• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

colour party

Yes.  It's the only time a Naval officer is permitted to hook up his/her sword.
 
Hmmm, I wonder why the Naval Officer always carries his sword.

I'll dig some dirt up on that. Unless someone here knows why?
 
RumRunner said:
Hmmm, I wonder why the Naval Officer always carries his sword.

I'll dig some dirt up on that. Unless someone here knows why?
Click to expand...

Not sure if its correct but:

http://www.nzaaawgtn.org.nz/pdf/nl0607.pdf

Naval officers, in accordance with dress regulations,
are required to carry or “trail” their swords rather than
being hitched at the waist. The scabbard is suspended
from two long hanger straps requiring the wearer to carry
the scabbard to prevent it dragging on the ground, unlike
army and air force officers who hitch their swords and
scabbards to their belts.

The myth surrounding this unique naval custom is that
naval officers are required to carry their swords as a
mark of disgrace, allegedly for involvement in the
Spithead mutiny of 1797 that was confined to sailors,
not officers, although it might be said that officers’
mismanagement led to that situation. It wasn’t until
Victoria came to the throne that details regarding the
carrying of swords became uniform and Victoria’s reign
was well after the Spithead and Nore mutinies. In any
case, the major mutinies of the Royal Navy involved
ratings, with officers having no involvement. There is
some suggestion that Victoria had made a casual remark
that “naval officers were not gentlemen” (and the
wearing of a sword was the mark of a gentleman.) In one
sense she was quite correct.

Naval officers in British society were unique. The navy
had, by the late 1600s, made it clear that being a
“gentleman” was not sufficient to enter or succeed as a
naval officer. Skill, as opposed to social status, was the
mark of a naval officer and the navy exercised equality
of opportunity at the point of entry over a century before
the army saw the merits of such a program. Army
commissions, very much the preserve of the nobility,
were generally purchased. Naval commissions were
granted only after a young teenager had learned his
trade, passed his examinations and was selected for
promotion on the basis of merit. When wartime required
the navy to expand its officer corps, most were drawn
from the seaman pool where education and skill in
handling ships carried weight; social status carried none.
Those aristocrats who did enter the navy found
themselves competing on an equal basis with the sons
of merchants and labourers. Given that, naval officers
were not considered less than an aristocratic army officer;
just different, and the title “naval officer” carried with it a
degree of social standing which indeed made one a gentleman.
So, while they may not have been the sons of gentlemen,
naval officers were certainly considered gentlemen in British
society.

Some historians suggest that naval officers never wore
swords at sea and when the sword was used, the scabbard
was discarded as useless, particularly when boarding another
vessel. That certainly makes practical sense except that for
most naval officers, who were unlikely to be good fencers, an
edged sabre was the weapon of choice for close quarters
fighting. Swords and rapiers had little place in the hack and
slash boarding fights of the days of sail.
What is more likely is that the army changed and the navy did
not. Trailing a sword shows up as an act of pride among light
horse regiments where both officers and troopers loosened
their spurs and allowed their trailing sword scabbards to rattle
over the cobblestones.

Naval officers, who would have no reason to wear a sword
except when ashore, copied what was then a military display.
So, all officers, regimental and naval, actually trailed their
swords, with slings as long as possible, as a means of
attracting attention to the wearer. This is the origin of the
term, “sabre rattling”.

On parade, all officers carried their swords whether they were
army or navy. Soldiers eventually slung their swords from
their belts, for practical purposes, particularly as field drill
developed. Naval officers, having never used swords for
practical reasons and rarely wearing them in any case, saw no
need to change and continued to carry them when dress
dictated.

New Zealand naval officers today still continue the tradition
of carrying their swords on parade.[/quote
Click to expand...
 
The above  piece is similar to other accounts of the reason that I have heard as well.  The only difference is that the author implies that  the "disgrace" theory doesn't make sense because officers were not involved in the mutinies at Nore and Spithead.  However, the theory that was related to me years ago was that naval officers were being admonished for not being ready to put down the mutiny.  In other words, they now carry them, not as punishement for participating in the mutinies, but rather so as to always be ready to draw them if required to put down a mutiny.  I'm not sure how well that would work in the modern context.  Graeme Arbuckle also disputes the "disgrace" theory in his book, "Customs and Traditions of the Canadian Navy."  He also asserts that it is more a mark of bravado, but he does not explain that in as a great a detail as the New Zealand author.
 
Commonwealth naval officers appear to "hook" their swords most of the time- see photos of our recent massive Victoria parade, and see photos of the recent presentation of the colour. Everyone is hooked. Navy units I have served with in Canada always hook the sword onto the sword belt. In my experience there is a lot of confusion in the CF with respect to the wearing of naval swords and the use of sword drill. I see naval sword belts on the outside of tunics at some units, and a bizarre mix of CF sword drill and old naval sword drill is common. There is a lot of confusion and someone up high needs to get one standard going. I believe that hooking or unhooking is left to the local unit under current regs.

Here is a recent photo of NZ naval officers- they are not carrying the scabbard on parade. Similar photos of the RN show the same.

4-6.jpg
 
Senor Mono said:
Commonwealth naval officers appear to "hook" their swords most of the time- see photos of our recent massive Victoria parade, and see photos of the recent presentation of the colour. Everyone is hooked.
Click to expand...

It's correct to fasten the scabbard to the sword belt at all times by the two thin straps that hang from the belt, but as long as the sword is still in the scabbard it is carried in the left hand.  When the sword is drawn, the empty scabbard is "hooked up" to the sword belt.  (There's an open hook on the belt, and the scabbard is hung from it by the upper ring.)

On those rare occasions when an officer is carrying a flag or colour (or, some say, conducting a band), the sword is drawn, the scabbard is hooked up, and the sword is returned to the scabbard through the left pocket of the tunic.  (You're meant to make a hole in your left tunic pocket lining to accomplish this.)

Navy units I have served with in Canada always hook the sword onto the sword belt. In my experience there is a lot of confusion in the CF with respect to the wearing of naval swords and the use of sword drill. I see naval sword belts on the outside of tunics at some units
Click to expand...

Saw a 3-ringer do this once.  That's how I know I have lots of self-control!
 
I know what you mean.  I cringe everytime I see some yob wearing his/her sword belt outside their tunic.  Does no one actually read the book anymore?  This stuff is not a secret.
 
Urban legend. Whenever something apparently inexplicable about dress or ceremonial is observed, the "mark of disgrace" theory crops up (note that the same is used to explain why MPs wear red berets and it is, while widespread, also complete BS).

Consider the practicality of wearing a sword on ship while climbing/descending ladders in confined spaces, and you'll understand why naval officers carry their swords instead of hitching them.
 
Have also heard similar regarding (if memory serves...) RCA lanyards.

As far as the sword - when hooked up, they are very "lively" when marching, and move around the left leg to a surprising degree: in a practical setting, you'd need to have a hand on the thing anyway.

Rather surprised, really, that a cross-belt-and-frog arrangement didn't become standard, unless that was (in the frock-coated, wooden-wall era) one of those things that Gentlemen Didn't Wear unless actually engaged in battle.
 
Tsk tsk, the governor general's ADC is quite high profile, I've seen this ADC on several occasions in the media but this is the first time with a sword.  He should definitely know better!
 
I saw that yesterday as well. I think he has been contacted and corrected. We shall see if he hoisted in the info the next time he is on display. But since he is a rubber freak we can't be too sure (I kid I kid)  ;D
 
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
 
While the NZ Naval Party is intresting, Lets look at it from a Canadian perspective. Officers are armed with swords as well as Petty Officers Ratings with service rifles. The first pic is from 1959 retiring the Kings colours, accepting the Queens Colours. The second shows General Allard inspecting a RCN Honour Guard circa 1966. Note Officer is armed with  Sword. In 1979 The old Queens Colour was retired and replaces with the Martime Command Colours, Ratings are shown carring rifles Hope this helps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Wanted Mess Dress
Replies
2
Views
2K
Harris
Harris
O
WWII Photograph, England, Help Identifying
Replies
5
Views
3K
Blackadder1916
Blackadder1916
bllusc
    • Like
    • Love it!
Updated Army Service Dress project
92 93 94
Replies
2K
Views
409K
Rifleman62
Rifleman62
daftandbarmy
    • Like
    • Insightful
The answer to our crisis of young men? Boy Scouts
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
JLB50
J
Gunnar
Tactical pants - ticks
Replies
10
Views
4K
KevinB
KevinB
Back
Top