50

Suppose a natural-born citizen of one of those countries principally objects to the notion of monarchy and in particular is unwilling to swear allegiance to a king or queen - are there any rights or privileges that would be denied to them such as getting an ID, a passport, a drivers license etc. ?

What about a non-natural person otherwise qualifying for citizenship or a passport?

JJJ
  • 39,094
  • 10
  • 121
  • 182
RegNada
  • 467
  • 1
  • 4
  • 4
  • 7
    "a non-natural person otherwise qualifying for citizenship or a passport" What is a non-natural person? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Oct 05 '18 at 08:42
  • Lots of comments deleted. Comments should be used to improve the question by providing constructive criticism or requesting clarification. Please do not use comments to answer the question or discuss the subject matter of the question. – Philipp Oct 06 '18 at 20:51
  • 1
    “non-natural person” seems to be incorrect usage in the Question, when applied to humans except for slaves. See Wikipedia. – Basil Bourque Oct 06 '18 at 21:03
  • @Trilarion I suspect that "non-natural" here contrasts with "natural- born," so it would mean surgery someone who has been naturalized or who qualifies for naturalization but hasn't yet gone through with it (presumably in this case because of anti-monarchy sentiment). – phoog Oct 07 '18 at 03:33
  • 8
    "unwilling to swear allegiance to a king or queen" - I'm British and I've never sworn allegiance to anyone. We don't do anything like the pledge of allegiance in the US (well, at least what's portrayed in schools in films). – ProgrammingLlama Oct 09 '18 at 07:17
  • 3
    The term "non-natural person" usually means a legal entity such as a corporation. I don't think that's what's intended here. – Michael Kay Oct 09 '18 at 14:32

11 Answers11

68

TLDR

From natural-born citizens at least, no, you don't need to swear such allegiance, unless you're doing some very specific jobs. Even in such jobs, possible with some exceptional circumstances, one can be 'anti-Monarchist' without repercussion.

I'm British, so I can comment on the "natural-born" part of this question. What I say below applies for such people. I don't know about people applying for citizenship "from outside", but I expect similar claims hold.

While personally I have no issue with the royals, I know lots of people who oppose them, some very strongly and openly; I don't remember specific names, but if you look up famous British comedians, say, you'll see that a lot of them go on these panel shows and, if it comes up, have a rant about how much they hate the concept of 'royals'.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit points out in the comments, that Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition party, is such a person. Although he claims that he wouldn't try to remove the monarchy were he in power (Independent article). I guess he feels there are more important things; but this doesn't restrict him from becoming PM (prime minister), and even as the PM he would meet the Queen weekly -- even if he were to campaign for abolition of the monarchy, he'd still meet her weekly! (Might be awkward...)

Personally, I don't recall (in my 24 and a bit years) ever being officially asked about this. In particular, certainly for a passport or driver's licence I never needed to. As mentioned by origimbo, to be an MP (member of parliament) you have to swear an oath to the monarch, but that's a pretty specific thing -- much more so than getting a passport. Similarly, police officers swear an oath to serve the Queen (described and cited here) -- although @inappropriateCode points out below that this is not the case in Northern Ireland (which makes sense, culturally).

I think in general the idea that you are allowed to have your own political view is held well above the idea that you have to like the monarch. As the saying goes, "it's a free country".

