Queen and country [Archive]

BlueWolf

1st Jun 2002, 23:05

My understanding, Jack, is that the Queen, or more specifically the Crown, is the embodiment or personification of the State, the State being the Nation or, if you prefer, "The People".
Thus whilst even in a constitutional monarchy the Monarch theoretically weilds ultimate power (as opposed to absolute power) he or she does so on behalf of, and in the name of, the People.
Swearing alleigance to the Crown, then, means that one accepts both the authority of the People, and the ability of the Monarch to exercise that authority correctly and responsibly. The Crown and The People become, by this relationship, mutual providers and protectors; thus the integrity of the nation, or State, is maintained for the collective greater good.
The swearing of alliegance does not, however, extend to the Government of the Day, who are generally considered to be a bunch of untrustworthy Bad Eggs, against whom both Crown and People, through their unique partnership, must remain forever on their guard.
So even if you're not a Royalist, your loyalty is sworn to the State or nation anyway, and you undertake to remain faithful to that entity regardless of the embodiment of its official head.
The Government is still secondary in your loyalties.
It may seem like a fine distinction, but it is a very terribly important one.
At the end of the day it is all that stands between those regimes which are civilised and those which are not.

Robert Cooper

2nd Jun 2002, 04:11

Well said Blue Wolf, that succinctly summs it up. To respond to Jack's original
question, during my 30 years I never came across anyone in the Mess who
was not a Royalist. I've been out over 20 years now so maybe things may
have changed somewhat, though I doubt it. :)

BC

TheNightOwl

2nd Jun 2002, 04:19

FJJP: Outdated, outmoded but, by God, admirable none the less. I served my 22 with the same pride in my uniform and for what it stands.
I salute you.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl. :)

left one o clock

2nd Jun 2002, 07:35

Jackmilehigh,

Small point, ALL military personnel swear allegiance to the crown, not just Os.

Your humble servant etc...

teeteringhead

2nd Jun 2002, 07:47

And it's HM's (not HRH please) signature on the Commission Scroll, not El Presidente's.

Reminds me of an occasion (last year??) when some journo (not you Jacko I'm sure) referred to Mrs Blur as "The First Lady". not only was she not first, someone worked out that she was 789th (or whatever) after a shedload of duchesses, baronesses and archbishops's wives!

God Save and Bless the Queen!

ShyTorque

2nd Jun 2002, 09:16

And it stays with you forever. Governments come and go, some quicker than others and some not quick enough.....at least we get a rapid turnround of personalities with the present one.

But the Monarchy are the backbone of our society, thank goodness.

God Bless 'em all!:) :D :cool:

Talking Radalt

2nd Jun 2002, 09:36

Bluewolf said:
"The Government is still secondary in your loyalties"

Sorry but they come much further down my list of allegiances than second place. I have more loyalty to my old Scout troop than I do towards Bliar, The ginger Dwarf, Knuckles Prescott et al.
I have had the honour and privilege to meet a number of the Royal Family and wonderful people they are to who have that rare knack of being able to talk to anyone at the other's party's level and be genuinely interested in the same....unlike some.

BlueWolf

2nd Jun 2002, 09:56

Well said T'Radalt.
Perhaps I should clear up any misunderstanding; by "The Government is still secondary" I mean that there is no way they will ever be first.

God Save the Queen, Gentlemen.

Mike RO'Channel

2nd Jun 2002, 11:12

I believe that most (but probably, not all) of today's Armed Forces can relate to this thread, Serving loyally and wholeheartedly their Queen and Country and are even prepared to offer the ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs.

However, many at higher levels have forgotten this and seem to prefer to serve their political 'masters' for their own gain/promotion. Any such 'motivated' Senior Officers should heed the sentiments already expressed above - we pledge our allegiance to HM the Queen, Her heirs and successors and not to any trumped up politician who wants to be President of the UK/Europe.

CrabInCab

2nd Jun 2002, 11:30

100% absolutely and most definitely a royalist. I join to serve Her Majesty, Heirs and Successors; not a wannabe President. The National Anthem I sing with pride, it still brings me out in goose bumps every time.

A twenty something Flt Lt.

jackmilehigh

2nd Jun 2002, 11:48

Thanks to everyone whos responded so far. Ive only asked questions so far so here are my views:

As someone applying to the airforce I am patriotic, a royalist and a believer in democracy.

The ruling monarch acts as a check to democracy. If Mr Prime Minister tried to turn England into a dictatorship or use the armed forces as a tool kill political rivals the armed forces could excercise there alliegence to the Queen to prevent this.

I also believe the position Head of State shouls not be elected for the simple reason it would grant total power to the ruling political party.

I am applying for a commision so this is something I have thought long and hard about though the Air Cadets, VGS, my flying schollarship etc. I love the UK the way it is. I certainly dont want to fight for the next Slobodan Milosivic.

For Queen and Country

Jack

Mowgli

2nd Jun 2002, 11:51

The monarchy are great. They are born to lead us, no need for backhanders, spinning, brown nosing, U turning, baby kissing, party politicing, bad mouthing, taking money for questions, cool Britannia-ing, changing their accent according to company kept etc. Thet are just there; to inspire, to lead, to represent all that is best. They are a national treasure and the envy of many other powerful nations.

Any politician lobbying to remove the monarchy should be sent to the Tower for treason, or emigrate.

AllTrimDoubt

2nd Jun 2002, 11:56

Still serving after 24 years and still proud and privileged to do so.

Enjoy your Golden Jubilee Ma'am!

fobotcso

2nd Jun 2002, 13:03

Constitutional Royalist here and also a great admirer of HM for her own sake.:)

Fg Off Max Stout

2nd Jun 2002, 13:49

Proud and honoured to wear the symbols of the Crown on No1 SD hat and various other items of uniform etc.

Would also be very keen to display my upstanding loyalty to Zara Philips.

left one o clock

2nd Jun 2002, 17:32

Loyalty to HMTQ? Possibly.
Loyalty to HMG? Possibly not.

I find it difficult to stir much fealty to either. My loyalty, first and foremost is to the people I work, live and fly with.

SET 18

4th Jun 2002, 08:00

Welll, count me in as a staunch Royalist too.

It was humbling last night to see the thanks given by those many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people for her 50 year tenure.

Good luck and God Save the Queen.

BEagle

4th Jun 2002, 09:42

I am astonished that anyone should feel the need to ask such a question..............

jackmilehigh

4th Jun 2002, 10:46

BEagle,

I asked the question because the air forces policys over the past few years have changed rapidly. Compare the application forms a few years back to the ones now and youll see what I mean.

In amongst this mad drive for political correctness B*** S*** I wanted to know if attitiudes to the monarchy from new recruits let in under the new PC drive are negative as this would cause problems with the alliegence to the Queen used as a check to the democracy.

Further more a recient debate on news night called for the head of state to become an elected position.

Other news programmes have declared the Queen and Monarchy are 'out of touch' or have should have a reduced role.

The fact is I am seriously applying for the RAF. I have done lots of preparation and I have a family history in the RAF which I am very proud of. I wanted to know, so I asked and I am pleased to hear the replys.

I thought the concert at the palace yesterday was fantastic yesterday.

God Save the Queen.

Jack

Roland Pulfrew

4th Jun 2002, 15:25

Royalist, Loyalist, 19 years service to HMQ and Country and proud of it.

Loyal to Tony and his Cronies? I think not.

Just been watching the procession in The Mall, how it must gall the republicans that HMQ can still command such massive support from the silent majority.

I look forward to the Diamond Jubilee, at least the Reds already do a pretty good Diamond formation!!:) :)

Scud-U-Like

5th Jun 2002, 17:37

Say what you like about our politicians (and most people do), but they do stick their heads on the block, so to speak, every five years. That's democracy.

With the exception of HM The Queen (who almost never puts a foot wrong), the arrogance of members of the Royal Family exceeds that of any Government minister.

BEagle

5th Jun 2002, 18:45

To the Tower with that man!

There are some opinions which one should keep private, in my personal view.

1.3VStall

5th Jun 2002, 19:20

Did my 28 years in light blue. Best decision I ever made in my life was to join; the second best decision I made was to leave (even though I'm currently "in between jobs")!

Last night's spectacle of unbidden and unashamed affection for a most magnificent lady brought more than a tear to my eye.

As the rest of Britain's former might and traditions crumble into ineffectiveness and disrepute we have a single constant pillar of value to which common folk can still relate: HM The Queen. Why else would hundreds of thousands of ordinary people endure the expense and discomfort of London yesterday? Why else do many Commonwealth republics, both governments and citizens, still hold Her Majesty in awe and affection?

God bless you ma'am, the nation's view of you was aptly demonstrated this weekend.

P.S. Scud-u-like: T*sser (in spades).

Flatus Veteranus

5th Jun 2002, 20:46

Would someone please reassure me that, at Mess dinners, the first toast is still "HM the Queen", and that we that we stand up for it, rather than remain sprawled in our chairs - unlike some other (unnamed) band of tossers? :D

timzsta

5th Jun 2002, 20:57

Although I have now left the service, I look back on my time with in the military with pride. The commisions of those in the RN, RAF and Army are signed by HRH Queen Elizabeth II, not by the Prime Minister. 100% royalist here.

Also, my mother is German - several of our German relatives phoned over the weekend to say how wonderful the celebrations for HRH The Queen were and how great it was to see that we still have such pride and national identity. I think this speaks volumes for both our monarchy and the EU.

bootscooter

5th Jun 2002, 21:20

Relative new boy, at only 6 years in, and a totally Loyal Subject. However, I for one do not think that being Royalist and pro- Europe (but not necisarily (er?) pro-U.S.E.) have to be mutually exclusive.

jackmilehigh

5th Jun 2002, 21:32

Pollitican know there time is limited so they put all ten fingers and toes into every scam going to get away with as much as they can whilst they can. I recall a Mr Archer...

...As for putting there heads on the block thats an idea.

A Civilian

5th Jun 2002, 21:40

This post is damn funny :D I find it hard to belive that people with your responsibility can belive in things like your oath to the queen nowadays.

Err which group of people over the previous 200 years. Industralised our country? Ensured Health & education for all? and lead us to be the greatest country on the planet in our heyday?

I can tell you that it wasn't the group complaining about poor arcticutre & who like corgies :)

Mr C Hinecap

5th Jun 2002, 21:47

Remember - there are no such thing as civvies - just Servicemen waiting to join up.
Ever felt you don't belong & are a lone face looking in through a window at boys & girls having fun? In fact - were you picked on at school by a boy called Charles? Afraid of people with 'posh' accents? Ah - thought so. It is what the monarchy STANDS for - a focal point - oh never mind. Hope I get the chance to challenge you with a 'stop or I fire' some day.

:( :(

Fg Off Max Stout

5th Jun 2002, 22:30

Mr Civilian,
perhaps you should be pleased that the people with such responsibility are so loyal to this country that they are prepared to risk/lose their lives in the name of the head of state.

Most politicians are loyal only to themselves. You sound like the sort of chap who couldn't achieve even that.

The Scarlet Pimpernel

5th Jun 2002, 23:02

Mr Civvie (or wind-up, whoever you are).

Our point is well beyond your reach. Our pledge to the monarch is a pledge to the country and not the government. We do (or did in my case) our job in the full knowledge that our country requires it for whatever reason.

The monarchy is the cornerstone of what we believe in. Gratitude, Respect and Pride are the things that have left an indelible mark on this jubilee, in HM the Queen's own words. Perhaps you may reflect on these 3 attributes as you seem to display none of them. I for one, am still 100% loyal to the Crown.... God Save The Queen!

Scud-U-Like

5th Jun 2002, 23:13

Questioning the integrity of the monarchy is hardly a recent development. It has been going on since the institution itself was founded. The monarchy has survived because, throughout history, it has been prepared to change and develop (albeit, more often than not, under duress).

For what it's worth, I believe we are better off with a monarchy than we would be without one. That does not mean I or any of the 'common folk' (as 1.3VStall so quaintly terms us) should never question how the Monarchy works or indeed its raison detre.

It was rather ironic that Concorde (which, without the support of staunch republican and WW II RAF pilot, Tony Benn, would probably have bitten the dust at the R&D stage) formed the climax of the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations. How very British :)

Max R8

5th Jun 2002, 23:18

My 2nd Jubilee in the proud and loyal service of Her Majesty (must admit I think this one was better run than the last). I would hope that a million people on the streets would be enough to quench the rabid rantings of the republicans but I doubt we've heard the last of them. Funny that those who want to ban the Monarchy and imprison foxhunters, also wish to leagalise drugs and free terrorists!

I do regret that after 25 years I no longer have the honour of signing out one of Her Majesty's aircraft and have to make do with Rentawreck from Plastic Pig PLC! Well, at least they're owned by the ROYAL Bank of Scotland.

steamchicken

6th Jun 2002, 01:08

A historical moment: the Queen is not sovereign by divine right. but by Act of Parliament (the Act of Settlement, Bill of Rights etc). There is no reason to argue against her unless you have a good change to the constitution. Which we need - wouldn't you rather be citizens than subjects?

opso

6th Jun 2002, 18:32

I would far rather be a subject than subjected to a President!

fobotcso

6th Jun 2002, 22:15

Steamchicken, Wannabe what?

You have just failed the first test if you wannabe one of us.

Ignore civilians, by definition they are incapable of understanding the committment of Servicemen and women who get up in the morning knowing that, on that day , they may have to kill or be killed to preserve the freedom of their Country.

bootscooter

6th Jun 2002, 22:21

Totally agree fobotsco.

SteamChicken, if I have to explain, you wont understand!:D

Mister B

7th Jun 2002, 14:15

I too remember the '77 Jubilee; memorable highlights include the then SoS for Defence having a quick catnap during the Royal review at cradle of navigation. Gave rise for a while to the expression "going off for quick 'Mulley' 'fore the pub opens".

This one was far more significant, especially given the travails of the Royal Family over the past couple of years. You've guessed it, I am a loyal Royalist - and who could not be moved by the magnificent rendition of our national anthem.

