Many Britons were outraged at being asked to take the Coronation oath. Not so Britain's foreign-born migrants, who have already pledged their allegiance to King and heirs.
So in my new job at a truly international organization, I ironically find myself working with more Brits than I have since AJE in London. One of my bosses, who is a Brit, brought up the coronation public oath in our team meeting this morning and read it out to the group, which included mainly Americans on the virtual call and three Brits, including myself, sitting in person together in a conference room. The reactions were interesting. The Americans were largely nonplussed and the Brits were amused. It then sparked a fun conversation where the point was raised that Harry’s American born son will be able to run for President and that this was George III playing the long game. I retorted that Boris Johnson was born in Manhattan. I’m flying to the UK on Monday for my first visit since before the lockdown. I’m interested in what vibe I’ll feel from the population.
May 5, 2023·edited May 5, 2023Liked by Barbara Serra
Hi Barbara,
Thanks for this message about allegiance, it made me smile.
You say that the UK is a monarchy, but as an English person I can't agree with that. Etymologies can be deceptive, but in this case it couldn't be clearer: "monarchy" comes from the (Ancient) Greek, μόνος ἀρχός, and means "single ruler". It means that that person tells you what to do (and sticking the word "constitutional" in front changes nothing).
But in this country we, or our representatives, tell the "monarch" what to do: we give them a scroll, not of paper, but of vellum, and say to them "sign here your 'majesty', or else!". The last "monarch" to refuse to sign the vellum (give the Royal Assent) was George III in 1801. We have a theatre of monarchy, not a monarchy: there's a very big difference. In reality we are a Republic that dare not speak its name. The so-called kings and queens enjoy totally unacceptable tax exemptions, and have some influence. But no power. That's not a monarch.
The thing I think you have slightly glossed over, understandably, is the ghost, or the long shadow, of 1649. The first regicide in modern Europe happened not in Paris in 1793, but in London in 1649, and sent waves of shock across Europe. For 10 years England was a Republic. The Restoration of 1660 unleashed such royal fury that the bones of Oliver Cromwell and others were dug up and their corpses put on trial, and then hung, drawn and quartered. Whatever the legitimacy of the trial of Charles I, the amount of propaganda about "monarchy being the best solution" unleashed from 1660 meant that, unlike in France in 1815, the Restoration was successful, and all traces of English republicanism ruthlessly suppressed. But as monarchy eventually became theatre (William III was the last real monarch of this country), the lurking terror of 1649 happening again has always been there.
I make this point about 1649 to illustrate that the English (and the Scots, Welsh and Irish have had quite different experiences) have no particular propensity for monarchy, and once got rid of it. A lot of British people may know nothing about this history (due to the weight of pro-monarchist propaganda since 1660), but our relationship with the concept of monarchy (and with republicanism) is in fact a lot more complicated and troubled than sometimes suggested.
It's hard to have any sort of conversation about the monarchy given the North Korean style coverage of Royal events. You wouldn't have a clue 25% of the country is republican.
Hello Barbara, I really appreciated your piece, and in my opinion you're ok doing what you did; in my opinion you behaved well and I approve your past behavior, because of a couple of reasons essentially: first , you've been conform to your life-decision about becoming british citizen: if you didn't do so, it would have seemed very strange and illogical , and maybe a little self-serving. Moreover, and this is a main reason, it's was a love choice... so you did all right. My best regards
In any other country you’d swear allegiance to the constitution, and I think the lack of a written one in the uk is what ends up opening the space to swear allegiance to the monarchy, the oldest institution in the country. I thought the requirement to do so was bizarre but a fun British quirk too.
It's authoritarian. If it means something, it doesn't belong in a democracy. It ties your hands, if true. Morality and justice trump allegiance to the king in any democracy. The king doesn't determine what these are, so if he works against these, and you find yourself working against him, then you would be violating your oath. But perhaps it doesn't mean true *allegiance.* But if it means nothing, why should you do it? The king was once thought to embody the law and right. Nobody believes this now. Nobody believes the king is the arbiter of moral rightness. Unless King Charles is bringing this back. But this would be authoritarian. One should not take a false oath. There's more integrity in not taking it than in taking it.
Why should naturalised Britons be asked to do something that so many others in the UK would refuse to do?
Well, I think because naturalization is a choice. So you have to accept the status quo (societies are conservatives). Born Britons didn't have a choice, so they have more right to refuse.
So in my new job at a truly international organization, I ironically find myself working with more Brits than I have since AJE in London. One of my bosses, who is a Brit, brought up the coronation public oath in our team meeting this morning and read it out to the group, which included mainly Americans on the virtual call and three Brits, including myself, sitting in person together in a conference room. The reactions were interesting. The Americans were largely nonplussed and the Brits were amused. It then sparked a fun conversation where the point was raised that Harry’s American born son will be able to run for President and that this was George III playing the long game. I retorted that Boris Johnson was born in Manhattan. I’m flying to the UK on Monday for my first visit since before the lockdown. I’m interested in what vibe I’ll feel from the population.
Hi Barbara,
Thanks for this message about allegiance, it made me smile.
You say that the UK is a monarchy, but as an English person I can't agree with that. Etymologies can be deceptive, but in this case it couldn't be clearer: "monarchy" comes from the (Ancient) Greek, μόνος ἀρχός, and means "single ruler". It means that that person tells you what to do (and sticking the word "constitutional" in front changes nothing).
But in this country we, or our representatives, tell the "monarch" what to do: we give them a scroll, not of paper, but of vellum, and say to them "sign here your 'majesty', or else!". The last "monarch" to refuse to sign the vellum (give the Royal Assent) was George III in 1801. We have a theatre of monarchy, not a monarchy: there's a very big difference. In reality we are a Republic that dare not speak its name. The so-called kings and queens enjoy totally unacceptable tax exemptions, and have some influence. But no power. That's not a monarch.
The thing I think you have slightly glossed over, understandably, is the ghost, or the long shadow, of 1649. The first regicide in modern Europe happened not in Paris in 1793, but in London in 1649, and sent waves of shock across Europe. For 10 years England was a Republic. The Restoration of 1660 unleashed such royal fury that the bones of Oliver Cromwell and others were dug up and their corpses put on trial, and then hung, drawn and quartered. Whatever the legitimacy of the trial of Charles I, the amount of propaganda about "monarchy being the best solution" unleashed from 1660 meant that, unlike in France in 1815, the Restoration was successful, and all traces of English republicanism ruthlessly suppressed. But as monarchy eventually became theatre (William III was the last real monarch of this country), the lurking terror of 1649 happening again has always been there.
I make this point about 1649 to illustrate that the English (and the Scots, Welsh and Irish have had quite different experiences) have no particular propensity for monarchy, and once got rid of it. A lot of British people may know nothing about this history (due to the weight of pro-monarchist propaganda since 1660), but our relationship with the concept of monarchy (and with republicanism) is in fact a lot more complicated and troubled than sometimes suggested.
It's hard to have any sort of conversation about the monarchy given the North Korean style coverage of Royal events. You wouldn't have a clue 25% of the country is republican.
Hello Barbara, I really appreciated your piece, and in my opinion you're ok doing what you did; in my opinion you behaved well and I approve your past behavior, because of a couple of reasons essentially: first , you've been conform to your life-decision about becoming british citizen: if you didn't do so, it would have seemed very strange and illogical , and maybe a little self-serving. Moreover, and this is a main reason, it's was a love choice... so you did all right. My best regards
In any other country you’d swear allegiance to the constitution, and I think the lack of a written one in the uk is what ends up opening the space to swear allegiance to the monarchy, the oldest institution in the country. I thought the requirement to do so was bizarre but a fun British quirk too.
It's authoritarian. If it means something, it doesn't belong in a democracy. It ties your hands, if true. Morality and justice trump allegiance to the king in any democracy. The king doesn't determine what these are, so if he works against these, and you find yourself working against him, then you would be violating your oath. But perhaps it doesn't mean true *allegiance.* But if it means nothing, why should you do it? The king was once thought to embody the law and right. Nobody believes this now. Nobody believes the king is the arbiter of moral rightness. Unless King Charles is bringing this back. But this would be authoritarian. One should not take a false oath. There's more integrity in not taking it than in taking it.
Why should naturalised Britons be asked to do something that so many others in the UK would refuse to do?
Well, I think because naturalization is a choice. So you have to accept the status quo (societies are conservatives). Born Britons didn't have a choice, so they have more right to refuse.