Diggers defend killer Commando Sergeant Paul Cale (Commando who strangled Taliban commander)

news.com.au ^ | 8th March 2013 | Kristin Shorten

[Gay State Conservative]

Just curious about something,naturalman...looking at the tributes to many fallen countrymen in your outstanding profile I see mention made of the “Australian Army” rather whereas,OTOH,I’ve often seen mention made of the “Royal Australian Air Force” and the “Royal Australian Navy”.Does your profile contain typos,am I misunderstanding something or is there an historical explanation for the difference? As you surely know many of us Yanks,myself included,don’t know much about foreign military forces or about the Royal Family (even though one of my grandparents was a British subject at birth).

[naturalman1975]

Yes, there's an historical explanation, dating back to the (English) Bill of Rights of 1689.

In 1689, the Parliament of England invited William III of Orange (Holland) and his wife Mary II to become King and Queen of England (as co-rulers - this has only happened twice in English history - both were actual Monarchs, rather than Monarch and Consort. They did this to ensure a Protestant succession, because the current King (Mary's father) James II was Catholic, and also believed he had a divine right to rule which superseded the rights of Parliament. This lead to a conflict as to who was supremely powerful - the Monarch or Parliament. Civil war (which had occurred during the reign of James I's father, Charles I) was a real possibility (fighting had already begun in Ireland) and Parliament decided to take action and replace the King. James II chose not to fight and went into exile and William and Mary became the rulers of England. But Parliament required them to agree to the Bill of Rights as a condition of being allowed to take the throne.

The relevant part of the Bill of Rights to your question follow:

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

.....

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

.....

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

What this did was codify into English law - and the constitution of Britain - a longstanding belief that it was Parliament who had ultimate control over the existence of a standing army in England.

For this reason, in English law, while the Navy (and the subsequent Air Force) 'belong' to the King, the Army belongs to Parliament and the People. So the Army was the English Army, and then the British Army, while the Navy was the Royal Navy, and the Air Force, eventually was the Royal Air Force. The Marines are also the Royal Marines.

Individual units of the Army can carry the 'Royal' name, or the name of an individual member of the Royal family, but the Army itself is not referred to in this way.

And, as other countries in the Empire (and subsequent Commonwealth) acquired their own armed forces, they followed the same tradition.

Constitutionally, the Monarch remains the Commander-In-Chief of the Army, and it must obey the Monarch's orders - but Parliament has the power to stand down the army in times of peace. That is intended to ensure a balance against a military dictatorship on either side - Parliament cannot order the Army against the crown, and if the Crown tried to order the Army against Parliament, Parliament could dissolve it.