens from time to time, I'm attracted by the virtues of republicanism, it's a salutary and immediate corrective to rehearse mentally the list of probable candidates for the Presidency of a British Republic. No, thank you very much.
Not a very good start to begin political life by publicly betraying your principles
In the monarchist system both HRH Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, and her various No1 servants, can be treated with less idolatry than the temporary presidents of the various republics.
Her Maj is of Royal descent going back to Odin, and her position is permanent and being secure, even loyal monarchists as I are comfortable with sending her and designated replacement Prince Chilla up. (Besides her actual power exists only in theory not practice) As for Prime Minsters, they are functionaries and deserve no respect.
However Presidents, be they Mugabe or Bush, are like Barbra Streisand - very powerful and very insecure - need constant adulation from their supporters lest they become paranoid.
(Oh and just have your election already. Since those guys started campaigning: Butters became leader of the ALP, got elected, and we are already sick of him - and you still haven't decided who your candidates are)
Many of the Royal Family's staff are, in fact, paid for by the Royal Family itself, but not all. Here's how it actually works.
The only members of the Royal Family to receive an income funded by taxpayers are Her Majesty the Queen, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. This income, referred to as the Civil List amounts to approximately £8,000,000 a year.
This money is used to pay for the Royal Household (basically the Royal family's staff) and is intended to cover the costs that the Queen and the Duke of Edibnburgh incur in discharging their state duties.
No other member of the Royal Family receives a penny of taxpayer money, unless it is through salary (for example, Their Royal Highnesses, Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales will receive the salaries due to them as officers in the regular armed forces).
£8,000,000 is a lot of money, certainly - but this money is paid to the Queen in exchange for the nearly all of the income from the Crown Estate going into the public purse - the Crown Estate was historically the personal property of the Monarch and the Monarch was entitled to all income generated by the Crown Estate. George III, when he became King, agreed to hand over nearly all the income from the Crown Estate (with the exception of that generated by the Duchy of Lancaster) to the government in exchance for a fixed income paid from the public purse - the Civil List.
Basically, the Royals get £8,000,000 a year in exchange for the profits generated by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is currently valued at approximate £7,000,000,000 - and generates an annual income of over £200,000,000.
In other words - the Royal Family pays $200,000,000 a year into the public purse - in exchange for getting $8,000,000 or so of that money back.
The Crown Estates are the property of the Monarch - just as much as my home is my property. Unless you think it's desirable for a government to be able to seize the personal property of wealthy people, those estates remain the personal property of the Monarch. So, given that, Britain gets a pretty good financial deal from the Royal Family - £190,000,000 or so a year in profit, in exchange for £8,000,000 expenditure.
Baiscally, yes, the cost of the Royal Family is more than paid for by the proportion of their personal property that is given to the government every year - by a factor of at least ten to one, even allowing for some 'hidden' costs.
Basically the Royal Family has an income of around £36,000,000 a year (£8,000,000 from the Civil List, £12,000,000 from the Duchy of Lancaster, and £16,000,000 from the Duchy of Cornwall (which is the propery of the Prince of Wales) while its property generates ten times as much money for the British treasury.
Then why all the fuss? That just makes the whole thing all the more silly.
You're entitled to believe it's silly - although speaking as somebody who has sworn an Oath to be ever faithful and to bear true allegiance to the Queen, I guess I'm not entitled to think that way (and, frankly, I do not - I see a great deal of value in having a Head of State who is able to be largely apolitical in times of great crises - and the Monarch does have real power to exercise in an emergency - convention limits the exercise of that power except in times of crisis, but it does exist - and in my country of Australia, the powers of the Crown were used as recently as 1975 to remove from office a corrupt socialist government that was attempting to prolong its existence by acting in opposition to law and constitutional practice) but financially speaking the Royals are a pretty good deal.
Bear in mind that the people we are talking about in Great Britain would doubtless advocate a United Soviet Socialist States of America for us, so let's not be hasty in approving of them and their choices. These “republicans” are not our friends and allies, unlike monarchists such as Winston Churchill. We have fought a good number of wars in the last century with the monarchists as our allies. In point of fact, what wars have the republicans in Ireland (to name one republic) fought in as our allies?
It may well be that the arrival of the republic will be part and parcel of the enslavement of Great Britain to sharia law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.