www.news-alliance.com

500 years of subservience to an unelected Monarch, coming to an end as MPs want end to Royal Oath

• Campaign for Britain to become a Republic begins to gather pace as support for the Royal Family falls below fifty per cent of the population!

A group of rebel MPs have escalated their campaign to scrap their traditional oath of allegiance to the Monarch as support for the Royals falls below fifty per cent of the population for the first time.

The antiquated and undemocratic declaration has been sworn by those joining or returning to Parliament for more than 500 years but 22 MPs from all three main parties say their 'principal duty' should be to represent the people who voted for them - not the monarch!

They want the House of Commons and the Lords to be allowed to swear allegiance to their 'constituents and the nation' instead. The unofficial but growing campaign has triggered uproar among lackey royalist MPs - one of whom said the change would amount to 'constitutional vandalism'. But is it not 'constitutional vandalism' to continue with a system that allows the British people to elect only fifty per cent of their Parliament?

Unsurprisingly, the move is also likely to cause dismay at Buckingham Palace as support for the Royals, tainted by the Princess Diana saga and countless damning revelations, hits an all-time low. And with the unpopular Prince Charles planning to make his widely detested wife Camilla a future Queen, matters are getting worse for the ailing House of Windsor.

Former Tory party chairman Lord Tebbit said: 'This seems to me to be an attack upon the State itself. The monarch is the one embodiment-of the State which is outside the political, partisan process. The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels.' On the contrary, a British Parliament should swear allegiance to the British people they were elected by, not an unelected Monarch or the equally undemocratic Soviet European Union.

But few people realise that since the Middle Ages, all MPs and peers joining or returning to Parliament have been forced to swear allegiance to the monarch of the day. The wording has been much amended over the centuries, but currently reads: 'I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.' Judges also swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and their first loyalty is to the Crown not the people they have betrayed and inflicted injustice on for centuries to uphold the Crown.

Atheists are allowed to replace the religious element by saying that they 'solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm' their allegiance. All MPs and peers must take the oath in the Commons before they are able to take their seats and draw their salaries. Anyone who attempts to take part in Parliamentary proceedings without having sworn the oath risks a £500 fine for every 'offence' and can eventually be stripped of their seat. Is this tyranny what Royalists try to pass off as 'democracy'?

But in recent years, a number of Labour ministers and backbenchers have staged protests against the convention. The former Labour Sports Minister, the late Tony Banks, famously crossed his fingers as he read out the pledge of allegiance. Labour MP Dennis Skinner was heard adding the words 'and all who sail on her' under his breath after promising to be faithful to Elizabeth II.



John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, was said to have deliberately mumbled the words. Now a coalition of Labour and Lib-Dem MPs - and a single Conservative - have signed up to the campaign to reform the practice. They are demanding an alternative Parliamentary oath allowing MPs to 'swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation and to pledge to uphold the law, rather than one pledging personal allegiance to the serving monarch'.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who is spearheading the campaign, said: 'This is a matter of democracy. I'm put here by my constituents and it's to them I owe my allegiance. Taking the oath to anunelected person is a nonsense.' Mr Baker said that Justice Secretary Jack Straw had told him he needed to demonstrate backing from MPs before any reform would be considered.

He added: 'I'm pleased by the support this change is getting. It's a debate we need to have aboutmodernising our activities.' Former Tory Transport Minister Peter Bottomley said he supported any proposal to make the oath voluntarily. 'We need to make the oath something that people are offered, rather than required to take. We should make provision for republicans or separatists. I wouldn't drop the oath - I would make it optional. I am a subject of the Queen even more than I am a citizen of this country. I'd much prefer a bad monarchy to a good president.'

And Bottomley is right on the money with his reference to bad monarchy because an unelected Head of State is bad for Britain, its people and above all democratic representation! How on earth can Britain be considered a 'democracy' when only fifty per cent of its Parliament is elected by the people? And Bottomley added: 'But people ought to be able to come to Parliament and argue that they don't want the monarchy.'

So far, 22 MPs have formally backed the campaign, despite a convention that the monarch must not be criticised in the Commons which is another anti-democratic stricture designed to silence all opposition to the Monarchy and there is growing opposition....

Lady Boothroyd, the former Speaker of the Commons, has also backed calls for modernisation, claiming 'alot of members' object to the declaration in its current form. But Lord Tebbit yesterday launched a furious attack on the MPs behind the campaign. 'If something has worked satisfactorily for the past 500 years, as the oath of allegiance has, the fact that a silly group of people at the beginning of the 21st century think they know better seems to me to be a very dodgy proposition,' he said.

His biased statement reveals the intrinsic anti-democratic position of Royalists in that they vehemently oppose any right to criticise their beloved Monarchy on which they have fawned for too long. Royalist do not favour freedom of speech on the Monarchy and need to be reminded that they were completely defeated in open Civil War when the people of this country had tired of being told what to do and think by a Monarch who betrayed this country to foreign powers.

And has this Monarch not betrayed Britian and its people? Where was the Monarch's opposition to every undemocratic move closer to the Soviet European Union and the death of Britain as a nation state? The Monarch was and remains silent and there is no point in having a Monarch as Head of State if the role is that of mere window dressing for foreign tourists.

This Monarch, whose rule is considered a 'success', has presided over the collapse of the British Empire, the almost complete loss of Sovereignty to a 'Foreign Power' in Brussels and the colonisation of Britain by the world's humanity and done absolutely nothing to stop Britain from destroyed. Therefore, the Head of State we have has not acted in the national interest, only in preserving what is left of the House of Windsor a while longer and to hell with the people.

When Parliament recently passed the EU Reform Treaty without allowing the people a Referendum to determine who they would be ruled by, the Queen did not withdraw the Royal Assent from Parliament. Had she done so, Queen Elizabeth II would have been loved and adored by the vast majority of Britons and gone down in history as a figure of greatness.

But instead the nation got self-serving silence from the Queen who has proved that the 'Constitutional' Monarchy cannot save Britain from its enemies as previous Monarchs have done and that the position of the Monarch as Head of State should be reformed quickly.

Britain needs neither Monarch nor President as its elected Head of State but rather an elected Prime Minister who governs with the support of the people and when this support is gone, the Prime Minister is replaced. But when the support for the Monarchy is gone the Monarch remains in office, wanted or not. This is not democracy and Royalist MPs have more to worry about than a few MPs campaigning to end the Royal Oath fiasco.

The British, for the most part, have lost interest in their Monarch and could not care less whether the Monarchy stays or goes. And it must be added that a good forty per cent of Britons have also lost interest in their Parliament and who governs them and do not bother to vote. If one day they wake up to find themselves 'governed' by a host of crackpot Marxists and Communists in Brussels, will they notice?

But one thing that no longer goes unnoticed is the growing campaign for Britain to become a Republic with an elected Head of State and one must not mistake Royalism for patriotism and nationalism. On the contrary, the majority of Royalists are happily selling Britain down the river to the Communist European Union, which is completely anti-Royalist. Where is their opposition to this treachery? But then, by definition, one cannot oppose what one supports, albeit silently in most cases including the Monarch.

The message is clear: The Monarchy has failed Britain and the nation cannot survive the EU onslaught with an unelected Monarch as Head of State. And nationalists must not think for one moment that their patriotism is best served by supporting a Monarchy that has betrayed every ounce of nationalist instinct and policy.

The House of Windsor is completey in favour of mass immigration and colonisation by the Soviet European Union has not lifted a finger to defend British interests and it is time now for more capable hands to wrest Britain from its coming destruction and those hands must be elected by hands and brains equally capable of saving Britain from destruction and knowing how to stop the rot. It is time for democracy to rule in Britain.

Leave a comment