No doubt given the misgivings some may feel at a less popular son taking over the throne from a fondly-regarded mother, the sign off "So help me God" could be uttered with some fervency.
Others of a more republican bent may well be doing a very different kind of swearing entirely at the prospect of expressing their fidelity to the King, let alone his heirs and successors.
The debate on republicanism in New Zealand has been carried out more with apathy than with ardour. Those who care about the issue care deeply but they seem to be a distinct minority compared to the bulk of Kiwis who just want to get on with their lives free from any concern over constitutional issues. A coronation, a rare event given the longevity of Queen Elizabeth II, does rather crystalise the mind however.
The business of pledging loyalty to a head of state many thousands of kilometres away was unquestioned by New Zealanders in 1902 when the previous longest waiting heir apparent before Charles, Edward VII succeeded his long-lived mother Victoria. It was barely questioned when Edward’s great granddaughter Elizabeth was crowned in 1953.
But much more has changed in the 70 years from 1953 to 2023 than in the five decades and four monarchs between 1902 and 1953, both in Britain and its former empire.
The order of service for the King’s coronation offers ample demonstration of that.
His Prime Minister, a practising Hindu, will give a reading. Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh peers will present the King with pieces of the coronation regalia. The blessing will be shared by leaders of different Christian denominations, including a Catholic cardinal, and after the religious service has ended, the newly minted head of the Church of England will receive a greeting by Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim and Buddhist leaders, as well as female clergy.
None of this would have been contemplated, or even imagined, by the planners of the inauguration of the second Elizabethan era, although one suspects that given her deep commitment to preserving the British Commonwealth that the late Queen might have approved of such an inclusive occasion.
Despite such nods to modern sentiment as the Coronation quiche and the King being annointed with vegan holy oil — previous monarchs had to endure being smeared with an ambergris-based concoction — the question of the monarchy’s relevance in the 21st century remains.
It has started to be asked more overtly in England — protesters with "Not my king" flags and placards have been noticeable in recent weeks.
Little heat has been generated in New Zealand though, most seemingly resigned to the imminence of Charles III becoming New Zealand’s King and head of state.
For decades New Zealand prime ministers have opined that the new King’s ascension would the catalyst for consideration of the country becoming a republic.
That does not seem to have been the case as an orderly transition is under way, one unimpeded by any demonstrations questioning whether it is an appropriate one or not. Indifference seems to sum up the national mood.
Charles himself may have been a factor in this. Earlier misgivings about his suitability may have been assuaged by his fuss-free assumption of the throne and his genuine attempts to embrace the disparate elements of his realm.
But New Zealanders still seem unlikely to pledge their fealty to King Charles III — the King we are seemingly not all bothered about either way really — out loud.
In the modern era that might be the best a representative of an ancient regime can hope for.
