This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Friday, 8th October 2010
i noted the head of the british army is a full general, and not a field marshall. So is it an 'honorary' or non active title, last used during WW2?
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
According to Wiki, the rank is not currently used.
If a major conflict were to occur, someone could be elevated to that position if it were justified.
Thes last operational Field Marshall stepped down (Field Marshalls don't retire, don't you know), in 1997.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
The army is not big enough to rate any rank above Sergeant at the moment.Strangely though we still have the most senior RAF and RN ranks, even though like the army they have been cut back.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
, in reply to message 2.
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Friday, 8th October 2010
It is interesting that on State occasions, HRH the Duke of Kent always carries his Field Marshal's baton
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
Elkstone
The current situation is that the "five-star" ranks (awful Americanism) - Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal (one "l") and Marshal of the Royal Air Force will not usually be granted in peacetime.
Prior to this, the Chief of Defence Staff was usually promoted to the rank toward the end of their term, and was made a peer on retirement.
Reform of the Lords did for the peerage (so increasingly fewer men to raise the voice of experience at Westminster). But the cynical might note that "five-stars" traditionally if informally could request personal interviews with the Monarch even after giving up active service (they don't actually retire). No five-stars means......
LW
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
LongWeekend,
The current situation has its precedent in the creation of that awful Americanism. When the Yanks formally created the five-star rank in 1944 it was with the provision that it would be awarded only in declared war.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
WC
Indeed, although it did not work out quite like that. Hap Arnold was created General of the Air Force on the creation of the USAF in 1947. He was therefore the only US officer to be created a five-star twice by Congress. Omar Bradley was the last five-star created, but in 1950 there was technically a war on. I believe Congress then abolished the rank completely, in the same Act that promoted Bradley.
But the US system is rather different, as I think we've discussed before. Two-star rank, Major General and Rear-Admiral (upper half), is the highest permanent rank in US service. All higher ranks require the approval of Congress, even in wartime, and are only held while the officer in question holds an appropriate appointment. On retirement they keep the higher rank style as a courtesy, and presumably their pensions reflect that status.
This was the reason Admiral Kimmel, CinC Pacific Fleet went into his office after Pearl Harbor, took off his four star insignia and replaced it with two-star Rear Admiral's rank.
More recently, it was the DoD official reason for short-touring Wes Clarke as SACEUR - if he stayed for the usual tour length, his successor, USAF General Jo Ralston, would have left his last post (Vice Chief of the JCS)more than 90 days previously and so would have had to revert to two-star, with all the nausea of re-confirmation, etc.
(Incidentally, Clarke thought this was a bullsh*t reason and says so in his memoirs.)
Film buffs may remember the scene in "Patton" where Bradley gives him the news of his imminent promotion, but cautions him not to wear the rank prematurely, in case Congress finds out and cancels the approval.
All Flag/General/Air officer ranks in the British Services are capable of being permanent, and promotions do not require the approval of Parliament.
I think the Brit "peacetime/wartime" distinction was the way to smooth over the differences between those who wanted to abolish the ranks completely, and those who wanted to keep them. Classic Whitehall compromise - Well done, Sir Humphrey.
LW
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
Which reminds me, the highly laudable US suspicion of bestowing high rank has arguably led them perversely into creating a "6-Star" rank.
At the end of the Great War, Pershing was created "General of the Armies of the United States". Grant had previously held this title, but as an appointment; his actual rank was Lieutenant General (later full General). In Pershing's case it was intended as a formal rank. At the time it was taken to be "five-star" rank, bringing him into line with Haig, Foch, Petain etc.
However, the Act that created five-star rank in 1944 described the new 5-star rank as "General of the Army (singular)" and specified that Pershing remained senior to the new creations. I believe it did not specify that this was senior in rank, but as he was already senior in grade, by 25 years, it implies that "General of the Armies" is an actual senior rank to "General of the Army" and "Fleet Admiral".
I believe the fiver-star ranks are actually permanent, unlike 3- and 4-star ranks, which is another twist.
At the time of the Bi-Centennial of the British creation of the United States ( ) someone decided that no US serviceperson should outrank the Father Of His Nation, so His Excellency George Washington was posthumously promoted to the same rank as Pershing, backdated to 4th July 1776.
So, I suppose there hope for Dowding yet.
LW
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
Well, of course, the British do have a six-star rank, and a person who holds it.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
Does the fact that there has been a presumption for some decades that any major war would be fought by NATO impact upon the question of Field Marshalls?
Presumably it is a rank that indicates a general command that in a NATO operation would be over a multi-national force.
Just a thought from a non military mind.
Cass
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
, in reply to message 10.
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010
Given the events in Afghanistan, I'd have to guess no.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
, in reply to message 9.
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010
Urungal
If you mean the Queen, she is not a "six-star". She is the Commander-in-Chief but (like the President of the United States) she does not hold a rank by virtue of that appointment. Her ranks are those she holds as Colonel-in-Chief of the Guards, etc.
And she was, of course, a Subaltern in the ATS.
LW
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
LW - As Lord High Admiral, she ranks above the 5-star Admiral of the Fleet she is married to.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 13th October 2010
Lord High Admiral is an office, not a rank. That was my point.
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
Urungal
Sorry, that was a bit abrupt.
The Queen is recognised as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, although I am not sure that is a formal title. She holds, as Monarch, the office of Lord High Constable, Lord High Admiral and Chief of the Air Force (title coined by her grandfather).
Even when younger, the Queen was not much given to appearing in full uniform except at Trooping the Colour, but when her father and grandfather appeared in uniform, they wore the "five star" rank of the appropriate service, not a "six-star" rank unique to the Monarch.
Cheers
LW
Link to this forum: Field Marshall, is that rank still in the british army?
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.