As a secular republican I have deep sympathy for Jeremy
Corbyn’s position at the recent service for the 75th anniversary of
the Battle of Britain. What the furore about his not singing along to our so called
‘National Anthem’ shows is the deeply undemocratic nature of our country.
It reminded me of my school days when once during assembly
the Head stopped the hymn singing because we where demonstrating a complete
lack of gusto. He said if we did not make a greater effort he would have us
back after school, “and we would enjoy it.”
Even as I child I was able to work out that forcing someone
to enjoy something was not an easy task. Setting aside the sound of the right
wing press, whose owners’ patriotism does not extend to being British for tax
purposes, baying for craven support for our monarch what is going on here?
Is the edifice of the British state so fragile that not
singing the praises of Her Majesty is enough to bring it down? No wonder the
nationalisms of Scotland and
Wales
are so powerful they have much better songs. As do many other nations as we
will find at the Rugby World Cup!
We have this dreadful uninspiring dirge. It was not an
uninspiring dirge when it was first song. Like much of the British
constitutional settlement it was not adopted by Royal Proclamation or my Act of
Parliament but by custom and practice.
It became popular on the London stage in about 1744-45 and was taken
up as a response to the landing of Charles Edward Stuart, (Bonny Prince Charlie
– as Billy Connolly points out the only leader to be named after three sheep
dogs).
The first performance was in support of George II after his defeat at the
Battle of Prestonpans in 1745. The anti-Jacobite nature of the song was shown
in a verse expressing support for Field Marshall George Wade who was then
assembling an army at Newcastle:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
No wonder the modern Scots prefer, ‘Scotland the
Brave’ or ‘Flower of Scotland’. My
dictionary says that a National Anthem is a “nation’s patriotic song”. This
song then is not a song of our nation, there is nothing in it about the place or
its people, and its only role is to put a dampener on national sporting and
other events by reminding us of our embarrassing Imperial legacy.
On a more sinister level however it is part of the pseudo
democratic rituals of our institutions.
Like for example the oath of allegiance that every MP has to make before
they can take their parliamentary seat.
Is this allegiance to uphold the law or to the people who
elected them. No it says "I...do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and
affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".
How can this make any sense it is either a piece of
theatrical nonsense or it is a way of subverting the rights of the citizen.
Allegiance is being pledged to the yet unborn - to Royal sperm!
Then comes all the nonsense about being Her Majesty’s
Government and Opposition topped off with the ruritanian Privy Council which
originated from the French prive meaning the private advisors to the Monarch,
not as my Dad once told me because they met in the outside toilet.
This is a gloriously ambiguous situation appointed by the
Prime Minister under the fiction of loyalty to whoever the monarch happens to
be. This is the pinnacle of the secret state. The Privy Council Oath was not
revealed until 1989 following a written parliamentary question:
“You do swear by
Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one
of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner
of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour,
Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the
uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty
Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the
same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council,
faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and
Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you,
or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said
Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it
unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her
Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your
uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist
and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her
Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against
all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in
all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her
Majesty. So help you God.”
Does this matter?
Well yes in one direct way Orders-in-Council take the form of secondary
legislation and are used to make government regulations and appointments. And
secondly in an indirect way this is the very centre of our state stuffed with
appointees and serving a monarch. Yet we continue to pretend to live in a
democracy.
Jeremy Corbyns crusade to democratise the Labour Party is
the beginning of a wider crusade that is to finally democratise our country!
No comments:
Post a Comment