Sunday, April 23, 2006
WHICH SIDE WOULD THEY TAKE?
Back on Friday, Best of the Web observed:
Actually, incipient dictatorship currently tends to be mostly a decidedly American leftist form of paranoia. But given what we have yet again witnessed regarding the popularity of Queen Elizabeth II, it is interesting to reflect for a moment on the relationship between the monarch and the magnificent volunteer British armed forces.
In the U.S., the equally magnificent volunteer Forces swear loyalty not to any government in particular but to the Constitution. Here, the Forces swear loyalty to the sovereign:
The Army oath:
. . . so the Army, Marines and RAF swear an oath to the sovereign, and the Navy is even technically HER Navy.
Of course, under the law no monarch any longer has the legal authority to demand unilaterally that they act. . .
. . . but imagine a truly horrific party won power in the manner of, say, the 1933 Nazi electoral victory in Germany. If a Government formed by such a party ever seriously moved to eliminate the monarchy entirely (or even if a reasonable, but widespread, republican movement had arisen in the House) and the sitting monarch resisted, with the British military finding itself in the middle would they back the sovereign over an elected prime minister and the House of Commons?
And if they did, would the British people then back the sovereign and the military over their elected representatives? Well, considering the general unpopularity of politicians, in contrast to the overwhelming respect that appears to exist for the Crown, is it outside the realm of possibility that that answer might well be "Yes"?
All absolute conjecture of course. All done glibly. But fun to compose on a Sunday evening. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 23, 2006
Back on Friday, Best of the Web observed:
One suspects those on the Angry Left like to scare themselves with paranoid fantasies of incipient dictatorship precisely because they find it comforting to be diverted from actual dangers.
Actually, incipient dictatorship currently tends to be mostly a decidedly American leftist form of paranoia. But given what we have yet again witnessed regarding the popularity of Queen Elizabeth II, it is interesting to reflect for a moment on the relationship between the monarch and the magnificent volunteer British armed forces.
In the U.S., the equally magnificent volunteer Forces swear loyalty not to any government in particular but to the Constitution. Here, the Forces swear loyalty to the sovereign:
...On enlistment, the Acts require members of the Army, Air Force and Royal Marines (who operate ashore under the Army Act) to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch as Head of the Armed Forces (those for whom it is against their religion to take oaths and those who are of no religion, affirm instead of swearing an oath).
The Royal Navy was formed hundreds of years ago, and its existence stems from the sovereign's prerogative - members of the Navy have never therefore been required to take the oath...
The Royal Navy was formed hundreds of years ago, and its existence stems from the sovereign's prerogative - members of the Navy have never therefore been required to take the oath...
The Army oath:
"I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND THAT I WILL AS IN DUTY BOUND HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY DEFEND HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS IN PERSON, CROWN AND DIGNITY AGAINST ALL ENEMIES AND WILL OBSERVE AND OBEY ALL ORDERS OF HER MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS AND OF THE GENERALS AND OFFICERS SET OVER ME"
Note: (Those who do not believe in God "SOLEMNLY, SINCERELY AND TRULY DECLARE AND AFFIRM")
Note: (Those who do not believe in God "SOLEMNLY, SINCERELY AND TRULY DECLARE AND AFFIRM")
. . . so the Army, Marines and RAF swear an oath to the sovereign, and the Navy is even technically HER Navy.
Of course, under the law no monarch any longer has the legal authority to demand unilaterally that they act. . .
...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'. A monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice of responsible ministers...
. . . but imagine a truly horrific party won power in the manner of, say, the 1933 Nazi electoral victory in Germany. If a Government formed by such a party ever seriously moved to eliminate the monarchy entirely (or even if a reasonable, but widespread, republican movement had arisen in the House) and the sitting monarch resisted, with the British military finding itself in the middle would they back the sovereign over an elected prime minister and the House of Commons?
And if they did, would the British people then back the sovereign and the military over their elected representatives? Well, considering the general unpopularity of politicians, in contrast to the overwhelming respect that appears to exist for the Crown, is it outside the realm of possibility that that answer might well be "Yes"?
All absolute conjecture of course. All done glibly. But fun to compose on a Sunday evening. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 23, 2006
