I was reading concerning the Cold War (i.e. nuclear scenario) contingency plans of the NATO countries recently; naturally, the U.S. had the most comprehensive one, with the President and high-ranking bureaucrats being airlifted to a high-tech secret facility like Cheyenne where he'd easily survive (funnily enough, it seems Congress wasn't particularly given preferential treatment).
But what struck me was that as I was reading the contingency plans, that the (immediate) British Royal Family was included in these contingency plans. Not only included, but the plans were very thorough: the family would - upon alert of missiles entering NATO airspace - be taken to the shore where a military submarine would wait out the nuclear bombardment in the depths of the North Sea. Afterwards, the monarch and her immediate family would be transferred to a high-tech 'floating bunker' and cling to the fjords and lochs of the British coast. constantly on the move.
Why even bother spending all this money (surely, it was expensive) and drawing up contingency plans in the face of something such as a nuclear attack all for the sake of a ceremonial figure? The monarch would be completely useless; they'd have no real reason to be kept alive besides some cheap sentimentality
>(funnily enough, it seems Congress wasn't particularly given preferential treatment)
good fuck them
>Why even bother spending all this money (surely, it was expensive) and drawing up contingency plans in the face of something such as a nuclear attack all for the sake of a ceremonial figure? The monarch would be completely useless; they'd have no real reason to be kept alive besides some cheap sentimentality
I am an American, but I would say if you're not British you wouldn't get it. They really are into that monarch shit, even if it's just for show.
Also, there were many war plans in the US for events such as the invasion of Canada, Mexico, whatever.
The reason for making these plans isn't to use them, but to prepare up and coming trainees and military commanders a chance to get used to planning campaigns and what it entails
Plus, if the situation ever happens, no matter how unlikely, at least someone has put some thought into it at some point, even if just as practice.
>>936488
If you're going to be creating a continuity government after a catastrophic event like a heavy nuclear exchange, you want someone to head it who is separate from the political divisions of the time. Someone with legitimacy to give a government in an extremely difficult a chance of re-exerting control over the country.
Despite there always being British republicans, they've never been a particularly large amount of the population here, in times of crisis people would be much more likely to rally behind the monarch than party political leaders.
>>936502
After a nuclear strike, I doubt there would be anyone left alive to care about the "legitimacy'" of the government: even if there were survivors, the government would be legitimized (in their eyes) were they to restore some semblance of order, infrastructure, law, and aid - with or without a monarch.
>>936509
It is what the Queen represents that matters, it is an intangible morale boost and rallying call for survivor's spirits
>>936509
It's a person to rally behind, a figurehead in the most literal sense. Anything that would help rebuilding society would be welcomed.
bongs swear allegiance to the queen who is de jure the head of state if not de facto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289504.stm
being able to keep the queen alive would demonstrate the state's ability to preserve itself even if someone is disinterested in the queen's celebrity status after the apocalypse
>>936457
Firstly, if you're in a situation where most of your surviving population are wondering whether they shouldn't just go back to their cabin and, after a moment's quiet reflection, blow their brains out, a little 'cheap sentimentality' would probably be quite valuable. If you don't understand the value of morale then it's just as well you weren't the one in change of planning these contingencies. Having the Queen on the emergency broadcast system telling people to keep calm and carry on would be a lot better than using some faceless government bureaucrat (and certainly better than using a politician). Brits genuinely care about the Queen - every year on Christmas day the Queen gives a message to the nation on the TV, and a significant portion of the population sits down to watch her. Deep down, even if they pretend not to take the monarchy too seriously, most Brits have significant amount of respect for the queen.
Secondly, legitimacy is especially important in the wake of a nuclear war, because just saying 'I'm the government' doesn't cut it when there's a significant chunk of the population who didn't vote for them, and even more wondering why they should follow someone who led them into a nuclear war. Britain doesn't have a president. Sovereignty is vested in the Monarch and the Parliament. The Prime Minister is the advisor to the former, and first among equals in the latter. He doesn't have the same kind of executive power a president has, and if he declares martial law and tries to rule by decree (as he would have to after a nuclear war), he would have a lot of people questioning on what grounds he was giving orders if he didn't have the monarch around lend him legitimacy.
>>936610
Thirdly, who said the Queen is useless? She's doing a job she's been trained to do since she was ten years old. For the last six decades she has received weekly dispatches on the government's business, and from what people around her have said she's read every single paper she's been given (needless to say, she has higher level access than most members of parliament). Although it's only a formality, she still has to sign off on everything the government does and she takes that duty extremely seriously. She literally knows more about the day to day functioning of the government than any person alive. In the event that the Prime Minister and the cabinet was either killed or cut off (as could easily happen) she would be fully capable of running the county in their absence. The conventions that prevent her from exercising her power normally would be rather moot in the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse.
As for the rest of the members of the royal family, most have received some degree of military training and a few have seen active service. Prince Philip is a decorated naval commander with extensive combat experience.
>>936610
>>936619
I see, and I understand a bit better now. Thank you, BritBong friend.
>>936457
>Britain
>Fjords
You don't get them in Britain
>>936652
well, you get them around Scotland, they're just more usually called lochs
>>936509
You're seriously overestimating the effects a nuclear strike would have. Think the Black Death but with more rubble rather than On The Beach
>>936457
I don't think you're British, so you would find it quite difficult to understand. The Queen stayed in her London palace during the Blitz in 1940, her survival would be basically essential for morale to not plummet immediately.
>>937744
This. Also religious supremacy. The Queen being killed would be to many English like the pope being killed to some Catholics.
>>936457
Because the death of the Monarch wnd the Royal Family would mean disbandment of the British Armed Forces of there was no one to take the throne.
>>937780
The monarch is the 'defender of the faith' - it's more of an expectation of their office rather than an office in itself. The head of the Anglican church is the Archbishop of Canterbury - but it's still not really comparable to the position held by the Pope.
Charles lost his head, and Charles II lost his throne, partly because they were viewed as too sympathetic to Catholics and had failed to fulfill their role as defender of the Anglican faith.
>>938891
The commander in chief (the role filled by the reigning monarch) dying doesn't mean the disbandment of the military.
>>936457
The queen is a symbol. Letting her turn into a nuclear ghoul isnt a good idea.
Also the queen is strong as shit and if any woman should be a feminist icon its her.
I posted this in a thread a few weeks ago, but here's an interesting historical tidbit. In World War 2, the Australian government was concerned about the constitutional crisis that might occur if Britain was successfully invaded by Germany and the monarchy was abolished/replaced by a puppet one. Apparently one of the contingency plans considered was transferring the role of the Crown to the American presidency. Pretty indicative of the colonial mindset we still had at the time.
>>939176
>Apparently one of the contingency plans considered was transferring the role of the Crown to the American presidency
I wish the UK had fallen, so that the style of our American presidents would be: "President [Obama], elected leader of the United States, and His Majesty, King of Australia."
It would be a very strange thing - almost as strange as how the democratically-elected French President has to elect the Bishop of Andorra (a prince-bishopric) due to an old but still-binding law.
>>939281
Interesting indeed, but I've only ever heard it said it was 'considered' - I imagine some more pragmatic solution would have been dreamed up. It's because the constitution says references to the Queen refer to her heirs and successors to the Crown of the United Kingdom - there's nothing in there about 'lawful' successors or heirs, so potentially, a German appointee could have been our legal sovereign. Also interesting to think what would have happened if the Royal family had remained in place like in German occupied Denmark.
>>939309
In the event of German invasion the Royals were to evacuate to Canada, so most likely George would have remained the true monarch while the G*rmans put a puppet on the throne in Britain. That's if they bothered, I've read somewhere one of their ideas was to revive the title of Lord Protector instead of crowning someone
>>939520
Oh yeah, I think all of these contingencies were in place in case Britain was invaded before the Royals could be evacuated
>>936457
>Why even bother spending all this money (surely, it was expensive) and drawing up contingency plans in the face of something such as a nuclear attack all for the sake of a ceremonial figure? The monarch would be completely useless; they'd have no real reason to be kept alive besides some cheap sentimentality
Why even bother caring about the POTUS when you can just give some general all the power, he knows this shit better anyway.
>>936520
This in the case of Nuclear war I would want to know the royal family was kept safe
>>936457
The monarch is the only person in the entirety of Britain that would be able to unite the people against a common allie - without the monarch, Britain might as well surrender.
amerifat with bong wife here. Its really hard to get how brits feel about the queen, because we don't have anything like it.
The royalty is basically your country personified, . Imagine if there was a guy called "Mr America" and he was the number one American, Lived in the most american house, drove the most american car, ate the most american food, ect.
But in addition to this he has a hot wife, is a 4 star general and ex army ranger, and has the power to tell any elected official to fuck off or veto any law that isn't American.
And you wanted Mr america to have all the best stuff because he was the best one of "us".
Can you imagine how shameful it would be if Mr Mexico had a bigger house or a hotter wife. Or if osama bin laden manage to blow up Mr America's awesome car? It would be an insult to our collective hot wife and our collective awesome car.
Now imagine how much most nascar fans, and ex marines, and soccer moms would fucking love Mr America. They would all insist he was the first one on the submarine to safety because our lives are small but Mr. America's legacy lives on after us.
They were also planning on broadcasting old episodes of The Archers and were worrying about stocks of tea.
Morale would be everything following the war and it's immediate aftermath. The queen and royal family not existing anymore would be another blow that everything is fucked and will never go back to normal. Same as keeping the National Archives records, Portrait Gallery artworks and British Museum archives safe. Useless by itself but something to hold up and say "these things that make us British survived and the rest of us can survive too".
>>939153
Female monarchs don't count as feminist icons.
