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.
That sounds like a very interesting team meeting! It's funny how differently people react to it. I guess you'll feel a very different vibe here on Monday if you haven't been back since lockdown, but I'd guess very little would have to do with the coronation.....safe travels x
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.
Thank you Mike, it's easy to forget that Britons were among the first to get rid of their monarch! Unfortunately I think most people everywhere don't know history as well as they should. Thank you for your comment
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.
I think the TV coverage doesn't really reflect the public mood. Most people I'd guess are pretty relaxed about the whole thing. I do like the neighbourhood street parties tough
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.
Agreed. It's easy to forget that the monarch is head of state and that it's not solely a ceremonial role. I guess when you actually have to take an oath and say the words out loud, it just crystallises how strange the concept of monarchy in the modern world is. Long may they stay though. Last thing this country needs right now is more change.
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.
Wrong. No person about to become a new British citizen should be obliged to pledge allegiance to the theatre of monarchy which passes for monarchy here.
If you like, this absurd obligation is a perfect illustration of the theatrical nature of the institution: so do it and pretend you mean it, secure in the knowledge that 1) people who acquired citizenship by birth find this allegiance ceremony at best laughable but, in cases like mine, very offensive and 2) you don't have to mean it, and nobody will ever know whether you are genuine... or acting.
I'm not particularly anti-monarchy, mainly due to apathy and also feeling that this country could do without more destabilising change right now. But you're right to call the obligation absurd. While I'm not fussed about the monarchy it did feel strange to say the words out loud, to actually swear allegiance. It highlighted a certain hypocrisy on my part I guess. But I also wasn't going to reject British Citizenship over it.
The main problem is that Great Britain is a Monarchy. So, let's say, when you become a citizen you acknowledge that with an oath. That does not mean that afterwards you cannot battle (metaphorically), within the domain of the law and the political customs to change that, if you deem appropriate. And, well yes, I do believe that Monarchy is theatre. And a costly one.
Yes, that was my reasoning as well. But it feels strange now. Maybe naturalised Brits should be offered the choice whether to mention the Royal Family (like I was offered the choice of a non-religious affirmation rather than an oath). It's not a hill I'd die on though. Genuinely interested in knowing what our community thought.
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.
That sounds like a very interesting team meeting! It's funny how differently people react to it. I guess you'll feel a very different vibe here on Monday if you haven't been back since lockdown, but I'd guess very little would have to do with the coronation.....safe travels x
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.
Thank you Mike, it's easy to forget that Britons were among the first to get rid of their monarch! Unfortunately I think most people everywhere don't know history as well as they should. Thank you for your comment
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.
I think the TV coverage doesn't really reflect the public mood. Most people I'd guess are pretty relaxed about the whole thing. I do like the neighbourhood street parties tough
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.
Agreed. It's easy to forget that the monarch is head of state and that it's not solely a ceremonial role. I guess when you actually have to take an oath and say the words out loud, it just crystallises how strange the concept of monarchy in the modern world is. Long may they stay though. Last thing this country needs right now is more change.
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.
Wrong. No person about to become a new British citizen should be obliged to pledge allegiance to the theatre of monarchy which passes for monarchy here.
If you like, this absurd obligation is a perfect illustration of the theatrical nature of the institution: so do it and pretend you mean it, secure in the knowledge that 1) people who acquired citizenship by birth find this allegiance ceremony at best laughable but, in cases like mine, very offensive and 2) you don't have to mean it, and nobody will ever know whether you are genuine... or acting.
I'm not particularly anti-monarchy, mainly due to apathy and also feeling that this country could do without more destabilising change right now. But you're right to call the obligation absurd. While I'm not fussed about the monarchy it did feel strange to say the words out loud, to actually swear allegiance. It highlighted a certain hypocrisy on my part I guess. But I also wasn't going to reject British Citizenship over it.
The main problem is that Great Britain is a Monarchy. So, let's say, when you become a citizen you acknowledge that with an oath. That does not mean that afterwards you cannot battle (metaphorically), within the domain of the law and the political customs to change that, if you deem appropriate. And, well yes, I do believe that Monarchy is theatre. And a costly one.
Yes, that was my reasoning as well. But it feels strange now. Maybe naturalised Brits should be offered the choice whether to mention the Royal Family (like I was offered the choice of a non-religious affirmation rather than an oath). It's not a hill I'd die on though. Genuinely interested in knowing what our community thought.