Coronation

[altus]

9 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

We do not have a constitution though, we have a monarchy.

There are strong arguments for us having a written constitution even if we keep a monarchy.

[harvey19]

I agree

[m williamson]

3 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

As the head of the monarchy. If he were to die the next in line would take his place and the oath would continue.

Just as an aside, did we take an oath when being attested into the Boy Scouts ?

We do not have a constitution though, we have a monarchy.

And at that time the oath will be to his heir as an individual. The oath will have to be retaken then as it is now to Charles following the death of his mother.  It's an oath of allegiance to a specific individual not the institute itself. 

It would be simply to make it to the institute by swearing the oath to the crown without naming the person but that's not how it's done.

 

We don't have a written constitution because then the citizens would know their rights and the state wouldn't be able to do what it likes.

Genuine democracys have a written constitution and the people are sovereign. We have an unwritten constitution and parliament is sovereign.

Parliament, that group who include disreputable no marks who fiddle their expenses, hand out multi million pound contracts to their pals and get sacked for bullying, they are sovereign in this country.

 

No idea about the scouts I wasn't a member, I wasn't prepared.

[harvey19]

4 minutes ago, m williamson said:

And at that time the oath will be to his heir as an individual. The oath will have to be retaken then as it is now to Charles following the death of his mother.  It's an oath of allegiance to a specific individual not the institute itself. 

It would be simply to make it to the institute by swearing the oath to the crown without naming the person but that's not how it's done.

 

We don't have a written constitution because then the citizens would know their rights and the state wouldn't be able to do what it likes.

Genuine democracys have a written constitution and the people are sovereign. We have an unwritten constitution and parliament is sovereign.

Parliament, that group who include disreputable no marks who fiddle their expenses, hand out multi million pound contracts to their pals and get sacked for bullying, they are sovereign in this country.

 

No idea about the scouts I wasn't a member, I wasn't prepared.

An oath could not be sworn to an unaccountable abstract.

It is sworn to a living person as they can be made accountable.

[altus]

4 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

An oath could not be sworn to an unaccountable abstract.

It's been pointed out to you in this thread that they do that very thing in the US.

[Anna B]

57 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Here's the problem, a successful country should try as much as possible to unite all its people. The monarchy is divisive. Many of us see it as anachronistic, undemocratic and a significant element in the continuation of the class system, which is detrimental to the country's future.

There is absolutely no way that I will give an oath to an institution or person I have no respect for. I am not alone by any means in that respect and therefore it's a dividing issue.

Swearing an oath to a ruling political party is out of the question, it's simply unworkable. An oath of allegiance demands that you do as you are instructed by the person you gave your oath to. Which is why allegiance should never be given to an individual or an ideology controlled by an individual. 

 

Americans swear allegiance to the Constitution. In order to do that we would need a written constitution agreed by the people, instead of the current ' make it up as you go along ' nonsense using a set of precedents that only a constitutional lawyer has any chance of understanding.

 

 

What we have now is unacceptable to people who regard themselves as the equal of everyone and at the same time and by the same token  superior to no one.

Swearing an oath to be faithful to another flawed individual that is somewhat disreputable is servile nonsense.

Unfortunately politics is also divisive, as is any single person. Which is why IMO we need an oath that pledges allegiance to the other people in the country to bring us together as a group. I'm not saying this is entirely without problems either, but I do think we maybe need some sort of constitution. We haven't had one since Magna Carta and that's a touch out of date now...

[m williamson]

21 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

An oath could not be sworn to an unaccountable abstract.

It is sworn to a living person as they can be made accountable.

As altus says, that's what I said America does and a number of other countries also pledge allegiance to something other than a person.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pledge_(India)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_National_Pledge

 

I'm intriqued by your idea that King Charles can be held to account, by whom exactly? The police, the armed forces and the judiciary have all sworn an oath of allegiance to him. So who exactly is going to take him to task for anything he may do?

 

Have you ever heard of sovereign immunity?   https://www.insider.com/rules-and-laws-that-british-royals-are-allowed-to-break-2020-6

 

 

 

 

[m williamson]

2 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Unfortunately politics is also divisive, as is any single person. Which is why IMO we need an oath that pledges allegiance to the other people in the country to bring us together as a group. I'm not saying this is entirely without problems either, but I do think we maybe need some sort of constitution. We haven't had one since Magna Carta and that's a touch out of date now...

Politics is meant to be divisive to a degree, at least as far as opinion on what's considered to be the best way to move forward successfully is concerned.  However, that shouldn't in any way prevent everybody wanting the best for the country. The disagreement should only be about the methods employed.

We supposedly have a constitution,  but as far as I'm concerned if it isn't written down in a way that can be understood by any reasonably intelligent person it's not meant for the ordinary citizen, it's there as a method of further control by the establishment.

If a country has a written understandable constitution requiring the peoples agreement to change it then the people can be sovereign as they are in truly democratic country's such as the Republic of Ireland.

 

The media in this country falsely claimed that the Irish were made to vote twice in their Lisbon Treaty referendum. The clear impression being that it was exactly the same treaty as had been voted on the first time. It wasn't, it had been altered to address the concerns of the Irish public about the terms of the first draft. Among other things they retained their permanent EU commissioner when originally the smaller countries were going to lose their representative in order to 'streamline' things.

The reality was that Ireland with a population of just over 5 million made the EU concede to its requirements whilst the UK with a population of over 68 million had the treaty signed off on the nod by parliament without being consulted.

 

This country is only a democracy in the loosest possible terms. A voting system that allowed an unassailable 80 seat majority for less than half the votes, an unelected upper House and a monarch who is above the law.

 

Don't think for one minute it will change but at least people should know the reality of things.

 

[harvey19]

1 hour ago, altus said:

It's been pointed out to you in this thread that they do that very thing in the US.

Because they do not have a monarch as head of state and we do not have a written constitution.

39 minutes ago, m williamson said:

As altus says, that's what I said America does and a number of other countries also pledge allegiance to something other than a person.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pledge_(India)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_National_Pledge

 

I'm intriqued by your idea that King Charles can be held to account, by whom exactly? The police, the armed forces and the judiciary have all sworn an oath of allegiance to him. So who exactly is going to take him to task for anything he may do?

 

Have you ever heard of sovereign immunity?   https://www.insider.com/rules-and-laws-that-british-royals-are-allowed-to-break-2020-6

 

 

 

 

The enemy in wartime if we were on the losing side.

Edited May 1, 2023 by harvey19

[altus]

21 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Because they do not have a monarch as head of state and we do not have a written constitution.

Irrelevant. We could have a written constitution and we could swear oaths to uphold it if we wished. There is nothing inherent in having a monarchy that would prevent that.

 

Quote

The enemy in wartime if we were on the losing side.

That is the shortest and most frayed straw I have ever seen anyone clutch at.