Sam OT
  • 621
  • 4
  • 9
  • 3
    Does the British passport still have a page referring the monarchy in it? There were calls to remove it some years ago, but I don't know if it's still in there. – JJJ Oct 05 '18 at 09:47
  • 1
    This answer only covers half the question; what about people applying for citizenship? – Will Oct 05 '18 at 13:20
  • 1
    @Will Yes, you're right. I must confess, after reading other answers/comments, I forgot about the final sentence! Thank you for pointing this out (in a sensible, non-vindictive!) way; let me edit my answer accordingly :) – Sam OT Oct 05 '18 at 13:29
  • 1
    The Leader of the Opposition might be a good example to invoke. – Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 05 '18 at 15:52
  • 7
    @JJJ having renewed my passport very recently, I can confirm that the page in question and reference to the queen is still in there. – Carcer Oct 05 '18 at 16:13
  • @JJJ and Carcer -- note that the Queen authorises passports, so she has to be mentioned. Just like with drivers licences, and even I think money. That's why she doesn't have a passport, nor a drivers licence (let's be honest, she has other people to drive her anyway!) – Sam OT Oct 05 '18 at 20:10
  • @SamT for the queen to travel abroad where she isn't queen, she must have her people arrange being allowed in (which I think is common for heads of state). I don't think she'd queue up in regular lines for customs or passport control. As for money, she has people for that too. – JJJ Oct 05 '18 at 20:20
  • Yeah, sure :) -- I was just meaning that it's authorised in her name, as the head of state. So this doesn't mean that people have to be pro-monarch to have a passport -- not that you claimed that! I was just pointing out that it's not overly relevant :) – Sam OT Oct 05 '18 at 20:53
  • 1
    While generally true, this answer is not correct with regards to a truly republican opinion. If you were a politician who refused to bend the knee (Sinn Fein) then you are not allowed to sit in parliament, take part in debates, or take a salary. Corbyn is not legitimately republican, he just pays lip service to the idea, because he still made the oath. Sinn Fein however do get elected, claim expenses, and visit government (but not the House). But not being allowed to speak in parliament or have a salary is a big issue. –  Oct 09 '18 at 15:56
  • 1
    Also worth noting army officers must declare loyalty to the monarch, naval officers do not; because the navy has historically been a royal institution, so their loyalty is assumed... not quite with the parliamentarian army. Also the police in the British mainland must declare their loyalty to the monarch, but those in Northern Ireland don't have to... for obviously cultural reasons. –  Oct 09 '18 at 15:57
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Oct 11 '18 at 00:45
55

I have been a Canadian my whole life and I do not recall ever being asked to "swear allegiance" to the monarch verbally.

Generally the monarchy is popular in a celebrity kind of way and while there are some anti-monarchists I believe it is not a significant political issue.

Since individual rights are important to Canadians (and I imagine similarly to the people of the U.K. and Australia) political views are not a hindrance to living a normal life for the vast majority of Canadians.

At this link are people who are openly anti-monarchy and I would guess they have drivers' licenses and passports.

New Canadians have to declare fealty to the monarch when they make Canada's Oath of Citizenship.

H2ONaCl
  • 1,641
  • 10
  • 13
  • "New Canadians have to declare fealty to the monarch when they make Canada's Oath of Citizenship." Is there any procedure specified in written form what would happen if a new Canadian breaks that oath, for example by being disloyal to the monarch? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Oct 05 '18 at 08:45
  • 12
    @Trilarion: how would you define being disloyal? Unless someone commits a specific offence, you're generally free to say what you like. – Steve Melnikoff Oct 05 '18 at 09:13
  • 4
    @SteveMelnikoff I mean the opposite of fealty. The Oath of Citizenship of Canada should define what it means by declaring fealty. Otherwise, what is an oath worth, if nobody knows what it means or if nobody cares about it. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Oct 05 '18 at 09:50
  • 3
    @Trilarion Wikipedia give a good definition: "a promise to abide by [Canada]'s laws and uphold the duties of a [Canadian] citizen" That's what fealty has always meant (change Canada / Canadian for whichever group is headed by whomever you are swearing fealty to) – Caleth Oct 05 '18 at 11:50
  • 1
    @Caleth I don't think this is the definition. Look at the text of the oath on Wikipedia "I swear ... that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty ... and that I will faithfully observe the laws...." You swear two things. The first thing is being faithful and bearing true allegiance (whatever this is) to her Majesty and all her successors and the second is to faithfully observe the laws. One does not necessarily have to do anything with the other and the second does not look like the explanation of the first. Just my interpretation. That's why I'm asking. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Oct 05 '18 at 13:24
  • Functionally, disloyalty to the monarch is anything that carries the punishment of losing citizenship. I'm not Canadian, so I don't know whether there is anything in that category. At a guess, joining an army that is fighting against Canada. – Caleth Oct 05 '18 at 13:35
  • 6
    @Trilarion: unless you can have your citizenship revoked for breaking the oath, I'd argue that it is entirely symbolic. After all, anyone within a country's jurisdiction will (in theory) be punished just the same for breaking the law, whether they're a citizen or not. (A separate question would then be: if the citizenship oath is entirely symbolic, why is it a requirement?) – Steve Melnikoff Oct 05 '18 at 13:59
  • 6
    I'm born a Canadian. The only time I can remember saying anything about the queen was as a boy scout (God, Queen and Country). I also naturalized as an American citizen in my late 40s. At that point I took an oath to absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen. But, Canada doesn't recognize that as a renunciation of Canadian citizenship, so I remain a Canadian. Am I breaking my oath by keeping a Canadian passport; I know I'm not breaking the law – Flydog57 Oct 05 '18 at 15:12
  • I've attended the Canadian citizenship ceremony as a guest. For what it's worth, the Citizenship oath is sworn in a large group and I don't think anyone is watching all that carefully as to what words are being spoken- though they do very clearly warn participants that they will not receive their certificate if there is doubt they took the oath. My friend, a Scottish chap, was actually a bit salty about having to swear an oath of fealty to the Queen. – Spehro Pefhany Oct 09 '18 at 02:38
  • I'd agree that it is entirely symbolic, but you still must swear fealty to the Crown (not necessarily the Queen-she won't be around for ever) when you take the oath of citizenship. It's always been a source of annoyance to me, that my mother & sisters (naturalized) had to do so, but I (Canadian by birth) didn't. "Functionally", disloyalty to the Queen is not punishable, let alone by revocation of citizenship. @Flydog57: No, you're not breaking your oath. Since the days "fealty" meant something, a transfer of fealty has always been possible. It's not as if you swore fealty to the US in secret – Auspex Oct 09 '18 at 13:25
  • 1
    The citizenship oath was the subject of a dismissed appeal in Ontario a few years ago. In essence, the court ruled that the oath is not to the Queen personally, but is "a symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed." – ngm Oct 09 '18 at 16:34
  • I'm surprised no one else has talked about Quebec province yet! I've heard many time people publicly saying "Death to the Queen!"... Monarchy here either leave people indifferent or loathed. – werfu Oct 11 '18 at 12:45
40

This is a complete non-issue in the UK. For example, the leader of the opposition in Parliament, Jeremy Corbyn, has openly refused to sing the National Anthem when attending high profile, televised, public events such as a memorial service commemorating the anniversary of the Battle of Britain in WWII.

It's hard to imagine any public figure "getting away with" that sort of behaviour in the USA!

Of course many people (including Corbyn, going through the formalities of parliamentary procedure) may sometimes do things that they don't believe in - but the vast majority of the UK population is never forced to make any declaration of allegiance to, or show any respect towards, the monarchy, the national flag, and similar national symbols.

alephzero
  • 2,234
  • 11
  • 18
  • 21
    It's true to an extent, but refusing to swear loyalty to the monarch will cause problems. "non-issue" is not true. Corbyn still swore an oath to the monarch. Sinn Fein did not, so they do not sit in parliament or get a salary. Similarly if you refused to swear loyalty to the monarchy you'd not be allowed to join the army or police in the mainland. The police in Northern Ireland don't swear an oath to the monarch, and curiously Naval officers don't as their loyalty is assumed given that the navy is a royal institution, unlike the parliamentarian army. –  Oct 05 '18 at 09:58
  • 6
    "It's hard to imagine any public figure "getting away with" that sort of behaviour in the USA!" Political culture does not translate well. American loyalties are (generally speaking) to the nation and the Constitution, with the flag as a symbol of both - as some athletes who "took the knee" found to their dismay. While the institution of the presidency is respected in a way the monarchy is not, speaking as an ignorant, outsider Yank, I find it hard to believe that the sort of vituperation widely applied to the current orange-haired president would be much appreciated towards the Queen Mum... – WhatRoughBeast Oct 05 '18 at 11:53
  • ... And likewise, I'd be quite surprised to hear of any public criticism offered up against the royal family to match the (short-lived, to be sure) #rapemelania incident. – WhatRoughBeast Oct 05 '18 at 11:58
  • 7
    @WhatRoughBeast You don't get many people reacting to her political statements, because she doesn't make any. You do get people who are reacting to the behaviour of various royals, particularly Phillip and Charles. The political mudslinging all goes at MPs (particularly the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet) – Caleth Oct 05 '18 at 12:02
  • 7
    @WhatRoughBeast Public criticism and pushing to rape someone are two different things. You probably wouldn't see the latter in the UK only because we are generally a little better behaved than that. Not much, but a little. – Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 05 '18 at 15:55
  • 1
    I think some of the criticism of Princess Diana (by the minority who didn't think she was some sort of goddess) was just as vituperative, and much longer-lived, than anything directed at Melania - who after all is only a target for 4 or 8 years. And Prince Charles is regarded (by some) as just as much a buffoon as your orange-haired president. But nobody is likely to want to rape the 92-year-old queen, I guess ;) – alephzero Oct 05 '18 at 22:19
  • 2
    In a public opinion poll in 2017, over 50% of the respondents stated that they would prefer Prince William as the next monarch rather than the heir to the throne, Prince Charles. So much for "respect" for individual members of the royal family, as opposed to the institution itself. And don't forget punk rock's contributions to popular culture at the time of the Queen's Jubilee (1986) - in particular, the Sex Pistols. – alephzero Oct 05 '18 at 22:26
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit - Again, political culture doesn't translate well. "Public criticism and pushing to rape someone are two different things" indeed, but it was clear at the time that #rapemelania was not an actual call to action. It was, rather, a very successful example of expressing outrage in terms that leave no doubt of the level of outrage being expressed. In fact, it was so successful that it was squashed within hours. Sort of like the bumper sticker/button "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald Now That We Need Him?". First showed up for Nixon (and you can still buy it), but more so. – WhatRoughBeast Oct 06 '18 at 13:17
  • 8
    @WhatRoughBeast, the Queen Mum died in 2002. – Peter Taylor Oct 06 '18 at 18:13
  • 2
    @WhatRoughBeast Most royals don't have any influence in how the contry is run, the majority of their duties are just ceremonial formalities. The most they can do to upset people is make some politically incorrect comments (Prince Charles is famous for making such comments), so in most cases nobody cares enough to complain. The royals simply aren't in our minds the way politicians are because they don't have the impact that politicians do. (Also the Queen's mother is dead.) – Pharap Oct 06 '18 at 19:09
  • I don't believe it is a complete non-issue for naturalized citizens. The "Oath of Allegiance" is the same for those public servants who must swear and for newly naturalized citizens, and it's been around for 150 years. – Auspex Oct 09 '18 at 13:32
  • Re: "It's hard to imagine any public figure "getting away with" that sort of behaviour in the USA!" Um... Literally the Declaration of Independence. It's a giant list of reasons why the King of England sucks We've not only do it, we've been getting away with it for 200 years. In serious though, the U.S. Oath of Office is to the Constitution, not to any leadership figure. The U.S. Government is also legally not able to compel singing for the National Anthem nor Saying the Pledge of Allegiance+ – hszmv Jan 13 '20 at 19:28
  • however, it's also not compelled to require citizens to support anyone who deems it necessary to refuse to do those things. It just won't arrest them for it on top of any consequences society chooses to inflict.
    • – hszmv Jan 13 '20 at 19:30