Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 0:09:54 GMT
In theory. In practice, the historical precedent indicates that it is... unwise... for a monarch to try to order parliament around too much. A monarch who took that "head of the armed forces" thing too seriously might also want to consider why the Navy is the "Royal Navy" and the Air Force is the "Royal Air Force", but the Army is just the "British Army"... True, but the Queen remains the commander in chief of the army and every UK solider pledges alligance to the Crown, not Parliament. And having known a few British soldiers, every one of them has said that if it came down to it there is no way whatsoever that the armed forces would assist the monarchy in becoming a dictatorship over this country, oath or not. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 10, 2017 14:41:18 GMT
Can I just interrupt and say that this is the first time I have typed antidisestablishmanterianism?
|
|
