Why "British Army"?

[KC-10 Driver]

Question from an ignorant Yank, here.

I've often wondered why in Britain the navy is called the Royal Navy, and the air force is called the Royal Air Force, but the army is called the British Army.

Why is it not called the Royal Army? Possibly because the Army is made up of individual regiments which each have their own Royal "commissions"?

Just curious.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Casey 10,

Answered your own question but you might get a stronger reaction if you were to post your question on ARRSE forum (Army equiv of this).

When you do, let us all know so that we can have a good larf!

[Squirrel 41]

Fg Off Bloggs

Give the guy a break - it seems like an honest question for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:

KC-10 Driver

I believe the other answer is that then-Royal Army rebelled against the Crown under Oliver Cromwell in the Civil War 1642-48, and then ran the country as a military dictatorship for a bit(1650-something - 1660 "Rule of the Generals").

When Charles II was restored in 1660, he took a pretty dim view of the institution that bumped his Dad off and kept him in exile, so there wasn't much interest in giving them the title "Royal" back again. The RN didn't rebel (and indeed, it was the misuse of taxes to pay for the RN, so-called "ship money" that led to the regicide), and so kept the appelation.

Obviously individual regiments can become Royal - Royal Green Jackets, Royal Tank Regiment, Royal Flying Corps.... :D

Hope this helps - sure that others will correct any errors above.

S41

[alfred_the_great]

as much as I'd love to slag of the Army for mutinying (is that a word), unfortunately it's not true...

The Royal Navy is "Royal" as we have always been the Sovereign's force, thus belongs to Him/Her.

The British Army is based around a series of Regiments who were orginally raised by nobles, at the Sovereign's request. These nobles were responsible for manning, arming and outfitting each regiment. As a result they were entitled to name them as they wanted, for example, The Duke of Albany's Own (who went on to become the Royal Marines) or the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry. The Sovereign could grant the right of "Royal" in a Regiments title as they wished, generally for an act of bravery or steadfast service.

Any regiments that act as a successor to a "Royal" Regiment will also become "Royal", which is why the Royal Logistic Corp are so named. It is also why the Royal Air Force is "Royal", it was raised from the Royal Engineers (I believe?!).

Hope this helps?

[Squirrel 41]

There you are.... 14 mins to be corrected. Alfred, I thank-you.

Where did the mutiny story come from I wonder? :confused:

S41

[Fg Off Bloggs]

And I'll take an apology, squirrel, as that was all my response was saying!!

I was not, by any stretch of the imagination, doing anything other than telling Mr Casey that he had actually hit the nail on the head and answered his own question.

I'm waiting!

Bloggs

[Flatus Veteranus]

Alfredus Rex

I believe the Royal Air Force was founded by an amalgamation of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service on 1 April 1918. To avoid duplication of squadron numbers, 200 was added to the ex-RNAS squadrons. Eg, No 8 Sqn, RNAS or "Naval 8", became No 208 Squadron, RAF.

[KC-10 Driver]

For what it's worth, Fg Off Bloggs, I took no offense. I understand what you were saying.

But, thank you, Squirrel, for the defense.

I figured that the answer would be somewhat akin to my theory.

[opso]

I thought that the mutiny story was to do with the RN - which is why their officers weren't 'gentlemen' for a while and why they still carry rather than wear their swords. I'm sure alfred will steer me right though...

[MightyGem]

I believe the Royal Air Force was founded by an amalgamation of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service on 1 April 1918
Yes it was, but flying within the British miltary was started by the Royal Engineers with balloons.

Full story here. (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWRFC.htm)

[mbga9pgf]

Is it true that the Air force is the only service allowed to draw swords on parade in the presence of the Queen, as a result of RN and Army mutinies, or is this rubbish?

[Farmer 1]

What a brilliant question!

Several answers, I’m sure all at least partly correct. If I can add my two pennorth, without naming names of the previous posters:

The Army was originally formed as individual units, by individual persons, for specific purposes. The local lord would be requested by the sovereign to form a regiment to go and fight in a particular war. The lord became the Colonel of his regiment, and he would form what was, in effect, his own private army. Many of these regiments were relatively short-lived, others – precious few - are with us to this day. As an aside, one of these individuals was the Marquess of Granby. He rewarded many of his long-serving sergeants with a pub when they retired, and they tended to call their pub, surprise surprise, the Marquess of Granby. All I can say is, he must have had a large regiment, with a lot of sergeants. The colonel was completely responsible for his regiment; whether he had any monetary aid from the monarch I know not, but I doubt it. So, he had free rein, and some of them had highly individual tastes and ideas on how their regiments should be attired. If you ever see an Army unit formed from separate regiments, you cannot help noticing that their uniform is not exactly uniform, with possibly not a single item of clothing common to all the various regiments. And that is without thinking about ceremonial dress.

In short, they were a large number of disparate units, not a single force with any form of coordinated control.

On the other hand, the Royal Navy was formed from a need to protect the interests of an island nation, and it was recognised that a single force was required. I believe the term Royal Navy was adopted in the 17th century, but I might be wrong on that.

In the late 19th century, the Royal Engineers formed the Balloon Section. Kites and airships followed, and eventually, aeroplanes. In 1912 the Royal Flying Corps was formed from what had become the Air Battalion of the Royal Engineers. In 1918, the RFC and the Royal Naval Air Service were combined to form the Royal Air Force, i.e. it was a single, cohesive branch of the Services.

Each Service, and every branch of the Army bearing the title “Royal” has had that title conferred on it by the reigning sovereign at the time, and their badge bears a crown. A King’s crown is different from that of a Queen, which entails a good deal of redesigning from time to time, but I for one hope that will not be for many years to come.

Hope I haven’t bored you too much.

Farmer.

[Squirrel 41]

F/O Bloggs

Sorry for any offence, but it sounded like you were having a go at a perfectly reasonable question. As I stand corrected, my apologies.

S41

[northernmonkey]

I'm sure that its noted somewhere in history that the Army chaps have bigger penis's are more successful with the ladies and boast feindish good looks, impish grins and boyish smiles.....

We don't a 'Royal' tag due to all of the above.

[MightyGem]

Is it true that the Air force is the only service allowed to draw swords on parade in the presence of the Queen, as a result of RN and Army mutinies, or is this rubbish?
Army officers march on to parade with swords already drawn.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

So, if the original regiments took the names of their founders, as also occurred with the rebel forces in the American War of Independence and with some of the regiments in the Indian Army etc, from whom did the the officers and warrant officers receive their commissions and warrants?

Just curious.:cool:

[Farmer 1]

I tried for a commission once. Unfortunately, I passed the intelligence test.

[ExGrunt]

An officer's commission is signed by the Sovreign.

A warrant officer has a royal warrant signed by a flunky on behalf of the Sovreign, usually the Secretary of State for Defence (using his Royal seal of office).

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I thought that the 'Royal' prefix was to differentiate between the military and their civilian counterparts: Royal Navy v Merchant Navy etc. The Army did not require the 'Royal' prefix as, with the exception of the Atholl Highlanders, there is no civilian army.

[tug3]

Atholl Highlanders:

http://www.scotlandmag.com/issue/12/historic_houses/388

Rgds
T3

[Nil nos tremefacit]

I know where my commission came from, but I was really asking about those regiments that were raised and paid for by individuals and which took their name. Did the commission come from the King or did it come from Lord Lovat, for instance?

[Farmer 1]

They used to buy them, remember. No idea from whom, I'm afraid, but I think it was Balaclava that put an end to that system.

[ExGrunt]

Until 1870, the usual way for an officer of the cavalry or infantry to obtain his commission was by purchase. A new candidate had to produce evidence of having had "the education of a gentleman", to obtain the approval of his regimental colonel, and to produce a substantial sum which was both proof of his standing in society and a bond for good behaviour. When a promotion vacancy occurred, the senior officer of the immediate lower rank in the same regiment had the first claim to be promoted, subject to being able to produce the as appropriate sum laid down by Parliament for the rank in question. Promotion to colonel and above was by seniority without purchase. Staff appointments, which carried promotion, were by selection, not purchase, but an officer reverted to his regimental (normally purchased) rank on expiry of tenure. When an officer left the Army, the price of his last commission was refunded, thus realising a large capital sum for investment elsewhere. The system was subject to abuse, as very rich men could pay their juniors not to take up their right to promotion, but had the advantage of allowing wealthy officers to obtain command of a regiment in their twenties, while at the peak of their fitness and energy. By contrast, in the Ordnance corps, where promotion was by seniority, it was common to find officers in their forties still serving as subalterns. The greatest weakness of the purchase system was its reliance on officers learning their duties by experience after appointment, rather than by training prior to it.

[alfred_the_great]

Again, the mutiny "reason" for us not being able to carry our scabbards on our belts is not correct (although it does allow me to say that I'm not a Gentleman, merely an Officer in the Royal Navy!).

The reason why we carry our scabbards is that for a long time we never had a use for a scabbard save from stowing our sword under our pit (bed). In battle we began with swords drawn as scabbards would only get stuck in rigging etc if carried on our belt. Conversley Army Officers had to have their sword, and scabbard to hand at all times, especially when in the field, thus habitually wore their scabbards on their belt.

When it was decided that the RN had to carry sheathed swords (fnar fnar), to allow us to follow tradition the practice of parading with swords at the carry was adopted. It also had the added bonus of making us looks fools on parade as we step off without successfully carrying out the "sword flick".

Always happy to help....

Al

[Pierre Argh]

I was taught that the reason RN Officers carry their swords was as mark of royal displeasure after the Navy went ahead and hanged a man who had been given a Royal pardon.... nothing to do with mutiny. (there was usually a swifter method of punishing mutineers)... and the reason the RN don't stand for the loyal toast is becuase of the low deckheads (ceilings) onboard ship... I believe there's an Army regiment that doesn't stand either?

One day when the RAF have more than bad habits they too may have traditions like these?

[Michael Edic]

PA
What a witty and original joke. Please can someone tell it again?

[8ball]

Quote

I've often wondered why in Britain the navy is called the Royal Navy, and the air force is called the Royal Air Force, but the army is called the British Army.

The British Army is not called the British Army by the British.
It is called the Army. I know that does not answer the question of why it's not called the Royal Army but it ain't called the British Army either.

[pr00ne]

8ball,

Yes it is.

[Farmer 1]

Regular Army, actually.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Is it not:

Army - Be the Best

[Pierre Argh]

Michael Edic says
What a witty and original joke. Please can someone tell it again?
Ahhh, a joke, I see it, I thought it was a fact?
Seeing as how Michael asks though, Happy to oblige old chap...
"one day when the RAF have more than bad habits they too might have traditions like these"

[Bob Viking]

I see you are a man of great intellect and humour. I see you are also an air tragicer.
Need I say more.
As for a lack of traditions, the RAF is still the oldest Air Force in the world so I think we're doing our best!
Lets not forget the RAF came into being about fifteen years after Orville and Wilbur first did their thing.
There had been boats for thousands of years before we got round to organising a Navy. I think that fact alone shows just how efficient and amazing we are.
BV:cool: :p :E

[dkh51250]

Quite easy really. Check out relevant ID cards. British Army on top of Army ID Royal Air Force on F1250. Because, there are lots of armies, but only one Royal Air Force.

[ZH875]

BATUS - British Army Training Unit Suffield.

Must be used by the British Army.

[mutleyfour]

Listen, you crabs can rag the Army as much as you like but remember

Your the ones that need the corporate identity at the moment.

RAF badges on combats just to remind you whom you work for..and those rucksack thingies......come on...we might not be the Royal Army but mere certainly a lot smarter than you shower of ????

[Roadster280]

Can't resist.

My own corps, the Royal Corps of Signals, was founded on 28 June 1920, and became Royal on 5th August 1920. The descendency goes back many decades before that with the Corps of Royal Engineers. This is some two years after the RAF, however:

I can't help thinking highly of the forward thinking of the Powers That Be in the Army (RFC) and the RN (RNAS) at the time. How else would they have come up with the idea of founding the RAF on April Fool's day 1918, other than to provide the opportunity to take the piss for centuries to come? Oh, I am so sorry, the RAF havent been around for a single century yet. Still, "USAF 50" must have given them something to smile about a few years back.

Really, we all bat for the same team. Actually, I am retired, but the spirit is there. Inter service rivalry is the stuff that tradition is built on. Hence the ability to look down on others. As long as we all continue to bat for the same team, I am all for it.

Long may it continue

Certa Cito

(All crabs and matelots are w***ers)

[16 blades]

The Army aren't 'Royal' because they fought against the Monarchy during the civil war. The Navy are not Gentlemen due to a decree from Queen Victoria (reason escapes me) which still stands to this day.

RAF officers are the only 'Royal' 'Gentlemen' in the UK Armed Forces.
RAF badges on combats
...just in case anyone confuses us with somebody who gives a sh1t.

Also, our toys are way cooler than yours. So blow me.

:E

16B

[FJJP]

Mutley Four wroteListen, you crabs can rag the Army as much as you like but remember Your the ones that need the corporate identity at the moment. RAF badges on combats just to remind you whom you work for..and those rucksack thingies......come on...we might not be the Royal Army but mere certainly a lot smarter than you shower of ????So smart that you are permitted to disregard the rules of grammar:

'remember' or 'remember:'...

'Your' or 'you're'...

'whom you work for' or 'who' or 'for whom you work'...

Great stuff this banter, eh? Lots of opportunities... Keeps one amused for hours on a quiet Sunday morning!

[althenick]

for a lack of traditions, the RAF is still the oldest Air Force in the world so I think we're doing our best!

Bob

Sorry to be pedantic but it isn't (By just under a month)

http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=600

[Bob Viking]

Alright smart @rse.
I stand corrected, but you get the point.
BV:(

[timex]

RAF officers are the only 'Royal' 'Gentlemen' in the UK Armed Forces.

Think you may find that The Royal Marines are still "Gentlemen" and have been since 1664.:ok: :ok:


Shaun

[8ball]

Ok I was wrong. Sorry KC 10 Bloke I said it wasn't called the British Army at all. Thanks Pr00ne for your succinct put down, All I did was look at the MOD website that has logos for the RN, the Army (not British Army) and the RAF. Inside the website the roles of the BRITISH Army are explained.
So why does the logo not say British Army? Is the official abbreviation BA? If not why not? Would British Airways claim copyright? Why am I bothering to ask?
Promise to do a bit more research before posting smart alec replies in the future.

[Pierre Argh]

At the risk of digressing from the army question, Bob Viking's comment about the vintage of the RAF overlooks the fact, that as I'm sure he's aware, it was born from a merger of the Royal Flying Corps (Army) and Royal Naval Air Service (RN)... both of which are still operating I believe(?) making it the fourth oldest Air Force in the world... any advance?

As for his boats arguement... he's scraping the bottom of the barrel and may as well cite the case of Icarus and Daedalus. Definitely touched a nerve!

[Maple 01]

The RFC and RNAS were directly subordinate to their parent organisations therefore not independant as such - hence don't count as Airforces

[Bob Viking]

Also nowadays:
RFC=Army Air Corps
RNAS=Fleet Air Arm
You got to try harder than that man!
BV;)

[RubiC Cube]

Many moons ago in the Mess at Gib I was informed by Rupert that it is "The Army" and that British was only used as an identifier in NATO formations.

A former member of the oldest RAF Sqn - 201 (now that's another argument)

[Bob Viking]

I see you have amended your post.
I hardly think we can count mythological Greek weirdoes, with feathery appendages as being the foundation of aviation!
Mind you, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, men were flying all manner of fantastic machines. Not sure if they actually claimed to have an air force though!
BV:p

[Archimedes]

Since we seem to have an outbreak of pedantry...

If we're being really, really pedantic, the RAF was founded - in the strictest sense of the word - in 1917 , since this is when the appropriate legislation, etc, was laid down, including the date upon which amalgamation would occur. Trenchard left France in December 1917 to become CAS in January 1918.

1 April is merely the date upon which the RFC and RNAS amalgamated to become the RAF - if you like, the end of the process of founding the RAF, not the start. The RAF should, in fact, celebrate its anniversary on (IIRC) 13 November, and is in fact several months older than it thinks it is... ;)

Seriously - and forgive going off the thread topic here - the Ilmavoimat has always claimed to be 'one of' rather than 'the' oldest air force.

