When did the British Army lose the 'Royal' prefix?

[Wiley]

…if it ever had it?

I know the British Army doesn't sport the 'Royal' prefix because it once mutinied (and 'The Firm', having a very long memory, has withheld the 'Royal' to this day because of that). But can anyone tell me just when the mutiny in question occurred? My reason for asking is that I'm currently reading a book (written by an American) on the American Revolution and he refers to the British Army of the time as the 'Royal Army', (which really looks 'wrong').

I've always had it in mind that the mutiny in question occurred in or around Cromwellian times, certainly earlier than 1776-83, the period in question.

On an unrelated point to my question, it's interesting to read about the likes of Samuel Adams, one of the precipitators of the American Revolution. Adams' extremist views and sometimes quite radically intemperate actions polarised his more even-tempered fellow revolutionaries (and the large numbers of non-revolutionaries among the colonists, who preferred to remain loyal to England) early in the period of turmoil. He was almost certainly seen by the majority, even people on his side, as the Osama Bin Laden of his day.

I sometimes wonder if the Americans, with their current 'war on terrorism', ever pause to ponder on the irony that their own nation was born thanks to what the law abiding Establishment of those times would have seen as terrorism no less heinous than that perpetrated by today's Islamic radicals. (Roger's Rangers, irregular Continental troops who fought totally outside the accepted norms of combat, were the PFLP of the day.) The society the American Revolutionaries were attempting to create, a republic with voting rights for the common, untitled man and a democratically elected head of state, would have been seen by the Royalists of the day to have been every bit as threatening, radical and extreme as the Islamic society Bin Laden and his followers aspires towards today. Even closer to the current age, thinking Israelis must squirm when they look back on some of their founding fathers, like the leaders of the Stern Gang for instance, one of whom later became their Prime Minister. The irony gets really thick when an Israeli asks from whom did the Palestinians learn the ground rules in using terrorism to advance their political case.

[Chairborne 09.00hrs]

1649 - they killed the King!

And are you really expecting the Americans to understand such nuances? Nice people, but......

[Human Factor]

As far as I know, there never has been a 'Royal' British Army. The army is made up of a number of regiments, some of which are 'Royal', some of which are not.

[kbf1]

In order to have the prefix "Royal" an institution needs to hold a Royal Charter. Bothe the RAF and RN have charters as they are single institutions, the Army does not have a charter. This is because the Army is not a single institution, rather a collection of autonomous Regiments and Corps which exist under a command structure. That is why each cap badge (collective name for regiments and corps) has its own command structure, uniform, rank structure, and badges of rank (i.e. officers in most regiments were the star of the Order of the Bath, other the Order of the Garter and so on). Soldiers and officers are enlisted/commissioned into that regiment, not into the army as a whole, which is why an officer in the RAF would have RAF after his name, yet an army officer would have 9/12L, Para, RLC, AAC etc after his name. Similarly when you serve in the ARF or RN you are moved from sqn to sqn or ship to ship but will typically serve your whole career in your parent corps/regiment even if you are attached or seconded elsewhere. That is why you will see people from the Royal Corps of Signals (say) wearing para berets, and RLC soldiers wearing AAC berets all with their parent cap badge in.

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: kbf1 ]

[Wiley]

Thank you, gents. Danny's esteemed site would have to be by far the widest 'instant knowledge base' known to modern man.

King Jim the 2nd, wasn't it? Or was it the 1st? I do recall that he sported a long black head of hair that would have but Alice Cooper to shame. And wasn't he James the something else (6th?) of Scotland but James the 2nd of England at the same time? No wonder the poor bloody Yanks get confused.

[Archimedes]

Wiley,

The 'mutiny' was the English Civil War (or more accurately wars); 1642-49. The army itself didn't mutiny, since it didn't actually exist. The rights of freeborn Englishmen (or somesuch phrase) meant that there was no standing army - the theory being that the monarch could use it to suppress dissent and generally ignore parliament. The two armies that arose were raised by royalists and parliamentarians in different regions.

A third army arose in some areas - known as the 'Clubmen' - which fought to keep the other two armies out of their area.

The Pariamentarians began the standing army idea with the New Model Army; which played a great part in the events that followed, and not just on the battlefield. The NMA had a major political role and was a key influence in the decision to execute Charles I. When the monarchy was restored in 1660, the suspicion of standing armies was intensified. There were many debates on the merits or otherwise of having a properly constituted regular army from this point on, until in the early 18th century one emerged. As kbf1 notes, this was not a single entity, but based on the regional regimental system (of English Civil War vintage).

With regard to King James:

James I of England was also James VI of Scotland; he had this confusing mix of titles since he succeeded Elizabeth I as the nearest in line to the throne after her death in 1603, and held two crowns simultaneously.

Charles I (James VI & I's son) was the father of two boys - Charles and James. He was King of both nations and didn't have a separate numerator for the Scottish Crown as he was the first Charles to be King of Scotland.

Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and died in 1685 (ish). Although he had a fairly prodigious sexual appetite, Charles's appetite wasn't whetted sufficiently for him to have a legitimate heir. James succeeded, but had converted to Roman Catholicism in an era when this was regarded as verging on having a penchant for satanism. Parliament overthrew him in 1688, replacing him with the joint monarchy of William of Orange (William III) & Queen Mary.


As an aside, James ought to have been James II and VII, but it seems no-one employs this form of address for him. Mary was Mary II for both countries, so calling her Mary II & II would have been a little odd.

They got round this in theory with the Act of Union - although if you take the premise that the number after the name referred to the King/Queen of Britain, William IV ought to have been William I - but since this would have meant everyone confused him with William the Conquerer, the decision was taken that the combined crowns would progress with the numbers as applied to the English monarchs. In a rare piece of foresight, this decision was reached before the problem arose, as it was bound to do.

Edited to get some numerals right

[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]

[pushover]

One of the first things I was told when I joined the Mob: "They're not the Royal Army cos they can't spell Royal"

[kippermate]

Might be talking nonsense (would't be a first!) but I was always under the impression that The Army didn't need the 'Royal' prefix to differentiate between a military force and a civvie lot whereas the RAF and RN did.

But then The Atholl Highlanders are a private army so this could all be bo££oX

:confused:

[kbf1]

That might be true in the case of the Merchant Navy and Royal Nacy, but how man "civilian" Air Forces are there??? :confused:

[MajorMadMax]

...just the one!! :p :p :p

[Ali Barber]

Would that be the Confederate Air Force?

[MajorMadMax]

Actually, hadn't thought about the good ol' CAF, just a couple hours up the road here.

I was jokingly referring to my own USAF :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

[Nil nos tremefacit]

I remember once being asked if I was in the British Air Force (BAF?).

Of course, as with all of these things it is difficult to explain our constitutional law. Basically, the Crown raises Armed Forces and Parliament grants the Crown money to pay for them. The oath of allegiance is therefore to the monarch and not the country. This allows any subject of the Crown to join. Not all subjects of the Crown are British, although we've just moved the goal posts on that one. Any Commonwealth citizen and citizens of the Irish Republic (ex-Commonwealth) are allowed to join. To join the Atholl Highlanders, a perfectly legal private army, you have to work on the estate of the relevant peer (Earl of Atholl, Chief of the Murrays I believe).

With regards to the epithet 'Royal', you will note that we just call our forces Royal, whereas RNoAF, RNZAF, RNlAF include the country in the title so as not to confuse them with the original. The RN actually dates back to the 10th century without a break, The RAF was the first of it's kind. Even some of our Army units pre-date the New Model Army - I recall a RCT (now RLC) officer claiming precedence from the Royal baggage train. The Honourable Artillery Company (a unit for gentlemen), I am led to believe, goes back to the first artillery pieces. Even some of the infantry and cavalry, especially reserve units, like to trace their origins back to local militias raised about the castle and the peers. One unit has managed to incorporate the word Royal twice - Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia) - based at Monmouth Castle, their dining-in nights are superb.

The beauty of being first with something is that you get to write the rules - ever wonderered why we don't put the name of our country on our postage stamps? When we invented them there were no others so there was no need. A picture of the monarch is all that is required.

Incidentally, I don't think our Army has ever mutinied and only a handful of our sailors did.

[ORAC]

Army (Connaught Rangers 1920) (Disbanded 1992:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sh.keays/88mutin.html

RAF:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/~v655/shs/duncancontents.htm

[ 09 December 2001: Message edited by: ORAC ]

[Nil nos tremefacit]

Thanks ORAC.

I was hoping to gloss over that period by not mentioning the RAF by name (likewise the 19th century Indian Army had a problem or two). I remember my dad mentioning in a round about fashion that quite a few blokes weren't happy when he was in Karachi (he spent 3 months there on DC3s with 77 Sqn about that period). Funny how the powers that be at Cranwell etc never took us through the leadership/morale/man management aspects of the 1946 mutiny. ;)

I honestly believe that had they had Investors in People at the time it would never have happened! :rolleyes:

[Mystic Greg]

Nil nos tremefacit,

The Duke of Atholl may not be too pleased with your demotion of him to an earl. You are right, however, in identifying the Atholl Highlanders as the UK's only authorized private army - it dates from 1844 and is based at Blair Castle, the Duke's estate in Perthshire.

[Nil nos tremefacit]

ORAC

Thanks for the edit ref the Connaught Rangers. There's always one - Irish NCOIC Temperance????????????

It must have been the heat. Note all our mutinies on land have happened in India, whilst HMS Bounty was also in sunnier climes.

I did read a fascinating book about the Army in India. Before the arrival of the RAF, Army officers used to ride to hounds to hunt jackals. The order of pursuit was - jackal, hounds, Army officers. From the 1920s onwards the order of pursuit read - jackal, RAF Officers, hounds, Army officers! :rolleyes:

[Davaar]

I believe there never was an army rebellion as referred to in the first posting. From the earliest times there was no army, but rather levies raised by feudal lords who answered a Royal call. When gathered together, they were in fact an army. There was always doubt, even relatively recently, as to how long they would stay on the side they started with, and what might cause them to switch.

Not exactly from British history, but close, was the case of Col Hepburn, who commanded Hepburn’s Regiment under Gustavus Adolphus on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years War. Gustavus noted that the Colonel had very splendid armour ........ and was a Roman Catholic, which struck the King as funny. He was unwise enough to tease the Colonel on this, and Hepburn “at once sheathed his sword and left the Swedish service”. As someone commented, Gustavus should have taken the advice of the Emperor Charles V of Germany “qu’on n’irritast les Ecossois, sachant bien que les Ecossois estaient pauvres mais gens vaillants” (best not to annoy the Scots, knowing that they are poor but very brave). Unlike that of Col Hepburn, other defections were made for unimportant reasons.

It was to overcome primary loyalty to their direct lord that pongoes, who came in time to be known as “army officers”, were required to take an oath of loyalty to the Sovereign. Officers of the Royal Navy do not now and never did have to take such an oath, for their service always was Royal, and their loyalty never in doubt.

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Davaar ]

[Rattus]

I think this was Lord Lewin, speaking after an inter-service Rugby match:
"I know only one thing about Rugby, which is that the Army wear red shirts so the blood won't show, and that the Royal Navy wear blue shirts, for precisely the same reason"
:D :D :D

[Sloppy Link]

I think the Royal Navy has had its fair share of mutinies too, HMS Bounty being one and in the Twenties, after a decision by the Admiralty to reduce every mans wage by four pennies per day (equivalent to 20% of a sailors pay but 3% of an Admirals). Somewhere off the west coast of Scotland I think. AFPRB, take note!

[Kiting for Boys]

Invergordon 1931, Atlantic Fleet.
I once spoke to an old matelot who had been on Warspite at the time. Word was spread by unco-ordinated cheering.

All felt let down by treatment after the event.

[ORAC]

Spithead & Nore Mutinies. Napoleonic Wars, 1797:
http://www.napoleonguide.com/timeline_c.htm

[ 17 December 2001: Message edited by: ORAC ]

[outback]

;) Wiley in his original posting raised a point.
What we know as modern terrorism (ie bombs, back-shooting etc) was initiated by the Israelis - The Stern Gang and Irgun.
The honour of being the first to terrorise
an aircraft carrying civilians goes to the Greek Cypriots (Eoka) Nicosia airport 1957.
Fortunately the fuse was too short.
They were more lucky with the BEA comet at
Athens in 1967 when all were lost.
If anyone remembers him- Doesn't Black Mac resemble OBL??? Swop the black hat for a white one.

[Wiley]

James' Clavell's hero in Shogun summed up the situation we're discussing here about as neatly as anyone has. (I'm talking about the fictitious 17th century Brit sea captain who takes the Dutch ship to Japan and ends up working as a quasi Samurai for the Japanese warlord).

Early in the book, when questioned by the Japanese warlord about he could justify rebelling against his King, (something the Japanese looks upon with serious misgivings), the Brit gives an answer that says it all. "Can I justify it? Certainly. Because we won."

That answer pretty well explains it all, and continues to be very pertinent to this day.

[ORAC]

Sir John Harington (1561-1612):


Treason doth never prosper - What's the reason?
If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.