Just need some clarity here Tom .....when service men leave their active role and come back to the civil side of life in this country and then bang on about not being cared for or honoured should they not be directing that unhappiness at the Queen herself in that case , given what you have just said. No disrespect to the armed services but I hear it alot from those I know.
That's quite an entertaining notion. Hypothesise winding the clock back three hundred years, and ignoring everything which has happened since. Good talking point.
You know the law Pete, whereas I do not. Am I incorrect in thinking the Queen could, if she so wished, prevent any law from passing or direct the armed forces to overthrow the government? My oath of allegiance specifically stated that I would obey Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and the officers and generals set over me. No mention of the people or the government
Of course not. You seem to be thinking of the pre-1714 constitutional arrangements. It is parliament which decides who the king or queen is to be, and on what terms - for three hundred years now - and it is the people who vote for parliament. The Queen is a figurehead and a symbol of continuity, not to mention a valuable morale-enhancer and tourist attraction, who can advise the Prime Minister but who controls nothing whatever. Try not to confuse fantasy with reality, Tom. Or is your post a wind-up?
The Queen is also a sour old bag who has about as much right to the throne as any other Hinz and Kunz of this country, and the Saxe Coburg-Gothas about as British as Ouzo... Get rid of the parasites, and lets have the treasures back that the throne has been so carefully 'looking after' for all us commoner scum.. anyway, back on topic.
No, not a wind up. I have obviously been misinformed at some point in time and carried the notion with me for a while.
Such a wealth of knowledge, and the ability to inform.... All delivered with that special brand of arrogance.
Put it this way, if the Queen tried to get rid of Parliament, she wouldn't be in Buck House longer than a couple of hours. But it's very interesting. It does mean that there is a feeling amongst the armed forces that in some way, the elected government is irrelevant and they serve some nobler cause. This is similar to what you find all over the world - which is why military coups are two a penny. Look at Egypt: probably a good thing that Morsi was removed, but the army had no compunction about taking over what was supposedly a democratic process, which is why the West has been so ambivalent about it. The armed forces, like any organisation, have their own esprit de corps and codes. That's not a problem in itself, but they are… armed. So it's a bit hard to disagree with them when push comes to shove. But it's a bit reactionary in this day and age to think you are signing up to serve a queen, and then a cohort of princes , processes, dukes, earls and whoever.
At least our armed forces will be leaving Afghanistan soon and then the National Afghan army can take over.I wonder how they will treat seriously wounded insurgents lol. As for Marine A I hope he will have his liberty back sooner rather than later and can still get a job.Id be more than happy for him to watch my back and im sure many of my bosses & workmates would feel the same.The new system only requires you to mention convictions in the last 12 months instead of 5 yrs so I left it blank.Result.
Good point. It is a bit bizarre, and rather worrying, to think that some people have not yet caught up with Walter Bagehot's 1867 analysis of the constitutional organs into the dignified and the efficient parts. The ceremonial flummery and the Queen are the 'dignified' parts; the legislature, the government and the judiciary are the 'efficient' parts, if you were wondering. The English Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strangely, that edition is always out on loan at weston super mare library -must be very popular. Must get a copy and read it.
I think Marine A biggest mistake was choosing the wrong job to do this. Look up how many people have died in Police custody in the UK and how many police officers have been convicted.I remember this incident well.Did these officers get convicted of murder or manslaughter.Perhaps some of you legal eagles can advise. Ex-para in police station was killed unlawfully - Telegraph I also remember the death of Clinton McCurbin in my home town of Wolverhampton very well.Police sat on him (restrained him lol) until he died of asphyxiation.No convictions there surprise suprise unlike Marine A. Its a funny old world we live in.
Pete1950 the following is a quote from the link provided on the English Constitution... Although all legislation must receive the approval of the Monarch (Royal Assent), no Monarch has withheld such assent since 1708.[9] So I am correct in saying that she does have the power to stop any law being passed should she so choose, although there will perhaps be detrimental consequences to her position?
Also listed are the Monarchs Domestic Powers Domestic powers The power to dismiss and appoint a Prime Minister The power to dismiss and appoint other ministers The power to summon and prorogue Parliament[16] The power to grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law) The power to commission officers in the Armed Forces The power to command the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom The power to appoint members to the Queen's Council The power to issue and withdraw passports The power to grant Prerogative of mercy (though Capital Punishment is abolished, this power is still used to remedy errors in sentence calculation) The power to grant honours The power to create corporations via Royal Charter The power to appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England. So I was right after all it seems.
On paper, no doubt. I can't help feeling that if the Queen tried to do anything contentious, she's find out where the real power lies in the land. But she won't of course, because her position is tacit and understood. Far more likely would be the armed forces deciding that her prerogatives must be upheld and then you'd have a military coup on your hands. This is also, let's face it, highly unlikely. Still, it's interesting (as I said before) that the armed forces don't think they are in the service of the elected government, but in the service of a non-elected monarch - sort of like the Queen's private army. That would be worrying if anything was ever likely to come of it.
my bro spent most of his life in the Royal Navy, and certainly he, if not all off his mates, didnt give a rats arse about the Saxe Coburgs..