This (http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/) unofficial (but apparently well-informed) site describes it as the third oldest air force; other sources have the oldest as being the RAF, second oldest the SAAF, and also place the Finns third.

Thing is, I have no exact idea why.... I think it is because the aircraft mentioned in althenick's link was presented to the White Finnish forces, rather than to the nation (see here (http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/faf.html)). . This seems to suggest that while this marks the start of the process that led to the Finnish Air Force, it couldn't really be said to be the date on which the air force really began as an independent arm of an independent country.

Although, IIRC, Finland declared independence in December 1917, the USSR didn't recognise this by treaty until 1920; and there was a civil war between the Whites and the Reds between Jan and May 1918. Given that the SAAF was formed in 1920 (again, IIRC), I suspect that the legal granting of Finnish independence by the Soviets rather than de facto recognition means that historians have taken the March 1918 date as being the Finnish equivalent of the 1917 date for the start of the RAF, with the civil war and the delay between de facto an de jure independence being further obstacles.

Or something like that. I wonder if there are any ilmavoimat members who can explain this?

:confused:

[Pierre Argh]

Reading back trhough this thread has been amusing... but shows only one thing i.e. how precious members of the UK armed forces can get about points of, little more, than trivia (often mis-quoted)

Does it really matter if the RAF is the oldest air force in the world, and even if it does, what does it prove... nothing?

PS: I'm pleased to see that the fact the RAF are the so called "junior service" is still a good way of getting a "bite"?

[Hilife]

KC-10 Driver

I trust that the US Armed Forces has the same level of inter-service bwavado you can witness here in the UK.

Not denying some inaccuracy, I think the following should add to the wealth of answers already offered you in this thread.

Until the English Civil War and often under the terms of ownership, landowners (noblemen and courtiers) and soldiers of fortune were required to provide a military service to the crown and up until the English Civil War the crown usually had total control in what its armies did, much to the dislike of parliament. (These days it’s neither the Crown nor Parliament but Tony Blair).

Shortly after the English Civil War and with the reinstatement of the monarchy under Charles II, the English Army was formed which I think soon changed its name to Standing Army and came under the command of parliament.

The term British Army first came into being as a result of the Act of the Union with Scotland in 1707. I believe that British was added in order to show that the Army would serve and protect all subjects and interests in its growing Empire and not just in the Kingdom of Great Britain.

For reasons I am unsure of, all? individual ships in the Royal Navy have the title His/Her Majesty’s Ship (HMS).

In the Army only certain regiments were awarded a Royal Warrant and in order to maintain the significance of such a title, the army as a whole is not referred too as the Royal Army.

[Trumpet_trousers]

Although, IIRC, Finland declared independence in December 1917, the USSR didn't recognise this by treaty until 1920; and there was a civil war between the Whites and the Reds between Jan and May 1918. Given that the SAAF was formed in 1920 (again, IIRC), I suspect that the legal granting of Finnish independence by the Soviets rather than de facto recognition means that historians have taken the March 1918 date as being the Finnish equivalent of the 1917 date for the start of the RAF, with the civil war and the delay between de facto an de jure independence being further obstacles.

.....OK, so if I've read this correctly, you're saying that the Finnish were in it from the start?? :) :) :)

[Bob Viking]

You 're right. The vintage of the RAF is not important. At least no more so than the vintage of any of the other services.
As for biting at being refered to as the junior service, it would be nice to hear something a little more original for a change. Your repetition and lack of imagination is, quite frankly, a tad dull.
If those members of this forum from the RN really believe that they can distract our attention from their obvious shortcomings (and sexual orientation) with cheap banter, they are sorely mistaken.
BV:E

[ORAC]

Royal Navy: Dragging swords and "officers but not gentlemen" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist/makhist7_prog10d.shtml)

[MightyGem]

British Civil War
The "English" civil war would be the correct title.

[Hilife]

Duly noted MightyGem and well done for spotting the deliberate mistake.

Hilife

[Maple 01]

Well as the fighting included Welsh, Irish and Scottish troops and spilled across the borders 'British' is probably more accurate

[JessTheDog]

I don't think the lack of a "Royal" prefix has much to do with any Royal disapproval dating from the Civil War .

The Army as we know it started to take shape with Cromwell's New Model Army - which had a command staff and an organisational structure. The New Model Army were on occasion too radical even for the Lord Protector Cromwell, and there were many intrigues and rebellions during the Civil War period and aftermath, with formations fighting on all sides. The history of the Coldstream Guards is a good example - raised by General Monck in Northumberland to quell the Royalists, earmarked for disbandment along with the rest of the New Model Army upon the return of Charles II, and was reprieved in order to quell a rebellion against the king.

The reforms of the Duke of Marlborough and the victory of Blenheim saw the emergence of the Army that would wear the redcoat in the colonial and Napoleonic wars, with the arms of infantry/cavalry/artillery. The French perhaps deserve more credit than they typically get in military matters, because the military reforms of Louis XIV's minsters (Vauban's fortifications and Colbert's naval expansion) almost certainly led to the establishment of a standing army controlled (and paid for) by parliament.

Regiments continued to be raised locally by colonels, so it is probably the case that, rather than reinventing the wheel, the existing system (that generated troops through local raising of regiments) was continued.

As our current lot (the Windsors, or Saxe-Coburg Gothas) are descended (sort of) from William of Orange, who toppled Charles II's brother James II, then one would expect a certain amount of Royal schadenfreude at the demise of the House of Stuart! The fact that new formations continued to be granted the Royal prefix (the Royal Regiment of Artillery raised under Royal warrant in 1716) indicates that the institution of the monarchy bore little ill-will towards the Army for the sins of their ancestors!

[Farmer 1]

JessTheDog

Fascinating; is there any more where that came from? I was studying to be a historian, until I realised there was no future in it.

[opso]

What do you mean "no future in it."? Surely there's more history each and every day? Therefore it must be a growth industry... ;)

[Hilife]

He has a point Farmer 1, think Alistair Cooke, Simon Schama, Michael Wood and Richard Holmes to name but a few well known modern historians.

[The Rocket]

Hilife,

Please, please, PLEASE tell me you didn't mean that reply seriously!

[Farmer 1]

...and then I wanted to be a doctor, but I didn't have the patience.

Explain it to him, please, Rocket.

[ORAC]

A profession past all understanding......

[Farmer 1]

...I thought that was a Piece of Cod.

[Trumpet_trousers]

There's too much apathy on this thread, but nobody seems to give a damn...

[opso]

But farmer, I heard the rumour that you once wanted to be a surgeon specialising in circumcisions - poor basic pay but lots of tips...

[Farmer 1]

...and I finally got to work with the big nobs.

[Lynx206]

Bob Viking,

As for a lack of traditions, the RAF is still the oldest Air Force in the world so I think we're doing our best!

In Australia negotiations between Army, Navy and Defence officials from 1917 to 1921 resulted in the Australian Air Force being formed on 31 March 1921, with approval to use the ‘Royal’ prefix granted on 13 August 1921.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Was that in front of or behind the HM Prison bit????

[BlueEagle]

I know you will tell me this is quite boring but the first ever British miltary aviation unit was No. 1 (Baloon) Squadron, Royal Engineers. Circa 1898.

[Farmer 1]

Back to Square - sorry - Page One.

[Bob Viking]

And your point is?!!!
Think I may have missed it.
BV

[Lynx206]

Bob,

My apologies.

A. I should have checked my dates before posting, and/or

B. I should have checked my maths.

:O

Long may the Royal Air Force do whatever it is that it does...

[average pilot]

Come the revolution will we all drop the "Royal" altogether?:ok:

[Tibetan]

Why does one swear loyalty to a germanic queen married to a greek?:hmm: I,d be asking for a significant payrise if that was the case.What is the significance of the royals and can you prove they are true bloods?

[[email protected]]

Tibetan,
Why bother at all? If you don't like the idea, sod off and pledge allegiance to the Peoples Liberation Front of Outer Tibet.

What people seem to forget is that when you join an organisation such as ours you give yourself to the organisation as a whole, come what may.

[Lima Juliet]

Well said. Having read Tibetan's tripe on his "Top Gun" post already I'm wondering where he has escaped from!!!

