Comment & Analysis

Some might question the logic of the government’s stubborn determination to spend around £15bn on building and kitting out two new super-sized aircraft carriers, particularly at a time when our military resources are so stretched. Particularly, also, when Britain faces few enemies, if any, against whom a floating air-base would be at all useful.

What is galling however, at a time when the armed forces are possibly more active in the field of combat since WWII, is that these two new ships will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Time and again the Windsor family latches onto the military like a limpet to a ship, desperate to bask in what they see as the reflected glory, trying to pretend that they still have some crucial role as leaders of armed men.

We’ve seen this recently as William, like his father 30 years previously, takes a tour of the three armed forces, first training with the army, then learning to fly at a cost of millions to the taxpayer, followed by a jaunt on a Navy ship in the Caribbean.  None of his training will ever be used, none of it has any purpose other than to promote the Windsor brand.

His brother did at least try to serve in an active capacity, but failed miserably.  His PR stunt in Afghanistan (he was never very near to any real danger) was an appalling waste of resources.  It also sent the repeated message that Harry’s life, and his meagre contribution to the mission, was some how more heroic, more important and more worthy than that of his colleagues.  It is this attitude of royal subservience and a belief in the royal-soldier myth that has led to the wholly inappropriate naming of these two new vessels.

At a time when our service men and women are routinely making sacrifices in the field of combat, it is unthinkable that we should be naming these aircraft carriers after royals who have done little more than co-opt the military’s bravery and professionalism for their own gain.  Surely there are better men and women who can be honoured by the naming of a ship – or perhaps the ships could be named after places or events of great significance, ones which we can all be proud of.  The ships could also be named after virtues or values we place some importance in, such as Valour or Victory.  The options are almost limitless, so it is telling that instead this government has made such an obsequious choice.

Of course whatever the name, there is still the question of dropping the ‘HMS’.  These ships belong to Britain, not only in the real sense that we pay for them, but in the sense that we man them, we build and design them and we maintain them to defend our country, not our monarch.

Names mean a lot, they hold important symbolic value and it is necessary to have a public debate about the sort of names we give to what will be our two largest naval vessels.  In the 21st century, at a time when our military are asked for so much – often in the name of building democracies – are we really going to mark the building of these ships by harking back to medieval times, or can we instead make a bolder statement about strong values of liberty, democracy or the bravery of our armed forces.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 9:31 am and is filed under Monarchy and the military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.