@@charles5553 and the swearing in was probably even more closed minded back then. Probably had to swear fealty to an Anglican god as well as to the monarchy
Absolute insanity in 2024 to still have the government swear it's allegiance to one specific family and not to the actual country it's supposed to serve
It's not to a family. It's to our Judaeo-Christian heritage of which the monarch represents, that undergirds our constitution, hence the monarch promising on oath (as did Charles) to not only govern the people '...according to their respective laws and customs' but to '.. uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel'.
Americans swear an almost identical oath to the constitution. The notion of a monarch is a fiction integral to our constitution because, as we all know, for all practical purposes the 'mon' does not 'arch'. Since the English Civil War, the British constitution has rested on a balance of powers at which the monarch has remained the titular head and so 'king' represents a cypher for the constitution and the oath amounts to a declaration of honour not to betray or cheat the British people as represented by their constitution. These protests represent a wilful objection by some individuals who would consider betraying the constitution or the country, for example by conniving with terrorists.
@@ashleydickenson2093 No, they have to swear allegieance to the monarch and his/her heirs and successors, therefore to one family. Building up quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo around it just makes the whole thing even more despicable.
@@jonathanlewis453 Republicans are not terrorists, or bolsheviks as some say, citing the overthrow of the Russian royal family. We're pretty ordinary moderate people who want to live in a country that has opted for a truer form of democracy.
@@jonathanlewis453 You have just explained very clearly why the "Oath" to the Monarch is false when the reality is a legal oath to serve parliament and the people of the uk. It's a lie to keep the peasants in line with the deep establishment who still rule.
@@Cherrytune386 Nonsense! The sovereign is the Head of State. Ours is hereditary. I suppose you want one elected by the People, someone like Biden or Trump, Johnson or Bair. Pathetic.
You must bear allegiance. You must allow the family to live privileged. You must not complain if it is at your expense. You must be humble and charitable.
However, you wouldn't mind supporting the privileges of a parliamentary class more concerned with its own ego than with the future of the kingdom, as long as it was chosen through a vote, right? Do not be ridiculous! The Royal Family has done more for the UK than any Keir Starmer ever could!
Even as a Unionist I like Colum Eastwood (one who mentioned Derry), he gets stick from nationalists for doing this but I’d say it’s commendable he bites his tongue and says these words in the interests of representing his constituents. Could a Unionist do that in the Dáil if the roles were reversed? I don’t think so.
i mean if someone in the Dail wants to swear allegence to a foriegn king that kinda brings up a whole batch of different problems... But otherwise a TD is more than welcome to swear allegence to the president of ireland
@@elliswellington4553 True, Eastwood’s been around for a while and I respect him for the fact he’s a lot less about show and more about serving the people of Derry, I’ll even admit he’s a much bigger man than most of our Unionist reps, especially Paisley Jr. (who has lost his seat thank God)
@@zax1998LU You can't presume that the reason someone refuses to pledge allegiance, is that they're anti-monarchist. Some adopt that position because they're unwilling to give allegiance to the British State, or government by Britain in any form.
As a Northern Irish Catholic, when we had to make our Brownie Guide Promise "to love God and serve the Queen", we convinced our seven-year old selves that crossing your fingers on pronouncement of the unwanted words, whether it was God or the Queen or both, would cancel them immediately. Seemed to work out fine for us!
@@TheGrenadier97 don’t tell anyone but a fair few of us think it’s just nonsense. We were just stuck with it at the time. ‘Bless me father … it has been 45 years since my last confession’
Did Clive Lewis miss out the bit about [King Charles'] "heirs and successors" and get away with it? Good for him. It must be particularly galling to have to take an oath swearing "true allegiance" to a disgraceful human being like Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew is a contingent successor. The oath is to a category who are at the titular head of the constitution and it is conditional so far as it concerns Andrew on his surviving several other people. It may and will most likely never happen. The reality is that the monarchy are now like a change of clothes for the British constitution and if they do turn out in certain attire, the British People will end the constitutional monarchy.
@@jonathanlewis453 True, it's very unlikely that Andrew will ever be monarch (something for which even the most enthusiastic monarchist must be pleased) 7 people would all have to be carried off in a catastrophe for that to happen. Nevertheless he is in theory a possible successor.
@@marijo1951 You understand, I suppose, that when we say 'King' it is shorthand for 'constitution'. If you allow that much latitude to the value of one single word according to three centuries of tradition whereby a figurehead monarch presides over a balance of powers almost totally favouring a parliament comprised mainly of elected members, then you will understand that the oath is almost identical to the American one and the Andrew issue is a canard.
@@yashnilbenimadhu7241unlikely sequence of events. William then his two kids then Anne then her kids etc so no, not really swearing allegiance to Andrew
@@Shocking603 apart from police protection, the royal family is paid from a portion of the revenue of the crown estate, not from state budget coming from taxes. They're financed by their legally-protected royal-owned company, not taxpayer's money.
The King is shorthand for the constitution of Great Britain and Northern Ireland because everyone knows that he is virtually a king in name alone. Americans swear a near identical oath to their constitution. Independence for Oswaldtwistle does not look like a clever idea to me.
@@jonathanlewis453What constitution?! 😂 Do you mean the 'unwritten constitution' 😂😂 In all seriousness, write a decent constitution down and they'd be happy to swear on it. Until then this is what they'll and they have every right to in a democracy.
@@owainmorgan3897 It is written in many places but scattered in huge volume all over the place including the Common Law and Europe. Codification comes at a cost to flexibility. The so called 'unwritten' constitution has been serviceable for centuries but it has been compromised not least by Europe and by the corrosion of support and understanding for it which has accompanied and by other impacts such as devolution and globalism. We are in the same condition now as East Germany after 50 years of communism. If you pretend to be serious, may I suggest you drop the emojis. Scoffing is not an attractive or constructive trait under any guise.
@@jonathanlewis453 The conventions and agreements that allow Westminster to operate aren't written down or they're not codified in law therefore it's an unwritten constitution. Furthermore, why are you blaming Europe, I think you mean the EU, for the UK's problems. Britain isn't great it's an joke at best and fast becoming a basket case. What have Brexit supporting politicians done for this country!? Nothing or worse they've turned it in to deprivation central for most people and a rich person's paradise for a few. Meanwhile, we have don't have laws on a high enough level to hold the thieves and vandals to account. IF we had a written constitution then we would be able to, but we don't, so your argument is just propaganda designed to fool the uniformed. BTW if I want to use an emoji, or two, I will 😊 I won't be dictated to by right wing propagandists trying to a pull a fast one because they feel offended by the truth or they're just brainwashed into thinking the last fourteen years was perfectly fine from a Governance standpoint, it wasn't!! Go and lick your wounds right winger, you have a bloody nose there, go and tend to it along with your bruised ego.
If they do not possess the foresight to understand what is required of an MP in terms of a profession of loyalty to the constitution, they are probably unfit anyway.
@@genghisthegreat2034 I do not presume to comprehend an an arch ist (anarchist). I reject him and everything he stands for (or doesn't stand for if that's what you prefer).
@@jonathanlewis453 , you presume again. The largest political party in Northern Ireland were elected on the basis that they'd never take their seats in the British Parliament. This isn't recent, that's their policy for the past 110 years. It doesn't make them anarchists either, they've made the best of what passes for government there in the past two years.
To be clear, I do not support the pledge to a monarch and their bloodline in a modern democracy. I'm just pointing out the ludicracy of someone being forced to make a legally binding solemn pledge while also declaring the pledge to be meaningless.
"I do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm..." I am sorry but everyone of those you note here declared they were not about to be true to the oath, then go on and lie to say the oath. At no point does anyone including the speaker or usher stop them to note the oath is not taken faithfully but rather its a false statement. This is ridiculous and it has to stop. The idea that our MPs have to swear an oath that is effectively not just empty but turns many of those entering the chamber liars. After that how can they be held to any high standard. Its high time this oath was dropped, replaced by an oath to the chamber and the people of the UK and other citizens. I wonder how many people realise that this oath requires the swearer to bear allegiance to PRINCE ANDREW? Yes the man that settled a sexual assault case is part of the 'heirs and successors' as is his ridiculous children. I wont see the end of the monarchy in my lifetime but at least I could ask for this stupid oath to be removed which will allow all elected representatives to take their place in the chamber, at the moment Sinn Féin refuse to swear and so are excluded even though they almost all have massive majorities. As mad as this sound, this silly oath makes Sinn Féin more honourable than many of those sitting on those benches.
That was the description of former East Germany, as is the current title for North Korea, given their leaders were elected on a wave of post-war popularity in either case. We have seen what has happened since. To say nothing of Turkey being an apparent secular republic but where Islam holds sway.
@@jonathanlewis453 Monarch is the legal stick used by the establishment to keep its power over the ordinary people of the uk. Unless you believe Charles rules by divine right?
Whisper it, but that old geezer didn't dare say it out loud did he... These people made a plan & stuck with it. I especially liked the SDLP guy that swore allegiance to his constituents, as Dawn Butler did as well, she slipped that line in there.
@@gothicgolem2947nahh why should we swear loyalty to a bunch of big-wigs and nonces in a palace while the people who run this country can't even turn on the heating lest they run out of money? Doesn't seem like it's great that our representatives legally have to honour them lot
@@gothicgolem2947 Babbling some "magical words" about a gold hat didn't prevent the tories of robbing the country blind for the last 14 years. Where's that PPE money gone?
In court, you can affirm rather than say "I swear by Almighty...", which even some Christians might object to, since The Gospel of Matthew seems to forbid. It's time, in the 21st century that MPs were similarly given the opportunity to take a different oath. One seaering loyalty to the people and promising to serve the constituency
All of these MPs are affirming. You can tell by the fact they say "affirm" and not "swear". MPs shouldn't have to pledge allegiance to a monarch, but it really has nothing to do with what you're saying
MPs are literally asked 1 minute before these recordings begin “do you want to swear for affirm” , with the affirmation being a secular oath. There isn’t a Republican formulation of either officially, because the government continues to derive its authority from the crown, unless and until a bill is passed which states this kingdom draws its authority from the consent of the governed you can’t have it otherwise. You could have a non-monarchist oath if you got the votes for it, even without removing the monarch, the path would simply ignore the monarch and swear to govern the kingdom under consent of the governed.
They're given that choice just before it starts, happily. There's a vid on youtube of Steve Darling being sworn in with his guide dog (🦮❤) where he's asked "would you like to swear or affirm?" before they begin. I found that uplifting all around :)
You clearly don't know what a constitutional monarchy is. The monarch is a ceremonial figurehead who delegates responsibility to his elected ministers. He reigns and his elected ministers rule. The people choose the king's ministers. But in the end, it doesn't matter who they pledge allegiance to, it matters if they're competent. Most republics today are corrupt because they have incompetent leaders.
@@t_m-z5gBut it's *our* government. It should have nothing to do with some man who inherited some meaningless title, at least not without our consent.
@@t_m-z5g No, they serve the establishment. And there's nothing parliament can do about it besides enable it because of the powers that the monarch hands government. Pledging allegiance to the king is the ultimate insult.
I live in a country that has a constitutional monarchy (Sweden). And while i don't want to get rid of the monarchy, since it does somewhat boost tourism and is a part of the countrys history, i would be totally against it if our MPs had to swear an oath of allegiance to the royal family!! Our king and queen are more or less working as PR-managers for Sweden, and that's it
In this country the Royals do PR a lot at times I feel their constant presence on the tabloids and media is tacky Their arrogance and self entitlement irritate me no end. Being patrons of a great number of charities empower them to extend their power to rule over us. Honestly they don't make me happy or do for me. It's a surplus entertainment I don't need.🤷
@@Euro2024champsIt really isn't it's just ild, and slightly compicated. Let's be honest, anything to do with the monarchy these days is just a tradition that doesn't really do or mean anything.
I'd support that, but tell me what you think it should be? I would say Land of Hope and Glory because, well, it's a natural fit for a national anthem, but people who know nothing about the song say it somehow represents slavery even though it was written a century after slavery was banned.
