The current British Government’s attempts to define and develop Britishness risk dividing the country rather than uniting it. Lord Goldsmith’s review of citizenship, commissioned by Gordon Brown, raises the idea of a coming of age ceremony in which new adults would swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch. Or so the media would have you believe.

A quick glance at Goldsmith’s report throws doubt on whether the former attorney general actually proposed such an oath. The report makes very tentative recommendations; its hesitancy seems out of proportion to the resulting torrent of abuse. Small wonder that Peter Watson of Chester commented in a letter in today’s Guardian that knee-jerk negativity is the essence of Britishness today.

Yet the debate, however imperfect, does shine a light into the curious nature of British citizenship. Traditionally, the British have been subjects not citizens, which is why many – not just republicans – oppose the idea of swearing an oath to the Queen rather than to the country. The British national anthem is all about the monarch, not the country. And the debate isn’t confined to the United Kingdom. Back in January, Canada’s CBC reported that a Canadian army officer had lost his legal battle to win exemption from the duty to swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada. The shadow of the British empire continues to influence the life of Britain’s former dominions; there’s something curious about a Canadian officer having to swear an oath to foreign queen.