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."
"This seems to me to be an attack upon the state itself. The monarch is the one embodiment of the state which is outside the political, partisan process...The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels." - Lord Tebbit, Conservative Peer
"This is an act of uncomprehending constitutional vandalism. The Queen is the centre of the British constitution." - Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP
"This is a matter of democracy. I'm put here by my constituents and it's to them I owe my allegiance. Taking the oath to an unelected person is a nonsense."
- Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP and campaign leader
"We need to make the oath something that people are offered, rather than required to take...We should make provision for republicans or separatists..."I wouldn't drop the oath - I would make it optional. I am a subject of the Queen even more than I am a citizen of this country. I'd much prefer a bad monarchy to a good president...But people ought to be able to come to parliament and argue that they don't want the monarchy." - Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP
Update: The Low Tory Daniel Hannan (how low can you go and still call yourself one) says all the rights things, but qualifies the post by declaring himself a rather feeble monarchist. Read: MPs should pledge allegiance to the Crown
I'm one of Norman baker's constituents, I spoke to him on Sunday in the newsagents. If I'd know about this I'd have had a few words to say to him.
ReplyDeleteMore befuddled thinking by the republican brain trust, and totally unbecoming of the so-called Conservative. It is not democratic to operate outside of a system that has not been overturned by the people, nor should elected representatives be free to do so.
ReplyDeletePeople are free to come to parliament and argue against the monarchy, but so long as the monarchy exists that is the constitutional framework retained by the people, so bloody well respect it. You cannot individually choose your head of state, any more than you can individually choose your laws. Peter Bottomley needs to give his head a shake.
Is there anywhere that we can get a full list of the 22 who support this clear Act of Treason? I'd like to e-mail them all a few comments!!!
ReplyDeleteMPs backing reforming the oath of allegiance to the Queen
ReplyDeleteConservative Party:
Bottomley, Peter
Labour Party:
Austin, John
Campbell, Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Clapham, Michael
Davidson, Ian
Flynn, Paul
Iddon, Brian
Jenkins, Brian
Jones, Lynne
McCafferty, Chris
McKechin, Ann
Purchase, Ken
Simpson, Alan
Liberal Democrats:
Baker, Norman
George, Andrew
Goldsworthy, Julia
Hemming, John
Horwood, Martin
Oaten, Mark
Swinson, Jo
Social Democratic & Labour Party:
McDonnell, Alasdair
Traitors all. Their names will be cursed by future generations, more so if they get their way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment that so long as the monarchy is there, and people dont go for change, there is a logic in maintaining the tradition. Meanwhile, it might be necessary to refine the text of the oath (it really looks historic) and make it acceptable to many people who have questions.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, can somebody help me to locate the contact email of this blogger? I had difficulty in finding it here on this blog. (Bipin Adhikari)
themonarchist AT rogers.com
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I are considering relocating to New Zealand (from America) precisely because of the monarchy, but if there is this kind of chaos in the Queen's own homeland what would be the point?
ReplyDeleteThis proposal disgusts me. The alternative oath would doubtless be some pledge to "the people". And so would we align ourselves with such great nations as "The People's Republic of China". I always find it sobering to remember how "the will of the people" has been claimed by every tyrant the world has known as the justification for their actions. Much easier to cite "the people" if you want to engage in some great misdeed, as it makes it much harder for your opponents to attack you.
ReplyDeleteI will be dead in the ground before I ever swear any oath to "the people". "The people" have no conscience, no sense of honour, and seek only their own self-interest. How very different from our own glorious Monarch, God bless her!
Ah, the latest attempt to make bland the British nation. Not only are monarchists being betrayed, the head of state being betrayed, but in the end, the republicans will be betrayed too. The politicians are doing it even now. These people want to be rid of a distinct British icon, at times viewed as specifically English, and they will play on republican feelings for their own end. Repubs will think the government is doing a good thing, but in reality they will only be making Britain a dark, lifeless void. Keeping the Queen and royal family will be safer for the country in the long run.
ReplyDeleteAnd to think I let Norman Baker off with an easy question about a rail link! Much gnashing of teeth and wailing here at CommonwealthMonarchist Towers when the Mail arrived on the mat. I am really rather disgusted by it all (and Republic NZ's condescension that "The Gaurdian" - hence continuing a noble tradition of misspelling the name - offered much more balanced coverage): either this nation is a republic (a republic republic, not a "Crowned Republic") or it is not. If it does so become a republic (pray God it never will) then change the Oath but until then we have to have all the trappings of a monarchy.
ReplyDeleteSome silly woman (the spineless Ann McKechin) said, 'The oath to the Queen is awkward for them [abstentionists]. It's their choice, but their constituents don't get a fair deal as their MPs don't sit in the chamber.', thus completely ignoring that (a) they are elected on an abstentionist ticket anyway, so their constituents seemingly don't care and (b) sitting in Westminster acknowledges the supremacy of that Parliament over Northern Ireland, thus legitimising it, so it's by no means certain that they'd want to take their seats in the event of the Oath being abolished.
Either we're a monarchy or we're not: these people just need to deal with the fact that we are. I do so hope that, in the event we become a republic, they will be kind enough to offer us monarchists who don't recognise the existence of the republic a chance to swear an alternative Oath to the Sovereign, seeing as how they're all for choice...
Good Christ, what next ... ?
ReplyDeleteVery good point, CommonwealthMonarchist. You need to be able to swear an alternative Oath to the Sovereign should a republic be put in place. But it's a funny thing... those who claim to be for choice are usually the most intolerant and do not like it when people have a choice who aren't on their side.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that, for a brief moment, I was rather taken by this new and quite novel idea that MPs will serve their constituents.
ReplyDeleteYet I be a fool - for how can you protest against the very oath you have already sworn? Surely, by so doing, you break and also mock the solemn promise that you have just made? If these transparent and transitory ones be so keen to break this sacred oath today, how keen they be to break a more secular oath tomorrow.
Those of us who have sworn an oath know, in that moment, what we be doing. It is a clear choice. Your allegiance, the most precious gift that you can give to another, be given for life - it is irreversible, it cannot be revoked. For once uttered you are bound by your own words and conscience to be faithful and obedient to the Glory that be revealed to you by The Divine Majesty. For the same Majesty who brought you forth to serve, is the same Majesty who be born to rule, until ye be like dust again (by the Will of that same creative Majesty). It all leaves one simple question. What sort of man so publicly breaks this solemn oath to our God?