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 headteacher stopped the hymn-singing because we were 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 sung. Like much of the British constitutional settlement, it was not adopted by royal proclamation or by 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 sheepdogs).

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 Marshal 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 goes: “ I [name] 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 advisers to the monarch — not, as my Dad once told me, because they met in the outside toilet.

This is a gloriously ambiguous situation of appointment 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 made by the Privy Council and are used to make government regulations and appointments. And in a second 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.

Corbyn’s crusade to democratise the Labour Party is the beginning of a wider crusade to finally democratise our country.