National Anthem

[harvey19]

38 minutes ago, m williamson said:

We are all equal as human beings and we should respect each other accordingly.  However, no one should ever show defererence to another person purely because that person happened to be born into a particular family.

 

Respect is a different matter. If through their own actions and abilities an individual has achieved a certain standing and they have managed that without hurting others in doing so then they should be respected for that. However, that respect should not contain any obsequious fawning, simple good manners is sufficient and any decent person would want nothing more.

Millions of people who may not have been blessed with extraordinary talents nonetheless contribute to the world and should also be treat accordingly.

Basically everyone is entitled to respect until such time as they demonstrate that they are not worthy of it. At which time they remain equal as humans but lose the respect of the rest of us.

 

We are in agreement here.

When an oath of allegiance is sworn it is sworn to the institution rather than an individual who represents it.

Just like when one is loyal to their football club. It is really to the institution rather than individuals.

The monarchy because of its position as head of state is exceptional and there are members who do not get my respect.

In times of war etc an oath to the monarch unites people of varying political beliefs. It can also be used to enforce behaviour by Kings Regulations.

 

[m williamson]

11 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

We are in agreement here.

When an oath of allegiance is sworn it is sworn to the institution rather than an individual who represents it.

Just like when one is loyal to their football club. It is really to the institution rather than individuals.

The monarchy because of its position as head of state is exceptional and there are members who do not get my respect.

In times of war etc an oath to the monarch unites people of varying political beliefs. It can also be used to enforce behaviour by Kings Regulations.

 

The oath should be to the country or the constitution *.    Were that the case not a single person who holds any regard for the country would have a problem swearing it.

There are many of us that have a major problem with the crown. Most people when asked to take an oath will only do so if at that time they intend to keep it. Unlike the current king who took an oath to his first wife with no intention of keeping it as the words left his lips.

 

The situation in this country is archaic and could prove dangerious. In the event of someone becoming monarch who decided that the country had gone to the dogs and needed a firm hand the military, the police and the judiciary have all sworn allegiance to that person who is above the law. The monarch can literally get away with murder https://britishheritage.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-murder

 

This is a ridiculous state of affairs but no royalist need worry, it will not change.

 

* The constitution would need to be written down and intelligible if the oath were to be sworn to it. Another thing that won't happen.

[hackey lad]

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

I always thought the Hubert Parry / William Blake hymn Jerusalem would be a great national anthem.

It would be up there for me 

[harvey19]

43 minutes ago, m williamson said:

The oath should be to the country or the constitution *.    Were that the case not a single person who holds any regard for the country would have a problem swearing it.

There are many of us that have a major problem with the crown. Most people when asked to take an oath will only do so if at that time they intend to keep it. Unlike the current king who took an oath to his first wife with no intention of keeping it as the words left his lips.

 

The situation in this country is archaic and could prove dangerious. In the event of someone becoming monarch who decided that the country had gone to the dogs and needed a firm hand the military, the police and the judiciary have all sworn allegiance to that person who is above the law. The monarch can literally get away with murder https://britishheritage.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-murder

 

This is a ridiculous state of affairs but no royalist need worry, it will not change.

 

* The constitution would need to be written down and intelligible if the oath were to be sworn to it. Another thing that won't happen.

If we did not have a monarchy the army etc. could carry out the wishes of the political party in power.

[RollingJ]

56 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

The situation in this country is archaic and could prove dangerious. In the event of someone becoming monarch who decided that the country had gone to the dogs and needed a firm hand the military, the police and the judiciary have all sworn allegiance to that person who is above the law. The monarch can literally get away with murder https://britishheritage.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-murder

 

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity: What is this article doing in a ' Heritage' site?  I suspect, although I haven't bothered checking, that it is a typical left-leaning publication?

[Guest makapaka]

12 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I suspect, although I haven't bothered checking, that it is a typical left-leaning publication?

Well why bother checking before saying it’s typically left leaning 🤦‍♂️

[m williamson]

4 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

If we did not have a monarchy the army etc. could carry out the wishes of the political party in power.

Isn't that what they do now? It was Tony Blair that got the country involved in the Iraq War. The monarch could refuse assent but the last time that happened was 1708. 

Basically politicians use the monarchy as part of the smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses routine which distracts people from taking too hard a look at what they're getting up to.

 

However, the situation still remains that because of the oath to the crown there is a potential for a coup d' etat. It would take an extraordinary set of events and the co operation of a large number of senior military and police officers but it is possible. And we live in extraordinary times.

In order to guard against that type of upheaval you need a true democracy, the people to be sovereign, a written constitution which cannot be changed without the peoples consent and a voting system which reflects the peoples wishes. None of which the UK has and it isn't likely to get.

[harvey19]

4 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Isn't that what they do now? It was Tony Blair that got the country involved in the Iraq War. The monarch could refuse assent but the last time that happened was 1708. 

Basically politicians use the monarchy as part of the smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses routine which distracts people from taking too hard a look at what they're getting up to.

 

However, the situation still remains that because of the oath to the crown there is a potential for a coup d' etat. It would take an extraordinary set of events and the co operation of a large number of senior military and police officers but it is possible. And we live in extraordinary times.

In order to guard against that type of upheaval you need a true democracy, the people to be sovereign, a written constitution which cannot be changed without the peoples consent and a voting system which reflects the peoples wishes. None of which the UK has and it isn't likely to get.

Food for thought.

[RollingJ]

5 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Well why bother checking before saying it’s typically left leaning 🤦‍♂️

I  said 'suspect', merely from the tone of the 'article' -  may check tomorrow if I get a spare few minutes and am really bothered, but no doubt someone will get there before me.

[m williamson]

18 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Just out of curiosity: What is this article doing in a ' Heritage' site?  I suspect, although I haven't bothered checking, that it is a typical left-leaning publication?

I have no idea as to whether it is left wing, nor do I care. Why are you querying as to why it's in a Heritage site? It's about the queen a major part of the countrys heritage.

Antway, here's something from a right wing source https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1641334/queen-elizabeth-ii-legal-immunity-investigation  They quote the Guardian but don't challenge and disprove anything.