The Monarchy & the pre-WW1 Army

[PhilB]

The monarchy (British & foreign) and upper aristocracy were very prominent in the pre-WW1 army. So much so that one gets the impression that the higher ranks were partly courtiers, at home at court, the soiree and levee. How this might have affected the nature and composition of the army top brass I find it hard to work out. Was it a necessary stabilizing influence in the army in a country like this at that time or was it even then out of date? Did Germany`s similar model differ much? Did France or USA benefit or suffer by not having Royal influence?

[Pete1052]

The U.S. has families which have served for many generations as military and naval officers usually after graduation from West Point or Annapolis. They're not exactly an aristocracy but they're a kind of aristocratic military caste.

[CSMMo]

What you will see in US messes in quite similar to what you will see in Biritish messes. The first toast in a US mess is "To the President" just as the first toast in a British mess, I assume, is "To the Queen". The British Army seemed to be an entity unto itself and dedicated to professional soldiering around the time of the TGW. The social aspect of the British officer's life seems to be similar to the social aspect of the US Officer's life, then and now. The social aspect detracts, IMHO, somewhat from the professional mission, and can interefere with choosing the best man for the job at times (as was seen at Gallipoli when Hamilton tried to get the best generals - by name - and was given Stopford!).

There are more similarities than differences between the British and US Armies, active and reserve. Our National Guard, while beholden (somewhat) to the States, is strikingly similar to the Territorial Force/Army. The British Army has Majors at Company/Battery/Troop Command and the US Army has Captains. General Officer ranks are a little different in name, but similar in function. Companies are run by the Company Sergeant Major in the UK, by the First Sergeant in the US. Sergeants Major are WO's in the UK, NCO's in the US.

If there is a difference, British Officers swear allegiance to the monarch (someone more knowledgeable can jump in and be more specific - and accurate - on that if you please) and US Officers swear to uphold and defend the Consitution of the United States and follow the orders of the President and those officers appointed over them.

While there have been a few families who have provided military leaders in the US, they have mostly died out. That said, it is not uncommon for an officer's son to rate a West Point appointment, but the appointment still must come from his state's senator.

SO - that said - did the absence of a monarch have a bearing on the US Army (can't speak for the French or the Germans). I don't think it has much influence on either army. From what little I have read of British Generals, it did more good to be "in" with the CIGS than with the King. Not having been there, this is just an outsider's opinion, of course.

Mike Morrison

[PhilB]

We too have/had families like that but they`re somewhat lower on the scale than monarchy/upper aristocacy. These are men (it was usually men) who became field marshals, generals, colonels of regiments etc without necessarily having any military service. It`s an Old Europe thing!

[Pete1052]

Retired Army Gen. Montgomery Meigs recently stepped down as the director of DoD's counter-IED programs. He's a descendant of Quartermaster General Montgomery Meigs of the American Civil War. It was the latter Gen. Meigs who turned Robert E. Lee's estate Arlington into a military cemetery. That family is an American military dynasty if there ever was one.

When I was at Fort Ord, California, one of our assistant division commanders in the 7th Infantry Division was a Colonel Ord who was related to the namesake of the fort, the Civil War Gen. E.O.C. Ord. The latter is said to have been the grandson of George IV's morganatic marriage to Lady Fitzherbert, although many regard that claim to be highly debatable.

[Pete1052]

Reluctantly I have to quibble a bit with what Mike Morrison said--there are not officers' messes in the U.S. Army in the British sense of the term. In the U.S. Army regiments and battalions don't have messes that officers routinely go to for food and drink. At the unit level we don't have private cooks and we don't have regimental silver, much less food or drink. In the field officers eat the same food as the enlisted men. The officers' mess, as far as the U.S. Army is concerned, is one of two things--the Officers' Club on most installations, or three or four you-must-attend (command performance, meaning you must be there) dress blues uniform dinners for officers that are held each year. The "O" Club is usually called the Officers' Open Mess, which means it has a restaurant that could care less about one's regimental affiliation, it's merely a place where officers and their guests can eat. As for drinking, drunk driving offenses are now a death sentence for an Army career, so heavy drinking is rarely seen at the club. The dress blues officers' events are formal occasions held about three or four times a year, and to an extent they mimic the traditions of the British officers' mess, with the formality of having a president of the mess, Mr. Vice, the smoking lamp being lit, etc. My main point is that there is no such thing in the U.S. Army that is equivalent to the British regimental officers' mess.

