OT - Royal Restoring RCAF and RCN

[natehale1971]

I think that I read somewhere that some units had earn the term 'Royal' for heroism ad loyality on the battlefield. Like the Aussies and New Zealanders having earning the Royal title for their armed forces after WW1 & WW2 and the losses they suffered fighting the Japanese and Germans.

in my 2300ad campaign the British Army had earned the title Royal British Army due to the pacification/reunification campaigns that restored His Majesties Government of King Harry.

[HorseSoldier]

Makes sense to me -- circa 2000 to 2030 or so, the UK (and plenty of other places) will live or die based on how their ground forces manage to work miracles with just about nothing to work with and what not. If that doesn't earn a "Royal" then I don't know what would.

[Canadian Army]

The reason why the the British, Canadian, Australia, and New Zealand Armies do not have Royal in their titles, is because they are all descended from "New Model Army", which was formed by the Parliamentarians in the English Civil War, hence no royal in it's title.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

I think that I read somewhere that some units had earn the term 'Royal' for heroism ad loyality on the battlefield. Like the Aussies and New Zealanders having earning the Royal title for their armed forces after WW1 & WW2 and the losses they suffered fighting the Japanese and Germans.

in my 2300ad campaign the British Army had earned the title Royal British Army due to the pacification/reunification campaigns that restored His Majesties Government of King Harry.

I am not sure on that part but it sounds like how the Russian bestowed the honorific title of "Guards" on the units that performed well during World War II.

[95th Rifleman]

Because British and Commonwealth armies use the regimental system as opposed to the divisional, indivdual naming conventions can be complicated.

We have some "royal" regiments and some non-royal. Two examples are the Royal Tank regiments and Royal Dragoon guards while two non-roya regiments are the Rifles and the 9th/12th lancers.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

I am not sure on that part but it sounds like how the Russian bestowed the honorific title of "Guards" on the units that performed well during World War II.

In some cases it's not too dissimilar, though not a one for one -- the transition of the Tank Corps to Royal Tank Corps (and later Royal Tank Regiment) for instance.

In other cases, it has to do with the traditional ownership of a given asset by the crown, versus foot and cavalry regiments raised by guys given commissions to do so. The Royal Artillery, for instance, is because people besides the Crown having access to cannon was discouraged quite a ways back, historically. I think other Corps, like the Royal Engineers acquired the Royal title to recognize or indicate that their skills were such that you couldn't trust the Honorable Lord Chumbly-Bumbly to scare up some of them in time of war and that they needed to be managed and administered much more like a centralized bureaucracy and military force than the infantry and cavalry did at the same point in history.