"Royal Navy, Royal Air force, Royal army???" Topic

Today I heard one of these phrases that REALLY es me off in Germany. And that is ""The Royal army", when refering to the British army.

After allowing him to pick up at least one ear, I carefully and, politely (In my "you are a ing imbicilic dick head" sort of way), started to explain WHY Britain has a Royal everything else, but the army is NOT one of them.

THEN, I realised, allthough it was carefully explained to us in basic at Chichester, I have forgotten.

Could any one pLEASE refresh my memory, BEFORE I get arrested for attempted murder?

I SEEM to remember that it was because the regiments where still kind of privately owned by the Colonel, who allowed the King to use them when neccessary, was the main reason (????)

I know I'll get yelled at by some people for citing Wikipedia, but this is what was stated in the "British Army" article there:

"In contrast to the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force, the British Army does not include "Royal" in its title, because of its roots as a collection of disparate units, many of which do bear the "Royal" prefix."

Alternatively, the modern British Army has it's roots in the organisation that defeated Charles I. Would any monarch award them the accolade after that?

The real reason (never trust wikipedia) is that, while the RN exists because of royal decrees (at least as far back as Henry VIII, probably earlier), the Army exists due to an Act of Parliament – the Mutiny Act, which must be passed annually, or the Army ceases to exist.

This is because a standing army was viewed as a threat to the liberties of the subject, while a navy was not. Thus the Monarch can have a Navy, but only Parliament can have an Army. The RAF, being a 20th Century creation, didn't get involved in such 17th Century political manevering.

… contra Wiki, the Army can have the Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Artillery, Royal Military Police, the Royal Army Service Corps, etc. etc – which must confuse Johnny Foreigner no end, not to mention everyone else. Sorry, what was the question?

As I recall, the Royal Artillery was a separate organization, at least until the Cardwell Reforms.

Thanks people. That should give me enough to shove up my Brother-in-laws nose tomorow. :-))

"Conrad
… contra Wiki, the Army can have the Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signals, Royal Artillery, Royal Military Police, the Royal Army Service Corps, etc. etc – which must confuse Johnny Foreigner no end, not to mention everyone else."

Aye. The Royal title is given to Corps, for services rendered, and you DO have "The Royal army Catering corps", Royal army medical Corps" etc. THAT means the CORPS has been given the title NOT the army.

County regiments can be given "Royal" for distinguished battle honours, or whatever. Royal Welch Fussliers, Fifth Royal Inniskillin Dragoon guards, Royal Lancashire Fusiliers" etc.

As an aside the reason why the army and air-force salute with palm outwards whilst the navy salute palm down is palm outward salute is a reaffirmation of an oath of allegiance, the navy being considered always loyal to the monarch are not required to make such an oath.

The Navy also stayed loyal to the crown in the civil War. The army has at its root, the New Model Army of Cromwell and so, never used the prefix. The RN do not take the oath of allegiance for the same reason, but the salute is due to one monarch's dislike of seeing sailors with grease, oil and muck from climbing the rigging. The navy also do not stand for any toast except to he monach as one King George banged his head when he stood up on one vessel.

"the navy being considered always loyal to the monarch"

1642 must be embarassing!

I must admit I thought the bulk of the Navy went with Parliament, not least because most ships were based in ports like London, Chatham, Portsmouth etc that were staunchly Roundhead.

The navy also do not stand for any toast except to he monach as one King George banged his head when he stood up on one vessel.

Actually, the custom supposedly came about due to a petition to George III by his son, Mr. Midshipman HRH Prince William (later William IV, aka "Barnacle Bill the Sailor").

As to the RN's supposed automatic loyalty, William III was unsure enough of it to have a regulation promulgated that all vessels containing water be removed from wardroom tables prior to the drinking of the Loyal Toast. This was to prevent officers from clandestinely toasting "the king over the water", i.e., James II.

"As an aside the reason why the army and air-force salute with palm outwards whilst the navy salute palm down is palm outward salute is a reaffirmation of an oath of allegiance, the navy being considered always loyal to the monarch are not required to make such an oath."

I was always told that the Navy salute palm down because Queen Victoria did not like to see sailors' dirty hands.

Probably only the enginemen and boilermen would qualify by the late Queen Victoria's time, because all that cleaning the deck-hands do all day probably gave them rather clean palms. As for the days of the tall ships, maybe things were indeed the reverse. How often was Queen Victoria that close to the rankers to tell? Being shorter than all these swabes, wouldn' she have seen all the palms regardless. Was she looking for hair on the palms also?

"As an aside the reason why the army and air-force salute with palm outwards whilst the navy salute palm down is palm outward salute is a reaffirmation of an oath of allegiance, the navy being considered always loyal to the monarch are not required to make such an oath."

Yes so loyal, that the Royal Marines received the 'Royal' appelation for supressing a mutiny of loyal Jack Tars at Spithead.

I was always of the opinion that matelots saluted in that odd manner, becuase it's the only way they would fit onto a cigarette packet.

Ah interservice rivalry… as my late papa was fond of singing:

' So it's Shire, Shire, Buckhinghamshire, the skipper looks on her with pride

He'd have a blue fit if he saw anyone s#*t on the side of the Buckhinghamshire.

Oh you can't sink the Nelson, The Rodney, Renown and you can't sink the Hood cos the f&*#ers gone down'

My ex-RAF fighter command pilot horse vet always found it hysterical the Army required for many years cavalry regimental commanders to report confidentially on the sobriety of their vets.

But then one of the charms of the Army is its well little customs and excentricities. Once I happened to be discussing one of those with the ex-commanding officer of the Irish Guards and he said the MOD was going to abolish it. When I remarked as a civil servant in the UK I'd fight to the death of my career for something which mattered so much to the Regiments, he asked me if I'd consider transferring to your MOD. It was an unsolicited compliment I'll treasure forever.

Supposedly in the post WWII years HM's forces got carried away with the cult of time/motion/efficiency/scientific management. One team were studying self-propelled Royal Regiment of Artillery crews at their gun drill and were stymied by a crew member who stood several yards to the rear during firing with his right arm out stretched. Nobody could explain what this particular crew man was doing. Finally one of the technicians got the address of the oldest serving RA officer and tracked him down to his club in London. The scientist was directed to an over-stuffed chair with a very overported general seated in it. When the general finally returned to consciousness, he was greated with a series of color 11/14 prints showing the crewman and was asked what was he doing.

The answer "why you bloody idiots, he's the feller who holds the horses!" Just a little survival from mechanization.

Mr. McDaniel, that was indeed a good anecdote.

"rmaker
This was to prevent officers from clandestinely toasting "the king over the water", i.e., James II."

"THEY said loyalty to the Monarch. WE did not say which Monarch".

I seem to remember that something similar to this happened with the Prussian army, when Königin Louise took over the command from the "Weechei mit'm juld". As Friedrich-Wilhelm III was, IS, known in Berlin.

(Weakling with the (dressed in) gold)

Another fun then about the British Army is that when an American shows knowledge of all those Regimental and Corps distinctions the reaction can be fun. I was once in a management class exercise with somebody whom I had found out was an ex-1QDG's trooper. Class started then and at break I casually wished him well "Radetzky and Rusty Buckles" to you. That got a fun response.

Then again while in civil service I used to convert Cardwell numbers to Regimental names to help me remember safe combinations. Then to further remember the numbers I'd whistle either a march or the calls for them while dialing the combinations.

You're welcome Luke I snitched that tale from Anthony Jay's wonderful "Management and Macchiavelli."

I'm pretty sure that during the early part of Queen Victoria's reign, the then Scots Fusilier Guards – her favourite Household regiment – were chastised for still drinking the Jacobite toast.

Good to see so many myths and legends alive and well; this thread could run and run. Almost worth having a competition to distinguish fact from myth. Now, who's going to start about the Flag Gun, Queen's Corporal etc…..

"Supercilius Maximus
I'm pretty sure that during the early part of Queen Victoria's reign, the then Scots Fusilier Guards – her favourite Household regiment – were chastised for still drinking the Jacobite toast."

Queen Victoria? I have heard the seargeants mess of the Black watch do it in 1984.

Vicky was a wierd old though.

It is because of her that guards regiments have lance sergeants.

She considered the single lance corporal stripe looked "odd" on the dress uniform. So she ordered the rank abolished. Not being able to do that, the joint Colonels decided to have two stripes for lance corporals, the next rank, which would be corporal in the real army, Guards are "wooden tops" NOT real army · , was three silver stripes, known as "lance Sergeants", Full Sergeants wear three gold stripes.

"Queen Victoria? I have heard the seargeants mess of the Black watch do it in 1984."

Isn't that a bit rich? In my house the Black Watch were always referred to as "The Collaborators" in recognition of the circumstances of their founding.

Cool stuff- as for suspicion of standing armies, that seems to have become part of the substrate of the "anglo-saxon" political culture, study the constitutional debates of the American Founding Fathers, and is still used to justify the semi-independent of the National Guard (Aka the "State Milita"), who respond in peacetime to the State Governors. Even if 90% of the funding comes from the Federal Government. See Katrina, etc.

It has been a minor theme in multiple thrillers though, and which state was it where the Governer turned out the Guard to resist Desegregation, until Eisenhower Federalized them (for oneday only), and sent in Federal Troops? Which is why you always see/hear about the possiblity of Federal (Not NG) being used to enforce civil rights issues, etc.

Speaking of which, AFAIK no one really registered the remark by Tommy Franks in the New Yorker a couple of years ago (More like four?) about how this administration was vetting (American) General Officer candidates on their political beliefs.

Very, very scary.

"Littlearmies
Isn't that a bit rich? In my house the Black Watch were always referred to as "The Collaborators" in recognition of the circumstances of their founding."

I did get the impression that modern "independence politics" has won out over actul historical events in Scotland.

"Any thing goes thats against the English rule".

My ex-RAF fighter command pilot horse vet …

Now I'm really puzzled.
What year did the RAF convert to aircraft?

Going back quite a bit in this conversation the Army Catering Corps were never 'Royal'. However, they have now been absorbed by the ROYAL Logistics Corps.

The Royal Artillery have always been different being a part of the Board of Ordnance in the past and not under the Horse Guards (Army HQ). In early days, trains of artillery were formed by Royal Warrant for specific campaigns and when the Regiment stood to in 1727, it was of course, by exstension 'Royal' as a Royal decree formed it. This connection with the Board of Ordnance is also why the Gunners were pure professionals and never purchased their commissions as the more 'gentlemanly' officers of the cavalry and infantry did.

Oh yes. With reference to derogatory remarks about the Black Watch. Not every Scotsman was a Jacobite and a majority actually stayed loyal to the legal Hannoverian Crown as they saw it. Three of the regiments at Culloden were Scots, and the Campbell Militia turned out en masse for King George.

It says a lot about the stability of Britain that we can have these discussions about the history and traditions of the Armed Forces from almost 400 years ago (and let's not mention the Swiss Guard at the Vatican). There are not many countries in a similar situation. I believe that the French ceremonial troops, the Horse Grenadiers (Grenadiers a Cheval) have a history only going back to Napoleon Bonaparte.

In the era of radios and intercoms between AFV crewman, I always found it strange that turret crews had to shout during firing drills. If they did not, they would be deemed to be lacking urgency and aggression.

However, once the crews were not observed (on battle runs etc), things tended to get a lot less formal.

I only went on the ranges for my recruit firing (30mm Rarden cannon in a Scimitar CVT(T)) and then two annual firing camps. I trained as a driver in the training regiment, but we had to be multi skilled as soon after joining our Regiments. Despite being noted as a poor shot (I was new at that kind of thing), when it came to the competition shoot/battle run, my commander told me to relax and gave me the less formal style of orders. As a result I had an excellent shoot, surpassing the score of the other car in the section, and our section won the crate of beer. Now that (a prize of beer) must be a tradition going back to the dawn of warfare.

Steve the good doctor Jack Abrahams was an ex-RAF fighter Command Meteor day fighter pilot who left the RAF after his first engagement. It seems his station commanding officer came in on a "stay in the RAF" session for Jack in the mess one evening. After finding out what was going on, the co told all assembled "if you have to talk him into staying on, he ain't worth having." Which started a chain of events making him a DVM and the person I called back then for equine veterinary emergencies. Which was nice because when you told him you had a problem and needed help NOW, he treated it always like a scramble on an incoming hostile a/c.

Ok. I thought he might have been recruited to look after the "Mustangs". :0P

As an ex-Gunner, some of the tales above brought a smile to my face!

But it grieves me when I hear, or read, about 'gun crews' in the Royal Artillery. We had and still have 'gun detachments'. Ships have crews, naval guns may have crews, foreign armies may have gun crews (but they would, wouldn't they?)
There are valid historical reasons for the terminology. When the RA was founded as a regiment(1716) it was organised as an infantry regiment with a number of battalions consisting of a number of companies. These companies took the names of their OC, hence Rogers' Company (30 Battery in my day – the Gods know what they are now!).
Now, Gunners are men who are trained to stuff a charge and a projectile down a metal tube, which projectile is subsequently blown at a distant target. A gun is a gun is a gun. (For innocent civilians, and members of the Other Two Services – in fact anyone who is not a Gunner – a gun is either mounted on a vehicle or pulled by a vehicle. Rifles, MGs,LSWs, etc, etc are not guns, they are small arms).
So, if a gun is a gun, etc, the 18th Century reasoning went, then they all obviously work in the same manner, therefore it is uneconomical to equip a Gunner with a specific piece of ordnance, after all if he can operate one he can operate them all. So, let's keep all the guns in a gun-park, and if we need to send any of them anywhere, then we can DETACH just sufficient Gunners from their companies to man just sufficient guns to do the job.
Which, gentlemen, is why we have gun detachments and not gun crews. Up until the time I left the army, we still heard orders on the gun park and on the gun position of "Detchments Front" and "Detachments Rear".
We have other mysteries which can, to a certain extent, be explained to the unknowing… if anyone's interested.

Yes, I'm afraid the Pegasus Mk.I didn't work out too well. It used to pooh over the spectators during fly pasts, so it was discontinued and remaindered to Canada and Australia.

Gunners on shops were crew as they were not Board of Ordinance men, only the Gunner himself was that.

I always understood the Navies different salute was due to low deck heights so you swung the arm out wide and up, which gives you a horizontal hand at the brow.

gunners on shops?

gunners on shops? Is that something to do with being a nation of shopkeepers?

It is the British Army with parts of it designated as Royal.

ships ok, ships, that or get your your cannon balls here, going at a banging price…

>Queen Victoria? I have heard the seargeants mess of the Black >watch do it in 1984.

Very ironic, as noted. The 42d was a VERY government regiment, without many Jacobites, to be sure. That'd be like the Campbells drinking the health of Bonnie Prince Charlie, the prat.

so in this vein how do the french salute?

Not going there…

I have to ask, did The Warsaw Pact And Their Sinister Paymasters ever decipher the above? Because it seems to me that NATO would be hard pressed to analyse British military usage, let alone our enemies.

The un-broken lineage of the French grenadiers à cheval de la garde dates to the garde à cheval du Directoire (also known as the garde constitutionnelle à cheval). This unit were formed by the arrête du 13 vendémiaire an V (4 octobre 1796), but had existed on a provisional basis in virtue of Article 166. de la Constitution du 5 fructidor an III (22 août 1795).

Previously, there was a compagnie of grenadiers à cheval, created in the armée from the most highly regarded soldiers in 1676 by order of Louis XIV. This company was to act to open the route for the troops of the maison du roy, of which they technically did not form a part. Their motto was « Undique terror, undique lethum » ("Wherever there is terror, wherever there is death" – occasionally used again during the First Empire), and were distinguished at Ramillies, Oudenarde, Malplaquet, Fontenoy and in the SYW. This company was surpressed on 15 décembre 1775, re-established in 1789, incorporated in the garde constitutionnelle du roi in 1791, surpressed in 1792 and finally dissolved in 1793.

uniforme in 1737:
picture

The French military hand salute as now given in the Légion (and as given in the Napoléonic era) is very similar to the British, palm outward. But the elbow remains slightly lower than the shoulder, giving a more compact and "natural" overall pose for the salute. The Navy salute is nominally the same, but often given with an even more relaxed pose at the wrist, without fully rotating the palm frontwards. The Colonial troops saluted as per the Navy, and many francophone forces in Africa maintain this style. I do not recall how the French Métropole army gives the salute (you seldom see them "out and about").

- Evan

Doing Order of Battle work on the British Army must have been just dandy for the non British analyst – consider the following question on British Army units found serving in WWII

What do the following Units of the British Army all have in common

1st/Honorable Artillery Company

2nd/The Rifle Brigade

2nd/Kings Royal Rifle Corps

17th/21st Lancers

1st Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery

The Fife and For Yeomanry

Will look back for the correct answer

Greg Novak

Roughriderfan,
Is it that they all have 'Artist' in their nickname? Iknow the HAC were known as the Artists, and 2/2 Rifles were known as the Artists Rifles from WW1 era?
Chassuer a Cheval, you info is truly very interesting but as a matelot I do find these arguments from different regiments about their lineage amusing – The Royal Navy is undoubtedly the oldest continously serving uniformed force in the world…

All of the above units – regardless of whether they are named as "company", "corps", "brigade", "regiment", etc – are all battalion sized formations –

Consider the poor analyst to whom normally a"corps" would be a multi division sized formation – A "brigade" would be made up of several regiments or battalions – and a "regiment" would consist of several battalions – and a "company" is a sub unit of a battalion – yet in the British Army thse rules do not hold true

Back to France and the "grenadiers à cheval" – do they still exist today then? I always took the current ceremonial mounted units to be Garde républicaine, i.e. part of the (post-Revolution) Gendarmerie. Or did I just misunderstand Charon's post from a year ago…

The Cadre Noir de Saumur, on the other hand, goes back to the carabiniers' riding school if I recall correctly.

Salut Muskerier,

At the first Restauration, the grenadiers à cheval were abolished and then reformed immediately as the "corps royal des cuirassiers de France". They, like the rest of the garde Impériale, were NOT part of the "maison du roi" and NOT in Paris (they were exiled to the countryside). In the maison du roi, there was a new "grenadiers à cheval de la garde royale", with some grenadiers and officiers getting transferred, but not too many. Most of this regiment followed the king to Gand.
Cent Jours saw them back to their old imperial status. These veterans were almost all reformed after Waterloo.
In the second Restauration, there were one and then two regiments of "grenadiers à cheval de la garde royale" in the Maison du roi, disbanded after the July Revolution. The Second Empire later also had "grenadiers à cheval de la garde impériale" that did not survive the Second Empire. There have been no French armée or natioanl government garde troops since then.

The question of the lineage and history of the garde de Paris is long, complicated and debateable. You can take the lineage back to royal archers, or to city militia, or to the gendarmerie, or say it had no lineage before the Révolution.
This unit does provide a beautiful ceremonial mounted guard today.

You are exactly correct about the Cadre Noir – they have a direct linage to the riding school of the carabiniers à cheval of the ancien régime. You can still get made-to-order bits of saddlery and harness from Samur that are identical to First Empire heavy cavalry equipment, if you ask very very very nicely.

- Evan

I once had an interesting chat with the past OC of 1/Irish Guards and the conversation strayed somehow to all those special pecularities which HM Forces take such great pride and delight in. His theory was the sum of them made for forces that were very difficult for outsidrs to understand and hence very hard to see let alone compare as equals. Essentially the more uniqueness meant for a military that was really impervious for foreigners.