Royal prefix

[t68]

Hi guys

My brother in law asked myself a question today, one I did not know the answer to
I was hoping someone here can help me?

Why do the Navy /Air force have the prefix Royal in their title and Army does not?
Why do we have different Corps in the army with the prefix Royal?
As in Royal Australian infantry Corps

I relies that the different corps from memory had to approach the King or Queen at the time to obtain a royal warrant to use the Royal in their title.
But the question is why the Australian Army was never given a Royal warrant?

Thanks in advance I am quite curious to the answer, is their a book on history and traditions available for the Australian Army and Navy/Air force?

Regards,
Tom

 

[RubiconNZ]

Hi guys

My brother in law asked myself a question today, one I did not know the answer to
I was hoping someone here can help me?

Why do the Navy /Air force have the prefix Royal in their title and Army does not?
Why do we have different Corps in the army with the prefix Royal?
As in Royal Australian infantry Corps

I relies that the different corps from memory had to approach the King or Queen at the time to obtain a royal warrant to use the Royal in their title.
But the question is why the Australian Army was never given a Royal warrant?

Thanks in advance I am quite curious to the answer, is their a book on history and traditions available for the Australian Army and Navy/Air force?

Regards,
Tom

While I am not the best to answer this, I can say that neither New Zealand or Britain have Royal in their name it is the individual corps and regiments that do as to why that is well I am not sure.

 

[battlensign]

Just from memory...

This question has been asked before - apparently evey now and again people do sit back an wonder why its the RAN, RAAF and 'ARA'...

From what I can remember from previous discussion there seems to be some agreement that as always history plays a large role. In the past the Navy was that of the crown and the air force was created when there was only the government/crown to control it - but the army was different.

Even in the Feudal system the power was 'technically' the crown's. However, as the crown relied on the lords (who were granted fee simple land 'of the crown') to raise taxes and armed forces for wars, it didn't go unnoticed that while the crown had the 'authority' the lords had the 'power' (bargaining position). Lords were essential to the running of the system and gradually demanded more and more say in the running of the country. A curia regia was formed and this led to more and more devolution of power to the lords and eventually a westminster system of government was established whereby the crown acted on the advice of the Executive Council. What has this to do with the Royal prefixes, or lack thereof in the titles of various commonwealth armies? Well, it means that at any given time the "Army" was merely a collection of random units raised and supported by the lords. As such, it wasn't really the crown's army as such. It wasn't the Royal army, it was an army.

I am sure someone else can provide more detail here, but I hope this illustrates the issues conceptually for you.

Brett.

 

[swerve]

I presume Australia emulated the UK, where we have the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force - but plain British Army.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted