Well, she was crowned in Tanzania, does that count? But bear in mind that our monarchs weren't always even of the same nationality as our people; we British don't care too much about that sort of thing.
Moran Sergeant discharged for birtherism
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
Well, she was crowned in Tanzania, does that count? But bear in mind that our monarchs weren't always even of the same nationality as our people; we British don't care too much about that sort of thing.
nonconformist
Miserable
Well, Brit military and police (excepting Marines IIRC) all pledge loyalty specifically to Her Majesty, rather than the state or a constitution, whereas the US pledge vows to defend the "constitution" from all threats "foreign and domestic", so it is conceivable that the Presidency itself is the "domestic threat", is it not?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I suppose you don't let Jacobites into the service either.
Interesting dilemma there as to which side could claim to be the establishment and which side the 'rebels'. You can't really deny that Parliament's uprising was treason; the moral debate is whether it was the right course of action.
nonconformist
Miserable
The reason Charlie was given the chop was for treason; he had actually collaborated with foreign powers to invade Britain and "liberate" it from Puritanism and such, which was the major charge, much like Louis XVI was executed a hundred years later for colluding with foreign powers.
Let's just ignore when parliament invited the Dutch to liberate us from Catholicism though ,yeah?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, that was what the whole thing was about, wasn't it? Parliamentary sovereignty or monarchical sovereignty. And see as we currently run thing on an assumption of the former...
Well, that was what the whole thing was about, wasn't it? Parliamentary sovereignty or monarchical sovereignty. And see as we currently run thing on an assumption of the former...
...no we don't, quite the opposite. The Queen is the sovereign and has to approve everything that Parliament does, but tradition is that she rules in accordance with the wishes of the people - which normally means not obstructing anything that parliament does, although she does occasionally intervene on certain matters, for example in the last Strategic Defence Review she requested that the Household Cavalry regiments keep their seperate uniforms and identities, which was accepted.
nonconformist
Miserable
Well, that was what the whole thing was about, wasn't it? Parliamentary sovereignty or monarchical sovereignty. And see as we currently run thing on an assumption of the former...
It wasn't about sovereignty, but rather both the independence of parliament, as a religious struggle.
Compare the Brits, where the monarchy wasn't inherently illegitimate, jsut that particular king, and the French revolution, where the idea of a King itself was criminal.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Well, there's de jure sovereignty and de facto sovereignty, and the latter has rested quite firmly with parliament since 1688. The British are just incredibly good at maintaining their fancy-dress doublethink in these regards. (And even then, sovereignty is still formally attributed to the "Queen in Parliament", rather than the queen as such.)
At the beginning, yes, but by the time they were going snicker-snack on Cherlie's neck, they had developed a pretty firm position of parliamentary sovereignty, in which sovereignty was not solely held by the king but by a parliamentary tripartite of King, Lords and Commons, which is why they were able to bring him to trial in the first place. They didn't have to be republicans, or even advocates of parliamentary supremacy, to reach that conclusion. And given that we maintain that principle today, which was affirmed in 1688 as having applied retroactively (thus legitimising their pitching Jamie out on his arse) it seems that parliament could be seen as acting within the law and the king outside of it- unless there's some detail I'm missing?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I'm not a birther (I'd given that up awhile ago) but I still don't agree with FlyingPig, and its certainly not "Basic logic."
There is more to a country than its leader.
(Note: I'm not advocating treason against Obama or condoning this man's actions, just making a logical point.)
civver_764
Deity
Treason is a dumb concept anyways. Betraying your country isn't intrinsically bad.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Those two sentences only really string together if you think that "treason" is a moral rather than political reckoning. An anarchist should know better.
GhostWriter16
Deity
It does depend a lot on what your country was doing.
That said, one can betray his leaders without betraying his country IMO. People who resisted Hitler weren't treacherous against Germany, either the state or its ideals, but against a very specific system of leadership and its head, Adolf Hitler.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Hence "intrinsically".
I'm pretty sure that the "state and ideals" of the Third Reich were, well... Do I really need to finish that sentence?
Point being, as I said, "treason" is a political category, and is therefore treason against the state by definition. Treason against as imprecise and abstract a concept of "the nation" is not something which is ever brought to court in any meaningful fashion.
Yes, absolutely. But it's still treason to go against the leader on behalf of the country, however morally justified.
