The Monarchy & the pre-WW1 Army

[PhilB]

Yes, George. Where to start?

When I was pondering the thread opener, I did tend to see the relationship between the monarchy/upper aristocracy and the higher echelons of the WW1 army as similar to that between a modern prime minister/senior politicians and those who are in pursuit of honours or prestigious posts in the government`s control. I see nobody else does!

[dycer]

Phil,

We've got to be careful here as we may be straying into current politics

I agree that with priviledge comes patronage-the old boys network,etc.

The Families that appear to be close to the Monarch have been close to the Crown for hundreds of years.I would not doubt a lot of back-stabbing(literally),etc went on to attain this position.Once established within Royal Circles these Families became confidants and remain confidants of the Crown.I compare this to the current activity of a certain London Department Store Owner.

Rise within politics when compared seems to be a mad rush up the greasy pole to power with little regard to any senior incumbent,especially if a bit of salacious gossip can assist your progress or hurt your opponent.We've enough recent examples of this.

Unfortunately the following is half a story as I cannot remember the name of the National Trust Property.It's in Surrey somewhere and belonged to the Widow of a Brewery Magnet(one of the Edinburgh Breweries).She was born "below stairs" and used her inherited wealth to entertain lavishley,including the Royal Family in the early part of the 20th Century.When visiting the property I sensed,through the display of her photographs,Vistors Book,etc that she saw her wealth as an entrance to High Society but she never gained the same rapport within the Aristocracy as did long established members regardless of how currently impoverished the current Family Members were.

We're back to the old/new money debate.

George

[Sue Light]

Unfortunately the following is half a story as I cannot remember the name of the National Trust Property.It's in Surrey somewhere and belonged to the Widow of a Brewery Magnet(one of the Edinburgh Breweries).She was born "below stairs" and used her inherited wealth to entertain lavishley,including the Royal Family in the early part of the 20th Century.When visiting the property I sensed,through the display of her photographs,Vistors Book,etc that she saw her wealth as an entrance to High Society but she never gained the same rapport within the Aristocracy as did long established members regardless of how currently impoverished the current Family Members were.

Mrs Greville at Polesden Lacey?

Sue

[PhilB]

she never gained the same rapport within the Aristocracy as did long established members regardless of how currently impoverished the current Family Members were.

George

Can we safely assume that promotion to high command in WW1 was free from such considerations?

[SiegeGunner]

Mrs Greville at Polesden Lacey?

Margaret (Mrs Ronnie) Greville was the daughter of William McEwan.

[Sue Light]

So not as 'below stairs' as some

Sue

[SiegeGunner]

She was the daughter of Helen Anderson, whom William McEwan married in 1885 when aged 58, so she was formally his step-daughter, but I gather there was speculation that she was actually his natural daughter.

[CSMMo]

Phil, I have seen no evidence that the Marquis of Bute exerted any influence in the selection of WWI officers. However...The OC of the Bute Mountain Battery from the formation of the TF on was Andrew McKinlay who was the architect on the re-building of Mount Stuart after a fire in the late 19th century. Major McKinlay commanded the Bute Mountain Battery on mobilization, but was too old to go overseas, so he remained in the UK and played an important role in recruiting and in training of mountain gunners. He seemed to do his duty very well and was highly respected by the men.

In my paltry research, I have found 35 men commissioned from the ranks in this TF brigade (I have located 148 officers who were affiliated with the Brigade), not all of whom stayed with the Brigade. As good an example as any is my grandfather, commissioned from Sergeant Oct 1915. My great grandfather (his father) was a master plumber and owned Morrison Brothers Plumbing in Rothesay with his brother James who was Trumpeter Sergeant of the Brigade at mobilization and ended up RSM of 51st Divisional Ammunition Column. I doubt the Marquis even knew of them, but you never know, although I have a wonderful photo of the King and Queen at Rothesay Castle after the war. My great granduncle, RSM James Morrison, is talking with the King while the Marquis, in Stuart kilt, is at rigid attention with the Queen.

Each case must be viewed independent of the others. I'm quite sure there was influence in the awarding of commissions, but I tend to think the influence was heavier coming from the Army (TF and Regular) than from the peerage. A good example is a Lieutenant in one of the mountain batteries who was unfit for service, let alone commissioned service, but was put there through the influence of his father, who was a Lieut. Col. with active military service. In Gallipoli under shelling (a common enough scenario for the mountain gunners), he went berserk and his men had to disarm him for their own safety. He stayed with them through Egypt and into Salonika, although he was loathed and avoided, and censured by his fellow officers. While home on leave in July 1918, he walked into the garden of his home and shot himself with his service revolver. One of what is probably a more common scenario than we hear about.

This was a time when they were desperate to fill the gaps created by devastating losses and build the Army up to an unprecedented size. Change in the established order was inevitable.

90 plus years later, we try to understand it all and it is vast. The social changes caused by this massive effort would probably include the level of influence of the monarchy and the peerage (is that the correct term?), but I somehow doubt that it ever completely disappeared.

(Seph - thanks for the inside information on current customs. Interesting and enlightening!)

Mike Morrison

[PhilB]

I was actually referring to the pre-WW1 army, Mike, and to the higher ranks. In other words, whether the close connection between the monarchy and the army had influenced who was in charge in WW1. I appreciate that things had to change once the ball started to roll!

[dycer]

Polesden Lacey is the National Trust property I was referring to.

Phil,

Re Royal patronage pre WW1.Where does Sir William Robertson fit in?

George

[PhilB]

We can`t draw any conclusions from a sample of one, George. Wully is the exception that may prove the rule (whatever that means!). And you`ll notice he never got a battlefield command! I`m going to have a look at the backgrounds of the other prominent commanders to see if there`s any pattern.

So far - Rawlinson was son of a baronet and educated Eton. Gough was son of a knight and educated at Eton. Byng was the son of the Earl of Strafford (friend of the PoW) and educated at Eton. Plumer also educated Eton. Haig we already know about!

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Phil

Having been at Eton has nothing to do with Royal patronage. It usually meant that your father was an Old Etonian, or rich, or both.

As regards Gough, I think it is much more significant that his father was a much-decorated general than that he was a knight. In cases like these, younger members of military families were often made ADCs to their fathers, uncles or grandfathers and thus saw first-hand what high command was all about.

Ron

[PhilB]

Hello Phil

Having been at Eton has nothing to do with Royal patronage. Ron

My thoughts too, originally, Ron. Though I seem to recall some sort of connection between the Royals and Eton. (Not just the present Royals who`ve both been there!). I was looking for patterns though and going to Eton was an ever present in the first few I looked at! But I do think having a father who`s a baronet, knight or earl might bring you into the realm of Royal patronage?

[Sue Light]

Sorry for butting in to this thread (Never fear, I'm all ready to be ignored) and I might be on an entirely different wavelength, but the higher echelons of the aristocracy are not only on nodding terms with the Royal Family, but in most cases either descended from, or married to, the Royals. Just looking at your list above I took one name at random which happened to be the Earl of Harewood. I've no idea if you have in mind the 5th Earl or the 6th, but the 6th Earl, Henry Lascelles, married Princess Mary - many of the others are similarly related. It's the same right the way through - cousins, in-laws, nephews and uncles - the bonds at the beginning of the 20th century were tight. The buying of commissions might have long gone, but 'influence' endured for long after.

Sue

[PhilB]

Would you care to extend your comments, Sue, to say to what extent that influence may have affected the personnel and performance of the WW1 high command?

[Sue Light]

Of course not Phil - that's not my area in any way, which I'm sure you well know - presumably that was the point of you asking.

I'll keep well out of men's bar room chats in future.

Sue

[Chris_Baker]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 27 2007, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... whether the close connection between the monarchy and the army had influenced who was in charge in WW1 ...

Well, let's stop faffing around with ADCs and Honorary Colonels and examine who was "in charge" and whether they were there by dint of patronage.

BEF

===

Staff:

Sir John French (C-in-C)

Sir Archibald Murray (CGS)

Wilson, Harper, McDonough (MGGS and GSOs, G Branch staff)

Sir Nevil Macready (AG)

Sir William Robertson (QMG)

Can't see much by way of Royal patronage there.

Operational command:

Cavalry Division: Allenby

I Corps: Haig

II Corps: Smith-Dorrien

Perhaps a glimmer.

War Office

========

The representatives on the Army Council:

Asquith then Kitchener as Secretary of State for War

Charles Douglas then James Wolfe Murray as 1st Military member (CIGS)

Henry Sclater as 2nd Military member (AG)

John Cowans as 3rd Military member (QMG)

Stanley von Donop as 4th Military member (MGO)

Harold Tennant (Permanent Under Secretary of State for War and Civil member of Council)

H T Baker (Financial Secretary of the War Office and Civil Member of Council)

Sir Reginald Brade (Secretary of Council).

Can't see much there, either. Kitchener, perhaps.

[PhilB]

You`ve got me there. I`ve no idea what connections most of those men had, if any. I doubt if the Royals would have much interest in the nuts and bolts side of the army, technical, AG, Q etc. Did an aristocrat ever rise through those branches? Command seems to be what attracts the well connected.

I appreciate that this is a subject that it is hard to produce solid evidence on and I`m happy to leave it there, with this quote from British Generalship on the Western Front 1914-1918.

[Ron Clifton]

Phil

I draw your attention to two quotations:

Para 36 of the Pay Warrant 1914:

No promotion shall be made without the consent of Our Secretary of State.

Extract from para 445, King's Regulations 1912:

Attempts to obtain favourable consideration of any application by the use of outside influence are forbidden, and, if resorted to, will be regarded as an admission on the part of the applicant that his case is not good on its merits, and it will be dealt with accordingly.

It certainly would do an officer no harm to be known at Court although in many cases this contact would have followed their having displayed competence in their profession, rather than having caused any advancement.

Many senior officers were asked by the King to write privately to him about military operations. This, while quite understandable, was perhaps an unwise move as it enabled some to use that private access to denigrate their superiors. But there is always a tension between the natural wish of politicians and monarchs to have more than one view of what is happening, and the understandable wish of a C-in-C or CIGS to insist that official advice must be given only through them, as they carry the full responsibility.

Ron

[PhilB]

I don`t know whether, technically, the King was committing an offence in encouraging soldiers to communicate with the Head of the Army outside regular channels and over the heads of their superiors! I would say, however, that he would be getting a narrow of view of things if he had relied solely on official advice. Unofficial advice would have been very valuable. Official advice has the advantage that the supplier bears responsibility but the disadvantage that he may also tailor it to suit his own needs. Of course, unofficial advice has its pros and cons which presumably the King was aware of.

[rgamole]

I don't know how Royalty was directly involved but it may help to know that vestiges of a Victorian system of privilege existed into the inter-War period. The following are extracts from ‘The Last of the Bengal Lancers’ by Francis Ingall:

(The Year was 1926)

“With my name being put forward for nomination (...for Sandhurst...) I had to have two Sponsors. My father asked two old friends of the family to vouch for me, Sir Edward Clarke and Sir Maurice (later Lord) Hankey. Sir Maurice had been Secretary to the Cabinet for many years and had considerable influence in various circles; he also knew certain members of the Royal Family. This was to prove invaluable as the Duke of Connaught was, of course, Colonel-in-Chief of the Regiment that Colonel Harvey had recommended. Sir Maurice arranged for me to be received by His Royal Highness and thus the wheels were set in motion.”

“…At Sandhurst we glorified in the title of ‘gentlemen cadets’; every drill instructor had to call us ‘Mister’ or ‘Sir’ even if he were about to punish us. Most of us came from the British public schools. So far from being ‘public’ these schools are exclusively private, all tuition fees, board and lodging being paid by the boy’s parents. In my day, a few selected soldiers came from the ranks (enlisted men) of the Army; classified as ‘Y’ cadets, all their tuition fees and keep was paid by the Government. Most of them were outstanding soldiers and one who was there in my term became a very distinguished general. My father had to pay for the whole of my education at Sandhurst, a basic one thousand pounds a year — quite a substantial sum in those days — as well as meet the cost of all my uniforms and equipment and also give me an allowance. But this has all changed.”

“…There were others who had no intention of making the Army a lifetime career and who merely intended to spend a few years in a fashionable regiment, then enter the family business. In this category was a good friend of mine, the baronet Sir Charles Mappin. As heir to the famous London jewellery house of Mappin & Webb, Charles had plenty of money and was never able to take army life very seriously.”

Francis Ingall had a distinguished career and was instrumental in training the early Pakistan army.

Liam

[eyes]

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?

Phil

I know very little of the subject matter being discussed and have, as a result, followed the thread with great interest. I hope it is not slowing as I would like to continue to listen and learn. A quick thought. As we (well, not me actually) are discussing something as nebulous as influence, would it not be near impossible to nail down a hard answer to the above question? Individual, well documented cases certainly, but to answer categorically yes or no, across the board, to the question would strike me as more subjective opinion (though no less worthy for that) than something defensible and provable.

Colin

[dycer]

Phil,

Re senior Staff sharing their innermost thoughts with the King.

To be honest I cannot see how this should be a concern.

We often view these Men as automatons with little regard to how their decisions would impinge on their soldiers(casualties,loss of morale,etc).I would suggest that they were human and had to share their fears and concerns with someone.Clearly they could share their fears with their Families but unlikely with their Brother Officers as these concerns could be interpreted as a sign of weakness and unfitness for Command.

I have no idea how long the Privy Council has operated and indeed whether Senior Military Officers are officially members.We do however have an established practice in this Country where Leaders can share their views,thoughts,fears with the Monarch in complete confidentialty and also receive the Monarch's observations,concerns,etc with the proviso that these are never made public.I cannot see any problem with a General who had access to the Crown being able to speak to the Monarch in complete confidence.

The question is whether, as a result of these conversations,has the Monarch ever exercised undue influence over the Politicians?We will never know and can only speculate e.g. did the King exert personal influence to prevent Earl Haig being removed from Command in the Field?

George

[PhilB]

. As we (well, not me actually) are discussing something as nebulous as influence, would it not be near impossible to nail down a hard answer to the above question? Individual, well documented cases certainly, but to answer categorically yes or no, across the board, to the question would strike me as more subjective opinion (though no less worthy for that) than something defensible and provable.

Colin

I'm sure you.re right, Colin. As I said - influence usually leaves no paper trail. Nothing wrong with subjective opinions though - I occasionally have one myself! Enough hardish facts seem to be emerging to indicate that the influence of the Monarchy via the aristocracy must have had a significant effect on the composition and therefore the performance of WW1 coommand. Unquantifiable, of course, and largely unprovable but there nevertheless. For better or worse? A matter of opinion!