Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
'PRINCE' ANDREW AND THE COMMON TOUCH
Comments
-
I found this.
You swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and their successors.
http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/852/citizenship_ceremonies/607/citizenship_ceremonies1 -
lol .. it's the thought and the principle that counts .. are you merely subjected to the (theoretical admittedly) will of old queenie liz .. or are you a citizen of a progressive, democratic nation and 'subject' to no-one ? ..DaveMehmet said:
Yes, it made a massive difference to my life when I became a citizen as opposed to a subjectse9addick said:seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I don't think (most) British people are considered subjects anymore, either legally, technically or practically - pretty sure that all changed over the past couple of decades and we're citizens now rather than subjects, quite right too.Lincsaddick said:
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case ..seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous
0 -
Now queenie out of Blackadder on the other hand. It's a yes from meLincsaddick said:
lol .. it's the thought and the principle that counts .. are you merely subjected to the (theoretical admittedly) will of old queenie liz .. or are you a citizen of a progressive, democratic nation and 'subject' to no-one ? ..DaveMehmet said:
Yes, it made a massive difference to my life when I became a citizen as opposed to a subjectse9addick said:seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I don't think (most) British people are considered subjects anymore, either legally, technically or practically - pretty sure that all changed over the past couple of decades and we're citizens now rather than subjects, quite right too.Lincsaddick said:
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case ..seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous1 -
blackpool72 said:
Now nursie out of Blackadder on the other hand. It's a yes from meLincsaddick said:
lol .. it's the thought and the principle that counts .. are you merely subjected to the (theoretical admittedly) will of old queenie liz .. or are you a citizen of a progressive, democratic nation and 'subject' to no-one ? ..DaveMehmet said:
Yes, it made a massive difference to my life when I became a citizen as opposed to a subjectse9addick said:seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I don't think (most) British people are considered subjects anymore, either legally, technically or practically - pretty sure that all changed over the past couple of decades and we're citizens now rather than subjects, quite right too.Lincsaddick said:
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case ..seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous2 -
Depends how much I've had to drink: )DaveMehmet said:blackpool72 said:
Now nursie out of Blackadder on the other hand. It's a yes from meLincsaddick said:
lol .. it's the thought and the principle that counts .. are you merely subjected to the (theoretical admittedly) will of old queenie liz .. or are you a citizen of a progressive, democratic nation and 'subject' to no-one ? ..DaveMehmet said:
Yes, it made a massive difference to my life when I became a citizen as opposed to a subjectse9addick said:seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I don't think (most) British people are considered subjects anymore, either legally, technically or practically - pretty sure that all changed over the past couple of decades and we're citizens now rather than subjects, quite right too.Lincsaddick said:
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case ..seth plum said:I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous0 -
Did he ban football?lordromford said:
Not true. Parliament banned it in Cromwell's absence. However, he probably sympathised. Other leading figures at the time, such as Edward Whalley, did more to enforce the ban than Cromwell.smudge7946 said:Cromwell banned Christmas.
As Stuart Jennings, one of the academic advisors at the National Civil War Centre (Newark museum) says:
“The Parliamentary act abolishing Yuletide as 'popish superstitions' was passed in 1644, but Cromwell was away fighting at the time so definitely did not ban Christmas. But he must have sympathised with the clamp down as during his period as Lord Protector the legislation was enforced. In Newark Christmas was observed openly up to 1646 and probably was over much of the 1650s, but much more quietly and secretly. You had to be careful.”
The museum continues:
"Things got dicey in Newark in 1655 as Edward Whalley, the Major General for the Midlands, was based in the town. He was committed to the new regime, signed the death warrant of King Charles and was an efficient solider who keenly imposed the new rules on Christmas. Even eating mince pies was frowned upon. So good cheer had to be kept firmly under wraps in the 1650s and not until the restoration of King Charles II did the festive good times roll again.."1 -
Good question, difficult to answer with authority, but my understanding is that the Cromwell government tried to suppress it due to its 'unruly' nature. 'Banned' is probably too harsh. 'Frowned upon' is possibly more accurate.smudge7946 said:
Did he ban football?lordromford said:
Not true. Parliament banned it in Cromwell's absence. However, he probably sympathised. Other leading figures at the time, such as Edward Whalley, did more to enforce the ban than Cromwell.smudge7946 said:Cromwell banned Christmas.
As Stuart Jennings, one of the academic advisors at the National Civil War Centre (Newark museum) says:
“The Parliamentary act abolishing Yuletide as 'popish superstitions' was passed in 1644, but Cromwell was away fighting at the time so definitely did not ban Christmas. But he must have sympathised with the clamp down as during his period as Lord Protector the legislation was enforced. In Newark Christmas was observed openly up to 1646 and probably was over much of the 1650s, but much more quietly and secretly. You had to be careful.”
The museum continues:
"Things got dicey in Newark in 1655 as Edward Whalley, the Major General for the Midlands, was based in the town. He was committed to the new regime, signed the death warrant of King Charles and was an efficient solider who keenly imposed the new rules on Christmas. Even eating mince pies was frowned upon. So good cheer had to be kept firmly under wraps in the 1650s and not until the restoration of King Charles II did the festive good times roll again.."
There are some that suggest that it was only suppressed because in those days, people only played football on Sundays (as it was the only day off pretty much any normal person got) and of course doing anything other than praying on a Sunday meant a whipping or some other punishment that, presumably, God wanted to happen.
It was actually only legally banned by kings. The first was Edward II about 350 years earlier in the 1310s, and only in London. It would seem that the reason for the ban was because merchants complained that footballers were causing mayhem with property getting destroyed. (Who knew Millwall had such a long history?)
Edwards III and IV, Richard II and Henry IV all also put bans in place, but it is generally thought that these bans were to encourage young men to take up archery instead - a pursuit that had the advantage of being useful in the event of the country getting into a ruck with foreign types.
If there's one thing I think is brilliant about this country, it's the fascinating history we have!1 -
If Cromwell proved anything it is that people who seek power are usually worse than those it is thrust upon.2
-
I do pity the royal family. They have to sit through the royal variety performance every year. At least us common folk can switch that shower of c list sh1t off.2
-
I’ve got no reason for posting this other than it made me laugh
1
