Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

A Question for our British members


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> A Question for our British members Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 7:44:45 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		Actually a few questions.

I was watching a Smithsonian special about Richard III's skeleton being unearthed, and am trying to figure out something.

Considering the man has been dead for 500 years, and what seems to be a growing number of people who wish to do away with the Monarchy anyway...

What the hell is the controversy, or more to the point, is all this stuff about some group calling itself the Richard III society trying to claim the following:

1) He was not a hunchback or physically deformed
2) He did not have his nephews killed in the Tower
3) He has been systematically vilified by his successor and the monarchy since he was assassinated.


I mean, to hear some of them, they act as if it just happened last week.

And more recently:

I understand that Prince Harry actually saw combat with the British Military in Afghanistan, yet his older brother, seems to get in a bit of hot water for requesting duty assignments that could possibly get dangerous, although flying SAR helicopters is not the safest job in any military force.

So, my question is, why the hell cant the crown prince (albeit, the third in line for the throne) serve in a front line unit?

Would that not actually raise his status as king?

Why limit the man and tell him he cannot serve his country in the ways he has said he wants to serve?

Okay, there were some in the US military that tried like hell to keep Teddy Roosevelt jr from going ashore in the first wave on D-Day because he was the son of a president.

And even though the royal family has very little power in the British government, are they not still a symbolic hold over from the days when the monarchy was absolute? Should not the family, especially those in line for the throne be allowed to take the same risk as other members of the military?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 7:59:56 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		The heir to the throne should "not" be in danger. It seems to be the rule in king and queen laws
Excusing Charles.. he is the next in line.
I believe there was a lot of noise about him doing his copter work precisely because he WAS in danger.
Andrew flew during the falklands, but he was allowed cos he was only second in line.
Her Maj did too, altho for the time, she was behind the fighting.

Richard "the turd", is a kind of boogey man in the uk, or was when I was growing up.
The man who killed the princes in the tower.
Since they found him *I watched it a while ago an enjoyed the hell out of it* It shows a different historical perspective to what we have been taught. big find for archaeology and history buffs alike.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 8:06:57 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It was yesterday to the English, they have been around a while. Say the bloke or blokette gets their head lopped off? That is a wider war than the Empire wants.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 8:12:05 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		Quite simply jlf, both the princes have served in a front-line duty role.
I believe Harry has served no less than 3 times.

When in their units, they are simply called Harry Wales and William Wales with no honourary title.

William now has a normal full-time job as an Air Ambulance pilot.
He will eventually have to leave that job when he finally takes up full-time royal duties.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 10:18:00 AM   
longwayhome


Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline 		I'm not sure that many people actually care.

The press like it because a good royal controversy sells papers, whilst having no real world or political repercussions worth thinking about. They are a very rich family with a special title, several big houses and a history going back years - great press headlines but no substance.

The Richard III society are regarded by most historians as a fringe group. There is some debate about Richard's life and legacy but it isn't even front page historical news, let alone the popular press. The real story is how new techniques and genetic analysis have allowed us to positively identify a corpse in a car park as almost certainly Richard III. This will have far reaching implications for the study of early modern history and perhaps further back as well. The pomp and circumstance around his recent re-burial was largely for commercial reasons.

As for whether the Royals should take up front line military roles, this is really a matter of not wanting the poor darlings killed in the line of duty. They have no particularly vital constitutional role any more (although the power of the Crown held by the government gives it quite scary and wide ranging executive powers in the eyes of many), insofar as they have any constitutional role now beyond calling the leader of the largest party (and then next largest) to form a government until a government is formed or Parliament has to be dissolved with new elections. The Royal family also have no practical role as the commanders in chief of the armed forces, so it is hardly strategically important that they survive to lead us in war.

It's really just that a dead Royal would be a bit embarrassing for the military and/or the government.

In simple terms - it's great celebrity press, but a bit pointless otherwise.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 10:25:59 AM   
igor2003


Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		Wouldn't it also be a bit of a sticky wicket if one of the royal family was to be taken hostage?

_____________________________

If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green

At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it!

Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers


(in reply to longwayhome)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 10:48:08 AM   
longwayhome


Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Wouldn't it also be a bit of a sticky wicket if one of the royal family was to be taken hostage?


It would indeed be a difficulty for the government and the senior military for the public relations reasons alluded to above.

I don't think any serious consideration of the utility value of a single Royal who could be easily replaced by any number of relatives, all paid by the state would lead to any conclusion that the government would any more pay a ransom demand for a Royal than they would for a non-Royal.

All this is of course a bit harsh, and the sight of the popular William or Harry being beheaded by a militant group could seriously harm the popularity of a sitting government or the credibility of the armed forces. The same may be true of a government minister or an army chief. It was bad enough when it was a British aid worker.

This is all because of the celebrity value of the Royals, not their central role in governing the UK. There is of course an argument for not having any celebrities (including Royals) in the military for precisely the reason that they may become targets.

My assertion, I suppose, is that you can argue the front line service thing either way, but at the end of the day the reasons for any decision are not constitutional or strategic, but based on the celebrity of the Royals (which does of course make them important to a media savvy government) rather than their intrinsic importance as leaders or figureheads.

(in reply to igor2003)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 11:16:10 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I mean, to hear some of them, they act as if it just happened last week.


This all goes to the oft-noted 'British eccentrics' thing. Historians here - both amateur and professional - can develop some *very* strong loyalties regarding centuries-old issues. For instance, so I've heard, in Battle, Hastings, there's a monument that commemorates the 'joining' of the Normans and English in 1066. One of my bro's History lecturers objects to this description and has been arrested on numerous occasions for daubing the monument. Think Margaret Rutherford, though with the ever-present companion (even during lectures) of her West Highland terrier, Offa.

Re Richard III: Lucy's right regarding his 'bogeyman' status here. For centuries he was considered to be the culprit behind the 'murder of the princes in the Tower'. He was vilified so badly that even today there exists the bit of cockney rhyming slang, richard = turd.

As for the Royals and their combat roles - I've heard the main concern is indeed that of their being taken prisoner and used as a hostage. There was even a TV drama based on the outcome of such an event - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11564362 Such concerns are, of course, a great deal more important to the royalists here than the rest of us.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 11:17:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well, so long as they don't get you, me ol mucker.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 11:30:32 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, so long as they don't get you, me ol mucker.


I think I could handle a bunch of little old ladies, even if armed with rolled up copies of the Mail and the Express.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/11/2016 12:05:56 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually a few questions.

I was watching a Smithsonian special about Richard III's skeleton being unearthed, and am trying to figure out something.

Considering the man has been dead for 500 years, and what seems to be a growing number of people who wish to do away with the Monarchy anyway...

What the hell is the controversy, or more to the point, is all this stuff about some group calling itself the Richard III society trying to claim the following:

1) He was not a hunchback or physically deformed
2) He did not have his nephews killed in the Tower
3) He has been systematically vilified by his successor and the monarchy since he was assassinated.


I mean, to hear some of them, they act as if it just happened last week.

And more recently:

I understand that Prince Harry actually saw combat with the British Military in Afghanistan, yet his older brother, seems to get in a bit of hot water for requesting duty assignments that could possibly get dangerous, although flying SAR helicopters is not the safest job in any military force.

So, my question is, why the hell cant the crown prince (albeit, the third in line for the throne) serve in a front line unit?

Would that not actually raise his status as king?

Why limit the man and tell him he cannot serve his country in the ways he has said he wants to serve?

Okay, there were some in the US military that tried like hell to keep Teddy Roosevelt jr from going ashore in the first wave on D-Day because he was the son of a president.

And even though the royal family has very little power in the British government, are they not still a symbolic hold over from the days when the monarchy was absolute? Should not the family, especially those in line for the throne be allowed to take the same risk as other members of the military?



Long story short, the Royal Family is part of the establishment and these people don't want to see one of their own dead.

Not really any different to you not wanting to see your wife or a close friend dead.

These people, like any people, have a vested interest in looking after their own.

Most people here take absolutely no notice of them. Don't get me wrong, we're not clamouring for change, because providing there's no break down in the system we'll go along with it for an easy life.

I'm guessing at least half of people who gather outside of Buckingham Palace and such places are Germans, Japanese, Americans, Australians etc. They're more of a relic from a bygone that holds appeal across the world (for a certain type of person) whatever the nationality.

If they showed up at my front door tomorrow I'd tell them: "glad to see you, but I'm waiting for the Jehovah Witnesses, on your bike" - and that's probably a fairly popular sentiment.

They simply have no relevance to people's lives. I doubt many people care whether or not he's on the front line or anywhere else. It's an establishment thing, nothing to do with your average bloke in the street.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/12/2016 7:44:20 AM   
padrepedro


Posts: 60
Joined: 1/12/2016
Status: offline 		According to my British cousins there is a tradition of nobles putting themselves in harms way. Many were slaughtered in the first world war leading ill thought out and badly planned charges by armchair generals who had only fought wars against native Africans with spears and a few Dutchmen aided by Irish rebels in South Africa. The uncrowned king and heir to the throne like William used to sneak to the front lines to fight with the common soldier but had to be literally Physically forced back to the villas dozens of miles behind the lines. Take the Somme. The generals ordered the Artillery bombardment to cease and the soldiers to just walk across and not charge with bayonets fixed. Any sensible general would have ordered a night attack whilst the Artillery were still bombarding the German trenches, then spotters could signal the Artillery to move the bombardment forward to the 2nd and third line trenches. Back then the bayonets used by the British Empire troops were a metres are more long. The tommies and jocks, taffies and paddies, were well trained with the bayonet and would have killed fritz as he slept. The War could have ended in 1916 but for the generals stupidity. 20.000 killed and 40.000 wounded in a single day. 100.000 killed and 300.000 wounded months later when the offensive ceased. The germans were well led and tough soldiers the Austro-hungarians were mediocre. It is true that today the monarch and Aristocracy have no real power yet they are treated like gods and goddesses and fuzzed over. Diane Spencer came from one of the ancient noble families with long military traditions. Her sons do not really speak posh and can mix easily with all social classes. They are still priviliged though but certainly more accessible.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: A Question for our British members - 1/12/2016 8:35:40 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: padrepedro

According to my British cousins there is a tradition of nobles putting themselves in harms way. Many were slaughtered in the first world war leading ill thought out and badly planned charges by armchair generals who had only fought wars against native Africans with spears and a few Dutchmen aided by Irish rebels in South Africa. The uncrowned king and heir to the throne like William used to sneak to the front lines to fight with the common soldier but had to be literally Physically forced back to the villas dozens of miles behind the lines. Take the Somme. The generals ordered the Artillery bombardment to cease and the soldiers to just walk across and not charge with bayonets fixed. Any sensible general would have ordered a night attack whilst the Artillery were still bombarding the German trenches, then spotters could signal the Artillery to move the bombardment forward to the 2nd and third line trenches.


That is pretty much what they did. For example in one of the opening attacks in the battle of the Somme (Bazentin Ridge) The attack was made by four divisions on a front of 6,000 yards (5.5 km) at 3:25 a.m. after a five-minute hurricane artillery bombardment. Field artillery fired a creeping barrage and the attacking waves pushed up close behind it in no man's land, leaving them only a short distance to cross when the barrage lifted from the German front trench. (from wikipedia)



Back then the bayonets used by the British Empire troops were a metres are more long.


The standard bayonet for the lee enfield had a 43cm blade.

quote:



The tommies and jocks, taffies and paddies, were well trained with the bayonet and would have killed fritz as he slept. The War could have ended in 1916 but for the generals stupidity. 20.000 killed and 40.000 wounded in a single day. 100.000 killed and 300.000 wounded months later when the offensive ceased. The germans were well led and tough soldiers the Austro-hungarians were mediocre. It is true that today the monarch and Aristocracy have no real power yet they are treated like gods and goddesses and fuzzed over. Diane Spencer came from one of the ancient noble families with long military traditions. Her sons do not really speak posh and can mix easily with all social classes. They are still priviliged though but certainly more accessible.


_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to padrepedro)
Profile   Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> A Question for our British members Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094