UJ,
Please state your sources. I did research this before my post, and it seems to me that you are yet another continuing various myths under the belief that your version is the correct one.
The point of this is that not that no-one is saying naval officers are not honourable, decent, professional and gentlemanly, the point is that historically RN Officers aren't necessarily referred to as Gentlemen.
I prefer this version of history;
Naval officers in British society were unique. The navy had, by the late 1600s, made it clear that being a “gentleman” was not sufficient to enter or succeed as a naval officer. Skill, as opposed to social status, was the mark of a naval officer and the navy exercised equality of opportunity at the point of entry over a century before the army saw the merits of such a program. Army commissions, very much the preserve of the nobility, were generally purchased. Naval commissions were granted only after a young teenager had learned his trade, passed his examinations and was selected for promotion on the basis of merit. When wartime required the navy to expand its officer corps, most were drawn from the seaman pool where education and skill in handling ships carried weight; social status carried none.
Union Jack rewriting history...."How very Native American!
"