"When the magistrate says 'That's not a good enough reason my man.' He said 'Excuse me, could I ask you? Have you taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarch?'"
About this Quote
The line lands like a courtroom heckle dressed up as civics, and that’s the point. Holden stages a petty procedural clash that suddenly reveals the real machinery underneath: not the law as neutral reason, but the law as loyalty ritual. The magistrate’s breezy, paternal “my man” tries to shrink the speaker into someone whose motives can be waved away as insufficiently respectable. It’s authority performing casual dominance, the kind that doesn’t need to shout because it assumes the room already agrees.
Then comes the pivot: “Have you taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarch?” It’s a question that pretends to be merely administrative while functioning as a trapdoor. The speaker isn’t actually seeking information; he’s reframing the magistrate’s demand for a “good enough reason” as hypocritical. If the state’s own officials bind themselves with a loyalty oath to a hereditary figurehead, what does that say about the supposed rational, merit-based foundation of justice? The subtext is acidic: you want reasons from me, but your authority rests on tradition, symbolism, and pledged fealty.
As a journalist, Holden’s intent is less to litigate monarchism than to expose how power polices legitimacy. The exchange hints at a broader British tension: a modern legal system that advertises impartiality while carrying ceremonial baggage from empire and monarchy. By quoting the magistrate verbatim, Holden lets the condescension and the ritual speak for themselves. The real critique isn’t that oaths exist; it’s that institutions treat their own inherited beliefs as “normal,” while demanding that ordinary dissenters justify themselves like suspects.
Then comes the pivot: “Have you taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarch?” It’s a question that pretends to be merely administrative while functioning as a trapdoor. The speaker isn’t actually seeking information; he’s reframing the magistrate’s demand for a “good enough reason” as hypocritical. If the state’s own officials bind themselves with a loyalty oath to a hereditary figurehead, what does that say about the supposed rational, merit-based foundation of justice? The subtext is acidic: you want reasons from me, but your authority rests on tradition, symbolism, and pledged fealty.
As a journalist, Holden’s intent is less to litigate monarchism than to expose how power polices legitimacy. The exchange hints at a broader British tension: a modern legal system that advertises impartiality while carrying ceremonial baggage from empire and monarchy. By quoting the magistrate verbatim, Holden lets the condescension and the ritual speak for themselves. The real critique isn’t that oaths exist; it’s that institutions treat their own inherited beliefs as “normal,” while demanding that ordinary dissenters justify themselves like suspects.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Anthony
Add to List








