Re: [OT] Why not "Royal Army" (was Afghan Pics)

On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 12:04:12 +0000 Donogh McCarthy 
<donoghmc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> (Minor historical question: why isn't the Brit Army the "Royal 
Army" when the UK's Navy, Artillery and even Air Force are all 
"Royal"?) <<<
 
>> Because the Army was founded by a man who wasn't Royal. That'd be 
Oliver Cromwell. (that's how I understand it) <<
 
> I thought the "modern" British army was founded following the 
Restoration (1660) All of the supporting corps and a lot of the 
regiments are "Royal..."
 
> Perhaps following the Civil Wars the regular standing army was still 
not considered appropriate to be HM's Army?? <

I rather think the original poster (whose name got lost -- sorry) 
answered his own question by mentioning the RA -- which, unless 
something odd has happened lately, is part of the Army. <g>

It's a matter of organisation and history. The Navy and Air Force have 
always been organised as a single service, which as a concept is a 
relatively late development -- 16/17th century or thereabouts. Armies, 
OTOH, have generally been _raised_ piecemeal; that is, in small units 
which then come together to form The Army. I suppose it goes back to 
feudal times, when a monarch (or duke or whatever) would call for 
troops from his nobles, who'd go to their subordinates (barons, 
knights, etc.), who'd call out their people; any particular leader 
didn't have that much of a force at his beck and call, but put all 
these small units together and you had a sizeable force.

Each of these units, be it infantry, cavalry, artillery or whatever, 
was under the command of a specific leader, who "owned" it, raised it, 
paid it (in some cases), paid _for_ it in later times, and had the 
responsibility for it -- and it was often his decision as to what side 
it fought on (e.g., the Stanleys at Bosworth Field). So there were 
units with names like "Sir Thomas Hutton's Regiment of Foot." The 
organisation of the Army was, if you like, from the bottom up rather 
than from the top down.

This persisted into at least Napoleonic times, and maybe even to WW1, 
and inertia, coupled with history and justifiable pride by the men in 
a unit of that history, meant that the titles, royal accolades, etc. 
were always given to units rather than to the Army as a whole. The 
closest thing the Army has to the RN/RAF overall title is what was 
adopted for the newer combat arms -- so Royal Artillery as a whole 
rather than something along the lines of the Duke of York's Own Heavy 
Battery; Royal Armoured Regiment, even though this now incorporates 
many much older cavalry units; Royal Flying Corps; REME, etc.

Phil
----
"Sic Transit Gloria Barramundi"
   (Or, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!)
   -- not Douglas Adams, but me: Phil Atcliffe
			(Phillip.Atcliffe@uwe.ac.uk)