Civil or military

Mac · 20 February 2001, 06:23 AM

The debate in the “February 13” thread on bombing of civilian targets raises the question “Was Buckingham Palace a civil or a military target ?”

mike_baram · 20 February 2001, 06:58 AM

One would assume that any government building would be included with military targets.

20 February 2001, 09:36 PM

The Queen/King didn't have any executive authority then as now. Okay, theoretically yes, HM signs all the proceedings from the Commons and Lords but only in an official rubber stamp capacity.
That notwithstanding, I would say the Palace was a legitimate target. Of course the killing of a member of the Royal Family by an enemy would have been counter productive. Consider the IRA never attempted to assasinate royalty (okay, Mountbatten aka 'Battenberg' - sorry Ginge, half our lot are bloody Jerries).
Regards, John.

Mac · 20 February 2001, 10:26 PM

Wasn’t the King (both wars) the supreme commander of the Armed forces – like the President ? That would make him a legitimate military target. The present line is of German descent. If you look at it that way, the European wars were really family squabbles.

Ginger. · 20 February 2001, 11:22 PM

That is why Kaiser Bill was a bit wary of bombing London,in case he bumped off a relative.By the Cringe.These Fifth Columnist Johnies get everywhere,even dressing like Kings and Queens of England now!!!