THE “perverse” rule that requires MPs to swear allegiance to the King and all of his heirs or face losing their seat in parliament should be changed, campaigners say.
It comes after Labour MP Clive Lewis revealed that he had been forced to retake the oath after initially omitting to swear allegiance to all of the monarch’s “heirs and successors”.
Lewis had only sworn the oath under protest the first time around, and has now called for the legal ceremony to be changed.
He wrote on social media: “After omitting to swear allegiance to King Charles's ‘heirs and successors’ last week, I've had to take the oath again in order to sit in the House of Commons.
READ MORE: Labour will not change two-child cap with King's Speech, Angela Rayner says
“The majority of the public are committed to democracy, and so I hope one day MPs can swear an oath based on those values.”
Lewis further shared a letter of warning he had received, adding: “If I had not re-sworn the oath, then based on a law from 1866, I could be fined, subjected to legal action, and my seat ‘shall be vacated in the same manner as if [I] were dead’.
“This should change, so MPs have the choice to swear allegiance to our constituents and democracy.”
It understood that the Labour MP was the first ever called on the retake the oath.
Campaign group Republic seconded Lewis’s calls for a renewed swearing in system, calling the current one “outdated” and highlighting that a pledge of allegiance to royal heirs included Prince Andrew.
After omitting to swear allegiance to King Charles' “heirs and successors” last week, I've had to take the oath again in order to sit in the House of Commons. The majority of the public are committed to democracy, and so I hope one day MPs can swear an oath based on those values. pic.twitter.com/h7fTDdEjxX
— Clive Lewis MP (@labourlewis) July 16, 2024
Republic chief executive Graham Smith said: "Millions of people in the UK support the abolition of the monarchy. Whether they become MPs, police officers or join the armed services, their allegiance will always be to their country and fellow citizens, not an unelected head of state.
"The oath is particularly perverse in parliament, where the right to take your seat should come only from the votes cast on election day. To be told you must swear allegiance to a monarch is outdated nonsense that flies in the face of freedom of expression."
READ MORE: Labour ‘aiding and abetting Israel's law breaking' in Gaza, Oxfam says
He added: "The vast majority of people in the UK support democracy and free speech. The slightly hysterical reaction to Clive's oath taking last week was confined to a small minority on the right.
"Clearly it's time to introduce a choice, where MPs can choose to swear their allegiance either to the king or to their country and constituents. This should not be a controversial notion in a democratic society."
In all, it took Westminster three days to swear in the 643 MPs who will take their seats.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn could be heard to call the parliamentary tradition “a load of nonsense” while waiting to be sworn in.
Any changes to the oath would require legislation from the UK Government.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel