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 ...
Battenberg (not burg) was the title of Prince Louis of Battenberg, who was First Sea Lord at the time. He was distantly (at least for them) related to Queen Victoria, an illegitimate (or at least morganatic) son of the Prince of Hesse.
The royal family's title was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was Prince Albert's title and passed on to his descendants. Queen Victoria was the last of the Hanovers, and her last name (rarely used) was Guelph. Prince Albert's last name was Wettin or possibly Wipper, but it was never used so nobody was sure. It was the title that was changed in 1917, the last name wasn't changed until Queen Elizabeth did so a few years back.
The Queen was called "the mother of Europe" for a reason. Most royal families married minor German princes because they were technically royalty. Not many choices left, since there are only five kings or queens left - "Spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs, and England."
( . . . what odds they would have appointed the Archdruid because he was Archbishop of Wales???? )
/ just kidding.
You have a very good point, but as long as we're wishing, how about if Richard the Lionheart had managed to have a good crop of descendants, and England still had the Plantagenets in charge?
Thanks for that very useful information! I knew the idea that the royals were living high on the hog at public expense was not right, but didn’t have the financial details. (I’m long on families and scandal and short on financial nitty-gritty.)
Thank you! I was an undergraduate in history, and I miss it very much!
The Battenberg/Mountbatten link is more direct than a distant relation to a possibly illegitimate son of the Prince of Hesse.
You can find this on the web: Queen Elizabeth II confirmed the royal Windsor name in a declaration following her accession in 1952. But in 1960 Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip announced yet another name change. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, whose mother had been Alice of Battenberg, had already Anglicized his name to Philip Mountbatten when he married Elizabeth in 1947. (Interestingly, all four of Philip’s sisters, all now deceased, married Germans.) In her 1960 declaration to the Privy Council, the Queen expressed her wish that her children by Philip (other than those in line for the throne) would henceforth bear the hyphenated name Mountbatten-Windsor. The royal family’s name remained Windsor.
The Mountbatten “name change” from the Germanic thus relates directly to royal family.
The point being that to pledge loyalty to the Queen of England is not a loyalty to Britain but to its royal family. That family is less of British blood than many Britons.
But at the time the name was changed from Battenberg to Mountbatten, Prince Philip wasn't even a gleam in his daddy's eye. His mother was a daughter of Prince Louis and a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
He was the most English of kings, and so was his son George VI.
Wait, now. If Philip is a great-great grandson of Queen Victoria on his mother’s side and Elizabeth is a great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria, doesn’t that make Charles his own uncle? No wonder he’s so weird.
I thought the Queen started paying taxes after her "Annus horribilis"?
Actually the German family succeeded a Scottish family (the Stewarts) who succeeded a Welsh family (the Tudors) who succeeded a long line of Norman French who succeeded the Danes who succeeded the Anglo-Saxons who invaded and conquered the previous Celtic inhabitants.
There's no such thing as "indigenous" people. And apparently there hasn't been any such thing as an English king/queen of England in a long time!
They are what we call "double cousins" - related twice. They are 3rd cousins through Queen Victoria and 2nd cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark. Charles's weirdness is entirely his own fault.
Ironically, England annexed Wales on the watch of Tudor King Henry VIII, just as England and Scotland were united in 1603 (the thrones) and 1707 (the parliaments) under the Stewarts.
BTW, as I understand it, the Stewarts were Anglo-Scots rather than Gaels (the Angles had been in Scotland every bit as long as the Gaelic Scots had, if not longer).
You and me both, Mate!
I have the honour to count a couple of the Royals among my friends - I went to school with the Prince of Wales, and served on secondment to the Royal Navy alongside the Duke of York. I try to keep myself informed so I can correct the misapprehensions of many of those opposed to the Monarchy (I’ve no problem with somebody objecting to the idea of a Monarchy on principle, or for whatever other reason, I just don’t like it when it’s based on a lack of knowledge - I commend you on your grasp of the history and relationships).
Are they just 'ordinary blokes' in person? When I've run across famous or celebrity types myself, I've been surprised how nice and normal they turn out to be. A couple of pretty famous people are in our dog club, and you'd never know from talking to them while waiting in line in the blind!
We got to see the Queen years ago, when my sister and I were very, very small - I must have been 5 or 6 years old, and my sister was 2 years younger. I don't remember the Queen at all, but I do remember my mother teaching us to curtsy!
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.