THE swearing in of MPs before they take their seats has attracted more notice this time than usual, in part because Humanists UK has noticed that more MPs than before have, like the new Prime Minister, opted to affirm their loyalty to “His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law” instead of swearing an oath to be loyal using the form “according to law. So help me God.” The score is, in fact — and this week has taught us that scores are important — Affirmers: 249, God: 338. In fact, God’s score is higher: the 338 are just the MPs who swore on the Bible. Others made use of the library of holy books supplied by the clerks. Others still, such as the former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, chose to affirm, on the grounds that “Christians are called to tell the truth and keep our word all of the time. Every word we speak is heard by the living God.” As for the jibe by the new US vice-presidential contender, J. D. Vance, that the UK could be the first “truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon”, just 14 of the 650 MPs swore on the Qur’an, all of whom would be offended by the term “Islamist”.

The important point is that the ceremony is more than a mere formality, even if a handful of MPs deride it. (Jeremy Corbyn was heard to say: “This is a load of nonsense.”) The solemnity of the act of declaring publicly to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the monarch and his successors is fitting for those taking high office, and is no less than the public deserves. And, for those of a republican bent, it might be remembered that the King is a constitutional monarch, whose government is exercised in every respect by his ministers, who are, in their turn, accountable to Parliament, which is, in its turn, accountable to the electorate. Thus, although the loyalty declared is to a person, that person represents the whole State; so, to a degree, MPs are swearing to be loyal to one another.

Should the ceremony remain a religious one, at least for the participants who are religious? Long gone is the unifying factor of adherence to a single faith — and, further in the past, to a single branch of that faith, when new MPs had to declare “that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever” (1673 Test Act). The UK is not a theocracy — a form of government that has generally failed disastrously when tried, and not one, pace Mr Vance, that it is imaginable that the British will ever try. The collaboration in government between people of different faiths and others who find their inspiration elsewhere is one of Parliament’s greatest strengths. It is reassuring, none the less, that public office is seen by many who hold it as a sacred duty. It is seems a respectful response to a monarch who believes himself to be accountable to God as well as to his people.