Will You Pledge Allegiance?

I definitely won’t be. I will watch the highlights. If we are at home it will be on tv but I’m not interested in watching every minute. I do wish the King and Queen Camilla well. The monarchy lost its lustre for me a little when the Queen died. I agree it’s a huge moment in our history but won’t be pledging allegiance.

“I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.”

⬆︎is the swearing.

The most pertinent words are "according to law".

Parliament makes the laws in the UK, not the monarch, and if the monarchy ever got troublesome Parliament would change the law as it pertains to this king or any other.

As it did in the past. I seem to remember from history lessons that previous Charleses got sorted out good and proper for being troublesome and overweening.

Or, as minibaggs said, it basically means you promise not to join ¡s¡s (i.e. be a traitor to your country).

So, all in all, it's not a big deal.

Grany

This idea is not going down well

A more dignified and principled alternative to the monarchy is a parliamentary republic. It’s tried and tested and allows us to choose our own head of state. Not someone running the country, but representing us all and guarding the constitution. It’s time to #AbolishTheMonarchy

Quelle surprise Grany !

Calistemon. Dignified as in having a parliamentary Republic not running the country but upholding the laws our constitution. Rather than a hereditary HoS who we are asked to pledge allegiance to. It should be the other way around he should pledge allegiance to the people. What is dignified about Charles who friends were Savile and Peter Ball receiving bags of cash and cash for honours.

Dignified as in having a parliamentary Republic not running the country but upholding the laws our constitution
And the guarantee of that happening is . . .
The behaviour of some of the people running our country in the last 50 years has not been at all dignified. I believe they were elected by the GBP.

I quite like democracy.

Its doesn't always give us the best person for the job but we get the chance to try again in 5 years. Whereas with the inherited monarchy...

I do not believe this individual was chosen by God to reign, nor do I believe he is immortal May he Live for Ever ?

If anyone believes that they are going to be sorely disappointed.

We are masquerading as a modern democratic country, but unwilling to disengage from feudalism.

Looking round at other countries, no thank you. I'm happy with what we've got and would rather 'hang onto Nurse....' It's not perfect,nothing is, but has served this country well for many years. Be careful what you wish for, and if it ain't broke, don't mend it.

Oh, it's very broke...

Jaberwok
As we know, broke or not broke in this instance is an opinion, so there will obviously be some disagreement.

Is only one opinion allowed on this thread? It often seems that way which is probably why a lot of people who used to don't bother to post anymore.

Jaberwok

Is only one opinion allowed on this thread? It often seems that way which is probably why a lot of people who used to don't bother to post anymore.

There are lots of opinions on this thread and on this whole forum.

If someone posts an opinion that is different to yours, that doesn't mean that they are saying that you can't have an opinion.

So it would be nice if people stopped pretending their opinion is being suppressed and decided to tell us why they think that way, without pouting.

At least I knew the year of the joining of the crowns!

PS I won't be swearing allegiance. I don't feel the need.

I think it's better, though, to have a "Head of State" who is symbolic and has no real political power. Their job is diplomatic and if they step out of line Parliament can deal with them.

Jaberwok

At least I knew the year of the joining of the crowns!

When you say you "knew" it, did you mean that you knew where to look it up?

www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/union-of-the-crowns/

volver3

Jaberwok

At least I knew the year of the joining of the crowns!

When you say you "knew" it, did you mean that you knew where to look it up?

www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/union-of-the-crowns/

Does it matter, V? definition of educated is not knowing things but knowing how to find things out 😉

No, absolutely, I look things up on google all the time.

But when I quote something verbatim from a website I usually try to give a link and reference to that website, and not try to pretend that I just "knew".

Mollygo

*Dignified as in having a parliamentary Republic not running the country but upholding the laws our constitution*
And the guarantee of that happening is . . .
The behaviour of some of the people running our country in the last 50 years has not been at all dignified. I believe they were elected by the GBP.

We would have a written down constitution our HoS job would be to intervene if PM broke any of those laws. A book Abolish the Monarchy why we should how we will 1st June by Republic CEO Graham Smith I've pre ordered A thousand protesters will line the route and other places in UK planing demonstration Thats what I will look for. 😀

No Volver3 I do like most people know the death year of Elizabeth 1st, also the Gunpowder plot and the union flag. I don't have to look up that sort of information.. I'm only surprised you didn't know it too, especially as you were so dismissive of the poster who had taught history.

It was literally a direct copy from the UK government page 🤣

Baggs

PS I won't be swearing allegiance. I don't feel the need.

I think it's better, though, to have a "Head of State" who is symbolic and has no real political power. Their job is diplomatic and if they step out of line Parliament can deal with them.

Good post and I agree with all of it, Baggs.

To add to that:

I do think that the Royal Family's connections to charities and those that they founded are worthwhile and, because the Royal Family is involved, they are more high profile, attract business and other interests and help a much larger number of people.

A short-term President either may not be interested, not able to give a long-term commitment and may not attract much interest.

Other charities they support quietly and without fuss or fanfare.

I shan't be saluting.

Go for it Grany.
I’ll just mention, in the spirit of this and other threads that I won’t be pledging allegiance on that day and I won’t be watching. (That seems to be the ‘in’ thing to say at the moment.🤣🤣)
We can have whatever you want written down and voted for by whoever you want. It doesn’t mean they’ll be any more acceptable or behave any better than those for whom we currently vote.

Jaberwok

Is only one opinion allowed on this thread? It often seems that way which is probably why a lot of people who used to don't bother to post anymore.

Could someone let me know which opinion is the one that is allowed as I can't tell.

volver3

I quite like democracy.

Its doesn't always give us the best person for the job but we get the chance to try again in 5 years. Whereas with the inherited monarchy...

On this, I agree with you volver.

Farzanah

I do not believe this individual was chosen by God to reign, nor do I believe he is immortal May he Live for Ever ?

If anyone believes that they are going to be sorely disappointed.

We are masquerading as a modern democratic country, but unwilling to disengage from feudalism.

I agree with this too.