Gotta undo the oath.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

The Irish girls on my football team went to get their NZ citizenship and were gobsmacked that it required swearing an oath to QE2. A lot of talk about "my great-granddad was in the Post Office in 1916 so I wouldn't have to do that!!!", etc.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Jan 11, 2013 2:13:37 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Jan 11, 2013 0:24:43 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

As the precedence of the Laws stand at this moment -

Renouncing your Oath is also renouncing your Citizenship. Your Oath is a step in your becoming a Citizen of the Kingdom. Renouncing that step means you didn't ( or don't want to ) take that next step.

If you want to change that , the get an Act passed that addresses that.

I think you need to re-swear the oath with Miestrâ's wording.

And then you politicians get to work to abolish the oath. Why do we have to swear an oath become citizens?

Much-agreed. Ben himself as narcissistic as he could be never required an oath from anyone, and neither should we.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Technically, Ben required the Seneschál to swear an oath and I think we still do that.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

Letting officers of the state swear an oath is quite a different issue.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Jan 13, 2013 14:03:03 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Technically, Ben required the Seneschál to swear an oath and I think we still do that.

Yes, but that was for office-holding. I was talking only citizenship.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jan 13, 2013 21:58:28 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

Jan 13, 2013 14:03:03 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Technically, Ben required the Seneschál to swear an oath and I think we still do that.

Yes, but that was for office-holding. I was talking only citizenship.

I personally think that some sort of Oath/ Pledge that affirms that the immigrant wants to be a Citizen should be required. A statement more than "Hey, let me in".

Formal, Pomp and Circumstance, and where they stand up and affirm that they want to join us.

I also think that while a Oath that confirms the agreement that this is a Kingdom, and is led by a King would be the preferred method - I can also see where pledging fealty to a Monarch might be a problem ( As in , I'm also a citizen of the USA, and can trace my roots to the current Republic of Ireland AND Northern Ireland) - we might think about making a second Oath to Talossa.

But I still think we need a push and reply for immigrants to tell the SoS that "Yes, I really want to be a Citizen".

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jan 13, 2013 22:42:15 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Jan 13, 2013 21:58:28 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

Yes, but that was for office-holding. I was talking only citizenship.

I personally think that some sort of Oath/ Pledge that affirms that the immigrant wants to be a Citizen should be required. A statement more than "Hey, let me in".

Formal, Pomp and Circumstance, and where they stand up and affirm that they want to join us.

I also think that while a Oath that confirms the agreement that this is a Kingdom, and is led by a King would be the preferred method - I can also see where pledging fealty to a Monarch might be a problem ( As in , I'm also a citizen of the USA, and can trace my roots to the current Republic of Ireland AND Northern Ireland) - we might think about making a second Oath to Talossa.

But I still think we need a push and reply for immigrants to tell the SoS that "Yes, I really want to be a Citizen".

I would definitely back a choice of two oaths, one to the king and one to just the nation.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

Jan 13, 2013 22:42:15 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

I also think that while a Oath that confirms the agreement that this is a Kingdom, and is led by a King would be the preferred method - I can also see where pledging fealty to a Monarch might be a problem ( As in , I'm also a citizen of the USA, and can trace my roots to the current Republic of Ireland AND Northern Ireland) - we might think about making a second Oath to Talossa.

So, that would make the Republicans, what? The Jehovah's Witnesses of Talossa?

[Owen Edwards]

But if swearing fealty to the King is, as with the Canadian example, subject to the basic idea that you're swearing fealty to the country as expressed in its constitution (the OrgLaw understands the King's power/existence as stemming from the people's will), then it shouldn't be optional. You can't say you're opting out of loyalty to the executive, which constitutes one part of the constitution. Perhaps the oath needs changing, but the King is every citizen's commander-in-chief and the chosen executive of the people, as expressed in the Organic Law, which can always be amended if the people don't want a King. Just like if the people don't want two legislative chambers, the OrgLaw can be amended...

To respond to a point Tim made earlier about Flip's arms, btw...wearing the uniform of your armed forces post-service, whilst being a republican, in England, is not the same thing at all, I'd suggest, as bearing arms the King personally granted you, by the power invested in him as monarch, that are entirely his thing, operate entirely out of the Royal Household, etc, etc...Flip's arms have no constitutional status, they are not a right of his, they were given strictly at the King's pleasure. Rejecting the King seems to me to involve rejecting his personal effects too - the various fripperies of his monarchy, as enabled by the oath which recognized John ad Flip's king (John does not grant arms to non-citizens, after all). Flip continuing to bear his arms whilst having partially renounced his oath is an example of having held on to the proceeds of his side of the contract (the arms) whilst having failed in his side of the contract (to owe fealty to King John).

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 9:58:19 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

But if swearing fealty to the King is, as with the Canadian example, subject to the basic idea that you're swearing fealty to the country as expressed in its constitution (the OrgLaw understands the King's power/existence as stemming from the people's will), then it shouldn't be optional. You can't say you're opting out of loyalty to the executive, which constitutes one part of the constitution. Perhaps the oath needs changing, but the King is every citizen's commander-in-chief and the chosen executive of the people, as expressed in the Organic Law, which can always be amended if the people don't want a King. Just like if the people don't want two legislative chambers, the OrgLaw can be amended...

To respond to a point Tim made earlier about Flip's arms, btw...wearing the uniform of your armed forces post-service, whilst being a republican, in England, is not the same thing at all, I'd suggest, as bearing arms the King personally granted you, by the power invested in him as monarch, that are entirely his thing, operate entirely out of the Royal Household, etc, etc...Flip's arms have no constitutional status, they are not a right of his, they were given strictly at the King's pleasure. Rejecting the King seems to me to involve rejecting his personal effects too - the various fripperies of his monarchy, as enabled by the oath which recognized John ad Flip's king (John does not grant arms to non-citizens, after all). Flip continuing to bear his arms whilst having partially renounced his oath is an example of having held on to the proceeds of his side of the contract (the arms) whilst having failed in his side of the contract (to owe fealty to King John).

No one has a constitutional right to a silver star, but once it is given to you, you can keep it. Even if afterward you want to stand up and say "this government is whack and we never had any business being in the war where I earned this silver star."

But you are correct in your analysis as well. Most recently we saw a veteran Marine recruiter receive an OTH for posting on facebook that he wouldn't obey deployment orders from Obama since he isn't constitutionally eligible to be president. He got booted because, despite his assertion that he was obeying his oath to protect the country and obey the lawful orders of his superiors, the USMC didn't feel you can be a marine who just randomly decides which politicians are eligible or Ineligible to send you off to war.

But still, despite all of the reasoning to the contrary, I can understand the emotional reasons one might keep arms despite being anti-monarchy.

[Deleted]

Jan 13, 2013 3:20:01 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

The Irish girls on my football team went to get their NZ citizenship and were gobsmacked that it required swearing an oath to QE2. A lot of talk about "my great-granddad was in the Post Office in 1916 so I wouldn't have to do that!!!", etc.

My great great uncle never became a US citizen because, at the time dual citizenship was illegal, and to become a US Citizen, he would have been required to formally renounce his allegiance to Victor Emmanuel. He couldn't, so he refused. He died a permanent legal resident of the US.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Admiral Tim -

I feel the difference in your example is that one is awarded a Silver Star for action(s) done during service for the country - almost always during battle or wartime. The recipient has done something to get the Silver Star, and not every single service person is awarded a Star

The CoA is granted by the King to the Citizen. It's not an award. Every single citizen can ask for a CoA, and the College does the work, and the King grants the Arms.

If one rejects the King, do they also reject the CoA that the King has granted them?

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 11:17:27 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Admiral Tim -

I feel the difference in your example is that one is awarded a Silver Star for action(s) done during service for the country - almost always during battle or wartime. The recipient has done something to get the Silver Star, and not every single service person is awarded a Star

The CoA is granted by the King to the Citizen. It's not an award. Every single citizen can ask for a CoA, and the College does the work, and the King grants the Arms.

If one rejects the King, do they also reject the CoA that the King has granted them?

That is also a valid distinction.

I would have to refer to my earlier example about Eagle Scouts who turned in their badges in protest (earlier post).

In short, I would contend a person can reject an idea without fully casting off all of the proceeds from that idea. It isn't a logical thing. It isn't a legal thing. It's just a way people reconcile conflicting feelings about a subject, I believe.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jan 14, 2013 11:47:18 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

I would have to refer to my earlier example about Eagle Scouts who turned in their badges in protest (earlier post).

And those badges were awarded for completing tasks - the scouts achieved goals , and were recognized for that. They earned their badges.

What I feel Flip is doing is akin to getting a gift from someone, and then turning around and saying "I don't like you anymore, but I'm keeping the gift you gave me."


( smiles)

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

I think I speak for the majority of us who are uncomfortable with the monarchy when I say that we view the king when he grants whatever it is, as just a proxy for the nation itself.

In other words, to refuse arms, titles etc would be the same as to reject Talossa, and that is not what Flip et al want to do. To force that would be practically forcing us a huge step towards renouncing our citizenships.

I am convinced we can find a way to let republicans and royalists coexist in Talossa. Let's focus on that.