Blackhole is historically correct. Our party political system goes back to the days of Charles II, when the Court Party consisted of the King's aristocratic friends and the Country Party of squires and other middle-class folk, who had mostly supported Cromwell. Many MPs came of this class.

The Court Party called the Country Party Whigs, from a Scottish word meaning sour milk, implying that they were all puritans. The Country Party called the Court Party Tories, from an Irish word meaning highway robbers. Eventually the Whigs became the Liberals and the Tories the Conservatives.

If it's just a personal preference, then you hardly need a political party. Surely Tories must be people who like seeing other people working and don't like seeing freeloaders. (I imagine there are both hypocritical Tories who are fine with free-loading themselves, and some who like to work.)

ROTFLMAO! Which alternative universe are you from?

Reminds me of the time when a Soviet Union citizen said to his party leader that in America they can go to the White House and pound their fist on the desk and say the President stinks! His party leader said you can do that here too. He asked how. Party leader said he can go the the Kremlin and pound their fist of the table and say the President of the US stinks.

I find this debate just a little odd.

In Ireland, this subject has exercised people's minds since the years before we "won our Freedom" in 1921/22. Notably, members of "Sinn Féin" pronounced 'Shin Fayne' did not and do not to this day take up the Parlimentary seats they win in the Westminster because they are unwilling to swear an oath of Allegiance. It was a sticking point in the 1998 negotiations before some work-around was found for the NOI. It's now a good way to censor their unwelcome views in Westminster.

I should mention in passing that "Sinn Féin" is the most honest name for a political party. It literally means 'we ourselves,' and it seems most politicians are out for themselves anyhow .

Personally, I view the oath as totally meaningless. The English Royals have absolutely no power.It is an oath of allegiance to the powerless. A king/Queen must sign their name, and has the power to call an election. Can he do anything else of his own initiative? King Charles couldn't even go to some climate conference, because the PM said 'No.' Today you can publish glowing details about the unsavoury elements of the Royal sex lives and enrich yourself. And instead of death or life in jail for treason (as in Thailand), the Royal has to drag you through the courts like poor Prince Harry. If You'd done that under Henry VIII, you'd have lost your head. People had their necks bisected for a lot less.

I know the Jesuits could find a 'point of view' which would allow them to murder a Royal to whom they had sworn allegiance. I would also fancy the chances of any group to find loopholes or get outs for this oath. I suggest the posters to this thread undertake this task. All that would be needed would be to apply stimulants in suitable concentration along with mental energy .

Would some kind or willing Brit please post the exact wording of this oath?

The Tory party would never get elected if they depended only on "real" grass roots Tories to vote in elections. They rely heavily on the working classes and a combination of the skewed "first past the post" system and constituencies which are carved out to give more weight to affluent rural areas with lower population, to elect them.

"Real" Tories are the kind of people that don't need to work. They probably inherited everything, from their ancestors, who in turn exploited, swindled and stole it from the working classes - much like the royalty you seem to despise. Real Tories, tend to be those with large personal fortunes, with histories of tax avoidance, via off shore funds (look up the "Panama Papers" for example) and connections or descent from aristocrats or even royalty - and/or links to large global corporate interests. Best of luck with that, if you truly believe those people represent you. Those are just statements of fact by the way.
Not quite correct. The ruling monarch's powers can still be invoked to dissolve or prorogue parliament - and more importantly to dismiss ministers (including a prime minister). These are the royal prerogative powers which would most likely be invoked as a last resort, should an "incompatible" / problematic government ever be elected into power. This has not occurred in living memory, does not make it impossible nor mean that it will never happen.

The "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022" restored the power to dissolve parliament to the monarch, which had previously been taken away in a 2011 act of parliament. The possibility is still very real, though the threat is somewhat lowered, with the Labour Party "safely" back under the control of the TBI faction.