text:
Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)

The Oath of Allegiance (Judicial or Official Oath) is a promise to be loyal to the British monarch, and their heirs and successors, sworn by certain public servants in the United Kingdom, and also by newly naturalised subjects in citizenship ceremonies. The current standard wording of the oath of allegiance is set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.

Variants of the basic oath of allegiance are also incorporated into a number of other oaths taken by certain individuals.

Text
The current standard oath of allegiance is set out from the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 in the following form:

"I, [Insert full name], do swear 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."

Under the Oaths Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c.46), consolidated and repealed by the Oaths Act 1978 (c. 19), those who choose to may make a solemn affirmation instead of swearing an oath.

Oaths of office, of allegiance, and judicial oath
The Victorian promissory oaths of allegiances, are set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 72) in the following form:

 * The original oath of allegiance as set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868:"I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

 * The original oath of office as set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868:"I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Victoria in the office of [Insert office of]. So help me God."

 * The original judicial oath as set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868:"I, [Insert full name], do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria in the office of [Insert judicial office of], and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God."

Oaths to heirs and successors
The oath is generally sworn to the Crown, monarch, sovereign, or regent, as represented by the incumbent king or queen, currently Charles III. The oath also specifies that this same oath to the king, is equally sworn to his "heirs and successors", in the plural, rather than a single heir and successor. This indicates that any oath given to the king is equally given to William, Prince of Wales, Prince George, and all of his heirs and successors to the British throne, in the event that any one of them should accede to the throne. Thus, the pledge of loyalty to the Crown made in the oath does not end at the death of the current monarch.

The oath to the king, his heirs and successors is now administered in citizen ceremonies to immigrants becoming naturalized British subjects.

Members of the judiciary (justices of the peace, district judges, circuit judges etc.) swear their allegiance to the king and his heirs and successors; police officers in England and Wales pledge their allegiance to the king, but not his heirs and successors. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) do not swear an oath of allegiance. The PSNI in 2001 replaced the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose members pledged their allegiance to the late Queen Elizabeth II, but not her heirs and successors. The Scottish police have never pledged allegiance. Members of the Privy Council only swear allegiance to the "King's majesty", not to the king's heirs and successors.

Origins
The oath of allegiance was performed to King Edgar (c. 944–8 July 975). By the common law, the oath is due to everyone 12 years of age or older.

The oath was certainly in use as of the date of John, King of England's Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215. Once the terms had been finalised on 19 June, the rebels again swore allegiance to King John. The later Bill of Rights (1689) included the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, which was required by Magna Carta to be taken by all crown servants and members of the judiciary.

Over the following centuries this evolved into three separate oaths: of supremacy (repudiation of the spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of any foreign prince, person or prelate), allegiance (declaration of fidelity to the Sovereign), and in 1702, abjuration (repudiation of the right and title of descendants of James II to the throne). Oaths of allegiance were exacted from the Lords by Henry IV and Henry VI in 1455 and 1459, and an oath of supremacy was introduced under Henry VIII in 1534. Elizabeth I introduced an Act of Supremacy in 1563 requiring an oath to be taken by all future members of the House of Commons. A new oath of allegiance appeared under James I (prompted by the "Gunpowder Plot") under the Popish Recusants Act 1605 and the Oath of Allegiance Act 1609. The oath required recognition of James I as lawful King and renunciation of the Pope. The 1609 Act required Commons MPs to take the oath of allegiance and of supremacy, but this was not a "parliamentary" oath, as it was not taken in Parliament, and there were no consequences if not sworn.

1660–1858
After the Restoration, oaths of supremacy and allegiance were imposed upon all MPs and peers in Parliament. The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Act 1688, passed after the Glorious Revolution installed William III and Mary II as monarchs, replaced the old oaths of supremacy and allegiance with shorter ones in almost the modern form. The deposed King James II died in exile in 1701, and King Louis XIV of France and the Jacobite adherents of the Stuart claim proclaimed James II's son, James Francis Edward Stuart, rightful king James III. The Act of Settlement 1701, quickly passed in response, substantially extended the old oaths, while the Security of the Succession, etc. Act 1701 added an oath of abjuration of "the Person[...] pretending to be and taking upon himself the Stile and Title of King of England by the Name of James the Third". This oath pledged support for the Hanoverian succession and for the exclusion of the Stuarts.

19th century
The Oaths Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 48) prescribed a single form of the oath in place of the former three. This single form retained a declaration of allegiance and a promise to defend the Hanoverian succession. A declaration relating to the supremacy of the sovereign was also included and the oath continued to be made "on the true faith of a Christian". However, both of these latter elements disappeared from the revised version of the single oath that was subsequently prescribed in the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, which repealed much of the earlier pieces of legislation insofar as they related to oaths taken by Members of Parliament.

Finally, in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 a further curtailment to the oath was made, thereby establishing the form of the oath still used today. The direct religious content disappeared along with the declarations relating to the supremacy of the sovereign. In its current form, the oath conforms fairly closely to the medieval (feudal) oath of allegiance.

20th century
After the general right to affirm was guaranteed in 1888, the Oaths Act 1909 introduced a change to the ordinary method of taking oaths, which provided for oaths to be sworn on the Bible: in case of a Christian, on the New Testament, and in the case of a Jew on the Old Testament. This Act also established the usual form of taking the oath, with the phrase "I swear by Almighty God that...". Section 1 of the Oaths Act 1888 (on the right to affirm) was replaced in the Administration of Justice Act 1977.

The Oaths Act 1961 extended the Oaths Act 1888, but did not apply to parliamentary oaths. All of the provisions in the Oaths Act 1838, Oaths Act 1888, Oaths Act 1909, Oaths Act 1961 and [[Oaths Act 1977 were repealed and consolidated in the Oaths Act 1978, although the form of wording of the oath set out in the 1868 act was preserved. The 1978 Oaths Act contains provisions relating to the manner of administering the oath, the option of swearing with uplifted hand, the validity of oaths, the making of solemn affirmations and the form of affirmation. The current Oath of Allegiance or Official Oath is set out in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.

To James I
"I, A.B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lord King James, is lawful and rightful King of this realm, and of all other in his Majesties Dominions and Countries; And that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authorities of the Church or See of Rome, or by any means with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his Majesty's kingdoms, or dominions, or to authorize any foreign prince to invade or annoy him, or his countries, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, or to give any license or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumult, or to offer any violence, or hurt to his Majesty's royal person, state, or government, or to any of his Majesty's subjects within his Majesty's dominions. Also, I do swear from my heart that, notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or deposition made or granted, or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors, or by any authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him, or his See against the King, his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience: I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and him or them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or color of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise, and will doe my best endeavor to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them. And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any whatsoever. And I do believe and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge by good and full authority to bee lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary: And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any Equivocation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever: And I doe make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian: So help me God."

To Charles I
"I A. B. doe truely and sincercly acknowledge, professe, testifie and declare in my conscience before God and the world, That our Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES, is lawfull King of this Realme, and of all other His Majesties Dominions and Countreyes: And that the Pope neither of himselfe, nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by an other meanes with any other, hath any power or Authority to depose the king, or to dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions, or to Authorize any Forraigne Prince, to invade or annoy Him or His Countreyes, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to His Majestie, or to give Licence or leave to any of them to beare Armes, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to His Majesties Royall person, State or Government, or to any of His Majesties Subjects within His Majesties Dominions. Also I doe sweare from my heart, that, notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his Successors, or by any Authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him or his Sea, against the said King, His Heires or Successors, or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience; I will bear faith and true allegiance to His Majestie, His Heires and Successors, and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatoever, which shall be made against His or their Persons, their Crowne and Dignitie, by reason or colour of any such Sentence, or Declaration or otherwise, and will doe my best endevour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, His Heires and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know or heare of to be against Him, or any of them. And l do further sweare, That I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position, That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I doe beleeve, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof; which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to bee lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I doe plainely and sincerely acknowledge and sweare, according to these expresse words by me spoken, and according to the plaine and common sence and understanding of the same words, without any Equivocation, or mentall evasion or secret reservasion whatsoever. And I doe make this Recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly, and truely, upon the true Faith of a Christian. So help me GOD."

To George IV

"I A.B.do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to His Majesty King George the Fourth, and will defend him to the utmost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatever, which shall be made against his Person, Crown or Dignity; and I will do my utmost Endeavour to disclose and make known to His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and traitorous Conspiracies which may be formed against Him or Them: And I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my Power, the Succession of the Crown which Succession, by an Act, intituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the Heirs of her Body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any Obedience or Allegiance unto any other Person claiming or pretending a Right to the Crown of this Realm: And I do further declare, That it is not an Article of my Faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the Opinion, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other Authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects, or by any Person whatsoever: And I do declare, That I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other Foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Temporal or Civil Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, or Pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this Realm. I do swear, That I will defend to the utmost of my Power the Settlement of Property within this Realm, as established by the Laws: And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any Intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by Law within this Realm: And I do solemnly swear, That I never will exercise any Privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant Religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom: 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 of this Oath, without any Evasion, Equivocation, or mental Reservation whatsoever. So help me God."

Office-holders
The Oath of Allegiance or Official Oath is made by each of the following office-holders as soon as possible after their acceptance of office:

 * First Lord of the Treasury (currently held ex officio by the Prime Minister)
 * Second Lord of the Treasury (currently held ex officio by the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
 * Lord Chancellor
 * Lord President of the Council
 * Lord Privy Seal
 * Secretaries of State
 * President of the Board of Trade
 * Lord Steward
 * Lord Chamberlain
 * Earl Marshal
 * Master of the Horse
 * Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
 * Paymaster General
 * Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland (since 1999 held ex officio by the First Minister of Scotland)
 * Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland
 * Lord Clerk Register
 * Advocate General for Scotland
 * Lord Justice Clerk
 * First Minister of Wales (since the Government of Wales Act 2006 came into force in May 2007)

The Oath in England is tendered by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and taken in the presence of the King in Council, or otherwise as the King shall direct, and in Scotland is tendered by the Lord President of the Court of Session at a sitting of the court.

Privy counsellor oath
On appointment a new privy counsellor takes the oath of allegiance, or affirms loyalty:

"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The King’s Majesty as one of His Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against His Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to His Majesty Himself, or to such of His Privy Council as shall advertise His Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of His Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the King’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to His Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to His Majesty. So help you God."

Parliamentarians
Under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, members of both Houses of Parliament are required to take an Oath of Allegiance upon taking their seat in Parliament, after a general election, or by-election, and after the death of the monarch. Until the oath or affirmation is taken, an MP may not receive a salary, take their seat, speak in debates or vote. The wording of the oath comes from the Promissory Oaths Act 1868:

"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."

Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:

"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."

The oath or affirmation must be taken in English although the Speaker has allowed Members to recite Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots, Ulster Scots or Cornish forms in addition, and texts of the oath and affirmation in Braille are available for use by Members of both Houses with impaired sight. While the oath is taken, the new member holds a copy of a sacred text. While there is no set list of sacred texts for use, this is normally a copy of the New Testament or Bible for Christians, or, for Jews, the Tanakh. Muslims or Sikhs have been sworn in the usual manner except with the Qur'an (in an envelope, to avoid it being touched by one not of the faith) and Guru Granth Sahib respectively. Mohammad Sarwar, a Muslim, took the oath in this way in May 1997. Religious restrictions in the oath effectively barred individuals of certain faiths (e.g., Roman Catholics, Jews and Quakers) from entering Parliament for many years. The restrictions were lifted by the Oaths Act 1888 after the six-year effort (1880–1886) of noted atheist Charles Bradlaugh to claim his seat.

A new parliament and the Demise of the Crown
After a general election, the new parliament is opened by the Royal Commission in the House of Lords, in the presence of Members of both Houses, after which the House of Commons meets to elect a Speaker and the Lords commences oath taking.

Following the Demise of the Crown (the death or abdication of the current monarch), all Members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords have the opportunity (though this is not a formal requirement) to take an oath of allegiance to the new Sovereign at the first meeting of Parliament under a new monarch. The House votes an Address to the Crown in response to the official notification of the previous monarch's demise, expressing condolences upon the death of the previous monarch and pledging loyalty to their successor.

After the death of Elizabeth II, members of both houses of Parliament met the following day to pay tribute. Senior members of Parliament took the oath to King Charles III on Saturday 10 September. Other members of Parliament were offered the opportunity to take the oath to the new sovereign but it was confirmed that this was not a formal requirement.

Order of seniority
At the start of a new Parliament, after the Commons Speaker has taken the oath, MPs come forward one by one to swear or affirm at the despatch-box, in order of seniority:

 * 1) Father of the House (longest continuously serving member)
 * 2) Cabinet ministers
 * 3) Shadow cabinet ministers
 * 4) Privy counsellors
 * 5) Other ministers
 * 6) Other members by seniority

If two or more MPs enter the house at the same election their seniority is determined by the date and/or time they took the oath.

Taking the oath in the House of Commons
The Principal Clerk of the Table Office at the despatch box offers a choice of affirmation or oath cards to read. The MP takes the oath or affirms, then moves along the Table to the Clerk Assistant and signs the Test Roll, a parchment book headed by the oath and affirmation which is kept by the Clerk of the House of Commons.

State Opening
After the initial swearing in process, most MPs and Members of the House of Lords are able to sit and vote in each House. Any remaining MPs or Members of the Lords can take the oath at later sittings. When the majority of MPs and Members of the Lords have been sworn in, both Houses of Parliament are ready to hear the King's Speech at the State Opening starting the business of the session.

By-elections and MPs
MPs who have been elected at a by-election are accompanied from the bar of the House by two sponsors. The new Member will have collected a certificate relating to their election from the Public Bill Office to hand to the Clerk of the House before taking the oath or making the affirmation.

Scottish Parliament
Section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998 requires Members of the Scottish Parliament to take the Oath of Allegiance at a meeting of the Parliament. Members of the Scottish Government and junior Scottish Ministers are additionally required to take the Official Oath.

Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament oath
Section 23 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 requires members of the Senedd to take the oath of allegiance. A Welsh form of the Oath is prescribed by the National Assembly for Wales (Oath of Allegiance in Welsh) Order 1999:

The Welsh wording is:

"Yr wyf i, yn addo trwy gymorth y Goruchaf y byddaf yn ffyddlon ac yn wir deyrngar i'w Fawrhydi y Brenin Siarl, ei etifeddion a'i olynwyr, yn ôl y gyfraith, yn wyneb Duw."

The corresponding affirmation is:

"Yr wyf i, yn datgan ac yn cadarnhau yn ddifrifol, yn ddiffuant ac yn ddidwyll y byddaf yn ffyddlon ac yn wir deyrngar i'w Fawrhydi y Brenin Siarl, ei etifeddion a'i olynwyr, yn ôl y gyfraith."

Scottish Gaelic oath
The Scottish Gaelic wording is:

"Tha mi a' mionnachadh air Dia uilechumhachdach gum bi mi dìleas agus daingeann d'a Mhòrachd, An Rìgh Teàrlach, a Oighrean agus ladsan a thig na Àite, a rèir an Lagha. Dia gam chuideachadh."

Cornish oath
The Cornish wording is:

"My a de re Dhuw Ollgallosek dell vedhav len ha perthi Omrians gwir dhe Y VRASTER AN MYGHTERN CHARLES, Hy Heryon ha Sewyoryon, herwydh an Lagha. Duw re'm gweresso."

Refusing to take the oath
Those elected to the House of Commons, to the Scottish Parliament, or to the Senedd who refuse to take the oath or affirmation are barred from participating in any proceedings, and from receiving their salaries. Members of the House of Commons could also be fined £500, and have their seat declared vacant "as if [they] were dead", if they attempt to do so. The most recent example of an MP losing their seat in this way was John Jacob Astor, who voted in a division on 4 March 1924 even though he had not taken the oath following his most recent election in the general election on 6 December 1923. Astor's seat was declared vacant on 6 March, but no other candidate stood in the 1924 Dover by-election and so he was returned unopposed on 12 March. Astor took the oath the next day.

Under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, any peer voting, or sitting in the House of Lords without having taken the oath, is subject, for every such offence, to a penalty of £500. Members of the Scottish Parliament must take the oath within two months of being elected, failing which they cease to be members and their seat is vacated.

On 1 April 1998, the House of Lords Information Office published a list of 260 peers who had not made the oath of allegiance as members of that House and were therefore not allowed to sit, speak or vote in the Lords. These were listed as 35 Conservatives; 4 Labour; 2 Liberal Democrats; 46 crossbenchers; and 173 of undeclared political alliances. By rank, these were listed as 3 Royal Dukes (the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales - now King Charles III- and the Duke of York); 12 other Dukes; 16 Marquesses; 48 Earls; 32 Viscounts; 3 Countesses; and 152 baron(esse)s. Following the later reform of the House of Lords, these are no longer listed as members of the House of Lords.

Northern Ireland Assembly
Although an oath of allegiance is required of members of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, there is no requirement for members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to take an oath of allegiance, or any other oath, nor is there any form of voluntary oath prescribed for those who may wish to swear one. However, members are required to sign the Assembly's roll of membership, designate their identity as "Nationalist", "Unionist" or "Other", and take a Pledge of Office. Ministers can be removed from office if the responsibilities of the pledge are not met. Members pledge:

1. to discharge in good faith all the duties of office;

2. commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means;

3. to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality and prevent discrimination; 1. to promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future;

2. to participate fully in the Executive Committee, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council;

3. to observe the joint nature of the offices of First Minister and deputy First Minister;

4. to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts;

4. to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government;

5. to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly;

6. to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;

7. to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Judges and magistrates (England and Wales)
Judges and magistrates on being sworn in, are required by various statutes to take two oaths: the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath, (collectively; the judicial oath). Judges of Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh religions can omit the words "I swear by Almighty God" and replace it with an acceptable alternative.

The wording of the judges' first Oath of Allegiance is:

"I... do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the third, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

The wording of the judges' second Judicial Oath is: "I... do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord King Charles the third in the office of..., and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."

The wording of the magistrates' first Oath of Allegiance is: "I... swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord King Charles the third, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

On 1 November 2010, in an official ceremony at Swansea's magistrates' court in Wales, ten trainee magistrates were the first magistrates in the United Kingdom to swear their oath of allegiance to the Queen "and her heirs".

The wording of the magistrates' second Judicial Oath is: "I... do swear that I will well and faithfully serve in the office of... and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will according to the laws and usages of this realm."

Judicial oaths are enshrined in a number of statutes:

 * The Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Queen's Bench Division, President of the Family Division and the Chancellor of the High Court – s.10 Supreme Court Act 1981
 * Puisne Judges of the High Court – s.10(4) Supreme Court Act 1981
 * Circuit Judges and Recorders – s.22 Courts Act 1971
 * Recorder of London – Promissory Oaths Act 1868 Schedule Pt II
 * District Judges – s.76(1)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
 * Justices of the Peace – Promissory Oaths Act 1868 Schedule Pt II

Notaries public (England and Wales)
A notary public seeking admission to the roll in England and Wales must swear the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office, which is prescribed by s. 7 Public Notaries Act 1843.

England and Wales
Prior to September 2002:

"I... of... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Between September 2002 and 8 September 2022:

"I... of... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Since 8 September 2022:

"I... of... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the King in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Scotland
Police in Scotland do not swear an oath of allegiance. Prior to the 1 April 2013 the following declaration was made:

"I hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable."

The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 replaced the previous declaration with the following:

"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law."

Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland police do not swear an oath to the monarch.

Until September 2001: "I... swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of (rank) without favour of affection, malice or ill-will; that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the same; and that, while I shall continue to hold the said office, I will faithfully, according to law, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties of the said office and all such duties as may be attached to said office by law and that I do not now belong to and that I will not, while I shall hold the said office, belong to any association, society, or confederacy formed for or engaged in any seditious purpose, or any purpose tending to disturb the public peace, or in any way disloyal to our Sovereign Lady the Queen and that I will not, while I shall hold the said office, engage or take part in the furthering of any such purpose, or take or administer, or assist or be present at or consent to the administering of, any oath or engagement binding myself or any other person to engage in any such purpose."

From November 2001: "I... hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all individuals and their traditions and beliefs; that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof according to law."

Clergy
Any person being ordained as a priest or deacon of the Church of England, or taking up any "perpetual curacy, lectureship, or preachership", is required by the Clerical Subscription Act 1865 to take an Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy. This is now, by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, the same as the usual Oath of Allegiance. Canon C13 now requires the oath of allegiance to be made by anyone appointed archbishop or bishop, priest or deacon, or to be licensed or admitted to any office in the Church of England.

Armed forces
All persons joining or commissioning in the British Armed Forces, and MOD sponsored cadet forces, except Royal Navy Officers, are required to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation, with the date of attestation treated as the commencement of service even if not reporting for training until a later date:

"I swear by Almighty God [or: do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of the [admirals/generals/air officers] and officers set over me."

