Swearing Allegiance to King Charles at Coronation

Swore allegiance to his mother why when I enlisted in 1953 and that oath has never been rescinded. I also swore allegiance to her heirs and successes so that covers me for Charles, William and George and I doubt if I'll see any others.
 
'It's simply an opportunity offered by the Archbishop so that, unlike previous Coronations, those who wish to join in with the words being spoken by the Abbey congregation could do so in a very simple way.

'For those who do want to take part, some will want to say all the words of the homage; some might just want to say 'God Save The King' at the end; others might just want to it to be a moment of private reflection. '

They added: 'We live in a wonderfully diverse society with many different perspectives and beliefs, and it's quite right that people decide for themselves how they relate to this moment.

'Much like the National Anthem, it's for people to join in if that feels right for them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ro...s-coronation-sparks-backlash-republicans.html
 
Well....

I already did that for the late Queen Elizabeth II when I joined the Cubs and Scouts when I was a lad. And he's her heir.

These days - no. I may be tempted if the last bit about god wasn't there. I suppose I could just leave that out.

But on balance.... naaaaaaah.
 
the interesting phenomena is that there are still legal documents that do tie OZ and NZ at least but I would imagine apply to other former colonies to allegiance to the king/queen - I do recall that the labor govt here in OZ at one point wanted to recind this but right now it still exists - the Queen was and the King to be will still be the king of Oz on paper and many other places maybe - but I suppose its become a sorta "old boys network" a nod and a wink and we all pretend to be super independent and in fact in practice are? I dear personally like Charles and think he will do an admirable job and well assisted by his lady!! Power to control others nah but an old boys club still yea!
 
chic said:
Yeah, I think it's weird too. Like what is he so afraid of to demand/request that? Personally I don't like his globalist net zero agenda and would not swear allegiance to ANY leader who's intent is to impose this on the world.
Click to expand...
In UK Parliament is the ultimate authority. The monarch does not determine policy nor wield political power. In effect the Royal Family can only influence people using soft power.

Australia is a constitutional monarchy which means that Charles III will have no say in our affairs at all.
 
No some of the stuff I have read in the past suggest documents being signed by the king/queen and issued to commonwealth countries - but in the reality of life we continue independently along our ways - it's become rather historic. I've read documents signed by Queen Victoria and lettes issued which I had to handle with white gloves by the way - and part stating that she wished for the Indigenous peoples to be treated as citizens of UK - Hmm well in those days everyone below HRH and ministers were getting treated badly [excluding the lords of course] so the poor and down trodden on london streets were treated almost as badly as the Indigenous peoples of oz and nz in fact
 
One thing I've always wondered about. The coronation is a semi-religious one. It is held in a church, and bishops and priests confirm him as King and Head of the Anglican Church. That's what I've wondered about- the dual roles- a constitutional monarch, and head of a religion. There's a built in conflict of ethics.

Also, I think Charles should emulate his mother in "being" the monarch, and not "doing". He is the living symbol of a nation, not a back seat Prime Minister. And if some want to acknowledge Charles as their King, why not?
 
Last edited:
hollydolly said:
He hasn't... they're just figure heads..they can't demand anything of the people..
Click to expand...
I know!!!!!!!!! But they are influencers and have power as such. For exmaple, British taxpayers will be paying for his coronation even though he is worth couple of billion and could pay for it himself. Then everybody could party. Clearly the WEF values him and they value him for reason. I believe his net zero agenda will impoverish Europe and spread to my country because the U.S. and England are closely allied.
 
chic said:
I know!!!!!!!!! But they are influencers and have power as such. For exmaple, British taxpayers will be paying for his coronation even though he is worth couple of billion and could pay for it himself. Then everybody could party. Clearly the WEF values him and they value him for reason. I believe his net zero agenda will impoverish Europe and spread to my country because the U.S. and England are closely allied.
Click to expand...
wow... I think you'll find Chic that parts of Europe is way ahead of the UK with regard to Net Zero agendas.. , and I'll be extremely surprised if it hasn't already gained a lot of ground in parts of the USA already..
 
Alligatorob said:
What are you really swearing allegiance to?

It doesn't seem to mean a whole lot legally, more like as Holly says singing the National Anthem.

I can't sing, but never had a problem standing to our National Anthem. Or the National Anthem of any country, as a courtesy.
Click to expand...

Me neither. I remember standing and singing to the American National Anthem at a Red Wings hockey game in Detroit. My American girlfriend was a bit surprised, considering many of the words are in reference to the British.

When we then sat down I said to her that I’m OK with it, as the tune of the American National Anthem is the tune of an old English drinking song. Or so I’ve always been lead to believe.
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
One thing I've always wondered about. The coronation is a semi-religious one. It is held in a church, and bishops and priests confirm him as King and Head of the Anglican Church. That's what I've wondered about- the dual roles- a constitutional monarch, and head of a religion. There's a built in conflict of ethics.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say he or even his mother was "the head of a religion." It could be argued he will become the head of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, and able to appoint archbishops of that church.

But even that isn’t entirely correct. In reality the archbishop of the Church of England is chosen by a formal process that I think starts with the Crown Nominations Commission. Who then approach the Prime Minister with their recommendation, who in turn approaches the monarch, who then appoints the archbishop? As far as I’m aware, the monarch can’t refuse.

For the most part, I would say the monarch in official duties, works for the government.

When the Queen in 2018 was asked during an interview with Alastair Bruce, who she believed to be the head of the Church of England, she replied, "The Archbishop of Canterbury." This answer might reflect the Queen's “symbolic” position, and not necessarily the actual head.

From memory, I think the archbishop of the time was then asked the same question. I think his answer was, “God”.
 
My forebears came to the colonies in 1634. Royalty is kind of remote to me.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top