22

If prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch, and if MPs are needed to change laws, how might the UK become a republic, assuming sufficient public support?

  • 21
    The question seems based on the exceedingly odd premise that politicians don't lie.... – Orangesandlemons Jul 11 at 20:20
  • 12
    and that you can't desire to replace someone you have sworn alleigence to. – Caleth Jul 11 at 22:04
  • @Orangesandlemons I don't see that as a premise. "For elected representatives to lie while swearing allegiance." would be an answer, as I see it. But that wouldn't be necessary if "The Dark Lord 's interpretation of the oath is correct. – Martin Jul 13 at 16:03
  • @Caleth I suppose that comes down to the interpretation of the oath. If it is "I swear allegiance to the institution of the monarchy", it would seem odd to me to do so honestly and at the same time wish to abolish it. If the interpretation is "I swear allegiance to the monarch as an individual", I would agree with you, as replacing him/her might be in his/her best interests. But even then, that would only work if republican MPs were elected en masse. If a lone republican MP was elected, it would be difficult to justify the view that it is in the monarch's best interests to be replaced. – Martin Jul 13 at 16:12
  • ...thus coming back to the question: would the only solution be, in such a situation, to lie while swearing allegiance. – Martin Jul 13 at 16:20
40

Another revolution, obviously. They did that in 1649.

Much more likely, they would politely inform the Queen that the people don't seem to want a Queen any more. If that is really the case, and not just a vocal minority, then after some polite back and forth the Queen would probably step down rather than fighting a civil war which she is unlikely to win.

While many Brits will be true to their oath, consider the difference between the individual monarch, the Crown, and the Crown-in-Parliament (which is a polite way of pretending that the monarch is still involved in legislation).

There is the quip what when it comes to dusty, centuries-old rights and prerogatives, the British monarch gets at most one try at overriding the elected government.

  • 7
    "The crown has a veto, the crown has one veto" – DonFusili Jul 11 at 15:09
  • 16
    @Martin, one can be a loyal servant of the crown and still accurately report the latest polls. In fact, pretending that all is right when all isn't right would be a lie. – o.m. Jul 11 at 15:29
  • 6
    @Martin, there are two options, really. Either your stringent reasoning has detected what Her Majesty's subjects fail to grasp or refuse to admit, that the UK is not a democracy. Or your flawed reasoning is missing a factor in the laws and traditions of the kingdom which means that it is a democracy after all (a de-facto constitutional monarchy with all relevant powers held by elected representatives). It isn't always the larger numbers who are right, but the numbers should give a wise man cause for reflection. – o.m. Jul 11 at 16:58
  • 10
    @Martin The term "Revolution" isn't intrinsically violent in the same way that "Rebellion" is - it just refers to things changing to head in a different direction (e.g. "The Industrial Revolution"). Almost any method of removing the British Royal Family (short of them all dropping dead of natural causes and genuine accidents, or the Queen deciding to take back control of the Crown Estates and close "the family business") is technically a "Revolution" - even if it takes the form of a peaceful referendum and the Queen stepping down gracefully. – Chronocidal Jul 12 at 8:46
  • 7
    @Martin How can you say that the USA is a democracy, if the only way to switch from republic to monarchy is by revolution? – Caleth Jul 12 at 11:48
12

The Oath doesn't preclude republicanism.

(Subject to interpretation, of course.)

Note that the oath (or solemn declaration) only commits the MP to "true allegiance" to the reigning monarch of the day.

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

It doesn't say anything about loyalty to the institution of the monarchy itself. So a republican would argue that they can faithfully take the oath, pay true allegiance to the Queen (or King) and subsequently disband the monarchy. In other words, their loyalty is to the individual, not the institution. They are committing not to undermine the Queen by attempting a coup to replace her with another monarch, not to work with foreign powers against her etc. But they can still disband the monarchy, and say that they've done right by the Queen up until the point where the monarchy no longer exists.

Of course, a monarchist would dispute this reasoning and say that all MPs are honour-bound to support the monarchy in all circumstances. Even if you take this interpretation of the oath, there are republican MPs in parliament so either they are dishonourable or the oath doesn't matter.

  • 'I'm loyal to you of course just disposing you' eh? Nope, I could just as well arrange a murder, and claim I was loyal up to the point of the murdrr. However what you could possibly have is the 'according to the law' bit may indeed allow the legal attempts of deposition. – Orangesandlemons Jul 12 at 18:20
  • On the subject of interpretation, consider that one of the grounds for treason claimed in the trial of the Irish revolutionary Robert Emmet was "compassing the death of the king", on the argument that attacking the constitution would cause anarchy and destruction and so threaten the life of the monarch. – Peter Taylor Jul 13 at 7:06
  • @Orangesandlemons That person probably doesn't want to be murdered. Arguably the queen wants parliament to be true to their own opinion when voting, even if that means voting to depose her. If I cause a car accident and I ask you to correctly fill out the paperwork, is it more loyal to do so, or is it more loyal to ignore my request and lie on the paperwork to make me seem innocent? – FrederikVds Jul 13 at 14:30
  • 1
    @Orangesandlemons It's pretty well-accepted that members of parliament are indeed expected by the queen to faithfully represent their own opinion and/or the opinion of their voters, and she does not expect them to represent her opinion. I guess this would also be true if the hypothetical question was about murder, though that would have a bunch of other issues. It's similar to the insurance claim, because it's about doing what the queen expects you to do, even if it's not immediately beneficial to her. – FrederikVds Jul 15 at 3:52
  • 1
    @Orangesandlemons Is there any reason to think this case would be an exception? Are you assuming she would want to stay in power against the opinion of a majority of members of parliament? I'd assume she'd want to get their honest opinion, regardless of what it is. – FrederikVds Jul 15 at 9:48
9

