HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Tue 13 Dec 16 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


For a start, one of their first kings was called.....

Æthelred the Unready.

That was no joke. He was literally regarded by his legions as a bad king and literally unready most of the time.

An ignominious start?

Like Trump? You work it out.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 13 Dec 16 #2 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

I think you'll find that 'unready' is a modern version of Anglo-Saxon word meaning un-advised or badly advised, but since he was only a child when he became monarch, he most probably was unready.




Knows 133302 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Tue 13 Dec 16 #3 
jmaxg
Contributor

I was talking about his subsequent history. Again, not a good start as kings go.

According to "The Book", he was the Donald Trump of kings....not ready, overwhelmed, and not suited.

That is not to say I don't admire some of England's kings.

I hate to say this, but I have to admire Edward (1239 to 1307) and how he basically said "F&%^ this shit" and reinforced what a king is.

As deplorable as his actions were, I find myself thinking if I was a king, what would I do? Even though it is about those people that I am genetically connected to, the Scottish, I find myself wondering about the big picture and what Edward was trying to achieve.

Because of the Magna Carta, when the English parliament wants to go to war, they have to ask the Monarch's permission. Why? Because the Monarch, be it a king or queen, OWNS the military forces. That was and is a condition of the Magna Carta and is still applied to this day in England. A technical point maybe, but still a valid point.

That is why the term "Colonel-In-Chief" is applied in so many forces around the world. It is a reference to the current reigning monarch and Head of the Royal Family and their responsibilty to their troops.

As a former member of the Australian Regular Army, the fact that Her Majesty was my final "say-so" was brilliant knowledge of the end of the line of command. Such a thing is valid to a soldier.......you have to know not only where authority starts, but where it ends. To a good soldier, that means you have avenues of appeal in case of bad superior conduct. Knowing that Her Majesty is where it ends is good policy. Has any soldier's appeal gotten that far? Not to my knowledge. And I doubt I would admit it if it had.

The thing is when The Queen is your C-I-C, whatever your mission is, is in complete confidence. I mean NOTHING comes out. As totally opposed to the President of the United States.

Your vow to Her Majesty (the monarch) when you raise your right hand is complete and utter for the rest of your life, even if you leave the service. Such a pledge is unique in the world. That is why the world can proudly proclaim we have Australian forces, New Zealand forces, Canadian forces, Irish forces, and the devastating Ghurkas. ALL of our pledges are to one single entity.

All of this because of a section within the Magna Carta where it was proclaimed that the presiding monarch will have sole control of all military assets.

I bet you didn't know that, huh.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 13 Dec 16 #4 
jmaxg
Contributor

Can the current monarch refuse to apply her military assets in a field of battle even when requested?

Yes.

The current monarch of England can refuse to apply her forces at any point. Parliament's application and request are just that, a polite and formal request......and the monarch's refusal, if that would happen, is NOT a constitutional crisis. It is, actually, anything BUT that. In actuality, it would be the application of the original agreement called the Magna Carta.

I KNOW why many people in England are griping about why there is still a monarch. But to focus it on the Queen of England is missing the point.

The NOBILITY of England negotiated the Magna Carta......they did so to keep themselves rich and keep others not rich.

When criticizing England, one might think about the monarchy, to be sure.

But let it be known it was the lords and barons of England that demanded the Magna Carta in the first place. Rich bastards that only wanted to ensure one principal......that they stay rich or get richer.

It can be argued why the monarchy was complicent in that. But it can also be argued, after many eons, that "courtiers" are just wasteful hangers-on and "wannabes" in the strictest sense of the original Magna Carta agreement.

Watching some of them in documentaries makes me throw up a little into my own mouth.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 13 Dec 16 #5 
jmaxg
Contributor

The Magna Carta CAN be renegotiated given enough political will. BUT.....

Watch that next royal documentary, listen to the courtiers and see if you can stop throwing up a little in your mouth.

It's not gonna happen. These abhorrent people control everything.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 13 Dec 16 #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

Watch the show "Yes, Minister".




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In