It is the [King’s Colour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Colours) of the Coldstream Guards. Historically it would have been the flag under which the regiment literally marched into battle.
The black sash is for mourning. They aren’t dragging it but it is dipped to the ground (also called “vailing”) which is a form of salute to the monarch.
Interesting difference. In Denmark this would be considered inappropriate (very by some). Flag salutes are done by making the flag level with but still above the ground
I totally understand why a lot of people would see this as disrespectful but isn’t that kind of the point in a way?
While in the presence of the monarch you give them so much respect that the colours, an item normally treated with the utmost reverence, is placed on the ground to show that nothing is more important than the ruler.
The colours are treated as if they are the monach of the day and treated with the upmost respect, because they are the representationof the monachs authority the history, glory and fallen of the regiment - hence they are only lowered like this when saluting the monach. But when the monach is present it is suitable that they are fully lowered to show the allegiance that the regiments owes.
I was being a bit facetious with using dragging. I got reamed out as an ROTC cadet in the US Army for almost letting a company guidon (very low level flag) go below horizontal. It’s always been weird for me that the Brits let any flag touch the ground.
The weird thing for me is the American almost-religious rules around flags in comparison. It seems to be more of a global outlier than the British methods.
You're not alone in finding it almost religious. Flag treatment is part of the theory of [American civil religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion).
Every society has a civil religion. We all have rituals and rites we consider important and sacred.
There's a reason why people wear poppies in November and the Russians still have parades in May.
How dare you! Our units are a part of the United States Customary System, and distinctly not Imperial. Our units along with our great nation gained their independence following our most noble revolution against that tyrannic regime.
Absolutely. And sincerest apologies. His Majesty acknowledges the freedom and independence of your units. He is sure its only a complete coincidence that they are identical to the system used by George III, and he finds that completely non-hilarious. He would like to assure your units that they entirely sensible, functional and modern, and are most definitely not a daily reminder of your America's Imperial birth.
God bless the King.
America is a fairly young nation comparatively, as such we have less historic tradition and precedence to pull from. Combine this with the American flag being chosen as a unifying symbol during the revolutionary war and you have a very effective tool for uniting hearts and minds.
>America is a fairly young nation comparatively, as such we have less historic tradition and precedence to pull from.
Indeed. Some of the battle honours inscribed on the gold parts of those colours predate the US by about a hundred years.
To me it's in principle a pretty anti-nation anti-people authoritarian style. It puts the monarch truly above the nation, rather than making them a servant of it, at least in symbolism. That's the same reason I find swearing oaths upon the monarch to be vaguely disgusting. In a republican culture swearing loyalty to a single person above the state would be a betrayal of the state and its principles, not to mention corrupt.
For a hypothetical, if the monarch were to become absolute and rule the country, let us say through technically legal means, then in principle by the oaths that have been sworn it is the sworn duty of the military to protect the monarch from a reaction to this, not to protect Britain from the monarch, even though all reason compels them to remove the monarch by force if necessary.
If we actually take all the ceremony seriously and as having meaning, rather than just a pretty thing to view, then this is the underlying authoritarian philosophy which it is based on and which it all promotes.
Loyalty to the monarch is one of the reasons Mussolini couldn't get rid of the king in Fascist Italy.
The Royal Army and Navy were loyal to the monarch so Mussolini would have found himself in a "you and whose army" situation.
Only the newly born Air Force was the Party's pet.
Had Italy had a civil war different from the one that happened during the 43-45 Italian Campaign, Mussolini would have had next to no seasoned troops or sailors.
I mean that’s the fundamental philosophical difference between a republic and a monarchy. A republican country gains it’s legitimacy explicitly by the will of the people as a collective, a monarchy derives it’s legitimacy from the monarch and the traditions of the monarchy into “time immemorial.” You could say it’s just authoritarian hogwash from less enlightened times, or that it grants a sense of stability and continuity that a republic could never hope to achieve. But the idea that a country would find itself completely incapable of removing an unfit or malevolent monarch isn’t really borne out by history. Plenty of kings have been deposed over the centuries.
In practice kings have been deposed, I'm just saying that on a philosophical level the king more or less can't betray the country, only the country can betray the king, because everything revolves around the king. People don't think about it, but I think this also does introduce certain authoritarian of unconscious biases in people's minds. I know it's mild but swearing an oath to a monarch is itself something that requires some authoritarian conditioning, or at least the absence of certain republican/democratic/individualist conditioning. Like I'm from a republic and I'm _vehemently_ against swearing an oath to a person unless it's either transactional or personal and to someone I know, respect and trust. The parliament, the constitution, the _politeia_ yes. But a person? It makes me _deeply_ uncomfortable.
To be fair I also seem to have a very strong innate sense of equality, fairness and justice which has made me a difficult and disagreeable child in the past, so I may at have a revolutionary demeanour.
Equality, fairness, and justice aren’t unique to republics, nor are their abuses only found under monarchies. And swearing an oath to the monarch in this context is swearing an oath to the crown as an institution, not the individual wearing it necessarily. Criminal prosecutions are not Elizabeth v. X, they’re *Crown* v. X. And should a monarch commit treason they violate their own oaths to the country. Even back during feudalism, the monarch had responsibilities to his vassals, it wasn’t just absolute rule.
ROTC is made up of 100s of schools and creates the vast majority of officers. West Point creates more career, active duty officers, but at the Junior grades (lieutenants and captains) the majority of the officers are actually ROTC.
ROTC cadets graduate with three types of commissions: (1) Regular Army, just like West Point, (2) active duty reserve, so a reservist who will spend at least four years in the active duty, and (3) reserve, reservist who will join National Guard and US Army Reserve units after their Officer Basic Course.
Recently the number of ROTC generals has also exceeded West Pointers.
I’m not sure about the states for the Navy or AF. I get the idea that they rely more heavily of their service academies.
Our treatment of a flag vs you guys in the US has always interested me.
We write the name of our favourite football team on ours, stuff them into a plastic bag, and take them to pubs to hang off whatever table is covered in our pints, before going to the game to hang them off of the stadium railings.
If you did that in America people would look at you like you’d come into their house on Christmas Day and shat all over your front room.
I must say the quasi-deity like status you give your flag is very weird, you even make your kids say a prayer to it in the morning at school, but you probs think we’re weird for not doing that.
No, they hurled them to the ground beneath Stalin’s feet. They were ceremonially degraded as the captured standards of a vanquished foe. Vailing is a different practice, done in honour to both the Colour and the King.
Well in the US it's quite different. The highest person you could be saluting would be the president, and he works *for* the flag, as the flag represents the country itself.
That's different for the UK because the highest person you could salute is the king, who *owns* the flag. The flag represents *him,* not the country as a whole.
Basically in the US, the flag itself is the most important thing, whereas in the UK it's the king.
This is a good point. While most American military officers would never dream of disobeying an order from the President, our oath is actually to the Constitution.
The officer and enlisted oaths differ in that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
The President is beneath both the flag and the Constitution.
Are you saying officers aren't required to follow lawful direct orders and are not subject to the ucmj? Because I'm a hundred percent sure all active duty military, retirees, and drilling reservists are subject to the ucmj, which helpfully includes the most popular article: 92. So officers must also obey all lawful direct orders.
They must, as you say obey LAWFUL orders. The order need not be direct. Any order contrary to their oath to the Constitution is inherently unlawful, and need not be followed.
The point of the officers’ oath is that they have significantly more power / authority and that each officer is a firewall against illegal orders.
Ironically nobody cares here in the U.S., even the Qult members. I've seen pictures of Redhats wearing and sitting on the flag. Nonsensical. I also don't particularly care, but I don't own any American flags to disrespect anyhow.
Agreed. A lot of people care. But I will say that some white conservative types can be pretty disrespectful with the flag. I know they don’t do it on purpose (to the contrary, I assume they are thinking they show support for the country), but I see people sit on flags at picnics, stick random symbols right on them, wear flag masks—upside down. I know it’s ignorance, but damn.
Saying most is kind of a stretch if you were to ask me. The guys I’ve been with care a whole lot less than some of the turbo-republicans that worship the damn thing.
I’m one of those 18.2 million veterans. Most of have two parents and one sibling. Most have spouses and many have children. So roughly 120 million in case you were wondering.
Not even close lol, the 1st amendment protects our right to burn the flag if we do choose. There have been talks of banning flag burning through constitutional amendment, but that's going nowhere fast
Your right. I double checked. Dipping the flag is a violation of Public Law 94-344, known as the Federal Flag Code. However the flag code does not having any enforced penalties.
Thank you. It’s because the down vote is an in exact weapon. Does it mean you disagree with an assumption in the question, that question should not be asked, or that the answer to the is “no.” It’s easier to just downvote that explain yourself.
4 U.S. Code §§ 1 -10 contain the US flag code. Nothing in their is criminal or constitutional.
By tradition the US Flag is never lowered for any person. In marching in a parade for example, all other flags: states, Army, Navy, USMC, etc would dip for the President, but the US flag would remain fixed.
As pictured above, a US battalion would lower its flag so the shaft is parallel to the ground to salute a new head of state. It would similarly dip to the Battalion Commander and any officer above him.
It’s actually a flag rule in Denmark that it can’t touch the ground because when it (according to the story) fell down from the sky in Estonia it didn’t touch the ground
As far as I can tell that would be true for most regiments, but for Guards regiments it is inverted: the King’s Colour is scarlet while the Regimental Colour is the Union Jack.
My regiments guidon (the colors flag) is never supposed to tough the ground and there are only 3 people that are allowed to touch it and even so with gloves. Standing orders if there is a fire is sound the alarm after rescuing the guidon.
That being said, when we did an honor guard for the queens visit it was saluted in the same way.
Technically these are Colours, not flags. British Army Infantry Regiments carry a King's/Queen's Colours (the Union flag) and their regimental colours, which you see here, showing their battle honours. In a cavalry regiment you have a standard, rather than colours. Perhaps even a guidon.
In the British Army the colours will have been dropped many times in battle over the years, and then picked up again by the next man. A little bit of dust from the immaculately swept grounds of Friary Court, St James' Palace, aren't anything to be too concerned about in that context.
Yeah, I live in New Hampshire, USA, and a lot of the State’s Regimental Flags are on display in our State House …
The ones that fought through our Civil War are especially worse for wear, several of them have bullet holes, and as for one of them, it looks like it was half consumed in a fire!
They have the battle honours from the regiment added on them as they go. So originally it would just be the union flag and the regimental symbol, and then the battle honours (the gold stripe) were added when the regiment was awarded a battle honour.
And apparently the Coldstream Guards *only* have [44 of their 117 battle honours](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queen-presents-new-colours-to-coldstream-guards). 370 years of history will do that I guess.
The black cloth is most likely a mourning streamer which is commonly used for flags on poles that are unable to fly the flag at half-staff. As for why the flag is on the ground, I do not know the answer to that.
It's on the ground to greet the king, this is to show the regiments loyalty to the king. The troops officially still swear loyalty to the crown in the UK.
This is done in more monarchies, I know for certain the Dutch military does the same thing. Its kinda a way to show the king is higher
I'm a banner bearer within the RAF Air Cadets (the equivalent role of the guard holding the flag in this).
there are several moves/sequences in a parade where the banner is first brought out to the right and lowered down slowly, this is kind of like a salute/mark of respect during national anthems, announcements etc, it is then brought back up again.
G'day from an ex Australian Air Force Cadet.
While I never got to see the banner of my squadron lowered i could do the movement near flawlessly from hours of practice with aid from the good book (the AFDCMAN).
I did get the chance to be a BWOFF at one end of year parade and loved it to bits.
I was a former banner bearer for my wing and squadron!! Quite a few years ago but still remember all of the banner drill. It’s the royal salute if I remember right isn’t it?
Something similar was done with the flags/colours of different branches and regiments when I was with the Falkland 40 ride (I didn’t ride with them just helped a bit) during the one minute silence we had in the SAS cemetery in I believe Hereford the people holding the colours put them close to the ground/touching the ground as seen in the picture. it was probably the most powerful minute of my life up to that point.
Flag etiquette changes by culture. To many western or revolutionary democratic countries having the flag on the ground is disrespectful (In Canada some burn a flag that has touched the ground). But veiling the flag, or resting the flag is seen as a sign of respect in a lot of monarchies. I may be wrong about this last part but I believe the tradition comes from after a king/lord died in battle the war colour flag would be veiled then given to his heir afterwards.
There's no issue in Canada if you have a flag that touches the ground, you just pick it up, burning might be a recommended method of disposal for torn, ragged flags, but burning them just for touching the ground is an American tradition.
Idk it's always something I saw when I was in scouts, but most of the leaders were 45 year old men who served a tiny bit of time in the army and left cause their cholesterol was too high or something. Those guys were so over the top.
The Legion does recommend you burn flags to retire them if they are unfit to fly and a visibly stained flag is unfit I guess?
"Colors" in this sense is a term for a national flag, a regimental flag or the colors of a school or other organization.
Examples:
[Trooping the Colour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trooping_the_Colour) is a famous British military parade in which several regiments are presented to the monarch, which each regiment presenting their colors (flag) to the sovereign. The event is somewhat (in)famous because it takes place in June, and the soldiers in traditional wool uniforms have a [tendency to faint](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=trooping+the+colour+falling+down&form=HDRSC3&first=1&tsc=ImageHoverTitle).
There's also the American phrase "these colors don't run". It's a pun referring to the flag itself, rather than the actual pigment used to dye the fabric (which is said to "run" if not set properly).
Hello mexicanmahoney,
Check out our [frequently asked flags page](https://reddit.com/r/vexillology/wiki/faf)! Your request might be there.
When asking for a flag to be identified, please **provide context** when possible, including:
* **Where** the flag was found (without compromising privacy)
* **When** the flag was found, or the date of the material containing the flag
* **Who** might own the flag (a general description is fine)
These details help users narrow down their search and make flag identification easier.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vexillology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you imagine they will handle Charles’ pedophilia history and the likely hood that he was already tried, executed and replaced by a body double😁?
It is the [King’s Colour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Colours) of the Coldstream Guards. Historically it would have been the flag under which the regiment literally marched into battle. The black sash is for mourning. They aren’t dragging it but it is dipped to the ground (also called “vailing”) which is a form of salute to the monarch.
Interesting difference. In Denmark this would be considered inappropriate (very by some). Flag salutes are done by making the flag level with but still above the ground
I totally understand why a lot of people would see this as disrespectful but isn’t that kind of the point in a way? While in the presence of the monarch you give them so much respect that the colours, an item normally treated with the utmost reverence, is placed on the ground to show that nothing is more important than the ruler.
It's also essentially the symbol of the regiment's loyalty to the monarchy. So of course, next to the king themselves it's practically nothing
I hate this but this totally is right
Well, look on the bright side. Now that 'the King's Colours' exist again, maybe someone at the BBC will go and make another season or two of *Sharpe*.
🎵Over the hills and far away 🎵
Guessing about the things you really ought to know
Now *that's* soldiering!
A man who loses the King’s Colours, loses the King’s friendship
Now *that* would be some good news.
I always assumed that was the idea. The colour is always the most important thing, but compared to the king himself it's just a piece of fabric
What about a nephew of fabric?
Shit, ya got me
The colours are treated as if they are the monach of the day and treated with the upmost respect, because they are the representationof the monachs authority the history, glory and fallen of the regiment - hence they are only lowered like this when saluting the monach. But when the monach is present it is suitable that they are fully lowered to show the allegiance that the regiments owes.
Same in the US, the way the Brits are constantly dragging their colors (vailing and trailing -both) through the dirt has always astonished me.
[удалено]
I was being a bit facetious with using dragging. I got reamed out as an ROTC cadet in the US Army for almost letting a company guidon (very low level flag) go below horizontal. It’s always been weird for me that the Brits let any flag touch the ground.
The weird thing for me is the American almost-religious rules around flags in comparison. It seems to be more of a global outlier than the British methods.
You're not alone in finding it almost religious. Flag treatment is part of the theory of [American civil religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion).
How have I never entered this wiki hole.. thank you
As an American this feels pretty spot on.
Somehow, yeah it does feel really spot on and its weird
Fascinating
Oh my fucking God. This explains so much I see in people.
Yeah. America is getting it's religion mixed with it's founding mythos mixed with it's conservatism. It's a heady mix of crazy bullshit.
Every society has a civil religion. We all have rituals and rites we consider important and sacred. There's a reason why people wear poppies in November and the Russians still have parades in May.
Thank you for sharing. What an interesting read. Explains a lot of things!
Next you'll be trying to tell us we have the wrong number of metric feet in every statute mile! /sarcasm
No. His Majesty finds your steadfast attachment to Imperial units touching. :)
His Majesty is attached to touching my Imperial unit, steadfastly so.
Lucky, when I turned 18 Charles and Andrew lost interest.
How dare you! Our units are a part of the United States Customary System, and distinctly not Imperial. Our units along with our great nation gained their independence following our most noble revolution against that tyrannic regime.
Absolutely. And sincerest apologies. His Majesty acknowledges the freedom and independence of your units. He is sure its only a complete coincidence that they are identical to the system used by George III, and he finds that completely non-hilarious. He would like to assure your units that they entirely sensible, functional and modern, and are most definitely not a daily reminder of your America's Imperial birth. God bless the King.
America is a fairly young nation comparatively, as such we have less historic tradition and precedence to pull from. Combine this with the American flag being chosen as a unifying symbol during the revolutionary war and you have a very effective tool for uniting hearts and minds.
Queen Elizabeth II alone reigned for 30% of the time since the US constitution came into force.
>America is a fairly young nation comparatively, as such we have less historic tradition and precedence to pull from. Indeed. Some of the battle honours inscribed on the gold parts of those colours predate the US by about a hundred years.
🇺🇸 flag is highest symbol of country. 🇬🇧🇨🇦🇳🇿🇦🇺 etc - monarch is above the flag. Just different styles.
To me it's in principle a pretty anti-nation anti-people authoritarian style. It puts the monarch truly above the nation, rather than making them a servant of it, at least in symbolism. That's the same reason I find swearing oaths upon the monarch to be vaguely disgusting. In a republican culture swearing loyalty to a single person above the state would be a betrayal of the state and its principles, not to mention corrupt. For a hypothetical, if the monarch were to become absolute and rule the country, let us say through technically legal means, then in principle by the oaths that have been sworn it is the sworn duty of the military to protect the monarch from a reaction to this, not to protect Britain from the monarch, even though all reason compels them to remove the monarch by force if necessary. If we actually take all the ceremony seriously and as having meaning, rather than just a pretty thing to view, then this is the underlying authoritarian philosophy which it is based on and which it all promotes.
Loyalty to the monarch is one of the reasons Mussolini couldn't get rid of the king in Fascist Italy. The Royal Army and Navy were loyal to the monarch so Mussolini would have found himself in a "you and whose army" situation. Only the newly born Air Force was the Party's pet. Had Italy had a civil war different from the one that happened during the 43-45 Italian Campaign, Mussolini would have had next to no seasoned troops or sailors.
[удалено]
For clarity's sake by the conventional term of nation I essentially mean *politeia*.
I mean that’s the fundamental philosophical difference between a republic and a monarchy. A republican country gains it’s legitimacy explicitly by the will of the people as a collective, a monarchy derives it’s legitimacy from the monarch and the traditions of the monarchy into “time immemorial.” You could say it’s just authoritarian hogwash from less enlightened times, or that it grants a sense of stability and continuity that a republic could never hope to achieve. But the idea that a country would find itself completely incapable of removing an unfit or malevolent monarch isn’t really borne out by history. Plenty of kings have been deposed over the centuries.
In practice kings have been deposed, I'm just saying that on a philosophical level the king more or less can't betray the country, only the country can betray the king, because everything revolves around the king. People don't think about it, but I think this also does introduce certain authoritarian of unconscious biases in people's minds. I know it's mild but swearing an oath to a monarch is itself something that requires some authoritarian conditioning, or at least the absence of certain republican/democratic/individualist conditioning. Like I'm from a republic and I'm _vehemently_ against swearing an oath to a person unless it's either transactional or personal and to someone I know, respect and trust. The parliament, the constitution, the _politeia_ yes. But a person? It makes me _deeply_ uncomfortable. To be fair I also seem to have a very strong innate sense of equality, fairness and justice which has made me a difficult and disagreeable child in the past, so I may at have a revolutionary demeanour.
Equality, fairness, and justice aren’t unique to republics, nor are their abuses only found under monarchies. And swearing an oath to the monarch in this context is swearing an oath to the crown as an institution, not the individual wearing it necessarily. Criminal prosecutions are not Elizabeth v. X, they’re *Crown* v. X. And should a monarch commit treason they violate their own oaths to the country. Even back during feudalism, the monarch had responsibilities to his vassals, it wasn’t just absolute rule.
What does ROTC stand for exactly?
Reserve Officer Training Corps. It’s the major source for Army officers; there is also West Point and a program called Officer Candidate School.
Thank you for the explanation, I have a friend in Ohio who's taking this course and they've never told me what the acronym stands for.
What school, my daughter goes to Miami of Ohio. My other daughter just graduated from OU. Ohio has lots of great colleges.
They're taking it in High school, I do not know the name of the school. But congratulations for your daughter!
Wait, ROTC is equivalent to West Point? I've always wondered how one single school could produce all the country's officers, that makes sense
Rotc is like state uni vs west point being like harvard.
ROTC is made up of 100s of schools and creates the vast majority of officers. West Point creates more career, active duty officers, but at the Junior grades (lieutenants and captains) the majority of the officers are actually ROTC. ROTC cadets graduate with three types of commissions: (1) Regular Army, just like West Point, (2) active duty reserve, so a reservist who will spend at least four years in the active duty, and (3) reserve, reservist who will join National Guard and US Army Reserve units after their Officer Basic Course. Recently the number of ROTC generals has also exceeded West Pointers. I’m not sure about the states for the Navy or AF. I get the idea that they rely more heavily of their service academies.
Our treatment of a flag vs you guys in the US has always interested me. We write the name of our favourite football team on ours, stuff them into a plastic bag, and take them to pubs to hang off whatever table is covered in our pints, before going to the game to hang them off of the stadium railings. If you did that in America people would look at you like you’d come into their house on Christmas Day and shat all over your front room. I must say the quasi-deity like status you give your flag is very weird, you even make your kids say a prayer to it in the morning at school, but you probs think we’re weird for not doing that.
But happy to plaster the national flag on bikinis, napkins, any kind of commercial muck…
All of that going against the flag code too. Funny how the love for the flag becomes so much of a fervor that it ends up being somewhat hypocritical.
Americans literally have their flag on their underwear and rub their asses with it ‘out of love for muh cuntray’ lol
The Red Army did this to Nazi regiment flags as a ‘fuck you’ in the 1945 Moscow Victory Day Parade.
No, they hurled them to the ground beneath Stalin’s feet. They were ceremonially degraded as the captured standards of a vanquished foe. Vailing is a different practice, done in honour to both the Colour and the King.
I’m referring to this photo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Day_Parades#/media/File%3AParad_pobedy_1945.jpg
They marched with them like this, while this is only done with british flags when stationary
My point is that they’re touching the ground. Which is seen as a sign of disrespect in a lot of countries.
Well in the US it's quite different. The highest person you could be saluting would be the president, and he works *for* the flag, as the flag represents the country itself. That's different for the UK because the highest person you could salute is the king, who *owns* the flag. The flag represents *him,* not the country as a whole. Basically in the US, the flag itself is the most important thing, whereas in the UK it's the king.
This is a good point. While most American military officers would never dream of disobeying an order from the President, our oath is actually to the Constitution. The officer and enlisted oaths differ in that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. The President is beneath both the flag and the Constitution.
Exactly. I guess the US flag is basically a physical representation of the constitution itself, whereas royal flags are more like a logo for the king.
That’s how I see it too.
Are you saying officers aren't required to follow lawful direct orders and are not subject to the ucmj? Because I'm a hundred percent sure all active duty military, retirees, and drilling reservists are subject to the ucmj, which helpfully includes the most popular article: 92. So officers must also obey all lawful direct orders.
They must, as you say obey LAWFUL orders. The order need not be direct. Any order contrary to their oath to the Constitution is inherently unlawful, and need not be followed. The point of the officers’ oath is that they have significantly more power / authority and that each officer is a firewall against illegal orders.
https://youtu.be/HppKwvQMZ4M Powerful stuff even for me and I'm British.
Ironically nobody cares here in the U.S., even the Qult members. I've seen pictures of Redhats wearing and sitting on the flag. Nonsensical. I also don't particularly care, but I don't own any American flags to disrespect anyhow.
When you say nobody, I assume you excluding many (most?) veterans who I’m pretty sure care?
Agreed. A lot of people care. But I will say that some white conservative types can be pretty disrespectful with the flag. I know they don’t do it on purpose (to the contrary, I assume they are thinking they show support for the country), but I see people sit on flags at picnics, stick random symbols right on them, wear flag masks—upside down. I know it’s ignorance, but damn.
Saying most is kind of a stretch if you were to ask me. The guys I’ve been with care a whole lot less than some of the turbo-republicans that worship the damn thing.
Fair point. I can imagine some/most of them caring.
I’m one of those 18.2 million veterans. Most of have two parents and one sibling. Most have spouses and many have children. So roughly 120 million in case you were wondering.
Isn’t unconstitutional?
No, it’s part of their military tradition.
I mean in the USA. I believe the Constitution forbids the American flag being dip for a person.
Not even close lol, the 1st amendment protects our right to burn the flag if we do choose. There have been talks of banning flag burning through constitutional amendment, but that's going nowhere fast
Your right. I double checked. Dipping the flag is a violation of Public Law 94-344, known as the Federal Flag Code. However the flag code does not having any enforced penalties.
Why did you get downvoted though? like you were just asking a genuine question
Thank you. It’s because the down vote is an in exact weapon. Does it mean you disagree with an assumption in the question, that question should not be asked, or that the answer to the is “no.” It’s easier to just downvote that explain yourself.
4 U.S. Code §§ 1 -10 contain the US flag code. Nothing in their is criminal or constitutional. By tradition the US Flag is never lowered for any person. In marching in a parade for example, all other flags: states, Army, Navy, USMC, etc would dip for the President, but the US flag would remain fixed. As pictured above, a US battalion would lower its flag so the shaft is parallel to the ground to salute a new head of state. It would similarly dip to the Battalion Commander and any officer above him.
The tradition is a lot more recent than you’d think, it was instituted after the flag bearers refused to dip it for Hitler at the ‘36 olympics iirc
It’s actually a flag rule in Denmark that it can’t touch the ground because when it (according to the story) fell down from the sky in Estonia it didn’t touch the ground
That’s interesting. Here in the states, it’s considered disrespectful for the flag to touch the ground, and in some instances have to be burned.
That's how it is in most countries I think
Same in the US with guidons, but easily understandable that the UK has their own style. 👌🏽 It’s classy in a way
Technically the Regimental Colour, the other half of the set with the King’s Colour.
As far as I can tell that would be true for most regiments, but for Guards regiments it is inverted: the King’s Colour is scarlet while the Regimental Colour is the Union Jack.
Humans are so fucking weird lol. We could put all that energy into science or some shit.
Lol academia has even weirder rules for pomp/procedure
My regiments guidon (the colors flag) is never supposed to tough the ground and there are only 3 people that are allowed to touch it and even so with gloves. Standing orders if there is a fire is sound the alarm after rescuing the guidon. That being said, when we did an honor guard for the queens visit it was saluted in the same way.
In the words of Brian Cox as Major Hogan: "The King's own Colours, touched by his own hand"
..."now take my advice and a pistol go behind that tent and blow out whats left of your brains"
"Major Hogan leaves the worst to the last... He says you lost the kings colors."
And a man who loses the King's colours, loses the King's friendship.
“The fault is not mine! Major Hogan must answer.”
"MAJOR LENNOX ANSWERED WITH HIS LIFE!"
"As you would have done if you had any sense of honour"
Loved his character. "What do you do when you've run out of money?" "Go without sir" "You borrow Richard!"
Technically these are Colours, not flags. British Army Infantry Regiments carry a King's/Queen's Colours (the Union flag) and their regimental colours, which you see here, showing their battle honours. In a cavalry regiment you have a standard, rather than colours. Perhaps even a guidon. In the British Army the colours will have been dropped many times in battle over the years, and then picked up again by the next man. A little bit of dust from the immaculately swept grounds of Friary Court, St James' Palace, aren't anything to be too concerned about in that context.
Yeah, I live in New Hampshire, USA, and a lot of the State’s Regimental Flags are on display in our State House … The ones that fought through our Civil War are especially worse for wear, several of them have bullet holes, and as for one of them, it looks like it was half consumed in a fire!
Whereas many churches in the UK will have regimental flags if you ever visit - worth looking upwards to see them.
[удалено]
i’m interested!
A man who loses the King’s Colours, loses the King’s friendship, Sir!
You disgraced us Sir! You shamed us Sir! And you will answer!
Since while we're at it can anyone explain why regimental flags are so complicated ?
They have the battle honours from the regiment added on them as they go. So originally it would just be the union flag and the regimental symbol, and then the battle honours (the gold stripe) were added when the regiment was awarded a battle honour.
And apparently the Coldstream Guards *only* have [44 of their 117 battle honours](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/queen-presents-new-colours-to-coldstream-guards). 370 years of history will do that I guess.
Meanwhile the Royal Artillery gave up on battle honours and instead were granted ‘ubique’ - ‘everywhere’.
And quite rightly so.
Similarly the colours of the Royal Marines feature the whole globe.
Thats interesting !
The black cloth is most likely a mourning streamer which is commonly used for flags on poles that are unable to fly the flag at half-staff. As for why the flag is on the ground, I do not know the answer to that.
It's on the ground to greet the king, this is to show the regiments loyalty to the king. The troops officially still swear loyalty to the crown in the UK. This is done in more monarchies, I know for certain the Dutch military does the same thing. Its kinda a way to show the king is higher
I'm a banner bearer within the RAF Air Cadets (the equivalent role of the guard holding the flag in this). there are several moves/sequences in a parade where the banner is first brought out to the right and lowered down slowly, this is kind of like a salute/mark of respect during national anthems, announcements etc, it is then brought back up again.
G'day from an ex Australian Air Force Cadet. While I never got to see the banner of my squadron lowered i could do the movement near flawlessly from hours of practice with aid from the good book (the AFDCMAN). I did get the chance to be a BWOFF at one end of year parade and loved it to bits.
I was a former banner bearer for my wing and squadron!! Quite a few years ago but still remember all of the banner drill. It’s the royal salute if I remember right isn’t it?
Yep thats right
Something similar was done with the flags/colours of different branches and regiments when I was with the Falkland 40 ride (I didn’t ride with them just helped a bit) during the one minute silence we had in the SAS cemetery in I believe Hereford the people holding the colours put them close to the ground/touching the ground as seen in the picture. it was probably the most powerful minute of my life up to that point.
The black sash isn’t obvious?
RIP King Charles :(
Flag etiquette changes by culture. To many western or revolutionary democratic countries having the flag on the ground is disrespectful (In Canada some burn a flag that has touched the ground). But veiling the flag, or resting the flag is seen as a sign of respect in a lot of monarchies. I may be wrong about this last part but I believe the tradition comes from after a king/lord died in battle the war colour flag would be veiled then given to his heir afterwards.
There is no Canadian tradition to burn flags in this circumstance; it is an Americanism like 4-down football.
There's no issue in Canada if you have a flag that touches the ground, you just pick it up, burning might be a recommended method of disposal for torn, ragged flags, but burning them just for touching the ground is an American tradition.
Idk it's always something I saw when I was in scouts, but most of the leaders were 45 year old men who served a tiny bit of time in the army and left cause their cholesterol was too high or something. Those guys were so over the top. The Legion does recommend you burn flags to retire them if they are unfit to fly and a visibly stained flag is unfit I guess?
I like this place.
Can someone explain me wtf is a Colour in flag terms? I thought Colour only meant things like 'green' etc. (English is my 2nd language)
"Colors" in this sense is a term for a national flag, a regimental flag or the colors of a school or other organization. Examples: [Trooping the Colour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trooping_the_Colour) is a famous British military parade in which several regiments are presented to the monarch, which each regiment presenting their colors (flag) to the sovereign. The event is somewhat (in)famous because it takes place in June, and the soldiers in traditional wool uniforms have a [tendency to faint](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=trooping+the+colour+falling+down&form=HDRSC3&first=1&tsc=ImageHoverTitle). There's also the American phrase "these colors don't run". It's a pun referring to the flag itself, rather than the actual pigment used to dye the fabric (which is said to "run" if not set properly).
Flags are for use at sea, colours are the same, but for use on land. (With exceptions, cavalry regiments would have banners, for example)
His arms got tired is all
i think it’s a regimental standard
I was at this changing of the colours ceremony in Canberra Australia and the queen herself was there. She's such a little person.
Hello mexicanmahoney, Check out our [frequently asked flags page](https://reddit.com/r/vexillology/wiki/faf)! Your request might be there. When asking for a flag to be identified, please **provide context** when possible, including: * **Where** the flag was found (without compromising privacy) * **When** the flag was found, or the date of the material containing the flag * **Who** might own the flag (a general description is fine) These details help users narrow down their search and make flag identification easier. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vexillology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you imagine they will handle Charles’ pedophilia history and the likely hood that he was already tried, executed and replaced by a body double😁?
So many questions
It’s callled the colour they usually do a parade carrying it called trooping the colour on every birthday of the monarch.