Question for the UK folks...

[Dawes]

I work with UK military personnel in my current job. I'm told that, while "Royal Air Force", "Royal Navy" and "Royal Marines" are correct, it's "British Army" and not "Royal Army". Why is this?

[shep854]

"Curious contradiction when you think about it."--Stuart Galbraith

Nothing like quirky cousins.

[Assessor]

Because originally, regiments were formed by individuals who had the money and will to do so. There was no centrally organised army raised, funded or under the control of the monarch (unlike the navy of the same time). Hence the army was "English" or "British" (as in its national / geographic origin) rather than "Royal" (as in its source or control). The first centrally organised, government controlled British army was the New Model (AIUI), which was innately not "Royal" anyway, but the convention of it not being the "Royal Army" predates this.

 

That's how it was dinned into me anyway.

[Assessor]

Ive always been told it was because the New Model Army, which is what the present day Army is, conspired to kill the King, namely Charles I.

The New Model was disbanded at the Restoration, and the army doesn't specifically look to the NMA as its predecessor, iirc

 

Interestingly Royal Marines are not allowed to be be in charge of the tower (I forget the exact title) since they swear allegiance to the Board of Admiralty. Curious contradiction when you think about it.

Correct. The Constable is a retired general or field marshal. It is ironic, but that's what the marines get for leaving the army and going with the tars!

[Marek Tucan]

AFAIK in India Army were sometimes referred as "King's..." (troops, Horse...), as opposed to "Company" (East Indian Company army).

 

Also there wre some King's Own regiments, no?

[pikachu]

AFAIK in India Army were sometimes referred as "King's..." (troops, Horse...), as opposed to "Company" (East Indian Company army).

 

Also there wre some King's Own regiments, no?

 

Individual units in the British Army could (originally) have been raised by the King or for the King, thus earning the name "King's Own xxx". If private citizens can earn a Colonelship by raising a regiment, then so can the (in theory much wealthier) King. AFAIK now the name is just hereditary, though. I'm not aware of the Crown paying for the upkeep of operational military units.

[Sardaukar]

What Stuart said is true (as far as I can say).

 

There are still branches and units in British army called "Royal", like Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Regiment of Artillery..etc.

 

But those Royals are bit unforgiving bas-tards when it comes to overthrowing and beheading them.

[Archie Pellagio]

Short version is the Regiments and/or Corps are 'Royal' (Royal Australian Engineers/Royal Australian Regiment/Royal Australian Armoured Corps etc)

 

There are some others though, like the various Intelligence corps are not 'Royal' in any commonwealth army.

[WRW]

The New Model was disbanded at the Restoration, and the army doesn't specifically look to the NMA as its predecessor, iirc

 

 

Would Coldstram Guards agree?

[Wobbly Head]

The other problem is that when regiments are amalgamated they try to keep parts of the older regiments history so you have some regiment like the Kings Royal Hussars, part of the Royal armoured Corps which is made up of the 10th,11th,14th and 20th Hussar regiments so they have all sorts of traditions and dress. Even the barracks dress look very gay but at least it was not as bad as the band of the hussars before they amalgamated to light Calvary band they were dressed such that everybody had a hard time keeping our faces straight and not whistling the tune to Captain Scarlet. They ditched the Scarlet trousers and bright red jumper after they amalgamated.

[Phil]

Its because if history. In this country there has always been a great aversion to a Standing Army. This is because it was felt that a Standing Army could be used by a Monarch to subjugate the Kingdom. The solution to this dilemma was pretty simple in those days, do not have a Standing Army. And thus for most of English modern history there has not been a Standing Army. There was a Royal Navy as obviously a Navy would have a lot more trouble enslaving its people. So the Standing Army emerged ad hoc from about the Civil War onwards but until relatively recently it was always regarded with great suspicion and a necessary evil in certain times and Parliament ruthlessly kept its tail docked in peacetime. Therefore, for Parliament to have allowed a Royal Army to have been raised would have been unthinkable until quite recently, the title would have stood for Royalist power. Britain has not had an army for very long, it simply raised armies where needed in the past.

 

Obviously as time went on and Parliaments superiority became entrenched and old fears died the Royals have gotten more of a say in the Army and there are more examples of Royal honours etc.

[Assessor]

The New Model was disbanded at the Restoration, and the army doesn't specifically look to the NMA as its predecessor, iirc

 

 

Would Coldstram Guards agree?

I would never consider myself qualified to speak for any woodentop, but AIUI, the regiment the George Monck raised was part of the NMA, but continued (effectively) to exist outwith the NMA. Regiments look inward to themselves as their predecessors, not outward at what in our parlance would be "higher formations".

