Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, army



now you know when something is bugging you, and you would really like an answer,( EVERY BODY HAS A QUESTION THEY WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TO)

my question is this why has the navy and the air force got the title Royal, yet the army does not, does anybody know the reason why, is it just snobbery
The Army was founded to depose and remove the head of the reigning king at the time (before then, all armies in most of the world were based on what basically amounted tothe feudal system with a few bells on like free companies). Every other service was founded in service to the monarch. Nevertheless, the army came under royal control during the restoration and many units have been given royal names.
see i knew someone out there would have a sensible answer

Only its bollox (plausible bollox though).

Very little of the New Model Army survived the Restoration. That which did included what is now the Coldstream Guards and what used to be the Royal Horse Guards, which kind of blows the "punishment for being parliament's army" argument out of the water.

The answer is the Army, unlike the RN and RAF is composed of individual Corps and Regiments (and the odd Company) that are each raised by separate Royal Warrant (whether or not 'Royal' is actually in the title).

This may be something to do with the piecemeal way the army came into being after the Restoration and was also a subtle way of keeping a cap on the size of the Army (both for the sake of the Monarch and Parliament), as each new Regiment of Horse or Foot could only be raised on specific authorisation of the Monarch (who presumably had to get Parliament to agree to bankroll it.

This probably explains why army officers are Commissioned by the Monarch into a specific Corps or Regiment in His / Her Majesty's "Land Forces" rather His / Her Majesty's "Army".
kings/queens in history and throughout the world had armies long before they had navies, but these were generally recruited on an ad hoc basis in order to fight specific threats or campaigns. At the end of their necessity, they simply disbanded until next time
As far as i understand:-

The Royal Navy was established as a single service by HRH.

The Royal Marines hold a 'Royal' title as they were derived from the Royal Navy.

In the same sense, the Royal Air Force were establish from the Royal Flying Corps, therefore holds 'Royal' in the title.

The Army is more of a collective name for corps/regiments. Although many corps/regiments hold a 'Royal' title, ie..The Royal Dragoon Guards, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Royal Corps of Signals etc...... there are also some that do not hold a 'Royal' title, ie.. Army Air Corps, The Parachute Regiment, Coldstream Guards etc...
If all corps/regiments had 'Royal' in the title then it may well have been the Royal Army
The British Army as a standing force draws its origin from the parliamentary New Model Army of the Civil War. The experience of the Protectorate under Cromwell and the rule of the Major Generals showed that the army could be a powerful political force that had to be contained after the restoration. The existence of a permanent standing army in peacetime required permission from Parliament to exist, so it was necessary to pass the Mutiny Act each year. Furthermore the army was funded from tax revenue voted by Parliament. So in this sense it was Parliament's army. However, officers had commissions from King to maintain the delicate balance between parliament and crown.

The Royal Navy originates from royal decrees. Also it was funded from the monarch's custom revenue which was not voted upon by Parliament. Being at sea or confined to few coastal towns meant that it has less potential to become 'political' so there was less need for parliamentary balances (though just to be safe their guns technically belonged to the Board of Ordnance). I guess the RAF had no qualms about having a royal title as their late founding allows them to avoid historical complications. They were also derived from a royal corps so a demotion would have been harsh.


Book Reviewer
The Marines were granted the title Royal by George II in 1802, in much the same way as 'Royal' has been conferred on various Army regiments and corps.

I would imagine there was some explicit grant of 'Royal' to the crabs in 1918, and I would think that the title is also explicitly granted after army regimental amalgamations.

The Board of Ordnance had resonsibility for provision of all guns for land or sea service, there was nothing sinister about that. Indeed certainly in the eighteenth century the gun design was the same for land or sea service depending on weight of shot, but naval guns were necessarily mounted on 'sea service' carriages (as visible on board HMS Victory) rather than the horse-drawn equivalent. For land ops it also provided the gunners. Back in Tudor times when merchant ships were mobilised for war they went and lay by the Tower of London, which was the State armoury, to receive their guns.
The New Model Army being continued into the Restoration as 'parliaments' army is a myth, with the exception of a couple of Regiments.

I give you the first 4 regiments of foot in evidence:

1st of foot - raised by Charles I - 1633 (served overseas on loan service during the civil war)
2nd of foot - raised by Charles II - 1661
3rd of Foot - raised by Charles II - 1665
4th of Foot - raised by Charles II - 1680

Of course many of the officers and men, may have carried over, but the NMA did not. Given that all Regiments and Corps were (and are) raised by Royal Warrant irrespective of their title, the short answer is that we don't have a 'Royal' army because the British Army is a collection of separate and very individual Corps and Regiments.
Perhaps the dropshorts had already patented the acronym 'RA'?


Book Reviewer

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads