Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49

Thread: Re Duty to the Queen

  1. #1
    Senior Member CambridgeSkip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    2,137
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 869 Times in 369 Posts

    Re Duty to the Queen

    As it stands it is possible to be leader of the opposition and possibly prime minister and be a republican, but not a scout leader.
    I am a republican scout leader so I beg to differ.

    First as a point of fact there is no rule at all to prevent a republican being a leader.

    In terms of the promise..... I don't like our constitution. I would like it to change. I would like an elected head of state.

    However I would also argue that for a republican that promising duty to the queen is in no way hypocritical.

    Our constitution is complex and is unwritten. However under our constitution any oath of allegiance to the monarch is not a personal one. The monarch is a figure head who represents the country. When the monarch appoints the Prime Minister they effectively do so on behalf of the population. Similarly when the new Prime Minister kisses the monarch's had it is a symbolic act showing their allegiance and service to the population. It is the same when I promise to do my duty to the queen. It is not that I feel I have any particular duty to Elizabeth Windsor, it is to serve the monarch as a representative of the population and thus the population.

    My tuppence worth.

    *puts on helmet and locks himself away in a nuclear bunker*

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to CambridgeSkip For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (16-02-2016),BeardySi (16-02-2016),London Scouter (16-02-2016),MikeJ (15-02-2016),Neil Williams (16-02-2016),nevynxxx (16-02-2016),PeterSheppard (15-02-2016),richardnhunt (16-02-2016),roger-uk (15-02-2016),shiftypete (16-02-2016)

  3. #2
    Senior Member roger-uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    1,530
    Thanked 890 Times in 549 Posts
    Agree 100% - we live in a Monarchy until that changes then the promise should remain
    Roger Woods
    Assistant Group Scout Leader,
    1st Sawley (All Saints) , Long Eaton

    NSRA Air Rifle instructor
    GNAS Archery Instructor
    County Archery Assessor
    Radio Amateur (G8XAN)

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to roger-uk For This Useful Post:

    PaulArthurs (16-02-2016),PeterSheppard (15-02-2016)

  5. #3
    No mountain too high PeterSheppard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales (but Scouting elsewhere!)
    Posts
    4,228
    Thanks
    136
    Thanked 283 Times in 193 Posts
    Plus, unless anything's changed without us being told, she's our Patron.
    Assistant Area Commissioner (Activities) - Gwent

    "Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap... but by the seeds you plant"

  6. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,420
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 699 Times in 407 Posts
    not that it adds anything to this debate but the Australians have an option to miss out the Queen but not God!
    Does anyone know what's going on?

  7. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 1,066 Times in 632 Posts
    Unless I am mistaken it is not possible for any MP to be an MP without pledging allegiance to the Queen so even a republican MP has used a form of words resembling the promise.

    Technically everyone should be pledging allegiance to 'The Queen's Parliament' as that is the supreme body not the Monarch.

    But its all a bit messy due to the British Civil War been fought against the divine right of monarchs rather than for an alternative constitution leading to the reintroduction of a monarchy and an understanding rather than a constitution.

    Anyway at the time of the last change, I flagged up we were leaving ourselves open to a republican group stage managing an incident like the secularist group did, publicising their cause whilst making us look inflexible establishment types. Poor 10 year old smithy wants to join scouts but is a republican and won't make the promise so can't, boo hiss mean old scout leaders.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Tony Ransley For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (16-02-2016)

  9. #6
    a quiver full of barbs merryweather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    'auchtermuchty'
    Posts
    7,660
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 1,750 Times in 1,054 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Ransley View Post
    Anyway at the time of the last change, I flagged up we were leaving ourselves open to a republican group stage managing an incident like the secularist group did, publicising their cause whilst making us look inflexible establishment types. Poor 10 year old smithy wants to join scouts but is a republican and won't make the promise so can't, boo hiss mean old scout leaders.
    i agree, we are wide open to militaristic anarchists joining alongside anti-CCF argumentative types!

    whatever next?

    verbose crazed knitters from the mother's union?

    i'm a minority. i like telling everyone that i am being disadvantaged. we should clone more of me. problem solved?




    TM
    going...going...still here...just

  10. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 1,066 Times in 632 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by merryweather View Post
    i agree, we are wide open to militaristic anarchists joining alongside anti-CCF argumentative types!
    That's my scout group your talking about.

  11. #8
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,260
    Thanks
    917
    Thanked 633 Times in 422 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CambridgeSkip View Post
    I am a republican scout leader so I beg to differ.

    First as a point of fact there is no rule at all to prevent a republican being a leader.

    In terms of the promise..... I don't like our constitution. I would like it to change. I would like an elected head of state.

    However I would also argue that for a republican that promising duty to the queen is in no way hypocritical.

    Our constitution is complex and is unwritten. However under our constitution any oath of allegiance to the monarch is not a personal one. The monarch is a figure head who represents the country. When the monarch appoints the Prime Minister they effectively do so on behalf of the population. Similarly when the new Prime Minister kisses the monarch's had it is a symbolic act showing their allegiance and service to the population. It is the same when I promise to do my duty to the queen. It is not that I feel I have any particular duty to Elizabeth Windsor, it is to serve the monarch as a representative of the population and thus the population.

    My tuppence worth.

    *puts on helmet and locks himself away in a nuclear bunker*

    Other than the idea of having a waste-of-space-and-money elected head of state, I agree entirely.
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  12. #9
    GSL & AESL shiftypete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    12,431
    Thanks
    3,596
    Thanked 1,202 Times in 797 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CambridgeSkip View Post
    I am a republican scout leader so I beg to differ.

    First as a point of fact there is no rule at all to prevent a republican being a leader.

    In terms of the promise..... I don't like our constitution. I would like it to change. I would like an elected head of state.

    However I would also argue that for a republican that promising duty to the queen is in no way hypocritical.

    Our constitution is complex and is unwritten. However under our constitution any oath of allegiance to the monarch is not a personal one. The monarch is a figure head who represents the country. When the monarch appoints the Prime Minister they effectively do so on behalf of the population. Similarly when the new Prime Minister kisses the monarch's had it is a symbolic act showing their allegiance and service to the population. It is the same when I promise to do my duty to the queen. It is not that I feel I have any particular duty to Elizabeth Windsor, it is to serve the monarch as a representative of the population and thus the population.

    My tuppence worth.

    *puts on helmet and locks himself away in a nuclear bunker*
    As a vaguely republican Leader that is pretty much my view as well

    Peter Andrews ESL of Headingley Pirates ESU, Group Scout Leader & Webmaster of Falkoner Scout Group
    www.falkonerscouts.org.uk

    Previous Scouting Roles
    2003 - 2013 ABSL
    2017-2018 AGSL

    Wike, North Leeds District Campsite - www.wikecampsite.org.uk
    www.leeds-solar.co.uk
    Please note all views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation I'm associated with

  13. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,006
    Thanks
    2,675
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ASLChris View Post
    Other than the idea of having a waste-of-space-and-money elected head of state, I agree entirely.
    Duty to the Queen is symbolic of duty to your country. As a not overly religious (agnostic is the best description) and not-overly-fussed[1]-about-the-monarchy Leader, I always saw:-

    Duty to God = moral duty to the greater good
    Duty to the Queen = a more practical duty to uphold the law and respect the UK and the people in it

    For that reason I have never switched to the non-religious alternative even though it is now available to me. I wouldn't switch away from duty to the Queen either.

    [1] I am no fan of Presidential democracy at all; it puts too much power in one person's hands in my view. So I would be actively against a move to a US-style head of state, but (if indeed we have to have one at all) as long as they are purely ceremonial[2] I don't overly care who it is, and recognise the benefits to "UK plc" of the Queen. I expect, if you take into account related tourist revenues, the Queen probably makes a profit and it's a nice bit of tradition.

