# Were military ranks/titles ever hereditary in England? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 4, 2013, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311 "2013-08-04T09:10:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/21 "2013-08-05T00:11:03Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Military ranks (up to colonel) were sold in France too, and I would guess it was the same all over Europe at the time (It ended sooner in France than in the UK, obviously, since we had revolutions and such things…) > > So, assuming that the British cavalry indeed had a particularly bad reputation, I doubt it was a result of the sale of military ranks since AFAIK that was the norm. Anyway, the British army in general never had a good reputation until WWI (except in Independence War-related American national legend). At its height in 1922, the British Empire controlled one-fifth of the world’s population (458 million people) and one-quarter of the land mass (13 million square miles). All jokes about the British army losing every battle except the last, and recognizing the importance of seapower, the army must have been effective when they needed it. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/22 "2013-08-05T01:47:00Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > In the Middle Ages, nobiliary titles often involved military duties (not always, but the immense majority of the time - titles without military duties tended to be later grants); those military duties were inherited with the land and title, but it was a “pack” and eventually the military duties got their own names, which are the ones that were generally not hereditary. [Thegn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thegn) in Anglo-Saxon England for example. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/23 "2013-08-05T02:24:15Z")
> [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > At its height in 1922, the British Empire controlled one-fifth of the world’s population (458 million people) and one-quarter of the land mass (13 million square miles). All jokes about the British army losing every battle except the last, and recognizing the importance of seapower, the army must have been effective when they needed it. They did not control the Empire because of an overwhelming army. They used a small, often poorly-led and equipped army to beat the non-armies of colonial lands. Might as well call Custer-era cavalry an effective army because they took over a million square miles. They weren’t. They just had to beat peoples with no experience at forming modern armies and with little access to modern weaponry. And it took just as long and bloody and stupid battles to do so, just on a larger scale than the cavalry. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/24 "2013-08-05T04:21:26Z")
Bismarck was asked, in the late 1800s, what he would do if the British Army landed in Europe, and joked, “Arrest it!” The British long put greater emphasis on, and funding into, their navy. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/25 "2013-08-05T11:41:28Z")
The British Army has generally been small because a large army wasn’t as useful as a navy, as has been previously mentioned. My understanding is that the beginning of WWI, the British Army was small, but of high quality. Any cites for the earlier low quality a lot of people are mentioning? I think it’s a little simplistic to say they only had to fight primitive, disorganized armies. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/26 "2013-08-05T12:56:12Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Wasn’t being a member of the gentry usually a requirement for an officer’s commission? They had money of course, but also the social class was a consideration too. Bob++'s post mentions how colonels could veto a sale of a commission based on class considerations. > [@aceplace57](#): > > [Coat of arms - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms) I’m not sure what point you’re making. The quote you offer is about how a _coat of arms_ became hereditary during the Crusades. A coat of arms is not a commission or a rank or a position in the army; it’s a marker of identity. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/27 "2013-08-05T13:23:10Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > They did not control the Empire because of an overwhelming army. They used a small, often poorly-led and equipped army to beat the non-armies of colonial lands. > > Might as well call Custer-era cavalry an effective army because they took over a million square miles. They weren’t. They just had to beat peoples with no experience at forming modern armies and with little access to modern weaponry. And it took just as long and bloody and stupid battles to do so, just on a larger scale than the cavalry. The British in India routinely defeated forces with greater troop numbers and weapons either approaching or even exceeding the British ones in quality. The Mysore, the Marhata, the Sikhs etc. [QUOTE=Bozuit] My understanding is that the beginning of WWI, the British Army was small, but of high quality. Any cites for the earlier low quality a lot of people are mentioning? [/QUOTE] The British Army was weaker than the powerful continentals due to a lack of quality. It was so because of the smaller size of the Army. They were long term professionals as opposed to the conscripts of the Euro armies. The British preferred alliances to fight their wars. But, that was a policy choice, not due to any inherent defect. And their battle record bears testament to their skill, Blindheim, Field of Abraham, Assyre, Talevera, Salamanca, Vittoria, Waterloo. [QUOTE=Acsenray] Bob++'s post mentions how colonels could veto a sale of a commission based on class considerations [/QUOTE] While the power to veto was there, in reality the British Army officer ranks were a lot more open to everyone than say Bourbon French or Prussian ones. Indeed, the Army was one of the places a talented boy could rise regardless of his social background. The Bar, the clergy and perhaps academics were the other ones ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/28 "2013-08-05T13:31:46Z")
The biggest problem for the British army during the Peninsular war was Horseguards (the bureaucracy) and the King. Wellesley’s skill was more, or at least as much, to do with finance and dealing with Spanish incompetence, as it was to do with military tactics. More than one of his battles were ‘near run things’. As an aside - he didn’t think much of the cavalry either, and they hardly excelled at Waterloo. In all of this you have to remember that Britain is an island, so you don’t get anywhere without a ship. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/29 "2013-08-05T14:59:13Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > The British in India routinely defeated forces with greater troop numbers and weapons either approaching or even exceeding the British ones in quality. The Mysore, the Marhata, the Sikhs etc. History is not mathematics. In math even one counterexample invalidates a theorem. In history specific counterexamples do not invalidate a long-term trend. The British had armies that were smaller than continental armies and were all an afterthought to the Navy for pretty much the entirety of the colonial period. During the [Opium Wars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars) - as odious a chapter in British history as any they’d like to forget - they defeated China almost without trying by the standards of total war. It was never a British colony, but they had full and free reign over the important trading ports and had a separate compound and government in Shanghai that did whatever it wanted. The British glorified their Empire but they did not want to fund it. They kept both the administrators and the Army perpetually unfunded. This showed up in battles. Parliament and the papers were always blustering about incompetence and failures. And yet they were not facing Continental powers who were equals or greater. If you mention Mysore, then look at the [Anglo-Mysore Wars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Mysore_wars). Long, bloody, but unequal. Did the British sometimes fight bravely and well? Of course. Did their opponents sometimes equal them in battle? Of course. But that wasn’t the point I was making. I was addressing how the British came to rule over 13 million square miles, which is a political and economic question not a military one. They did so neither with gigantic superb armies overwhelming everything nor with tiny Spartan corps of death-weilders. They did it by organization, better weaponry, the help of the Navy, and the tendency of leaders to sell out for money. No matter how romanticized it was then and by some people now, it was ugly and vicious and led to the British being hated by a billion people. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/30 "2013-08-05T18:09:43Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > They did not control the Empire because of an overwhelming army. They used a small, often poorly-led and equipped army to beat the non-armies of colonial lands. > > Might as well call Custer-era cavalry an effective army because they took over a million square miles. They weren’t. They just had to beat peoples with no experience at forming modern armies and with little access to modern weaponry. And it took just as long and bloody and stupid battles to do so, just on a larger scale than the cavalry. Note that the Zulu, among others, had a army that was better trained and with better tactics than the European armies of the time. ---
**Author:** ![Blakeyrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blakeyrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blakeyrat)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/31 "2013-08-05T18:12:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Americans had no standing army, so there really wasn’t even the opportunity for this. > > A well-to-do man or a village leader could raise a militia outfit, and took an officer’s title for leading them. They would be incorporated into the larger army during the Revolution. In various guises that kept on being a tradition until the Civil War. By the end of that war, the need for professional, trained, competent leaders was obvious. The practice mostly died out, except for one last hurrah in the Spanish-American war. The [Rough Riders](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_riders) were technically the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, one of three, but the only one to see combat. > > Even so, this is a different system than in Europe. We didn’t have the class system and we didn’t have the perpetual standing