"London Bridge is Falling"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Surely all currency with the queen's head on it will become illegal tender from the moment she pegged it. That's what we have been told about day one for Scottish independence after all.

---

Possibly. It'll certainly become collectable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haymaker

Money with her face on it I meant :greengrin. The mint has Charles and William etc already ready to print.

---

Oh aye. Stamps anaw. Not sure if pillarboxes (aye real pillarboxes, not Johnsonian analogies) still have monarch's initials on, but in any case that would only be for new boxes, not existing ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Oh aye. Stamps anaw. Not sure if pillarboxes (aye real pillarboxes, not Johnsonian analogies) still have monarch's initials on, but in any case that would only be for new boxes, not existing ones.

---

There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.

---

From Wiki

In 1952, a number of post boxes were attacked in Scotland in a dispute over the regnal number adopted by Queen Elizabeth II, which was displayed as the EIIR cypher on the boxes. This included at least one which was damaged in Edinburgh with a home made explosive device.
The compromise was to put the Scottish crown on Scottish pillar boxes, without any reference to the particular reigning monarch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.

---

There's still a few Queen Victoria ones on the go like this one on Arran:

https://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/17...8_bed7a1c3.jpg

When I was a kid in the 70s you still saw George VI and even George V coins knocking about. The shillings became worth 5p and the 2 shilling florins became worth 10p. So Lizzy coins may be on the go for a good bit after she's gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

When MPs and MSPs take office, they have to officially declare an oath of allegiance to Queen Betty and make a vow to serve her.

How utterly idiotic is that.

I think I'll switch to being German, as they don't officially have a monarchy (though they are obsessed with the Saxe-Coburgs)

---

It is this perpetuation of the myth that loyalty to ones country and loyalty to the monarchy are one and the same and indivisible, that you cannot be patriotic about your country if you don't believe it is embodied in the persona of the monarch.

Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.

Any oath required of anyone who is a servant of the people should be to those people, not some ridiculous figurehead whose position is the very embodiment of the feudalism and despotic power our hard earned democratic rights were supposed to do away with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE

It is this perpetuation of the myth that loyalty to ones country and loyalty to the monarchy are one and the same and indivisible, that you cannot be patriotic about your country if you don't believe it is embodied in the persona of the monarch.

Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.

Any oath required of anyone who is a servant of the people should be to those people, not some ridiculous figurehead whose position is the very embodiment of the feudalism and despotic power our hard earned democratic rights were supposed to do away with.

---

So you're on the fence then. :greengrin

I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.

Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

So you're on the fence then. :greengrin

I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.

Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.

---

Whilst not entirely relevant to the Queen actually being put on trial there was a bit of a 'crisis' during the Paul Burrell case when it was suggested the Queen could be a crucial witness due to a private meeting she had held with him some years earlier. It had already been decided Prince Charles and Prince William wouldn't be called as witnesses.

As it turned out the Queen, Price Charles and Prince Philip had a 'private' conversation in the back of a car that was very conveniently overheard and 'brought to the attention' of the Police and subsequently the case collapsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE

Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.

---

Where do you stand on the matter of swearing an oath to the Almighty?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Whilst not entirely relevant to the Queen actually being put on trial there was a bit of a 'crisis' during the Paul Burrell case when it was suggested the Queen could be a crucial witness due to a private meeting she had held with him some years earlier. It had already been decided Prince Charles and Prince William wouldn't be called as witnesses.

As it turned out the Queen, Price Charles and Prince Philip had a 'private' conversation in the back of a car that was very conveniently overheard and 'brought to the attention' of the Police and subsequently the case collapsed.

---

It was an impossible position Burrell put her in.

In England the prosecutor is R ie Rex or Regina. She would have had to defend herself against herself, so to speak.

Burell was a knave, in the true sense of the word. An utter cad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

So you're on the fence then. :greengrin

I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.

Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.

---

For me an oath is more than just empty words and I would not swear allegiance to any person or organisation I fundamentally disagree with, no matter how purely ceremonial it was purported to be. The following is a quote from parliament's own web site … hardly ceremonial is it?

"Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are common in British public life. They are similar to a declaration of loyalty to the state.
Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so.
The same rule applies to Members of the Lords"

MPs can 'affirm' rather than take an oath … but that affirmation still involves basically submitting to an acknowledgment that they owe allegiance and loyalty to the queen and her successors, so its no different, as the following quote from the same website shows:

"I (name of Member) 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

Where do you stand on the matter of swearing an oath to the Almighty?!?

