It still is: Oath of Allegiance (Canada) - Wikipedia
All Forces members take the Oath. I still remember taking it. It seemed strange to me, but it was the rule.
I think it was the indiscretion. Obviously, anyone in Charles’s position would have to think about what he might want to do as king. I’m sure even the queen herself has discussed the issue with him. However, it’s just not nice for that kind of talk to be aired before the public, because no matter how logical or sensible, it always implies the thought “Here’s what I want to do when my sovereign and my mother kicks off.” It wasn’t nice of Charles’s chums to flap their gums about the topic.
I solemnly affirmed rather than swore to obey the Queen and such when I joined the reserves in 1989, and I’ll honour that affirmation as long as she (or a subsequent heir) holds the position as sovereign of Canada and I remain in the Reserve. In fact I led toasts to the Queen and Princess Anne (the ceremonial Colonel-in-Chief of the Communications and Electronics Branch, of which I am a member) not three hours ago at my unit’s Christmas dinner.
And if Canada severs official and ceremonial ties with the monarchy while I’m in the reserve (as I’d like to see, if not during my career than in my lifetime), I figure I’ll take another solemn affirmation to uphold the Charter, or something similar, which I’ll treat just as seriously.
I absolutely will not discuss this with other member of my unit or during my official duties as it might (not implausibly) be considered an act of sedition, but I see no reason to hesitate when off duty and/or when expressing my views to this board or my member of parliament.
Let’s see:
1708 - the last time the monarch refused Royal Assent to a bill passed by Parliament;
1911 - House of Lords loses its veto power; House of Commons clearly supreme;
1928 - universal adult suffrage in the United Kingdom
The reasons that the United Kingdom does not have a Bill of Rights are complex, but the reduction of the role of the monarch and the Lords over the past three centuries is clear. Blaming the lack of a Bill of Rights on the monarchy just doesn’t bear weight, in my opinion. The U.K. is a democratic, constitutional monarchy. Those elected over the past century have not had the political will or inclination to enact a Bill of Rights, and the voters seem to accept that approach.
Given the British constitution, it is very hard to establish a Bill of Rights. The sovereignty of Parliament derives from the sovereignty of the monarch. Hailsham’s Elective Dictatorship is a good read on this.
It’s possible to do and keep the monarchy, but probably easier if there is a clean break. Such as that provided by Madame La Guillotine.
Hm … I was watching Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday on C-SPAN, and it seemed to me that Cameron was endorsing the concept of a bill of rights.
But how entrenched is it? Given Parliamentary sovereignty, no Parliament can bind its successors, so what is preventing any future legislation simply including a line “Provisions of the Bill of Rights notwithstanding…”?
But the concept of Elective Dictatorship is that the PM and Cabinet are in complete control, due to their control of the Commons, and that control is not subject to checks by the monarch or the Lords. If you accept that premise, then the lack of a Bill of Rights should be laid squarely at the feet of the elected PM & Cabinet, not attributed to the monarch, who simply doesn’t have the power to block a bill.
And I certainly agree, the fact that the UK does not have an entrenched Constitution makes it more difficult to create an entrenched Bill of Rights, but again, I don’t see that that’s the fault or responsibility of the monarchy. If a government truly wanted to break with that constitutional tradition and propose an entrenched Constitution, it could always put it up to the Commons and the voters to do so.
Good point, but I’ve been responding to villa, whom I’ve understood to be using the term in the sense of an entrenched Bill, granting individual rights: Bill of Rights II, as it were. Bill of Rights I was a milestone towards democracy in Britain, by establishing that the Parliament could choose the monarch, but it does not speak very much at all about the rights of individuals as against the government.
Agreed, though I did find it rather satisfying
to see Urqhart get his at last.
But his methods were not repudiated.
Villa, one can make principled argumentsfor republicanism, and you’ve made many of them. But you keep harping on the ignorance of Queen Elizabeth II, and this just isn’t a view that fits the facts. She holds no formal degree, I’ll grant you - but she’s hand ringside seats to global statecraft ever since she attained the age of reason, let alone the throne. There may be someone more knowledgable than her in some specific issue areas - in fact, I’m certain there are many “someones”. But the Queen is far more than sufficiently knowledgable to be a valuable advisor.
And as for her being a twit - frankly, some on. I can’t recall ever reading of the Queen acting as anything less than a thoughtful, tolerant, public-minded woman. As Elizabeth Windsor, she’s clearly an extraordinary sort, and I would count it a privilege to meet the woman even if I opposed constitutional monarchy.
Absolutely not. The complete power that underlies the British government is a product of a monarchical system. The Prime Minister is an elected dictator, exercising the power of the monarchy. It’s better it is wielded by an elected figure, but it is still absolute power.
We have a Bill of Rights, as shown above. But it is not an effective one because it can be overruled by Parliament, and no Parliament, under the current system where ultimate authority lies in the hands of the monarchy (even if the monarchy chooses to allow someone else to exercise it in their name), can prevent a future Parliament overturning the Bill of Rights, or indeed simply excluding a single piece of legislation from its coverage.
How Europe interacts with this is interesting, and I am certainly no expert on that. But if a Parliament proposes an entrenched Bill of Rights it can simply be undone/ignored in the future for as long as there is sovereignty flowing from the Monarchy.
I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the Windsor’s have any degree of understanding of the problems faced by regular inhabitants of “their realm.” And whatever Lizzie is like in person, I find it hardly likely that an ex-PM would come out saying “I hated having to talk to her. She’s a right, dozy, stuck up bitch without a clue about life.”
Come on. There hasn’t been a whisper, even in 10 Downing Street leaks to the press or in former PMs’ long-out-of-office memoirs, that the Queen has ever been anything other than a smart, experienced, helpful person to the Prime Minister of the day. This was true even with Thatcher (who was rumored to have been too divisive for the Queen’s liking) and in the uproar right after Princess Diana’s death. I’ve read a lot about the British monarchy and various PMs’ dealings with it, and invariably the PMs have been and are (sincerely, I believe) appreciative of the Queen as a nonpartisan, discreet advisor who’s seen it all before and has useful insights to share.
Let’s say you are right. That Lizzie Windsor is a sage source of advice for the elected officials. (Though I will say beign a sage source of advice in the uproar after the skinny clothes horse’s death doesn’t strike me as much of a benefit - were there no royal family, there’d be no uproar).
But let’s agree she is this valuable source. It still doesn’t strike me as a good argument for a Monarchy. That we should forget democratic principles because this particular hereditary ruler, despite being uneducated, has bucked all trends and shown herself to be somewhat useful. You’d think after all the years of luxury she has received, were it all to be removed and she was relocated into a counsel flat in Tower Hamlets, she’d carry on providing the sage advice out of some sense of duty to the country. And then, when she was no more, maybe our elected officials could continue to get sage advice from other crazy sources, like experts on the area in question.
Point of clarification - Parliament isn’t just the two chambers, it’s the commons, lords and the crown together, so talking of Parliament vs the crown is actually a misnomer.
Cite that she’s uneducated, please!