3 ms·
Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives
by kitd 6y ago
Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability.
You don't want one person having both.
Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoIf a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?
- kitd 6y agoWell, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.
- arethuza 6y agoI've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch. Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say. Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.
- kitd 6y agoIIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then. In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? Why does the armed forces need to pledge allegiance to a person? > In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. I don't think there's much evidence of that. > You don't want one person having both Why not? > Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces. The main reason the royals serve in the armed forces is that the royalty (and even the broader nobility) is a remnant of what is notionally a warrior elite that is traditionally barred from servile labor but has position of authority ultimately grounded in military function. The substance of both the authority and the distinct warrior class is almost entirely extinct, but traditions remain, including the tradition that it's pretty much the only thing that looks like work that senior royals are permitted to do, as anything else in government would be seen to violate their distance from that function and anything else would be seen as demeaning the monarchy.