God Save The King

[Sheilbh]

What's the plan for avoiding the whole funeral being about Trump?

I was slightly wondering about whether they'd even invite all the ex-presidents because it sounded on that CNN bit like this was up to Biden. It sounds like, due to space limitation at Westminster Abbey, it'll only be serving heads of state and spouses (I assume maybe heads of government too?) - which makes sense because if ex-US Presidents why not ex-French Presidents etc.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.

Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.

No one pledges allegiance to the flag.  They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless. 

Pledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.

[Malthus]

It isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.

Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.

No one pledges allegiance to the flag.  They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless. 

Pledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.

Does the form of an oath of office matter to anyone in the slightest?

The basics are: you are bound to perform your duties in accordance with the laws. If you fail to do so, you risk punishment.

There are a lot of permutations, but not convinced they matter. Affirming that you support the constitution (whatever that means) or allegiance to a monarch - all just ways of saying you will be loyal to the system of government you are appointed to.

[Josquius]

It does seem weird to think of it. Doesn't it basically mean you're promising to vote conservative and against change shoukd any referendums crop up?

[Tamas]

Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:

So my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.

Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.

No one pledges allegiance to the flag.  They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless. 

Pledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.

Does the form of an oath of office matter to anyone in the slightest?

The basics are: you are bound to perform your duties in accordance with the laws. If you fail to do so, you risk punishment.

There are a lot of permutations, but not convinced they matter. Affirming that you support the constitution (whatever that means) or allegiance to a monarch - all just ways of saying you will be loyal to the system of government you are appointed to.

Maybe it matters to me because of my familiarity with our military oaths.

Note the two forms (enlisted v officer):

Oath of Enlistment

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Oath of Office

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

While the Oath of Enlistment does mention obeying the President's orders, the Oath of Office upon commissioning does not. However, it is understood that the President is Commander-in-Chief and can give orders to the military. What is more important is that the oath is actually to the constitution, and that supersedes other responsibilities.

As I would wager the vast majority of British military members give very little thought to the pro forma oath they have to take, my assumption is a decent chunk of the U.S. military is the same. However, I think at the upper command ranks, the distinction between an oath to a President vs to the constitution is more firmly understood. I think for example, part of the reason Trump had so much trouble with his Generals not being "loyal", is because officers of that rank very well understand their responsibilities when their duty to the constitution and their duty to obey the President are in conflict--the constitution trumps the President.

In that sense an oath that is personal fealty to a human being, is very jarring and different to me.

The practical effect of that difference is likely minimal, but there is IMO an importance in the symbolism. There may even be, in theory, some constitutional significance--in all intents and purposes in the UK the Prime Minister exercises all of the monarch's royal powers and prerogatives for them, so in a sense you could make an argument that the UK's oath of personal fealty to the monarch would in essence mean the British military would be obligated to obey a Prime Minister's order, regardless of whether it might conflict with constitutional or legal principles. I'm sure they've probably crafted specific laws and regulations saying that isn't the case, but if it was me I'd like the principle being enshrined in the oath itself.

[Josephus]

To my point: Putin is still head of state. Won't he get an invite? The UK is not at war with Russia, and still has open diplomatic relations, no?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I doubt Putin gets an invite, and I imagine there is no automatic invitation for every Head of State.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, Putin won't be invited.

On the military for what it's worth my experience is that British military types really value their path to the Queen/monarch and relationship with the royal family in general. As opposed to politicians such as the PM and normally see it as - a bit like the civil service - that they are apolitical in service of the crown.

The clash would be if the PM had support of Parliament in using the military in one way and the "crown"/British state had another - and then we're back to the 1640s.

And of course there's another set of risks with a military having oaths to a constitution or constitutional order - opens up coups like Pinochet's or other "guardian coups".

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, Putin won't be invited.

On the military for what it's worth my experience is that British military types really value their path to the Queen/monarch and relationship with the royal family in general. As opposed to politicians such as the PM and normally see it as - a bit like the civil service - that they are apolitical in service of the crown.

The clash would be if the PM had support of Parliament in using the military in one way and the "crown"/British state had another - and then we're back to the 1640s.

And of course there's another set of risks with a military having oaths to a constitution or constitutional order - opens up coups like Pinochet's or other "guardian coups".

All true enough.

I have always found it a little amusing that, unlike the other branches of the British military, the Royal Navy doesn't actually swear an oath to the monarch. They often say it is because "their loyalty is never in question" as it is Her/His Majesty's Navy.

But of course in the English Civil War, the navy was loyal to Parliament and not the King.

[Sheilbh]

Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:

So my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.

I am slightly wondering how to do "respectfully excited" for another bank holiday

[Tamas]

Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:

So my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.

I am slightly wondering how to do "respectfully excited" for another bank holiday

 


So what's the Stone of Destiny? It was mentioned at the start of the Scottish church rememberance thing.

[Josquius]

No  radio station playing anything  over a certain BPM is getting ridiculous now.

[Tamas]

And also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events. I wonder how representative this is.

I also wonder if this will serve to highlight to the public just how out of touch by now these monarchy-related customs are with modern times.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Stone of Destiny is also known as the Stone of Scone, it's a random ass giant rock a bunch of ignorant Picts dug up 1200+ years ago and is seen as an important cultural artifact for the Scottish people. It was traditionally sat upon during the coronation of the old Scottish Kings.

The English took it after England had defeated Scotland in the late 13th century and briefly controlled it as a puppet state, and traditionally it has sat in a compartment beneath St. Edward's Chair (a decrepit hunk of 700-year-old wood that English monarchs have historically used for their coronation), symbolically the new English monarch sitting on that chair, which also meant sitting on the Stone of Scone inside of it, represented the fact of the English monarch also being the Scottish monarch.