Royal Navy

would this be better at Mosquito ringtone British Royal Navy? There are other royal navies... Sabrina Martins User:Vera Cruz/Vera Cruz

In a word, no. There is only one "Royal Navy". All others are "Royal ''somethingelse'' Navy". For example, Royal Australian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, and so on. Nextel ringtones User:Tannin/Tannin

just wait until the Abbey Diaz micronations hear about this... Free ringtones User:Vera Cruz/Vera Cruz
: :)

Majo Mills User:Patcat88 just added the following text:

"The Royal Navy also developed a reputation of savagry and inhumane practices such as frequent Mosquito ringtone Flagellation/loging] and unconsenting, effectivly kidnapping Sabrina Martins Impressment. This reached its peak in the 1700s and early 1800s."

I don't think this is particularly relevant. "Inhumane practices" were the norm for armed forces of that time, and have been throughout history. It's only recently (i.e. the past couple of hundred years) that soldiers and sailors have not been punished severely for any minor offence. Also, "impressment" cannot really be called "effectively kidnapping", because it was done fully within the law, and with the full consent of the government. Perhaps some mention of press gangs should be made, but not in this POV way. Nextel ringtones Proteus/Proteus 09:24, 30 Apr 2004

* I agree with Proteus here. I don't think the paragraph belongs and I certainly think it needs to be NPOVed at least Abbey Diaz Cjrother/Cjrother 15:07, 5 May 2004 .

* Yes, the social life needs to be described in context. The sailors did not mutiny over flogging or impressment, for instance. Cingular Ringtones Stan Shebs/Stan 16:21, 5 May 2004

* I have changed the paragraph to hopefully NPOV it. more holmes Cjrother/Cjrother 21:58, 11 Jun 2004



An anon has added a comment that the Army is "technically older". Is it? I was under the impression that the RN has existed from the time of unfortunately does Alfred the Great, while there wasn't a standing "Army" for a long time after that, as forces were just raised on an ad hoc basis whenever the King wanted troops. I'm ready to be corrected, though... gum onto Proteus/Proteus normal while User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 20:45, 1 Jun 2004

:As I understand it from never landed British Army, today's Army is the descendant of Cromwell's creation, thus relatively new. The RN doesn't really have a documented continuous existence from Alfred's time, but there's not a single point where the monarch said "we must create a navy", so Alfred is as good a starting point as any. The Oxford history of the Navy discusses all this, but alas it's back at the library now. The "technically older" is likely to be confusing, it should be deleted or expanded. washing her Stan Shebs/Stan 21:15, 1 Jun 2004

::This is taken from the Royal Navy Web site distinguishing various forces that may be considered a national navy: ''When the King Charles II came to the throne in 1660 he inherited a huge fleet of 154 ships. This was a permanent professional national force and the beginning of the Royal Navy as we know it today.'' Charles II was also the first king to maintain a permanent standing army, thus making the modern forces pretty equivalent in age. Since no national army exisdted until Cromwell and a '''Navy Royal''' was definately developed from earlier foundations by Henry VIII I would think the RN can be conisidered more ancient before even going back to Alfred. Hence I have docked the sentence remain desperately Dainamo/Dainamo 13:24, 24 Oct 2004

:::Offline I'm working on a more comprehensive history article, and it will address some of these issues in more depth. The RN website is poorly worded, because it makes it unclear as to whether Charles '''inherited''' the "permanent professional national force" or if he '''created''' it from the 154 ships. I think it's hard for moderns to really grasp the idea that entire wars were fought with less planning and preparation that goes into a Saturday pick-up football game... been biding Stan Shebs/Stan 18:13, 24 Oct 2004

It was my belief that the Royal navy was the largest navy in the world until mid-way into the 2nd World War, not the end of the 1st world war as this article states. I'm sure if you look at a reliable ship list, this will proove it.

Thanks
-Andrew

Only one?

The article contains this sentence:
:In 1692-1940, the Royal Navy suffered only one major defeat, the standards many Battle of the Chesapeake against France
I know one can debate endlessly what counts as "major" or even as a "defeat", but surely this sentence is exaggerating the case; consider the properly we Battle of Lake Erie, the original blues Battle of Lake Champlain, the is unbiased Battle of Coronel, the leno cracked Battle of the Dardanelles. lee cir Gdr/Gdr 18:34, 2004 Oct 24

: I think in this context it means a "strategic" defeat. The British lost in the American war of independence (partly as a result). Other battles like the Dardanelles may have been tactical setbacks, but the wars were eventually won. tender compassion Wiki-Ed/Wiki-Ed 16:38, 26 Nov 2004

:: But if so, then what were the strategic defeats in 1692 and 1940? The Royal Navy was on the winning side in the introduction they War of the Grand Alliance and independent voters World War II. sense whence Gdr/Gdr 19:39, 2004 Dec 23

Supremacy

What happened in 1692 and 1940? I would have thought the piece needs a sentence or two of explanation here.

:There were no significant defeats for the Royal Navy in 1692 or 1940. I think the author may have had in mind the facts concerning battle of Beachy Head in 1690 and the sinking of joyce hens HMS Hood (51)/''Hood'' and the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in 1941. Gdr/Gdr 22:33, 2004 Oct 28

:: 1692 is too early - I think for "supremacy" you really want a date after Trafalgar. 1940 seems a wee bit too early as well. I would have thought the USN overtook the RN later in the war (1942?) after it properly started building up its forces. Wiki-Ed/Wiki-Ed 16:54, 25 Jan 2005

Bigness

Is the Royal Navy still larger than that of France? If so, is this likely to change in the near future, given the recent wave of spending cuts? Also, history seems to miss out entire First World War, 19th Century, etc. Ashley Pomeroy/Ashley Pomeroy 09:29, 10 Nov 2004

:I take it the link to History of the Royal Navy wasn't prominent enough? :-) Stan Shebs/Stan 04:06, 11 Nov 2004



The Royal Navy is presently bigger than the French Navy but may not be bigger than the French Navy soon but it will remain much more powerful. Most of the escort fleet of the French Navy is made up of small frigates, corvettes and patrol boats whereas destroyers and frigates make up the Royal Navy escort fleet. And the RN will still have more aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. SoLando/SoLando 17:47, 10 Nov 2004