Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: British Military Message-ID: <6869@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 25 May 89 03:08:44 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: University of Chicago Computation Center Lines: 23 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "ross paul weiner" 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!"