Qualtrough Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Simple question. Does the oath have any meaning or doesn't it? If it does then it shouldn't be taken lightly should it? If it doesn't then why is it in place at all? I appreciate that some people are able to adopt a laissez faire attitude to giving their word, that is their affair. I'm a little old fashioned when it comes to that type of thing and believe an oath or promise should not be given without meaning. ---------- Post added 30-01-2014 at 12:47 ---------- No but there's a strong possibility that you could use one. Just seen your post at number 4 on the 'hate Jews' thread. Guess what? I agree with every word . So perhaps it's only when the subject comes to royalty that you lose the plot? I have a theory about the ongoing acceptance of an undemocratic archaic institution by the British. It's a servile gene. Over a thousand years of forelock tugging, bowing and scraping, looking up to their 'betters' and accepting 'their place' has altered their DNA to produce instinctive servility. Some of us were fortunate enough to be born to people like my father who retained some self respect. As for the rest of you, all is lost, stay on your knees, beware of early onset arthritis. With regard to you still believing that I'm a subject, when it has to be blindingly obvious that I can prove I'm not, well that has to down to simple stupidity. Yes my taxes do help pay for them. Which is why I am entitled to my view, isn't it? Yes, and being totally honest I'm not that bothered about the monarchy. I'm generally pro but as long as majority are too then I'm happy. If there was a popular move for change I'd not be mortified. And yes I do believe you re your passport, I was just on the wind up. I'm with Manlinose on oaths however. I wouldn't swear one if the Queen had anything more than symbolic power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Simple question. Does the oath have any meaning or doesn't it? If it does then it shouldn't be taken lightly should it? If it doesn't then why is it in place at all? I appreciate that some people are able to adopt a laissez faire attitude to giving their word, that is their affair. I'm a little old fashioned when it comes to that type of thing and believe an oath or promise should not be given without meaning. it may be a simple question, albeit a meaningless one, as the sensible answer is "it depends" - on many things including context, circumstances, by and to whom it is made but i will humour you - yes an oath has a meaning - but, depending on the situation it will mean more or less in different circumstances but it's only my opinion - i don't want, or expect, any agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Yes, and being totally honest I'm not that bothered about the monarchy. I'm generally pro but as long as majority are too then I'm happy. If there was a popular move for change I'd not be mortified. And yes I do believe you re your passport, I was just on the wind up. I'm with Manlinose on oaths however. I wouldn't swear one if the Queen had anything more than symbolic power. Fair enough. Problem is she does have more than symbolic power. Why does the PM turn up at Buckingham Palace every Tuesday morning to 'brief' the Queen on Parliamentary dealings? If she has no input or influence surely that is simply a waste of everyone's time? In a recent article in the Times one of her previous secretary's told how she intervened during a Commonwealth meeting to persuade one head of state to alter his proposed speech calling for more democracy in a fellow member state. It didn't appear to occur to the former secretary that by relating this tale he was proving that the Queen was overstepping her agreed constitutional role. Wait til Charles gets in. There have already been numerous stories about his constant interference and lobbying on behalf of projects he takes interest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Fair enough. Problem is she does have more than symbolic power. Why does the PM turn up at Buckingham Palace every Tuesday morning to 'brief' the Queen on Parliamentary dealings? If she has no input or influence surely that is simply a waste of everyone's time? In a recent article in the Times one of her previous secretary's told how she intervened during a Commonwealth meeting to persuade one head of state to alter his proposed speech calling for more democracy in a fellow member state. It didn't appear to occur to the former secretary that by relating this tale he was proving that the Queen was overstepping her agreed constitutional role. Wait til Charles gets in. There have already been numerous stories about his constant interference and lobbying on behalf of projects he takes interest in. I believe they see the queen out of tradition. I can't see her telling the government to drop a bill or introduce one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I believe they see the queen out of tradition. I can't see her telling the government to drop a bill or introduce one. Really? You think the Prime Minister of this country, or the Queen for that matter, has nothing better to do with their time than carry out a meaningless tradition which takes place every week when Parliament is sitting? By God sir, tis no surprise we lost the Empire! ---------- Post added 30-01-2014 at 13:42 ---------- it may be a simple question, albeit a meaningless one, as the sensible answer is "it depends" - on many