to the limits of your power".
It doesn't say that at all.
YES IT DOES.
Here is an transcript : source http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
I am willing.
The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power
cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
And we are all responsible, you even said that the book has to stop somewhere in your justification for a Monarchy now you absolve that and every one else too with regards to personal responsibility.
I absolved nothing. I merely pointed out that the actual Oath taken requires the Queen to do as much as it is possible to the limit of Her power. The problem is the Oath was written when the Monarch had a lot more power than The Queen has in modern times. As far as I can see it is not the concept of Monarchy that is the problem, it is the fact that the Monarchy has been hamstrung by Parliament over the centuries as Parliament has been worming it's way towards absolute sovereignty, a process started by Cromwell and continuing to this day.
The Queen let the politicians destroy the country and her position willingly... it does not make sense that she would do that, what is in it for Her?
She's doing fine mate with her banking families
(but things will change eventually; hopefully it won't be Russia, China, etc that force it on all of us.)
Oh yeh.. right, and of course being one of 500 richest people in the world under the thumb of the banksters like all the other fiat funny money billionaires are, is totally preferable to being The Queen of ENGLAND and the head of the Common Wealth... makes perfect sense... er NOT.
Maybe your right... maybe she just got bored of being the Queen, and decided to throw the towel in and subject everyone including herself and her heirs and successors, to life under the New World Order global communist regime for the rest of the length of humanity. Maybe She reckons she doesn't need the civil lists to maintain her position, and she can just make Wills and Harry get real jobs and pay some rent to pull their weight for a change. Who, knows... maybe She has gone senile in her old age. If so I would point out that Senility is a fairly good defence against criminal charges, about the same strength as a plea of insanity as far as I am aware.