bickster Posted September 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2015 And if he didn't do it… he'd be portrayed as ineffective and unable to do his job. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't (I feel a new VT initialisation in the offing - DIDDID or even DIDX2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted September 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2015 Was he being true to his principles when he said"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"Or perhaps he gave the text of affirmation "I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law"Or perhaps he said neither and just stood there in respectful silencePerhaps that needs changing, seems a bit outdated to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Asking a fictional deity to save an unelected monarch is a bit silly isn't it . I would trust those who gave the anthem short shrift far more than somebody singing along with glee.remind me of the Oath covered in the army act of 1955 again .....now apologies if my memory is playing tricks on me ..but what did you once do for a living ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Was he being true to his principles when he said"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"Or perhaps he gave the text of affirmation "I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law"Or perhaps he said neither and just stood there in respectful silencePerhaps that needs changing, seems a bit outdated to me. It's HM government. When taking office public representatives have to take an oath. President does it (not to a monarch but to a constitution) we have a monarch as long as we have a monarch that will be the oath. If you want to change the fact that we have to give an oath you need to remove the monarch. As long as it remains you have to give the oath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Asking a fictional deity to save an unelected monarch is a bit silly isn't it . I would trust those who gave the anthem short shrift far more than somebody singing along with glee.remind me of the Oath covered in the army act of 1955 again .....now apologies if my memory is playing tricks on me ..but what did you once do for a living ?That's something else outdated that looks ripe for modernising to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Asking a fictional deity to save an unelected monarch is a bit silly isn't it . I would trust those who gave the anthem short shrift far more than somebody singing along with glee.remind me of the Oath covered in the army act of 1955 again .....now apologies if my memory is playing tricks on me ..but what did you once do for a living ?I was 16 . I am now 35People grow up. Opinions change. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 he could have taken a leaf out of Redwoods book and just mimed his own words I'm sure they called it goldfishing when I was at school and we were told at school it was extremely bad form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 A Labour source has said that Mr Corbyn would be singing the national anthem at future ceremonial events. so much for the champion of principles , he appears to be U-turning quicker than a French tank driverThat's an incredibly poor and disappointing announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Asking a fictional deity to save an unelected monarch is a bit silly isn't it . I would trust those who gave the anthem short shrift far more than somebody singing along with glee.remind me of the Oath covered in the army act of 1955 again .....now apologies if my memory is playing tricks on me ..but what did you once do for a living ?I was 16 . I am now 35People grow up. Opinions change.Fair enough .. I apologise for the cheap shot as well 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) I would have more respect for him if he stuck to his guns and didn't sing that chauvinistic shite tbh. How about kissing the Queen's hand and taking his place on Privvy Council then? Is that OK and does not constitute him abandoning his principles?That someone has to do that* in order to carry out the job for which they have just been elected is a problem with political convention not the person who has to go along with such a ludicrously anachronistic ceremony (he'll have already sworn an oath of allegiance to the crown in order to take his seat in parliament, take part in debates and represent his constituents, unless things have changed). *Though as Bicks has pointed out they don't appear to actually do that kissing the hand thing any more (perhaps that was due to Tony Benn's get out technique of kissing his own hand?). Edited September 16, 2015 by snowychap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Education, Education, Education! If it wasn't for Blair, myself and my friends wouldn't have been able to afford to have gone to University. On the flip side if it wasn't for Blair a University degree might of actually been worth the paper it was written on and you wouldn't have had so many wasters doing mickey mouse degrees like Media Studies, Music, David Beckham Studies, etc. There is so much unintentional irony in the highlighted phrases it's actually painful. Ha ha! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted September 16, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 16, 2015 Was he being true to his principles when he said"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"Or perhaps he gave the text of affirmation "I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law"Or perhaps he said neither and just stood there in respectful silencePerhaps that needs changing, seems a bit outdated to me. It's HM government. When taking office public representatives have to take an oath. President does it (not to a monarch but to a constitution) we have a monarch as long as we have a monarch that will be the oath. If you want to change the fact that we have to give an oath you need to remove the monarch. As long as it remains you have to give the oath.I refer you to the answer I gave previously. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak 27s27 seconds ago Corbyn also questions whether he should have to join Privy Council, and wdnt commit to taking part in ceremony, kneeling before the Queen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Was he being true to his principles when he said"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"Or perhaps he gave the text of affirmation "I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law"Or perhaps he said neither and just stood there in respectful silencePerhaps that needs changing, seems a bit outdated to me. It's HM government. When taking office public representatives have to take an oath. President does it (not to a monarch but to a constitution) we have a monarch as long as we have a monarch that will be the oath. If you want to change the fact that we have to give an oath you need to remove the monarch. As long as it remains you have to give the oath.I refer you to the answer I gave previously.So out of interest do you think the Armed Forces should swear loyalty to Parliament, or maybe to the office of the Prime Minister? The reason things are the way they are currently is that constitutionally the Queen is the representative of the people, therefore a solemn oath to protect the Monarchy is in effect an oath of loyalty to the people, not the government of the day. That probably seems quite trite as a concept but it does mean that the government cannot use military force against the civil population without the consent of the Monarch. It puts a break and a check on elected politicians with a Messiah complex, which is good new all round. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 My feeling about that is that if a government were elected, on a popular mandate, to abolish the monarchy, then it wouldn't be moral or correct for the Army to institute a coup on behalf of the Royal Family, yet logically that is exactly what the Oath demands. Clearly there are dozens of other possible oaths that new recruits could swear on - there are no shortage of countries that don't even have a monarchy, the current isn't actually the only possible way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PongRiddims Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Look whether you like Corbyn or not, the Queen and all that Royal Family business is a loads of old bollocks really, let's be done with them now, turn one of the palaces into a theme park or something, that'll bring the tourism money in no hassle, leave it to Pong I got this nailed #downwiththecrown #republicanlad 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak 27s27 seconds ago Corbyn also questions whether he should have to join Privy Council, and wdnt commit to taking part in ceremony, kneeling before the QueenIt gets more and more amusing. This kind of anti establishment drivel will get him a few cheers from the mad, bad and deranged, but winning a national election? It's beyond ridiculous. I feel genuinely sorry for Labour.My feeling about that is that if a government were elected, on a popular mandate, to abolish the monarchy, then it wouldn't be moral or correct for the Army to institute a coup on behalf of the Royal Family, yet logically that is exactly what the Oath demands. Clearly there are dozens of other possible oaths that new recruits could swear on - there are no shortage of countries that don't even have a monarchy, the current isn't actually the only possible way of doing things. An interesting hypothetical, but unless Maddie's stretched and cured skin is found hanging over the Queen's 4 poster then this Republican wet dream of a popular revolt against the Monarchy is just that. It's a fringe issue with no real constituency. More fantasy from the fantasists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Look whether you like Corbyn or not, the Queen and all that Royal Family business is a loads of old bollocks really, let's be done with them now, turn one of the palaces into a theme park or something, that'll bring the tourism money in no hassle, leave it to Pong I got this nailed #downwiththecrown #republicanladhave a look on the interweb at the cost of France's president or even Italy's for that matter , they make the £34m a year (56p a person ) seem good value Or if you're gonna have a republic make sure it's one without a president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 An interesting hypothetical, but unless Maddie's stretched and cured skin is found hanging over the Queen's 4 poster then this Republican wet dream of a popular revolt against the Monarchy is just that. It's a fringe issue with no real constituency. More fantasy from the fantasists.That's just not really an argument is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 An interesting hypothetical, but unless Maddie's stretched and cured skin is found hanging over the Queen's 4 poster then this Republican wet dream of a popular revolt against the Monarchy is just that. It's a fringe issue with no real constituency. More fantasy from the fantasists.That's just not really an argument is it?Arguing for a Republic isn't really an argument. On a national level there probably isn't an argument you could pick that you would be less likely to win. Abolish the Monarchy... L O flippin L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts