free hit
counters
Little confuse on the 'Royal' title - General Chat - The Lotus Forums #ForTheOwners Jump to content


Little confuse on the 'Royal' title


Toua

Recommended Posts


Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not everything. But it's becuase it's usually by appointment of the Queen, she is head of state of the UK and commonwealth (fragments of the Empire). RAF is simply the airforce...but it answers to the Queen (not Blair), same with the Navy (Royal Navy) and the army....cept it's not called the Royal army.

Other countries have the same kinda thing, it's to do with Monarchies and their role in the country. Dig a little deeper and you get into religion as well (generally in Christian countries with a monarchy) - interesting stuff history :angry:

facebook = [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everything in UK starts with Royal.  Example: Royal Air Force, Royal Airmail, Royal Subjects, Royal ..etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's like the Empire out of Star wars,

With an Empire, everything is Imperial:

Imperial stormtroopers

Imperial fighters

Imperial star destroyers

Imperial senate

Imperial probe

etc

With Royalty, everything is Royal:

Royal mail

Royal air force

Royal mint

Royal navy

Royal stormtroopers

etc

:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll find that all things answer to Parliament NOT the Queen in the UK (That includes the Prime Minister of the day)...

Parliament in turn answers to the electorate....

...and that's a democracy in action innit! :angry:

She is merely a notional head of state and has absolutely NO legislative power whatsoever.

While *technically* acts of Parliament require Royal Assent this is merely a formality. The UK Monarchy wield NO power at all and are purely decorative!

No one answers to them (except the Corgis! :lol: )

Some things are by Royal Appointment but things like the Airforce (etc) still have their names as a throw back to ancient times when Britain was a feudal Monarchy.

Basically....

It doesn't mean a thing!

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me."

------------------------------

ribbon200.gifG-Car Owner and Proud! ribbon200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...She could technically refuse Royal Assent to an Act of parliament...

This would be able to happen only ONCE as the next Act would be to completely remove all traces of Monarchic influence from the legislative chain and would definitely be the last act of the Monarchy ever! (the Government of the day would then re-introduce whatever it was she refused to sign)

All armed forces 'answer to' Parliament not the Queen

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me."

------------------------------

ribbon200.gifG-Car Owner and Proud! ribbon200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The armed forces, although controlled by parliament, are actually loyal to the Crown. I've got a piece of paper bearing the Queens signature appointing me an officer in the Royal Air Force; these Royal Appointments form the basis of the command structure of the armed forces; one swears loyalty directly to the Crown and not to the bunch of inept politicians who somehow get to lead the show, even though the elections are usually won by the British Apathy Party. The Commission from the Queen refers specifically to "OUR Royal Air Force", so she must think its hers! It also commands the recipient "to Observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us". The "our" and "us" refer to what is known as the "Royal We", as the monarch speaks on behalf of the nation, thus plural. Also, the RAF was established in 1918 - a bit after feudal times!

What would actually happen if the monarch directly ordered the armed forces to overthrow parliament I don't know....could well be an improvement!

Scientists investigate that which already is; Engineers create that which has never been." - Albert Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll find the whole "Crown" cobblers is purely gestural and is still a throwback to our ancient feudal monarchic history.

The Monarchy are representational only and are a synonym in this instance of "The people of the UK"

The army (etc) ram all this loyal to the queen crap down people's throats but it in reality, doesn't actually mean anything whatsoever and in actuality means "the people of the country"

The monarchy have absolutely no influence or meaning in modern British society and nor have they since Oliver Cromwell did the sensible thing and kicked King Charles I's arse about 350 years ago and turned Britain into a Parliamentary Democracy, thus removing them entriely from the legislative chain.

The 'Queen' doesn't and CAN'T send you to war, Parliament does.

...and if you don't like said bunch of whatever party is in power at any given time, vote them out, stand yourself or form your own party and get them voted out.

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me."

------------------------------

ribbon200.gifG-Car Owner and Proud! ribbon200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fishy

Sorry to get technical but as an Ex RAF Officer I support what John said, a Commissioned Officer holds the Queens Commision, this is a legally binding document that is enforceable in law and the holder of the commission does what the Queen says by law. The fact that the Queen chooses not to excercise this right directly (and as you correctly pointed out would be stopped by Parliament if she tried) does not change the fact that when I held my Commission, if she ordered me to shoot Blair I technically would have had to do so! The armed forces can only operate by a strict code of discipline that reqires you to do as you're told!

I too have my Commissioning document on my wall and it has been personally signed by the Queen.

By the way technically it is "Her Majesty's Parliament" check out the wording on your passport for further info!

Having argued the technicalities I concede that for practical purposes Parliament runs the country!

Regards

Mat Kutub

1979 S2

Regards

Mat

post-1-0302470001278592957.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to get technical but as an Ex RAF Officer I support what John said, a Commissioned Officer holds the Queens Commision, this is a legally binding document that is enforceable in law and the holder of the commission does what the Queen says by law. The fact that the Queen chooses not to excercise this right directly (and as you correctly pointed out would be stopped by Parliament if she tried) does not change the fact that when I held my Commission, if she ordered me to shoot Blair I technically would have had to do so! The armed forces can only operate by a strict code of discipline that reqires you to do as you're told!

I too have my Commissioning document on my wall and it has been personally signed by the Queen.

By the way technically it is "Her Majesty's Parliament" check out the wording on your passport for further info!

Having argued the technicalities I concede that for practical purposes Parliament runs the country!

Regards

Mat Kutub

1979 S2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(Queen = ruling monarch for this explanation)

Friend of work is a Major in the 'Queens' Army, seen the cert as well - nice and impressive on his Vanity wall :angry:

Also naval vessels are HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) - HM customs etc

To understand the way it all works you need to go back, WAY back to Magna Carta and the common law (Henry II) which (glossing over) refers to the status of God, the Monarchy and the people. In short the monarch is gods representative on earth to govern the people fairly. It's a BIG can of worms for England and the UK and goes on for centuries.

Example is the Queens court (ie when someone is taken to court it is the queens judge or the crown prossecution service). Common court cases are held as R v Xxxx or crown vs xxxx.

It's power mongers that caused all of the problems, some of them tried to challange god via the pope (People back then were catholic) look at the bust ups and civil wars we've had over here which re-defined the role of the monarchy to a real back stage and put the power into the elected democracy we know today. Cromwell sorted out Charles I in the 17 century becuase he was a wolly iirc - after the civil war Cromwell was dug up and slung to the 4 winds before the monarchy was re-instated...see Charles II

The crown used to over shadow parlament and do all sorts of silly things but over the years power gradually shifted from the crown to the people.

Today Technically the queen makes no real decisions (why she has parlament) but at the end of the day if there is a civil war in the UK, the queen would probably have command of the majority of the armed forces...they are a lot more loyal to her than her Parlament, if you goto as many military instalations / bases as I have you'll see her pic everywhere. The armed forces (certainly a few years back) are apolitical and have no alignment. It's often said who runs a country is who runs their armed forces.

If I remember correct the PM has to ask the queens permission to use armed forces. A lot of it is symbolism but if tested, it'd carry weight I reakon - esp due to the fact our current queen has a lot of common support.

Also Australia voted a few years ago to become a republic and turned it down to stay in the commonwealth which is the queen is also head of.

If you're a Royalist you'll probably agree, if not then you'll disagree - nothing new, been happening for 100's of years until we someday become a republic or until the next idiot monarch steps in (and there's been a fair few).

If that was badly put it's cus I'm knackered :lol:

Have to dig me old books out, it's very interesting to read if you're into that kinda thing - been doing too much greek/roman stuff lately.

Edited by Jonathan

facebook = [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it when you salute in the armed forces etc you're actually saluting the CO (commisioned officer) directly and the Queen indirectly ?

Commissioned officers derive authority directly from a sovereign power and, as such, hold a commission charging them with the duties and responsibilities of a specific office or position. Commissioned officers are typically the only persons in a military able to exercise command (according to the most technical definition of the word) over a military unit.

Wiki (the oracle) is too good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces

The armed forces of the United Kingdom are known as the British Armed Forces or Her Majesty's Armed Forces, officially the Armed Forces of the Crown. Their Commander-in-Chief is the Queen and they are managed by the Defence Council of the Ministry of Defence.

Another one is the Royal Military Police and the modern police force of the UK. The RMP is run by the queens commisioned officer to police the armed forces, although the regular police have exactly the same powers over every person in the UK (see Deepcut which is kicking up again).

Edited by Jonathan

facebook = jon.himse[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Royal pain in the A** hopefully no reference to our fellow Englishmens  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of the time it was used in reference to my past boss or once in a while my teenage kids when they tested my paitence (most times they are good kids but they are still teenagers).

After all if it was in reference to Englishmen I would have used A*** instead of A**.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things are by Royal Appointment but things like the Airforce (etc) still have their names as a throw back to ancient times when Britain was a feudal Monarchy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would that have been the feudal airforce then Fishy? :D Peasants in 'planes? :D

The Armed Forces retain loyalty to the Crown rather than Parliament in part to prevent the possibility of a military-led coup/dictatorship backed by any political party (so I once was told anyway). This is more or less what Oliver Cromwell did with the New Model Army when he set himself up as Lord Protector. Both the aristocracy and the common people were suspicious of trained professional armies for a long time following this and it was a couple of centuries before there was any attempt to provide professional training for army officers (and Sandhurst was created). Britain relied on the Royal Navy for protection at this time. It was the Crimean fiasco that led to changes I think (Charge of the Light Brigade etc), plus the need to run the Empire at the time (although this was more a private security force by the East India company rather than part of the army proper).

