Tweet
Swearing Allegiance to the Monarch - A long Since Dead King
15 May 2023
Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the formal installation of King Charles III as the new monarch, despite what the British Speaker of the House said, all MP's in the British Parliament are required to swear allegiance again to the new monarch. This is because the oath of allegiance is specific to the reigning monarch, and MP's must swear allegiance to the person who holds the position at the time of their swearing-in ceremony and re-swear their allegiance if the monarch changes, which recently it did.
Traditionally, when swearing an oath of allegiance to the British monarch, the full title of the reigning sovereign is used, including any regnal number if applicable. So if the current monarch is King Charles III, the full title would be used, and the oath-taker would say:
This oath-taking ceremony is an important constitutional ritual in the UK, and it serves to remind MP's of their duty to the crown and to the people they represent. The oath is usually administered by the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Lord Speaker in the House of Lords.
Swearing in Problem
However, in this case there was a problem: Those MP's, who read their oath from a cue card, swore allegiance to "King Charles" - a long since dead king from the 17th century who died on 30 January 1649. He was beheaded in Whitehall, London, following his trial and conviction, ironically, for high treason by the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War.
It's difficult to speculate on why the entire British Parliament would deliberately use an incorrect title during a swearing-in ceremony, as such an action would be highly unusual and potentially legally problematic. This is not the sort of thing that would happen by accident as this is not the type of mistake that would be allowed to happen.
The oath of allegiance is a serious and solemn undertaking. Using an incorrect title could potentially call into question the validity of the oath and the legitimacy of the MP's position.
New Zealand is no different. All MP's, Judges, police officers and military personnel, to name a few, who obtained their appointment by swearing allegiance to the reigning monarch (QEII) will now be required, as soon as possible, to swear allegiance again to the new monarch - using the correct terminology. Failure to do so can call into question the legality of their appointments.
Using a partial title like "King Charles" during the swearing-in ceremony would not be legally valid or sufficient to fulfill the oath of allegiance requirement. The full title of the reigning monarch must be used in order to properly and lawfully swear allegiance.
So the question is: Why was this allowed to happen? Is it because King Charles III is an illegitimate king?? Many questions remain.
Here is the video of the British MP's swearing in using the incorrect oath:
References
For New Zealand, the reference for the fact that the oath of allegiance is specific to the reigning monarch is the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.
Section 4 of the Act provides the text of the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance, which includes a reference to the "King [or Queen] of New Zealand, his/her heirs and successors according to law." This wording reflects the fact that the oath is taken specifically in relation to the person who is currently on the throne as the monarch of New Zealand.
Furthermore, Section 6 of the Act provides that if the person to whom the oath or affirmation is made changes during the lifetime of the person taking the oath, the oath or affirmation remains valid and does not need to be retaken, provided that the person to whom the oath or affirmation was originally made was a lawful authority at the time it was made. This provision also reflects the fact that the oath is specific to the reigning monarch at the time it is taken.
While the oath of allegiance includes the reference to "her heirs and successors according to law," it is still specific to the reigning monarch at the time it is taken. Therefore, when a new monarch succeeds to the throne, office holders who have previously taken the oath of allegiance must take it again, using the new monarch's name and title.
In the case of the oath of allegiance in New Zealand, for example, if an individual had previously taken the oath to Queen Elizabeth II, they would need to take the oath again with the name and title of the new monarch, King Charles III, once he ascends to the throne, which he recently just did. This is to ensure that the allegiance of office holders is to the current monarch who is on the throne, and that they acknowledge and accept the authority of that monarch as the head of state.
Failure to do this correctly and as soon as possible could have serious consequences, especially to police officers, military officers, members of the crown, the Governor General, and the judiciary, to name a few. Any retrospective Act dreamed up by Parliament to fix any issues that arise from any failure or refusal of an office holder to undertake an oath to the new monarch, would be highly unusual and could raise constitutional and legal concerns.
The issue with oaths is that they are highly specific to the context and wording used at the time they were taken. The interpretation and application of oath requirements can also vary depending on the legal jurisdiction and the specific laws and regulations in place. Some situations may not require the office holder to retake the oath upon change of the monarch and others do. It would require specific legal expertise on the subject to navigate this minefield.
Perhaps a general rule of thumb might be that if an oath calls for allegiance, then it needs to be retaken, whereas an oath for an appointment to office may not. Constables and military might be off the hook - the GG, judges and MP's not so much.
What is certain, however, is that no matter who takes an oath, an incorrectly referenced monarch, as has happened with the British MP's, definitely has legal ramifications - so watch this space!
g
Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the formal installation of King Charles III as the new monarch, despite what the British Speaker of the House said, all MP's in the British Parliament are required to swear allegiance again to the new monarch. This is because the oath of allegiance is specific to the reigning monarch, and MP's must swear allegiance to the person who holds the position at the time of their swearing-in ceremony and re-swear their allegiance if the monarch changes, which recently it did.
Traditionally, when swearing an oath of allegiance to the British monarch, the full title of the reigning sovereign is used, including any regnal number if applicable. So if the current monarch is King Charles III, the full title would be used, and the oath-taker would say:
I swear by Almighty God to be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law
Swearing in Problem
However, in this case there was a problem: Those MP's, who read their oath from a cue card, swore allegiance to "King Charles" - a long since dead king from the 17th century who died on 30 January 1649. He was beheaded in Whitehall, London, following his trial and conviction, ironically, for high treason by the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War.
It's difficult to speculate on why the entire British Parliament would deliberately use an incorrect title during a swearing-in ceremony, as such an action would be highly unusual and potentially legally problematic. This is not the sort of thing that would happen by accident as this is not the type of mistake that would be allowed to happen.
The oath of allegiance is a serious and solemn undertaking. Using an incorrect title could potentially call into question the validity of the oath and the legitimacy of the MP's position.
New Zealand is no different. All MP's, Judges, police officers and military personnel, to name a few, who obtained their appointment by swearing allegiance to the reigning monarch (QEII) will now be required, as soon as possible, to swear allegiance again to the new monarch - using the correct terminology. Failure to do so can call into question the legality of their appointments.
Using a partial title like "King Charles" during the swearing-in ceremony would not be legally valid or sufficient to fulfill the oath of allegiance requirement. The full title of the reigning monarch must be used in order to properly and lawfully swear allegiance.
So the question is: Why was this allowed to happen? Is it because King Charles III is an illegitimate king?? Many questions remain.
Here is the video of the British MP's swearing in using the incorrect oath:
References
For New Zealand, the reference for the fact that the oath of allegiance is specific to the reigning monarch is the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.
Section 4 of the Act provides the text of the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance, which includes a reference to the "King [or Queen] of New Zealand, his/her heirs and successors according to law." This wording reflects the fact that the oath is taken specifically in relation to the person who is currently on the throne as the monarch of New Zealand.
Furthermore, Section 6 of the Act provides that if the person to whom the oath or affirmation is made changes during the lifetime of the person taking the oath, the oath or affirmation remains valid and does not need to be retaken, provided that the person to whom the oath or affirmation was originally made was a lawful authority at the time it was made. This provision also reflects the fact that the oath is specific to the reigning monarch at the time it is taken.
While the oath of allegiance includes the reference to "her heirs and successors according to law," it is still specific to the reigning monarch at the time it is taken. Therefore, when a new monarch succeeds to the throne, office holders who have previously taken the oath of allegiance must take it again, using the new monarch's name and title.
In the case of the oath of allegiance in New Zealand, for example, if an individual had previously taken the oath to Queen Elizabeth II, they would need to take the oath again with the name and title of the new monarch, King Charles III, once he ascends to the throne, which he recently just did. This is to ensure that the allegiance of office holders is to the current monarch who is on the throne, and that they acknowledge and accept the authority of that monarch as the head of state.
Failure to do this correctly and as soon as possible could have serious consequences, especially to police officers, military officers, members of the crown, the Governor General, and the judiciary, to name a few. Any retrospective Act dreamed up by Parliament to fix any issues that arise from any failure or refusal of an office holder to undertake an oath to the new monarch, would be highly unusual and could raise constitutional and legal concerns.
The issue with oaths is that they are highly specific to the context and wording used at the time they were taken. The interpretation and application of oath requirements can also vary depending on the legal jurisdiction and the specific laws and regulations in place. Some situations may not require the office holder to retake the oath upon change of the monarch and others do. It would require specific legal expertise on the subject to navigate this minefield.
Perhaps a general rule of thumb might be that if an oath calls for allegiance, then it needs to be retaken, whereas an oath for an appointment to office may not. Constables and military might be off the hook - the GG, judges and MP's not so much.
What is certain, however, is that no matter who takes an oath, an incorrectly referenced monarch, as has happened with the British MP's, definitely has legal ramifications - so watch this space!
g