Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: naturalman1975

You are not saying that said rights preserved to the C of E’s bishops and clergy (nor is the oath) are ceded in perpetuity by the monarch. Nor is there an implication thereof. Royal prerogative still exists; only in the case of abolition of same would the monarch be duty-bound to rubber stamp laws that lead to the detriment of the kingdom.

And AFAICS, the Queen failed in the preservation of the first part of the oath I quoted.


70 posted on 07/17/2013 2:51:37 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: Olog-hai
You are not saying that said rights preserved to the C of E’s bishops and clergy (nor is the oath) are ceded in perpetuity by the monarch. Nor is there an implication thereof.

Under the terms of the Oath, yes. She swore to preserve their rights and privileges. That is one of their rights and privileges. It's not implied, it's explicit.

Royal prerogative still exists; only in the case of abolition of same would the monarch be duty-bound to rubber stamp laws that lead to the detriment of the kingdom.

Sorry, but you clearly don't know as much about this as you think you do. The Monarch has the power to refuse Royal Assent only on constitutional issues. They do not have that power on religious issues - in the 1820s (I don't know the exact year off the top of my head) George IV wanted to withhold Royal Assent from a Catholic Emancipation Bill precisely because he believed it violated his Coronation Oath to uphold the Supremacy of the Church of England. It was made clear that he could not do so - that once the law had passed Parliament, he had to act solely on the advice of his Ministers.

The last time a King even considered withholding Royal Assent was nearly a century ago - and that was over a purely constitutional matter (the Government of Ireland Bill of 1914) - and he determined that even on constitutional matters, where the power does still exist, the only situation it would be justified to withhold Royal Assent is to prevent a national disaster.

As I said in a previous post, it's amazing me the number of American Republicans (and I don't know if you are one or not, but it is certainly a large part of the American conservative grouping) seem to think the British Monarch should act as a tyrant and overrule the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom at the moment.

72 posted on 07/17/2013 3:01:27 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson