The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Discussion in 'Officers' started by GeeCN, Feb 22, 2009.
A bit 'Pont Street', non?
While being vaguely familiar with the aforementioned street (assuming that it is the one somewhere between Sloane Square and Knightsbridge), I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Recently hammered to death - see here
If it's not the family one with Great Uncle Horaces blood from Waterloo still on it don't bother, rather naff and don't try the soverign one!
Only according to Julia Flyte. And anyone who hasn't got one.
Don't think many people read Waugh these days.....
................then they should!
Our American cousins think they fall into the 'don't ask don't tell' category along with pink shirts. What would they know the College rings they wear would make a drug dealer blush.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with signets though, as long as it's not massive.
If you really must appear to be someone with an estate or 'important' family crest, then by all means get yourself a ring designed to make marks in hot wax.
I personally think its a silly affectation most of the time. Bit like having a BMW keychain without driving one.
I don't think I'd wear one even if I did have an estate.
I used to have a BMW estate.
Did you flash your keychain to all and sundry?
Didn't need to. I used to hotwire it.
Why on earth would you have a BMW keychain if you aren't driving one?
At least go for an Aston keychain!
As for silly affectations, I'm proud of my family history (even if we are 19th century industrialist upstarts), so I wear the ring. If you aren't, don't.
Any car you like.
Affectation (according to Merriam Webster)
1 a: the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behavior not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt b: speech or conduct not natural to oneself : artificiality
2 obsolete : a striving after
synonyms: see Pose
If you don't think it applies to you then nae bother... but I say that it does apply to some people with signet rings. Feck it, if they want to wear signet rings they can go ahead and knock themselves out. Have one on each finger and thumb. Its their right. Its also my right to consider them an affected *. A breed of Walt.
'Fraid I wear a signet ring because thanks to some bloody nuisances called Cromwell and William of Orange, and Gallowglass grandpere's propensity for gambling, wenching (allegedly), and hare-brained schemes, it's the only tangible part of my family heritage left to me ....that, and the overdraft I'm told I stand to inherit
Generally if someone draws attention to the fact that they're wearing one, they probably aren't entitled to do so - there are actually 'groups' on that facebook whatsit dedicated to those parvenus who wear signet rings...have to be seen to be believed
I was given my signet ring for my 21st birthday and despite various very drunken escapades I still have it 20+ years later (much to my surprise). If I have the funds, I will give a signet ring to my sons on their 21st.
I would concur with Gallowglass in that if you need to announce it to all and sundry then something is not quite right. I think the most apt word is discrete when it comes to the ring and the wearing of it.
Oh, and I'm 100% hetro.
By entitled I think Gallowglass means that any heraldic design (crest or shield) on the ring has to have been granted to you* or your ancestor by the proper heraldic authorities. Googling for your surname and picking the coat of arms listed by various commercial websites for your ring would, strictly speaking, be a no-no.
* As a commissioned officer in HM Forces you meet the requirements for a grant of a coat of arms. However, you do need about Â£4K for the fees.
Doesn't posting the fact that you wear one; on an internet site viewed by hundreds of thousands of people, constitute drawing attention to oneself?
By all means, feel free to wear signet rings, cravats and even plus fours if you so wish, but don't be surprised when us plebs treat you as a source of amusement.
Yes, I did see the contradiction in posting as I did... - but I felt that I couldn't really comment on the issue (to the extent that signet rings and the wearing thereof are an issue...) without showing my hand (no pun intended). In my defence, I'm only drawing attention to myself to the extent that an anonymous internet forum allows. Unfortunately, there are those types who conform to the stereotype you highlight, and I have no qualms about taking the p*ss out of them for the pretentious arses they are. The Oratory on Brompton Road is a focal point for these strange creatures.
I think we needn't worry too much about signet rings- as I see it they're either kosher, in which case- fine, or they're somewhat suspect- ie googled a coat of arms, in which case they probably give themselves away by their demenour- ie their a prat who thinks havin a bit of bling puts him a cut above everyone else. This latter catagory are walts- it's a bit like wearing a medal you're not entitled to; the chances are that no one wilol question it, as no one will know you, but you probably live in fear that you'll be found out. And on that day- stand by!
The smell of adolescent pomposity on this thread - and the sadly many similar ones - is awful and very probably related to the fact that those who spout so often about affections, and protest so much, seem largely to not actually have been commissioned.
I look forward to the day that potential officers on ARRSE take a look at the modern Army, how it fights and is led, and stop associating being an army officer with an unhealthy interest in real & imagined social codes, particularly those that flourish in the minds of wannabees obsessed with Waugh / Powell and the like.
Every time a non-officer or civilian reads a thread like this on ARRSE it gives new life to misconceptions which should have died long ago. Around 2003 in fact. And I expect that most officers, like me, thank God they left the company of those which such preoccupations long ago.
If you want to become an officer get involved, get dirty and lead men. Stop prancing around the periphery twittering about your family and get on with it.
...or be happy with the social code you grew up with?
...most of the people I know who wear signets don't mention them or draw attention to them. I have every intention of getting dirty, but that doesn't mean that when I'm clean I can't wear mine.
I wear my ring for me, not for anyone else.
Signet rings aside, I thought part of being commissioned was that you then subscribed to the traditions and codes that goes with that honour/responsibility/privilege*.
*Not trying to sound pompous but I have always considered it an honour and privilege to be allowed to be a leader of men (& women). Whilst leading you are also learning from them.
Isn't Sandhurst part of the problem? I remember plenty of good lads who turned up at the start of the course without the first notion of a signet ring but seemed to feel they ought to have one by the end. Sad thing about the 'social element' of the academy as i recall it was that it was as cringe inducingly cack-handed to those who probably didn't need any instruction as it was patronising and crass to those who it seemed to think did.
I'm with Charlie Cong on this and wonder if its not also telling that the most chilled out messes (everyone on first name terms, cutting around in jeans and generally behaving like normal young guys in their mid-twenties during their (very rare) time off) are the ones which traditionally have the least to socially prove (Foot Guards, Household Chav etc.)
That said, one of the best moments of the whole year at Sandhurst was when the CSgt realized that one of the blokes in the Platoon was head of his clan and had the right of primo nocte over his daughter!
Would have thought that those who saw it patronising / crass / cringeworthy / couldn't care less would be the ones who didn't need or seek instruction.
Surely the aspirant who did seek instruction would be the cringee not the cringer?
Are signet rings really that much of a 'thing' at Sandhurst?
Edited to add: I agree if you've got nothing to prove you can do as you please and it doesn't really matter. I think the main slant of this thread so far has been about differentiating between when its being worn because they're doing as they please, because they have nothing to prove anyway- or - when they're wearing one or behaving in a certain way in affectation.
My bold - I take it that unspoken social rules are more your thing than being clear about what is, or had been, rightly or wrongly, expected of young officers?
I seem to remember a story about one of these socially proven regiments sharing a mess with the RAF but failing to be able to compromise on anything. But then, I suppose, one shouldn't believe everything one hears.
One of the aspects I found most disturbing about my expereinces at Sandhurst was the barely-hidden sneering amongst many who felt themselves to be socially proven towards their shabbier-heeled peers. A rather cavalier rudeness was evident in some who quite frankly should have known better (if they were so socially secure), and failed to realise that Onasander wasn't the most up to date military commentator to model their leadership style on.
Fecking chippy post.
"One of the aspects I found most disturbing about my expereinces at Sandhurst was the barely-hidden sneering amongst many who felt themselves to be socially proven towards their shabbier-heeled peers"
Couldn't agree more. I think my point was that surely in the modern Army there's no requirement for reinforcing the very stereotypes that the above types you mentioned misguidedly thrive on. One of the strengths of the current Academy is its diversity, did my Platoon (as it was a scruffy, insurbodinate bunch but damn fine soldiers) really need a shoe inspection?I
If anything the Regimental selection process seemed a more filter of placing people where they might or might not feel comfortable/fit in. I suppose one of the positives to take away from everyone being so overdeployed is that most young officers get to prove themselves where it matters anyway.