Talk:Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I took this bit out:

:MPs of neither the Christian nor Jewish faiths may take the Oath in any lawful manner.

If someone who knows what this refers to would like to make it clear and put it back into the article, then it would be much appreciated. Canaen 07:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a quotation from the linked HoC factsheet which, in turn, is quoting from

Section 1 (3) of the Oaths Act 1978.

There's quite a lot more on http://www.jsboard.co.uk/etac/etbb/benchbook/et_03/et_mf05.htm including

Guidance was given in the case of Kemble: 

We take the view that the question of whether the administration of an oath is lawful 
does not depend upon what may be the considerable intricacies of the particular 
religion which is adhered to by the witness. 

It concerns two matters and two matters only in our judgement. First of all, is 
the oath an oath which appears to the court to be binding on the conscience of 
the witness? And if so, secondly, and more importantly, is it an oath which the 
witness himself considers to be binding upon his conscience? 

Lord Lane C.J. in R. v. Kemble [1990] 91 Cr.App.R.178

but I don't think we need to go into that sort of detail in this article. --82.5.195.130 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about people who want to be MPs who don't believe in a monarchy?

Both these oaths allow a person to swear on a monarch and her(or his)continued lineage but that seems to imply that you can't be an MP if don't don't support the idea of monarchy or hereditary rulers. Futher to this, surely this also implys that a monarch, and the system of monarchy, can only be removed if you lie about your allegiance or change your mind during your time as an MP? Does this then ensure that the monarchy can never be removed? Is there an non-monarchy based oath? Does the present oath and the present system restrict people who do not believe in the monarchy from becoming MPs? Would that be a restriction of our freedoms?

If anyone knows the answers to these questions, as i think they would be relevant to this article, could you add them. If you don't think they are relevant to the article but you know the answer please can you still answer them in this section. (if i have time i will do the research myself but at present i am very busy and would appreciate an answer) thanx

--Flufybumblebee 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the answer is that trying to change the law to abolish the monarchy is not a breach of allegiance, and therefore does not violate the oath. Only trying to overthrow the monarchy illegally by force would count. Plenty of MPs have advocated abolition of the monarchy in debates in Parliament without being ruled out of order by the Speaker. The oath only requires that those who seek to abolish the monarchy do so by constitutional means. Richard75 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen is swearing a personal oath. There is no caveat in the oath making it permissible to step out of 'true allegiance' as long as one advocates 'peaceful' revolution. Whether by means non-violent or violent, to advocate the overthrow of constitutional monarchy is in no way keeping with the oath, whatever the Speaker of the Commons decides. Of course, advocating republicanism is allowed to a certain extent by freedom of speech, but for it to be done by MPs who have been voted to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is deeply dishonourable, deeply disrespectful to constituents who expect loyalty to the state and its institutions, and is political cowardice. At least Sinn Fein-IRA, in all their murderous and politically cynical way, treat the oath, by refusing to swear it, with a respect due to the obligations inherent within it. Sir Andrew de Harcla 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narrow

It strikes me that this article is rather narrow in scope. It's not simply MPs who are concerned with the Oath of Allegiance.