The Off Topic Topic

[HVC]

If you wait too long you'll have to swear to Charles.

[Valmy]

If you wait too long you'll have to swear to Charles.

At this point I am convinced Liz will outlive Chuck. Heck she might outlive George at this rate.

[Eddie Teach]

George?

[Malthus]

It is really allegiance to the Queen as head of state, not to the person Elizabeth.

Yup.

1. The Queen = an office, embodiment of the notion of sovereignty.

2. The Queen = a particular elderly woman who lives in London.

These are quite separate things. You are swearing allegiance to the first, not the second!

In Canada, when you sue the government, you sue "The Queen in right of Canada" (or of a province). The particular elderly lady living in London known as "The Queen" isn't affected by this, and probably will never actually know about it ...

For Americans: "I swear allegiance to the flag". Does this mean to you that you owe your loyalty to a particular piece of cloth? 

[Valmy]

George?

Her great-grandson

[Valmy]

For Americans: "I swear allegiance to the flag". Does this mean to you that you owe your loyalty to a particular piece of cloth? 

So the British Monarchy is really just a very personable flag.

[Tamas]

Still though, let's say 10 years from now there's a referendum on whether to turn the UK into a republican system of government i.e. abolish the monarchy. My general political views of opposing legal differences based on birth would support that idea, but how could I possibly vote for that option after having sworn allegiance to the Queen?

[celedhring]

Still though, let's say 10 years from now there's a referendum on whether to turn the UK into a republican system of government i.e. abolish the monarchy. My general political views of opposing legal differences based on birth would support that idea, but how could I possibly vote for that option after having sworn allegiance to the Queen?

That gets covered by the "according to law" bit. You're not expected to give her undying fealty, just on those things accorded by law, in her role as chief of state. And the law can be changed.

Spanish oath has similar wording.

[Malthus]

Still though, let's say 10 years from now there's a referendum on whether to turn the UK into a republican system of government i.e. abolish the monarchy. My general political views of opposing legal differences based on birth would support that idea, but how could I possibly vote for that option after having sworn allegiance to the Queen?

The same way someone who thinks the US Constitution in its present form is problematic can swear the US oath. If the Constitution changes, so does the meaning of the oath, to accommodate the change.

The UK oath is predicated on swearing allegiance to the Queen "... according to the law". If the law says the Queen is now a meaningless symbol, then that's what the oath means.

There is nothing in the oath to prevent voting for a change to the laws. Quite the contrary - you give your allegiance to the Queen (according to the law), but your loyalty to the UK, and swear to observe its democratic values and uphold its laws.

In short, there is no possible conflict between the first and second halves of the oath, as one's allegiance to the Queen is conditional on the law. Thanks, English Civil War! 

" I (name) swear by almighty God that on
becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and
Successors, according to the law.

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and
respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its
democratic values. I will observe its laws
faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as
a British citizen."

[Malthus]

For Americans: "I swear allegiance to the flag". Does this mean to you that you owe your loyalty to a particular piece of cloth? 

So the British Monarchy is really just a very personable flag.

Sort of. It's a corporate office. It has an existence, but in the same way as a corporation does - one quite separate and apart from the person who happens to have the same name.

For example: say my name is "Ford" and I establish "Ford corporation". The "Ford corporation" has legal existence - it can be sued, have contracts, etc. - but that may be quite apart from me.

[Tamas]

That all makes perfect sense, thanks Celed and Malthus.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The corporate identity that Malthus is talking about is often referred to as "the Crown". The Crown does all sorts of things that have very little to do with the Queen in a personal sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown

So sometimes one will hear that the Queen is the richest person in the world; which is silly, she is merely very rich; whereas the crown has vast interests of various types.

[Malthus]

The corporate identity that Malthus is talking about is often referred to as "the Crown". The Crown does all sorts of things that have very little to do with the Queen in a personal sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown

So sometimes one will hear that the Queen is the richest person in the world; which is silly, she is merely very rich; whereas the crown has vast interests of various types.

Yup.

In legal terms, it is a "non-statutory corporation sole".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole

[The Larch]

Jesus Christ Tamas, it's not as if you're being anointed as a knight of the round table. 

[Tamas]

Jesus Christ Tamas, it's not as if you're being anointed as a knight of the round table. 

It is serious stuff though

Being a citizen of your birthplace is no biggie - it's not like you were ever offered the choice. Constiously taking that oath is a different matter IMHO.

And I had trouble with the concept of making an oath of loyalty to a person or a crown. But as others have explained and convinced me, it is about swearing to adhere to the laws represented by that "entity" rather than the "entity" itself.