"What is the 'Royal Army'?" Topic

What is the 'Royal Army'? I've seen paint schemes from all the big plastic manufacturers for this mysterious army, but what country is it?

Since I first saw this in relation to a WW2 tank, I thought it might mean the Italians. But now you can buy modern equipment for it too:

Revell – 1/72 – Royal Army (modern) (RE-02519) – Model Kits …
A brand new and factory sealed model kit by Revell: Revell – 1/72 – Royal Army (modern) (RE-02519)

02519 1/72 Royal Army Modern. This is set contains 1/72nd scale accessories for wargaming or creating dioramas …. HASEGAWA HOBBY KIT… Games Workshop

Italieri
MO074736
863
WAH-64D Apache, KLu, Royal Army, US Army
17.40

Is it some fantasy army? Is from some fantasy film I'm too old to know about or something?

It's people not knowing what they're talking about – "Royal Army" usually means "British army and we've got the name wrong"…. The reasoning seems to be an assumption that because it's the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, it must be the "Royal Army" too, when actually it's not; regiments may be titled Royal, but the army as a whole isn't.

Can't have a standing army associated with the monarchy, that might lead to a Louis XIV style autocracy.

As Dom says, it is usually some confusion about the actual title of the British Army.

A quick Google suggests an erroneous connection to the British Army. Certain regiments and corps have the honorific "Royal" but the army itself is of course the British Army. Unlike the ROYAL Navy and ROYAL Airforce.

Maybe it's the Royal Thai Army.
-Kle.

Maybe it's the Royal Thai Army

Doesn't seem to be. RE-02519 seems to be the modern British Infantry. See link and link

So why isn't it the Royal Army? What'd the Navy and Air Force do right (or wrong)?

So why isn't it the Royal Army? What'd the Navy and Air Force do right (or wrong)?

I'm sure an actual Brit will come along and correct me, but I believe the distinction dates back to the New Model Army, followed by the Restoration. In short, the monarchy got the Navy, but the Parliament got the Army.

-Will

As an 'actual Brit' I'm not really sure, so you could well be right, wminsing. But I think it might also be because the army wasn't a whole entity, unlike the RN and the RAF. The Army was actually a collection of regiments, any of which might be given the title 'Royal' by the monarch. Recently it's become more integrated, but much of the old regimental structure still exists.

Isn't the Dutch army "Royal"?

I woudl concur with Ermintrude – the tradition goes way back, so that while individual regiments could be "Royal" the army overall is the British Army, not the monarch's plaything – that was what the Guards regiments were for

By the time the RN and RAF came into a more formal structure, the constitutional monarchy was better established and "Royal" probably seemed like a better honorific

The same situation applied to places like Australia and Canada – pre-integration for Canada – although interestingly enough the RCN is now Canadian Forces Maritime Command, the Canadian Army kept all those regimental names (Royal Canadian Dragoons, Royal Canadian Regiment, etc.)

That must be it chaps.

wminsing 17 Nov 2009 6:03 a.m. PST

''I'm sure an actual Brit will come along and correct me, but I believe the distinction dates back to the New Model Army, followed by the Restoration. In short, the monarchy got the Navy, but the Parliament got the Army.''

Stop it, you're putting the Brits to shame, wminsing! But yes, the fact that a briefly integrated army had it's origens fighting the Royals! might have something to do with it. I believe that after the civil war it was outlawed for King have a permanently financed standing army in Britian, hense all the militias.

Still, it's a bit odd this manufacturers 'Royal Army' thing. I mean, if these manufacturers in Italy, Germany and Japan are gong to go to all the trouble of moulding the tiniest details of the rivits on an engine cover, you'd think they'd be interested in getting the name of the army right, wouldn't you?

Mind you, be interesting if it was a fantasy modern army,wouldn't it?

The British Army might not be Royal, but the oath of allegiance swears to defend the Queen against her enemies.

I've read the reason not to long ago but can't find the reference to give the date's and law names. Basically it's because the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force exist by "Royal Charter" but the Army exist by "Act of Parliament". The Parliament thought that the Navy wasn't a big threat to them, but a standing land army was (which if you look at their history it was). So they made the Army's existence up to them at there leisure. That was how it started, but could be different in modern times.

"The Parliament thought that the Navy wasn't a big threat to them, but a standing land army was (which if you look at their history it was). So they made the Army's existence up to them at their leisure."

I think it was rather that the New Model Army in 1645 was formed by Act of Parliament to be Parliament's army as opposed to the Royal (King's) Army.

Found it, I think.

"The Monarch is head of the Armed Forces and is the only person who can declare war and peace, though these powers are exercised today only on the advice of responsible Ministers. The Bill of Rights of 1689 purports to prevent a standing army in peacetime.

"That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law."

No such prohibition applies to the Royal Navy. Parliamentary consent is currently given by the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 and annual Continuation Orders passed by Parliament."

Quote in quote

Royal Horse Artillery
Royal Artillery
Royal Tank Regiment
Royal Armoured Corps
Royal Sapppers and Miners
Royal Engineeers
Royal Army Medical Corps
Royal Marines (not army)
Royal Corps of Signals
Corps of Royal Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Royal Logistic Corps
Royal Army Chaplains' Department

Everybody's royal except the basic infantry except some special ones
Royal Welch Fusiliers
Royal Regiment of Scotland
King's Royal Hussars

probably some more

"Found it, I think."

Where?

This was brought up back in March LOL.

TMP link

"This was brought up back in March LOL."

Um … last post was March … 2008!!

@ Mike

To a point, it is the beginning of it (the concept), but The New Model cannot be counted today (or time period in question modern/ WWII) since it was disbanded in August 1660 by the Convention Parliament at the beginning of the restoration. At the disbanding a new army was created and this is the current one (hence the Wiki page stating 1661-present). The Bill of Rights of 1689 is the current law that holds today.

Due to this The New Model Army and the current British Army are two different entities.

Here is a link to what I quoted
link

P.S. I'm Surprised that the British Army webpage doesn't have a history section.

The Royal Air Force is "Royal" because it grew from the Royal Engineers which spawned the Royal Flying Corps.

"To a point, it is the beginning of it [snip]"

Yes, I knew all that, I was asking for the reference for your quote. Thanks.

"Due to this The New Model Army and the current British Army are two different entities."

Strictly speaking, true, up to a point. But the British Army recognises it's roots in the New Model Army:
"The British Army played a decisive role in the creation of the nation state of Great Britain, as we recognise it today. Our army is not called the Royal Army (unlike the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force) because, after a historic struggle between Parliament and monarchy, the British Army has always been answerable to Parliament and the British people. If you live in Britain today the actions of the British Army have affected the culture, traditions, government and laws of the society you live in now, and, on a global scale, are continuing to do so today."
link

"The two oldest units in the British Army trace their origins to the reign of Henry VIII?

The Honourable Artillery Company (a Territorial Army unit) traces its origins to a charter of incorporation received from the King in 1537. The Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia), another Territorial Army unit, claims descent from the General Levy established in Monmouth in 1539."
link
- thus predating even the New Model Army by some years.

"The Restoration of Charles II saw the Model Army kept as a standing force, and the King raised further regiments loyal to the Crown. On 26 January 1661, Charles II issued the warrant that officially founded the British Army."
link
- so units of the NMA were incorporated into the British Army in 1661.

"P.S. I'm Surprised that the British Army webpage doesn't have a history section."

The National Army Museum fulfils that role. See quotes above.

"This was brought up back in March LOL."

Um … last post was March … 2008!!"

LOL Sorry I forgot the 2008 date. I know it was brought up more recently but the damn search function keeps timing out on me :( LOL. Robert

Prior to the Act of Union in 1707 there was no ‘British' Army as such; there were, in fact, three separate armies on the English, Scottish and Irish establishments, all owing allegiance to the same monarch. It also included Dutch and – from 1689 to 1698 – two Huguenot regiments.

A Royal Warrant created the modern British Army on 26th January 1661, eight months after the Stuart restoration to the throne. The army consisted of a mix of regiments that had served the King during his exile, New Model Army units that had changed their allegiance, and newly raised regiments. It was termed the ‘British' Army rather than the ‘Royal' Army because although it owed its allegiance to the Monarch, it owed its continued existence to Parliament.

This concept was enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which was passed after James II vacated the throne and was replaced by William III and Queen Mary II. The Act states that:

'Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom … By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law … And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare … That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law.'

The regiments created in 1661 included:

English Establishment

Household Cavalry
1st, 2nd, and 3rd Troops of Horse Guards (1658 – 1659) [1881: 1st Life Guards; 1992: Became part of the Household Cavalry Regiment]
Royal Horse Guards (The Oxford Blues) (1661) [1881: The Royal Horse Guards; 1992: Became part of the Household Cavalry Regiment]

Foot Guards
King's Royal Regiment of Guards (1656) [1881: Grenadier Guards]
Lord General's Regiment of Foot Guards (1650) [1881: Coldstream Guards]

Infantry
Earl of Peterborough's Regiment of Foot (1661) [1881: The Buffs (East Kent Regiment); 1992: Became part of The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshires)]

Scottish Establishment

Household Cavalry
Scots Troop of Horse Guards (1661) [1881: 1st Life Guards; 1992: Became part of the Household Cavalry Regiment]

Foot Guards
Scots Regiment of Foot Guards (1642) [1881: Scots Guards]

Infantry
1st Regiment of Foot [1881: The Royal Scots (Lothian Regiment); 2007: Became The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland]

Bob Cordery

What Bob said. There was no British Army until after the Act of Union in 1707.

I did vaguely hint at that in my original post, although perhaps a little obscurely. Can't have the monarch with a standing army like Johnny Foreigner, very bad form.