Most definitely NOT!! Leave our National Anthem as it is thank you! We don't want it changed just because it seems more people are not religious & don't believe in God! If you don't like it then you LUMP it & still sing it out in pride! Period!
@@matthewvwukabsolutely not, I usually make sure I need the toilet when the national anthems on so I miss it😂 why an earth would I sing it with pride when I don’t believe in god and I’m strongly against the monarchy?!
I'm with Thomas Rainsborough on this one. But surely it is time to do away with the Victorian flummery and Gormenghast cosplay?! Just saying...🤔😉🏴
Because like all developed countries we have great respect for our ancient culture and traditions. Aside from the vanishingly small minority represented in this video
when i see these i instantly think of Obi-wan in Revenge of the sith saying "Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!" But jokes aside good on them for standing for what they think is right!
all of the apparatus of the British state bends the knee to the monarch. Britain is a democracy in name only. In truth the British electorate doesn't appoint a government for them, instead they appoint the monarch's admins.
👏👍👏👍👏👏 to all of them........We have the gall to criticise hermit country's like North Korea and the servile fealty they're made to suffer there!....when in reality we're no different!....EMBARRASSING.
@@spaceinvader1263We are talking about britain's political status, and when we say that the monarchy is unfair and not democratic (which it is) all you say is "life is unfair"
Maybe i'm too simplistic. I don't find it useful for the people to pledge allegiance to the monarchy when as far as i know it's not the rulling entity in this country. And the monarchy has suck money from the public for their own expanses and unnecessary parades. The monarchy also hasn't act in the interest of the public so why should anyone vow allegiance to something like that? The monarchy showed support for Ukraine AND israel. The Royal Family has shown to be immune to law and they can just hide away from 'scandal'. The existence of monarchy in my opinion keep divide between classes alive.
What reason is that, then? And no, if we want to make the country a better place, why do we have to leave it? Did *you* have to leave it when you wanted to leave the EU?
@@josho1994 Really? Having a functioning democracy, an undermined class system and removing the brake on democratic change will make the country worse? Explain.
@@Fordnan I dont see whats so bad about the monarchy, they do a lot of good for the country. They attend fundraising and charity events and I can tell you now that they really bring more money for the country per year in comparison to the amount that they take from the people. It is the United KINGDOM. All that will happen if you try to ban the monarchy is more instability, and division...
@@josho1994 THere is no evidence to support *any* of those assertions. All you're doing is parroting propaganda. Giving Evidence carried out research that showed that there was no research that patronage by royals increases donations *from the public* after all, and we know for a fact (because her will uniquely was released) that 'Di' left *nothing* in her will for charity. So why is it that the institution of the monarchy depends upon lies to get people to support it? I've told you what the issue is, the financial cost (net £350 million per annum) is by far the least of the issues. The democratic, ethical and moral costs are far, far more significant. What is more, all the propaganda claims you are parroting are *independent* of whether or not they are given extraordinary constitutional powers and privileges. Your support is based on lies, and you need to open your eyes to that fact.
Sorry, but it's not an outdated tradition. You can debate the actual words to be used, but can you name another democratic legislature in any country, which does not require its members to swear some kind of oath?
@@stevouk to the people or the parliament or even the country....but to an unelected person who has power and wealth beyond imagination ...on your bike !
He is not just a king but the head of the commonwealth. Although they have no power through being a constitutional monarchy, they serve a useful purpose in bringing the commonwealth.
@@user-io5tv1rv4v do you know many former British colonies still support and respect the British monarchy very much, such as Hong Kong, majority of us still support the monarchy and care the monarchy news very much. The king serve a useful purpose in bringing the commonwealth.
You can do a lot of rules-lawyer heavy lifting with the term "successors according to law" If we democratically and lawfully become a republic, the successors according to law are the people, via our democratically chosen representatives 🙂
@@django3422 no the monarch does not need to. He works longer than most people will he has most of his estates revenue taken away unlike most people so not having to pay all tax is a benefit that comes with that
Not England; Britain. The Monarchy is also, independently the Monarchy of Scotland (from the Union of the Crowns) and the SNP would have retained in the event of independence.
@@LeafHuntress The Beast of Bolsover campaigned against the EU across decades, and after the Leave vote the idiots in his constituency voted in a Tory. Gratitude for you.
You know what's more bizzare is that more then 15 countries in this world are forced to pledge in the name of the kingship of England And it's way more bizarre is the British are pledging to the family which did belong to England and also kind of did things for Britain But for the rest 15 countries and dozens of other islands it's the family which slaved there native population, torchered then, made them indentured workers, looted there lands wealth and resources, steal all there historical treasures, destroyed there lands at all dimensions and lastly treated them as less then humans ( sometimes worse then animals as in the case of native Americans or better known as red Indians ) And also made them so poor Now the British government forces them to obey to there needs and also pledge in the name of those people's land destroyers And if anybody be thinking how can Britain force them, then you absolutely don't know the geopolitics man absolutely no information you have We show how Britain reacted when such a big, storng, and developed country like Australia decided to not have the British Royality as there country figure head
These people are absolutely ridiculous. Just take the oath and be done with it. It’s not like the monarchy he has any real power anyway. I don’t agree with everything. The king does, but at the end of the day he’s still my king and I will support him. PS to everyone saying abolish the monarchy we tried that once didn’t work out.
Treachery. Do you define treachery as acting against the interests of the people, or against the man in the silly robes and silly hat who wishes he was a tampon?
@@christopherzhou5361 Oooooh, I've found the forelock-tugging cap-doffer! They _must_ be better than the rest of us as they were shat out of the Royal Vag, right? 🙄
Hmmm, not quite good enough really though is it , they still made the oath. It should not exist, such an oath, and MPs should make an oath to integrity, honesty and courage and stop the need to making such an oath.
Kind of is though, isn't it? When the "oath" gets contextualised as though it's a theatrical recital, a mere device and is uttered as such, and the person demanding the oath gives zero push back....yeah, makes the oath meaningless. Imagine a groom at the alter states within his vows that the very words he shall utter are meaningless and the bride to be says, "yup, that'll do".😅
They have no choice but to take the oath or they can't sit, debate, vote, or collect their salary. It's batshit that it's that way but since there's no real change on the horizon on that front, I think it's probably best to say the silly words and get on with the job.
@@truetory6231 That's the problem. It's a matter of opinion if we have a monarch, an opinion MPs are not allowed to have because of the oath. You don't have compulsory opinions in a free country.
@@Alfie-ft3bx King Charlie has not been training his whole life to rule through an accident of birth though, by a gift of god. Don't be such a silly billy. It's now going to be Queen Harris apparently and Trump was never a politician.
The Prime minister may change but the monarchy remains stalwart. He is not just a king but the head of the commonwealth. Although they have no power through being a constitutional monarchy, they serve a useful purpose in bringing the commonwealth and the 4 nations in UK
@@bleddynmorgan8012 the royal family visit the former British colonies as a goodwill ambassador, many former British colonies still stay in the commonwealth because of the queen. The king doesn't have any power, so he can be a goodwill ambassador among the 4 nations in UK as well
@@Joshpox Japanese royal family visited British royal family recently, they can be the goodwill ambassador among other countries still have monarchy, they can be the goodwill ambassador among the commonwealth as well
Proud of all of them. Hopefully we abolish the Lords next and replace it with a Citizens Assembly. After that, elect a ceremonial president. The Royal Family can become private citizens but still have some ceremonial duties and titles.
Eastwood is a joke, SDLP lost my vote a long time ago. At the very least they take their seats in parliament but they act ridiculous and petty within. This is why I voted alliance
It's my first time learning they still have to proclaim their allegiance to the monarch. It's cringe in this day and age. To swear your allegiance to the family who have caused sufferings and death to your ancestors not too long ago 😔
The Prime minister may change but the monarchy remains stalwart. He is not just a king but the head of the commonwealth. Although they have no power through being a constitutional monarchy, they serve a useful purpose in bringing the commonwealth and the 4 nations in UK
