Is not that I feel differently or the same, I was just asking how you feel that she has broken her oath and what does her oath have to do with her making a stand against religions other than the one she has vowed to maintain. I was genuinely interested in your answer.

The question about The rule of secularism can be for another time, as I know that would be a debate in itself.

I haven't seen you answer on this thread. Sorry if I have missed something.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Cool..

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

I think this is the problem when people half understand.

1 The religion bit is historical and concerns differing sects within Christianity (Mogg), however archaic, and nothing to do with Muslims.

2 The sovereignty peice is more about Empire later the wider Commonwealth than Maasrticht and Europe.

I supose this the ability to look back in hindsight and revise history and get it startingly wrong bit like Afua Hirsch.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Firstly, sorry for the delay, family matters and all that.

Yes she did, with the emphasis placed firstly on the British state as that is her primary role.

Your focus upon this aspect has nothing to do with my point concerning it. My reading of that section attributed entirely to her signing away powers to the EU. None of those commonwealth countries are apart of the EU and are largely unaffected by the Royal assent in this case…...outside of the fact that the increased trade with the EU probably affected their trade with the UK negatively.

As I say, the oath state, 'Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England'. Not will you be even handed of other religions as we have seen Charles be down the years for example.

She hasn’t done anything I have observed to maintain the church nor clergy. All she has done is carry out her assigned duties like a good little monarch. A poodle for the state.

Now this is quite high criticism from me, who has always been a monarchist, and still is…..if only to the extent that the suggested alternatives seem to come with larger apparent pitfalls.

However, the powers that the monarch has, in a practical sense has is threefold, firstly the power not to sign into assent bills. That said, this hasn’t been done since 1707 and hence it’s a ritual formality that’s not really on the table. So that’s a strike.

The second is in her meetings with Prime Ministers who have to consult with her weekly. This might be the scene for many a demonstration of her views however, personally I doubt it. From my observation I think she only really has concern for maintaining the Monarchy.

The third and real power the monarchy has to speak out is via the press using its royal servants and it has been doing this for decades. However, this is behind my criticism here as all that appears in the press is the pushing of good publicity for the monarchy itself…Nothing official but very apparent. It’s obsessed, as I stated in my original post with ensuring its own popularity and position…..and absolutely nothing to do with maintaining any of those vows.

The Queen could have used those channels decades ago when it mattered in accordance with those actual constitutional oaths. It’s all too far gone now. The battles are lost and different ones are ahead.

As I stated I'm not religious and personally her failing on even attempting to promote her religion matters little to me.

But as a commentary on her effectiveness of her leadership as a monarch who is expected to hold to her vows (outside of a disavow) it stands. I have my views, which have evolved and now come with this criticism.

The maintenance of freedoms pertaining to a democratic state. That was a statement concerning my own concerns about this country, as related to the reality that parallel district courts operate here and laws almost amounting to blasphemy have been introduced here.

These are just some societal developments that go against her oaths and matters that she could have used the press to 'unofficially' campaign against if those original constitutional oaths were important.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 May 2018 8.05am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Who would you have instead?

I'm voting for Denise Van Outen......Personable and still worthy of an hour.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)