In recent weeks, connected to the celebrations of our Golden Jubilee of independence, a number of commentators and public personalities have waded into the topic of discussing the issue of Grenada’s Oath of Allegiance, and the position of our head of state, the King.
These discussions have, unfortunately, almost universally had one thing in common, that being the spreading of rampant misinformation about the Oath of Allegiance, Grenada’s head of state and of our constitutional arrangements. Major public personalities, from Dr Francis Alexis KC to Hon. Peter David, MP for the Town of St George, have been spreading the unfortunately all too common incorrect narrative that our representatives swear allegiance to the British monarch, and that the British monarch is our head of state. The Grenada Monarchist League deplores this careless spreading of misinformation, which muddies the waters of our constitutional status, and robs Grenadians of the understanding of our constitutional system that we deserve.
Our representatives do not swear allegiance to the British monarch. This is a fact that must not be obfuscated or that can be debated, and surely a learned lawyer such as Dr Alexis or an MP should be aware of that. Our representatives swear an oath of allegiance not to the British monarch, but to the Grenadian monarch. The oath is sworn to the King of Grenada, who is our head of state.
King Charles III is, by the Grace of God, King of Grenada and of His Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, as proclaimed by Governor-General Dame Cécile La Grenade on 12 September 2022, following his accession to the throne. His position as King of Grenada is entirely, fully and wholly separate and independent from his position as King of the United Kingdom. Upon the moment of independence on 7 February 1974, the British Crown ceased to exist in or have any authority over Grenada, and was replaced fully and wholly by the Grenadian Crown, a wholly new and separate entity. This is as per the principle of the Divisibility of the Crown, under which the Crown in each of the King’s realms is wholly separate, distinct and equal. None subordinate or superior to another. As such, the King is equally much but also entirely separately King of Grenada as he is King of the United Kingdom, King of Canada, or King of Jamaica.
Our head of state is the King of Grenada, not the King of the United Kingdom. This is a constitutional fact, again one surely as attorneys such as Hon. David, and certainly Dr Alexis, should know. The status of the Crown as divisible between the realms has been a fact since 1931, hardly a new invention which they might have missed. In all matters relating to Grenada, King Charles III may take advice only from Grenadian ministers, and is bound only by the Grenadian constitution and our laws. He is, in fact, legally a different person to the King of the United Kingdom. The King of the United Kingdom has no power in Grenada, and may take no actions in regard to our country. As such, we are already fully and wholly independent and have already cut ties to the British monarchy. We did so on 7. February 1974, replacing it with our own indigenous Grenadian monarchy. Our own Nutmeg Crown.
Swearing allegiance to the King of Grenada is the same thing as swearing allegiance to Grenada, because one is swearing allegiance to the living embodiment of the state: the King. Our representatives do not swear allegiance to a foreign monarch, a “coloniser”, but to our own monarch. Our own Grenadian monarch. As such, changing the oath of allegiance is pointless and a waste of time, not to mention breaking centuries of tradition and constitutional practice throughout the Commonwealth. The only change to the oath that might in any way be worthwhile would be modifications to make clear that the oath is sworn to “His Majesty King Charles III, King of Grenada”, as is done in Canada and New Zealand.
The spread of this sort of misinformation must stop. The Grenadian people deserve to be aware of our true constitutional arrangements, and misleading them into believing we have the British monarch as our head of state, and are thus somehow not fully and totally independent of Britain, is a disservice to the body public. The Grenadian monarchy is a fundamental cornerstone of our constitutional parliamentary democracy. Grenadians all deserve to know the facts about it, not misinformation and falsehoods trying to make it appear like a colonial leftover, rather than the wholly independent Grenadian institution it has been since 1974.
The Grenada Monarchist League is committed to ensuring that this sort of misinformation does not spread further. Thus, we humbly request this excellent newspaper, other newspapers in this nation, and academics and representatives such as Dr Alexis and Hon. David, who should certainly know better, to make efforts to avoid inadvertently being part of spreading such false information in the future. We cut ties with the British monarchy in 1974, and continuing to say that we have the British monarch as head of state is as erroneous as saying we have the Australian or Antiguan monarch as our head of state.
A comprehensive overview of the constitutional and ceremonial functions, duties and role of the Grenadian Monarchy may be found on our website Grenadamonarchist.org.
Grenada Monarchist League
Perception is the King. One man, many kingdoms. Same man, same to every kingdom. Same King. Different perspective. But of the same man. It’s just that the mind presumes that same man differently depending on what kingdom the same man is connected to. In the end, it’s all the same. The thing about misinformation is like a fart. The farter swears she did not fart. The smeller swears she farted. Mis-information is information that missed the point, and the point moves with perception. One Man, Many Wifes.
I don’t believe in God & I do not believe in swearing allegiance to someone I did not vote for. Royalty only became royalty because hundreds of years ago they were bigger & badder than anyone else.
Please stop those futile arguments. My understanding of the constitutional provisions and oath of allegiance in the context of Grenada is that allegiance is pledged o the Queen/ King (of the United Kingdom) their heirs and successors. At no time is there a reference to the King of Grenada if such there be. To be truly independent the time has come to discard the vestiges of colonialism as part of a belated constitutional reform that reflects the aspirations of the proud peoples of a new state — Isles of Spice. The contituents Grenada Carriacou and Petite Martinique remain.
Then you unfortunately do not understand the constitutional provisions of the oath of allegiance, or the constitutional position of the monarchy.
At the 12th September proclamation ceremony at the Governor-General’s Residence, the King was proclaimed “Charles III, By the Grace of God, King of Grenada and of His Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. On all official documents by the King relating to Grenada, that is the only style used. On all British documents on the other hand, “By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His Other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith” is used, illustrating the difference.
The Statute of Westminster of 1931 established firmly and unquestionably that all the Dominions (later Realms, of which Grenada is one) are fully separate and sovereign, and that the monarchies of each are distinct and different entities. The Crown of Canada, the Crown of Great Britain, the Crown of Jamaica and the Crown of Grenada are all fully separate entities, and the King is legally a different person in each jurisdiction.
As such, the oath of allegiance in Grenada is only and exclusively to the King of Grenada, who is a different legal entity to the King of Great Britain. Canada and New Zealand have made that distinction clear in the wording of their oath, which I think we should too, but that does not alter the constitutional realities of the oath in any other jurisdiction, including Grenada. We swear no allegiance to the King of the United Kingdom.
It is the same person though, this is nit picking to the Nth degree.
In the flesh, yes, he is the same man. Legally however? No. Thats the crux of the argument, and it’s not nitpicking.
Having the monarchy doesn’t make us any less independent than if we were a republic, unlike what many say, because in all legal aspects the two monarchies are separate entities. When in Grenada and operating as Grenada’s head of state, Charles is a Grenadian and a Grenadian only, and he embodies the country. That’s why our officials swear allegiance to him, they’re swearing allegiance to the living embodiment of Grenada, and so to Grenada itself.
It’s a relevant distinction, because nearly all the arguments against the monarchy and the oath rest on the idea it makes us less independent/subordinate to the UK, and that our leaders don’t swear allegiance to Grenada, neither of which is true
If he is king of Grenada & also king of United Kingdom then whether you pledge oath of allegiance to king of Grenada but not to king of United Kingdom what does it matter? I would rather abolish the monarchy, I did not vote for them. I would also abolish the unelected House of Lords in the UK & replace it with an elected senate.
It matters because when you swear allegiance to the King of Grenada, you are per definition swearing allegiance to Grenada. If you swear allegiance to the King of the UK, you swear allegiance to the UK. The jurisdiction to which you swear your oath before God is important. Republicans say swearing allegiance to the king obliges our politicians not to loyally serve Grenada, but to serve Britain. That isn’t true, because they swear allegiance to the King of Grenada, hence to Grenada.
As for the monarchy (and the House of Lords for that matter), it is useful precisely because it is unelected. The unelected nature of the monarchy insulates it from party-politics. The king doesn’t have any political party connections and doesn’t owe his position as head of state to anyone. He is and can act completely independently, without the baggage of party affiliation. Likewise for the House of Lords, who’s unelected nature makes it perfect as a revisory chamber to scrutinise legislation, unencumbered by the worries of party discipline or re-election.
Electing everything in a state, from top to bottom, isn’t necessarily the best. The executive government and lower house absolutely should be elected, but the head of state, who is supposed to be nonpartisan and unifying, really shouldn’t be. The very act of election would turn it party-political.
Who cares…Grenada is a very small island…
If we can build good relations with the UK and get the funding we need to build our infrastructure that would be a smart move. So if that means aalliance and aligence to the monarch so be it.
They can guve us back some of the tesources they temoved from us to build their empire. Look how developed Barbados is as compared to all the other islands…This island gained its independence without any of the monetart assistance needed to build our infrastructure.. we where absndoned and told we are free…what a joke……my god people learn sense…let use build a bridge with the monarch the UK and use that relationship to acquire some of the funding we need to build our nation. God save the king
You are right I am a UK citizen and love you country as I have a citizen of your country as my partner. God bless you all