things including context, circumstances, by and to whom it is made but i will humour you - yes an oath has a meaning - but, depending on the situation it will mean more or less in different circumstances but it's only my opinion - i don't want, or expect, any agreement We are talking about the royal oath, the circumstances are perfectly clear. It is an oath to be loyal to the current monarch and accept them as your sovereign. No 'context' is applicable, it couldn't be simpler. So, does the oath have any meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 We are talking about the royal oath, the circumstances are perfectly clear. It is an oath to be loyal to the current monarch and accept them as your sovereign. No 'context' is applicable, it couldn't be simpler. So, does the oath have any meaning? sorry, i'm off to do something more important, but it would be rude not to respond to a direct question yes - the oath has a meaning - just not a very important one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 sorry, i'm off to do something more important, but it would be rude not to respond to a direct question yes - the oath has a meaning - just not a very important one Thank you, I think it has meaning also, which is why I refuse to take it. We appear to differ only in a matter of degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob England Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I never mentioned Money nor did I state I was a royalist. I just want someone to nominate our next President and explain to me why they think that person would do a better job than Mrs Windsor. You royalists really are hard of understanding aren't you? How many times for God's sake? It's got nothing to do with money. It's about the principle of continuing with an antiquated anachronistic system which is divisive and reinforces class distinction and prejudice, which is detrimental to the future prosperity of the country. The idea that in this day and age some people deserve automatic respect, privilege and deference for no other reason than accident of birth is ridiculous and embarrassing to the country. People in other countries take an interest in royalty? You bet they do, in exactly the same way that people take an interest in Big Brother, Celebrity Get me out of Here and Britain's got Talent. I never mentioned I was a royalist, nor did I mention money.I I We take an interest in the USA, Movies, TV shows, Music, Sport and Politics, its natural, we live in a global village with a constant need for entertainment. The royals provide it to foreigners, especially the Americans who find it quaint and amusing. It's like Big Brother with crowns, tiaras, horses and marching bands. And they know on past performance it's every chance of going pear shaped at any time. Wait til William takes a mistress, or Harry gets caught with his pants down again. Or Charles becomes King and starts interfering with every bloody thing, or Andrew meets another billionaire, he can't resist em you know. What's not to like? Unless of course you belong to the country where these muppets reign and the laughs on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I never mentioned Money nor did I state I was a royalist. I just want someone to nominate our next President and explain to me why they think that person would do a better job than Mrs Windsor.Ideas for nominations remain open to ridiculous suggestions. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=939363 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I never mentioned Money nor did I state I was a royalist. I just want someone to nominate our next President and explain to me why they think that person would do a better job than Mrs Windsor. Once again you simply do not appear to get it. It's not a question of doing a better job, it's not a question of saving money. It is a question of believing that in this day and age continuing with a system of inherited privilege is wrong and contributes to an ongoing over emphasis on class structure. None royalists usually believe in a meritocracy as opposed to an aristocracy. People should stand on their own feet and prosper by their own talents and efforts. That doesn't mean that no one can inherit the product of their parents or great grandparents success that's all a part of the capitalist system and I for one have no problem with it. But the royals didn't do that did they? Their ancestors didn't invent a new widget and make the world a better place did they? They acquired their wealth and position of power by theft and murder, and, down through the years were responsible for the deaths of millions. And that is not even really the point either. The point is the unearned privilege. The Armed Forces, Police, Judiciary and Politicians all have to take an Oath of allegiance to them despite the fact that all of them including the Crown are paid for be the tax payer. All of these people should swear allegiance to the Country which pays them and for which they owe a duty. Sorry to keep repeating myself but obviously my original point cannot have been very clear. The whole point of a President is that he/she is elected, serves an agreed term and is then replaced. They are not above their fellow citizens they are purely representing their country as it's first citizen equal to all but 'better' than no one. That is how mature, grownup countries do it. No it won't happen here, too servile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.