Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Structure of the Royal Navy?

Expand Messages
  • rgrokelley
    Howdy, ... Royal ... the British ... I knew the deal with the Royal Marines, but this was news to me about the navy. Can anyone back him up? If it is true I
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy,

      > There was no Royal Navy during the Revolution nor were there any
      Royal
      > Marines. It would be more accurate to call them the British Navy and
      the British
      > Marines.

      I knew the deal with the Royal Marines, but this was news to me
      about the navy. Can anyone back him up? If it is true I need to edit
      some things.

      Patrick O'Kelley
      goober.com@...
    • Jay Callaham
      ... The British Marines didn t become Royal until 1800 or so. That s something they got right in the A&E Hornblower series - showing white facings on them
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > From: "rgrokelley" <goober.com@...>
        > Date: 2006/03/02 Thu PM 06:02:36 EST
        > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [Revlist] Re: Structure of the Royal Navy?
        >
        > Howdy,
        >
        > > There was no Royal Navy during the Revolution nor were there any
        > Royal
        > > Marines. It would be more accurate to call them the British Navy and
        > the British
        > > Marines.
        >
        > I knew the deal with the Royal Marines, but this was news to me
        > about the navy. Can anyone back him up? If it is true I need to edit
        > some things.

        The British Marines didn't become "Royal" until 1800 or so. That's something they got right in the A&E "Hornblower" series - showing white facings on them until after 1800 when they got the blue facings. The Royal Navy, however, was the ROYAL Navy and had been since well before our era.

        Now, the Engineers didn't become "Royal" until later on. They were simply Engineers in our era.

        Jay
        Coldm Regt
        4th Coy, Bde of Guards

        Jay Callaham
        callaham@...

        "If you do not receive this, it must have miscarried, therefore I beg you write and let me know." - - - Sir Boyle Roche, 18th century Member of Parliament

        If it says: "Send to everyone you know" - - please pretend you don't know me!
      • Shaun
        Yes, I was always under the impression that the Navy WAS Royal during our time period and had been so for some time. Shaun ... [Non-text portions of this
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, I was always under the impression that the Navy WAS Royal during our
          time period and had been so for some time.

          Shaun


          On 3/2/06, Jay Callaham <callaham@...> wrote:
          >
          > > From: "rgrokelley" <goober.com@...>
          > > Date: 2006/03/02 Thu PM 06:02:36 EST
          > > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [Revlist] Re: Structure of the Royal Navy?
          > >
          > > Howdy,
          > >
          > > > There was no Royal Navy during the Revolution nor were there any
          > > Royal
          > > > Marines. It would be more accurate to call them the British Navy and
          > > the British
          > > > Marines.
          > >
          > > I knew the deal with the Royal Marines, but this was news to me
          > > about the navy. Can anyone back him up? If it is true I need to edit
          > > some things.
          >
          > The British Marines didn't become "Royal" until 1800 or so. That's
          > something they got right in the A&E "Hornblower" series - showing white
          > facings on them until after 1800 when they got the blue facings. The Royal
          > Navy, however, was the ROYAL Navy and had been since well before our era.
          >
          > Now, the Engineers didn't become "Royal" until later on. They were simply
          > Engineers in our era.
          >
          > Jay
          > Coldm Regt
          > 4th Coy, Bde of Guards
          >
          > Jay Callaham
          > callaham@...
          >
          > "If you do not receive this, it must have miscarried, therefore I beg you
          > write and let me know." - - - Sir Boyle Roche, 18th century Member of
          > Parliament
          >
          > If it says: "Send to everyone you know" - - please pretend you don't know
          > me!
          >
          >
          >
          > Visit the RevList Homepage, which includes a list of sutlers, RevList
          > member photos, FAQ, etc., at
          >
          > http://www.liming.org/revlist/
          >
          > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please send a message to
          > Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mr. Mopery Sharper
          Sir, I am afraid that I must disagree with your assertions concerning His Majesty s Navy. No less a personage that Samuel Pepys himself, submitted a report
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Sir,
            I am afraid that I must disagree with your assertions concerning His
            Majesty's Navy. No less a personage that Samuel Pepys himself,
            submitted a report to the Admiralty entitled : Memoires relating to
            the state of the Royal Navy as far back as 1690.

            Additionally, in Christopher Prince's memoirs, Autobiography of a
            Yankee Mariner, he writes upon arriving in Quebec, "...he [the customs
            officer?] went forward and stamped a broad arrow on the foremast and
            said, 'this is now the King's vessel and you are all prisoners of
            war...'".

            ymh&os,

            David Klapholz, Able Seaman
            Armed Boat Hornet
            Pennsylvania State Navy

            "Kill 'em all... Let the archeologists sort it out!"


            --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, REDCOAT43D@... wrote:
            >
            > There was no Royal Navy during the Revolution nor were there any Royal
            > Marines. It would be more accurate to call them the British Navy and
            the British
            > Marines. Neither group became royal until the Napoleonic era.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ww2gamergm
            ... Marines became a royal unit in 1802 in honor of their service at the victorious battle of Cape Vincent, under Admiral John Jervis. They were simply HM
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              > On 3/2/06, Jay Callaham <callaham@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > > From: "rgrokelley" <goober.com@...>
              > > > Date: 2006/03/02 Thu PM 06:02:36 EST
              > > > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > > Subject: [Revlist] Re: Structure of the Royal Navy?
              > > >
              > > The British Marines didn't become "Royal" until 1800 or so. .
              > >
              > > Jay
              > > Coldm Regt
              > > 4th Coy, Bde of Guards


              Marines became a royal unit in 1802 in honor of their service at the
              victorious battle of Cape Vincent, under Admiral John Jervis. They
              were simply HM Marines from 1755 until that time.

              Jim McGaughey
              HM Marines
            • PBSP@AOL.COM
              List The Royal Navy s own web page, http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/ , puts the term of Royal Navy coming in with Charles II. Beginning with Henry VIII ( I yam,
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                List

                The Royal Navy's own web page, http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/ , puts the
                term of Royal Navy coming in with Charles II.
                Beginning with Henry VIII ( I yam, I yam) the term is Navy Royal.
                Under the Commonwealth I'm not sure how the Navy is named but it grew to
                great strength during this period.
                With the Restoration Charles II inherits a major force, becoming known as
                the Royal Navy, so the name is well established by our period of interest.

                John Mills
                Mott's Artillery


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • ww2gamergm
                Perhaps what we are caught up in here is symantics and the difference between a royal title associated with a land fighting force, and an entire branch of
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Perhaps what we are caught up in here is symantics and the difference
                  between a royal title associated with a land fighting force, and an
                  entire branch of service referred to as such.

                  The Marines were clearly not a "royal" corps until 1802. Their facings
                  were not blue until after that royal title was bestowed upon them by
                  the King. It was an honorific title at any rate, as were the titles of
                  such army units.

                  Perhaps the same is true for the Navy. No honoriffic title of royal
                  was bestowed upon the entire branch of service that I can find. Many
                  things in Great Britian were often called royal, for a variety of
                  reasons. Hence we may be searching for something that doesn't exist,
                  at least as we understand it from our perspective.

                  It was the Royal Navy because they had a monarch. It may just be as
                  simple as that.

                  Jim McGaughey
                  HM Marines
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.