LJ:8

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Ehmm, on the subject on Royal ancestory may I just remind you that both Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are of Danish ancestory. Danish King Christian IX did a smashing job of placing his offspring all over Europe, and their offspring obviously had it in their blood so spread further. Spain, Russia (until that Lenin fella threw a wobbler), Greece (something happend with a few overambitious Colonels), Romania (there's that Lenin dude again), England, Norway and probably a few more I forgot about all have, or had, their Royal families from imported Danish bloodstock. And mixed a bit down the generations, often with more Danish blood.

One day we'll claim the continent and the rain soaked islands back :E

[Rakshasa]

Of course, then the next Charlemagne will come along and shoove you all back into that tiny peninsula. :p

[Two's in]

Say again all after "Midday Sun" over....

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Tibetan, You swear an oath of allegiance to the head of state, HMTQ, who just happens to be CinC. Also covered in the commissioning scroll are 'heirs and successors' and subjects.

Ancestry is irrelevant, since most of us have ancestry that is not entirely Anglo-Saxon (itself a mix of Danish and German). The last 'pure' English king was Harold Godwinson who died in battle in 1066. You'll be waiting a long time for an English monarch, although given the Queen's mother was a Brit (half Scots, half English) and Princess Di was a Brit then William and Harry are more Brit than most monarchs.

I'd rather swear an oath to Liz than Tony Blair and his cronies. That would require a pay rise of monumental proportions.

[Farmer 1]

Nil nos tremefacit,

Yes, I remember the heirs and successors bit. I was sixteen at the time. I don't remember any conditions attached, and as far as I am concerned, nothing has changed. I am still bound by that oath. That probably makes me old-fashioned. Sobeit.

If I may have an old joke (they're sometimes the best) at your expense:
I'd rather swear an oath to Liz than Tony Blair and his cronies. That would require a pay rise of monumental proportions. A chap went to a party and met a lady who was obviously way above his station in life. He really fancied her, and he introduced himself, and drew her to one side. After a couple of suitable compliments on her beauty etc., he says, "I must ask you a question. Please do not be offended, and think very carefully before you answer. Would you go to bed with me if I gave you £100,000?"

The lady is suitably shocked, but as requested, she thinks for a while, before replying in the affirmative. After all, that's an awful lot of money.

"Great," says our hero. "Would you go to bed with me if I gave you £50?"

"£50! Certainly not! What do you think I am?"

"We established that with the first question. Now we're negotiating the price."

So, Nil nos tremefacit, what's your price? Similar to mine, I would guess.


Rakshasa,

Would you mind explaining the bit about Charlemagne, and back into which particular peninsula he shoved us?

Farmer.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I definitely won't sleep with you for £50!:confused:

[Farmer 1]

I'd better explain, then, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding.

That's the amount you would have to pay me.

OK, make it £40.

[BEagle]

And if you'd ever met Nil nos T, you wouldn't do it for £100K either!

:p

[Nil nos tremefacit]

If you pay by the pound then I'm quite reasonable.:cool:

[Speedpig]

.Surely there's more history each and every day? Therefore it must be a growth industry.

No matter how you put it, history will never be in the future!

Ehmm, on the subject on Royal ancestory may I just remind you that both Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are of Danish ancestory.

Does that mean they're brother and sister then?

Am I correct in thinking that the whole bunch of you can be referred to as HM ARMED FORCES? To me that means that you are all royal.

Reading some of the posts in this thread, it seems some are a right royal bunch of to**as. Tongue in cheek, ducking......

Seriously though, I was dead set on joining the British Army from a very early age and saw the light just in time to avoid Sandhurst by a hair's breadth.
Went into farming instead and now look at me.

All that aside, I am very proud to be British and safe in the knowledge that the healthy rivalry between the services (regiments, sqaudrons) is still very much alive.

My qualifications for being in this forum?
None. I just came in to enter the caption comp occasionally (even win sometimes) and get naturally drawn by the humour and intellect which is usually very refreshing.
Keep it up!

ps I was in the CCF at school and Army Cadets for a while. Does that count as military service?

SP

[PPRuNe Pop]

So sorry! :E

Tibetan cannot be with you, he has been tasked to learn a very important lesson. :p

[Maple 01]

I'll probably delete this post if I ever sober up.........:O And/or get threatened by enough pong......er

Remember kids, don't drink and PPRuNe :ok: