Especially in cases of Naturalization.
Like, if the monarch goes against the constitution, do you fight for the monarch, or defend the parliament/cabinet?
🤔
Edit:
UK Oath:
I, (name), swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, his Heirs and Successors, according to law.
Canada (A British Commonwealth) Oath:
I swear (or affirm) That I will be faithful And bear true allegiance To His Majesty King Charles the Third King of Canada His Heirs and Successors And that I will faithfully observe The laws of Canada Including the Constitution Which recognizes and affirms The Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
So…
🤔
I mean on the one hand, they are more democratic than the US, on the other hand, symbolically, it just feels wrong to me.
I don’t mind pledging allegience to a constitution, but to a monarch… is quite… uncomfortable, even if its a Constitutional Monarchy. 🤔
The UK doesn’t have a constitution. The monarch is the constitution and the embodiment of the state.
Whenever british republicans often claim how rich the monarchy is, they’re basically counting state property. Same reason the monarchy is exempt from inheritance tax.
If the monarch does something unbecoming, you can just break your allegiance. Allegiance is just what group you’re part of. If you’re becoming British, you’re essentially just stating you are one of Charlie’s chaps.
I support constitutional monarchies though and everything such as military, police and MPs having allegiance to them, then they have the power. They are under pressure to delegate that power through a system established by centuries of laws, codes and tradition. Basically, the King has all of the power, keeps it in a box and sits on top of that box. If the King steps out of line, he knows he’ll either be heavily scrutinized or thrown out. If the politicians start egregiously trying to step out of line, the King can stop them.
No, they do – it’s just not a codified constitution like almost all other countries have.
Uncodified constitution
Proponents of the idea believe that a constitution that has evolved bit by bit over a long period of time and across a bunch of different charters and unwritten agreements/customs is stronger that one that’s done all in one shot. You’ll see the unflattering metaphor that “a tree is stronger than a weed”, which seems a bit unfair but it’s reasonable point – if not one that’s beyond argument or anything.
Commonwealth countries are politically conservative, small “c” and not big “C”, as the general attitude is “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, even if it’s objectively kind of stupid”. There was a good reason for every one of the decisions that led to today, don’t &^%$ with it, just in case.
Interesting addition here, we don’t even have an official national anthem. There isn’t even an “official” version of the lyrics for the song we use as the de-facto national anthem.
We just all kind of collectively agreed upon the first verse, and mentally update it whenever a monarch dies and a new gender is required.