Well, I'm following the UK election even if no one else in the USA is.

[UnderYourSpell]

Many years ago I made this oath on the Bible, and to my knowledge it was never rescinded just because I no longer wear the uniform.
"I swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and bear True Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in Duty bound, Honestly and Faithfully Defend Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all Enemies and will Observe and Obey all Orders of Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and other Officers set over me."

 

[oggbashan]

Many years ago I made this oath on the Bible, and to my knowledge it was never rescinded just because I no longer wear the uniform.
"I swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and bear True Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in Duty bound, Honestly and Faithfully Defend Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all Enemies and will Observe and Obey all Orders of Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and other Officers set over me."

When I joined the Boy Scouts I promised the original 1908 Scout Promise amended to replace King by Queen:

On my honour I promise that---

I will do my duty to God and the Queen.
I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me.
I know the scout law, and will obey it.

 

[oggbashan]

When I held office under the Crown, I had to sign the Official Secrets Act:

http://www.mwh.gov.jm/Library/Public/HR/Official_Secrets_Act.pdf

 

[AlwaysHungry]

One of my favorite poems by one of my favorite poets, "To Hope" by John Keats, includes these stanzas:

In the long vista of the years to roll,
Let me not see our country's honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom's shade.
From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed--
Beneath thy pinions canopy my head!

Let me not see the patriot's high bequest,
Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!
With the base purple of a court oppress'd,
Bowing her head, and ready to expire:
But let me see thee stoop from heaven on wings
That fill the skies with silver glitterings!

 

[legerdemer]

Many years ago I made this oath on the Bible, and to my knowledge it was never rescinded just because I no longer wear the uniform.
"I swear by Almighty God that I will be Faithful and bear True Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in Duty bound, Honestly and Faithfully Defend Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all Enemies and will Observe and Obey all Orders of Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and other Officers set over me."

When I joined the Boy Scouts I promised the original 1908 Scout Promise amended to replace King by Queen:

On my honour I promise that---

I will do my duty to God and the Queen.
I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me.
I know the scout law, and will obey it.

I am curious - what fraction of British citizens now believe that the queen has a god-given right to rule over others?

(I know many in Britain love the monarchy, and others know the monarchy makes money for Britain. Or at least for England.)

 

[AlwaysHungry]

(I know many in Britain love the monarchy, and others know the monarchy makes money for Britain. Or at least for England.)

Or at least, in England.

 

[oggbashan]

I am curious - what fraction of British citizens now believe that the queen has a god-given right to rule over others?

(I know many in Britain love the monarchy, and others know the monarchy makes money for Britain. Or at least for England.)

It fluctuates but is usually around 66%:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-monarchy-at-all-time-high-poll-shows.html

Most politicians would kill for that rating.

A more recent poll:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

 

[legerdemer]

It fluctuates but is usually around 66%:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-monarchy-at-all-time-high-poll-shows.html

Most politicians would kill for that rating.

A more recent poll:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

I'm amazed that the lowest support, among Labour party members, is still 57%.

However, that's not quite the question I asked - and I'm not certain my question can really be answered... my question asked about belief in the god-given right to rule, rather than whether people believe it's good for Britain.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm amazed that the lowest support, among Labour party members, is still 57%.

However, that's not quite the question I asked - and I'm not certain my question can really be answered... my question asked about belief in the god-given right to rule, rather than whether people believe it's good for Britain.

God-given?

No. That went out with the Stuarts. The (English) Civil War and The Glorious Revolution of 1688 ended the divine right of Monarchs. Unfortunately the French had to wait until 1789 for them to follow.

Her Majesty is the Head of the Anglican Church although she leaves most of that to the Archbishop of Canterbury. She believes it is her duty to serve her people and country, and needs God's help to do so. But she, and her heirs, know that the UK has people with differing beliefs or none.

Religious tolerance is expected even if some try to make only their version the manadatory one. For example The Exclusive Brethern are as fanatical as the most virulent form of Islam.

In theory, all English monarchs since the Anglo-Saxons ruled with the assent of the people. Part of the coronation ceremony is the presentation of the new Monarch to the assembled populace (Lords and Ladies of course!) who in theory could refuse to accept that Monarch. They don't and the Monarch is approved by acclamation - a one person election!

The claim of divine right caused the Civil War. King Charles 1 decided he could rule without Parliament. Parliament disagreed.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

God-given?

No. That went out with the Stuarts. The (English) Civil War and The Glorious Revolution of 1688 ended the divine right of Monarchs.

But that sort of begs the question - by what right, then, does she rule? Are we to assume that her thoroughbred DNA makes her the obvious choice? Incidentally, I don't buy the notion which is retailed in the US that the queen is merely a "quaint figurehead." She and her extended family are a formidable financial force, dominating the world's raw materials markets (the British Empire is no longer political/military empire. It was privatized, and is now a commercial empire.) And also, the queen retains her prerogative powers, and she is not shy about using them when it suits her purposes. She sacked the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975 because his policies threatened her business interests.

 

[Messier82]

Most people I know, or have ever known, aren't really bothered one way or another, that's why a republican stance by JC or any other non-Irish politician would probably be met with a general 'shrug' response.

We really don't like to make a fuss, do we? And last time we got rid of the monarchy, the replacement rulers (Cromwell et al) banned Christmas, birthdays and anything vaguely 'fun'. I don't see it coming back.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Most people I know, or have ever known, aren't really bothered one way or another, that's why a republican stance by JC or any other non-Irish politician would probably be met with a general 'shrug' response.

We really don't like to make a fuss, do we? And last time we got rid of the monarchy, the replacement rulers (Cromwell et al) banned Christmas, birthdays and anything vaguely 'fun'. I don't see it coming back.

Over here in the US the idea of monarchy was once abhorrent, but there has been a slow transformation of our culture to the point where the institution is so revered by our news media that we will soon rival the UK in our veneration. I swear, if I see one more "ROYAL BABY!" headline I'll scream.

It's disturbing to me that the system of hereditary monarchy seems to be completely entrenched in so many European countries. What was the last nation to dismantle it, France? To me, this is closely related to the general decline into irrelevance of Europe (and the US.) The rest of the world is undergoing an exciting transformation, led by the BRICS nations, and the response of the Atlantic has-beens is simply to threaten more and more wars. I think that Corbyn may be one of the few that actually gets this and wants to change course.

 

[butters]

I am curious - what fraction of British citizens now believe that the queen has a god-given right to rule over others?

(I know many in Britain love the monarchy, and others know the monarchy makes money for Britain. Or at least for England.)

very few, i'd hope

It fluctuates but is usually around 66%:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ish-monarchy-at-all-time-high-poll-shows.html

Most politicians would kill for that rating.

A more recent poll:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/

not the same thing, ogg; but you know the brits - love a bit of pomp and circumstance so long as it's a good show and we're no longer at risk froma passing majesterial whim.

God-given?

No. That went out with the Stuarts. The (English) Civil War and The Glorious Revolution of 1688 ended the divine right of Monarchs. Unfortunately the French had to wait until 1789 for them to follow.

Her Majesty is the Head of the Anglican Church although she leaves most of that to the Archbishop of Canterbury. She believes it is her duty to serve her people and country, and needs God's help to do so. But she, and her heirs, know that the UK has people with differing beliefs or none.

Religious tolerance is expected even if some try to make only their version the manadatory one. For example The Exclusive Brethern are as fanatical as the most virulent form of Islam.

In theory, all English monarchs since the Anglo-Saxons ruled with the assent of the people. Part of the coronation ceremony is the presentation of the new Monarch to the assembled populace (Lords and Ladies of course!) who in theory could refuse to accept that Monarch. They don't and the Monarch is approved by acclamation - a one person election!

The claim of divine right caused the Civil War. King Charles 1 decided he could rule without Parliament. Parliament disagreed.

yes, all of this.

so long as no-one's visibly rocking the boat, the boat continues to sail

i've a theory that most people like the duality of the appearance of split power between the monarchy and parliament; the idea of returning to the old, fearful days of the monarch's word being all powerful, or swapping that for an american-style presidential system all seems rather distasteful.

 

[oggbashan]

But that sort of begs the question - by what right, then, does she rule? Are we to assume that her thoroughbred DNA makes her the obvious choice? Incidentally, I don't buy the notion which is retailed in the US that the queen is merely a "quaint figurehead." She and her extended family are a formidable financial force, dominating the world's raw materials markets (the British Empire is no longer political/military empire. It was privatized, and is now a commercial empire.) And also, the queen retains her prerogative powers, and she is not shy about using them when it suits her purposes. She sacked the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975 because his policies threatened her business interests.

Her Majesty rules because that's what the people of the UK want. Thoroughbred DNA? Bullshit! The reign of William and Mary was by choice of Parliament. Since way back in England's history who reigns has been determined by power or political stitch-ups. Eventually the decision is in the hands of those who really rule - the Lords in the past, the House of Commons today.

IF Edward VIII had been crowned as King (he never had a coronation) the Monarchy might not have survived. His father was unpopular despite the fawning media. Edward's Nazi-sympathetic views could have been disastrous. His abdication was forced on him by Parliament and the Church. Neither could accept an American divorcée as Queen (and Edward VIII was a (expletive deleted) idiot). The abdication showed that heriditary primogeniture could be modified by Parliament.

George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother changed attitudes to the Monarchy and adapted to a more informal style. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (I in Scotland) has made the Monarchy far more beloved than it was in the 1920s and 30s. The Queen rules because the majority of people in the UK want her to.

She sacked the Prime Minister of Australia?

No. She didn't. The Governor-General of Australia did. He was an Australian holding the position that in other countries would be the President. The Governor-General has that power, granted by the Australian Parliament. In theory he was acting as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. In practice he was acting in the wider interest of Australia.

The Queen is a Constitutional Monarch and her predecessors have been since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Her powers are very limited and by consent are never used. She is permitted to give advice to Prime Ministers. Even that is used very rarely - because the UK governments are elected by the people.

As for the Crown Estates? The Royal Family, by consent, are taxed at a higher rate than any UK citizen. The income from those holdings is paid to the UK Government who then give some back for the running of the Royals. Effectively the Royal Family PAY for themselves.

Yes, the Queen does have a substantial wealth of her own but much of it is in non-liquid form - buildings, land, art works etc. She is capital rich and cash-poor by comparison with her total wealth.

Last week one financial expert worked out that since Her Majesty started her reign she and her family have been net contributors to the UK to the total of £47 Billion. Perhaps US Presidents should follow suit?

Parliament (and the Commonwealth) recently changed the rules on succession again. In future, a long distant future, the presumed heir to the Throne will be whichever child is born first, female or male. That again shows who has the real power over succession - not birth, but Parliament.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

She sacked the Prime Minister of Australia?

No. She didn't. The Governor-General of Australia did. He was an Australian holding the position that in other countries would be the President. The Governor-General has that power, granted by the Australian Parliament. In theory he was acting as Her Majesty's representative in Australia. In practice he was acting in the wider interest of Australia.

Au contraire. The precipitating event was Whitlam's plan to buy back ownership of Australia's mineral resources.The biggest foreign owner was Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited (now Rio Tinto), an important financial interest for the queen. Blocking this plan was hardly in the wider interest of Australia, and it was revealed in 1975 that Governor-General Kerr consulted extensively with the queen on how to circumvent certain aspects of the Australian constitution before sacking Whitlam.

 

[oggbashan]

Au contraire. The precipitating event was Whitlam's plan to buy back ownership of Australia's mineral resources.The biggest foreign owner was Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Limited (now Rio Tinto), an important financial interest for the queen. Blocking this plan was hardly in the wider interest of Australia, and it was revealed in 1975 that Governor-General Kerr consulted extensively with the queen on how to circumvent certain aspects of the Australian constitution before sacking Whitlam.

That's your view.

Consulting with The Queen? It was a constitutional first for Australia. Of course Kerr had to know what was possible but the advice was from constitutional experts in the Queen's name.

Was it a wise decision? I don't know. Australia was facing a crisis. Was the solution better than the crisis? I doubt that any Australian Governor-General would do that again. A future Australian President might - if he/she had the power under the Australian Constitution.

 

[Messier82]

As for the Crown Estates? The Royal Family, by consent, are taxed at a higher rate than any UK citizen. The income from those holdings is paid to the UK Government who then give some back for the running of the Royals. Effectively the Royal Family PAY for themselves.

Are you including Charlie's Duchy of Cornwall in that? Prince Charles's £700m estate accused of tax avoidance

PS: Ogg, every time I see your avatar I get a craving for A canny bag o'crisps

 

[oggbashan]

Are you including Charlie's Duchy of Cornwall in that? Prince Charles's £700m estate accused of tax avoidance

PS: Ogg, every time I see your avatar I get a craving for A canny bag o'crisps

I don't think they included the Duchy of Cornwall in the £47 Billion. As Charles pays income tax at the 50% rate, classing the Duchy as a corporation could mean LESS money for the taxpayer.

 

[ishtat]

That's your view.

Consulting with The Queen? It was a constitutional first for Australia. Of course Kerr had to know what was possible but the advice was from constitutional experts in the Queen's name.

Was it a wise decision? I don't know. Australia was facing a crisis. Was the solution better than the crisis? I doubt that any Australian Governor-General would do that again. A future Australian President might - if he/she had the power under the Australian Constitution.

In fact Og the Governor General sought advice from the Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Garfield Barwick, which was controversial because Barwick had been the Attorney General in a previous conservative government opposed to Whitlam. His advice was seen as biased - it probably was, but it was almost certainly legally correct.

The Queen was advised after the event what had been done; in fact when Whitlam was sacked she was tucked up in bed.

The monarch reigns as a figurehead only, she does nothing except advise and does not rule in the sense of exercising any executive function.

 

[oggbashan]

In fact Og the Governor General sought advice from the Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Garfield Barwick, which was controversial because Barwick had been the Attorney General in a previous conservative government opposed to Whitlam. His advice was seen as biased - it probably was, but it was almost certainly legally correct.

The Queen was advised after the event what had been done; in fact when Whitlam was sacked she was tucked up in bed.

The monarch reigns as a figurehead only, she does nothing except advise and does not rule in the sense of exercising any executive function.

Thank you for the detail. My knowledge of Australian politics is decades out of date.

The monarch's status in the UK is identical. But her private advice to UK politicians can be useful. They do NOT have to follow it.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Corbyn had announced that he would resign as head of the Stop The War Coalition once he won the Labour chairmanship, but he remains closely tied to the group, which issued this statement yesterday on the question of the monarchy:

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/queen-long-to-reign-over-us-the-truth-about-the-monarchy-money-and-guns

 

[oggbashan]

Corbyn had announced that he would resign as head of the Stop The War Coalition once he won the Labour chairmanship, but he remains closely tied to the group, which issued this statement yesterday on the question of the monarchy:

That's free speech for you. Anyone is allowed to write what they like even if you do not agree with them. Arguments about the wealth of the Monarchy have continued for hundreds of years. During Her Majesty's reign she has handed control of the Crown Estates to Parliament. The arguments about how much the Monarchy costs ignore the reality that the Monarchy pays a higher proportion of its income to the state than any other person or organisation.

Stop The War isn't just what its title says. It campaigns on a number of issues that might appall those who just want peace.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

When I held office under the Crown, I had to sign the Official Secrets Act:

http://www.mwh.gov.jm/Library/Public/HR/Official_Secrets_Act.pdf

I signed it too, twice, once when I was working in Signals and again when I left to cover me for the rest of my life.

As for what the Americans think of out Monarchy if you ever want to go and see Buck House you have to fight your way through hoards of them and Japanese with cameras!

 

[Ashesh9]

Errata

I signed it too, twice, once when I was working in Signals and again when I left to cover me for the rest of my life.

As for what the Americans think of out Monarchy if you ever want to go and see Buck House you have to fight your way through hoards of them and Japanese with cameras!

Annie is'nt that " hordes of them " instead of " hoards of them " ?!

 

[UnderYourSpell]

Annie is'nt that " hordes of them " instead of " hoards of them " ?!

Whatever ............isn't is'nt isn't?