The King's Progress

Tomorrow (18 October 2024) King Charles and Queen Camilla visit the kingdom of Australia. The King is no stranger to this kingdom or its peoples, having visited on no less than 16 previous occasions. His first, as a young prince Charles in 1966, saw him spend two semesters at Timbertop boarding school in the mountains of the Australian state of Victoria. A time he described as “by far the best” experience of his education.

This article and its author acknowledge the rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and is written with all respect due to the people and their elders

There is some uncertainty, however, about the welcome he may receive on this latest visit as grown-up and King. Australians are divided on the question of whether the monarchy should be retained, or whether the nation should become a republic, with an elected head of state instead of a king. The King has made it clear that the question is for the people of Australia to decide, as one might expect.

What do I think? Well, it is none of my business who the Australians want as their head of state or how they would like to formulate their constitution. Neither is it my business who should be elected President of the United States or whether the Scottish people should have independence from the United Kingdom.

This issue of Australia, republic or monarchy, does however raise the question of whether The United Kingdom or any of its constituent nations should also dispense with monarchy. At least it does in my mind. I am not aware of the question being raised by anyone as a serious proposition, though.

What do I think? As long as I can remember taking a view on Britain's state as a constitutional monarchy, it is an unashamed republican view. By this I mean that I have always thought that the UK should be governed as a republic, with an elected head of state rather than a king. This does not mean that I would support any plan to bring about a republic. Quite the contrary.

The whole farcical history of the movement to remove the United Kingdom from the European Union and its various governmental institutions should demonstrate why. After several years of bitter dispute, hatred, and billions of pounds of public expenditure, very little has changed. The dispute as to who is to blame for this lack of change still rages. I am not interested in rehearsing any of these arguments. The whole 'Brexit' debate is, and ever was, a total bore.

How did I vote? It was a secret ballot and I have no intention of revealing my vote to a public forum. If I had a choice, I would have said that there should never have been a referendum at the time that it took place. More importantly, if there was going to be a referendum on the future membership or otherwise of the UK in the EU, it should have followed detailed evaluation of the implications and impact of leaving the EU or, for that matter, remaining a member state. For a popular decision taken in ignorance of potential implications is NOT democracy, though no doubt it presents sufficient illusion of democratic decision making to serve the purpose of its advocates.

The same would be true of any decision to return the UK to the EU (hardly likely) and for this reason I would be against revisiting the question, regardless of my vote in the previous referendum. The same would also be true if anyone suggested that there should be a referendum to dispense with the monarchy.

Anyone who knows me to be a republican, and an atheist, might be surprised to learn that I have sworn an oath of loyalty to the King. Actually the Queen at the time I swore the oath. In 2007, I became a prison officer. My duties included those of a constable, equivalent to a police officer. As such, I was required to either swear or affirm my loyalty to the Queen. I chose to swear, rather than affirm. My oath (I am told by those who understand the legal implications of these things) transferred to the King on his accession to the throne.

An oath (swearing) is a promise or declaration before "almighty God." An affirmation is a formal declaration that, in UK jurisdictions, has the same effect in law as an oath.

I have always considered my duty and loyalty to the British crown to be, in effect, to the British people. When I was a public servant (2007-2024) I tried to honour such duties on this basis. I still do. I do not consider it a breach of that oath or that loyalty to say that I would favour the ending of monarchy and the privilege that goes with class distinction and discrimination. Not to mention the long history of British and European colonialism, imperialism and racism.

Thanks for reading.