There are lots of republican MPs (probably including the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition). Some of them have taken the Loyal Oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

At the moment, it's not worth campaigning for a republic because polls show that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the monarchy. That could easily change when the Queen dies. At that point (if enough MPs were republican) they'd just invite the King to step down. If he declined, we would have a constitutional crisis (my guess is that he'd be told his "advisors" had advised him to step down, so he had).

8

It is not at all clear to me that the oath is intended to be taken literally or that it precludes republican principles. For example, in order to be nationalized as a Canadian citizen one must swear loyalty to the Queen, but the Supreme Court of Canada has held that:

The reference to the Queen is symbolic of our form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy.

In particular, they explicitly said that it's fine for committed republicans to take this oath.

Of course Canada is not the UK and a citizenship oath is not the same thing as a parliamentary oath, but unless this issue has directly been addressed in the UK, it's entirely plausible that this oath does not, and is not intended to, preclude committed republicans from parliament.

7

In recent years the constitutional settlement seems to be that significant changes to the constitution require a referendum.

Now even supposing that all MPs took the oath of allegiance entirely literally. There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. The citizens swear no oath of loyalty and could vote in a referendum to create a monarchy without breaking any oath.

This all assumes a fiction: that the oath of allegiance would prevent MPs from doing anything. In reality, the Crown must do as it is instructed by Parliament. If Parliament says "There is no Monarch" then that is the law, there is no question that a republican Parliament would not act based only on the oath of allegiance. Don't forget that many of the founding fathers of the USA had, at one point or another, sworn allegiance to the King. If the politics require it, the oath is pretty meaningless.

  • 1
    "There would be no breaking of this oath in legislation to enable a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. " Of course there would be. 'Im not being disloyal by handing you enemies the ability to harm you' is a bizzare approach – Orangesandlemons Jul 12 at 7:26
  • 3
    @Orangesandlemons you're assuming that ending the role of the monarchy would count as harm. The oath of allegiance is to the monarch and her successors, and requires acting in their best interests. Ending the formal role of the monarch--which has no obvious benefit--could easily be interpreted as doing no harm, whereas refusing to do so, against a public that has historically found other means of removing monarchs, could actually be more injurious to the persons of those the oath's been sworn to... – Tiercelet Jul 12 at 16:02
  • @Tiercelet that is an entirely different argument, and does not require kicking down the line to someone else to affect. – Orangesandlemons Jul 12 at 16:24
  • 1
    On a point of order, natural-born citizens swear no oath of loyalty. Naturalised citizens do swear one. – Peter Taylor Jul 13 at 7:07
  • This would then imply, that if, in the future, a significant majority will want a republic, there will be a republic. If a significant majority will instead want to increase the the political powers of the monarch, it will be increased. (I'm talking about significant majority, because if it comes to a 52% vs 48% majority, they will dawdle about it for years.) – vsz Jul 14 at 10:45
3

As a side note, it's not actually correct that "prospective United Kingdom MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch". Elected MPs must swear allegiance to the monarch in order to take their seats in Parliament. But they can still be elected as MPs without swearing allegiance.

There's a long history of abstensionism by Irish Republican MPs elected in Northern Ireland who refuse to swear allegiance and don't take their seats in Westminster.

  • 3
    Yeah, but if an MP doesn't take up their seat then they obviously can't implement republicanism... – The Dark Lord Jul 12 at 11:02
  • 2
    This is a valid criticism of the question, but it should have been posted as a comment on the question rather than an answer. – Peter Taylor Jul 13 at 6:56
  • @PeterTaylor Fair point - I'd originally started writing a longer answer before I decided it probably wasn't strictly relevant to the question, so I curtailed it. But changing it to a comment might have been better. – Mohirl Jul 17 at 14:29
3

Since o.m.'s answer was apparently always intended to refer to the English Commonwealth, it may be worth keeping the events of the 1688-89 and the "Glorious Revolution" in mind.

In this case, an unpopular Head of State was (relatively bloodlessly) deposed and replaced by another, with the new head(or rather heads) of state and the legislature regularising each other's position in terms of English constitutional law. This somewhat circular argument gives an alternate example of how a British Republic could form without the Monarch's formal assent, and without the all out conflict of the English Civil War.

1

If there were an impending crisis of succession, and if the reigning monarch himself were to appoint his successors on a republican plan, then the MPs would not be breaking their oaths by supporting that plan.

0

Oaths can be broken

Oaths can be broken, people sometimes do that. But violating an oath does not invalidate the voting power of the MPs.

If MPs vote to betray the monarch, that vote is valid. They may be considered as oathbreakers and that may have some consequences (for example, they might want to amend the laws on treason while they're at it), but that doesn't change the result, the vote would be binding anyway.

protected by Alexei Aug 9 at 15:52

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.