29 Sep 2009
A hot topic of debate on the blog in the past few days has been whether MPs should be given the opportunity to “opt out” of swearing an oath of loyalty to the Crown. I believe that this debate needs to be extended to consider whether anybody who is required to take an oath should be forced to pledge to serve Mrs Windsor.
Recently, I’ve been reading Jonathan Freedland’s Bring Home the Revolution. Although billed as “The Case for a British Republic” I have been quite disappointed at the lack of analysis of the monarchy. One thing which has struck me, however, is Freedland’s intelligent observation that, in America, politicians are regarded as the people’s employees. This is a sentiment that is seriously lacking this side of the pond.
We could spend all day discussing the reasons why this is the case. One of them can be found in the oath MPs swear upon election:
“I… 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.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am unable to find the line in the oath where an MP swears to work on behalf of the electors who issued his contract of employment. I only see a promise to be nice to Mrs Windsor.
This is not just the case with MPs. Members of the military, judges, clergy, police officers and foreigners upon becoming British citizens must all declare their undying devotion and love of Lizzie instead of the people they work for: the British people. (NB this is not the case in Northern Ireland where the oath to the monarch is deemed too divisive and offensive). What are we saying about the state of our democracy and society at large if we require all these people to swear their allegiance to one woman rather than the entire people? I thought we were supposed to be equal?
Let’s examine the issue of military oaths more closely: those enlisting into the military (bar the navy, of course) must swear that they will give themselves to an irrelevant, pointless figurehead rather than the people of the country? A soldier or air force pilot, in swearing the military oath, is pledging his complete and utter obedience to the whim of a woman who has no special military knowledge or experience, no particularly incredible level of judgment or intellect and no moral or legal right to be in her privileged position. Another point of note is that military wannabes also pledge to “faithfully defend [Elizabeth]… against all enemies.” Such a loose definition could be used in any sort of context: what is there to suggest, from this oath, that republicans would not be classed as enemies of Mrs Windsor and therefore a fair kill?
Now, monarchists will no doubt turn on this as scaremongering and unrealistic, claiming that there would be no situation in which the army would be turned on republicans protesting in the street. I would agree with them: it is highly unlikely that such a situation would arise. I am taking it for granted that the people in the military automatically believe that they are fighting to defend Britain and its people. But this is not the point: if the oath is completely pointless and does not actually pledge the solider or pilot to his real occupational purpose then why have it?
Tackling an argument about the forces’ oaths is quite difficult for a republican because it leaves one open to being denounced with the age-old “unpatriotic” slur. It also riles many of those in the military who do indeed place a heavy emphasis on “fighting for Queen and country”. I am not suggesting that many of those who take the oath do not do so solemnly, with the intention of honouring every word they say; I am suggesting that it is wrong that the military should be compelled to swear an oath to a distinctly average woman who has no proper job.
Public servants should swear their allegiance to the real people they work for – they are the ones who employ them, not Mrs Windsor.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 29th, 2009 at 10:16 am and is filed under Monarchy and the military, Oaths of allegiance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
September 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I think the oath of allegiance is an absolute disgrace and indefensible, and even tries to brainwash children. The girl guide oath is ‘to do your duty, to love god and serve the queen’ or something like that. When confronted with this as a child, I think I was about 9, on the night we were all expected to take the oath, whenever they asked if I was ready to do it I told them I wasn’t taking it. They told me to go and see this woman at her house after school so I showed up there and she asked me why (the first one who had actually bothered to do that) so I told her it was because I didn’t believe in god and I was against the monarchy. She just burst out laughing. I was surprised by that as I was totally serious. How amusing a child who can think, it’s hilarious. When she stopped laughing she told me that was alright and I could take the oath anyway. This astonished me and I told her but I wouldn’t mean it, I didn’t believe a word of it. She told me that was fine. No, it could not have been further from fine could it? The oath of allegiance is very much part of what’s wrong.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Dennis Canavan MSP whilst being sworn in at the Scottish Parliament in 1999 said ; “Can I make it clear that I believe in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland rather than a monarch”. Good for him. All our elected representatives should swear an oath to serve us the people.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Why swear at all? If you’re an employee, your obligations will be set out in your contract of employment. If you’re elected, the decision of the electors should be enough. Can we please get away from the feudal idea of fealty and the idea of oath-taking, which assumes particular religious beliefs (some denominations, like Quakers, have conscientious objections while agnostics and atheists don’t wish to take oaths)? Can’t we just grow up behave like responsible – and ethical – citizens?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I do agree that the oath / pledge needs to be extended, although i see no reason to drop her majesty from the oath.
