saxon51 Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 The mistake that you're making is that you assume that the military is loyal the monarch personally, the loyalty is towards the crown which is a representation of the country. For example in a criminal court, the case is the crown verses the defendant. If the monarch acted in a way that was seriously detrimental to the country, they would be removed, for example Edward VIII's abdication. You are correct. "The Queen, her heirs and successors" is how the oath is worded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 There'd have to be a pretty big change in the way the army see their duty, imo it should be to the people and not the monarch anyway. You're still mixing up the current Monarch with a thousand years of the Crown. They are completely different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 You're still mixing up the current Monarch with a thousand years of the Crown. They are completely different things. switch crown for monarch in the quote you've just taken and that still represents my views well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 I appreciate and respect (but disagree with) the general views that you hold but they are based on a fallacy if you confuse the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.