[CSMMo]

Pete1052 -

What you are discussing are fairly recent changes. Field mess has changed dramatically since I first 'ate in the dirt' in 1970. Then, the officers mess kit was a part of the co/btry/trp property (my fellow soldiers and I carried our own) and came to the field for their exclusive use. They ate separately as they did in unit mess halls. When consolidated messes came in, things changed as they did when T-Packs and MRE's came in. I retired in '91, so I don't know what they have now. By that time, we all ate together, but in the field, we (and I as senior NCO) always ate last after the men were fed. I thought they were good changes.

My point was that the traditions of the officers mess came from the British Army. Traditions are important. Even the Dining In and Dining Out have changed in that I, as a senior NCO, was also required to attend. That change came about during my career.

Traditions are important, but some changes are healthy. The change in attitude regarding drinking also came in during my career and was quite welcome. It was in the 1980's, I believe, that the US Army recognized the importance of the regimental system and instituted CARS (Combat Arms Regimental System) a variation of which is still in place. Regimental affiliation exists and the history of the regiment is supposed to be taught to and upheld by its members. Another positive change brought about by studies of our own combat experiences.

One of the strengths of the US Army has been adaptability. I believe The Great War was when we most closely resembled the British Army and we have adapted a great deal since. Hopefully, we have kept the best. It is interesting (and healthy, I believe) that reference to a British style Officers Mess would provoke a bit of reluctant indignation. The US Army is it's own creation and, due to the nature of it's base in a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy, it has the capacity for more flexibility built into it. Sometimes that goes too far, such as the proliferation of women into the service which is a very expensive experiment, but that's a very complex issue. (Before I get flayed alive, I hasten to add that the service of most of them has been superb; it is just a very expensive effort which was politically motivated rather than operationally motivated.)

When we had a British Royal Engineers Major attached to us in the 1980's, he felt quite at home. I just had a hard time adapting to him calling me "Sarnt Mayjah!". But I adapted.

Thanks for your input. It added needed depth to what I said.

Mike Morrison

[Pete1052]

Have a good Redleg Christmas, Mike. It was St. Barbara's Day the other day. I did MOS 13B One Station Unit Training at Fort Sill in '77, went to Fort Benning OCS, then jump school, FA Officer Basic Course, 6/9 FA Giessen ('78-'81), FA Officer Advanced Course, and 1/79 FA, Fort Ord ('82-'83). My dad was a Redleg in '43-'46.

[CSMMo]

I'll raise a glass of Artillery Punch and toast a Happy St. Barbara's day to you.

(Have you seen what they did to Fort Ord?!)

[findabetterole]

Gentlemen, in these modern times, when 'in the field', the British Army Officer eats' as is.. however, in the days of WW.1, it was a little different. Even junior officers at troop level had their 'Bat-man' = 'Butler'. The officers fare was more upgrade than that of the lower ranks, and the officer normally ate in the comfort of his 'dug-out', waited upon (as operational function would allow) by his 'Bat-man'.

When in reserve areas, there was still a Regimental Offices Mess which all officers of a regiment were obliged to attend. This practice is still in place today.

The standard alegiance of an officer is firstly to the 'Crown', then to Family, and lastly to the Regiment. The initial toast at an officers mess would be and still is to the reigning monark, which today is: 'To the Queen, God Bless Her!'. The next toast would be and still is: 'The Regiment!'

So Gentlemen, as an Englishman in California, I offer you this toast on such a festive occasion... 'The Queen, God Bless Her.. The President, Good Health!'

A Merry Christmas and Prosperous New Year to All!

Seph

[Chris_Baker]

Phil, I am not sure your original assertion holds water. The number of monarchy/upper aristos in the British army were not that many and none were in positions of serious authority were they? I guess it depends on definition of upper aristicracy. Sure there were plenty of aristocratic names around but I can't think of too many in the higher echelons of the army. An interesting question.

[findabetterole]

Excellant point Chris!

I think that most people still see the genuine aristocracy in the mold of Wellington, Wolf and Marlborough, still lording it up over the general rankers of the Royal Army. Although those well respected gentlemen have left a lasting legacy, how does one transmit to the layman that... 'Times and thinking change?'

Seph

[PhilB]

Phil, I am not sure your original assertion holds water. The number of monarchy/upper aristos in the British army were not that many and none were in positions of serious authority were they?

Of course, my only assertion was that the monarchy/upper aristocracy was prominent in the Army. The King was at the pinnacle, his personal ADCs were Field Marshal the Duke of Connaught & Strathearn, Bt Major Prince Arthur of Connaught, Gen Prince Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein and Hon Col the Duke of Teck. Among his ADCs were Col the Duke of Northumberland, Col the Earl of Haddington, Col the Duke of Richmond & Gordon, Col the Duke of Montrose, Col the Earl of Clarendon, Col the Earl of Harewood, Col Viscount Galway, Col the Marquis of Londonderry, Col Earl Brownlow, Col the Duke of Beaufort, Col the Earl of Kilmorey, Col Lord Clifford, Col the Earl of Scarborough, Col Lord Percy, Col the Earl of Stradbroke, Col the Earl of Leicester, Col the Earl of Kintore, Col the Marquis of Breadalbane, Col Earl Fortescue, Col the Marquis of Salisbury, Col the Earl of Albemarle, Col the Earl of Harrington, Col the Duke of Bedford, Col Lord Harris, Col Lord Lovat, Col the Earl of Essex, Col the Earl of Westmorland, Col Viscount Hardinge, Col the Earl of Denbigh & Desmond, Maj Gen the Maharajah of Gwalior & Maj Gen the Regent of Jodhpur.

Many of these gentlemen held several posts. The Duke of Richmond & Gordon, for example, was Hon Col 3rd Sussex, President of Banff Territorial Force Association and President Elgin TFA. The Duke of Connaught was a Field Marshal on the Active List, Governor General & CinC Canada, Colonel in Chief of 6th Dragoons, HLI, R Dublin Fus, Watson`s Horse, 31st Lancers, 7th Rajputs & 129th Baluchis, Colonel Grenadier Guards, Hon Colonel of South Irish Horse, R East Kent Yeo, 6th Hampshires, 3rd West Kents & 18th London Regt, and president of the Duke of York`s Military School. The power they had might have been limited but their capacity for influence was presumably great though unquantifiable. I have not suggested that this influence was necessarily a negative factor. But it was surely a consideration?

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Phil,

Your analysis of the army reads to me more like one for the Napoleonic rather than the the First World War, as both Chris and Seth have commented.

It is true that in the late Victorian period the Duke of Cambridge was Commander in Chief, but he was long dead by 1914 and the post had been abolished. Apart from George V, as the head of the armed services, I do not know of any of the monarchy in major positions for WWI. As for the Army's top brass, all the ones that I can think of they were at mest gentry rather than from the prominant aristocratic families. Lord Ester was a courtier with influence who selected French, but the latter had already come to prominance in the Second Boer War by then.

For the Navy, one of the strands in Andrew Gordon's 'the Rules of the Game' is the influence of the officers who had served with George V, but Beatty was advanced beyond his rank by Churchill, the elected politician, not by the King.

What you did have was a narrow pool to select from, many of whom knew each other and proferment could come that way. Haig was the son of a distiller, French of a naval officer and Kitchener an army officer. Jellicoe was the son of a merchant marine captain, Beatty of an army officer and Fisher also of an army officer.

[Ron Clifton]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 26 2007, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, my only assertion was that the monarchy/upper aristocracy was prominent in the Army. The King was at the pinnacle, his personal ADCs were Field Marshal the Duke of Connaught & Strathearn, Bt Major Prince Arthur of Connaught, Gen Prince Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein and Hon Col the Duke of Teck. Among his ADCs were Col the Duke of Northumberland, ... & Maj Gen the Regent of Jodhpur.

Hello Phil

Personal ADCs to the King are usually Royal relations (the Duke of Teck was Queen Mary's brother and, incidentally, the employer of my grandfather and great-grandfather) but the post was purely honorary.

It has been said, apropos of honours such as GCMG or GCVO, that the monarchy is the fountain of honour, and those closest to it get splashed the most!

The peers you mention as ADCs (again a mainly honorific posting) were, I think, all colonels of Territorial battalions or similar and in many cases Chairmen of County TF Associations. As social leaders and major landowners in their areas, this was usually expected of them and allowing the use of their name and influence helped to attract recruits and, more importantly, funds for their units. Maj-Gen Sir Pertab Singh, Regent of Jodhpur, was an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Indian Corps in France.

Even today, many commercial companies like to have titled men and women on their boards as non-executive directors, or holders of "old money", to vouch for their respectability. This is not a new idea and those of us familiar with G&S will remember the Duke of Plaza-Toro in "The Gondoliers" who traded - quite literally - on his usefulness in this connection!

Ron

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Phil,

It took me a while to write my post and so I missed you latest one. Thanks for providing this list of the army ADCs to the King; I missed may have some name that is galringly obvous, but I can't spot any that were active top brass during the War. Looking through the DNB entries for my last answer, I didn't see any of the names on your list active in making the appointment of the officers Is this a rerun of the old school tie network debate? People have argued for influence by that network for generations, but rarely with mych evidence.

[PhilB]

I have said (twice I think) that I`m not saying that the influence was negative. One has to bear in mind that Royal patronage in society of those days was very important for one`s social standing and advancement. I assume from the above posts that the general opinion on forum is that, despite the presence of so many courtiers in prominent positions (albeit not in command), it had no effect whatever on the selection and general performance of the WW1 high command?

[CSMMo]

I don't know if this will help at all (but I hope it will). In the unit I am researching, 4th Highland (Mountain) Brigade, RGA (TF), the honorary Colonel (appointed 4 Oct 1914) was John, 3rd Marquess of Bute, whose ancestors had been quite influential in British politics as well as in shipping and coal in Wales. There is no inference - that I have seen - that he interfered in the complex activities of this TF Brigade. He opened his magnificent house, Mount Stuart on the Isle of Bute, as a hospital and lost his son, commanding 6th BN Welsh Regiment, in 1915 in addition to doing a great deal, along with the Marchioness, locally to support the soldiers fighting the war.

Is this the kind of information you were looking for Phil?

Mike Morrison

[PhilB]

Hard to say, Mike, what an individual`s influence was. Did the good Marquis have any say in who got commissions? Or promotions? Unfortunately, influence doesn`t normally leave a paper trail of evidence!

[Chris_Baker]

I would say that the "capacity for inflence" of an ADC to the King or an Honorary Colonel of a TF unit was negligible.

[dycer]

Phil,

Correct me if I'm wrong but the practice of "buying Commissions" in the British Army was stopped in the latter part of the 19th Century.

I have no doubt that influence played and still plays it's part in choosing(or being accepted by a particular Regiment).This works both ways,as Mike M's example shows, with the Regiment being seen as an extension of the Family and injured members being looked after as such.This I am certain still goes on today.

Once Regiment was chosen and individual accepted I would suggest promotion was on merit.Not any easy path if a Forebear had been a senior Officer.May this have not put an unreasonable expectation on a young Officer's shoulders?

You identify the Aristocracy.We should also bear in mind that generations of lesser Families also serve(d) in the Regiment and as senior NCO's offer(ed) wise advice to their more inexperienced leaders,regardless of birth.

You may also be overlooking the important welfare role of Officers Wives.

George

p.s I have to unashamefully admit that my Father used his time as a Private Soldier in a Volunteer Battalion in WW1 to influence his future career.The reference he obtained assisted his application to join the Police Service in 1919

[PhilB]

I would say that the "capacity for inflence" of an ADC to the King or an Honorary Colonel of a TF unit was negligible.

I have little idea how much influence a colonel, honorary colonel or colonel in chief wielded. I have always assumed they would function in an advisory capacity in selection of officers, particularly higher ranks, and as guide/mentor to the CO?

I don`t think the question of purchase of commissions arises for WW1 or the previous service of its officers. Purchase was abolished in 1868, so I doubt if any purchase officer was still on the active list in 1914. Though, just maybe....!

[dycer]

Phil,

Re purchase. I would agree that few if any would be on the active list in 1914 but could some of them not have been in the advisory postions you outline in your first paragraph in the first decade and a half of the 20th Century?

George

p.s I keep thinking about that Film set during the Sudan War."The Four Feathers"

[PhilB]

Probably right, George. The influence of purchase officers would linger on - but that`s another thread! I dread someone posing the question "What evidence do you have that an officer`s having purchased his commission influenced the officer corps of 1914"!

[dycer]

Agreed Phil

We old codgers should continue to cogitate and give the young whipper-snappers their head.

I'm glad,though,I was never set the subject you headline as an essay!!

George