Well, I'm following the UK election even if no one else in the USA is.

[oggbashan]

I swore allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors when I joined the Forces and nobody as yet has rescinded that oath.

So did I.

But the separation of the Monarchy and Government is a convenient fiction. I prefer that the Armed Forces, Police, Judges and Civil Servants serve the Crown and not an elected President. They don't serve the Prime Minister, and that sometimes irritates holders of that office.

I can't imagine that people would have been as happy to swear allegiance to possible Presidents Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or (very unlikely) Nick Clegg. In theory, one would be swearing allegiance to the office of President as Head of State, not to the person, but that is an awkward concept.

WW2 German troops were obliged to swear allegiance to Adolph Hitler personally. For some of them who were not committed Nazis that made their life difficult in the final weeks of WW2. They couldn't surrender easily because that meant breaking their oath to him.

 

[Messier82]

WW2 German troops were obliged to swear allegiance to Adolph Hitler personally. For some of them who were not committed Nazis that made their life difficult in the final weeks of WW2. They couldn't surrender easily because that meant breaking their oath to him.

I've always understood that this applied only to the SS & Waffen SS, not to the Wehrmacht (though apparently some of the Wehrmacht were as bad as the SS), and that generally the Wehrmacht like to distance their selves from the Nazi Party and identified more with Germany as a whole.

 

[oggbashan]

I've always understood that this applied only to the SS & Waffen SS, not to the Wehrmacht (though apparently some of the Wehrmacht were as bad as the SS), and that generally the Wehrmacht like to distance their selves from the Nazi Party and identified more with Germany as a whole.

It was different for the SS, but:

Wehrmacht oath (from Wikipedia)

Die Vereidigung der Wehrmacht auf Adolf Hitler, 2.8.1934

"Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."

The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

There were earlier versions, but from August 1934, all the Armed Forces were required to give their oath to Hitler:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehreid

 

[Messier82]

I stand corrected. Just as well the Allies won! I imagine Hitler wouldn't have been averse to having the German people put him into the same "Living God" category as Emporer Hirohito.

 

[legerdemer]

Truth is, most Brits aren't particularly bothered about the monarchy one way or another: we've got them, we've nearly always had them, when we didn't have them life was arguably quite a bit worse....

I don't quite get how you could even begin to compare before and after and think or imply that getting rid of the monarchy now will make life worse because it was worse before the monarchy. The British monarchy dates to before the early centuries (Alfred is the first I know of, pardon my ignorance - I'm sure Ogg or someone will correct me). Conditions then were rather different than they are now.

The facts as I understand them is that the monarchy makes Britain quite a bit of money through tourism etc, so there's no great economic impetus to get rid of them. And I suppose, like learning to live with Herpes without being able to get rid of it, living with the monarchy can be a rather minor headache for most. And yes, clearly there are advantages, if only cosmetic. I daresay the British who pine away for their monarchs, if they chose to get rid of them, would ultimately learn to live without them.

It boggles the mind that some people pine after Stalin, and yes, Hitler.

If this seems irreverent to y'all, I stand so accused. Pardon my outburst. I mean no disrespect to the true believers.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't quite get how you could even begin to compare before and after and think or imply that getting rid of the monarchy now will make life worse because it was worse before the monarchy. The British monarchy dates to before the early centuries (Alfred is the first I know of, pardon my ignorance - I'm sure Ogg or someone will correct me). Conditions then were rather different than they are now.

...

Despite some myths, the British Monarchical system has been a pragmatic compromise for centuries. The presumptive (probable) heir to the Throne doesn't always become King/Queen.

First requirement is to be Protestant, and not married to a Catholic.

The second, rarely stated, is sanity. But Catch 22 applies - anyone who wants to be Monarch must be insane. The workload is ferocious, and it is for the duration of your life.

The third requirement is to be acceptable to the powers-that-be. The execution of Charles 1 in 1649 after the Civil War was the ultimate expression of the need for that acceptance. If Parliament could try and execute a King, all bets were off for succession by divine right. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was an engineered coup and largely driven by economic advantages of alliance with Holland.

The last change was Edward VIII later Duke of Windsor. His abdication was forced by the disapproval of the politicians and the Church of England. If that hadn't happened, George VI would never have been King, and his elder daughter Elizabeth would never have become Queen.

Apart from Oliver (and Richard) Cromwell's Commonwealth "the interregnum", England has had Monarchs since before the Romans, even if Alfred was the first to be recognised as King of All England. James 1 and VI, formerly King of Scotland, was another pragmatic choice.

That doesn't count usurpations and dubious claims such as Lady Jane Grey, the Nine-Day-Queen.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

The third requirement is to be acceptable to the powers-that-be. The execution of Charles 1 in 1649 after the Civil War was the ultimate expression of the need for that acceptance. If Parliament could try and execute a King, all bets were off for succession by divine right. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was an engineered coup and largely driven by economic advantages of alliance with Holland.

The last change was Edward VIII later Duke of Windsor. His abdication was forced by the disapproval of the politicians and the Church of England.

And the reason that he was forced to abdicate was that his sympathy for Hitler was embarrassingly indiscreet. Another branch of the family was installed, who knew not to wear their hearts on their sleeves quite so much. Of course, Phil and Chuck are still given to outbursts of enthusiasm for the latter-day variants of eugenics and "culling the herd."

Britain is not an absolute monarchy, nor is it a democracy. It's an oligarchy. The extended family of the Windsors forms what might be called a corporate mafia, and is their business interests as well as their world-view which dominates UK (and Commonwealth) politics.

And I suppose, like learning to live with Herpes without being able to get rid of it, living with the monarchy can be a rather minor headache for most.

Old societies have tremendous inertia. For example, the caste system in India is an example of a pernicious "tradition" which refuses to die. Ashesh may have something to say on that topic.

To put things in perspective, most of what is known about human history has been dominated by various forms of slave societies. The enfranchisement of the individual citizen is a new idea, maybe 600 years old. People attempted to put in into practice in Europe, and were stymied at every turn by the entrenched power of the oligarchies.

Some intrepid souls migrated to North America, hoping to found republics outside the gravitational field of Europe. However, others also migrated there who carried the virus of oligarchism, which became endemic in regions like Wall Street and the Confederacy. The US is an infant country and the tradition of bowing and scraping before one's putative betters is not so much set in stone here. However, because of the post-WWII cultural decline, Americans are largely oblivious to their own history and very malleable. Both of our major parties have become pathetic caricatures of what they were in better times.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I must acknowledge that England has produced some great republicans. I don't mean Cromwell, of course. I mean Keats and Shelley.

 

[oggbashan]

And the reason that he was forced to abdicate was that his sympathy for Hitler was embarrassingly indiscreet. ...

That wasn't the reason. Too many of the British establishment of that time admired what Hitler was doing for Germany.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I must congratulate the British populace, in the wake of the Chilcot Commission report, for the boisterous demands that Blair be brought to justice. I wish Americans would be a little less passive and/or stoic with respect to the similar crimes by Bush and Obama.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

 

[Messier82]

Oh... we've dreamed and fantasised about bringing TB to book for some time now, look: The Trial of Tony Blair

 

[MichaelinChina]

Don't feel too bad, because of course, no one in the US is following the Australian election.

 

[Handley_Page]

Don't feel too bad, because of course, no one in the US is following the Australian election.

To a nation who's citizens seem to think (or rather, portrayed as) that a 'World Title' would not feature any team outside their State, Australia might just as well be somewhere outside the Solar System.

[this is not to be taken too literally]

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Congratulations are also in order for the dumping of Cameron. Meanwhile, Obama continues to squat noxiously in office over here.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

You could soon have Trump and heaven help you.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

You could soon have Trump and heaven help you.

My immediate though too. You're OK over there, we're next door to the debacle.

Thank you for this tho'

 

[UnderYourSpell]

My immediate though too. You're OK over there, we're next door to the debacle.

Thank you for this tho'

I try not to think of him having access to 'The Button'
LOL Just found the brick!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I try not to think of him having access to 'The Button'

Obama is bad enough in that regard -- itching to show the Russians and Chinese how manly he is. Of course, as one of Trump's Republican opponents pointed out, the danger is that Trump might nuke Denmark.

 

[Hypoxia]

Obama is bad enough in that regard -- itching to show the Russians and Chinese how manly he is. Of course, as one of Trump's Republican opponents pointed out, the danger is that Trump might nuke Denmark.

Well, it *is* a pretty cheezy place.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

Didn't Obama get you something akin to our NHS? No doubt I will be shot down in flames as I know nothing about it really, but I have seen American friends bemoaning the fact that they are suffering through not being able to afford health care i.e one with a broken knee having no painkillers!!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Didn't Obama get you something akin to our NHS? No doubt I will be shot down in flames as I know nothing about it really, but I have seen American friends bemoaning the fact that they are suffering through not being able to afford health care i.e one with a broken knee having no painkillers!!

Obama gave unto us a plan whereby every citizen must purchase private health insurance or be fined by the government. It was essentially part of the Wall Street bailout, since the private insurance firms all merged with Wall Street investment banks after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Private insurers will find every trick they can to avoid paying for your health care (although I have heard that you get a bit of that in the NHS as well, with the Liverpool Care Pathway.)

 

[oggbashan]

Obama gave unto us a plan whereby every citizen must purchase private health insurance or be fined by the government. It was essentially part of the Wall Street bailout, since the private insurance firms all merged with Wall Street investment banks after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Private insurers will find every trick they can to avoid paying for your health care (although I have heard that you get a bit of that in the NHS as well, with the Liverpool Care Pathway.)

The Liverpool Care Pathway is now discredited and NOT used. It was therapeutically unsound in medical practice and there were financial incentives for those hospitals using it.

The NHS is always short of money and has been since it started. The problem is that demand is unlimited and funds aren't. What hasn't helped is the Private Finance Initiative which encouraged Health Trusts to upgrade hospitals or build new ones financed by private industry. The money borrowed to pay for the buildings has to be repaid at high interest rates for decades. The cost of repayments has crippled the NHS only to benefit bankers and construction companies. Of course politicians loved announcing new hospitals and modernised hospitals ignoring the reality that they, we, and the NHS couldn't afford them.

The new hospitals were supposed to be more efficient, more effective and cheaper than the hospitals they were replacing. But closing the local hospitals that they replaced was always going to be unpopular and politicians have been unwilling to bite the bullet and tell their electors they can't have the new hospitals AND the old ones.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

I've just been reading up on the Liverpool Care Pathway and huge alarm bells are going off in my head. My Mother who was two weeks short of being 92 went into hospital and was as perky as ever, not muddled at all. But we didn't live in the same County and had to keep travelling there as much as we could, to visit. One of my older sisters who did live there took it upon herself to do the talking to doctors etc. Then one day she just wasn't 'with us' any more, muddled, didn't know us. I did ask why she wasn't being given anything to drink and was told she didn't want food or drink. It wasn't long after that she passed away.

 

[oggbashan]

I've just been reading up on the Liverpool Care Pathway and huge alarm bells are going off in my head. My Mother who was two weeks short of being 92 went into hospital and was as perky as ever, not muddled at all. But we didn't live in the same County and had to keep travelling there as much as we could, to visit. One of my older sisters who did live there took it upon herself to do the talking to doctors etc. Then one day she just wasn't 'with us' any more, muddled, didn't know us. I did ask why she wasn't being given anything to drink and was told she didn't want food or drink. It wasn't long after that she passed away.

The problem with the Liverpool Care Pathway was that it was intended to ease the passage of those in their last hours, not their last days.

As with many well-meaning innovations those applying it didn't read the small print that detailed the restricted circumstances in which it was appropriate and helpful.

Then administrators added financial incentives to using the Liverpool Care Pathway and those incentives increased its application far beyond the few for whom it was a reasonable medical response to a terminal phase.

Dying isn't always easy and painless. Palliative care for terminal cases is a specialist medical discipline and best practice is not always understood by staff untrained in dealing with dying.