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

>>I thought the "modern" British army was founded following the 
>> >>Restoration(1660)

>Wasn't it Marlborough that first formed a standing army in Britain?
>I'm a 
>little rough on this, as it's been 10 years since I looked at >it (I
was 
>doing some research to find out why British regiments had >red uniforms

>until the end of the 19th century).

During Marlborough's tenure (or at least during the Spanish Wars of 
Succession) the BRITISH Army was founded, following the Act of Union
with 
Scotland in 1707. Previously the armies had been from one of the three 
kingdoms but owing allegiance to the same person.

I think regiments weren't numbered until immediately before the 7 Years
War 
- so until then they were known by their Colonel's name & designation.

>>Perhaps following the Civil Wars the regular standing army was still
>>not 
>>considered appropriate to be HM's Army??

>Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there can be more
>than 
>one army in existance. There can be several fleets, but one >navy.
There 
>are several air force squadrons, wings, etc. but only one >air force.
There 
>can be, however, more than one army.

It's still called the "British Army" isn't it?

>I'll have to ask my history expert friend for her opinion on this.

Looking forward to some expert opinion on this question (which never
occured 
to me until today)

Donogh

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com