> (Minor historical question: why isn't the Brit Army the "Royal Army"
when
> the UK's Navy, Artillery and even Air Force are all "Royal"?)
> Because the Army was founded by a man who wasn't Royal. That'd be
I thought the "modern" British army was founded following the Restoration
(1660)
All of the supporting corps and a lot of the regiments are "Royal..."
Perhaps following the Civil Wars the regular standing army was still not
considered appropriate to be HM's Army??
--- Phillip Atcliffe <Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:
> thereabouts. Armies,
As recently as the Victorian era, unit facings showed with "army" the various
regiments were raised from: Royal regiments wore blue, English and Welsh
regiments wore white, Scottish wore yellow, and Irish regiments had green
facings.
Except (and it wouldn't be British without exceptions) for units like the
Buffs, Rifle Brigade, et al that had some historical reason for wearing a
different facing. And of course, the cavalry regiments were on an entirely
different scheme.
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:04:12 +0000 Donogh McCarthy
> <donoghmc@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (Minor historical question: why isn't the Brit Army the "Royal
> Because the Army was founded by a man who wasn't Royal. That'd be
> I thought the "modern" British army was founded following the
> Perhaps following the Civil Wars the regular standing army was still
I rather think the original poster (whose name got lost -- sorry)
answered his own question by mentioning the RA -- which, unless
something odd has happened lately, is part of the Army. <g>
It's a matter of organisation and history. The Navy and Air Force have always
been organised as a single service, which as a concept is a
relatively late development -- 16/17th century or thereabouts. Armies,
OTOH, have generally been _raised_ piecemeal; that is, in small units
which then come together to form The Army. I suppose it goes back to feudal
times, when a monarch (or duke or whatever) would call for troops from his
nobles, who'd go to their subordinates (barons, knights, etc.), who'd call out
their people; any particular leader didn't have that much of a force at his
beck and call, but put all these small units together and you had a sizeable
force.
Each of these units, be it infantry, cavalry, artillery or whatever, was under
the command of a specific leader, who "owned" it, raised it,
paid it (in some cases), paid _for_ it in later times, and had the
responsibility for it -- and it was often his decision as to what side
it fought on (e.g., the Stanleys at Bosworth Field). So there were units with
names like "Sir Thomas Hutton's Regiment of Foot." The organisation of the
Army was, if you like, from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
This persisted into at least Napoleonic times, and maybe even to WW1, and
inertia, coupled with history and justifiable pride by the men in a unit of
that history, meant that the titles, royal accolades, etc. were always given
to units rather than to the Army as a whole. The
closest thing the Army has to the RN/RAF overall title is what was
adopted for the newer combat arms -- so Royal Artillery as a whole
rather than something along the lines of the Duke of York's Own Heavy Battery;
Royal Armoured Regiment, even though this now incorporates many much older
cavalry units; Royal Flying Corps; REME, etc.
Phil
----
"Sic Transit Gloria Barramundi" (Or, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!)
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:04:12 +0000, "Donogh McCarthy"
<donoghmc@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I thought the "modern" British army was founded following the
Wasn't it Marlborough that first formed a standing army in Britain? I'm a
little rough on this, as it's been 10 years since I looked at it (I was doing
some research to find out why British regiments had red uniforms until the end
of the 19th century).
> Perhaps following the Civil Wars the regular standing army was still
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there can be more than one
army in existance. There can be several fleets, but one navy. There are
several air force squadrons, wings, etc. but only one air force. There can be,
however, more than one army.
I'll have to ask my history expert friend for her opinion on this.
> I thought the "modern" British army was founded following the
> Wasn't it Marlborough that first formed a standing army in Britain?
> until the end of the 19th century).
During Marlborough's tenure (or at least during the Spanish Wars of
Succession) the BRITISH Army was founded, following the Act of Union with
Scotland in 1707. Previously the armies had been from one of the three
kingdoms but owing allegiance to the same person.
I think regiments weren't numbered until immediately before the 7 Years War
- so until then they were known by their Colonel's name & designation.
> Perhaps following the Civil Wars the regular standing army was still
> Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there can be more
There
> are several air force squadrons, wings, etc. but only one >air force.
There
> can be, however, more than one army.
It's still called the "British Army" isn't it?
> I'll have to ask my history expert friend for her opinion on this.
Looking forward to some expert opinion on this question (which never occured
to me until today)
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:02:17 -0500 Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net>
wrote:
> Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there can be more
There are several air force squadrons, wings, etc. but only one air force. <
Not so. There have been many examples of multiple air forces, and the USAF
still has them today. Examples from WW2 involving the RAF are the Desert Air
Force in North Africa and 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force in Normandy.
Phil
----
"We gotta get out into Space / If it's the last thing we ever do!"
-- Return to the Forbidden Planet