Westminster - Op TELIC battle honours soon

Discussion in 'Iraq (Op TELIC)' started by hackle, Oct 27, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Commons, Written Ministerial Statement, HANSARD SOURCE.
  2. And what? Has her Majesty this right? Of course. have the awards been paid by blood of brave British Soldiers? Yes, yes and yes. Should they be honourated. No doubt.

    If you mean that the 'work' hasn't been done then it is rather guit of politicians.
  3. You really don't understand the British political system do you Sergey?
  4. Probably I don't. I know very little. That her Majesty is unelected head of state in democratic country, however without real power and some obscure clerks use to make decisions on her name. Saying that she 'has right' I meant that those unknows officials have this right and personally her Majesty is voided this and many other rights.
  5. Sergey, we are are Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Parliament has no right to grant battle honours. It does not even refer them to Her Majesty for approval (and HM has to approve of all honours individually) and it can never grant them. Unelected - maybe, respected - yes.
  6. Respected... no doubt.

    From formal point of view all that you have said is true. However, I suppect that HM use to be 'hinted' to do this or that and I don't think (with all my respect) that the Queen is free to make any (important) decision without consultations.
  7. Sergey, the recommendations go through a rigorous process before reaching the Executive Committee of the Army Board (ECAB), and there are strict rules, as for individual honours. For example, a unit must have had its HQ and a minimum number of subunits involved in the particular operation; so if a unit has been split up under other commands during the operation, it should get the Theatre battle honour but maybe not the battle honour for a particular battle in which only some of its troops were involved. Not everyone is necessarily happy with every decision!

    As in so many things the Sovereign has more experience than anyone else involved in the process. You can sure that the recommendations are prepared very carefully indeed and the fact that they are going to HM the Queen will be very much in the minds of the senior officers and staff involved. The decision is not really a matter of government policy, rather the Sovereign exercising her role as head of the country's armed forces.
  8. As I understand typical rigirius process looks like:

    GEN: Morale is low. Our men are tired. Again these pinko-left journos blacken the Army. Our heroes are under their cross-fire.
    COL: There is a hero that can't be blackened. And he should be awarded by the cross.
  9. Of course some units don't have individual battle honours as we've been 'everywhere' hurrah for the corps...

    on a point of political semantics, I'm probably wrong but as a constitutional monarch in a country with no written constitution HM Queen does actually have the power to grant or refuse the passing of any act of parliament and, by definition, any law.

    The automatic granting of 'Royal Assent' for any bill passed by the correct processes in the houses of commons and lords is not a written rule and is merely a convention i.e. it is seen to be the done thing that HMQ signs the paper but she is not under any obligation to do so.

    The granting of individual honours and awards is again notionally at the discretion of HMQ but the nominations come from civil service commitees and the MOD. There is obviously a very different set of rules for the granting of awards for gallantry etc.

    there is one honour which is solely at the choice of The Queen (Royal Victorian Order I believe).

    editted for spooling
  10. If a unit deploys all of its soldiers under different commands but did not deploy its own HQ, would it recieve theatre honours?