As for disparaging the waverers and outright dissenters/republicans - remember why we all took up this special and distinctive way of life - to preserve and protect the freedom of our nation.

T paraphrase: I may not agree with what they say, but by God, I will give my life to preserve their right to say it.

God save the Queen

steamchicken

7th Jun 2002, 15:30

No reason to be aggressive; my post was simply that the Monarchy has lasted because it exists by our choice as citizens. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 showed that and since then, the monarchy has become the sound consitutional authority it is now.

My point on the constitution; I don't see that we should have any legislators who we did not elect. We're not a banana republic. The House of Lords should be elected, and the prime ministership should be less powerful. Not too horrible?

Flatus Veteranus

7th Jun 2002, 16:34

I don't see that we should have any legislators who we did not not elect - Steamchicken

Democracy is the worst form of government - except for the alternative - Winston Churchill

We have an elected House of Commons to do the legislating. We need an upper house (if at all) to do the reviewing. For this we need wisdom, experience, and expertise - not hereditary "old farts" nor "Tony's cronies". And, least of all, more "vox pop".

Perhaps each professional body or institute, academic discipline, armed service, church etc etc, should be allotted seats in the Senate , roughly in proportion to their membership. These representatives would serve for a fixed term or up to a maximum age. The power of the senate to delay or amend legislation would be strictly limited.

fobotcso

7th Jun 2002, 20:39

...and the Monarchy will continue for many years to come; more than you or I will see, "sc".

If being treated aggressively concerns you, you really are not cut out to be a military wannabe. Given that we can be sometimes be aggressive with each other (it's part of the bonding process, :)), it's hardly surprising that we would give rough treatment to one who comes into the Military Forum and questions our raison d'etre.

If all you want is a job, go drive an airliner. If you have the passion for a vocation, at least give the Military option some consideration. But if you do, don't expect to be greeted with open arms as you come in the door saying "all this Queen and Country is a load of rubbish". That won't get you very far in your interviews. :p

foiled again

8th Jun 2002, 00:28

steamchicken - there is an old saw which says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" Perhaps the underlying reason is that the HoLs is seen as a threat to the present government in getting some of its more vexatious legislation onto the Statute Book.

Problem is everybody is being encouraged to have an opinion on everything, so the pollsters can say that if you are not for something, then you must be against it! Not good logic and even worse for democracy!

Another thing is that mistaken impression that everyone who voted for a particular party agrees with everything on that party's manifesto...... Wrong!

Interesting digression though, thanks.

The traditions of this country (which this government is trying to erode at an ever increasing rate of knots) are like no other and because of that have to be worth keeping. We may be quaint, no longer have an empire but we have an institution in the Monarchy that continues to serve us well collectively and is better than the alternatives.

We may no longer take our (Sovereign's) colours on operations (RN excepted - after all theirs are nailed to the mast so to speak) but they provide a unique, unifying purpose that makes our Armed Forces stand out from those of other nations.

Long may She reign over us!

steamchicken

8th Jun 2002, 13:56

This might be a good moment to point out that I didn't call for the abolition of the monarchy at all: I stated that any change could only make sense in the context of a positive contribution to the constitution. No point saying "Offwiver'ead!" unless you know what you would put in its place. I also said that we need a constitutional reform: to replace the Lords and look at the representation of Jockland and Wales as well as the counties/regions/whatever, and to reduce the PM's personal power. That doesn't have to mean getting rid of HMQ. Willy Brandt once said that "if you want to keep what is worth keeping, you must change what needs change", which I think sums the point up nicely.

I may be a civilian, but that don't make me "A Civilian" and I don't necessarily agree with him.

A Civilian

8th Jun 2002, 16:21

I wasn't going to make a second post. As the prefered way to decide discussions in this forum is to slag each other off :)

It seems that anyone with an minority arguement is automatically a t**oser and therefore his argument is worthless.

I do hope this form of discussion is not used when your making plans to invade Iraq :D

This whole thread is an excellant reason why the democratic process is inherrently greater than any form of monachry. Many people each giving there own opinions until the right one is found is better than a single person deciding what to do and no one being able to challenge them.

I did not mean to upset your view of the armed forces. Obviously your traditions are very important to you.
I however was rightly upset that many view the queen as being the leader of the armed forces when it is the MP Tony Blair leader of the majority of the houses of parliment. The queen maybe the legal head of our governement yet your loyality should be to the righful head of state who was voted into office by the majority of the voting public.

Whatever you may think of the PM or his party or politicans in general. Your view points should give him the respect that he deserves as the...

...orginator of all orders given to serving armed forces members.

After asking a US national guard friend of mine. He states that the originator of all orders is the "correct" big boss of the country. And of course as the nuclear trigger is in his procession & not the queen's then it is obvious were the power lies.

In my view not giving the respect that Tony Blair deserves is completely dishonorable. And i cannot belive that any member of the armed services could even say that on a public server.

And whilist many of you moan about the corruption within the political parties it is certinaly not as bad as how a mnachy would function. With no controls whatsoever existsting to stop a king from doing whatever he wants i assure you that we would be worse off. Just look at Saudia Arbia for instance.

fobotcso

8th Jun 2002, 16:53

A C, I haven't noticed anyone slagging anyone off!

Please yourself how you see things; Her Majesty signed my commissioning scroll, not Winston Churchill.

sc, Okay, Okay! :)

Scud-U-Like

8th Jun 2002, 18:23

Good thread.

As A Civilian points out, and however unpalatable it may be to some, the Prime Minister is de facto commander-in-chief of the UK armed forces. Eden, Thatcher, Major and Blair: whatever you may think of them, these were the people who, in the last 50 years, decided whether we went to war or not.

When I go on operational duty, it is to defend the old lady down the road, as equally as it is to defend HM The Queen, Her heirs and successors. The Queen is a figurehead and a focus for national unity. That is a very worthy function, but, as we laud Her, let's not lose sight of reality.

opso

8th Jun 2002, 19:57

Except that no PM can send HM troops to war without the monarch's permission. Given that the monarch has no political points to gain, this reduces the chance of a PM starting a war just to get re-elected.

Mystic Greg

8th Jun 2002, 20:14

I have rarely seen such a badly-informed (and badly-spelt) post as that from 'A Civilian' above. Putting my political history degree to some use (at last), may I correct some of his most blinding errors in his statements about our constitution:

1. Tony Blair is not 'leader of the Armed Forces': the Queen is titular head of the Armed Forces while the professional 'leader' of the Armed Forces is the Chief of the Defence Staff (Adml Sir Michael Boyce).

2. The Queen is not 'head of the government'; she is head of state.

3. Tony Blair is not head of state; he is head of the government.

4. The PM is not 'voted into office' as such: he is appointed by the Monarch (hence the legal phrase 'Her Majesty's Government'). By convention and political reality the Monarch must appoint a PM who can command a majority in the elected House of Commons. A Government which did not have such a majority would not be able to stay in office because taxes can only be raised if approved by the Commons: without taxes, the state would have no income and would cease to function.

5. Of course the PM and other ministers decide what they want the Armed Forces to do. The resultant orders are issued to the Armed Forces in the Queen's name. Indeed, almost all Government activities are carried out in the Queen's name. The Queen herself does not write the orders: she acts on the advice of her ministers.

6. The crucial point is that there is no direct link in the command chain between ministers and the Armed Forces. This reduces the danger of a future government attempting to use the Armed Forces to suspend democratic elections and perpetuate its existance beyond its popular mandate.

7. Finally, a point of opinion. I think most Servicemen and women respect the offices held by the PM and his political colleagues. Furthermore, the Armed Forces always do their best to carry out the tasks allotted by Ministers. However, the people who hold those offices (including the PM) are 'here today and gone tomorrow' politicians. By the nature of their calling, they engage in controversy and it should not be surprising that Servicemen and women have as strong views as anyone else in the country about how well or badly our politicians are doing their jobs - we do have votes as well, you know! Slagging off Tony Blair on this medium does not therefore imply disrespect for his office or unwillingness to carry out government policy. (I would not wish to go too far by engaging myself in party politics here, but I wonder if A Civilian's defence of Tony Blair would have been matched 15 years ago by an equally robust defence of Margaret Thatcher?).

You will probably have deduced from Point 6 above that I am a staunch Monarchist (there are many other reasons for this as well). I also take my Oath of Allegiance to the Queen very seriously. And on a personal note, I think Her Majesty has exercised her constitutional duty magnificently for the last 50 years. I hope the stunning success of the Jubilee celebrations has made her aware of how much she is appreciated by the vast majority.

God Save The Queen!

Mmmmnice

8th Jun 2002, 20:39

Well said Mystic - I cannot corroborate everything you've said;it's a bit fuzzy through the bottom of this beer glass - but it all sounds damn convincing. Mine's a pink gin old fruit - chocks away captain!! oh, and I don't want to go to Kasmir - always keep away from places you cannot spell

covec

8th Jun 2002, 20:55

From a soldier's point of view one might say that loyalty is owed first to your mates - then the Regiment. By "default" this includes the Colours and the Royal Family.........

As one from the "Celtic fringe" or "The Emerald Toilet" as some of my English(?) compadres put it....well I will simply say that it pays the bills!

God Save Us All!

JimNich

8th Jun 2002, 21:55

A Civilian:

..."Many people each giving there own opinions until the right one is found is better than a single person deciding what to do and no one being able to challenge them."

Mate, this is a MILITARY forum, its ALL ABOUT one guy at the top saying "advance on that position/bomb that city/clean those latrines" without being questioned.

You may want to rethink your arguement there me old.

Robert Cooper

9th Jun 2002, 06:04

Mystic Greg, you seem to have adequately exposed all the inaccurate
statements in A Civilian's post and left nothing for me to add :(

I sincerely hope that not all civilians are as ill informed as he appears to be.
Makes one wonder. :eek:

BC

WorkingHard

9th Jun 2002, 06:24

To all of you uniformed types who swear allegiance to HMTQ and profess to care not a toss for for the elected government (even if we were to unfortunately elect a president), I have a very simple question. WHO PAYS YOU?
The people pay you from taxation and not the extremely priviledged massive "army" of the royals - some of whom pay no taxes at all!!!!!!!
Join the REAL world where the man who pays the piper calls the tune. (and before you all shout at me I am NOT a republican)

BlueWolf

9th Jun 2002, 09:27

Mystic Greg, I have to agree with Robert Cooper. You have said it all.

WorkingHard, a small but important point.
The Monarchy is the people. It is the Crown which gathers taxes - to whom could the Royal Family pay them? The somewhat ludicrous current situation which sees HMTQ paying taxes to Herself and receiving them back via the Civil List is simple pandering to socialist political correctness.

The Crown is the People. One and the same. Above and beyond politics, alone under God, it is with the Crown that the authority to raise armed force resides. The loyalty of the Forces belongs to the Crown, regardless of the colour of the Government of the Day.

So must it ever be.

New Zealand born and bred; loyalist Royalist; proud to be British.

God Save The Queen.

wub

9th Jun 2002, 10:07

WorkingHard

Throughout my 10 years of serving Her Majesty in the Royal Air Force I paid tax on every taxable penny I earned as did all of my mates. So to answer your simple question "who pays you?" The answer is, we do!

AllTrimDoubt

9th Jun 2002, 11:36

Working Hard-

You stay in your little (real?) world - I'm happy working in mine. And remember it's because of the majority of military people on this MILITARY forum that your world exists and allows you to express your opinions.

Out.

(PS Am on holiday so don't p*ss me off)
:cool: :cool: :cool:

solotk

9th Jun 2002, 12:17

Covec -Right on the money.........

Mates first, platoon>company>Battalion>Regiment.

Underlying all this, pride in serving in the most proffesional armed services in the world.

Everyone thinks of their mates first in action, be it an oppo or a wingman. Because everyone has this mindset, it all comes together, in a very cohesive "melt" as everyone looks out for each other, and THAT is what makes the system work so well. Yes we bang on and whinge and moan about postings, tasks or the sheer "F-about factor" sometimes, but that's our right.

Pride in serving the Queen or the UK? For me, that happens everytime there's a big parade, and the band strike up with "The Grand March", and everyone throws their chests out,and grows another inch (oeeeer missus) :D . Pride also comes, when you end up talking to the old boys at a reunion, or a rememberance parade, and you can equate their actions, with those long-ago names sewn on the Regimental colours.

Personally, the one experience, that really imbued me with pride and awe, was looking up into the rafters of the Regimental church, and seeing the many different colours , that had been laid up there, since Wellington was in short pants. Moth-eaten, faded, in some cases, the still discernable tears and rips from musketry and shrapnel, and realising, that they had been held by some young ensign or colour sergeant, terrified, but afraid to let his MATES down and by default, the Regiment and his country.

That may be a slightly blimpish view, but hey, it matters to me:)

Tony

Scud-U-Like

9th Jun 2002, 12:32

opso

While the PM has a constitutional obligation to inform and consult The Queen, he does not require her permission to deploy the British armed forces.

Mystic Greg

Do you remember the character Derek Fowlds played in 'Yes Minister' ? He was the pedantic private secretary who incessantly corrected Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey on terminological niceties. He was a mine of information, but rarely contributed anything useful to the proceedings.

The distinction between terms such as 'leader' and 'head' and the more abstract concepts of The Queen's 'power' (see paragraphs 1-5) are purely academic. 'A Civilian' may not have the benefit of a degree in political history (or be a spelling ace), but I find his/her arguments more persuasive than yours.

WorkingHard

9th Jun 2002, 19:48

ATD - most of us do live in the real world and a world far bigger and far less priviledged than the one you seem to inhabit (as many of you will dicover when leaving). I am sorry if it ***** on holiday but just for the record how long is your holiday? Why does not the Queen pay you since you profess to work for her and not the people? And whilst we are mentioning cost etc. when are we going to see more aircraft than air rank officers. We dont need more aircraft of course but we need far fewer retiring after 16 years and then costing the good old tax payer (not HMTQ note). Yes they were the terms of service when you enlisted and you have an absolute right to that BUT is it not time the armed forces were properly sorted in terms of manpower, equipment and contracts. How many men and women does it take to keep 1 aircraft in the air? I dont have the numbers but by golly the ratio is no doubt quite extraordinary.
Enjoy your leave!

Reheat On

9th Jun 2002, 20:32

Very bald use of numbers but 902 a/c on strength [from RAF web site] inc all training aircraft, and ignoring contractorisation matter.

RAF manpower stated on same site as 53203

If for a moment you assume that there are 50000 non aircrew and 900 aircraft, that equates to 55 men to keep one aircraft in the air.

Maybe the question one asks is how many of those men [and women] actaually could say how their role helps keep an aeroplane in the air.

C'mon blanket stackers - here is your chance ;)

skeet surfer

10th Jun 2002, 08:12

I am an ex-erk and can quite easily justify my previous position at the bottom of the flying food chain.....

Ever used any navigation aids?
Ever been comforted by that controller's voice on the other end of the radio?
Ever worried about whether that ILS has been serviced correctly as you descend through the murk?

Without me and my ex-colleagues you wouldn't have.......

The RAF manpower may be down to 50,000 ish but bear in mind that several of my previous posts are now covered by civilians on less money........ Comforting I'm sure....

Just to cut back to the thread again, we are all British CITIZENS as well as subjects (check your passport) and CITIZENS of the European Union.... So you can take your pick these days.....

RubiC Cube

10th Jun 2002, 11:37

During a seminar group discussion on a recent JOCC, 2 members said that they were anti monarchists. When asked how they reconcilled their views with being in the RAF, they said that it was only a job and they wouldn't have to fight! Guess their Branches? Admin (Sec) and Admin (Trg).

Another thought - if we sign on to defend Queen and Country, what are we doing in Afghanistan etc?

AllTrimDoubt

10th Jun 2002, 12:11

WorkingHard-
Oh dear, who didn't pass 11+/get O levels/A levels/pass OASC/wings etc? Do I detect some bitterness?

Holiday not spoilt - just off to spend more of my well-earned wedge before toddling back to the Mess to make sure my man has turned out my kit for the next cockers-p.

Keep working
:D :D :D

WorkingHard

10th Jun 2002, 15:23

ATD - Actually I did all of those including continuing to fly for a living. So who is the pathetic specimen now who suggests needs wet nursing to get anything done? I could not possibly support my life style on your pay and conditions so I went where the grass is very much greener and where excellence has its rewards regardless of being a jolly good chap to have in the mess!

bootscooter

10th Jun 2002, 15:38

WORKING HARD- Congratulations on sustaining an expensive lifestyle. Mine is but a meagre wage in comparison, but my lifestyle is great, one to which I signed up for, and thorougly enjoy.
The vast majority people still in (both ground and air) are focused, dedicated, hard-working and Loyal.

We're not just here for the money.
It's not "just a job".
Family, friends, Sqn, service and country all mean a lot.

Is there a problem with this?
Just a thought, but did you PVR?

Autorev

10th Jun 2002, 16:24

Working hard
you have just destroyed any cred you might have attempted to gain in your previous posts by 'my lifestyle is better than your wage' type comments.
I believe we were discussing Queen and Country.....

PS I bet my Dad could beat your Dad in a fight!

Reheat On

10th Jun 2002, 19:55

Skeet - you sound like a Flight Checker - how long you been around? Cottesmore Mid 70's, or Benson dans la 80/90's - or contractorized?

AllTrimDoubt

11th Jun 2002, 04:09

WH - Nobber!

:cool: :D :cool:

WorkingHard

11th Jun 2002, 06:48

So the defence of the realm is left to those who need to resort to insults to win. Speaks volumes!

teeteringhead

11th Jun 2002, 07:05

No, but the Defence of the Realm (glad you admit we do that WH) is in the hands of those who can:

a. Take a joke against themselves, however poorly expressed.

b. Indulge in a bit of (usually) good-hearted banter. (you have to really like a bloke to call him an old t*ss*r to his face)

c. Care more (mostly) about the value of their job rather than its wages (I'm sure my lovely daughters could earn more money and "support a better lifestyle" as tarts - but I don't want them to).

d. Can actually cut the mustard in operations and put their lives on the line (and some lose those lives) to defend your (and my) realm.

"It's Tommy this and Tommy that, and Tommy go away,
But it's 'Thin Red Line of 'Eroes' when the band begins to play"

;)

WorkingHard

11th Jun 2002, 09:31

TH - well said, I do agree. I have no problems with what you say none at all. The basis of this thread was that the armed forces owe allegiance to HMTQ and no one else. That is neither true nor realistic. We tended to lose the thread some what and that was a mistake. No one in the world should ever question the professionalism (by and large) of any member of the British armed services or indeed the comittment to do the job in hand. But please let us have no illusion about to whom you are responsible. We, the electorate, of which you are also included, decide who is to run our State for the next Parliamentary period. We do not ( and never have had the chance) to elect the Windsors to be our Head of State. Were such an election to ever take place (God forbid) then I should certainly vote to retain our monarchy with QEII at the head but it would be a very much slimmed down monarchy with no constitutional powers at all.

skeet surfer

11th Jun 2002, 10:19

afraid not, reheat. I am merely an ex-RAF eng who is going 'through adversity (RAF ground career/jar atpl's/CPL/IR) to the stars (flying job)'

Used to work with an ex flight checker though, who once told me that they could pick up 'useable' signals from a localizer at 125NM......... Not too sure about that......

AllTrimDoubt

11th Jun 2002, 14:15

Working Hard -

Yo! Great holiday.....14 hours of sun, a few beers, a computer terminal and 1 x bite!

"Warfare not Welfare!"

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Fay Deck

11th Jun 2002, 21:22

I have watched this thread follow the usual tired pattern of starting off as a sensible debate only to be hijacked by the usual meatheads and sinking, inevitably, into an exchange of abuse. Some of you have got your facts wrong, particularly those expressing extremist and/or forthright views. The following paragraphs are extracts from www.royal.gov.uk:

"Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.

In the earliest times the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of a system of justice.

Although no longer administering justice, the Sovereign today still retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out, and law and order is maintained.

On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.

As constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required, on the advice of Ministers, to assent to all Bills. The Royal Assent (that is, consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707. The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

The Queen retains certain residual powers, notably to appoint a prime minister, and to decide whether or not to grant a dissolution of Parliament. The prime minister is normally the leader of the party which has a majority in Parliament, but there could still be exceptional circumstances when The Queen might need to exercise the discretion she still retains to ensure that her Government is carried on.
The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and it is the monarch alone who can declare war and peace. (This dates from the times when the monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy, and often leading them into battle.) These powers, however, cannot now be exercised on the monarch's own initiative. The Bill of Rights (1689) declared that 'the raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law'. The monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice of responsible Ministers.

The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world."

The last paragraph is the important bit. Having an apolitical focus for national unity is something you Brits should all value. It gives you a foundation most countries lack. I know we kicked out a previous iteration of the monarchy but it wasn't anything like as good as the one you have today.

Make no mistake, the millions of my countrymen who come over as tourists and gawp at all things royal are not primarily wandering around saying,"Gee, that's how old?".

That's the end of my rant.

Fay

AllTrimDoubt

13th Jun 2002, 03:59

Thank God for that!!

:( :(

Scud-U-Like

14th Jun 2002, 14:53

Fay Deck

Might I suggest that The Queen's website is not the most objective source of information regarding The Queen's powers (or lack thereof).

In reality, we have a presidential system of government, in all but name. This state of affairs has developed because we have a largely undefined constitution and our Head of State has no real power.

It is hardly surprising that, faced with no check to their authority (save for when their own embittered colleagues or the electorate have eventually decided to oust them), successive prime ministers have exploited their undefined powers to increase the importance of their office.

The Queen has no power. Parliament has little power. The Prime Minister has almost all the power. Like it or not, that is how Britain is governed today.

Four Seven Eleven

14th Jun 2002, 15:28

A "colonial" viewpoint:

I am an 'undecided republican'. That is, I favour an Australian Republic, provided that it is at least as safe as the current system.

I swore an oath to "Her Majesty, Heirs and Successors".

I have been asked how I recocile my republican views with this oath:-

Simple - I am loyal to Her Majesty. If she is succeeded, I will be loyal to to her successor, be they a President,Grand Poobah or a Monarch. I am sure that Her Majesty undesrstands that my loyalty is to Her position as Sovereign of Australia, and is not personal. (I am reliably informed the Her Majesty is Sovereign, but NOT Head of State, or so my monarchist PM tells me.)

The real problem for Australian 'republicans' as myself is that HM is so inoccuous and yet such a powerful check on parliamentary excess that we sort of like having her there. The fact that she does so little is almost reassuring, just knowing that she is there.....just in case.

Thje other side of the coin is that I would like someone who is unequivocally MY head of state, representing Australia when travelling etc. (Oi' Chuck,...... that flat in Brunswick is still free if you wanna emigrate!....)

Dogstar

15th Jun 2002, 09:24

Serving overseas, missed all the build up, but when I saw the flypast and all the crowds it reassured me that the Brit public are very much behind the Monarchy and long may it remain so. I doubt the whingeing complaining types who claim that the monarchy should be dissolved would be able to muster up the crowds like Betty has done this year.

Its a bit like the low flying debate. Those who don't like it moan their arses off and threaten the sysytem whereas all those who think things are fine and acceptable don't generally feel the urge to voice their approval.

We should encourage those around us to make their approval of things that work heard so that some reformist doesn't get the chance to change things which work and are good.

Here's to Betty ;) ;)