Ever since the accession of King Charles III in 2022, there have been people exercising themselves about the oaths he did or didn’t swear. So let’s have a look at this subject in detail.
One kingdom
Before talking about the three oaths an incoming British monarch swears, however, we have to talk about what it is he’s the monarch of.
Leaving aside the places he’s still the king of beyond the British Isles, he’s the king of a single kingdom: the one created at the union between England and Scotland in 1707. Originally called Great Britain, that kingdom changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 when Ireland joined the union. It’s now, since the Republic of Ireland became independent, called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I’m going to call it ‘the UK’ at all times of its existence, i.e. including from 1707 to 1801 when it was called Great Britain. The point here is that the King is not the King of Scotland (or of Scots) or of England. Neither of these kingdoms exist anymore: they both ceased to exist in 1707 when they were replaced by the UK.
Three oaths
An incoming monarch of the UK swears three oaths. Taking them in the order of the time at which they are sworn, these are:-
1. Oath to uphold the Church of Scotland
This was mandated by an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1706 (1706 c.6: ‘Act for securing of the Protestant religion and presbyterian church government’) This Act made it a condition of any forthcoming union with England that the Church of Scotland in its (then relatively recently) established presbyterian form would be retained post-union and that all incoming monarchs of the UK swear an oath to that effect. It also required that the Act be repeated verbatim in the Act of Union: that was done and the text of 1706 c.6 appears after section XXV of the Scottish Act of Union (here). It also appears after section XXV of the English Act of Union (here).
The Act 1706 c.6 requires the oath to be taken by the monarch “at his or her accession”.
No actual text of this oath is prescribed by 1706 c.6 but in practice monarchs have used a form of words reflecting the wording of the Act. Thus, the present king said:-
I, Charles the Third by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland, and of My other Realms and Territories, King, Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the True Protestant Religion as established by the laws of Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly an Act intituled an ‘Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’ [i.e. 1706 c.6] and by the Acts passed in both Kingdoms for the Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland: so help me God.
You can watch him taking the oath at his Accession Council on 10 September 2022, two days after he became king by the death of his mother, here.
Incidentally, some people (including, apparently, the late Alex Salmond) believe that, by this oath, the King swears to uphold the Claim of Right (CoR). He doesn’t. The CoR is mentioned but that’s not what he’s swearing to uphold. Look at the exact words:-
I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the True Protestant Religion as established by the laws of Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right
The oath is to maintain a religion. Specifically, one established by laws made in prosecution of – in pursuit, or in terms of, in other words – the CoR. It’s not to maintain the CoR itself. (I explain the background to the laws establishing the Presbyterian Church of Scotland “in prosecution of” the CoR here.)
.jpg)
2. Accession Declaration Oath
This oath was mandated by the Bill of Rights 1688 (BoR). That’s the English equivalent of our Claim of Right: the act deposing King James VII (II of England), replacing him with William & Mary and narrating various abuses of power by James, not to be repeated in future reigns. The relevant wording of the BoR (here) is:
And that every King and Queene of this Realme [i.e. England] who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeate the Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second Entituled An Act for the more effectuall Preserveing the Kings Person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament
The requirement to take this oath was repeated in the Act of Settlement 1700 (AoS: here). That was the Act that conferred the throne of England (but not Scotland) on Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and her heirs in the event (then thought very likely) that Queen Anne (although she hadn’t yet become the queen) died without children. The relevant wording of the AoS is in section II:-
every King and Queen of this Realm [i.e. England] who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall … make subscribe and repeat the Declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to [i.e. the BoR] in the Manner and Form thereby prescribed
The declaration in the statute made in the 30th year of the reign of King Charles II (here and scroll to page 427), which was originally one to be made by members of the Houses of Lords or Commons or people wishing to attend court rather than the monarch at his/her accession, was in these terms:-
I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any such dispensation from any person or authority or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.
By the 20th century, this was considered highly offensive to Roman Catholics, a significant proportion of the monarch’s subjects (especially in Ireland, all of which at that time was still part of the UK), so the declaration was amended for the accession of King George V and all subsequent monarchs by the Accession Declaration Act 1910 (here) to the following:-
I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law
As you’ll have noted from the quotation from the BoR, this oath has to be taken by the monarch at his/her coronation or first state opening of Parliament, whichever happens first. As it happened, the present king’s coronation happened first. You can see him taking this oath here.
Now I can hear people protesting that this oath was mandated by the parliament of England for the accession of the monarch of England – what, if any, relevance does it have to the UK? Or to Scotland? I address that point below under the heading ‘Changes to the Coronation Oath’ below.
3. The coronation oath
This one is taken at – clue’s in the name – the monarch’s coronation and its text is also prescribed by statute, this time the Coronation Oath Act 1688 (here). This act proceeds on the recital that:-
Whereas by the Law and Ancient Usage of this Realme [i.e. England] the Kings and Queens thereof have taken a Solemne Oath upon the Evangelists at Their respective Coronations to maintaine the Statutes Laws and Customs of the said Realme and all the People and Inhabitants thereof in their Spirituall and Civill Rights and Properties; But forasmuch as the Oath itselfe on such Occasion Administred hath heretofore beene framed in doubtfull Words and Expressions with relation to ancient Laws and Constitutions at this time unknowne; To the end therefore that One Uniforme Oath may be in all Times to come taken by the Kings and Queens of this Realme and to Them respectively Adminstred at the times of Their and every of Their Coronation.
The act then goes on to prescribe a question and response type oath to be administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury (or other bishop conducting the coronation) as follows:-
The Arch-Bishop or Bishop shall say “Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same?”
The King and Queene shall say, “I solemnly Promise soe to doe.”
Arch Bishop or Bishop, “Will You to Your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all Your Judgements.”
King and Queene, “I will.”
Arch Bishop or Bishop. “Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.”
King and Queene. “All this I Promise to doe.”
After this the King and Queene laying His and Her Hand upon the Holy Gospells, shall say,
King and Queene “The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God.”
Then the King and Queene shall kisse the Booke.
Just as the Scottish Parliament had passed the Act 1706 c.6 to preserve the presbyterian Church of Scotland, so had the English Parliament passed an Act – 1706 c.8 – to preserve the episcopal Church of England post Union. Like its Scottish equivalent, this Act was directed to be repeated in the English Act of Union (see here) and required that all future monarchs of the UK:
at His or Her Coronation shall in the presence of all persons who shall be attending assisting or otherwise then and there present take and subscribe an Oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the said Settlement of the Church of England and the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government thereof as by Law established within the Kingdoms of England and Ireland the Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed and the Territories thereunto belonging.
Note the slight difference from the equivalent Scottish Act 1706 c.6 providing for the Church of Scotland (CoS) oath: the Church of England (CoE) oath was to be taken, not at the monarch’s accession, but at his/her coronation. But similarly to the Scottish Act, and unlike the coronation oath, no actual text is provided in 1706 c.8 for the CoE oath. It was therefore accommodated at the first post-union coronation, George I’s, by adding another sentence closely following the wording of 1706 c.8 into the third question of the coronation oath so that it read:-
“Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in within the Kingdoms of England and Ireland the Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed and the Territories thereunto belonging? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.”
Changes to the Coronation Oath
Since the Union, the wording of the Coronation Oath (CO) has been altered in a number of other respects. For example, also at the coronation of George I in 1714, the reference to the Kingdom of England in the first question was changed to a reference to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Now as the wording of the CO was prescribed by an Act of Parliament (the Coronation Oath Act 1688), strictly speaking its wording can only be changed by another Act of Parliament. But the 1688 Act has never been amended by any subsequent legislation. As it happens, most of the changes to the CO can be justified by the doctrine of implied amendment. That is the doctrine that, where a later Act of Parliament does not expressly amend an earlier one, but the provisions of the later Act are inconsistent with those of the earlier, the later by implication amends the earlier so far as is necessary to remove the inconsistency. Thus, the Acts of Union impliedly amended the Coronation Oath Act (COA) to change the reference to England to a reference to the new kingdom of Great Britain.
But there are two changes which have been made to the CO which can’t be justified by implied amendment (these are omission of the reference to “statutes in Parliament agreed on” in the first question and, less serious, introduction of a reference to the UK in the context of maintaining the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law in the third). The implications of this are analysed in detail in this article written in 2017 by barrister Graeme Watt and his conclusion is that the CO taken by Queen Elizabeth II was invalid. That, in turn, led him to conclude that her reign, from her coronation onwards (but not before), was invalid. I have to be honest and say I didn’t find the latter conclusion terribly convincing. The startling notion that a reign is invalidated by the monarch taking an incorrect coronation oath seems to be based on a single sentence in Halsbury’s Laws of England[1] and against this must be set the view of Professor Hazell and Dr Morris of The Constitution Unit of University College London (here at para 3.3):
With the possible exception of the Scottish oath [to maintain the Church of Scotland], the fact that they [i.e. the three oaths] have no direct constitutional effect is manifested in the absence of any penalty if they are not sworn.
I can’t help thinking Mr Watt wanted to give us a bit of a theatrical legal fright so he could ride to the rescue with his final conclusion, namely, that the invalidity of the Queen’s reign introduced by her failure to take the correct CO was subsequently cured by the length and general success of her reign in what appears to be an English Law manifestation of what we Scots lawyers call personal bar (in essence: ‘if you’d wanted to make an issue of it, you should have done so at the time: having sat around saying nothing about it for so many years, it’s too late now’). I wonder if Mr Watt would reach the same conclusion about the present king’s reign, not yet two years from his coronation where he took a CO in the same unauthorised terms (for the purposes of the present discussion) as his mother?[2] (See him taking it here and text here at page 24.)
Be all that as it may, I can’t help thinking there’s another, less Anglo-centric way of looking at this. We’ve been talking about a coronation oath originally mandated by statute, in 1688, for the kingdom of England. But that kingdom ceased to exist in 1707 when it was replaced by the new kingdom of Great Britain brought into existence by the Acts of Union (AoU). The AoU decreed a number of the features of the new kingdom including its name; its coat of arms; its flag; its coinage; who its monarch was to be and the line of succession to her failing her issue; even the name of its parliament. But, apart from oaths to maintain the Churches of Scotland and England, the AoU didn’t provide for any other coronation (or accession) oath to be taken by an incoming monarch of the new kingdom, much less specify the wording of any such oath. Now, as it happened, those in charge of the first coronation after the Union, that of George I in 1714, obviously felt that some sort of oath was appropriate and they chose to use the old English one, suitably adapted. But they weren’t obliged to. Or, having chosen to use the English CO, obliged to follow its statutory wording. On this view, there is no need for legislative sanction in order to adapt the CO to changed circumstances since the last coronation. And agonising over whether the king is really the king is misplaced.
That conclusion depends on the correct analysis of what happened at the Union in 1707 being that both the kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to exist and were replaced by an entirely new kingdom, the one now called the UK. I call this the ‘new state theory’ to contrast it with an alternative analysis in which, while Scotland ceased to exist, England continued with some extra territory and a new name (the ‘England with a new name theory’). The pros and cons of these alternatives are discussed by Professors Crawford & Boyle here (paras. 33-37). The issue has never been determined in a court but it’s fair to say the balance of academic legal opinion favours the new state theory.
And as for the Accession Declaration Oath mandated by the Bill of Rights, similar considerations would apply: it was obligatory in the terms set out in the Act of the reign of Charles II referred to in the BoR in England before the Union but not afterwards (assuming the new state theory is the correct one). But having said that, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 rewording this oath effectively made it obligatory in the UK as well.
Scottish coronation oath?
The pre-1707 kingdom of Scotland also had a statutory coronation oath. It was originally prescribed by an Act of Parliament in 1567 (1567 c.8) and was re-enacted in almost identical terms in 1689 for the purposes of the coronation of William & Mary. Like the English CO, the Scottish one was a text specified by the Act of Parliament: you can read it here: 1689 c.46.
Shouldn’t the King have sworn this Scottish CO at his coronation? No. Because it was the oath for the kingdom of Scotland. And that kingdom ceased to exist in 1707, whether the new state theory or the England with a new name theory is the correct one (for no-one would seriously attempt to suggest that the UK is in fact Scotland with a huge addition of territory and new name and that it was only England that ceased to exist.)
 |
| King Charles I Scottish coronation medal |
Footnotes
[1] here: “The descent of the Crown in the present line of succession is subject to certain statutory conditions as follows: … (2) every person inheriting the Crown must take the coronation oath in the form provided by statute …”. I’m not convinced the author intended by that to convey that, if such person did not take such an oath, s/he forfeited the throne.
[2] There was a difference in the first question of the CO as taken by Elizabeth II and as taken by Charles III in that, in the former case, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) were mentioned (the last three being countries she was still queen of at the time though now republics) whereas, in the latter case, no countries of which he is still the king were mentioned by name except the UK, the others being collectively referred to as “your other Realms”. The addition of the reference to other Commonwealth countries outside the UK was thought to be justified by implied amendment by the Statute of Westminster 1931 and referring to these collectively as “your other Realms” instead of individually by name seems unobjectionable.
