Assault on the State

It has been reported over the past week that Anti-Monarchy campaigners are pushing for a legal challenge to the Oath of loyalty that MP’s swear to Her Majesty the Queen. I take issue with this for a number of reasons. At the most basic level, as most of you who read this blog regularly will be acutely aware, I am a staunch Royalist however my issues with this proposition are far deeper than mere ‘Royalist rambling’. I see this, as one Conservative MP has already acknowledged, as an assault on the state and the institution of monarchy which is as integral to the state as the House of Commons.

22 MP’s have signed a Commons motion put forward by the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker calling for a changing of the oath whilst the pressure group Republic has hired Human rights lawyer Louise Christian to represent them in their High Court challenge to the current oath. The argument has been put forward that the current oath is a violation of their Human Rights and they should be free to refuse to swear loyalty to the Queen if it stands in direct contradiction to their belief or faith.

Correct me if I am wrong but surely by becoming an MP you are entering an arena which is supposed to put the national interest above your own? If you chose to become a servant of the state I believe you should put your own personal predjudices aside and serve in the interests of the citizens and institutions of this land and not your own. Instead these MP’s have decided to act out in a most undignified and most importantly unjusitifed manner and attack an oath that symbolises nothing more than loyalty to the state.

These MPs’ do not represent a majority of the House of Commons or indeed public opinion. In total 22 MP’s out of 649 have signed this petition. Most frankly would see no reason to change the current situation or oath because in no way does it impact on their ability to represent their constitutents. If it did I would actively support the removal of the oath but it doesn’t so I don’t. These individuals are obviously anti-royal, they are obviously acting out of individual interest rather than in the interests of their constituents which as far as I am concerned flies in the face of everything the House of Commons stands for.

For now at least the Queen is the Head of State and as such she deserves a degree of deference and respect. If you as an individual actively chose to enter the political fray you are first and foremost a representative of the people yes, but you are also an employee of the state, a state headed by the Queen and you must be respectful of the fact that the instituion of monarchy is, for now at least, an integral institution of the state you claim to want to serve. The oath is a requirement of the job you agree to take on.

These MP’s justify their campaign on the grounds that they want to swear allegience to their constituents rather than the Queen. Forgive me but this shows just how little they understand the oath and its implications. By swearing an oath of allegiance to the Head of State MP’s are by implication swearing allegiance to the State itself. This means under the current oath they are already swearing allegiance to the state and all its citizens so there justification is completely bankrupt.

The remarkable thing about our head of state is she has no opinion, at least not officially. This means we can all rally around her in times of national triumph or tragedy without a deep personal or political qualm. Her wisdom and her longevity are her strengths whilst her impartiality is what makes her truly unique. Whilst she serves with the consent of the majority of the people, which is currently the case, then our MP’s have a duty to respect her as the Head of State.

I find it disguisting that these self serving individuals can claim it is a violation of their human rights to swear an oath to the Head of State of the nation and the people they claim to want to represent. Perhaps they should go to Zimbabwe or Sudan and find out what real Human Rights violations are. My advice to them would be get on with your job, serve your constituents and not yourself. If all you have to do with your time is launch an assault on the oath of allegience then you clearly aren’t doing your job.


6 thoughts on “Assault on the State

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s