Comments on: Assault on the State

By: john

john — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:32:38 +0000

brilliant! i particularly agree with the point you made over the opposition to the oath being more to do with personal interest rather than the interests of constituents. This is strangely reminiscent of the Fox hunting bill, in which half the MP’s who voted in favour of the ban did so not because of moral reaons but because of a personal hatred against a sport which they saw as typifying everything they hated about the middle and upper classes. defnitely a sad bunch of republicans stirring up trouble again!

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:18:22 +0000

Tom you could argue that the magna carta, the bill of rights or the US constitution are relics, at least given this current governments attitude toward civil rights, however to some people (more than others) they are very important not neccessarily because fo what they say but what they represent. To some people the monarchy, the church and what they represent are very important whilst to others, modernists if you will, they are a blockage on the road to ‘enlightenment’. Most people would agree there is no need to change this and these individuals justifications for change are not in the least bit convincing.

By: Tom m

Tom m — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:10:53 +0000

What the EDM strikes at is the fact that we still have an ‘official church’ within this country. The monarchy and the established status of the church of England have largely become an irrelvance in British political life – partly why I can’t be arsed to argue in favour of getting rid of that silly oath.

What is an oath anyway? Do you think most MPs put the loyalty to the Queen above loyalty to their party or their own principles?

That oath , i assume, probably goes back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 or some similar historical event. The oath is a relic, let’s not get too wound up over this.

By: Alec

Alec — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:32:45 +0000

This article is incredibly impressive and hits the nail on the head. We are in danger of losing too much of this country’s soul. The prospect of losing the oath of allegiance is a step further along the road to ruin. I am not neccessarily a royalist however whilst I disagree with the notion that one should be born in to privellage I certainly acknowledge the benefits of having a monarchy and a head of state who remains impartial. Lesser of two evils one could say.

As far as I am concerned our Monarchy and our traditions are what make us distinct as a nation. If we lose the things that make us distinct we become indisitinct. As long as we have young conservatives such as these, ready to defend the principles and traditions of this nation, the Conservative party wont go far wrong.

By: Laura Blyth

Laura Blyth — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:44:48 +0000

Myself, and even my mother who is a life long Labour supporter and a lefty born-and-bred Irish woman, both agree with everything you’ve written.
When I first read the news article I was a bit bowled over.

I mean, are you kidding? It’s ridiculous. I’d struggle to find people who are of this point of view. If someone is of the belief that they can’t swear allegiance to the head of State, then I’m sorry, but tough. Don’t go into politics in the first place. You knew what the job would entail. You’ll heave to swear to the state and head of state.

By: Royalist

Royalist — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:07:28 +0000

Well said, Dan!