Supporting the monarchy is not compulsory is it?

You would imagine from the media saturation and the prostration of the politicians that it is not only compulsory to mourn the death of the queen but to support the monarchy as an institution. But we live in a democracy, don’t we? Those of us who oppose an hereditary monarchy have a perfect right to express our opinion don’t we? Apparently not as the experience of some people has shown. In fact one of them was told by a policemen when holding a blank card, that if he wrote on it ‘Not my King’, he would be arrested for a breach of peace.

It’s quite clear that for the British ruling class the Queen’s death and the accession is being used as a political campaign designed to shore up the institutions and to de-legitimise republicanism. The Labour leadership, unfortunately is fully on board with this. The monarchism of the Labour leadership is no surprise but when the Party tweets “God save the King” you have to wonder if they think we are a Church of England Party. For the right wing media the very idea of replacing the monarchy with a democratic republic is beyond the pale, and brings forth waves of hysteria.

Some of those who protested at a ‘cult of Corbyn’ are now promoting a cult of monarchy. The Queen was treated almost as a deity. Hyperbole has reached new heights (e.g. “Britain is the great country it is today because of her” Liz Truss). Anybody who does not participate in the mourning and the bending of the knee to the new King is treated like a pariah. Yet they are overdoing it. On social media you can read comments by people who are by no means Republicans, complaining that “the country has gone mad”, as NHS appointments are cancelled despite the long waiting lists and risks to people’s health, Centre Parcs breaks its contracts with people who have been told to leave in mid-holiday and come back later, and even a lowering of the bleeps on super-market machines. Yet the saturation coverage and the campaign is not having the impact they would have hoped for. According to Yougov, even 40% of Tory supporters think that the coverage has been “too much” (60% of Labour supporters). Perhaps the British ruling class and their hangers-on are a little nervous about the impact of the new King on the institution. Indeed Charles has already committed some errors which underline the fact that he has no chance of being supported in the way that the ostensibly neutral Queen was. As historian David Olusoga has suggested, whilst the monarchy was identified with the person of the Queen, her death will now open up a discussion on the nature of the institution.

In the face of this political campaign those of us who do not support a hereditary monarchy face having to fight for the right to hold and express our opinions. As a republican I understand that I am in a minority at the moment, though as Richard Murphy has pointed out, Charles seems to be doing his best to undermine the Monarchy, what with redundancies and the appointment of Prince Andrew as a Counsellor.

As Nesrine Malik wrote in the Guardian:

“But with the Queen’s passing, we are about to enter a new chapter where the only hope we have for a more confident, coherent country is to speak of our imperfections more. The Queen is gone, and with her should go our imagined nation. It is time for her to rest. And more than time for the country to wake up.”

“The imagined country” refers to the national myths about our country which fails to face up to our imperial past and the racism which resulted from the white supremacism of the British Empire – the ‘civilising mission’ and the ‘superiority’ of the British, the ‘inferiority’ of the ‘native’ populations, and the rapacious looting of ‘its’ colonies. We cannot wake up unless we recognise how the reality of our society today is rooted in this past. The monarchy sits atop the class system in Britain. It is the last refuge of deference as is painfully obvious from the media, the reverential tones, and the assertion that “the whole nation” is in mourning.

Does Labour support the democratic rights of Republicans?

You can, of course, write what you like about the monarchy, if you can get it published. Yet consider the fact that if you are elected a member of Parliament you are not allowed to take your seat unless you pledge an oath of loyalty to the monarch and heirs, regardless of whether you support the system or not; either an oath of allegiance (swearing by almighty God) or Affirmation of Allegiance (minus the God)1.

The House of Commons website tells us that

“MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so.”

In other words if you don’t take the oath or affirmation then the democratic verdict of the electors who sent you there can be overturned without reference to them. This is a democratic outrage. Anybody elected should have the right to take their seat without having to make an oath that they do not believe in.

The same compulsory oath, is, I believe, taken when you become a citizen. They should not have to do so either.

Irrespective of your view of the monarchy, be it in favour or opposed to it, you cannot be a democrat in any real sense, unless you support the rights of those people who do not support the monarchy. Labour should support the right of MPs (and new citizens) to not have to pledge an oath to a monarchy which they do not support. Otherwise we have not a democracy but a state in which support for the monarchy is, in some respects, compulsory.

Perhaps it is time to take up this issue and challenge this form of compulsory monarchism.

Martin Wicks

1 The new version will be: “I, (name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors, according to law.” Or “I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King Charles the Third, his Heirs and Successors, according to law.”

(This article was published by Laboulist under the heading: “The death of Queen Elizabeth is being used to de-legitimise republicanism.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.