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. 🤔

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    5·
    1 month ago

    Woah.

    For reference, this is Australia’s citizenship pledge:

    From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

    The under God part is optional and most people don’t say that.

    No mention of the king.

  • Acamon@lemmy.world
    4·
    1 month ago

    I think “according to the law” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. That is the part that really makes it an oath to the ‘constitution’ of the UK. You are pledging alligence to the figurehead of the government, to obey them/the government, as long as they/the government are acting legally. If the government does something illegal, or asks you to do something illegal, you should not obey them.

    I’m British, and not a fan of the monarchy (especially Charles) but I think that we can see the advantages of having a head of state who has very little power to fuck things up, and that isn’t a position that outside forces billionaires can buy their way into, but has the power to remove a Prime Minister if they tried to do something unconstitutional.

    The idea of checks and balances in the US didn’t seem to plan for a bad president being elected with enough support in the house and Senate that he becomes pretty much untouchable (especially after a first term stacking the SC).

  • ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world
    2·
    1 month ago

    I don’t know in naturalization cases, but in Spain members of the parliament who are from independentist parties (which basically want to go against the constitution and obviously don’t give a shit about the King) preceed their oath with the phrase “by legal imperative”.

    Every time it happens some parties claim that it’s not valid but AFAIK there has been no ruling in favor/against it.

    Members of the government make their pledge at the palace in front of the king and I have no memory of anybody using that phrase, I quickly looked for pledges made by republican politicians and they pledge loyalty to the king as well.