shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (05/23/89)
From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov It's the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, but the _British_ Army. Does anyone know why? Mary Shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (05/25/89)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) In article <6806@cbnews.ATT.COM> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov writes: >It's the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, but >the _British_ Army. Does anyone know why? Sure. The army came first (with swords and spears!), consisted of feudal levies and was really a collection of regiments. A few of these were "royal" (were paid for by the king/queen) but most belonged to someone else, like "Lord Foozles' Light Horse". The navy came along later, and was a royal responsibility. Being the first real national service, it warranted the term Royal. Various other specialized/national units came along later (the Royal Artillery, for example), and finally the RAF. --dave (ex Canajan Farces) c-b
esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) (05/25/89)
From: "ross paul weiner" <esco@tank.uchicago.edu> In article <6806@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: >From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov >It's the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, but >the _British_ Army. Does anyone know why? >Mary Shafer >NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility >shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov This is not gospel but I believe that the British Army is the lineal descendant of Cromwell's Parliamentary New Model Army and therefore most unroyal. The Navy and Air Force exist as permanent services under the theoretical will of the soveriegn but the Army exists only by sufferance of Parliament and is authorized annually, individual regiments can have a royal sponsor. Since the British constitution is unwritten this is all fairly subjective. -- Ross P. Weiner Dandy Dirks Discount Disclaimers esco@tank.uchicago.edu "You can't sue me, I'm broke!"
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (05/27/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) > It's the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, but > the _British_ Army. Does anyone know why? > > Mary Shafer > NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility > shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov OK, you force me to my 'History of the British Army' books to find the answer. I'll make a quick stab: First, within the British Army, there are 'royal regiments'. There is the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers. I suspect that their term 'in service to the Queen' makes them all 'Royal'. And I suspect some are more 'royal' than others, like the Household Cavalry (Blues and Royals), and the Guards Division (Scotts, Irish, Welsh) which are the personal protectors of the monarchy. Armored units stem from the Hussars, Dragoons, and Lancers of old - some have 'royal' in their title - some do not. Infantry units are in the "Queen's Division" and the "King's Division" - again, some have 'royal' in their title - some do not (those that do not have 'Queen's Own' or 'King's Own' in their title. Anyway - that's some quick thoughts on the subject - if I can find a simple answer - I'll post it. But, nothing in the British Army regimental system and thier history is simple - fascinating and colorful - but not simple. You've rung a bell here. I may not be an 'authority' but I love to read about the history of the British Army - especially the Napoleonic Wars. major mike "Up at 'em Maitland, Guards!" - Wellington at Waterloo