by The Grenada Monarchist League
The recent launch of the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR) organisation, headed by prominent republican Dr Francis Alexis, raises again the salience of the issue of our Oath of Allegiance.
Again unfortunately, as was the case ahead of our Golden Jubilee celebrations earlier this year, Dr Alexis and his new CCR are peddling direct falsehoods and misinformation about the nature of our constitutional arrangements and the oath.
The CCR, at its founding ceremony, declared its first priority to be to “change [the oath of] allegiance from the UK monarch” to Grenada. This very statement by Dr Alexis is a misleading lie. This is an issue we have already addressed in our article “Misinformation about our Head of State and Oath of Allegiance must stop”, published in this newspaper on 22 February, but which it seems must unfortunately be addressed again.
The oath of allegiance as it currently stands is not, and has not been since independence in 1974, to the British monarch. The oath of allegiance sworn by the Governor-General, Prime Minister, ministers and members of parliament is an oath to the Grenadian monarch. An oath to the King of Grenada — the living embodiment of the Grenadian state.
Under the constitutional principle of the Divisibility of the Crown, established by the Statute of Westminster of 1931, the Crown is a divisible entity. The Crown in each Commonwealth Realm is a separate, distinct and independent construct. This means that upon independence on 7 February 1974, the British monarchy ceased to have any influence, power or authority in Grenada. Instead, a wholly new and separate legal entity, the Grenadian monarchy, was born and took its place. It is this entity which functions as our head of state, and to which oaths are taken.
King Charles III is King of Grenada, entirely separately from his role as King of the United Kingdom. Likewise, was his mother, Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. In all Grenadian matters the King is exclusively King of Grenada — he may take advice only from Grenadian ministers, must follow Grenadian law and operate under the Grenadian constitution. King Charles III of Grenada is in fact an entirely distinct and separate legal person from King Charles III of the United Kingdom. He is a Grenadian citizen and operates exclusively as Grenadian head of state, irrespective of any role or position in the UK.
This is made eminently clear by that fact that all official acts related to Grenada refers only to “Charles III, By the Grace of God, King of Grenada and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, without any mention of the United Kingdom. It was under this title the King was proclaimed our head of state by Governor-General Dame Cécile La Grenade on 12 September 2022. That proclamation was signed by Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell.
As such, to say the oath of allegiance is to the British monarch is as erroneous as saying the oath is to the Australian monarch or to the Jamaican monarch. The oath, when taken in a Grenadian jurisdiction and under the Grenadian constitution, is one exclusively to the King of Grenada, not the King of Great Britain.
Thus, not only is the rationale behind the proposed change – that the oath is being sworn to a foreign monarch — completely wrong, the proposed change of the oath to being to “Grenada” is entirely superfluous as the oath is already at present to our country. How could this be? The answer to that is simple: the King is the legal embodiment and personification of the Grenadian state. The King, as sovereign and head of state, is constitutionally considered to be the living, breathing representation of the state. The state is the king and the king is the state. This is for instance why land owned by the government is referred to as Crown Lands, because the King — the Crown — is the state.
As such when our representatives swear allegiance to the King they are, per definition, swearing allegiance to Grenada, because constitutionally the King and Grenada are one and the same. He represents and embodies the permanence and continuity of our state structures. He personifies and concentrates the abstract idea of statehood and sovereignty in a tangible, living form.
This of course raises the question why Dr Alexis and the other eminent members of the CCR — most of them prominent lawyers — are spreading such obvious and open falsehoods and misinformation. Why are they, who certainly should know better, actively misinforming the public about the nature of Grenada’s constitutional arrangements. Why are they attempting to subvert and change the structures which form the bedrock of our constitution, which has served our country well for 50 years, when they know their own arguments for it are based on falsehood and lies.
Grenada is a monarchical country — the Caribs were monarchical long before the island was claimed in the name of France’s King Louis XIV in 1649. Our African ancestors were from the numerous monarchical societies in West Africa. Our country, since it’s inception as a colony and through 50 years of independent statehood, has always been a monarchy. Even while under a communist regime Grenada, uniquely in the world, retained our monarchical system of government.
The uprooting of the oath of allegiance to the King of Grenada would be entirely superfluous, a-historic, and based entirely on nonsensical arguments which even a cursory analysis of, shows does not hold water. The oath of allegiance as it currently stands is already to Grenada. It is to our Grenadian King, who represents and embodies in his person our Grenadian state. It is not an oath to a foreign monarch, and the continued insistence by persons such as Dr Alexis and the CCR to keep pushing this wholly false narrative is extremely concerning.
The Grenada Monarchist League firmly condemn the CCR’s spreading of falsehoods. We encourage the government to disregard the legislation presented to them by this organisation, and implore the government not to undertake any such superfluous, nonsensical changes. We may further remind the government that in 2016 these very same proposed changes were overwhelmingly rejected by the people in a democratic referendum. Attempting to ram through these changes, in direct contravention of the people’s stated wishes, as the CCR proposes, would be entirely contrary to the spirit of our constitution and the principles of democratic and representative government. We implore the Prime Minister and the government, who were elected on a platform of a transformational agenda, to not revert to previous attitudes of ignoring and overriding the will of the people.
“King Charles III is King of Grenada, entirely separately from his role as King of the United Kingdom.”
What nonsensical sophistry! Grenada has never had an actual King or Queen outside and apart from the UK-based royals. Trying to spin the UK monarchs as being also separate and independent monarchs of Grenada outside and apart from their role as monarchs of the U.K. is laughable! Is the King’s loyalty not then divided? What if per chance there should be some dispute between Grenada and the UK? Would the king then engage in some sort of split personality advocating for both countries against each other?
This setup is a bunch of fictitious nonsense, where we’re either pledging allegiance to the U.K. monarchs or imaginary versions of them that exist in an imaginary parallel universe where they serve our interests.
If you ask me, it’s just a way to get us to remain loyal to them with a meaningless semblance of not having to be loyal to them. It’s like: “I’m not your monarch but … I’m still your monarch. Psych!”
Don’t insult our intelligence with this meaningless technical nonsense. We don’t want no imaginary fictitious version of King Charles from an imaginary fictitious parallel universe where he’s loyal to us, being out head of state.
The King’s constitutional separateness in Grenada from the UK is a fact. His grandfather, George VI, was in fact technically at war with himself during the First Indo-Pakistan War, as he was at the time head of state of both countries.
If there were ever a dispute between the UK and Grenada the King would do what he always does: remain silent. The King does not comment on political matters. All his constitutional powers in Grenada are vested in the GG and cannot be exercised by him unless personally in Grenada, so that would not be any problem.
Charles, like it or not, is our head of state. And the constitutional reality is that the monarchy in Grenada is a distinct legal entity from the monarchy in the UK.
Thanks for making my point about the ridiculousness of this setup. Do we think so little of our own people; are we so mired in insecurity and inferiority complexes that we feel compelled to maintain a head of state rooted in an imaginary, technical-legal version of our former colonial masters, rather than a real, flesh-and-blood, in-person, Grenadian? Isn’t that an indictment on our collective mindset as a nation professing independence, that we should work to quickly correct?
The King has never been our “colonial master”. Grenada already had a degree of home rule by the time he was born, and we attained full adult suffrage by the time he was 4. Full self rule by the time he was 19.
The monarchy has nothing to do with insecurity in ourselves as a people, it has to do with its governmental benefits. Constitutional monarchy has proven itself to be a superior system of government to republicanism. It is more stable, and prevents the politicisation of the head of state.
The King’s role is essentially that of a safeguard. As our head of state his duty is to ensure the Governor-General’s independence and political neutrality, and to provide external security guarantees.The diplomatic and representative benefits of the monarchy are a bonus on top of this. A republic could never match any of it.
Caribbean man. I don’t anyone could have said it better then you did. Thank you!
We the People made a democracy out of Grenada by kicking the King, Queen and all their offspring to the curb: we freely elect our leaders! Who elected the King?
The position of the League is laughable which explains why they have not come out in the sunshine so our collective derision can be directed at what is no less the clinging of a few trying to thwart the march of our people into the future free, entirely free, of any attempt of a King to exercise domination over us.
Every school boy and girl in Grenada laughs at the Monarchist League and its obnoxious inhumane position.
It is telling that you, a founding member of the CCR, an attorney no less, are unable to actually challenge any of the points presented above and instead just resort to a rant of insults.
The monarchy is a central part of the democratic parliamentary system established by our constitution, which was negotiated by Grenadian leaders like Eric Gairy and Herbert Blaize. We elect our representatives, and our prime minister is appointed based on the confidence of the house. We are a democracy as our legislative, policy and executive power is wielded by our elected politicians. The monarchy, as our head of state, provides nonpartisan symbolism and a check on the government above party politics. It does not need to be, and indeed shouldn’t be, elected, because that would take away from its nonpartisanship and detachment from party politics. We don’t need everything top-to-bottom to be elected. Just like judges, the head of state is best left unelected, as it keeps them out of the political arena.
May I remind you that it was the monarchy, through Governor General Sir Paul Scoon, which was instrumental in restoring democracy after the implosion of the revolution.