armies. Officers in the Continental Army _wanted_ to be able to sell their commissions, though. There was a minor revolt about that and some other issues to Congress-- in addition to being able to sell their commissions, they also wanted a perpetual pension after retirement. George Washington privately thought this was ridiculous (how could they sell something they basically lucked or nepotism-ed into?) but publicly supported his officers. The compromise with the Continental Congress was that they received a pension of 15 years, and selling commissions was quashed. Recommended: [Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence](http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Miracle-American-Victory-Independence/dp/0195382927) ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/32 "2013-08-05T18:49:41Z")
> [@Blakeyrat](#): > > Recommended: [Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence](http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Miracle-American-Victory-Independence/dp/0195382927) Seconded, an absolutely fascinating book! I want to read the prequel, called ‘A Leap in the Dark’, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/33 "2013-08-08T01:00:36Z")
Thanks Blakeyrat. Very helpful. davidmich ---
**Author:** ![Paulant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@Paulant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paulant)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/34 "2013-08-09T15:53:09Z")
Some people did and still do receive military titles in the British Army as a result of their family, eg the following were Field Marshalls: Kaiser Bill, Emperor Frans Josef of Austria and Emperor Hirohito. That was a bit embarrassing when we went war war with them. Emperor Haile Salassi (previous name Ras Tafarri, whose followers in the West Indies have virtually deified him) was also a Field Marshall. Various members of the Royal Family still get honorary titles, but I think that foreigners are now excluded. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/35 "2013-08-09T16:00:39Z")
> [@Paulant](#): > > Some people did and still do receive military titles in the British Army as a result of their family, eg the following were Field Marshalls: Kaiser Bill, Emperor Frans Josef of Austria and Emperor Hirohito. That was a bit embarrassing when we went war war with them. Emperor Haile Salassi (previous name Ras Tafarri, whose followers in the West Indies have virtually deified him) was also a Field Marshall. Various members of the Royal Family still get honorary titles, but I think that foreigners are now excluded. The word “Marshal” has just one “l” in this context. The King of Norway is still an honorary colonel of the British Royal Marines, and the King of Sweden is an honorary admiral of the British Royal Navy, Wiki says. There may be others. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/36 "2013-08-09T16:56:10Z")
> [@Paulant](#): > > Various members of the Royal Family still get honorary titles, but I think that foreigners are now excluded. The Kings of Nepal got Field Marshall commissions up to Birendra. The monarchy was abolished shortly after his death in 2001. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/37 "2013-08-09T22:46:21Z")
> [@Paulant](#): > > Some people did and still do receive military titles in the British Army as a result of their family, eg the following were Field Marshalls: Kaiser Bill, Emperor Frans Josef of Austria and Emperor Hirohito. That was a bit embarrassing when we went war war with them. Emperor Haile Salassi (previous name Ras Tafarri, whose followers in the West Indies have virtually deified him) was also a Field Marshall. Various members of the Royal Family still get honorary titles, but I think that foreigners are now excluded. Prince Phillip is a Field Marshall in the British Army, a Fleet Admiral in the Royal Navy, and the Marshal of the Royal Air Force. He holds the same ranks in the Australian and New Zealand militaries (& Canadian?), but unlike in the UK he’s the only person to hold them and they were never active ranks in those countries. He did serve in the RN, but hasn’t been on active duty since 1952. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/38 "2013-08-09T23:53:59Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Prince Phillip is a Field Marshall in the British Army, a Fleet Admiral in the Royal Navy, and the Marshal of the Royal Air Force. He holds the same ranks in the Australian and New Zealand militaries (& Canadian?), but unlike in the UK he’s the only person to hold them and they were never active ranks in those countries. He did serve in the RN, but hasn’t been on active duty since 1952. He’s Lord High Admiral of the RN now (got that as a 90th birthday present from the wife, who was the preceding one). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311/39 "2013-08-10T01:32:28Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > The word “Marshal” has just one “l” in this context… > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Kings of Nepal got Field Marshall commissions up to Birendra… > [@alphaboi867](#): > > Prince Phillip is a Field Marshall in the British Army… Hmm. I wonder, should I use my powers of invisibility for good or evil? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-military-ranks-titles-ever-hereditary-in-england/665311.md?page=1)