Queen and country
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Southwestish
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see that we should have any legislators who we did not not elect
Democracy is the worst form of government - except for the alternative
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oxon
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
I may be a civilian, but that don't make me "A Civilian" and I don't necessarily agree with him.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Last edited by A Civilian; 8th Jun 2002 at 16:37.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Please yourself how you see things; Her Majesty signed my commissioning scroll, not Winston Churchill.
sc, Okay, Okay!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A Gaelic Country
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
..."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.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
BC
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.
BC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!