# Royal in Regimental Name.



## Dennis Ruhl (23 Dec 2009)

There seem to be a lot of smart people here.  In the not too distant past The Regina Rifles became The Royal Regina Rifles and The Westminster Regiment became The Royal Westminster Regiment.  Is the Royal an honour or simply a name change?  If so, why do some regiments start with Royal in their name?


----------



## WrenchBender (23 Dec 2009)

As much as I hate using Wiki as a source but I can't get thru to the Canadian Heritage site, the following provides some info....
"As a matter of honour, the Canadian monarch may bestow on an organization the right to use the prefix royal before its name; this may be done for any type of constituted group, from Royal Ottawa Golf Club to the Royal Canadian Regiment. The granting of this distinction falls within the Royal Prerogative, and thus is conferred by the monarch through the office of her viceroy, with input from the Department of Canadian Heritage on whether or not the institution meets the criteria of having been in existence for at least 25 years, being financially secure, and a non-profit organization, amongst others.[1]"

WrenchBender :christmas happy:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Dec 2009)

Think this is what you wanted from the hertiage site WB, Criteria for Royal patronage


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Dec 2009)

And with NFLD Sapper answering the question, I designate this to be a Royally locked thread  

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Dec 2009)

Hi all,

I have been informed by Dennis that his questions have not been answered, so I apologize, and have unlocked the thread.

Found this link, maybe it can guide us in the right direction in helping Dennis....

http://www.crht.ca/DiscoverMonarchyFiles/FactsAboutMonarchy.html

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Dec 2009)

To be granted the title "Royal" is certainly an honour, but not to be equated with such things as battle honours.  It is certainly not a simple change of name.

For example, the following are extracts from Army Orders:



> *268-2    TITLE "ROYAL"--CANADIAN INFANTRY CORPS*
> 
> 1.    His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to approve the grant of the title "Royal" to the Canadian Infantry Corps.
> 2.    Consequent upon the above approval, this Corps will adopt the title "Royal Canadian Infantry Corps". The official abbreviation will be "RCIC". (Effective 30th April, 1947) (HQ 1-1- 179 FD 5) (D Adm) - Published in Supplement to Canadian Army Orders 26th May 1947
> ...



Dennis, what units do you believe "started out as Royal"?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Dec 2009)

Also some are given because of some historic event prime example is the way the title was bestowed to the Newfoundland Regiment


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Dec 2009)

http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/krrny/krrraise.htm


> I have therefore, at the desire of Sir John JOHNSTON Given him an order to raise a Battalion of men on the Frontiers of this Province, of equal numbers with those of his Majesty’s other Regiments serving in America, and I have appointed him Lieutenant Colonel Commandant, and called the Corps the Kings Royal Regiment of New York.



http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/rarfm/rarfmrcrt.htm


> A CORPS IS NOW RAISING FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSE IN THIS CITY, the command whereof, his Excellency the Commander in Chief has been pleased to commit to me, in which every officer and soldier who is actuated by just principles, and desirous of restoring peace and true liberty, to this once happy country, shall meet with all possible encouragement.
> 
> RUDOLPHUS RITZEMA, Lt. Col. Com.
> Royal American Reformees



http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/rfa/rfaprop.htm


> Proposed to raise a Battalion of Light infantry or Royal Fensible Americans,



http://www.royalprovincial.com/military/rhist/rhe/rheords.htm


> The whole Corps to be cloathed Armed and accoutred in like manner with His Majesty’s Royal Highland Regiment and are to be called the Royal Highland Emigrants.



I think the only modern Canadian example I could find was the 14th Battalion CEF which was titled The Royal Montreal Regiment which never previously existed.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Dec 2009)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about our Army.

You will have to search out references that are applicable to that period for authorities and procedures for the naming of units.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, I thought you were talking about our Army.



I was thinking about the WWI cap badge of the Royal Montreal Regiment which was the first time the name was used.   All the others I wondered about that started with Royal in their name appear to be the product of mergers or perpetuated other units eg. Royal 22e Regiment and Royal Regiment of Canada.  I was also aware that many Loyalist Regiments started with Royal in their name.

The King's Royal Regiment of New York and the Royal Highland Emigrants were part of our army.

What I was really wondering is whether the term Royal is push or pull or both.  Is it granted to the regiment or does the regiment request it?


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Dec 2009)

As far as I know, the "Royal" honorific is bestowed by the Sovereign, it's not a "hey, king, how about a royal moniker?' thing. I believe that regiments that begin their lives with a Royal designation are raised at the direction of the Sovereign.  Also, once voluntarily surrendered, it is unlikely to be granted again.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Dec 2009)

The title "Royal" is bestowed by the crown, usually in recognition of worthy service. So, to start with, you need the worthy service element before any request for a "Royal" title can be formed.

The creation of the CEF is a poor set of examples to draw upon, because Sam Hughes' creation of the CEF did not exactly follow any conventions.  His methods of authorizing units included the use of whatever political expedients he needed to encourage recruitment, including the borrowing of regimental names (and dress, badge designs, etc.) to create a perception of affiliation to local Militia regiments years before any formal perpetuation was recognized.



> The King's Royal Regiment of New York and the Royal Highland Emigrants were part of our army.



I was talking about the Canadian Army, the one created by CANADIAN governments.  We already know all about your willing reinterpretation of history without any regard for lineages, government decision-making or anything else that interrupts your creative re-imaginings and selective logic processes.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 Dec 2009)

Good example is the Newfoundland Regiment



> In recognition of the unit's valour during the later battles at Ypres and Cambrai of 1917, King George V bestowed the regiment with the prefix "Royal" on 28 September, 1917, renaming them as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. This was the only time in during the First World War that this honour was given and only the third time in the history of the British Army that it has been given during a time of war, the last occasion having been 101 years earlier.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (25 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The title "Royal" is bestowed by the crown, usually in recognition of worthy service. So, to start with, you need the worthy service element before any request for a "Royal" title can be formed.
> 
> ...


As just one example..,.
 I was wondering about the source of the Royal in The Royal Regiment of Canada;
They carry "Royal" because of their direct lineage to the 10th Battalion, Royal Grenadiers who gained it from their active service in 1866 during the Fenian Raids. The regiment was originally The 10th Battalion Volunteer Militia Rifles, Canada.

As an aside and rhetorical;
No Battle Honour for the Fenian Raids ... 
Carry through the proposals for War of 1812 Battle Honours and then what are you going to do with the Fenian Raids? - How the heck do you handle the Battle of Ridgeway?


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Dec 2009)

Re the Fenian Raids and especially the Battle of Ridgeway, the DHH Battle Honour files contain lengthy correspondence from the 1920s between the Queen's Own Rifles and various aurthorities over the award of a battle honour for Ridgeway. The regiment tried all sorts of approaches, all of which were shot down, including claiming - if you can believe it - that the QOR broke and ran because they were smarter and more in tune with the situation than any regular unit which would have suffered heavy casualties by standing its ground and fighting. This apprarently merited official recognition. Finally an exasperated officialdom sent the regiment what only could be called the second half of the "F... you! Long nasty letter to follow" school of correspondence.

In contrast the Victoria Rifles of Canada from Montreal was awarded the battle honour "Eccles Hill" for its participation in operations south of Montral.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I was talking about the Canadian Army, the one created by CANADIAN governments.  We already know all about your willing reinterpretation of history without any regard for lineages, government decision-making or anything else that interrupts your creative re-imaginings and selective logic processes.



On July 1, 1867 Canada wasn't created from nothing.  Merely another level of government was created.  Independence was transitional and wasn't formal until 1931.  Prior to 1783, the Canadian colonies were not distinct from the American colonies and form a common history.  Each of the 15-20 colonies had unique origins but were united under the British crown.  There was no border as we now know it.

The reason there is a Canada is that the French-Canadians feared the Americans more than the British and Yankee raiders attacked Nova Scotia as the enemy galvanizing support for the crown.

Because the Historical Section of the Canadian Forces buys into one interpretation of history doesn't make it so.  They like their history to be black and white.  I prefer colour.  They like to draw lines.  I like to colour without lines.  My axiom is thet legislated history is always wrong.  I understand where they are coming from because they have to produce a product that consists of the lowest common denominators.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> On July 1, 1867 Canada wasn't created from nothing.  Merely another level of government was created.  Independence was transitional and wasn't formal until 1931.  Prior to 1783, the Canadian colonies were not distinct from the American colonies and form a common history.  Each of the 15-20 colonies had unique origins but were united under the British crown.  There was no border as we now know it.
> 
> The reason there is a Canada is that the French-Canadians feared the Americans more than the British and Yankee raiders attacked Nova Scotia as the enemy galvanizing support for the crown.
> 
> Because the Historical Section of the Canadian Forces buys into one interpretation of history doesn't make it so.  They like their history to be black and white.  I prefer colour.  They like to draw lines.  I like to colour without lines.  My axiom is thet legislated history is always wrong.  I understand where they are coming from because they have to produce a product that consists of the lowest common denominators.



So you pose a general question, to which you received reasoned responses. Some of which, the posters spent time researching for you. Then you start changing the parameters, to suit your pre disposed POV. Your thread seems nothing more than a platform for you to voice your own foregone conclusions and your initial question has really nothing to do with the revisionist history you wish to foist upon us, other than to garner you an audience.

You're right, there are smart people here, which is why, most don't engage in your discussions.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (26 Dec 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Re the Fenian Raids and especially the Battle of Ridgeway, the DHH Battle Honour files contain lengthy correspondence from the 1920s between the Queen's Own Rifles and various aurthorities over the award of a battle honour for Ridgeway. The regiment tried all sorts of approaches, all of which were shot down, including claiming - if you can believe it - that the QOR broke and ran because they were smarter and more in tune with the situation than any regular unit which would have suffered heavy casualties by standing its ground and fighting. This apprarently merited official recognition. Finally an exasperated officialdom sent the regiment what only could be called the second half of the "F... you! Long nasty letter to follow" school of correspondence.
> 
> In contrast the Victoria Rifles of Canada from Montreal was awarded the battle honour "Eccles Hill" for its participation in operations south of Montral.



At the risk of further sidetracking - is Eccles Hill the oldest Canadian Battle Honour ? - it was 1870 so just 3 years after Confederation.

Further aside: was Major Dennis Bloodnok involved in any way?  - Merry Christmas and Custard.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Dec 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're right, there are smart people here, which is why, most don't engage in your discussions.



I was replying to Michael O'Leary's oft repeated statements about recreating history.  I simply don't see 1867 as significant in military history nor do I see the post 1783 border significant for interpreting pre-1783 history.  The most eye opening history course I ever took was Eastern European History.  What everyone studies as British history was mirrored in Eastern Europe conflict.  Essentially many of the conficts of the time were world wars but  with a small and distinctly European world.

In my statement about the Historical Section applying the lowest common denominator all I meant is that in doing their job they have to please a lot of people so they apply principles to keep most people happy most of the time.  The result is not and should not be immune from criticism.


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Because the Historical Section of the Canadian Forces buys into one interpretation of history doesn't make it so.  They like their history to be black and white.  *I prefer* colour.  They like to draw lines.  *I like* to colour without lines.  *My axiom* is thet legislated history is always wrong.  I understand where they are coming from because they have to produce a product that consists of the lowest common denominators.



It must be so frustrating for you to be the only one in step in all of your little parades.  

So please, go back to whatever little circle of delusional friends you shared your imaginary history with before us.  Your meandering little arguments based on your personal preferences are getting tiresome.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Dec 2009)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> At the risk of further sidetracking - is Eccles Hill the oldest Canadian Battle Honour ? - it was 1870 so just 3 years after Confederation.
> 
> Further aside: was Major Dennis Bloodnok involved in any way?  - Merry Christmas and Custard.



There was also Trout River from that conflict.

A Royal Newfoundland Regiment (or Fencibles depending on year) earned the battle honour Niagara for the War of 1812 but it is not perpetuated by the current regiment.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So please, go back to whatever little circle of delusional friends you shared your imaginary history with before us.



Academia?  Never left it, although my recent efforts have been in church history.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Your meandering little arguments based on your personal preferences are getting tiresome.



I don't think my argument has changed one iota over time.  The beauty about me having fallacious opinions is that it gives you an opportunity to prove me wrong.  I would be quite pleased to post here WITHOUT me always becoming the topic.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Dec 2009)

Don't we already have an "1812 And All That" thread under full sail around here somewhere?  I thought this was about something else.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Don't we already have an "1812 And All That" thread under full sail around here somewhere?  I thought this was about something else.



I did too....twice.

 :stars:

dileas

tess


----------



## Franko (26 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Academia?  Never left it, although my recent efforts have been in church history.



Alright, this one is spinning in the toilet already.        :

I can't recall responding to any of your posts, so here it goes.

Dennis Ruhl - The CF doesn't care about anything before 1883. It was all British units for the most part and you know it.

You are consistently coming on here trying to force your POV with absolutely nothing to back it up other than a feeble argument at best. 

It's either units that were axed long before you were born or getting Battle Honours placed on unit's Guidons that the CF/ DDH have identified and now this tripe.

No one really cares about this topic one bit, nor any others that you've come on here going on adnauseum about.

Most troops, for the most-part, know their Regimental histories and take pride in the fact that all connections have been thoroughly researched and well documented officially. Yes, there are still older ties to forgotten Regiments from the 13 Colonies and, for the most part, are still celebrated in an unofficial capacity. 

Take the 8th Canadian Hussars. They can trace back their lineage to 1775 in the Colony of Virginia where Captain John Saunders, of Princess Anne County, raised a troop of cavalry at his own expense to fight for the Crown against the Colonial rebels.

Should they (the current day 8CH) get to have a Battle Honour on their Guidon for that action as well? Don't bother answering because I don't want to hear it.




> I don't think my argument has changed one iota over time.  The beauty about me having fallacious opinions is that it gives you an opportunity to prove me wrong.  I would be quite pleased to post here WITHOUT me always becoming the topic.



I'm sure with your MO you'd like to see it on there....but I'm sure you'll have some BS quip or retort that will be disproved yet again by the majority of the membership here. You are constantly the topic at hand and you relish it every time.

For the most part, troops these days are concentrating on current operations and not getting killed in battle. The last thing on their minds (not like any of them actually care) is your take on how history should be re-written to your satisfaction.

Do us all a favour, go back to Academia where you can substantiate these frivolous claims of glory to your buddies as they beat their tables and thump their chests in support.....because the membership here is tired of your rhetoric.

Regards


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Dec 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> The CF doesn't care about anything before 1883. It was all British units for the most part and you know it.



British?  As were we all before the Canadian Citizenship Act took affect January 1, 1947.

I searched a couple hundred websites looking for clues on the Royal title and could find nothing specific but in all cases it was mentioned as an honour even prior to the time of the American Revolution.  I guess I'll remain unsure of the reasons for the many Loyalist and one Canadian anomolies.


----------



## Franko (26 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> British?  As were we all before the Canadian Citizenship Act took affect January 1, 1947.
> 
> I searched a couple hundred websites looking for clues on the Royal title and could find nothing specific but in all cases it was mentioned as an honour even prior to the time of the American Revolution.  I guess I'll remain unsure of the reasons for the many Loyalist and one Canadian anomolies.



Ya just don't get it do you.....that was my way of giving you a subtle hint to go on hiatus for a spell. 

How about this.......I'll be more blunt.

Locked. Now you're on hiatus.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------

