oath of allegiance

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
PINCH said:
The Navy do not swear allegence to the crown, as the Navys allegiance has NEVER been brought in to question

Err, I'm sure that an incident at Spithead a couple of hundred years ago would prove you wrong there shipmate. :roll:
 

mikh

MIA
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.
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
mikh said:
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. :)
 

Tristan

Banned
tiddlyoggy said:
Is it anything to do with us being pressed men historically?

The Navy were never pressed men infact they had a longer cooling of period than they get now before signing the contract.
 

mikh

MIA
tiddlyoggy said:
mikh said:
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. :)

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
 

LujonSA

War Hero
mikh said:
tiddlyoggy said:
mikh said:
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. :)

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.
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Tristan said:
tiddlyoggy said:
Is it anything to do with us being pressed men historically?

The Navy were never pressed men infact they had a longer cooling of period than they get now before signing the contract.

Then please explain how the PRESS gang worked then?
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
mikh said:
but they were prepared to suspend their action and fight if required,

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).
 
tiddlyoggy said:
Tristan said:
tiddlyoggy said:
Is it anything to do with us being pressed men historically?

The Navy were never pressed men infact they had a longer cooling of period than they get now before signing the contract.

Then please explain how the PRESS gang worked then?

Press gang was an act of parliament regarding conscription ---during the Napoleonic Wars the RN needed manpower.
However as mentioned the ''pressed men ''still had to sign articles --usually after waking up on board a warship at sea.

The press gang acts were one of the reasons for the American war of independence --we were boarding the American ships and 'pressing ' crew members !!
G
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Greenie said:
Press gang was an act of parliament regarding conscription ---during the Napoleonic Wars the RN needed manpower.
However as mentioned the ''pressed men ''still had to sign articles --usually after waking up on board a warship at sea.

The press gang acts were one of the reasons for the American war of independence --we were boarding the American ships and 'pressing ' crew members !!
G

Yep, I know that, but can you explain Tristan's post that pressed men never existed?
 

Tui Bird

Badgeman
I have read that the original regiments were privately by raised by Peers of the Realm as part of their obligation to the Monarch and were named as such and such for simple example Lord SMITH INFANTRY . The themselves had personally sworn allegiance as their father before them .
A few hundred years ago ,it all changed with the regiments answering directly to the Crown and each had a level of precedent --the RN was top of the list because it always been answerable to the Monarch therefor in order of precedence , they are No.1 -- note they are always in the front in any parade /march and Marines march with the RN, BUT if the RN is not in the march or parade the Marines are place according to their order of precedence ( I think are about No8 ) because originally they were a Peers regiment and as such had to swear allegiance . I understand we signed a contract to join the RN and this made you directly the Monarch's man . Check on all this , but it's as I recall reading .
 
Top