This is the front cover of this morning's Mail:
I will not swear allegiance to someone I think has no right to rule this country.
I am not a eugencist.
I do not believe in feudal power.
I do not think this person was given a right to govern by God.
I reject the symbolism in their role.
I refuse to swear something that would be dishonest.
Your thoughts:
Will you swear allegiance to Charles Windsor (or whatever else his name might be)
- No (94%, 1,240 Votes)
- Yes (4%, 49 Votes)
- I'm abstaining, but show me the results anyway (2%, 29 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,318
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Neither shall I cry out ‘May the King live forever’ as is also part of this farce. Has no one told these puerile idiots that the King is a mortal human being the same as everyone else?
I also refuse to sing God save the king
Johnson ‘misled the Queen’ to prorogue Parliament. (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue). The Monarchy still has a function.
I fear something worse – heavily influenced by the press barons who advocated for Brexit – and who do not understand that “Climate is the story of this century. It is a story of the fight for human survival. A story of recklessness, injustice & greed, but also a story of hope.” (António Guterres, UN Secretary General on Twitter today).
Incremental reform of the monarchy would be wiser than abolition at present.
Radical reform of the press is necessary and urgent.
I’m more likely to swear at him and his cling-on’s to be honest.
So, here’s yet another person in our establishment with an unapologetic sense of entitlement and whom I think looks down on us asking us for our respect.
Well, sorry, No!
It probably shows how support for the monarchy has fallen that we have to be told to do this. We will likely see wall-to-wall coverage this week in the lamestream media on the monarchy and how wonderful it is and how the country is getting behind it and how it will begin the start of a new, golden, more-britainy era. Basically, gaslighting on steroids. Enough bull**** to feed every garden in the country for a year.
I may swear as well. Mind you, that won’t signal a change for me:-)
Craig
Laura K has the situation sussed, as usual (if you don’t mind a link to another blog): https://normalislandnews.substack.com/p/public-will-be-asked-to-swear-allegiance
I admit that does not work for me
Does this work for you? Apologies for being so crude. You don’t even need to watch it to know what they are singing.
https://skwawkbox.org/2023/05/01/video-celtic-fans-say-where-the-establishment-can-stick-the-coronation/
I was already planning to post that, very soon
The only swearing I will be doing:
Foxtrot Oscar, parasites.
Not my king, not in my name.
I was not going to rise to this bait, but nevertheless it is worth remembering that in Scotland the swearing of allegiance to the King possesses an extremely difficult, dubious and tainted history. I comment only to say that the final resolution of that problem was that the Monarch has long been obliged to declare an allegiance, effectively to the Presbyterian Kirk. The monarchy should have been and would have been better advised to avoid falling into this somewhat obvious constitutional solecism.
I wil swear my allegiance to the king …camilla will never be my queen.
Reading Kevin Cahill’s “Who Owns Britain?”, I came away with the feeling the continuation of the status quo in Britain was inextricably bound up with the continuation of the Monarchy. There, to my mind, is reason alone to end it.
“Who Owns The World” is in someways even better. Particularly the section which describes how land is owned – let me simplify – there is one land owner – the soverign – erm, that’s it – all land in the Uk is held on the basis of leases – from the soverign. I remarked on this to a Uk lawyer who said “Mike we learn this in 1st year law school”,
Indeed, when you buy your house and the land it stands on you may be the tenant owner but the monarch is the owner too and they’re the superior owner at that. This means they own it more than you despite you having actually, er, bought and paid for it. One wonders how many of those preparing to swear fealty have any idea about this or much else of where they actually live and how they’re really ruled…
We are being requested to be the King’s servants?
This King has delusions of grandeur and forgotten that he has already broken a solemn oath when he married Diana!
What allegiance does this King have to his people if he puts his Common law wife in place?
Whom serves whom as the divine right of the King was lost in Civil War and thus the King is the servant of the people!
Speaking as “God Emperor of this part of the Galactic Quadrant” & temporary earth resident – I have sent an invitation to Mr Windsor to sear allegiance to me – sadly he had not so far replied. This is unfortunate, & won’t be forgotten or forgiven. Oh & Sharon says that she wants her kilt back that you (meaning Mr Windsor) borrowed “that time!!” (not sure what that means but I’m told Mr Windsor will know).
🙂
Interesting how his mother on her 21’s promised to serve, now we are being asked to promise to serve.
https://youtu.be/7Do9dMUiaM8
Says it all really, courtesy of Monty Python
I’d do it if my job depended on it.
Ideally I’d swear along these lines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFQPmjTR8o
I agree with all your comments Richard. Thankfully I am out of the country on coronation day. There is a lot of utter royal drivel in the news particularly on the BBC. It is clear that support for the Monarchy is declining. I recently joined Republic !
I am out of the country too, but French radio is obsessed by this coronation.
Perhaps therein lies much of the appeal – it must be a gift for material-starved media with space to fill. Perhaps too therein lies much of the justification for doing it at all, it helps preserve the monarchy by making it useful to this very influential sector.
I saw The Mail headline this morning — and I wanted to know what these oaths were. In searching I came across statements by Tony Benn (which I cannot re-find quickly to provide links), and comments on Charles’ oath just after QEI/II died (she was the first QE of Scotland, after all! — if it’s good for James I/VI …..). Anyway:
Benn noted that there were key oaths in the UK:
– The monarch swears an oath to be the monarch (essentially). To be in charge and obey the laws. (Though we know that he’s been setting them).
– Parliamentarians swear an oath to the Monarch (not the state, or parliamentary democracy)
Benn’s concern was that at no point does anyone commit to uphold or support a democracy or the improvement of the conditions of the people of these islands….
(The quote wasn’t exactly as above, but that was the gist of it).
It was also interesting that the oaths required by different people (e.g. N.Ireland elected representatives) are different. And that Charles included a caveat (I’m only doing this because it’s the law) when committing to support the Church of Scotland and Protestantism (this is part of the deal in the Act of Union). I don’t care much about the commitment to supporting any branch of any religion — but it is good to note that the oath-taking seems pretty optional / arbitrary. So that’s fine then!
“I, Charles III by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’ and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdoms for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.”
The reference to the Claim of Right Act in 1689 provides a better timeline to understanding the actual historical/political context of the Oath than the later 1707 Treaty/Acts which may be considered a reaffirmation of William & Mary’s critical undertakings in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in the new British Parliamentary State.
The whole concept is silly in this day and age but also how could you support someone who married a young girl just to get heirs and then discarded her?
I have voted in a number of polls on this topic, and no (my vote) has never had less than 90% of the vote. I intend to absolutely avoid TV screens or radios on May 6th, and intend to be out on a long walk with my camera for company during the height of the pomp and ceremony.
I will be out too
Swear allegiance? Never. I want no part in this farce.
Vive la république
On May 6th, I will be at a march in Glasgow to free Scotland, England’s last colony, from this farce of a union.
Professor Alf Baird in his book, Doun-Hauden, has explained that colonialism involves 3 key elements, all of which apply to Scotland.
1. Full or partial political control over a nation – the English control 82% of parliament and Scottish MPs are outnumbered 10 to 1, a ratio that will worsen when Scotland loses 2 MPs and England gains 10.
2. Settler occupation – over the past 50 years, 2 million English have moved to Scotland and many Scots have left. In 1707, Scotland had 1.1 million people, 20% of the population of England and Wales. Today, Scotland has just 8.1% of the UK population, of which over a quarter were born in England and Wales. This is one of the largest single non-war depopulations in Europe for a country of Scotland’s size and was a direct consequence of Scotland being in the union.
3. Economic exploitation. The union has resulted in Scotland being under-developed and poorer than it should be. Scotland’s economy lags far behind its prosperous Nordic neighbours, and over a fifth of Scots live in poverty. Most of Scotland’s assets have been sold to profiteering foreign entities with the Scottish people receiving very little. None of the major economic sectors are Scottish owned. After our oil was stolen, the second great energy rip-off of our renewables is now underway. At the same time, we’re told we can’t survive without England’s largesse and we have the ridiculous GERS concocted by Westminster that reinforces this.
British unionism is a trans-nationalist political ideology which has been forced onto Scotland to provide a veneer of legality to its effective colonisation. All such ideologies depend on coercion by the imperial power to control the colony. So, it’s no surprise that the 1707 Treaty of Union, a treaty England never intended to honour, has been repeatedly violated. Even before the ink was dry, English troops poured into Scotland to crack down on any dissent.
It’s not widely known that the Treaty was signed under coercion – the English fleet was in the Firth of Forth and English troops were on the border threatening invasion if the Treaty wasn’t signed.
And there was bribery. This is from an 1887 book by James Grant, Old and New Edinburgh, Its History, its People and its Places: “During some financial investigations which were in progress in 1711 Lockhart discovered and made public that the sum of £20,540 17s 7d had been secretly distributed by Lord Godolphin, the Treasurer of England, among the baser members of the Scottish Parliament, for the purpose of inducing them to vote for the extinction of their country. In his ‘Memoirs of Scotland from the Accession of Queen Anne,” he gives us the following list of the receivers, with the actual sum which was paid to each, and this list was confirmed on oath by David Earl of Glasgow, the Treasurer Deputy of Scotland.
To the Earl of Marchmont – £1,104 15s 7d
Earl of Cromarty – £300
Lord Prestonahll – £200
Lord Ormiston, Lord Justice Clerk – £200
Duke of Montrose – £200
Duke of Athole – £1,000
Earl of Balcarris – £300
Earl of Dunmore £200
Lord Anstruther £300
Stewart of Castle Stewart £300
Earl of Eglinton £200
Lord Fraser £100
Lord Polworth £50
Mr John Campbell £200
Earl of Forfar £100
Sir Kenneth Mackenzie £100
Earl of Glencairn £100
Earl of Kintore £200
Earl of Findlater £100
John Muir, Provost of Ayr – £100
Lord Forbes £50
Earl of Seafield (afterwards Findlater) £400
Marquis of Tweeddale £1,000
Duke of Roxburgh £300
Lord Elibank £50
Lord Banff £11
Major Cunninghame of Eckatt £100
Sir William Sharp £300
Bearer of the Treaty of Union £60
Coulrain, Provost of Wigton £25
Mr. Alexander Welderburn £75
High Commissioner Queensberry £12,325
“Under terror of the Edinburgh mobs, who nearly tore the chancellor and others limb from limb in the streets, one half of the signatures were appended to the treaty in a cellar of a house, No 177, High Street, opposite the Tron Church, named “the Union Cellar,” the rest were appended in an arbour which then adorned the Garden of Moray House in the Canongate; and the moment this was accomplished, Queensberry and the conspirators fled to England before daybreak, with the duplicate of the treaty.”
More recent Treaty violations include: Westminster ignoring both Scotland’s vote to remain in the EU and successive SNP mandates for a second independence vote. The Windsor Agreement, giving NI access to both the UK and EU markets, breached Article 6 of the Treaty that says trade regulations between all parts of the UK must be the same. In November 2022, the English Supreme Court, in claiming Scotland was voluntarily annexed in 1707, breached an international treaty and committed fraud in international law. The domestic court of the fraudster nation can’t legitimise an international fraud.
The key to the fraud is the difference between the Scottish and English Crowns. This is not an esoteric concern. That’s because the Crown is not just a monarch, it’s a constitutional institution separate from the monarch who may wear a crown at any given time. It encompasses territorial, judicial, political and economic authority – sovereignty – as well as ownership of the land and its resources.
Since 1066, the Crown of England was the monarch, who owned all the land and exercised political and legal sovereignty over England and its people. English Crown equals monarch. The kingdom of England, the land and assets held by the English Crown, was and still is ‘a feudal entity’, because it’s the property of its king or queen. Political and economic sovereignty were transferred to the English Parliament by the English Convention of 1689. But ownership and control of the territory and its assets remain the property of the monarch, managed by the English government through its various offices and departments.
Now the Scottish Crown is radically different. Since 840, the Crown of Scotland has represented the people of the nation rather than any individual. Scottish Crown equals Community of the Realm. Kings or queens didn’t rule by feudal entitlement or divine right but by the consent of the people. It’s why we had Kings and Queens of Scots, not Scotland. The people could withdraw their consent from a King and parliament that didn’t govern in their interest. The identity of the Scottish Crown wasn’t affected by the 1603 Union of Crowns nor did it disappear at the 1707 Treaty of Union – despite the British Establishment telling us it did. Although Scotland ceased to be an independent state, it continued as a sovereign territorial nation.
A Kingdom requires a Crown – that was the whole point of the Treaty – a new UK out of 2 previously separate kingdoms. If the new kingdom is a simple continuation of the Crown and institutions of England, there is no new kingdom, which means there is no union. Because the two Crowns couldn’t be reconciled, England illegally imposed the English concept of the Crown onto Scotland to legitimise the theft of Scotland’s territorial assets. England coveted Scotland. The Treaty of Union didn’t have the authority to replace the Scottish Crown with the English. Scotland’s annexation by England was illegal under international law.
The biggest danger to the British State is the Scottish people awakening to the fact that sovereignty lies with them, not the British ruling class, a feudal royal family or corporate elites. If we take back the Scottish Crown, we take back our energy, land, ports, water, transport, health and education. We take back our civil rights, environmental protections, control over our foreign affairs and economic policy. We take back our future.
I have no problem with the aspiration of independence. Unfortunately much of the history offered here is based on egregious misunderstandings. There is no failure in international law; it didn’t exist then, and the proposition is false now. The bribery issue misunderstands both the history and the culture of the time. To understand the issue it is necessary to understand the ‘Equivalent’ in the Treaty of Union*, and the payments made, in part to redress the Darien disaster (William III had betrayed the Scottish Parliament’s attempt to establish a competitor to the East India Company); and in part to compensate Scotland for taking responsibility in the Union for its share of England’s National Debt (a further misunderstanding is that, as the Judge Lord Braxfield observed in Thomas Muir’s trial almost a century later, Scotland’s polity was effectively a ‘corporation’, owned by an elite).
In summary, you may well feel Scotland was ‘sold out’ by its elite; but the fact is that (just as in England) Scotland’s elite represented Scotland, de jure, de facto; and they were content to discard Scotland’s Parliament for access to the Empire denied them by Downing’s Navigation Acts (the real reason for the Union). The Treaty protected the Scots Church, and the ‘heritable jurisdictions’ that guaranteed the continuance of the elite’s power in Scotland free from interference from England, while scrapping the burden of responsibility for the burden of a Parliament they neither wanted, or believed they needed. The Scots cannot duck responsiblity for the Union; if it was a trap, they jumped in – and save around 1712, few among the elite regretted it (save the absolutist Jacobites); because Scotland, beyond the elite embraced Empire close.
* To understand the Equivalent, a vital development in the modern idea of ‘money’ in the British state, which was created by the founder of the BoE William Paterson, and the mathematician David Gregory; read Deringer, ‘Calculated Values’.
Too tribal for me. This is the one thing that really put me off especially when I read that a Lambeth Palace spokesperson said it is exciting because it is new. We did not have TV in 1953 but I did see the coronation in colour at the cinema. I may watch a bit of the start of the coronation ceremony for the music but otherwise too much icing on the cake.
In any case how can I swear allegiance to an individual I do not know? I am loyal to my friends and that is reciprocal. What do we get in return for this allegiance? I remember at the jubilee celebrations a year ago Charles said his mummy was always there for us when we needed her. That was not my experience. The real shock for me was the prorogation of Parliament in 2019. If the Monarch cannot protect us even at that level what’s the point? I did wonder if there was a hint to Her Majesty that stuff about her son Andrew might come out.
So, for me it is just theatre.