Talk:Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)

message: Both these oaths allow a person to swear on a monarch and her(or his)continued lineage but that seems to imply that you can't be an MP if don't don't support the idea of monarchy or hereditary rulers. Futher to this, surely this also implys that a monarch, and the system of monarchy, can only be removed if you lie about your allegiance or change your mind during your time as an MP? Does this then ensure that the monarchy can never be removed? Is there an non-monarchy based oath? Does the present oath and the present system restrict people who do not believe in the monarchy from becoming MPs? Would that be a restriction of our freedoms?
If anyone knows the answers to these questions, as i think they would be relevant to this article, could you add them. If you don't think they are relevant to the article but you know the answer please can you still answer them in this section. (if i have time i will do the research myself but at present i am very busy and would appreciate an answer) thanx
--Flufybumblebee 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about people who want to be MPs who don't believe in a monarchy? 

message: "The restrictions were lifted by the Oaths Act 1888 after the six-year effort ". How come John Bright took his seat in 1843? Vernon White . . . Talk  21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . . .  and Joseph Pease (railway pioneer) in 1832. Vernon White . . . Talk  21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of removal of Oath requirement for MPs =

message: Bread and Cheese: With reference your recent edits, that this section was: biased and improperly weighted commentary - that is by no means opposition, it is simple a list of members who have failed to sit. The statement published by the House of Lords Information Office (Pg 149) states: “The lord has chosen not to take the Oath of Allegiance in this Parliament and therefore may not sit, speak, or vote in the House.” This published statement of fact is neither biased nor improperly weighted commentary. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to the Oath

message: While watching live coverage of the swearing in of MPs  I noticed, that when MPs decided to swear they didn't have to mention their names ("I swear by almighty God..."), while when making an affirmation they where required to mention their name ("I [NAME] do solemnly, sincerely..."). Is there any reason for that? Gugganij (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  swearing vs affirming - adding name 

message: Should mention that the Irish Civil War of 1922-1923 was pretty much over the oath... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a different oath, essentially of allegiance to the constitution of the Irish Free State, with it being part of the Commonwealth with a common citizenship and the British King as its symbolic head.  De Valera took that oath in 1927, describing it as an empty political formula. --Rumping (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Civil War

message: Does the current form of the oath in the UK invoke God at the end ("...so help me God.") or at the beginning ("I swear by Almighty God...")? The article seems to contradict itself on this as the introduction says one thing and later parts another. What is the history of this? Was there a change at some point? Why? All this should be included in the article and I would be grateful is someone who knows more about this would add this information.Thorbecke2012 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invocation of God 

message: I've removed the Commonwealth of Nations section, which was just about the Parliament of New South Wales. This page is about the UK; There is a separate Oath of Allegiance (Australia) page. --Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth of Nations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116001638/http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/13661/118988/file/WOSMconstitutionE.pdf to http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/13661/118988/file/WOSMconstitutionE.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the article states "" While there is no doubt that an oath of fealty would have been given, it was definitely not the first time such oaths had been sworn to an English king.
Further there seems to be a confusion in this section between the United Kingdom and England. It implies that when James IV arrived in England to be crowned as King of England, he asked what the oath of allegiance was and wondered why they had no such thing in Scotland. Of course not! Scotland had exactly the same type of oaths as did all European kingdoms.
Surly if the "Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)" has its origin anywhere, then it is either with the oaths given to James VI of Scotland on his assumption of the English throne, or with the oaths given to Queen Ann when she became Queen of Great Britain, or with the oaths given to George III when he became King of the United Kingdom. The sentence about Magna Carta reads like a school pupil sentence not something from a  treatise on constitutional theory. -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magna Carta 

message: ""
There is a precedence for this, see the article on Éamon de Valera, on how to get around this problem, and it is worth adding a sentence to this article about that, if the artile is going to retain the sentence above. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "an empty political formula" 

message: Is the oath of allegiance required or not for MP's in parliament. The article seems to sometimes say not, but other times say it is required. If it was only a historic and not current requirement it should be marked as such, possibly with the time it ceased to be necessary. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:45B2:83F9:8C2A:E03B (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliament