Discussion in 'Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting' started by nutters, Jul 5, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
i just wondered why members of the royal navy do not swear the oath of allegiance?
Royal Marines do.
Sailors aren't asked to.
I think only the Army have to take an oath, because in the past they turned against the monarchy (might have been when Cromwell overthrew King Charles II, can't remember now)
EDIT: After reading that RMs have to take one, that's probably wrong
Is it anything to do with us being pressed men historically?
I was always told that it was due to the Royal Navy being the sovereigns service. There was no requirement to swear allegiance.
A bit of googling gave me the following:
All persons enlisting in the British Army and the Royal Marines are required by the Army Act 1955 to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation:
I ..... swear by Almighty God ........
The same oath is made by recruits to the Royal Air Force under the Air Force Act 1955, with the substitution of the words "air officers" for "generals".
No oath of allegiance is sworn by members of the Royal Navy, which is not maintained under an Act of Parliament but by the royal prerogative, or by Royal Marines officers, who unlike their Army counterparts are not enlisted before they are commissioned.
The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. The only Service that does not swear allegiance is Britain's Royal Navy, because it was formed by a Monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, and not by Parliament, and its allegiance is therefore implicit in its very existence.
I cannot say that it is correct but would seem feasible.
The Navy do not swear allegence to the crown, as the Navys allegiance has NEVER been brought in to question
....and long may the RN remain that way
....thats First In Last Out.
Agreed! Senior Service!
Err, I'm sure that an incident at Spithead a couple of hundred years ago would prove you wrong there shipmate. :roll:
tiddlyoggy, think you may be a bit wide of the mark with reference to the Spithead mutiny, more of a strike for better pay an conditions, plus they allowed some ships to carry out normal patrols and promised to return to duty should the need to spank the frogs arise.
Now the Nore mutiny was a different matter.
I know what it was about shippers, but mutiny or strike, it surely raises question marks about loyalty. I wouldn't deny they had good reason to do what they did, but it doesn't necessarily make it right does it? That's how I see it anyway.
The Navy were never pressed men infact they had a longer cooling of period than they get now before signing the contract.
To a certain extent I agree with you, but they were prepared to suspend their action and fight if required, also they carried out a more or less normal routine onboard, in many cases with their officers in command, and thier loyalty was in the whole never questuioned, in fact their demands were met and no one was prosecuted for the mutiney with a blanket pardon being issued for the ships companies for all involved
Telling some jumped-up admiral that you were not pleased at the prospect of a pay cut is NOT the same as goosing the monarch, and not in the least disloyal.
Then please explain how the PRESS gang worked then?
I agree with what you've posted, but wrt the above, that was never put to the test (although personally I believe they would have done).
Separate names with a comma.