Anthony Barnett (London, OK): A great story in yesterday's Mail on Sunday: QUEEN FURY OVER BROWN OATH filled its front page. The palace had gone to the extraordinary step of giving the paper an on-the-record-statement: "The Palace was not consulted with regard to the Goldsmith review". Wow, was the Palace showing good judgement? Had it at least understood that being British meant not asking everyone to go on their knees and swear fealty to the monarch? That this would politicise the institution and drag it into disrepute?
NOT AT ALL!
Excuse me, all the headlines in CAPITALS is catching.
No, the Queen likes the odd oath of allegiance. The paper notes they are sworn by all new recruits to the armed services. Also, "For centuries, members of both House of parliament have been required to take an oath swearing to 'bear true allegiance to the Queen and her successors'". No the royal fury, the spitting rage of the Palace that obliged it to go ON THE RECORD was caused the temerity of Goldsmith to EVEN SUGGEST that the oath might NOT be to the Queen. The Mail is clear, "Traditionalists" (aka Elizabeth) are "infuriated" at such a suggestion that such a pledge even MIGHT be sworn to "the country" and not HER! On your knees Goldsmith and pass me the sharp sword. As the paper's editorial puts it:
New Labour simply doesn't understand Britain - mainly because it has never liked it.
Lord Goldsmith's attempt to boost "Britishness", which emerged last week to a chorus of raspberries, has also managed to anger the person whose job it is to embody the nation – the Queen herself.
Her Majesty's annoyance, expressed with unusual candour by Buckingham Palace, is perfectly understandable.
Lord Goldsmith's confused proposal for an "oath of allegiance" to be taken by school-leavers could end up as a declaration of loyalty to the State but not to the Monarch. This would actively undermine the role of the Crown in our constitution and our law.
