He was responding to a question about the fact they get their pay and allowances despite not attending.

Presumably to enable them to enter the house the oath to the queen would need to be removed.

Royal charters give the chartered body the right to do anything and everything without worrying about consequences. Fraud, among other things, is pre-excused in exchange for loyalty to the Crown and some financial contributions to HM’s schools and military.

The monarch (and this has been true since 1067 when William the Conquerer granted one to the City) orders her ministers to give favourable treatment to chartered bodies and order her judges to protect them.

Not many people know that!

As you appear to be a member of Cambridge University, you might attempt to get a copy of its most recent charter.

Abbey Road, Cambridge

The video embedded above shows Mr Huppert affirming; I’ve also noted this in the comment too now.

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/the-santa-hat-of-state.html#comment-17772

Perhaps while the councillors and their guests are digging into their taxpayer funded sumptuous feast during the upcoming annual meeting I’ll see if I can get into the chamber and read some of the material about the regalia which is present in the display cases which usually house the mace. I have read much of what is there previously, it is largely about the city’s many royal charters.

Approximately zero I’d guess.

Mr Huppert was first asked by the clerk if he wanted to “affirm” or “swear”; he opted to affirm. The affirmation option doesn’t invoke God whereas swearing involves asking for God’s help and holding/touching the bible or another holy book while making the declaration.

Mr Huppert asked if he needed to give his : “full title and things”. This raises the question of what Mr Huppert considers to be his “full title”, he has not used any name other than “Julian Huppert” during his campaign for election. Perhaps by “and things” he was referring to his academic qualifications.

The clerk responded to say no, and told him to merely state his “name and constituency so that it is recorded”.

The clerk went on to say to Mr Huppert that his point about “electronic production” had been well made and Huppert received an assurance from the clerk that “we are doing our best”. This presumably refers the call for greater use of technology and for less paperwork to be printed which Huppert tweeted to say he had made during an informal meeting of new members in the House of Commons.

Mr Huppert then signed something - which I expect was a commitment to abide by the code of conduct for members.

Before leaving the chamber Huppert shook hands with, and briefly chatted to the Speaker, though the microphones in the house did not pick up this exchange.

A number of republican MPs made their opposition to the oath known as they took it; with one for example prefixing it with: “under protest”. One of the most interesting approaches was from notable republican Dennis Skinner who quietly mumbled something - I have placed a video of Mr Skinner’s admirable antics on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9iFeqGzkXc

I would be unwilling to affirm allegiance to the queen, though I agree a majority of the people in the country support her and that the country is likely to remain a monarchy in my lifetime. It’s not even a major issue for me - but my very mild republicanism prevents me from the kind of political involvement I might otherwise have pursued and also from a range of public roles. If only one MP stood out against the oath/affirmation of allegiance, I might feel I had political equality.

I sometimes wonder how far I’m bound, in ethical terms, by laws passed in a parliament which would deny me admission, even if I were elected. I’m not (yet) a dangerous revolutionary but a reasonably respectable, middle-aged Quaker who came to the conclusion that, on balance, a republic of citizens is probably better than a monarchy of sovereign and subjects.

Cambridge’s new MP Julian Huppert has taken a seat right in the middle of the action, sitting next to Sarah Teather. I hope this indicates an intent to actively and passionately represent Cambridge in the Commons.

In terms of constitutional change I am opposed to the switch to fixed term parliaments propped up by the requirement for 55% of MPs to agree to a dissolution. That’s tinkering with the constitution in an attempt to keep the current government in. I expect we may well see the Lords have a role in discouraging MPs from pushing that through.

Of all the changes being mooted at the moment, I don’t see AV - which is the only one currently expected to go to a referendum - as the most dramatic and important. I’d rather see referendums on the Lords and on fixed term Parliaments.