Talk:Commander-in-Chief of the Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

[edit] Relationship between C-in-C and Captain-General?

I've seen a post on alt.talk.royalty that describes captain-general as "something akin to principal field marshal", which implies that the position was (or became) largely honorary. Could the relationship have been similar to that between the Commandant General Royal Marines — the Royal Marines' professional head — and the Captain General Royal Marines — their titular, ceremonial head? Was the captain-general, in effect, Colonel-in-Chief of the entire Army?

Another possible parallel is Admiral of the Fleet, in the days when there was only one at any one time (at least up to 1805, and maybe later). He was the Royal Navy's senior officer, but he was not its commander-in-chief: that would be the First Lord of the Admiralty, if anyone could be said to be. (One divergence: promotion in the Navy above the rank of captain depended entirely on seniority, so you became Admiral of the Fleet simply by neither dying nor retiring. In the Army, however, that would only get you as far as (full) general: promotion to field marshal was in the gift of the king and his government, as was appointment as captain-general.) — Franey 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of source

This list of Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces does not seem to be properly sourced. Indeed regiments.org gives a different list of Commanders-in-Chief which it terms "General-in-Chief Command" - see [1]. I am proposing to amend the list in the wiki article so it agrees more precisely with the list at regiments.org (which is repeated in other sources [2]). Does anyone have any views on this? Dormskirk (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now amended the list to agree with the sources stated - please revert if what I have done is historically inaccurate stating the new source. Thanks Dormskirk (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)