MilitaryForums.co.uk

How does everyone feel about taking an oath to the queen?

I mean, is everyone a pro-monarchist or do you just see the oath as a thing to do just to get in?

I would have no problem with taking the oath to the Queen. I have no problem with the monarchy, in fact I would rather the country run by the Queen than Tony Blair.

As soon as the Royal Family are binned the better jon. I'm with you, the oath is a load of cobblers - just say it and get on with it. Hopefully, loyalty to your mates and professional pride (which CTC is good at bringing out) will make you just as trustworthy a soldier as some divvy who thinks the Queen fulfills any useful role and is anything more than an expensive trinket. Good luck if you intend to join up mate.

Personally id see the oath as a an oath to my country - not to an individual in power at that time, or to any head of state. Although the government has not complied to many of their pre electoral promises and has made lots of stuff fubar in the country, im sure that they have made many more positive actions and decisions on things which we in the public may not know about.
Im happy to make any oath, and live by it, as long as one day, i get my green lid.

as some divvy who thinks the Queen fulfills any useful role and is anything more than an expensive trinket

Who said she did, I didn't

As soon as the Royal Family are binned the better

I can see you don't like the Royal family, I don't love them but I don't hate them.

Good luck if you intend to join up mate.

I do intend to join up, but the fact that I will have to take the oath to the Queen does not bother one bit.

If push came to shove and it was civil war time again with the Monarchy versus the Parliamentarians, which side would you personally support. Also any ideas which side the military would really support.

Surely the Armed forces would side with the queen? Oath, [b]ROYAL[/b] air force, [b]ROYAL[/b] Marines etc??

I would more than deffinitly side with Lizzybeth, just one of those things i guess..proberly due to the lack of trust politians command.

Queen and Country anyday fella's.

Cheers, Dave

First off, on the monarchy generally. I am in full support of the monarchy for a few reasons. I only say that second sentence because one thing I have noticed, is that this debate so often comes down to whether the monarch is good value for money, going down to tourism revenue versus the high expenses incurred. To my mind this is a non arguement let alone the key issue, as the function of the monarch is such that even if you do put a price on it, and find it below what the monarch is currently using money, the answer is to lower the costs rather than remove it completely. Even listening to some pro monarchists, you would think the queen is just a tourist attraction, and Royal properties are simply there to maximise the number of tourist attractions the state can use to milk money out of foreigners. But anyway I always get annoyed wiht people who bemoan a viewpoint without offering their own, so I'll get to the point .

The main reason the queen seems irrelevant in my opinion is that the function isn't called on in current times, due simply to our very favourable national situation. The most obvious function is to act as a figurehead for the population, both in terms fo representing the country abroad which you really have to be a foreigner to recognise, and by providing inspiring leadership and direction in times of need, which haven't been encountered for some time. The continuity, honourable nature and to an extent the exuberance of the queen cannot be reliably matched by political figures as Tony Blair has shown, the support for him from 1997 to today I think shows well how politicians can deteriorate. And I feel the monarch serves as a personification of Britain, perhaps in the same way as some people have likened the oath to the queen as a oath to the country, and why I regard serving the Queen and serving the country as much the same thing.

The monarch also provides a valuable safety net against extreme political failure which again I think may be overlooked because we haven't experienced that for a long time, perhaps centuries. Democracy isn't entirely reliable, as the rise of Hitler shows. The impartiality and independence of the monarch allows it some power to hold this back; for instance should a Hitler-esque figure somehow get voted in, the monarch retains the power to deny them control of the country, but to appoint a decent (ok then, better ) politician to run things. Even if the devil incarnate does get into power, the fact that the monarch has overall control of the armed forces would limit the damage they could do, in so many countries the military have been the main instrument of internal oppression or external aggression, and this option would not be available in Britain.

Then of course as mentioned there is the traditional and ceremonial aspect which while much more intangible and subjective, does make Britain much richer in terms of national identity, history and to an extent culture. The thing here of course is that this is much more a personal view, so not really something easy or realistic to debate.

Plus, another thing which annoys me about this debate is that it's often over whether Britian wants/needs a monarchy, ignoring the fact that the Queen is the head of state of twelve other countries, and as the head of the commonwealth has a place in forty one others. As such, the place of the monarch in international affairs should be considered, and I do find it annoying how much people ignore the Royal influence outside of the UK, but that's not really for this particular thread.

And now the Roayl oath. If anyone's bothered to read the first bit it's probably easy to guess that I'm more than happy to swear an oath to the monarch . It does have less value than it used to in my opinion, as by mu understanding it's purpose is so that the monarch and everyone under their control (including the military and the government) have your word that you will trust them, and that they can trust you.
The difficulty is that in times past having someones word actually meant something most of the time, and this is blatantly not the case now in most areas of society. The posts on this thread demonstrate this, the view that "saying a few words means f@#k all anyway" means that the trust is clearly not there, and without true dedication to those words it genuinely becomes nothing. If chivalry and traditional honour was still around then it would be invaluable, but today people are very quick to go against their word when it suits them.

For my part, I do not place much wieght in the oath, as I 'know' that I will serve my monarch and country (I don't usually say Queen and country but only because it's now incredibly cliche'd), and I don't require a formal process for me to do so. However I do recognise that without unrestricted telepathy, noone else can be as sure of me as I am and an oath is a way of guarunteeing them your service, and it is an important symbol that you are prepared to carry out what you are instructed regardless of your political or personal opinion. I'm not sure that makes sense, though I can try and clarify it if anyone's interested .

Nb: I only put 'know' in inverted commas as that is based entirely on my current state of mind, and of course it is impossible to say that my state of mind and point of view won't change in time. This is obvious, I'm just mentioning it so people don't start accusing me of being an immature ignoramus based on that .

Oh and as you may have gussed, in a hypothetical monarch versus parliement conflict, I'm sticking with the Queen .

Jason, I wasn't having a dig at you mate, sorry if it seemed that way. I think its interesting that the Army is called the Army without reference to royalty (of course there are royal corps and units that were formed subsequently). I heard somewhere that it is because of its roots in Cromwell's New Model Army which swept away (at least to some extent) nobbers in powdered wigs with 'positions' and replaced them with a meritocratic and very efficient army.

I joined up for my own reasons but if this country was threatened to the extent it was in 1940 I'd be straight back in. Not to protect the vested interests at the top of the tree but for the people of this great country.

Sully wrote:I joined up for my own reasons but if this country was threatened to the extent it was in 1940 I'd be straight back in. Not to protect the vested interests at the top of the tree but for the people of this great country.

Hit the nail on the head there mate, everyone has there own reasons for joining up, be it as they have nothing left and are looking for a new start, or its a life long ambition, weather you like the monarchy or not, un doubt ably everyone here loves this country even if its is going to hell, we'd all die for it and the people that live here, that includes the queen and the politicians that send our forces to these sh*t holes in the middle of no where...


lew

Jason, I wasn't having a dig at you mate, sorry if it seemed that way

Same here Sully, sorry mate.

lets have a

Tab wrote:Look we either swear a oath to the Queen or we would swear an oath to the Prime Minister Tony Blair as Head Of State, now which one would you chose.

well i would prefer to swear an oath to the head of state you know the one the British people voted for

Can swearing an oath to the Queen be compared to the swearing on the bible in court?

In this day and age both are I feel redundant. Mainly due to changing social values.

It could be argued that its just part of a traditional process or path and is symbolic but with so few "believers" around why bother

However is it worth the admin to change such things? The pc brigade who form committees/sub committees etc to discuss change and move society "forward" away from traditions could make more of their time looking at larger issues

Perhaps we should ask Brussels

On a personal note, standing up swearing allegiance to the crown in the induction block put the hairs on the back of my neck up!!

Teetering on the edge of civvy and military life that seemed to me to be the point of no return.

A starting pistol for the new generation, modern youth and tradition clashing for the first but certainly not the last time in the next 30 weeks--22 years

anways I'm with voodoo on this one

regards
bongo

Errm,
I thought her name was Brenda?
Or am I thinking of the Queen Mum?
And who is"Nick the Greek"?
Marge was always my favorite
Wholley.

I wasnt planning to create a discussion were pro-monarchists and anti-monarchists would fight, I just wanted to know everyones opinion.

I respect everyones opinion, and am not trying to change peoples view. I come from a family which believes in equality and is naturally against aristocracy. My views dont come from hate, but I cant understand why we should treat someone with respect and dignity for just being born into a particular family. Its like racism on the reverse - treating people better because of thier roots. Ive always believed that respect, power and money should be earned, not given. Ive always looked at it from my parents perspective - they work hard for years and still struggle, while the Royals are given money for just being born. Its just a waste of money which is needed elsewhere, such as the NHS (Prince Andrew for example, spends most of his time relaxing on a yaught in the middle of the Carribean).

Its been my ambition to become a professional soldier from a very young age, and to become a Marine from about 14. My ambitions dont come from the desire to serve queen and country, but from the desire to lead an active and fulfilling life.

I say that I am against the monarchy, but that is just my personal view and I would never try to enforce my views on others. I would never try to remove something which so many people have fought died for trying to keep safe during the two world wars and other past conflicts.

At the end of the day, my ambition is to become a soldier and not a politician therefore I know that my political views are best kept aside.

When I said that saying a few words means f@#k all anyway, I wasnt thinking straight and I apologise. When I think about it, an oath to the queen is an oath to the country and to our democracy, therefore I probably would not hesitate to say it.

I agree with other on this post who believe that the head of state should represent the people therefore should be elected by the people. I dont see how the Royal Family represents the people, when it does not know of most of the struggles or way of life that most people experience.

However, how do you vote for a head of state? I wouldnt like Britain to adopt the American political system, where once the president is elected, what the people think doesnt really matter.

I am also against the monarchy because they promote the class system. But then again, how do you get rid of the class system? You are always going to have people being born into rich families who live in mansions, and people who will spend most of thier lives, if not all, living in run down council estates. The only alternative is communism, which basically assures that everyone remains poor except for a few elite.

But giving people a choice on wether the monarchy should exist can only be good. If the monarchy had any political power, Britain would effectively become a dictatorship.