    [2] Could be the Speaker, or you could even have the Prime Minister be nominally it. You can after all write a Constitution to say whatever you like, it's just a law in the end.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Neil Williams For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (16-02-2016)

  15. #11
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,260
    Thanks
    917
    Thanked 633 Times in 422 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Williams View Post
    Duty to the Queen is symbolic of duty to your country. As a not overly religious (agnostic is the best description) and not-overly-fussed[1]-about-the-monarchy Leader, I always saw:-

    Duty to God = moral duty to the greater good
    Duty to the Queen = a more practical duty to uphold the law and respect the UK and the people in it

    For that reason I have never switched to the non-religious alternative even though it is now available to me. I wouldn't switch away from duty to the Queen either.

    [1] I am no fan of Presidential democracy at all; it puts too much power in one person's hands in my view. So I would be actively against a move to a US-style head of state, but (if indeed we have to have one at all) as long as they are purely ceremonial[2] I don't overly care who it is, and recognise the benefits to "UK plc" of the Queen. I expect, if you take into account related tourist revenues, the Queen probably makes a profit and it's a nice bit of tradition.

    [2] Could be the Speaker, or you could even have the Prime Minister be nominally it. You can after all write a Constitution to say whatever you like, it's just a law in the end.
    To incorporate an alternative Head of State, it either entails:

    1. A complete redesign of our entire political system to a Presidential system
    2. A pointless ceremonial figurehead being elected at vast expense
    3. A pointless ceremonial figurehead being appointed by parliament at a lesser unnecessary expense
    4. Shoehorning the Head of State title onto an existing role such as PM (Commons Speaker wouldn't be appropriate considering their role)
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  16. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,279
    Thanks
    1,524
    Thanked 1,181 Times in 857 Posts
    I wouldn't be any more keen if it was an elected head as opposed to the current Monarch.

    This is too gnarly and will always be a compromise. I think, I'd prefer the Queen (or who ever came next) over an elected head of state because you have to know that it would become another overly politicised pantomime. What I'd like to get rid off, is all the simpering that goes and especially the grovelling patronage that is a trade mark of that part of the British Establishment - its incredibly old fashioned and the main reason I pay only lip service to that line in the promise.

    Generally, in terms of how much attention the Royal Family receives, it should be reduced to ~0.1% of what it currently is. I think everyone would be happier, including them.

  17. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 1,066 Times in 632 Posts
    '' On my honour, I promise to do my duty to ***** and the Queen's Parliament''

    That should do it.

  18. #14
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,260
    Thanks
    917
    Thanked 633 Times in 422 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Ransley View Post
    '' On my honour, I promise to do my duty to ***** and the Queen's Parliament''

    That should do it.
    Absolutely not. I do not owe anything to Parliament; I owe a duty to the country, represented by the Queen as Head of State.
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  19. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    10,006
    Thanks
    2,675
    Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,267 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    This is too gnarly and will always be a compromise. I think, I'd prefer the Queen (or who ever came next) over an elected head of state because you have to know that it would become another overly politicised pantomime. What I'd like to get rid off, is all the simpering that goes and especially the grovelling patronage that is a trade mark of that part of the British Establishment - its incredibly old fashioned and the main reason I pay only lip service to that line in the promise.
    What to some is "old fashioned" is to others a charming bit of history. I don't personally feel that promising to do my duty to the Queen is deference, it's what the Queen symbolises.

    OTOH, I would be happy with "duty to my God and my country". Indeed, I used to use "my God" for Network years ago even though it's not an official variant, it just makes it more personal.

Similar Threads

  1. [Answered] Duty to queen
    By tyke in forum UK Chief Commissioner Questions (CLOSED)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16-02-2016, 02:21 PM
  2. Duty to the Queen or
    By Tony Ransley in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 09-11-2015, 05:11 PM
  3. Duty to the Queen
    By ianw in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 23-03-2015, 01:12 PM
  4. Duty to God in the promise
    By meboo in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 15-01-2011, 08:58 PM
  5. Duty
    By gregharewood in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-11-2009, 04:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •