HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Tue 28 Feb 17 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


From a Wikipeadia article about Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

And this quote:

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) has been Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of 12 countries that have become independent since her accession: Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis."

My committment to Her Majesty was made real because of Her speech to me and her declaration to us all. I didn't know it then. I didn't hear and watch it until 29 years later. But that speech is the one point where I galvanised myself in defence of Her and anything about Her.

I may have changed my mind relative to certain republican issues. But I will never forget my oath on that one day.

She remains my Boss, my Chief, my Commander until the rules actually change.

I am not only proud to state that, I would take a bullet if I had to.

1,500 years of history does not simply "go away".

I remain a proud Australian willing to give his life in defence of the Realm.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #2 
jmaxg
Contributor

As an observer relative to the line of ascension, after giving my opinion relative to that and any observation itself, I am perfectly within my rights to give an opinion either way even if belonging to a country that may well NOT be "royalist" but still a country of the Commonwealth.

It is my considered opinion that the monarchy must remain and be cherished.

Not only because many countries have been constitutionally required to back up the head country of the Commonwealth. But as She is our Head of State and technically our boss too. For Her to not be so anymore is like removing our flag from us.

As so many have fought and died under Her and because of Her, it would be an insult for Her to not be at least part of the reason.

Like the "rag that is a flag" defines us, so does Queen Elizabeth II.

And so shall She from the rising of the sun, and in the morning. She is very much a part of the reason we will remember them.

So like I don't believe in the flag changing until the last serving soldier dies, the same applies to our Monarch, Head of State, and the Head of our Commonwealth.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #3 
sally906
Contributor

As a police officer my husband swore to serve and protect the queen - and he actually got to do that when she came to Darwin in the 1980s.  She came out and spoke to the officers on duty and thanked them.  Hubby said she was lovely.

He, of course, supports Australia becoming a republic - as I do despite being a staunch Royalist (no - there is no conflict - I love the Royals - but in the UK not Australia).

But changing our flag? I see no need and there will never be a time when Australian men and women haven't fought under it - so will be waiting for a long time to wait for them all to die.




Knows 26754 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #4 
jmaxg
Contributor

You see what I mean then.

In 1981, when I took my oath relative to the Australian Army, it said "Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors".

Even though some paid no attention, in reality, you just don't get to walk away from that.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #5 
jmaxg
Contributor

I compliment your husband though.......and his commitment.

I had one uncle that was "Bush Police".




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

I also had Uncle Joe that was an outback railway reviewer, Uncle Martin that became a fully respected nurse, Uncle Robby who basically maintained his status as "terrifier of young children" until it became clear he was one of the funniest people that ever lived.

Aunty Shirley and Aunty Pat that I love despite developing a weird future involving transgender.

My uncles and aunts may be weird. But they are the best people I have ever known in my life.

My Uncle Ray still wonders what side of life to belong to. He is one of the most awesome guys I have ever encountered.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #7 
jmaxg
Contributor

At a place called "Portsea" he took me for a walk as a young kid.

Uncle Ray and step-aunty Yvonne.

What I got was one of the most memorable, fantastic experiences of my entire life.

The sand was impregnated with glowing algea. You could pick up a handful of sand and throw out a cityscape!

Uncle Ray giggled as he watched me because he already knew.

But you have to see that shit to believe it. I did and believe me, it's right there.

Uncle Ray? You're weird but thank you.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #8 
jmaxg
Contributor

But as of this forum?

The most astounding female in the history of our world is one that chooses not to effect anyone's life.

Yet She has effected all of our lives.

Her wonderous tact brings me to tears. She is better than presidents yet no bigger than a bum on the street.

She is the most stupendous public figure of all time.

She is the Queen of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

She is also the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations for life.

And she used to be my Boss.

She is Elizabeth II. The greatest of all monarchs.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #9 
mapmaker
Contributor

She is Queen of England and other places yeeha




Knows 50239 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #10 
jmaxg
Contributor

By square yards alone, She is Queen to just over a quarter of Earth.

Even though it's symbolic, and this is still one of the coolest facts in the world, the British government via the Prime Minister still has to ask for Her direct permission before deploying ANY armed forces relative to the United Kingdom. The Queen actually OWNS and can direct at will one of the most effective and competent military forces on the face of our planet.

(condition of the Magna Carta agreed to 15 June 1215 at Runnymede)

Queen Elizabeth II reviewed all of her armies via "The Trooping of the Colour" in full uniform and sitting side-saddle on Her horse until 1986. ALL Empire/Commonwealth countries were required to send a unit for review and have done so since its inception in 1748.

Once, will reviewing infantry troops in Australia, Her Majesty commented on why the assault pioneer sergeant was not showing a beard, wearing an apron or sporting a battle-axe.

(assault pioneer sergeants were traditionally the blacksmiths of armies. Beards were grown to protect faces from flying sparks - leather aprons were obvious - battle-axes were kept close just in case the enemy broke through)

From that moment on, ALL Australian infantry assault pioneer sergeants were required to grow a beard, wear a leather apron and carry a chrome battle-axe whilst on ceremonial parade. That tradition continues to this day.

I LOVE knowing trivia like that!

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #11 
JMK
Editor

Sounds like good reason to get rid of the monarchy. England can keep them if they want but we don't need them.

What exactly has Queen ElizabethII done to deserve being called the greatest of all monarchs jmax?




Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #12 
jmaxg
Contributor

Her level of public service and her outright declaration and devotion to it is as stated in the link above.

Historically, the first monarch that declared unabiding and total devotion to the people was Elizabeth, The First. Elizabeth, The Second has stated publically that one of her models was Elizabeth, The First.

On the level of public service, The Queen has never vacated that role even after her great-grandmother did (Queen Victoria) after her beloved Bertie passed away. She has NOT taken Queen Victoria as an example.

(Queen Victoria was inaccessible for forty (40) years)

Instead, she has dug-in, got her hands dirty, played a role, expressed nothing but respect for her deceased parents, tried to raise kids, placate an extraordinarily handsome husband, put up with political mud-slinging (Diana), paid proper respect (The death of Diana) and defer to the will of the people of Britain.

Plus, that Madness "Our House" bit on the roof of Buckingham Palace was STOOPIDLY cool!

She doesn't have an easy role. She is trying to conduct Herself as She assumes the people expect of Her. In accordance with Her idol, Queen Elizabeth I.

And yes, some of my adoration may be because She was my Commander-In-Chief.

But to discount Her importance, I think, is a huge mistake. Even the knucklehead Trump, despite his ego, must defer to Her.

If nothing else, She is a correction to terrible world insecurities like Trump.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #13 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

I'm in England at the moment and would prefer not to have a monarchy. I'd rather be a citizen than a subject.

I wouldn't argue with the fact that the queen appears to have done what she regards as her duty.

I don't believe that the queen had any choice in the Madness gig, she just acquiesced to the PR which plainly worked for you, I believe that to be the case following the death of Princess Diana.

What on earth does 'placate an extraordinarily handsome husband' mean? 

I feel shame that the regime in North Korea uses the British royal family as propaganda to justify their own dynasty.




Knows 132583 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Feb 17 #14 
JMK
Editor

"placate an extraordinarily handsome husband"
I'm with Ruby - huh?




Knows 47288 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Mar 17 #15 
sally906
Contributor

Ruby wrote: I feel shame that the regime in North Korea uses the British royal family as propaganda to justify their own dynasty.

They do?  Pray tell - I know the little madman in charge was educated in Switzerland - so wondered where this obsession came from - how interesting




Knows 26754 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Mar 17 #16 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Not, only this dear leader, but his father's regime as well, cited European monarchies as examples of hereditary dynasties. In this household of nerds there is a stamp collector, and one day I asked why on earth the North Koreans would issuing so many issues of stamps featuring the British Royal family, and looked into it a bit further.

The Kims can cite the similarities: the nation pays to support a family in a life-style that few of its citizens can emulate, they are at the centre of much ceremony and pageantry, they are given a different kind of reverence and respect from other prominent figures, they rule for life, they get in inordinate anmount of media coverage etc etc

Nonsense, but shaming nonsense. Much as I'd like to gossip, be personal and so on it is the institution of monarchy, not any member of the royal family that I  wish to attack (or revere).




Knows 132583 facts
like | send message


Wed 1 Mar 17 #17 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

Im with JMK on this......i would prefer to not have the monarchy and to become a republic. I have nothing against Her Majesty or the royal family as i am English born but i feel it is something just for the United Kingdom.




Knows 25081 facts
like | send message


Thu 2 Mar 17 #18 
jmaxg
Contributor

I don't wish for anyone to be confused here. I AM a republican and think that Australia does NOT NEED a monarch as Head of State.

The 1999 Australian Rebublican Referendum result almost destroyed me in spirit and resolve. I felt truly betrayed by the voting public and I realised that the enemy was one person....then Prime Minister John Howard.....the one person that purposefully confused the issue and blatantly used the Constitutional Covention to do it. I will always hold John Howard personally responsible for manipulating the voting public that one time. I think it was evil, purposefully mean spirited and insulting.

HAVING SAID THAT......I would also ask the question of how many offering opinions have also been subject to absolute authority?

In a military sense, it's a very cool and straightforward structure. A private answers to a corporal. A corporal answers to a sergeant. A sergeant answers to a platoon commander. A platoon commander answers to a company commander. A company commander answers to a battalion commander. A battalion commander answers to a divisional commander.

Above that, we all answer to the head of our respective military. Above that, we answer to our commander-in-chief, the current monarch.

The Prime Ministers of our respective countries have nothing to do with it apart from asking the current monarch for permission.

At this point in time, I regard that as a practical and sufficient safeguard against the misuse of military power.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 2 Mar 17 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

The "placate an extraordinarily handsome husband" bit was based on the Netflix series, "The Crown".

Commander Mountbatten (later, Prince Phillip) was regarded as particularly "dishy" as at his time and some ladies were not happy that a sixteen year old English princess just rocked in and took over.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 2 Mar 17 #20 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

I am not sure that you should be asserting fiction as fact. I may be promoting another fiction as well, in that their marriage was deemed suitable, and arranged for them, neither, especially her, having an enormous number of future partners to choose from.

Politicians have a great deal to do with political and military decisions, they advise and inform the monarch, technically the monarch could countermand political decisions or refuse to put a signature to newly created law, but that could create the kind of constitutional crisis that led to the English Revolution and the beheading of Charles I.

Was it Margaret Thatcher or Elizabeth II who took the decision to sink the Belgrano? Was it Tony Blair or Elizabeth II who sent British troops to Iraq? Was it Elizabeth II or David Cameron who ordered a referendum on British membership of the European Union?

Personally I feel it infantilising for both individuals and nations to be subject to monarchy, both as a system and for some of the bizarre Disneyesque mixtures of gossip and quasi-religious awe that purport to be reports in the media, not just about the British monarchy, but about other royal families as well.

Don't forget the stories of grubby corruption and business kickbacks from the Dutch, British and most recently, the Spanish royal families.

I have no wish for constitutional crises, violent overthrows, or people being stripped of personal wealth. I wish we could grow up and not be taken in by mythologising.




Knows 132583 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Thu 2 Mar 17 #21 
jmaxg
Contributor

I don't think that anybody is "taken in" by the mythology that the English monarch is "God's representative on Earth" as it is still to this day, depicted as a matter of law since the creation of the Church of England due to King Henry VIII.

Even Catholics see their Pope more as a person these days rather than a manifestation of a heavenly being.

In fact for centuries now, specifically due to the rift between an English monarch and the Catholic Church, it has been made plain that religion is a political tool and is about expedience rather than actual spiritual conviction.

England MUST accept that very important and formative moment in history. Even more important, technically, than Martin Luther's notice on a church door. Because it makes clear that, over time, the interpretation of God's Word is about preference rather than doctrine. Therefore it is inherently political rather than devout.

Having said that, I regard the rank of Her Majesty, rather than Her spiritual symbolism, to be the most important factor. She is there because She was born to do it. She has experienced a multitude of wise and historic tutors. More importantly, She accepted her role and has carried Herself with due dilligence and, as we have seen over the last 15 years, with admirable flexibility.

The May 1982 death of the "General Belgrano" was a perfect response to a tacky and ill thought out Argentinian release of an exocet missile relative to an overall stupid claim to sovereignty over a bunch of rocks in the middle of the Southern Atlantic Ocean. It was one of the greatest examples of all time of "You wanna f@#$ with me? Then bring it!".

I am sorry for the Argentinian loss of life. But it was not England's fault. If I was the commander of the submarine HMS Conqueror, I would have followed an order and delivered exactly the same response.

Was it Mrs.Thatcher or Her Majesty that ordered the strike? I think that for very good reasons, that is classified. But at the very least, Her Majesty was constitutionally required to have full knowledge of the situation and might have had some part in the decision.

The Falklands War was just a perfect example of The Queen's power manifested. The result was swift, decisive and complete. It was an awesome display of an awesome force that is Her's to unleash according to an edict decided in June, 1215.

As a former soldier, that is the wisdom and authority I would wish to operate under.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 2 Mar 17 #22 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

The power to order military action by British Forces is a Royal Prerogative - so derives from the monarch. That means it's power which resides with the sovereign rather than parliament. 

The prerogative as established in the 1688 Bill of Rights, however, is devolved to the government of the day. It's still an important distinction that it's the government rather than parliament who makes the decision (although there are calls to bring the decision to take military action into a more democratic process) but it's not the case that prime ministers have to ask for permission from the queen. That permission is given when the prime minister is appointed.

This report from a Lords Select Committee has quite a lot of information about it.

As for the decision to sink the Belgrano, that's not so classified that Mrs Thatcher couldn't write about it in her memoires The Downing Street Years. She explains that the decision was made in Chequers by her in consultation with Willie Whitelaw, John Nott, Cecil Parkinson, Michael Havers, Terry Lewin, Admiral Fieldhouse and Sir Antony Acland.

Basically, governments set the rules of engagement and the military then operate within those rules of engagement. The choice to sink the Belgrano went to the prime minister because it required a change to the rules of engagement due to the position of the Belgrano. The role of the monarch as commander in chief is purely symbolic.




Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Sat 4 Mar 17 #23 
jmaxg
Contributor

Agreed and I always suspected so. Her Majesty would be the first person to admit that her opinion alone relative to military application would be unwise and that political control is warranted, if not an absolute necessity, due to reasons of diplomatic nuance, realisation of a countries' place in the world order, the placating of political factions and ultimately the acceptance of one's own population and their role in deciding the validity of any decision.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that because the monarch must be asked for permission, that they get to control every move. That was not my intention and was probably purely imaginitive folley on my part. That may have been true of "Longshanks" (King Edward, the First), the hammer of the Scots and the horror of the Welsh. But it is not true now.

But due to multiple campaigns, some glorious and historic, others deadly, some cowardly and some unwarranted; the English tradition and system of military leadership is perhaps the most developed and applied across the world in air, sea and on land. I have no problem with that. A "Chain of Command" is not an easy thing to set up let alone work out.

The British have taken it on the chin a few times too.

If you think I am going to mention New Zealand, I am not. The "Tiriti o Waitangi" later became a bridge to racist attitudes and dirty tricks that became a legacy that will forever be known in history right up there with the Opium Wars. Both of which are regarded as perhaps a patronising countries' lowest level.

With regards however to the post World War One and Otterman Empire Turkey, when the English (and other countries') diplomatic sharks circled seeking the spoils of what they thought was a weakened region, Mustafa Kamal Attaturk then rose and told them all to "GET . THE . F*&% . OUT!!". Which they grudgingly did. Obviously not one of Britain's finest diplomatic moments. But one of the finest sovereignty moments in all of history.

But as flawed as England might be, the English military and traditional aspects have real and provable merit with respect to command and control - the very basis of military existence.

I believe our current Queen has a real and definable impact over that system established by Her ancestors and other historical participants. I think it is a beautifully simple system that is easily navigated once you know it. And She knows it intimately....up and down, left and right.

The point is, having Her as my boss was no problem at all when I was a soldier. In fact, it was an honour.

I am sure my late father, who rose from the rank of private, became a Regimental Sergeant Major (an actual RSM), and then was later commissioned as an officer, would have said the same.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 6 Mar 17 #24 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

The point is that nobody has to ask for permission never mind consulting her on operational matters.




Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Tue 7 Mar 17 #25 
jmaxg
Contributor

That is actually incorrect. It may be symbolic, as is the monarchy itself, but the rules of procedure still exist.

There is a symbolic and somewhat archaic procedure that is to be followed before forces can be applied. It involves the direct participation of the current monarch.

Just like there are rules in place that don't allow the current monarch to go waltzing in Parliament without permission.

Just like there are rules that state the Prime Minister has to advise the Monarch once a week as to matters of state.

Just like there is a Scottish piper that walks around the boundary of Buckingham Palace at 9.00am each day when the Queen is in residence.

Just like there is a "Keeper Of The Clocks" and I am sure they love their job.

Just like every night at closing of the Tower of London, under the Beefeaters and guarded by the Household Guards, the "Queen's Keys" are handed in with an official ceremony.

Just like when Queen Elizabeth II, immediately and within minutes prior to Her coronation, had to undergo a Church of England ceremony that confirmed Her status as a non-virgin and then symbolically reinstated her virginity status. Princess Elizabeth must have been mortified when she heard about that little piece of religious "crossing the i's and dotting the t's" and YES, it required physical inspection. Her Majesty, after that defiling experience, ordered that it never happen again.

Just like the investiture of the "Prince" or "Princess" of Wales is a tradition born from the dominance of Edward I and definitely not because of any complimentary observance.

None of these may have been in place as at any time, but England is one of the world centres of tradition and ancient procedure leading back to the conference between the barons and the monarchy in 1215.

That's if David Starkey (the creator of the TV series "Monarchy") is to be believed anyway.

But anyway, that's enough of this.......if you say it's different, then fine.

Far too much time has been spent on this particular and useless tug-of-war.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 16 Mar 17 #26 
jmaxg
Contributor

The fact is I find military structure, as it relates to a monarch, to be almost perfect.

The Armed Forces should not be subject to the pushing and pulling of political ideaology.

We prefer that you know what you are doing and unleash us when the time comes.

Most of the population (and politicians) don't know the difference between a blue-based crown on a major's epaulet and a scarlet-based crown on a major's epaulet.

It is a tradition observed across the United Kingdom and throughout Commonwealth countries as a mark of respect.

The reason is simple. See if you can work it out.

The Queen knows why. She makes it her job to know why.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 16 Mar 17 #27 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Oh no. I see another subject coming - military insignia -  please correct me if that's the wrong term. That would kill me on the Java Jive. Please don't tell me it's there already and going to appear....




Knows 132583 facts
like | send message


Thu 16 Mar 17 #28 
jmaxg
Contributor

I have been mulling over a picture subject involving military rank for army, navy and air-force relative to England and Australia - separate subjects, of course. The Australian rank insignia are pretty straight forward (to me anyway) but the English rank insignia can be a tad complicated.

Image wise, I have quite a few sources relative to Australian rank insignia.

But I'd like a source that covers English rank insignia relative to army, navy, air-force and marines.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In