Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: British Military
Summary: "Royal" prefix
Message-ID: <6868@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 May 89 03:08:42 GMT
References: <6806@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: York U. Computing Services (free at last!)
Lines: 18
Approved: military@att.att.com



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