 javelin98  | 16 Jun 2014 11:41 a.m. PST |
I'm just curious, and I can't seem to find an explanation online for the difference. Is the British Army not royal, or the Royal Navy not British? I'm sure it's some traditional thing, but I'm wondering what led to it. Thanks!
jav98 |
| Phil Gray | 16 Jun 2014 11:52 a.m. PST |
The Welsh and the Scots didn't have a fleet? |
| JimDuncanUK | 16 Jun 2014 12:11 p.m. PST |
The Royal Navy was created by a monarch, Henry VIII, you know, the one with all the women trouble. It is the Senior Service. The Royal Air Force was created by amalgating the Royal Flying Corps (part of the British army) and the Royal Naval Air Service (part of the Royal Navy). The British Army was create by Parliament (politicians). Parts of the Army can be Royal, such as the Royal Scots or the Royal Artillery. |
| Battle Phlox | 16 Jun 2014 12:11 p.m. PST |
I think it is because the Navy stayed loyal to the King during the English Civil war. The UK Army is based off the New Model Army which belonged to Parlemint. |
| doug6125 | 16 Jun 2014 12:11 p.m. PST |
The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were formed by Royal Charter and approval of an enthroned monarch and so are 'Royal' by creation and appointment. The British Army's origins lay with the New Model Army, formed during the English Civil War with the purpose of defeating and enthroned monarch. Though disbanded by General Monk after the Declaration of Breda and the start of the Restoration; the key Regiments survived (Coldstream Guards, Royal Scots, Buffs etc.) and were used as the basis for the British Army. Thus the Royal title has never been awarded – though it has since been awarded separately to a large number of the elements that remain in the British Army (Royal Logistics Corps, Royal Regiment Of Fusiliers, Princess of Wales Royal Regiments etc.) Some still remain without this title (Adjutant General's Corps, The Parachute Regiment etc.) The lack of a Royal title has become its own signature and to award it now would be unlikely and unnecessary. |
| javelin98 | 16 Jun 2014 1:28 p.m. PST |
|
| Cuchulainn | 16 Jun 2014 2:28 p.m. PST |
Henry VIII? I thought Alfred The Great had something to do with it Jim? |
| Sparker | 16 Jun 2014 2:57 p.m. PST |
Yes as above – The 'British Army' exists only in official form, all officers and soldiers actually enlist or are commissioned into Regiments and Corps, even if only the 'General Service Corps' if there is doubt as to which Corps they will eventually end up in, as in the case of Technical Apprentices. So for example I enlisted into the 'Royal Regiment of Wales', not the British Army. Whereas when I joined the navy, I enlisted into the 'Royal Navy', rather than my first unit, HMS Raleigh, the navy's 'boot camp'. Similarly, once subsequently commissioned, I was commissioned into the 'Royal Navy', not my ship at the time, HMS Portland, or the officer training establishment I was going to join, BRNC Dartmouth. All important points at the time for individuals, but of no importance overall these days. However, it should be said that, as a result of the English Civil War, in which I am ashamed to admit the bulk of naval forces took the side of the rebels, the body politik as a whole has always had a suspicion of the Army as a standing body, whereas the Navy has always been the nation's darling. I don't think the Royal Air Force has had time yet for anyone to form an opinion, although they're doing pretty well for a new boy… |
| JimDuncanUK | 16 Jun 2014 3:23 p.m. PST |
@Cuchulainn Depends on how you define the 'Royal' designation of Royal Navy. You could claim Henry VIII, Alfred the Great or even Charles II. The OP has had his question answered though! |
| Cuchulainn | 16 Jun 2014 3:45 p.m. PST |
Thanks Jim. I'm ashamed to confess that, even though my main interest is the naval side of things, my knowledge of the history of the RN is pretty much non-existent. I just seem to remember my old history teacher saying King Alfred was the father of the Royal Navy. |
| wminsing | 16 Jun 2014 4:03 p.m. PST |
I just seem to remember my old history teacher saying King Alfred was the father of the Royal Navy. That depends on how you define 'father' and 'Royal Navy'. Alfred is usually credited with being the first English monarch to raise a fleet specifically to defend the nation (as opposed to ferrying his army somewhere else). But there was a break of hundreds of years between Alfred's fleet and the later 'Royal Navy' that the Tudors worked on establishing where the English had no regular fleet at all. -Will |
| Jemima Fawr | 16 Jun 2014 10:10 p.m. PST |
Sparks, that's the nicest thing you've ever said. I've got a warm lump in the back of my pants. |
| Sparker | 17 Jun 2014 3:28 a.m. PST |
Well the Brylcream Boys have their uses – can't have all those 5 star hotels standing empty… |
| Jemima Fawr | 17 Jun 2014 3:31 a.m. PST |
|
| Big Martin Back | 17 Jun 2014 4:34 a.m. PST |
Yes – the continuity back to Alfred for the Royal Navy is a bit of a myth. |
| forrester | 17 Jun 2014 5:30 a.m. PST |
Especially as Alfred would presumably have been King of Wessex, not England, which would be even more tenuous. |
| piemanal | 17 Jun 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
Sparker: Well the Brylcream Boys have their uses – can't have all those 5 star hotels standing empty… too true
we dont dig in – we book in ! XIV the 1 4 me |
| Sparker | 17 Jun 2014 7:47 p.m. PST |
I think most naval historians attribute the 'R' in RN to the interest and money that Charles II put into the fleet…or is it just that Samuel Pepys recorded it all… |
added anti-tank elements to his NATO forces in WWIII: Team Yankee.
