Our Troops - My Thoughts

[Geo the Sarge]

I made my way to the castle with the rest of the soldiers going up that day and we all waited outside the front of the castle. One of the household staff came out and started allocating us to the waiting ghillies. I was placed with a gentleman by the name of Willie Potts.  I was to learn later that Willie was one of the Royal Family’s favourites on the estate. He still works there although no longer as a gamekeeper or ghillie.

He introduced himself with a firm handshake and a huge grin with the words...”it’s your lucky day today young man, you’ll be escorting Her Majesty herself .”  I could’ve shit a brick; my arse was that loose at the thought that I’d we wandering this glorious estate in the presence of Her Majesty.

There was a line of odds and sods Land Rovers outside the castle, mostly soft tops and a couple of fancy stretched hard tops that could sit about eight or nine passengers, nice shiny jobbies in a glossy Army green. Willie led me to the first of the fancy Land Rovers. “Right young man, we’ll make our way to.......(can’t remember the name of the place he mentioned) and from there we’ll walk the hills, all that is required of you is that you carry the haversacks, Her Majesty will carry her own gun.” He pointed out the 4 haversacks, large tan canvas items with shoulder straps.

“They all hold the same items, we have one each” says Willie.
With there being 4 haversacks, I wondered who the lucky visitor was that would be accompanying us, I didn’t have long to find out. In a short while, the Queen approached, accompanied by Prince Charles. They had a quick word with Willie and then the Queen turns to me. “Have you been on the estate before soldier?” By this I assumed, probably correctly, that she meant had I done the walking ghillie bit before. “No your Majesty, this is my first time, I’m really looking forward to it” was my reply. “Well we certainly have a fine day for it” was her reply as she turned and got into the drivers seat.

With a movement of his head, Willie directed me into the back of the Land Rover where he was already seated and Charles got into the passenger seat. Then we were off. Can it get any better than this? Not only was this awestruck youngster going to be in the company of the Queen all day, I was also being driven by probably the world’s highest paid chauffeur!!

Apparently, at that time, the Queen done all her own driving when on the estate, she was rated a very good driver and I was reminded of the pictures I had seen of her driving trucks during the war. The Queen was also rated as a very good shot and was one of the few who would not use an optical or telescopic sight, preferring instead to use the iron sights. On this day unfortunately, I wasn’t going to see the great lady in action, whilst we did sight many deer that day, none were deemed suitable for culling.

After a drive of about an hour we parked up at an old wooden bothy and then began our wander over the hills. Charles in the kilt and rugby shirt with his huge walking staff and the Queen in long tweed skirt and fairisle type jumper and head scarf, rarely would the Queen be seen without a headscarf around the estate.

We roamed the hills for a good 4hours in the morning the Queen, Charles and Willie walking line abreast with young Geo toddling on some 5 yards behind as I had previously been briefed, I had also been briefed that I should not initiate any conversation, this wasn’t a snobbery thing, it was merely to prevent questions being asked that could cause embarrassment by their content, or it even being not possible for the Royals to answer. It was simply, let them ask questions and answer them, but never with another question.

We would stop quite frequently as Willie surveyed the ground, occasionally pointing out gatherings of deer in the distance, the eyesight on these guys was immense, it would often take them a while to get guests to see what they were looking at, thankfully for me Willie was versed in target indication so would lead me on to his observations with ease. During these stops the Queen and Charles would speak to me, asking about my career and places I had visited and where I came from originally and general questions on family etc.

It was decided we should take lunch so we settled on the brow of a hill surveying some of the most impressive scenery to be found. I distributed the haversacks and situated myself at what I considered a reasonable distance, about 10 yards away and began investigating the contents of the haversack. As Willie had explained earlier, all bags contained the same items. Inside I found some nicely packaged salmon sandwiches, a pork pie, a couple of pieces of fruit and a large portion of shortbread.

Also within, I found a small hip flask with screw on cup, happy days thought I, however Willie explained that this was a tot only to be taken if we had a successful kill as it was obligatory to toast the beast that had been culled. There were further items like sachets of salt and pepper, toilet paper and hand wipes. The others had taken what they required from their packs and had returned them to me.

[Geo the Sarge]

I was soon tucking into my lunch and listened intently as the others chatted away and found it hilariously funny when Charles continued to address her majesty as “mumah.” I clearly remember that the main topic of conversation between the Queen and Charles that day was in regards to Burgess, Mclean & Philby, which meant nothing to me as I knew little about politics at the time (don’t know much more about politics these years tbh.)

In a nutshell, Mclean had been discovered to have been a double agent working for the Russians, Philby is alleged to have tipped him off that he was about to be arrested and he defected to Russia along with Guy Burgess.

It remains unclear as to why Burgess joined him at the time as he had not been under suspicion. It became clear to me a couple of months later why this had been their topic of conversation when Margaret Thatcher announced to the Commons that Sir Anthony Blunt had admitted in 1964 as being the “fourth man” in this scandal, he was immediately stripped of his knighthood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/16/newsid_3907000/3907233.stm

I imagine if I had understood what they were talking about I may have been one of the first of the country’s public to have known about Blunt’s involvement. If this was in the theatre of todays frenzied media, I could have made myself a pretty penny.

[Geo the Sarge]

I had finished my lunch and had put all rubbish into the brown paper bag that had originally contained my sandwiches. Seeing that the others had seemed to be finished too, I enquired that this was so and collected their rubbish and packed everything away in preparation for moving on.

It was at this point that I became aware that someone was standing just behind me and as I turned around I was met with a beaming smile on her majesty’s face. “soldier, is there any lavatory paper in the packs?” I was stunned and managed to stutter “yes ma’am” as I fumbled to re-open one of the packs, I produced a roll of lovely soft toilet paper which I handed to the Queen.

My face must have been a picture of astonishment as she took the toilet paper from me and made her way behind a nearby bush.
It remains today my claim to fame and one of the most cherished memories, I do not know if it was a number 1 or 2, I don’t really care, it was such a surreal moment in the life of this young soldier and one I’ll never forget or tire of reciting.

A couple of things I learnt whilst at Balmoral

Royal etiquette – when first meeting the queen you should greet her with Your Majesty, subsequent replies with ma’am.

During the culling, only a member of the immediate Royal Family can shoot a stag with 12 or more antlers. Any Stag with 12 or more is titled a Royal Stag. Permission can be given to a member of the gamekeeping staff when deemed appropriate.

During our time there, one of our young officers, the Captain of the Guard had been invited to shoot and had killed a deer thought to have eleven antlers. When they reached the animal, it became apparent that it had originally had 12 but had lost one which had broken off, possibly during some rutting battle with another stag.

He was totally bricking it and the gamekeeper and the other officers of the guard kept the wind-up going for a good while that he would be punished and potentially would lose his commission. I must be honest and admit that for the soldiers too, we all delighted in his anguish as he was a bit of a knob. Of course he was never in trouble as from the distances that are involved the loss of an antler would never have been noticed.

Geo

[boldie]

I love that story...about time you posted it Geo

[Geo the Sarge]

Thanks for all replies and It's always good to be asked questions.

Something that I meant to insert into the Thatcher/Clegg posts.

During the Falklands campaign, Maggie took a lot of flak over the Belgrano incident.

Battleship approaches our exclusion zone, we react and battleship moves off and whilst heading away from the exlcusion and therefore No Longer A Threat. Maggie ordered the attack and subsequent destruction of the battleship. Now in my opinion, this is no different than the scenario I gave earleir, in both cases the immediate threat had ceased.

Maggie's argument was that the battleship could still be a threat at a latter stage and therefore she was correct in ordering the attack.

And this is the sort of thing that annoys me. Regardless of whether we think her decision was right or wrong, we as soldiers, are governed by these rules and as much as possible we adhere to them, only for us to see the people who set these guidelines constantly bend them for their own use.

Geo

[Rod Paradise]

Wait a minute Geo, if that was all Clegg did then why did he and his patrol immediately start conspiring to cover their backs, to the extent that one of them volunteered to be hit in the leg with rifle butts so they could claim the car hit them? They knew themselves they'd done wrong and the whole patrol should have faced perjury charges and dishonourable discharge for the cowardly coverup attempts.

The argument that 'they could be a later threat' is far too close to the 'nits make lice' argument for me to be comfortable with it.

[Geo the Sarge]

Rod,

You asked me my thoughts on whether soldiers, like Clegg, be allowed to continue to serve in the Army. I gave you the reason why Clegg was able to return, simply that he had been cleared by the courts (wrongly IMO) due to poor work by the prosecution.

After you asked the question, I took time to read through many articles so that I could put together a bullent point rundown of the court case for the readers who may not have been aware of the case.

Throughout the articles I read, I seen no mention of what you state and was therefore unaware of these allegations. If that had been the case then I'm sure you know I would not codone it. I read through many articles, including some from An Phoblacht and other Republican sites and this hasn't cropped up.

If that was what you were digging for, why not just ask the question?

My post also shows that I don't believe the "they could be a later threat" argument holds any water. It is against the rules of engagement and is therefore punishable.

Geo

[Rod Paradise]

Rod,

You asked me my thoughts on whether soldiers, like Clegg, be allowed to continue to serve in the Army. I gave you the reason why Clegg was able to return, simply that he had been cleared by the courts (wrongly IMO) due to poor work by the prosecution.

After you asked the question, I took time to read through many articles so that I could put together a bullent point rundown of the court case for the readers who may not have been aware of the case.

Throughout the articles I read, I seen no mention of what you state and was therefore unaware of these allegations. If that had been the case then I'm sure you know I would not codone it. I read through many articles, including some from An Phoblacht and other Republican sites and this hasn't cropped up.

If that was what you were digging for, why not just ask the question?

My post also shows that I don't believe the "they could be a later threat" argument holds any water. It is against the rules of engagement and is therefore punishable.

Geo

Right hang on, I offered to PM you questions so as not to hijack the thread, you said just to post them then you accuse me of 'digging' for something?

I posted about it because I was surprised at your attitude to Clegg's case. Fine, you've read the articles that followed Clegg's being cleared, they were sketchy on the actual evidence from the trial. If you haven't read from the time of the trial then that explains why.

This:

"And this is the sort of thing that annoys me. Regardless of whether we think her decision was right or wrong, we as soldiers, are governed by these rules and as much as possible we adhere to them, only for us to see the people who set these guidelines constantly bend them for their own use.

Seems to say that they shouldn't be second guessed on their decision - which came over as more in support than against.

I've said I appreciate your candour on here Geo & do not appreciate being accused of having an agenda - I was genuinely enjoying hearing your side. I'll just read the thread in the future.

[Geo the Sarge]

Rod,

You asked me my thoughts on whether soldiers, like Clegg, be allowed to continue to serve in the Army. I gave you the reason why Clegg was able to return, simply that he had been cleared by the courts (wrongly IMO) due to poor work by the prosecution.

After you asked the question, I took time to read through many articles so that I could put together a bullent point rundown of the court case for the readers who may not have been aware of the case.

Throughout the articles I read, I seen no mention of what you state and was therefore unaware of these allegations. If that had been the case then I'm sure you know I would not codone it. I read through many articles, including some from An Phoblacht and other Republican sites and this hasn't cropped up.

If that was what you were digging for, why not just ask the question?

My post also shows that I don't believe the "they could be a later threat" argument holds any water. It is against the rules of engagement and is therefore punishable.

Geo

Right hang on, I offered to PM you questions so as not to hijack the thread, you said just to post them then you accuse me of 'digging' for something?

I posted about it because I was surprised at your attitude to Clegg's case. Fine, you've read the articles that followed Clegg's being cleared, they were sketchy on the actual evidence from the trial. If you haven't read from the time of the trial then that explains why.

This:

"And this is the sort of thing that annoys me. Regardless of whether we think her decision was right or wrong, we as soldiers, are governed by these rules and as much as possible we adhere to them, only for us to see the people who set these guidelines constantly bend them for their own use.

Seems to say that they shouldn't be second guessed on their decision - which came over as more in support than against.

I've said I appreciate your candour on here Geo & do not appreciate being accused of having an agenda - I was genuinely enjoying hearing your side. I'll just read the thread in the future.

Rod,

As I already stated, you're welcome to ask your questions, you did not ask me about the soldiers supposedly trashing themselves to back up his story, you merely asked my thoughts on convicted soldiers being allowed to return to their units.

You're opening line of "wait a minute a Geo" and then the highlighting of your case regards potential perjury that followed seems to suggest otherwise. As I said if you wanted to discuss cases of alleged injustice, ask away. My use of the word digging may not be totally appropriate there and for that I apologise.

Your reply, to me, clearly shows that your intention was to raise the case in regards to a potential cover up as opposed to the outcome of the trial and subsequent re-instatement into the Army.

I didn't just read from the time of the trial, I've looked at past editions of various sources around the time, including Republican websites and did not find anything regards this. It actually links to the Thain case which I promised you I would respond to and which I am compiling.

My statement regards the Belgrano is a statement which I thought clearly showed that I was of the believe that Maggie was wrong, obviously you haven't read it that way.

I'd be unhappy if you did stop contributing, especially where NI is involved as I believe you could contribute greatly.

Geo

[Rod Paradise]

Rod,

You asked me my thoughts on whether soldiers, like Clegg, be allowed to continue to serve in the Army. I gave you the reason why Clegg was able to return, simply that he had been cleared by the courts (wrongly IMO) due to poor work by the prosecution.

After you asked the question, I took time to read through many articles so that I could put together a bullent point rundown of the court case for the readers who may not have been aware of the case.

Throughout the articles I read, I seen no mention of what you state and was therefore unaware of these allegations. If that had been the case then I'm sure you know I would not codone it. I read through many articles, including some from An Phoblacht and other Republican sites and this hasn't cropped up.

If that was what you were digging for, why not just ask the question?

My post also shows that I don't believe the "they could be a later threat" argument holds any water. It is against the rules of engagement and is therefore punishable.

Geo

Right hang on, I offered to PM you questions so as not to hijack the thread, you said just to post them then you accuse me of 'digging' for something?

I posted about it because I was surprised at your attitude to Clegg's case. Fine, you've read the articles that followed Clegg's being cleared, they were sketchy on the actual evidence from the trial. If you haven't read from the time of the trial then that explains why.

This:

"And this is the sort of thing that annoys me. Regardless of whether we think her decision was right or wrong, we as soldiers, are governed by these rules and as much as possible we adhere to them, only for us to see the people who set these guidelines constantly bend them for their own use.

Seems to say that they shouldn't be second guessed on their decision - which came over as more in support than against.

I've said I appreciate your candour on here Geo & do not appreciate being accused of having an agenda - I was genuinely enjoying hearing your side. I'll just read the thread in the future.

Rod,

As I already stated, you're welcome to ask your questions, you did not ask me about the soldiers supposedly trashing themselves to back up his story, you merely asked my thoughts on convicted soldiers being allowed to return to their units.

You're opening line of "wait a minute a Geo" and then the highlighting of your case regards potential perjury that followed seems to suggest otherwise. As I said if you wanted to discuss cases of alleged injustice, ask away. My use of the word digging may not be totally appropriate there and for that I apologise.

Your reply, to me, clearly shows that your intention was to raise the case in regards to a potential cover up as opposed to the outcome of the trial and subsequent re-instatement into the Army.

I didn't just read from the time of the trial, I've looked at past editions of various sources around the time, including Republican websites and did not find anything regards this. It actually links to the Thain case which I promised you I would respond to and which I am compiling.

My statement regards the Belgrano is a statement which I thought clearly showed that I was of the believe that Maggie was wrong, obviously you haven't read it that way.

I'd be unhappy if you did stop contributing, especially where NI is involved as I believe you could contribute greatly.

Geo

No, and that's the second time you've accused me of an agenda which I don't have, be it 'digging' or however you couch it, something I'd appreciate you leaving out as it's unfair. If I'd an agenda would I have offered to send you the questions privately first?

[bolt pp]

jeez, a lot of British deaths lately.

I'll say before i mention this that i didnt read the article fully but the Americans have been slagging off out efforts as well, wtf?

[boldie]

GL to you mate.

[bolt pp]

GL to you mate.

[Christo!]

GL jjandellis

Have a mate out there at the min and have been out there myself.

Stay safe

[Geo the Sarge]

Hi Lee,

good to see you're still keeping in touch.

Hope you and yours are all well

Be safe mate.

Geo