Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36133918)

No, because the Pledge only (legally) matters when you’re Serving - once you’ve left, you are no longer subject to Forces discipline.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36133924)

NEW: The Prime Minister will accompany the King to Scotland on Monday, Northern Ireland on Tuesday, and Wales on Wednesday.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133937)

I've tried to find the definition of an allegiance and the best that I can find is that it is a formal promise.

As we all know, promises can be and are broken. If this is done whilst serving it could have serious consequences in moral and trust, so I can see that it would be punishable.

If the allegiance is broken after leaving the armed forces it isn't nearly as problematic, so that's probably why legislation has never been introduced to enable enforcement.

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------



Will the Queens sons & grandsons have to guard the coffin in shifts until the day of the funeral? I remember them doing this for the Queen Mother.

I do think it odd that Charles became King tje moment his mother died.

You'd think that there would be a period to allow him to mourn before being required to jump into her shoes.

I imagine that this is a hangover from the days before Parliament and they didn't want to create a power vacuum and for operational reasons by not having a King or Queen in place.

We've effectively had to manage without a Government for a while, so I don't see why this cannot be amended in the modern age.

Originally Posted by jfman

Not looking good. Truss got off her mark when Zahawi appeared with a note.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133937)

I do think it odd that Charles became King tje moment his mother died.

You'd think that there would be a period to allow him to mourn before being required to jump into her shoes.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36133937)

We've effectively had to manage without a Government for a while, so I don't see why this cannot be amended in the modern age.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36133943)

There is nothing odd about it.
There is never a period when the country has no head of state.
As soon as the King (or Queen) dies, the power/title immediately passes to the next in line.

.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36133948)

Historically that is not true

Depending on how far you want to go back if you wish to go pre England then the royals in the various areas did not automatically pass on the crown to an heir but the new King had to be agreed upon through a Witton. So no head of state

Quite often in history the crown was taken by force the winner was not automatically crowned at the victory but later on

And then of course there was the period between 1653 and 1660 when we had no monarch at all and the head of state was elected after the victory

So saying there has "never" been a period is wrong :)

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36133950)

Perhaps go back as far as the act of Parliament Chris referred to.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36133948)

So saying there has "never" been a period is wrong :)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36133958)

He never said there has never been a period … he said there never is. If you’re indulging in pedantry you have to get it right. ;) And for the sake of pedantry, it was the Act of Settlement (1701) which has dictated all future successions to the throne. The Georgian era itself kicked off in 1714, enabled by that Act.

Incidentally the witan was a Saxon tradition. The Last Kingdom is a great piece of TV, and remarkably accurate in its portrayal of the broad historical detail, but it is located a long way pre-Norman invasion, after which everything changed quite radically. There’s really nothing in pre-Norman traditions of kingship that carries forward to the modern era.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36133961)

Not at all … pedantry is the lifeblood of Internet forums ;)

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36133960)

I said England as a whole country was 1100 years old. I did a lot of research on the Witton after watching the show so not all from that

George I was the first King under the settlement due to the fact Sophia of Hanover was shot before it could have been her. Do not think there is anything wrong with my pedantry on this part as it happens

Definition of the word never. I think the is or has is irrelevant as the word never was used. I am not and NEVER an English student so could be wrong but I trust dictionary definitions
[ADVERB before verb] Never means at no time in the past or at no time in the future.

According to Oxford the N means not

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36133948)

So saying there has "never" been a period is wrong :)

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36133964)

Unfortunately there is a problem with your pedantry. You are applying past tense to present tense.

Had Paul said there never has been you would be correct but he didn't.
As regards the coronation of the next monarch never happening immediately even after battle for the crown(e,g, the war of the roses), that still happens now.

Charles has been proclaimed king (as possibly happened on a battlefield) but his coronation won't happen until neat year.

Apologies if too pedantic.




at no time in the past or future; not ever.
"they had never been camping in their lives"

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36133966)

Since I didnt say that, you point is ... pointless. :D