CHANGING the oath or affirmation MPs must take in order to do their job should be on the new Labour government’s agenda as part of a “peaceful transition” away from the monarchy, campaigners have said.
The swearing-in of MPs has garnered plenty of attention since the General Election, with several choosing to preface their oath or affirmation with republican sentiments in opposition to pledging allegiance to the King.
Crucially, MPs must also swear allegiance to the King’s “heirs and successors”. Labour MP Clive Lewis landed himself in bother last week as he had to retake his affirmation - not because he had taken it “under protest” as a staunch republican, but because he had missed out this key phrase.
Since then, Lewis has called for a change to the “perverse” rule after he was told he could have been fined, faced legal action and lost his seat by not retaking his affirmation.
Ken Ritchie, secretary of Labour For A Republic, said while the Labour Party are unlikely to make moves to abolish the monarchy any time soon, there are several steps they could take to reduce the institution’s influence in politics, and this should include overhauling the oath.
“We know the Labour government is never going to agree to abolish the monarchy until there is a very marked shift in public opinion, but there are things we feel Labour can do,” he told the Sunday National.
“Changing the oath has got to be one of them. I’ve talked to colleagues about whether we can perhaps have an opinion poll to find out what the electorate think and asking what oath they would like to see. We’re looking at making progress on that.
“There are things that need to be done to make sure the monarchy acts in a reasonable way, so that it’s brought into the 21st century.
“While there are a lot of things a Labour government can do without tackling the monarchy, when it comes down to it, if you are going to change society, if you are going to create a society in which everyone is born equal and deserving of the same respect, then the whole structure around the monarchy doesn’t fit with that, and that is why we think that this is an issue that needs to be tackled.”
Ritchie said he would like to see an MP take inspiration from Charles Bradlaugh, who fought tooth and nail to allow MPs to affirm instead of take the religious oath.
First elected in 1880, Bradlaugh - who founded the National Secular Society - believed MPs should be allowed to affirm as people were allowed to do in English and Welsh courts and he informed the Speaker of his intention to do this.
But the House of Commons refused to allow his affirmation, so Bradlaugh reluctantly applied to take the oath. Again, he was refused, and effectively barred from taking his seat.
At one time, the House of Commons even took the position of allowing Bradlaugh to affirm, subject to penalty in the courts. There followed legal actions which sought to bankrupt him and disqualify him as an MP.
This impasse went on for several years in which Bradlaugh was elected and re-elected four times by his constituents. Eventually, after the General Election of 1885, the Speaker allowed Bradlaugh to take the oath which was followed by the passage of an Oaths Act which secured MPs’ right to affirm.
Ritchie said: “It would be nice if an MP were to challenge the oath Bradlaugh-style, but I think it is very unlikely to happen.
“MPs must be attentive to what their constituents might think.”
There was once a time when Prime Minister Keir Starmer proposed abolishing the monarchy as a young man. He was caught on camera in 2005 discussing the irony of being appointed a Queen’s Counsel – a senior barrister – for a film about a court case he was involved in.
He has since gone back on those views but has in the more recent past expressed a desire to downsize the monarchy.
Short of abolishing the institution completely, Labour For A Republic – which was created a decade ago to urge the party to get behind the idea of an elected head of state - still believes there are a number of actions Starmer’s government could take to bring down the pedestal the royal family is placed upon in society.
These include reforming the Freedom of Information Act - which currently excludes the royal family entirely – and abolishing the royal family’s exemption from the Equality Act.
In the 1970s, the UK Government introduced laws against racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, which were later folded into the 2010 Equality Act. However, The Guardian revealed in 2022 that the Queen was exempt from these laws.
This means that any individuals working for the royal family cannot file a complaint to the court if they faced any discrimination under the categories of race, sex, and equal pay, something Ritchie described as “totally absurd”.
Ritchie said he would also like to see a review of the extent to which the King and the Prince of Wales can veto draft legislation if it affects their private interests.
He added: “I could see we could be the first country in which there is a gradual and peaceful transition [away from the monarchy].
“We need to make sure the monarchy loses the political influence that it's got.
“We also need to look at funding. If the head of state is part of our machinery of government then surely we should fund the head of state in the same way we would fund any other government department and they can have debates in the Cabinet about how much money goes to the monarchy just like they do with health and education.
“It’s ingrained into us that there is this thing of the monarchy. The word 'royal' is everywhere. The monarchy becomes almost a symbol of the state. Our argument is that it’s not a good symbol of the state.”