---

That should be personal choice. AFAIK in court a person can choose to 'affirm' rather than swear on the bible for example, lets face it the majority of people in this country are either atheist or at best agnostics and many people who are religious don't follow Christian religions. As I posted in reply to Danhibees1875 MPs can choose to 'affirm' but that oath still involves swearing loyalty to the queen which renders it pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE

For me an oath is more than just empty words and I would not swear allegiance to any person or organisation I fundamentally disagree with, no matter how purely ceremonial it was purported to be. The following is a quote from parliament's own web site … hardly ceremonial is it?

"Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are common in British public life. They are similar to a declaration of loyalty to the state.
Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so.
The same rule applies to Members of the Lords"

MPs can 'affirm' rather than take an oath … but that affirmation still involves basically submitting to an acknowledgment that they owe allegiance and loyalty to the queen and her successors, so its no different, as the following quote from the same website shows:

"I (name of Member) 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".

---

I wouldn't expect them to say that "the oath is relatively meaningless and just a nice jolly for the MPs to celebrate their election with finger sandwiches and scones while reciting some words."

They paint it up to be important but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything. Have there been any elected MPs decide they'd rather not have the chance to affect change because they don't want to say the oath?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

I wouldn't expect them to say that "the oath is relatively meaningless and just a nice jolly for the MPs to celebrate their election with finger sandwiches and scones while reciting some words."

They paint it up to be important but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything. Have there been any elected MPs decide they'd rather not have the chance to affect change because they don't want to say the oath?

---

At least 6 in Northern Ireland .. though I appreciate that is only part of a wider issue of declaring allegiance to the UK at all :greengrin

Anyway, it doesn't matter .. people are being in effect forced to go against their principles and if they don't they will be denied their right as elected representatives of 'the people' to sit in parliament and represent the folk who elected them. That my friend is an affront to democracy no matter how you slice it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE

That should be personal choice. AFAIK in court a person can choose to 'affirm' rather than swear on the bible for example, lets face it the majority of people in this country are either atheist or at best agnostics and many people who are religious don't follow Christian religions. As I posted in reply to Danhibees1875 MPs can choose to 'affirm' but that oath still involves swearing loyalty to the queen which renders it pointless.

---

Thanks for this, I’ve occasionally wondered what happened with people who followed a non Christian faith or atheist when in court. Cheers :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

Thanks for this, I’ve occasionally wondered what happened with people who followed a non Christian faith or atheist when in court. Cheers :aok:

---

It's an affirmation and you solemly swear to tell the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE

At least 6 in Northern Ireland .. though I appreciate that is only part of a wider issue of declaring allegiance to the UK at all :greengrin

Anyway, it doesn't matter .. people are being in effect forced to go against their principles and if they don't they will be denied their right as elected representatives of 'the people' to sit in parliament and represent the folk who elected them. That my friend is an affront to democracy no matter how you slice it.

---

They are being forced to do something yes, and it's something I'd do away with/make optional personally. If there's any mandatory oath it should be to their constituents as you said. I just don't think it would get in the way of anyone doing their job or make them do it differently.

Anyway, this thread ruined my viewing of The Lion King. :rolleyes: :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danhibees1875

They are being forced to do something yes, and it's something I'd do away with/make optional personally. If there's any mandatory oath it should be to their constituents as you said. I just don't think it would get in the way of anyone doing their job or make them do it differently.

Anyway, this thread ruined my viewing of The Lion King. :rolleyes: :greengrin

---

I've taken 2 oaths. The first one to the queen where I had my fingers crossed: :wink:

"I... swear by Almighty God*(do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm)*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*(admirals / generals/ air officers)*and officers set over me."

and the 2nd one:

"I solemnly declare that I will respect and observe the Basic Law and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and that I will refrain from any activity which might cause it harm."

Oaths are really meaningless unless you actually believe what you're buying into. How many people have taken marriage vows but end up breaking them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

I've taken 2 oaths. The first one to the queen where I had my fingers crossed: :wink:

"I... swear by Almighty God*(do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm)*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*(admirals / generals/ air officers)*and officers set over me."

and the 2nd one:

"I solemnly declare that I will respect and observe the Basic Law and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and that I will refrain from any activity which might cause it harm."

Oaths are really meaningless unless you actually believe what you're buying into. How many people have taken marriage vows but under up breaking them.

---

Indeed. Lest we forget those "vows" from 2014. A "vow" is utterly meaningless.

Can't we just guillotine them already? :devil: