He led from the front: Lieutenant Colonel killed in Afghanistan ...

Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 3rd July 2009

[naturalman1975]

The most senior British officer to die in action since the Falklands has been killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.

Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, was commander of a Battle Group spearheading the fight against the Taliban.

His command vehicle was blown up by an improvised explosives device.

He is the most senior British officer to die in combat since Lieutenant Colonel 'H' Jones, commander of 2 Para, was shot dead by Argentine forces during the battle of Goose Green in the Falklands War of 1982.

A soldier of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, Trooper Joshua Hammond, also died in the blast on Wednesday while taking part in Operation Panther's Claw, one of the UK's biggest co-ordinated air operations of modern times. Six other soldiers were wounded.

The deaths bring the number of UK troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 171.

[naturalman1975]

I knew him quite well. Good man.

Lt Col Thorneloe patrols back from the weekly security meeting at the Governor's compound in Nad e-Ali with two Afghan National Army soldiers

I noted this picture in the article and wanted to comment. To me this shows a large part of the difference between being a professional soldier, and just a soldier. Take a look at which troops are ready to immediately respond to an attack and which ones - brave and dedicated though I am sure they are - are going to lose a couple of precious seconds.

[Dubya]

[Eagles6]

Prayers for him and his loved ones.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The British need to create an order of Knighthood exclusively for combat military officers, who are in combat for an extended period, not for those who “just put their toe in”, nor for rear echelon commanders.

In short, a Combat Infantry Knighthood (ideally of St. George, which would bug the hell out of the PC types.) While not a landed title, it would be appropriate that they be presented a sword and a ceremonial shirt of chain mail, to signify they were a “real” Knight.

[naturalman1975]

The Distinguished Service Order was formed with that in mind in 1866. It is not a Knighthood (its recipients are in full, Companions of the Distinguished Service Order) but is a high honour. It was meant to be awarded only for conduct under fire, although during the early part of the First World War, this was not always adhered to until an order was made that it must be so in 1917. By far, the vast majority have been awarded for conduct under fire. Awarded properly - as it has been for most of its history - the DSO seems to fit much of the criteria you mention.

There is also a specific military division of the Order of the Bath (alongside a civil division). For that matter the Order of Australia has a military division as well (of which I have the honour to be a Member), although in both of those the military service does not have to be combat service, which is, of course, not quite the same thing.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

My point in suggesting this was to restore a Knighthood to “real” Knights. An exclusive fraternity fit for an Arthurian round table, completely distinct from any other group that do not fight.

A martial and militant organization of warriors, honored as warriors, as martial Knights of the Crown.

It can be said that the highest warrior rank is not General, but Colonel, as a General divides their time between strategy and political interface with civilian leaders. Colonels and their subordinates are the highest rank that engages and pursues the enemy.

But a Knighthood of this sort is not based on rank, but extended personal risk during combat. And it is not an award, even a high level award, but a symbol of the realm.

[naturalman1975]

I think I understand at what you are getting at, but I think you place too much importance on the title. The Victoria Cross and George Cross, for example, carry no title, but rank above all Knighthoods in the order of precedence.

There are a number of other high honours without title that rank above most Knighthoods - the Order of Merit, the Companion of Honour for example.

The two biggest problem with the idea of such a Knighthood I can see is that it doesn't fit particularly well into the real British traditions of Knights. Most Knights of the Middle Ages hadn't really done anything significant to earn their spurs - they were Knighted before they ever entered their first battle. The early Orders of Chivalry really described a particular job a Knight set out to do. From the establishment of The Most Noble Order of the Garter (the oldest order still in existence, dating to approximately 1350), it was awarded for both military and non-military service. There's 660 years of history behind the current system. The second problem is the issue that there are significant numbers of people who do not wish to bear a title - they do not object to decorations or honours, merely titles. Should they be denied recognition because of their beliefs?

Personally, I look at General Sir John Monash GCMG KCB VD as my image of a 'modern' (actually World War I) warrior-Knight. He was the first man in two centuries to be knighted by a British King on the field of battle.

To me that seems all the honour a true Knight needs - and the Orders of St Michael and St George, and the Bath, provided what was needed.

[centurion316]

A discussion very similar to this thread was printed on the pages of the Naval Chronicle during the Napoleonic Wars. In response to the arguments that fighting commanders deserved some recognition in the honours system, the Order of the Bath was divided into degrees and the Companion of that order became the distinction of choice for Post Captains of the Royal Navy who had fought their ships from the Quarterdeck. A few Commanders may have been also made CB’s. In the Army, this honour fell to Regimental Field Officers, with Officers commanding battalions the most frequently named.

In latter days, the Distinguished Service Order assumed this role and CBs seem to have been reserved for General Officers. Given the nature of modern war, a return to the practice of 1815 might be in order.