MPs, those in the military, and all others should be making an oath to Queen, Country and people.. in that order.
Also i would just like to point out the American president make his pledge to the constitution. I fail to see the mention of the people in his pledge, instead he must preserve and defend a constitution writen 100s of years ago with very few amendments. Americas constitution holds the USA back, it certainly doesnt offer the equal protection it should. For example gun laws in the USA, because of the US constitution people must be allowed to have access to guns. That is cementing a policy which should be decided by the government of the day, not those 200 years ago and yet President Obama had to take an oath saying he will defend that clause, despite him rightly being a closet anti gun man.
Presidential oath,
Congress oath,
Like i said before i would support the addition of the Pledge which new British citizens make at their ceremonies aswell as the oath they say..
That should be added to what MPs must say and that pledge should be compulsary in ALL British schools that take a penny of British tax payers money!
September 29th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
kathz, people do not have to include god when they take an oath to the Queen in this country.
We do need a pledge to the country, which should be enforced. Those who acitvely seek to undermine the United Kingdom and its rights, perhaps should be punished.
Religion should come second to loyalty to country. People should be loyal British citizens first before they are muslims, catholics etc.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Indeed, what do you think the police are for
?
However, whilst in these current times such things as the military having to take on republicans here in the streets of Great Britain is unthinkable. If it came to the crunch, it would depend on whos side the people were on. If the Queens actions had support of the people, then id expect Her Majesty’s Armed Forces to follow the oaths they have taken without hesitation. They serve the Queen, not the prime minister or parliament. The monarch would only act in such a way if it was what the people really wanted, otherwise she would be risking her position.
This makes me think of that film, V for Vendetta, where at the end the people march on parliament and the security forces who have been ordered to stop them let them pass. Interesting to note that film was set in some form of future Republic lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDEYxL7LBZQ if people havnt seen it.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I disagree that anybody should be able given the opportunity to opt out of making any oath the queen. Instead, people should be given the opportunity to opt IN to making such an oath if they so wish. Any oath undertaken should be to the country and its citizens, not to individuals (particularly to ones that don’t exist, such as gods).
September 29th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Dave the oath is to our head of state, granted some may want the head of state to be changed but whilst we have a constitutional monarchy i see no reason the oath shouldnt be to her, i only would support adding to it to include country as i mentioned before, and secondary is the people.
I think it was Liam (sorry if im wrong) but he doesnt think its right for people to pledge to their country incase it offends the separatiss. Where will it all end?
September 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@simon
So what should happen to people who don’t want to pledge to the country or the head of state? Should they not be allowed to participate in the democratic process? Why should the oath be used as a means to insist others follow your views on the nature of the state?
September 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Simon you have the wrong view on this.
My view is, people who like all this monarchy are corrupt.
They see no shame in the glitter and the class style, “I’m so much better and important than you.”
It is disgusting. Everything, I can’t believe we were all born in this place called Great Britain.
Awful. Only when one learns, sees the truth.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Graham Smith i have stated this before although i guess it was seen as a joke, but i was serious.
If an MP does not want to take the oath to our Queen, they should be given an opt out ONLY if they have run on a platform of bringing about a Republic and clearly stated they do not support the monarchy or that they will refuse to take an oath to the Queen.
My problem isnt that if a republican party comes along it shouldnt be given an opt out. My problem is MPs in Labour, Conservatives and the Lib dems which are in parties that support the monarchy, there for they go against their party on a core issue. This should be known to the people voting for them. Clearly labelling republicans on the ballot paper would address my concerns, it would also provide useful information seeing the numbers of people prepared to vote for republican MPs.
So in the case of SF from Northern Ireland, i respect the fact they do not take up their seats in London so they dont have to take an oath to the Queen, i would not object to them being given an opt out. However, i do expect in cases where opt outs are given regards the monarchy for people to pledge to the country, something SF would not be willing to do either.
In the case of all other positions, like police, soldiers, judges.. there should be NO opt out. Parliament is the only position which has the authority to change our constitutional status, there for an opt out for those prepared to stand on a certain platform of reform is justified. But there is no reason what so ever someone in the police should not take the oath. If they cant take the oath honestly, quite frankly i dont want liars in Her Majesty’s Police or Armed Forces.
Pledge to the country should be compulsary for all, every single British child in a school should make the pledge to the country. There can be no room for appeasemen to not upset separatists.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
appeasement*
Richard, there will always be a class system this attempt to do away with it is pointless and impossible. Republics have class systems too you know, its just politicians are at the top of the food chain in those countries. I quite like the fact we have a royal family above them to keep them in their place.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“… they [MPs] should be given an opt out ONLY if they have run on a platform of bringing about a Republic” Simon
Since the current queen is also the head of the Church of England should we ‘clearly label’ atheists and by implication homosexuals; since your view is that major parties support the monarchy and presumably all it stands for? Should these additional, labelled MPs also be given an opt out from swearing allegiance providing they are campaigning on a platform which embraces disestablishment, or are they able to think for themselves as human beings?
September 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Simon
You’re forgetting that without the people, there would be no country. And that means everybody, not just the privileged few.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I had to swear this oath recently. Luckily it was done in a small gathering where I could make the oath and then declare that I understood the oath to be to work within the current system, without precluding working to change that system, and that I shall work for the disestablishment of the Church of England and the establishment of a democratic republic in Britain.
I find it odd how the majority of people just say these oaths as part of an induction pantomime. I do not agree with giving people the choice to opt in or out of oath taking. If an oath is serious business, at least of moral, if not legal, character, then it should be a certain requirement for office. I think the text of the oath is wrong, and I think oath taking in general should be questioned, but, if the text and practice are accepted, the oath should not be optional.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Tim Cooper,
No being an MP does not mean you must be part of the Church of England so there is nothing to opt out of on this matter, the oath allows anyone to opt out of saying God aswell. I do not think the Queen should be the head of the Church of England, im against religion in general.
Seeking to abolish the monarchy is a very different matter.
Dave,
Without the country there would be no free people. The two are clearly linked and like i said before i have no objections to a pledge to serve the people, but Queen and country first please.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I’m afraid I haven’t got time to read people’s comments yet. Simon, have you taken up Graham and James’ offer to write a blog, outlining why the monarchy should stay and why a republic would be bad?
September 29th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Liam Finn, no i prefer to just respond to peoples blogs and comments. I have never blogged myself.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
When I was in junior school, I went to a scouts meeting. It was quite enjoyable, there were some amusing activities and new people there. However, when the ‘invested’ boys in their uniforms saluted to the union flag and pledged aliegance to “God and the Queen”, well, safe to say I quickly abandonned all plans of attending any subsequent meetings.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Simon, you’ll get a really good debate going if you write your own blog – trust me, I’ve done it myself.
Liam, is your granddad OK?
September 29th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
All these oaths only go to indicate just how entrenched monarchism is in our system.
When even girl guides are forced to swear allegiance to an unelected monarch, you know there’s a problem.
To call Britain a ‘liberal democracy’ is stretching the truth.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
When I became a cub scout,at the tender age of 8, I was very excited . I can still remember the smell of my new “official” jersey,which was navy blue in those days. We were also introduced to the mysteries of the “woggle”. I can remember all the oaths to the queen etc,and the “Dib,Dib,Dib, business,………..” I promise to do my duty etc,etc. None of this bothered me in the slightest. I was much more excited about fighting over the medecine ball. It was all childish innocence.The queen meant nothing to me whatsoever,and I had never even seen her. It was the same in 1953,when I lined up with all the other children in the school to receive a book called “Elizabeth Our Queen ” This had no meaning at all for me. There was no connection between royalty and my good moral family life and upbringing. I think this applied to all my friends and relatives as well. There were street parties ,which were nice,and games etc,but it did not relate to the monarchy or anything. It just WAS. I do not think that children should be indoctrinated with the “value” of royalty. They should be brought up properly,of course,but be left free to make their own political judgements when they get older.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
The royal family does not keep politicians in their place. Politicians have been getting away with a hell of a lot,by milking the system. Royalty has been oblivious to what has been going on.I have seen the existence of a subtle class system in Soviet Russia,in spite of Communism. There was also a “class” of privileged personnel as well,of course.Republics should learn from their mistakes and eradicate such problems. I do not think the existence of “class” is impossible to remove,but it takes time and commitment to do it. Perhaps this is “social engineering” ! It is not a bad thing to strive for.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
The Oath of Loyalty is not just a formality. On the death or abdication of the Monarch all of the military, police and secret service officers, Members of both Houses of Parliament and Judges swear a new personal Oath of Loyalty to the new Monarch. This is not, let’s re-emphasise, to the State, the Constitution, the Nation, Parliament, the elected Government, the Flag – as in other countries.
It is through the chain of command emanating from the Monarch that Ministers of the Crown give orders but they can be circumvented by direct orders from the Monarch or by reporting directly to the Monarch. Earl Mountbatten admitted using such a vehicle of approach to bypass both Churchill and Attlee.
The British Monarch is above the law as are those who carry out their personal and direct orders, while Royal orders are not subject to the test of legality – the Monarch is above the Law, cannot be personally accused or tried.
Because of this power and privilege, the UN does not classify the UK as a Democracy such as France or the USA, but as a Constitutional Monarchy. There are a further 15 countries where the Monarch technically has the same privileges and prerogatives.
So when we speak of an Oath of Loyalty, let us understand what that Oath implies.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:04 am
@Simon
I think this might be the first time you’ve actually started to put forward a view on why you support the monarchy, rather than why you just can’t be bothered getting rid of it.
If this is really one of your reasons then I suggest you think again. As Barry says, the royals do nothing to keep politicians “in their place”. Politicians are pro-monarchy because the monarchy is pro-politician, it makes them among the most powerful politicians in the democratic world (well, the PM and ministers at least).
If you disagree perhaps you can outline just how the royals ‘keep them in their place’? I’d be fascinated to read your reply.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
@ Simon
“I do agree that the oath / pledge needs to be extended, although i see no reason to drop her majesty from the oath.”
Well, myself and others have given you plenty of reasons. Which of those do you disagree with?
“should be making an oath to Queen, Country and people.. in that order. ”
Why in that order? Why is Mrs Windsor more important than the other sixty million people in this country?
“I fail to see the mention of the people in [the US president's] pledge”
Thanks for that, I wasn’t aware of it. It’s a shame. But does that mean WE shouldn’t have a pledge to the people? Noooooo!!
“However, whilst in these current times such things as the military having to take on republicans here in the streets of Great Britain is unthinkable. If it came to the crunch, it would depend on whos side the people were on.”
YOU WHAT?!!!! Are you seriously condoning future military action taken against republicans? Have I just heard a monarchist advocate violent repression of those who want to live in a democracy?! You are doing the monarchist cause a hell of a lot of good Simon, I love you dearly, please never leave xxx
“I think it was Liam (sorry if im wrong) but he doesnt think its right for people to pledge to their country incase it offends the separatiss. Where will it all end?”
No, I said that separatists who are elected to seek independence should not swear an oath to the Union. There’s a difference between the Union and the country.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:12 am
The new Justices of the Supreme Court were sworn in today… they each took an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had an allegiance to the people and to uphold the law in their name?
October 1st, 2009 at 10:23 am
@Graham
Yes, it would have been.
Personally, I’ve never understood how someone sold the big idea to swear allegiance to some other mortal, I simply don’t know how such a spell was cast over the people, it’s rather remarkable.
Anyways, is it true the rumour in the other blog topic that Simon has been exposed, and Simon is actually the duke of Edinburgh?
October 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8283939.stm
Umm its true they took their oath to the Queen rightly, but they did also say “I do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth in the office of …., and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God” for their judicial oath.
Do right to all manner of people after the laws of our realm! Isnt that good enough?
October 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
eclub, i dont understand how billions of people on this planet can follow religion and think there is some kind of God. People will always show loyalty to someone, be it their friends, and yes leaders in Republics, do not forget all those videos i showed on the most recent blog, of Americans being loyal to their president.
No the rumours are clearly not true, ive stated before i do not work for Her majestys government and i certainly dont share a bed with her! lol
October 1st, 2009 at 3:04 pm
@ Simon
No, it’s not enough. Why should she get special mention? And no, I would not expect a future elected head of state to get special mention. I am allergic to people being singled out in this sort of context.
Maybe you could explain to us why Lizzie should be above the law? (And try to avoid banging on about the Union and us all being filthy UK destroyers asking the same leading questions in the company of your Tory mates on Conservative Home in order to deflect the argument).
October 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Liam Finn, because Queen Elizabeth II is our monarch and head of state, they serve the crown.
If people want to change our system they must vote for it and have parliament change that system. Until they do, and as opinion polls show the overwhelming majority of people in this country support the status quo.
As has been shown with the oath to the Queen people dont always follow it anyway, and they would not if it was only an oath to Country and people.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
@Simon
The fact it’s the status quo is not an argument, it’s just a fact.
It is quite wrong to insist on personal oaths of allegiance, regardless of whether it’s in a republic or a monarchy. If we need any kind of oath then it should be to the people whom the oath taker serves.
October 1st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I have made my feelings known on this matter several times. I totally agree that the current arrangement is not good enough. People should have to pledge to the country aswell as the monarch, and yes i suppose i could live with it also mentioning the people.
Our head of state and the country is more important that. We can see in the video linked above, the supreme justice president didnt just pledge to Queen.
He did Queen, Laws of the land, and all manner of people in that order…
“I do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II in the office of…, I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm”
Seems reasonable to me
October 1st, 2009 at 10:57 pm
You are referring to the judicial oath (QEII, Office of Supreme court, and do right to the people),
NOT the oath of allegiance (QEII, Her heirs and sucessors)
Anyone for a change in the national anthem as well?
October 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Ash Walsh, i know that. The point was Graham Smith said
I just thought it was important to point out that they did also take the judicial oath which covers the people and the law which he was after, so clearly there is no problem in this case.
October 1st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
As for the national anthem, my goodness no we should not change the national anthem. If the UK anthem was to be changed though i would support Land of Hope and Glory.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 am
A historical note on swearing of oaths of allegiance to the monarch is the Nonjuring Schism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonjuring_schism) which split the Anglican churches in the 17th and 18th centuries. As many clergy saw these oaths as morally binding, those who had sworn allegiance to James II & VII felt that it would be an act of oath breaking to swear allegiance to William of Orange. Although the Nonjuring Schism was politically motivated, there was the moral question over what swearing such allegiance meant.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Simon
It’s Ok to pledge loyalty to the Queen and merely pledge to go by the book for us Citizens?
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 am
There is no such thing as a UK National Anthem as Wales has Land of my Fathers and the Scots have something else (I think?).
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
@Simon
Why oh why are you so certain we shouldn’t change the anthem? What could you possibly like about it? It barely mentions the UK, it’s all about a deity most don’t believe in saving someone who is clearly not in need of saving.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
All government ministers and leaders of opposition parties must swear the lengthy Privy Council oath of allegiance. In a nutshell, it’s about fealty and the duty to spill the beans about anything that might endanger the Queen.
When Tony Benn refused to swear the Privy Council Oath, he was told it had been “administered”. This, of course, is a violation of the right to freedom of thought and conscience. (MacGuinness and Adams were denied the right to speak, to be paid, to have a Parliamentary office and staff, not forgetting the perk of expenses. They were allowed stationery and stamps.)
All Freemen of the City of London must swear this oath: I do solemnly declare that I will be good and true to our Sovereign Lady QUEEN ELIZABETH II; that I will be obedient to the Mayor of this City; that I will maintain the Franchises and Customs thereof, and will keep this City harmless*, in that which in me is; that I will also keep the Queen’s Peace in my own person; that I will know no Gatherings nor Conspiracies made against the Queen’s Peace,** but I will warn the Mayor thereof, or hinder it to my power: and that all these points and articles I will well and truly keep, according to the Laws and Customs of this City, to my power.
*I interpret this to mean to keep the City free from harm, not harmless to others.
**The King’s or Queen’s Peace is actually the basis for policing (including judicial conduct). It means suppression of anything that might harm the royals. (Dr David Kelley come to mind, anyone?)
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
If I could have edited, I would have changed the “suppression of anything that might harm the royals” to “suppression of anything that might harm the monarchy”. The royals are a handful of individuals. The monarchy is the entire power structure.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Ash Walsh
I have said before i support extending the oath to the pledge to country, which new British citizens must take. However i see no reason to scrap the oath to our head of state, Queen Elizabeth II.
As for the national anthem, i hope you were just joking, slightly confused and not another separatist, there are quite a few around here sadly.
FACT: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a national anthem, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Wales and Scotland may use their own anthems at sporting events, however they are both part of the United Kingdom, and so God save the Queen is also their national anthem.
England and Northern Ireland do not have their own anthem, they use the UKs anthem which is God save the Queen.. Just the way the Scots use to use it before they changed to their current one.
But be under NO illusion, there is a national anthem of the United Kingdom and it will remain God save the Queen.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Graham Smith
Its about our glorious monarch, i have no problem with 10,000s of people singing God save the Queen at every sporting event.
I have said that should it be changed id want Land of Hope and Glory. Last time we all talked about this, someone said that was to “imperialistic” or something along those lines i think. So perhaps wed have to settle for something totally crap just so we dont offend a certain group of people. We may aswell stick with GSTQ
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Suzon Forscey-Moore , ive no problem with all of that. The worst part for me is the mention of that left winger Tony Benn. Sorry to say im not a fan of his.
As for the City of London, they are a strange lot, leave them to their customs, culture and traditions. Or is it ok for us to start seriously making changes to Islamic customs and traditions in this country. There are some far more dangerous things than people making an oath to their Queen.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Simon, the Freeman’s oath is only symbolic of the relationship between the City and the monarchy.
The reality is that the City livery companies drive government policy. This explains why the election of Blair didn’t deliver what it promised, why Brown complies and why Cameron won’t make much difference either.
The livery companies “support” the monarchy in exchange for being above the law. Royal charters command that ministers and judges give them special treatment and overlook wrongdoing.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Is there any reason why Scotland can have their own Anthem and England Can’t? Whilst I believe the current Anthem is pretty dour and downbeat, It’s not the reason I’d scrap it.
There’ll always be an England in my book would be suitable (No mention of any Monarch or Deity, 2 references to the Empire but that’s fine!) though I could see Jerusalem being a popular choice amongst others. Land of Hope and Glory is almost equally depressing as the current Anthem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ2FOBxshWY
For anyone wishing to participate in the Democratic process, The national anthem and the oath if alligence is a breach of Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:-
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
People in every country take oaths, so i guess we are all violating that rule, not that it really matters.
There is no reason why England couldnt have its own anthem if thats what the government / people wanted. But there is no real demand for change, certainly no serious political backing for change.
They”ll always be an England is certainly a good song but it wouldnt be suitable for the national anthem today. Like ive said before theres no real decent alternative that would be suitable for a English anthem or a British one so we should stick with God save the Queen. When the Queen dies then there may be a change about anthems, but we dont need to change now.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
lol look at this case from the USA
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1005/p02s07-usju.html
“A Florida high-schooler refused to stand and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance, sparking a legal fight. An appeals-court panel didn’t rule his way, and now the Supreme Court won’t get involved. ”
Children are still forced in many American schools to take the pledge to flag and republic.
I fail to see the harm in giving children here the option to take an oath to their Queen and requiring them to make a pledge to the country.
October 6th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@ Simon – I don’t like oaths. What’s the point of them? If they are so sacrosanct we should have all the ex-schutzstaffel members in Germany watched 24 hours a day in case they are trying to rebuild the Nazi party in secret since they swore an oath of allegiance to their Fuhrer ; (I swear to you Adolf Hitler, as leader and chancellor of the nation loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the representatives appointed by you obedience unto death, so help me God).
I would not be happy with any child of mine swearing an oath of allegiance to anyone, whether it’s your glorious queen or not. Far better that they grow up to be well adjusted and valuable citizens who make a contribution to society voluntarily and from purely altruistic motives.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
id like a compulsary pledge to the country, i want them to have the option to take an oath to their Queen at the same time, dont see the harm if its optional. She is our Queen after all. All those who apply to become new British citizens must take the oath and pledge, i fail to see why young British citizens shouldnt do something along the same lines. It would be great.
Its not by pain of death if they do not do it or lie.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I think that training children to lie by pressurising them to take a pledge or oath they don’t believe in – or even one they haven’t thought about – is a really bad idea. And the law which allows only monarchists and liars to represent us in parliament encourages hypocrisy and lies in public life.
I’m stunned to find that many royalists, even though they reckon (probably rightly) that they’re in the majority are so scared that honest republicans might be elected that they support a law which bans people who vote for honest republicans from representation in parliament. Perhaps such royalists should campaign under the slogans “Monarchy and lies for ever” and “Royalty yes – democracy no!” – because that’s what they seem to want.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Ive explained my position on this before, if they are part of a republican party and are clearly labelled as such on the ballot paper and all their election propaganda then i would be fine them not having to take an oath to our Queen, although they would have to pledge to country and no opt outs at all for that.
What is totally unacceptable is that republicans elected because they are in mainstream parties like Labour, Lib Dms and the conservatives which all support the monarchy should not be given an opt out. People vote for them not because they are republicans but beause they are mainstream party candidates. I fail to see why such people should play the system, and then refuse to take an oath because they dont support a system that their parties all strongly support.
Republicans do not have to go into parliament. Id be happy if they were all honest and stayed well away
October 6th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I don’t see why anyone should be banned from standing – why not a principled internationalist? The key question is surely if people vote for the candidate. In a real democracy, people choose their representative.
And are you going to insist that every constitutional policy a politician has should be listed on the ballot paper? That would make it a ballot book, I think.
Pledges seem totalitarian to me – I even find the elaborate language for affirming in court distasteful. Why compel people into forms of words that happen to suit your prejudices? Why not enourage honesty and thought?
October 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Simon “Republicans do not have to go into parliament. Id be happy if they were all honest and stayed well away”
Tough luck Simon. My MP is a republican, he no doubt uttered the words of the oath but also probably recognized it for what it is, ie. just another relic from our feudal past and well past its sell-by date. I’m glad that there are people like my MP, (republicans), who are willing to utter the words of the oath because I think in the long term it will be for the greater good.