Why "British Army"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why "British Army"?
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.
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.
Last edited by KC-10 Driver; 18th Aug 2005 at 15:34.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fg Off Bloggs
Give the guy a break - it seems like an honest question for heaven's sake.
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....
Hope this helps - sure that others will correct any errors above.
S41
Give the guy a break - it seems like an honest question for heaven's sake.
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....
Hope this helps - sure that others will correct any errors above.
S41
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But, thank you, Squirrel, for the defense.
I figured that the answer would be somewhat akin to my theory.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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
Full story here.
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
My girlfriend
I can't help it.
I can't help it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hiding from the ugly folk
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
We don't a 'Royal' tag due to all of the above.
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?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Just curious.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts