Good for him
The leader of Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour party, Colum Eastwood, last week said he was making his oath “under protest” and that his true allegiance was to the “people of Derry and the people of Ireland”.
His colleague Claire Hanna prefaced it in Irish and English when she was sworn in, saying: “In friendship and in hope of a reconciled new Ireland, my allegiance is to the people of Belfast South and Mid Down & I say these words in order to serve them.”
The Irish know what’s up.
Plebs need to know their place, eh?
Who, apart from political wonks, actually gives a shit?
Just get on with it FFS. Why does it need to be so antiquated?
deleted by creator
imagine having to take a loyalty oath to a tourist trap
My great grandpa would be proud :0
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Norwich South MP did not refer to “his heirs and successors” after a mention of the king when he said during a swearing in last week: “I take this oath under protest and in the hope that one day my fellow citizens will democratically decide to live in a republic.
“Until that time I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, according to law.”
Lewis said on X on Tuesday: “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.
He also posted a photo of a letter he received from the House of Commons Journal Office, which said his omission of part of the oath meant there was “doubt about whether the manner in which you made the affirmation is legally valid”.
His colleague Claire Hanna prefaced it in Irish and English when she was sworn in, saying: “In friendship and in hope of a reconciled new Ireland, my allegiance is to the people of Belfast South and Mid Down & I say these words in order to serve them.”
He adjourned the session after about 36 minutes, with the remaining handful of MPs who are yet to be sworn in expected to do so on Wednesday afternoon before the king’s speech debate.
The original article contains 495 words, the summary contains 239 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I don’t get what’s firing up these anti-monarchy people. I don’t give a shit about the King or the royal family or anything but they wield absolutely no power, it’s a huge part of our culture and history, they bring money into the country, and many people love it. All they do is turn up at events and try to stop people enjoying themselves. There’s far more important things to be complaining about.
That being said, I think he should have been allowed not to say that part, simply because it doesn’t matter.
Firstly, I reckon it’s debatable whether having an active monarchy is a net gain financially (how much could we charge for admission to Buckingham Palace?).
But, for me at least, it’s simply a matter of principle. I believe we are all born equal, and that nobody should be given special treatment due to something as trivial as their ancestry. Having a monarchy flies directly in the face of many values I think we as a nation value deeply.
Also they have a lot of land that their great great … Grandad nicked from the Saxons and I wouldn’t mind that being nationalised.
Australia actually had a PM thrown out by the queen.
I would say it does matter as he’s going to be a legislator in a constitutional monarchy. In that world the crown is the people and the people are the crown. To refuse to defer to the crown is to refuse to serve the country.
It’s why Sinn Fein refuse to say the oath and take their seats, and I can respect that, but that’s your choice. You don’t get to pick and choose bits of the oath.