Until recently no oath of allegiance was sworn by ratings in the Royal Navy. This ceased to be the case under regulations passed following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Officers in the Navy were historically required to swear the oaths of allegiance, supremacy and abjuration under the various Test Acts but currently do not do so.

Citizenship ceremonies

The Oath of Allegiance, with the addition of the words "on becoming a British citizen" (or other type of British national, as appropriate), is also used at citizenship ceremonies, where persons being registered or naturalised in the United Kingdom are required to swear or affirm their allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors, and additionally make a pledge to follow the laws of the country and uphold its democratic values. The applicants are then presented with their certificate of citizenship.

Citizenship Oath of Allegiance: "I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors according to law."

Citizenship Pledge: "I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen."

Scouts and Girl Guides
The principle of swearing an oath, or form of promise, is well exemplified in the constitution of the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM), Article II, paragraph 2: "Adherence to a promise and law," the principles of Duty to God, Duty to others and Duty to self. The Scout Promise; On my honour I promise that I will do my best—To do my duty to God and the King (or to God and my Country)[...] This is in line with the majority of international Scout oaths to "God and my Country." In order to accommodate many different religions within Scouting, "God" may refer to a higher power, and is not specifically restricted to the God of the monotheistic religions. WOSM explains "Duty to God" as "Adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them, and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom." Wording variations are allowed in order to accommodate different religious obligations and national allegiances.

UK Scout Association (age 10+ and adults): "On my honour, I promise that I will do my best, to do my duty to God and to the King, to help other people and to keep the Scout Law."

Scout Promise in Welsh (Addewid y Sgowtiaid): "Ar fy llw, Addawf i wneud fy ngorau, i wneud fy nyletswydd i Dduw ac i'r Brenin, i helpu pobl eraill, ac i gadw Cyfraith y Sgowtiaid."

(UK SA) Beaver Scouts (age 6 to 8): "I promise to do my best to be kind and helpful and to love God."

(UK SA) Cub Scouts (age 8 to 10): "I promise that I will do my best to do my duty to God and to the King, to help other people, and to keep the Cub Scout Law."

Girlguiding UK Brownies, Guides, leaders : "I promise that I will do my best: To be true to myself and develop my beliefs, To serve the King and my community, To help other people, and To keep the (Brownie) Guide Law."

Rainbows (aged 4-7 years): "I promise that I will do my best to think about my beliefs and to be kind and helpful."

Baden-Powell Scouts' Association (age 11+): "On My Honour, I promise that I will do my best, To do my Duty to God and to the King, To help other people at all times, And obey the Scout Law."

(BPSA) Beaver Scouts (5 to 8 years): "I promise to do my best, To obey my Leaders and parents. And to be a good Beaver."

(BPSA) Wolf Cubs (8 to 11 years): "I promise to do my best. To do my duty to God, and to the King, To keep the Law of the Wolf Cub Pack, and to do a good turn to somebody every day."

Proposed amendments to oath
There have been several private members' bills in recent years concerning the parliamentary oath. None have been successful. The following have occurred since the passing of the Oaths Act 1978:

Democratic Oaths Bill 1987-88137 (Tony Benn)
21 July 1988 Presentation and first reading "I, A B, Do swear by Almighty God Or Solemnly declare and affirm That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the peoples of the United Kingdom, according to their respective laws and customs; preserving inviolably their civil liberties and democratic rights of self government, through their elected representatives in the House of Commons, and will faithfully and truly declare my mind and opinion on all matters that come before me without fear or favour."

Parliamentary Declaration Bill 1997-98138 (Tony Benn)
13 January 1998 Presentation and First Reading: "I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here."

Parliamentary Oaths (Amendment) proposed Bill 1997-98139 (Kevin McNamara)
29 July 1998 Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. Negatived on division (137 to 151): "Motion: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a person lawfully elected to the House of Commons to take his seat without swearing the present oath or affirming; and for connected purposes."

Parliamentary Oath (Amendment) proposed bill 1999-2000140 (Kevin McNamara)
14 November 2000 Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. Negatived on Division (129 to 148): "Motion: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the parliamentary oath; and for connected purposes."

A Motion to introduce a bill entitled "Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill" was moved by Kevin McNamara on 19 December 2001. It did not progress further than its first reading.

Republican parliamentarians
Republicans have expressed opposition to a compulsory oath made to an unelected monarch.

 * Tony Benn in 1992 stated, when he took the oath, "As a dedicated republican, I solemnly swear ...". After the 1997 election, "As a committed republican, under protest, I take the oath required of me by law, under the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866, to allow me to represent my constituency ..." Later, he stated, "When one looks at the oaths of a Privy Counsellor, a Member of Parliament and the Sovereign at the coronation, they throw an interesting light on the obligations by which we are bound. The reality is that nobody takes an oath to uphold democracy in Britain. The Queen takes an oath to govern the country and uphold the rights of the bishops. We take an oath to the Queen. Nobody in the House takes an oath to uphold democracy in Britain." Tony Benn's Commonwealth of Britain Bill proposed that MPs and other officials swear oaths to a Constitution rather than the Crown.
 * Kevin McNamara stated: "The era in which it was thought to be appropriate for legislators to set a political or religious test for those deemed acceptable to enter the parliamentary club has long since passed.[...] The only test for inclusion and membership of this House should be the will of the electorate, freely expressed."
 * Dennis Skinner stated, "I solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax". He is also alleged to have added "and all who sail in her" to the oath, implying he was referring to HMS Queen Elizabeth rather than the monarch herself.
 * Tony Banks was seen with his fingers crossed when he took the oath in 1997.
 * Richard Burgon in 2015 prefaced his oath by expressing his support for constitutional change for an elected head of state: "As someone that believes that the head of state should be elected I make this oath in order to serve my constituents".
 * Colum Eastwood of the Irish nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party stated in 2019, "Under protest and in order to represent my constituency, I do solemnly[...] My true allegiance is to the people of Derry and the people of Ireland."
 * Also in 2019, SNP member Steven Bonnar visibly crossed his fingers during the affirmation. He also added to the official text "I take this oath to ensure that I can represent the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill in Scotland". Some other SNP members also added similar statements to the oath's wording.
 * In 2024, Labour member Clive Lewis prefaced his oath by "I take this oath under protest and in the hope that one day my fellow citizens will democratically decide to live in a republic until that time..."

Parliamentary
According to "The Parliamentary Oath" even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons, or be raised to the House of Lords, without taking the Oath of Allegiance to the ruling monarch, and to his heirs, and successors. However, there would be nothing to prevent a Parliamentary majority debating a republic or from seeking to renegotiate the constitutional settlement since freedom of speech is guaranteed by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.

The requirement to take the oath/affirmation is also enshrined in the Code of Conduct for MPs. Should an MP take part in parliamentary proceedings, without having sworn the oath, or affirmation, the penalty is £500 for every offence, together with vacation of their seat. Before 1997, MPs who did not take the oath, whilst unable to receive their salary, were entitled to the other facilities of the House. After the 1997 general election, the Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, made a new ruling on entitlement to salary, allowances and services as they relate to Members who have not taken the oath. This removed the right of any such MPs to the services of the House. Following the 2001 general election, and the election of four Sinn Féin members, the following Speaker, Michael Martin, re-iterated his predecessor's comments.

An Early Day Motion to change the Oath of Allegiance was brought before the House of Commons by 22 Members of Parliament, on 12 June 2008. Early Day Motion (#1780) read as follows:

"That this House recognises that the principal duty of hon. Members is to represent their constituents in Parliament; also recognises that some hon. Members would prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than the Monarch; and therefore calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward legislative proposals to introduce an optional alternative Parliamentary oath allowing hon. Members to swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation and to pledge to uphold the law rather than one pledging personal allegiance to the serving Monarch."

Scottish Parliament
Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party, as the first party leader to be sworn into the Scottish Parliament in 2011, before raising his right hand to swear allegiance to the Queen, the SNP leader said: "The Scottish National Party's primary loyalty is to the people of Scotland, in line with the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people."

The Scottish Socialist Party, who advocate the abolition of the monarchy have made a number of protests during their Oaths of Allegiance in the Scottish Parliament. Their former leader Tommy Sheridan swore an oath of allegiance to the Queen with a clenched fist in 1999, Rosie Kane held her own protest during the oath ceremony, during which she swore allegiance with the words "My oath is to the people" written on her raised hand, Colin Fox sang Robert Burns' "A Man's A Man for A' That" at his protest, before being moved to the end of the queue by presiding officer Sir David Steel.

Pressure groups
Campaign group Republic also challenges the oath of allegiance. Represented by human rights lawyer Louise Christian, their campaign is seeking to change the law so that both MPs and others required to take the oath can swear allegiance to the country and people, rather than the monarchy: "It is vital we challenge offensive and discriminatory oaths of allegiance – if our elected MPs ignore our calls we'll take this issue to court."

Sinn Féin
The Irish republican party Sinn Féin follows a policy of abstaining from the House of Commons; this is because its members refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the British Parliament as a body that legislates for Northern Ireland. The party also rejects the sovereignty of the British Crown in Northern Ireland, and as a result, even if its members wished to take up their seats, they would likely refuse to take the oath, and thereby would forfeit their seats and become liable to a fine of £500, recoverable by action in the High Court of Justice. As absentees, Sinn Féin MPs are denied their salaries, worth around £1.5million over the five years to 2009, but may claim staff costs and additional accommodation allowances.

It is unknown whether Sinn Féin MPs would reconsider their policy of abstentionism if the oath were abolished, or if a new oath or pledge were adopted without any mention of the monarch or the Crown. From 1922 a similar situation pertained with respect to the Irish Free State Oireachtas (parliament), which Sinn Féin boycotted because it did not recognise the state. Fianna Fáil split from Sinn Féin in 1926 by proposing to enter the Oireachtas if it could do so without taking the Oireachtas oath of allegiance to George V. Although the oath was abolished in 1933, Sinn Féin continued to boycott each Oireachtas until 1986.

In 1999 the Sinn Féin member of parliament Martin McGuinness challenged the legitimacy of the Oath of Allegiance required of British MPs by taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. The application was deemed inadmissible on the basis that the requirement of an oath to the reigning monarch was "reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support[...] the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State".

title: Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)


text:
User talk:Rogeralden

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 21:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Rogeralden


text: Category:Towers in Texas

title: Category:Towers in Texas


text:
Category:Buildings and structures in Texas

 * Buildings and structures in Texas.


text:
User talk:Tower.Of.Power

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 21:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Elizabeth Jolley.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Elizabeth Jolley.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tower.Of.Power


text:
Talk:Heliotropism

Untitled
IIRC, the petals of the the flowers do not contain chlorophyll. Heliotropism, therefore, seems rather pointless. The flowers do not gain anything from following the Sun and obviously spend some energy. Why do they do that?

In The Private Life of Plants it is shown how the flowers of polar poppy follow the Sun during the polar day. The presenter says that the flowers need the "warmth" and so follow the sun 24 hours a day 360 degrees. He says that this helps to grow the seed in the middle of the flower, but I am not sure it's a fully satisfactory explanation.

Any comments on that? Paranoid 22:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Articles should not refer to their talk pages unless there's a dispute of some sort going on. If you don't know something, don't put it in an article. Wait until you have references of some sort and then put it in. The documentary probably doesn't qualify, but surely somewhere someone has a theory on heliotropism we can reference. JRM · Talk 00:57, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

Difference with Phototropism
Is this not the same as phototropism? Perhaps the two articals should be merged? RandomIdiot 10:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It is different. I added some edits that hopefully make the difference clearer. Ceinturion 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Heliotropism doesnt involve growth whilst phototropism does. User: a grade 8 student

Heliotropism in humans
How about heliotropism in humans? (posted by user:213.228.0.12 on January 7 2006)

 * No - pretty much by definition, tropisms only occur in plants. Humans can be sensitive to the sun, yes, but that's not the same thing. DS 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More appropriate term?
"Heliotropism" implies growth, which would be irreversible, but this form of plant movement restores itself, much like Thigmonasty. It has been proposed to me that heliotropism is a misnomer, and "helionasty" is the more appropriate term. Is there any expert knowledge on this one? Sigil VII (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heliotropism is a historical name, and apparently it is acceptable to professors of biological sciences. See the first reference of the article, written by a professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Ceinturion (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of definition definition
Wouldn't replacing motion or movement to change in orientation or a single word for such an idea be make the distinction between heliotropism and phototaxis clearer to a reader without much background in biology? Obviously, land plants are not capable of motion toward or away from any stimulus, but the use of a term such as motion or movement may temporarily confuse a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.185.3 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New findings in SCIENCE
How do the findings recently published in SCIENCE affect this article?

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/541 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6299/587.full.pdf+html http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/05/488891151/the-mystery-of-why-sunflowers-turn-to-follow-the-sun-solved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitz (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Heliotropism


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Donohue

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus --cesarb 15:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William A. Donohue
Delete. The entire contents of this page are already contained in Catholic League (US), the only page which links to this page. If this is all that's notable about the fellow, he can be covered on the Catholic League page and not need a page of his own qitaana 22:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 22:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, content duplication. JamesBurns 23:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-known in the "hateful bigots" sub-culture. Was one of the main speakers in the "Justice Sunday" anti-filibuster event. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable American conservative commentator. The different forms of his name combine for tens of thousands of Google hits. NatusRoma 04:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.


text: File:PAradio.jpg

title: File:PAradio.jpg


text:
User:Vlad Patryshev

Vlad Patryshev, aka Владимир Патрышев, born in Arkhangelsk, Russia, in 1951, live San Jose, CA, USA. Programmer. Mathematician by education. I believe in truth.

title: User:Vlad Patryshev


text:
User:Gabrichidze

new user

title: User:Gabrichidze


text: Category:Towers in Hawaii

title: Category:Towers in Hawaii


text:
User talk:The Sorrow~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 22:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --The Grza 01:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called The Sorrow. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name The Sorrow~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:The Sorrow~enwiki


text:
User talk:Ims~enwiki

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 22:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ims. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ims~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ims~enwiki


text:
Poor Law Amendment Act 1834

The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 (PLAA) known widely as the New Poor Law, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed by the Whig government of Earl Grey denying the right of the poor to subsistence. It completely replaced earlier legislation based on the Poor Relief Act 1601 and attempted to fundamentally change the poverty relief system in England and Wales (similar changes were made to the poor law for Scotland in 1845). It resulted from the 1832 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws, which included Edwin Chadwick, John Bird Sumner and Nassau William Senior. Chadwick was dissatisfied with the law that resulted from his report. The Act was passed two years after the Representation of the People Act 1832 which extended the franchise to middle-class men. Some historians have argued that this was a major factor in the PLAA being passed.

The Act has been described as "the classic example of the fundamental Whig-Benthamite reforming legislation of the period". Its theoretical basis was Thomas Malthus's principle that population increased faster than resources unless checked, the "iron law of wages" and Jeremy Bentham's doctrine that people did what was pleasant and would tend to claim relief rather than working. The Act was intended to curb the cost of poor relief and address abuses of the old system, prevalent in southern agricultural counties, by enabling a new system to be brought in. Under this system, relief would only be given in workhouses, and conditions in workhouses would be such as to deter any but the truly destitute from applying for relief. The Act was passed by large majorities in Parliament, with only a few Radicals (such as William Cobbett) voting against. The act was implemented, but the full rigours of the intended system were never applied in Northern industrial areas; however, the apprehension contributed to the social unrest of the period.

The importance of the Poor Law declined with the rise of the welfare state in the 20th century. In 1948, the PLAA was repealed by the National Assistance Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 29), which created the National Assistance Board to act as a residual relief agency.

1832 Royal Commission's findings
Alarmed at the cost of poor relief in the southern agricultural districts of England (where, in many areas, it had become a semi-permanent top-up of labourers' wages—the Allowance System, Roundsman System, or Speenhamland System), Parliament had set up a Royal Commission into the operation of the Poor Laws. The Commission's findings, which had probably been predetermined, were that the old system was badly and expensively run. The Commission's recommendations were based on two principles. The first was less eligibility: conditions within workhouses should be made worse than the worst conditions outside of them so that workhouses served as a deterrent, and only the neediest would consider entering them. The other was the "workhouse test": relief should only be available in the workhouse. Migration of rural poor to the city to find work was a problem for urban ratepayers under this system, since it raised their poor rates. The Commission's report recommended sweeping changes:
 * Out-relief should cease; relief should be given only in workhouses, and upon such terms that only the truly indigent would accept it. "Into such a house none will enter voluntarily; work, confinement, and discipline, will deter the indolent and vicious; and nothing but extreme necessity will induce any to accept the comfort which must be obtained by the surrender of their free agency, and the sacrifice of their accustomed habits and gratifications."
 * Whilst this recommendation was a solution to existing problems consistent with "political economy", there was little consideration in the report of what new problems it might give rise to. There was little practical experience to support it; only four of the parishes reporting had entirely abolished out-relief, and their problem cases could well have simply been displaced to neighbouring parishes.

 * Different classes of paupers should be segregated; to this end, parishes should pool together in unions, with each of their poorhouses dedicated to a single class of paupers and serving the whole of the union. "[T]he separation of man and wife was necessary, in order to ensure the proper regulation of workhouses".
 * In practice, most existing workhouses were ill-suited to the new system (characterised by opponents as locking up the poor in "Poor Law bastilles"), and many poor law unions soon found that they needed a new purpose-built union workhouse. Their purpose being to securely confine large numbers of the lower classes at low cost, they not unnaturally looked much like prisons.

 * The new system would be undermined if different unions treated their paupers differently; there should therefore be a central board with powers to specify standards and to enforce those standards; this could not be done directly by Parliament because of the legislative workload that would ensue.
 * This arrangement was simultaneously justified as required to give absolute uniformity country-wide and as allowing regulations to be tailored to local circumstances without taking up Parliament's time.

 * Mothers of an illegitimate child should receive much less support; poor-law authorities should no longer attempt to identify the fathers of illegitimate children and recover the costs of child support from them.
 * It was argued that penalising fathers of illegitimate children reinforced pressures for the parents of children conceived out of wedlock to marry, and generous payments for illegitimate children indemnified the mother against failure to marry. "The effect has been to promote bastardy; to make want of chastity on the woman's part the shortest road to obtaining either a husband or a competent maintenance; and to encourage extortion and perjury".

Malthusianism
Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population set out the influential doctrine that population growth was exponential, and that, unless checked, population increased faster than the ability of a country to feed it. This pressure explained the existence of poverty, which he justified theologically as a force for self-improvement and abstention. He saw any assistance to the poor—such as given by the old poor laws—as self-defeating, temporarily removing the pressure of want from the poor while leaving them free to increase their families, thus leading to greater number of people in want and an apparently greater need for relief. His views were influential and hotly debated without always being understood, and opposition to the old Poor Law which peaked between 1815 and 1820 was described by both sides as "Malthusian".

Of those serving on the Commission, the economist Nassau William Senior identified his ideas with Malthus while adding more variables, and Bishop John Bird Sumner as a leading Evangelical was more persuasive than Malthus himself in incorporating the Malthusian principle of population into the Divine Plan, taking a less pessimistic view and describing it as producing benefits such as the division of property, industry, trade and European civilisation.

Iron law of wages
David Ricardo's "iron law of wages" held that aid given to poor workers under the old Poor Law to supplement their wages had the effect of undermining the wages of other workers, so that the Roundsman System and Speenhamland system led employers to reduce wages, and needed reform to help workers who were not getting such aid and rate-payers whose poor-rates were going to subsidise low-wage employers.

Utilitarianism
Edwin Chadwick, a major contributor to the Commission's report, developed Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism, the idea that the success of something could be measured by whether it secured the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This idea of utilitarianism underpinned the Poor Law Amendment Act. Bentham believed that "the greatest good for the greatest number" could only be achieved when wages found their true levels in a free-market system. Chadwick believed that the poor rate would reach its "correct" level when the workhouse was seen as a deterrent and fewer people claimed relief. A central authority was needed to ensure a uniform poor law regime for all parishes and to ensure that that regime deterred applications for relief; that is, to ensure a free market for labour required greater state intervention in poor relief.

Bentham's argument that people chose pleasant options and would not do what was unpleasant provided a rationale for making relief unpleasant so that people would not claim it, "stigmatising" relief so that it became "an object of wholesome horror".

Terms
When the Act was introduced, it did not legislate for a detailed Poor Law regime. Instead, it set up a three-man Poor Law Commission, an "at arms' length" quango to which Parliament delegated the power to make appropriate regulations, without making any provision for effective oversight of the Commission's doings. Local poor-rates payers still elected their local Board of Poor Law Guardians and still paid for local poor law provisions, but those provisions could be specified to the Board of Guardians by the Poor Law Commission; where they were, the views of the local rate-payers were irrelevant. The principles upon which the Commission was to base its regulations were not specified. The workhouse test and the idea of "less eligibility" were therefore never mentioned. "Classification of paupers" was neither specified nor prohibited (during passage of the Act, an amendment by William Cobbett forbidding the separation of man and wife had been defeated), and the recommendation of the Royal Commission that "outdoor relief" (relief given outside of a workhouse) should be abolished was reflected only in a clause that any outdoor relief should only be given under a scheme submitted to and approved by the Commissioners.

The Poor Law Commission was independent of Parliament, but conversely, since none of its members sat in Parliament, it had no easy way of defending itself against criticism in Parliament. It was recognised that individual parishes would not have the means to erect or maintain workhouses suitable for implementing the policies of "no outdoor relief" and segregation and confinement of paupers; consequently, the Commission was given powers to order the formation of Poor Law Unions (confederations of parishes) large enough to support a workhouse. The Commission was empowered to overturn any Unions previously established under Gilbert's Act, but only if at least two-thirds of the Union's Guardians supported this. Each Union was to have a Board of Guardians elected by rate-payers and property owners; those with higher rateable-value property were to have multiple votes, as for the Select Vestries set up under Sturges-Bourne's Acts. The Commission had no powers to insist that Unions built new workhouses (except where a majority of Guardians or rate-payers had given written consent), but they could order improvements to be made to existing ones. The Commission was explicitly given powers to specify the number and salaries of Poor Law Board employees and to order their dismissal. It could order the "classification" of workhouse inmates and specify the extent to which (and conditions under which) out-door relief could be given.

Clause 15 of the Act gave the Commission sweeping powers: "That from and after the passing of this Act the Administration of Relief to the Poor throughout England and Wales, according to the existing Laws, or such Laws as shall be in force at the Time being, shall be subject to the Direction and Control of the said Commissioners; and for executing the Powers given to them by this Act the said Commissioners shall and are hereby authorized and required, from Time to Time as they shall see Occasion, to make and Issue all such Rules, Orders, and Regulations for the Management of the Poor, for the Government of Workhouses and the Education of the Children therein, ... and for the apprenticing the Children of poor Persons, and for the Guidance and Control of all Guardians, Vestries, and Parish Officers, so far as relates to the Management or Relief of the Poor, and the keeping, examining, auditing, and allowing of Accounts, and making and entering into Contracts in all Matters relating to such Management or Relief, or to any Expenditure for the Relief of the Poor, and for carrying this Act into execution in all other respects, as they shall think proper; and the said Commissioners may, at their Discretion, from Time to Time suspend, alter, or rescind such Rules, Orders, and Regulations, or any of them: Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as enabling the said Commissioners or any of them to interfere in any individual Case for the Purpose of ordering Relief."

General Rules could only be made by the Commissioners themselves and had to be notified to a Secretary of State. Any new General Rules had to be laid before Parliament at the start of the next session. General Rules were those issued to the Guardians of more than one Union. Therefore, there was no provision for Parliamentary scrutiny of policy changes (e.g., on the extent to which out-door relief would be permitted) affecting a number of Poor Law Unions, provided these were implemented by separate directives to each Union involved.

The Act specified penalties which could be imposed upon persons failing to comply with the directives of the Poor Law Commission (£5 on first offence; £20 for second offence, fine and imprisonment on the third offence). However, it did not identify any means of penalising parishes or Unions which had not formed a legally constituted Board of Guardians. Poor Law Unions were to be the necessary administrative unit for the civil registration of births, marriages and deaths introduced in 1837.

The Act did give paupers some rights. Lunatics could not be held in a workhouse for more than a fortnight; workhouse inmates could not be forced to attend religious services of a denomination other than theirs (nor could children be instructed in a religious creed objected to by their parent(s)); they were to be allowed to be visited by a minister of their religion.

Implementation
The central body set up to administer the new system was the Poor Law Commission. The Commission worked in Somerset House, hence were called such as The Bashaws of Somerset House It was initially made up of Thomas Frankland Lewis, former Tory MP, George Nicholls, Overseer of the old system and John George Shaw Lefevre a lawyer, while Chadwick, an author of the Royal Commission's report was Secretary.

The Commission's powers allowed it to specify policies for each Poor Law Union, and policy did not have to be uniform. Implementation of the New Poor Law administrative arrangements was phased in, starting with the Southern counties whose problems the Act had been designed to address. There was a gratifying reduction in poor-rates, but also horror tales of paupers ill-treated or relief refused. Some paupers were induced to migrate from the Southern to Northern towns, leading to a suspicion in the North that the New Poor Law was intended to drive wages down. By 1837, when roll-out of the new arrangements reached the textile districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, trade was in recession. The usual response to this was for hours of work to be reduced, with pay reducing correspondingly and out-door relief being given to those who could not make ends meet on short-time earnings. This was clearly incompatible with a policy of "no out-door relief", and, despite assurances from the Poor Law Commission that there was no intention to apply that policy in the textile districts, they were not believed and a number of textile towns resisted (or rioted in response to) efforts to introduce the new arrangements. This resistance was eventually overcome, but outdoor relief was never abolished in many Northern districts, although the possibility existed. Policy officially changed after the passing of the Outdoor Labour Test Order, which "allowed" outdoor relief.

Problematic Consequences
After 1834, Poor Law policy aimed to transfer unemployed rural workers to urban areas where there was work, and protect urban ratepayers from paying too much.

It was impossible to achieve both these aims, as the principle of less eligibility made people search for work in towns and cities. Workhouses were built and paupers transferred to these urban areas. However, the Settlement Laws were used to protect ratepayers from paying too much. Workhouse construction and the amalgamation of unions was slow. Outdoor relief did continue after the PLAA was introduced. The board issued further edicts on outdoor relief: The Outdoor Labour Test Order and the Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order.

The implementation of the Act proved impossible, particularly in the industrial north which suffered from cyclical unemployment. The cost of implementing the Settlement Laws in operation since the 17th century was also high and so these were not implemented fully: it often proved too costly to enforce the removal of paupers. The Commission could issue directives, but these were often not implemented fully and in some cases ignored in order to save on expenses. Darwin Leadbitter 1782–1840 was in charge of the commission's finances.

The PLAA was implemented differently and unevenly across England and Wales. One of the criticisms of the Poor Relief Act 1601 had been its varied implementation. The law was also interpreted differently in different parishes, as these areas varied widely in their economic prosperity, and the levels of unemployment experienced within them, leading to an uneven system. Local Boards of Guardians also interpreted the law to suit the interests of their own parishes, resulting in an even greater degree of local variation.

The poor working-class, including the agricultural labourers and factory workers, also opposed the New Poor Law Act, because the diet in workhouses was inadequate to sustain workers' health and nutrition. The Times even named this act as "the starvation act." Even more, the act forced workers to relocate to the locations of workhouses, which separated families.

Opposition
Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist harshly criticises the Poor Law. In 1835 sample dietary tables were issued by the Poor law Commissioners for use in union workhouses. Dickens details the meagre diet of Oliver’s workhouse and points it up in the famous scene of the boy asking for more. Dickens also comments sarcastically on the notorious measure which consisted in separating married couples on admission to the workhouse: "instead of compelling a man to support his family [they] took his family from him, and made him a bachelor! " Like the other children, Oliver was "denied the benefit of exercise" and compelled to carry out the meaningless task of untwisting and picking old ropes although he had been assured that he would be "educated and taught a useful trade."

In the North of England particularly, there was fierce resistance; the local people considered that the existing system there was running smoothly. They argued that the nature of cyclical unemployment meant that any new workhouse built would be empty for most of the year and thus a waste of money. However, the unlikely union between property owners and paupers did not last, and opposition, though fierce, eventually petered out. In some cases, this was further accelerated as the protests very successfully undermined parts of the Amendment Act and became obsolete.

Fierce hostility and organised opposition from workers, politicians and religious leaders eventually led to the Amendment Act being amended, removing the very harsh measures of the workhouses to a certain degree. The Andover workhouse scandal of the mid-1840s, in which conditions in the Andover Union Workhouse were found to be inhumane and dangerous, prompted investigation by a Commons select committee, whose report commented scathingly on the dysfunctionality of the Poor Law Commission.

In 1847, Government legislation replaced the Poor Law Commission with a Poor Law Board under much closer government supervision and parliamentary scrutiny.

Impact
According to a 2019 study, the 1834 welfare reform had no impact on rural wages, labour mobility or the fertility rate of the poor. The study concludes, "this deliberately induced suffering gained little for the land and property owners who funded poor relief. Nor did it raise wages for the poor, or free up migration to better opportunities in the cities. One of the first great triumphs of the new discipline of Political Economy, the reform of the Poor Laws, consequently had no effects on economic growth and economic performance in Industrial Revolution England."

title: Poor Law Amendment Act 1834


text:
User talk:Shaunk

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 22:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Shaunk


text: User talk:71.241.127.63

title: User talk:71.241.127.63


text:
User talk:PetSounds

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M.(Simon & Garfunkel album - cover art).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M.(Simon &. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Bob Dylan - Bringing It All Back Home.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bob Dylan - Bringing It All Back Home.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SydBarrettDoubleAlbum.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SydBarrettDoubleAlbum.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Duran1st.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Duran1st.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SmileySmileCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SmileySmileCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SmileySmileCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SmileySmileCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:PetSounds


text: User talk:80.45.178.54

title: User talk:80.45.178.54


text:
Sewer Shark

Sewer Shark is a first-person rail shooter video game, and is the first on a home console to use full motion video for its primary gameplay. It was originally slated to be the flagship product in Hasbro's Control-Vision video game system, which would use VHS tapes as its medium. However, Hasbro cancelled the Control-Vision platform, and Digital Pictures later developed the game for the Sega CD expansion unit. Sewer Shark is one of the first titles for the Sega CD and one of its best-selling games, leading Sega to eventually bundle it with Sega CD units. It was later ported and released for the 3DO in 1994. A port was also planned for the SNES-CD, but that system was cancelled.

Plot
Sewer Shark takes place in a post-apocalyptic future where environmental destruction has forced most of humanity to live underground. The player takes on the role of a rookie pilot in a band of "sewer jockeys", whose job is to exterminate dangerous mutated creatures to keep a vast network of sewers clean for "Solar City", an island paradise from which the evil Commissioner Stenchler (Robert Costanzo) gives his orders and critiques. The player's copilot, Ghost (David Underwood), evaluates the player's performance throughout the game, while a small robot named Catfish (voiced by Robert Weaver) scouts ahead and gives directions. The player is later assisted by Falco (Kari G. Peyton), a female jockey who believes that there is a hidden route to the surface. Falco is later captured by Stenchler, who threatens to mutate her into one of his mindless minions. This plot is thwarted when Ghost and the player reach Solar City.

Gameplay
The objective of Sewer Shark is to travel all the way from the home base to Solar City without crashing or running out of energy, and while maintaining a satisfactory level of performance as judged by Ghost and Commissioner Stenchler. As in other rail shooters, the ship mostly flies itself, leaving the player to shoot ratigators (mutant crosses between rats and alligators), bats, giant scorpions and mechanical moles. Along the way, Catfish gives the player directions. If the player takes a wrong turn or misses a turn, they eventually hit a dead end and crash, ending the game. Later in the game, Catfish is replaced by a "crazy lookin' thing", which visually guides the player through the sewers.

The ship has a limited amount of energy, which depletes slowly during flight and while firing. Scorpions also rob the ship of energy if the player fails to shoot them down. This energy can be partially replenished at recharge stations. In later areas, the ship encounters occasional pockets of hydrogen that the player must have Catfish detonate to pass through safely.

At certain times, Ghost or Stenchler interrupt the player to give direct feedback. If the player is doing well, they are allowed to continue and are occasionally given a promotion in the form of a new call sign. A poor performance will eventually cause the game to end.

Sewer Shark is often referred to as an interactive movie due to its use of full motion video to convey the action, and the navigation aspect of the game is frequently compared to Dragon's Lair, since turns are gates that the player must pass through to continue playing.

Production
The game originated on the cancelled VHS-based Control-Vision video game console. The video was split into four distinct tracks that were interleaved frame-by-frame, and the hardware would switch between tracks to, for example, show a turn being taken or ignored, along with the outcome of that decision (e.g. crashing into a wall). In converting the game to the Sega CD platform, Digital Pictures maintained this approach by having the console read all four tracks worth of data as a single continuous stream to minimize seek time on the CD. To work within the console's limitations, the developers wrote a custom video codec to highly compress the data streams so they could be read in realtime from the CD. This codec was also used in Night Trap and the Make My Video series, and an improved version was later used in Prize Fighter.

The video footage in Sewer Shark was directed by visual effects artist John Dykstra.

According to Digital Pictures president Tom Zito, Sewer Shark cost $3 million to develop.

Reception
Sewer Shark is one of the Sega CD's best-selling games, with more than 100,000 units sold prior to having been bundled with the system. Over 500,000 copies were bundled with the Sega CD, while non-bundled copies grossed about US$18 million in retail sales. In the end the game sold more than 750,000 copies.

The game is on the Associated Press list of top ten video games from 1993. They called it "bizarre and wildly entertaining" and a must-have game for all Sega CD owners.

According to the "Review Crew" retrospective feature on DefunctGames, Sewer Shark received generally positive reviews among most of the major game magazines at the time. The site quotes GamePro Magazine as saying "Sewer Shark is an awesome hybrid of hot shoot-em-up video game action and state-of-the-art CD graphics...", although Electronic Gaming Monthly gave the game a 6 out of 10, saying: "Whoopie! Another full motion video CD game with no plot of [sic] real game play. ... Guiding a crosshair in a repetitive maze in order to blast rodents and bats is not my idea of hot shooter action! ... wait 'til next year."

Entertainment Weekly wrote that "it is one of the first games to incorporate humans in live-action, full-motion video footage. And with the promise of movie-quality pictures, audiophile sound, and fast frames-per-second animation, CD-ROM figures to be the shape of games to come." Mega Action magazine gave a review score of 82 out of 100 stating that "the graphics and stereo sound make this a must to your collection". Power Unlimited gave a score of 78% writing: "Sewer Shark is another interactive movie that took advantage of the capabilities of the Sega CD. It was therefore one of the reasons that the device flopped. The visuals were of low quality and the game was boring and short. Good voices."

title: Sewer Shark