Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: British Military Message-ID: <6938@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 27 May 89 03:17:15 GMT References: <6806@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: The Boeing Co., BAC MMST, Seattle, WA Lines: 47 Approved: military@att.att.com From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) > 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 OK, you force me to my 'History of the British Army' books to find the answer. I'll make a quick stab: First, within the British Army, there are 'royal regiments'. There is the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers. I suspect that their term 'in service to the Queen' makes them all 'Royal'. And I suspect some are more 'royal' than others, like the Household Cavalry (Blues and Royals), and the Guards Division (Scotts, Irish, Welsh) which are the personal protectors of the monarchy. Armored units stem from the Hussars, Dragoons, and Lancers of old - some have 'royal' in their title - some do not. Infantry units are in the "Queen's Division" and the "King's Division" - again, some have 'royal' in their title - some do not (those that do not have 'Queen's Own' or 'King's Own' in their title. Anyway - that's some quick thoughts on the subject - if I can find a simple answer - I'll post it. But, nothing in the British Army regimental system and thier history is simple - fascinating and colorful - but not simple. You've rung a bell here. I may not be an 'authority' but I love to read about the history of the British Army - especially the Napoleonic Wars. major mike "Up at 'em Maitland, Guards!" - Wellington at Waterloo