By the way - there is no "British Army" per se, because it evolved under the feudal system with different lords raising regiments to fight for King/Queen/country/themselves. Some of these have Royal commissions (such as the Royal Green Jackets, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers etc). There is no single entity army as there is with the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. You join a specific regiment in the army, rather than just the army.

Armed forces swear allegiance to The Queen and Her Ministers - so loyalty is to the country rather than a political party.

Queen and the Armed Forces

Edited by Vicki
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

did some mention shooting Blair in this thread? please please!!

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Friedrich Nietzsche

find me on Tripadvisor

http://www.tripadvis...mbers/espritguy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the PM answers to parliament or that parliament answers to the people. That would be democracy in action.

Seems to me parliament answers to a cabinet (via the whips, threats etc.) the cabinet do the bidding of the PM, he works in the interest of the top few and not one of them gives a monkeys toss what the people think. That's dictatorship, innit!

Royal ROFL  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

- Mario Andretti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the PM answers to parliament or that parliament answers to the people. That would be democracy in action.

Seems to me parliament answers to a cabinet (via the whips, threats etc.) the cabinet do the bidding of the PM, he works in the interest of the top few and not one of them gives a monkeys toss what the people think. That's dictatorship, innit!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Been reading the Daily Mail?!

Or even the Morning Star?!!

Could have come from either :D

I'm sorry to be blunt but that is just a load of mass media induced rubbish.

Likewise for the relevance of the Monarch in the chain of command. She only hasn't been ACTUALLY removed (on a technical basis) due to the fact that no one is entirely sure what to do instead so it has been 'left as is'. Republican or not there is no changing the fact that the Monarch has absolutely no power or control over anything other than in purely symbolic terms and it is utterly meaningless.

As for going to War, you CANNOT without the will of Parliament. Eg. There was a vote over Iraq and it won. The opposition (under IDS) saw the same evidence and drew the same conclusion and backed it. Hindsight is a powerful tool but this is neither the time nor the place to debate the ousting of Hussein - if you want to do that start a new thread! There was a vote over the Falklands too.

Parliament doesn't ANSWER to the cabinet. Whips can't make you walk through one lobby or another and usually seek to persuade at worst. (as all the back nech rebellions and people voting against their own Govt of the day have always historically proven) There is nothing they can do except in extreme circumstances where a party can indeed withdraw the Party Whip (essentially chucking you out of the party) That's not entirely unreasonable for, if you join an organised political party and stand as one of their Members, then you are indeed beholden to them to at least represent something of what they stand for! (and that is a non partisan statement that applies qually to every party in the UK) The only times I recall this happening recently are George Galloway and Ken Livingstone.

You will also find the perception of the PM having an ability to do whatever they like has come since the Thatcher era 3 PM's ago and is actuallya result of greater public awareness / the information revolution and less public deference. (Both of which are a good thing) and that actually things have ALWAYS been like this for the people who disagree with whoever is there at the time. (Poll Tax, Miners Strike, Wapping, Clause 24, Manchester/Toxteth/Brixton Riots, Criminal Justice Act, hunting, id cards, smoking etc etc etc) To quote Harold Wilson... You've actually never had it so good in terms of public accountability...

You'll find that the PM as do the Minsters answers to Parliament on a weekly basis and it is televised. Additionally the PM unlike any other in history, now also answers to Committee for over three hours twice annually. (at his behest in all fairness) They then have to answer to an un-answerable media who can flip-flop at will, don't have to justify or prove anything and have no accountability at all!

:D

"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me."

------------------------------

ribbon200.gifG-Car Owner and Proud! ribbon200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brains as well as nice hair, Fishy you have it all! :(

Nice to see Great Britain is still quite the bureacratic nightmare :(

Even though Canada is no longer part of the British Empire, I still see some of the die hards in the Canadian Air force have pictures of Her Majesty Liz II hanging on their office walls. :(

I myself have never gave a toss about the "Ruling Classes" :(

What a bunch of Inbread f*ck ups they are :D

There goes the knighthood! :(

anne.jpg

Naff orf Wayne you horrible little man! :D

Edited by WayneB
SUNP0003-1.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too sure on the breeding of our next monarch; German/Greek/English/Scottish and he's the Prince of Wales so no wonder the poor chap talks to his plants!!

Scientists investigate that which already is; Engineers create that which has never been." - Albert Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.


×
×
  • Create New...