As I recently got entangled in a comparison of the Belgian "cadastral income" with equivalents of other countries and as we had also some time ago a new king, who had to swear a "constitutional oath", as recently a new government, who had to do the same I wondered if that existed also in the UK, the Netherlands and what it was in republics as France and Germany.

And I was most interested in The Netherlands, as it together with Belgium is only a recent kingdom. (1815 Netherlands, 1831 Belgium). The brother of Napoleon doesn't count as king in the Netherlands, as in my opinion it was a French occupation.

The Belgian oath:

The King:
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2013/07/21/king_filip_swearsallegiancetothebelgianconstitution-1-1683649/
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/belgiums-new-king-philippe-i-takes-to-the-throne/230871

And who said that we had no such stuff as in the United Kingdom?
https://www.monarchie.be/en#home

And the oath:
"I swear to observe the Constitution and laws of the Belgian people, to maintain national independence and territorial integrity".

The parliament:
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/133722/new-belgian-government-is-sworn-in-by-the-king/

And the oath:
"First to take the oath was De Croo himself, who leads a seven-party coalition government, and a team of ministers and junior ministers made up mainly of new faces.

“I swear allegiance to the king, obedience to the Constitution, and to the laws of the Belgian people,” 

he said, first in Dutch, then also in French and German."

As to compare with the UK:

I can understand that the parliament swears also an oath of allegiance to her Majesty the British Queen?
But as they have not a constitution?
And do they swear also allegiance to the laws of the British people?

And what have they to swear in for instance New Zealand?

And yes the republics of France and Germany (the Bundesrepublik)?

Bundesrepublik: I can understand that it is something else of in the time: "Der Führereid"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Oath
And what had Macron  to do and the French parliament?

In Aotearoa/New Zealand the members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Queen of NZ (ie the British queen). The can either do this on the Bible or not is my understanding (or am I getting muddled with the jurors swearing in?). My husband has just been a juror and that is what they had to do; I expect it is the same with MPs.

Caro, yes, I guessed that it would be in Britain and the countries having the British Queen as Queen, a bit the same as in Belgium.

I did a quick research and found this:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/
"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."
If you compare with Belgium...
"I swear allegiance to the king, obedience to the Constitution, and to the laws of the Belgian people” 

There is no "constitution" hence in Britain they can not swear on it. And perhaps the Belgian "obedience to the laws of the Belgian people" is a bit the same as "according to the law", although I am not sure? And then they would have to say in New Zealand: according to the laws of the New Zealand people. Or is that in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom of Britaina and  Northern Ireland another "oath"to the laws of their respective peoples?

Also our Belgian king's oath seems also to be something others than the British Queen's one (but the one I found is from her coronation of 1951 and as it is still the same Queen?

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
"Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? Queen: I solemnly promise so to do."
If you compare with Belgium...
"I swear to observe the Constitution and laws of the Belgian people, to maintain national independence and territorial integrity".

As I understand it, but I can be wrong, (although they said in the time that Belgium on its birth had the most democratic constitution of Europe, but it was perhaps a bit boasting),

The Belgian king says:
"I swear to observe the laws of the Belgian people"
The British Queen says:
"I swear to govern the people according to the law and customs"

Does that mean that in Belgium the king has to "observe" the laws (the king has to obey the Belgian law?) and the Queen in the UK has only to "govern" according to the law?
Or is it fundamentally both the same?
I will seek if the King overhere can have a traffic fine... ...

It is all very technical and I suppose only a Vizzer (as he seems to know a lot about all this royalty stuff) and perhaps LiR (she worked in a notary's office)...

OOPS: and I forgot in the British oath all the stuff with the links with the Anglican Church. 

Kind regards, Paul.

I would think that it all depends on where the state's sovereignty is held to reside - ie who or what is held to be the supreme legitimate authority. In France and the USA, as per their constitutions, sovereignty ultimately resides with the people (ie citizens). In the UK however, in the absence of a defining written constitution or social contract with the people, it is usually argued that sovereignty is vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Queen-in-Parliament", or in practical terms it is the Queen's Parliament that is sovereign. (And hence why any referendum in the UK can only ever really be advisory and may be ignored if Parliament so chooses).

But it is a complicated issue and there are degrees of sovereignty. In Imperial Rome sovereignty was held solely by the emperor once he had been proclaimed and soverignty had been given to him by the senate and people, thereafter the Emperor was not bound by the law. Most medieval monarchs, were not absolutely sovereign as they usually shared power with their feudal aristocracy and the Catholic church, as well as being constrained by custom. However monarchial sovereignty was established by later kings would claimed to rule by divine right, ie they took their mandate from God alone, and hence for example Louis XIV stating "l'état, c'est moi".

But regarding the King of the Belgians, Article 10 of the Belgian Constitution states:
"Il n'y a dans l'État aucune distinction d'ordres. Les Belges sont égaux devant la loi; seuls ils sont admissibles aux emplois civils et militaires, sauf les exceptions qui peuvent être établies par une loi pour des cas particuliers.
L'égalité des femmes et des hommes est garantie."

"There is no distinction of classes in the State. All Belgians are equal before the law; they alone are admissible to
civil and military offices, save for the exceptions that can be established by law for special cases. Equality between men and women is guaranteed."

Which I take it means he has to obey the law like everyone else.

A Member may choose to affirm, rather than swear an oath, in the form "I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." They may also kiss the book and omit the words "by Almighty God"

There are a number of sacred texts that members may choose to swear on, and, after taking the oath in English some choose to repeat it in Welsh, Scots Gaelic or Cornish - but the English version must come first.

Green George wrote:

A Member may choose to affirm, rather than swear an oath, in the form "I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." They may also kiss the book and omit the words "by Almighty God"

GG, "swear" has that have to do with "God"? And yes, I can understand that there in the UK as else, are atheists, humanists, freemassons and whatever...but kiss the "book"...

GG wrote:

There are a number of sacred texts that members may choose to swear on, and, after taking the oath in English some choose to repeat it in Welsh, Scots Gaelic or Cornish - but the English version must come first.

And yes first the "English version" as in the time in Belgium, first the French and then the Dutch language. All foreign language films with subtitles. First the French language above the Dutch one. 

Kind regards, Paul.

Meles meles wrote:

I would think that it all depends on where the state's sovereignty is held to reside - ie who or what is held to be the supreme legitimate authority. In France and the USA, as per their constitutions, sovereignty ultimately resides with the people (ie citizens). In the UK however, in the absence of a defining written constitution or social contract with the people, it is usually argued that sovereignty is vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Queen-in-Parliament", or in practical terms it is the Queen's Parliament that is sovereign. (And hence why any referendum in the UK can only ever really be advisory and may be ignored if Parliament so chooses).

Thank you very much MM for this survey about the several sovereignities and I see it the same way, but new to me was what you said about the "Queen-in-Parliament"
You said:
"In the UK however, in the absence of a defining written constitution or social contract with the people, it is usually argued that sovereignty is vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Queen-in-Parliament", or in practical terms it is the Queen's Parliament that is sovereign. (And hence why any referendum in the UK can only ever really be advisory and may be ignored if Parliament so chooses)"

and as I see it!, it seems not that different of the relationship between the Belgian Parliament and it's king?

MM wrote:

"There is no distinction of classes in the State. All Belgians are equal before the law; they alone are admissible to
civil and military offices, save for the exceptions that can be established by law for special cases. Equality between men and women is guaranteed."
Which I take it means he has to obey the law like everyone else.

There too I have to agree with you.
For the law he is as good a citizen as every other Belgian...as with his former illegitimate daughter...
https://www.vorsten.nl/vorstenhuizen/belgie/koning-albert-niet-naar-rechtbank/
"Geen enkele burger is verplicht in persoon te verschijnen en Albert is ook maar een gewone burger”, zegt zijn advocaat, Alain Berenboom, tegen Belgische media."
(king albert is also but a normal citizen as everybody else)

As for Dirk Marinus about The Netherlands:
https://www.quest.nl/maatschappij/misdaad/a25640385/iemand-koninklijk-huis-misdaad/
(the king is "onschendbaar" (inviolable? untouchable?), but the Parliament is responsable for his deeds.
But if he for instance commit a serious fact, he can be put out of his authority (buiten het gezag worden geplaatst). They call it a "buitenstaatsverklaring"
We have had something like that with the Belgian"Leopold III". We call it here: the incapacity of the Sovereign to reign (l'impossibilité de régner/ de onmogelijkheid om te regeren)

But something special about the relation between King and Parliament in Belgium is perhaps the fact that he has to approve the laws generated by the parliament and if he don't do it for a specific law it has no legal force.
I am nearly sure that it is the same in the UK. And I think it is the same in The Netherlands.

And if there is a conflict, we have some tricks in Belgium...as in the case of the "abortus" law...
https://brussels-express.eu/fun-fact-belgium-36-hours-without-king/

Kind regards, Paul.