Talk:British Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | British Army has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Royal Army
It’d be nice to have a short explanation on why the British Army is not called the “Royal Army” in the same way the navy is called the “Royal Navy” and the air force is called the “Royal Air Force.” I read elsewhere it is due to the fact that historically the army was not a unified force directly controlled by the monarch the way the navy and, later, the air force were and are. Instead the army was composed of separate units controlled by the various nobles throughout the kingdom which were called up to defend the kingdom in response to specific threats. That sounds like a reasonable and believable explanation, but I am no authority and I cannot speak to the credibility or reliability of the source. Someone with knowledge please add this information with proper sourcing. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
"Richard St George Mansergh-St George" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Richard St George Mansergh-St George has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 17 § Richard St George Mansergh-St George until a consensus is reached. PercyPigUK (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
"Richard Mansergh St George" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Richard Mansergh St George has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 17 § Richard Mansergh St George until a consensus is reached. PercyPigUK (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Revertion of edit 1328237081
User @Caraki27 reverted edit 1328237081 by @Knowledgework69 whose edit removed unnecessary spaces between parameters and equal signs (=) in the infobox. I do not support this revertion, as those spaces in the infobox's wikitext are unnecessary and do not change or affect the infobox if they are removed. I do invite other editors to state their opinion in order to achieve consensus. Light (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- I saw that the hyperlink didn't work in the edit, so I assumed it was a mistake and reversed it. More importantly, it didn't just remove spaces from the infobox, it updated who the current Assistant Chief of the General Staff was. So I'll fix that now. Caraki27 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)