# Membership and offices in the Privy Council – what is the significance of the different predicates used to describe the transactions?

One of the answers to the question How does anyone know for sure who the Prime Minister is? contained a link to the list of approved orders and business transacted in the July 6, 2024 session of the Privy Council. The list is relevant to answer that question because Keir Starmer "did, by His Majesty's command, make solemn affirmation as First Lord of the Treasury" according to one of the transaction records.

I looked more into the document, and I realized that different predicates are used to describe the events in that meeting:

## Becoming a Council Member

  * Lucy Powell, Liz Kendall, and Lisa Nandy "**made affirmation as Members** "
  * Shabana Mahmood "**was sworn as a Member** "



## Taking up an office

  * Lucy Powell "**was declared** " Lord President of the Couctil
  * Keir Starmer "**made affirmation** " as First Lord of the Treasury
  * Angela Raynera, Rachel Reeves, David Lammy, John Healey, Shabana Mahmood, Elizabeth Kendall, and Lisa Nandy "**[were] sworn** " one of the Secretaries of State
  * Shabana Mahood "**was sworn** " Lord High Chancellor
  * Smith of Basildon "**was sworn** " Lord Privy Seal



I assume that in a highly ritualized environment such as the Privy Council, the predicates are selected very deliberately, and that any difference in wording must correspond to a difference in procedure or status (possibly with the exception of the use of "was sworn of" on p. 8, which must be a typo, right?).

So, here are my questions:

  1. Why was "make affirmation" in active voice used for Powell, Kendall and Nandy, but "be sworn" in passive voice for Mahmood?
  2. Why was "be sworn" used for The Secretaries of State, the Lord High Chancellor, and the Lord Privy Seal, but "be declared" for Lord President of the Council?
  3. Why was "make affirmation" used only for Starmer as First Lord of the Treasury, but for none of the other offices?



When joining the Privy Council, new members must either take the Privy Council oath, or make the affirmation. The former mentions God, and the latter does not; apart from that, the wording is the same. (MPs have the same option of an oath or affirmation before they can take their seats in the Commons.)

If the oath was used, the record of the meeting states the new Councillor was "sworn of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council", whereas if the affirmation was used, the record states that they were "admitted, on affirmation, as a Member...". ("Sworn of" is correct, though it's not a commonly used form of words.)

For appointments to offices, a similar situation applies, but with a different oath or affirmation, again using "was sworn" or "made affirmation". The Lord Chancellor has a different oath, which mentions justice and the courts.

The Lord President of the Council also swears or affirms - but after the King in Council appoints them to the post, hence mention of a "declaration".

It's a secular versus religious 'solemn statement'.

Starmer, for example, is an atheist and therefore 'affirmed'

> During the swearing in ceremony, MPs have an option of taking an oath or making a “solemn affirmation”.
> 
> Sir Keir, who is an atheist, was one of a number of MPs who opted for the affirmation.
> 
> He said: “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law.”
> 
> Penny Mordaunt, the Leader of the House of Commons, who presided over Saturday’s Accession Council as acting Lord President of the Council, also chose the affirmation.
> 
> If Sir Keir were to win the next election, he would be the first openly atheist leader in British history. In an interview last year, he said he had a "lot of time and respect for faith".
> 
> “I am not of faith, I don’t believe in god, but I can see the power of faith and the way it brings people together,” he said.
> 
> Ms Truss meanwhile took the oath. Holding a copy of the Bible, she said: "I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God."

Indeed, in the batch of MPs newly arriving in July 2024, a full 40% 'affirmed' rather than 'swore':

> The UK has elected the most openly non-religious House of Commons in history, with about 40% of MPs choosing to take the secular affirmation instead of a religious oath to God during their swearing-in ceremony, according to Humanists UK.
> 
> They include Keir Starmer, the prime minister, and 50% of the Cabinet.
> 
> 47% of Labour and 47% of Lib Dem MPs opted for the secular affirmation, as well as all four Green MPs, both SDLP MPs, and six of nine SNP MPs. By contrast, only 9% of Conservative MPs and one of the five Reform UK MPs chose to affirm.
> 
> Just under 6% of MPs gave oaths which indicated they belonged to Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Sikh religious traditions. This is broadly representative of society as a whole.

I don't think the active versus passsive is material.

"was sworn" vs "made affirmation" is a personal preference. The form of words used in the oath references God as recognised by the Church of England, so for people who so choose, a secular equivalent is (now) allowed.

I don't think "sworn of" is a typo, it's just archaic grammar.

Lord President of the Council is the chairperson, who must first be a member of the council, so they are first admitted, and then declared Lord President.