[Assessor]

Its because if history. In this country there has always been a great aversion to a Standing Army. This is because it was felt that a Standing Army could be used by a Monarch to subjugate the Kingdom. The solution to this dilemma was pretty simple in those days, do not have a Standing Army. And thus for most of English modern history there has not been a Standing Army. There was a Royal Navy as obviously a Navy would have a lot more trouble enslaving its people. So the Standing Army emerged ad hoc from about the Civil War onwards but until relatively recently it was always regarded with great suspicion and a necessary evil in certain times and Parliament ruthlessly kept its tail docked in peacetime. Therefore, for Parliament to have allowed a Royal Army to have been raised would have been unthinkable until quite recently, the title would have stood for Royalist power. Britain has not had an army for very long, it simply raised armies where needed in the past.

 

Obviously as time went on and Parliaments superiority became entrenched and old fears died the Royals have gotten more of a say in the Army and there are more examples of Royal honours etc.

Not withstanding that, parliament has consented to a standing army at least as far back as 1689, when the provision to raise and maintain such a thing was described in the Bill of Rights. The size of the army has varied according to (perceived) need and a willingness to spend money, and the provision of the 1689 Bill is renewed annually, but a standing army has existed de facto since that date. It only became the British Army in 1707 with the Act of Union.

[nigelfe]

The 1688 Bill of Rights made a standing army illegal, this meant that the army had to be legalised by an annual army act. This meant that the army was Parliament's not the King's (although the King was still C-in-C, an amusing tradition subsequently inherited by the United States but long abandoned in UK). In 1689 the Mutiny Act was passed to govern the peacetime army, supplementing the older Articles of War. In 1881 these became the army’s disciplinary code as part of a new annual Army Act. This approach was inherited by the Royal Air Force in the Air Force Act. Both Army and RAF are illegal unless legalised annually.

 

In 1961 the Army and Air Force Act removed the need for annual continuation acts by making the two service acts valid for 5 years, subject to an annual Order in Council tabled in and passed by parliament. This remains the position under the Armed Forces Act 2006 that replaced the single service acts (and the A&AFA).

 

Now, why the RAF is Royal and the Army isn't, despite both being illegal is an interesting question. I think it is because the RAF was originally a unitary 'regiment' with many battalions/wings - the Royal Flying Corps, whereas the Army has always comprised many different 'regiments', some being 'Royal' others not.

 

Nor sure about the marines, since they were originally part of the army and were always subject to Army Act for discipline.

[Archie Pellagio]

Looking back to the period between 1815 and 1914, the size of the Army was absurdly small, particularly when you bear in mind how much territory it had to potentially defend. I cant speak for a historic relucance to have a standing Army as its well outside my field, but it would be fair to say we instinctively seemed to prefer putting the resources into the Navy. Its only comparatively recently (post 1979 arguably) we reversed that trend, and even then that was to only free up funds to maintain a small professional Army.

 

Whether that was down to a national distrust of the army going back to Charles II, well I think might be stretching it. But we certainly seem to share with the Americans the belief that large standing armies are a bad thing.

 

The other thing you have to factor in is the role of the Indian Army - They were the British Empire's USMC in effect - if the shit hit the fan in Africa, they would be the bulk of forces, once you take Africa and the greater Subcontinent, there wasn't much of the world the British were going to send an army of consequence.

[baboon6]

Thanks Assessor, I had thought it was the same army but what you say makes sense. Am I right in thinking that Honorable Artillery company predates this though?

 

 

One thing I noticed today, there was an article on the TV on Wills and Kate visiting Canada. I noticed a Canadian Soldier dressed in ceremonial uniform very similar to the Guards, ie red tunic and (canadian) bearskin hat. I didnt know Canada still had that kind of outfit for ceremonial work, and I was wondering what regiment this might be? Looked very smart I thought.

 

The Ceremonial Guard is drawn from two units, the Governor-General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards, both infantry units in the reserve force. There was a regular regiment of Canadian Guards with several battalions in the '50s and '60s but they were disbanded in about 1970 I think.

[swerve]

The other thing you have to factor in is the role of the Indian Army - They were the British Empire's USMC in effect - if the shit hit the fan in Africa, they would be the bulk of forces, once you take Africa and the greater Subcontinent, there wasn't much of the world the British were going to send an army of consequence.

The HEIC army wasn't used outside the subcontinent & the HEIC interests in Burma, SE Asia & China, AFAIK. Between the Mutiny & WW1 the Indian army was also used in the Abyssinia campaign & East Africa, but I think that's still the old HEIC stamping grounds, still covered by the India Office rather than the Foreign Office.

 

It was deliberately not used for fighting white men until WW1, & western & southern Africa were covered by a mixture of British & locally raised troops. The only Indian troops sent to South Africa, for example, were logistics & service troops in non-combat roles.

[Archie Pellagio]

Thats exactly my second point, aside from the Ethiopian campaign and the Sudan, there wasn't much going on, there was Southern Africa, but thats about it as far as major commitments went outside of the Raj's greater AO.

 

The point is thinking of the standing British army covering "the whole world" on it's own is really ignoring two key points - 1. The Indian army needs to be factored into the ORBAT, along with the constellation of other colonial regiments and 2. Most of the potential deployments can be covered by the Indian Army area of responsibility or covered by the units of the standing army.

 

And the Indian army is only the bulk of forces, never mind all of the local forces raised elsewhere in the world, African, Carribean as well as 'white' commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), all of which were effectively as good a British in terms of control.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Luke Y

[FirstOfFoot]

Thats what I assume too. its particularly confusing when you remember that the Army Air Corp, which arguably inherited much of the ground the RFC vacated isnt Royal at all, and is presumably going to remain so.

 

Why? This year, the Army Physical Training Corps became the Royal Army Physical Training Corps. Wait until their centenaries, and see what happens.

 

PS Coldstreamers? A young regiment. Ours was fifty before they had their first recruit... having said that, our colours are being paraded for the last time tomorrow.

[swerve]

Thats exactly my second point, aside from the Ethiopian campaign and the Sudan, there wasn't much going on, there was Southern Africa, but thats about it as far as major commitments went outside of the Raj's greater AO.

I dunno. As well as those you mention, there was the Crimean war, which was pretty major, & numerous small wars, e.g. five Ashanti wars in 80 years (four in the last 40), a couple of Maori wars (one not so small - tough & canny buggers, those Maoris), & various punitive & conquering colonial expeditions, in the century between Waterloo & WW1. Between 'em, that lot needed a significant number of troops.

 

And, of course, there were the regular British regiments stationed in India. Three brothers of ancestors of mine served in India between 1810 & 1846, all in British regiments. All three also served outside the India Office area, two in the Napoleonic wars (one was at Corunna, one at Waterloo) & one in New Zealand. The British army in India was not the same as the British army of India.

[nigelfe]

The Indian Army, created in 1860 or thereabouts was never entirely Indian. The artillery was almost all British apart from a handful of mountain batteries, and one third of the infantry was also British as was the regular cavalry.

 

As for Africa, there were no Indian troops in the various campaigns in Southern and West Africa. The campaigns in Egypt and Sudan were predominatly British eg Egypt 1882 was a corps sized force, comprising 2 Brit Inf Divs and a cav bde, plus 1 Ind inf bde and 1 Ind cav bde. Then there were the Maori Wars.

[nigelfe]

Thats what I assume too. its particularly confusing when you remember that the Army Air Corp, which arguably inherited much of the ground the RFC vacated isnt Royal at all, and is presumably going to remain so.

 

I don't think so.

 

There have been two Army Air Corps. The first in WW2 was the airborne forces. The second from 1957ish was formed around the Air OP Sqns RAF that had been created by the Royal Artillery in 1941 (after very strong RAF resistance) with a very particular role. I wouldn't even go as far as saying that the Air OP Sqns were the successors to the Artillery Sqn of the Corps Wing RFC, never mind all their other wings. The Air OP Sqns never flew forward of the FDLs (or FEBA if you want), the WW1 Artillery Sqns spent their entire time over en territory.

[WRW]

Why? This year, the Army Physical Training Corps became the Royal Army Physical Training Corps. Wait until their centenaries, and see what happens.

 

PS Coldstreamers? A young regiment. Ours was fifty before they had their first recruit... having said that, our colours are being paraded for the last time tomorrow.

 

 

Where will the colour lie up?

 

Did not your lot start with the French?

[mnm]

Its because if history. In this country there has always been a great aversion to a Standing Army. This is because it was felt that a Standing Army could be used by a Monarch to subjugate the Kingdom. The solution to this dilemma was pretty simple in those days, do not have a Standing Army.

...

 

Not wishing to go on a tangent but I am intrigued. Is there or is there not a connection between this 'aversion to a Standing Army' and the famous wording 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, etc, etc.'?

 

That is, this 'aversion' was felt across the Atlantic among different subjects to the British Crown, who found a different solution? Not that the Colonials were the only ones to suffer the tender mercies of the British Army, IIRC during the Napoleonic wars half of the Dragoon regiments were kept home for internal security.

 

I apologise in advance if my question looks like complete rubbish, I'm not very familiar with early US history.

Edited July 3, 2011 by mnm

[DB]

We did have the luxury of a fairly effective moat - excise duty was raised nominally to support the navy.