Talk:Head of the Armed Forces

I seriously question the need for this hodge-podge article as there is, to the best of my knowledge, no separate office of a “Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces” other than the Crown itself. The information herein should rather IMHO be repatriated to articles where it is highly relevant, such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Defence Council of the United Kingdom etc. RicJac (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're right, there is no actual title or office. Not sure what the solution is though in terms of redirects and where to put the info. David (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Monarchy of the United Kingdom would be the most obvious choice for the majority of the content. RicJac (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree. The Crown holds ex officio power only; de facto power rests in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Defence Staff. People frequently forget who is Commander-in-Chief and say it is the Prime Minister; however ex officio it is the Crown, through the Queen. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150413003953/http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/armedforces/queenandthearmedforces.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/ArmedForces/QueenandtheArmedForces.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

--Marked4life (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC) I am currently in the process of expanding the information on this office. Particularly, I am trying to add information on the functions and duties of the commander-in-chief. If anyone can provide links to sources of information I would much appreciate it.Reply

The official website of the monarch and the royal family as well as a BBC article designate the monarch as "Head of the Armed Forces". The only source I could find that calls the monarch "Commander in Chief" is a Commons PDF. Since there are more sources calling the monarch "Head of the Armed Forces" than "Commander in Chief" (including the monarch's own web page), I boldly moved the article from Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces to Head of the British Armed Forces. I did not name new article "Head of the Armed Forces (United Kingdom)", as the British military covers more than just the UK, especially when viewed historically. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The most commonly used reference for this office is commander in chief, this has been long established in international relations. Under British constitutional law the queen is the commander-in-chief of the British armed forces. Just as the President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. Furthermore, this article describes the office of commander-in-chief and not the institution of the British military in its entirety. Could you please restore the original location and title?. Thank you. Best wishes.--Marked4life (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

With regard to "British constitutional law", please can you provide the act, the clause number and preferably a link to legislation.gov.uk so this can be verified and cited. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Dormskirk. However, what can be done in the meanwhile is the addition of a note next to "Head of the British Armed Forces" or "Head of the Armed Forces", saying something like "Also referred to as commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the crown". Colonestarrice (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to accommodate your view as a stopgap measure. There are numerous references in published works to the title of commander-in-chief. I will amend the title as you suggest until such time as I can provide additional references with regard to the proper title of commander-in-chief. thank you for taking the time to help improve the article. Best wishes.--Marked4life (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am of the view that this table should be removed. Although Army Regulations do say that officers of two stars and above are appointed with approval from the Queen, the posts in the table are highly selective and as such not representative of some 90 officers in the army who are currently of that seniority. In my view, either all 90 officers should be shown, with their equivalents from the RN and RAF, and the list properly sourced (not preferred) or none of them (preferred). Dormskirk (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.243.116.22 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The section and table seem reasonable to me. They appear to be on topic. I’m not sure why it has to be an all or none situation. As of now I see no reason that they should be removed from the article. --Dunecorrino (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I find it curious that Marked4life who added the table, 50.243.116.22 who has never edited wikipedia before and Dunecorrino who has never edited wikipedia have all voted the same way. They might want to read WP:SOCK and / or WP:CANVAS. Dormskirk (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is indeed curious, I would suggest asking a CheckUser to take a closer look at that. Colonestarrice (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for that: I note that User:Dunecorrino has now been blocked indefinitely by a CheckUser. All rather concerning. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

i’m not sure what’s going on here. im trying to find someone to get it cleared up. I've now lost acess to my email account as the password seems to have been changed.--Marked4life (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK. Not a problem here. I hope you get your email sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are far too many senior positions that are approved by the Queen. Should we limit to a certain rank, like OF-8/3* and above? The table listed is a minuscule of many appointments.BlueD954 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’m not opposed to amending the table. I just want to give the reader a general idea of the posts\offices that merit attention at the commander in chief level and shows the nominator and appointer. Could you put a list here to give a general idea of what your proposal would look like?--Marked4life (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why not VCDS? Why include Com JHC? Why not the Deputy Chief of Defence Staffs --Operations, Capability, Personnel? As said, reduce to OF8 personnel. Use http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Admirals-Current.pdf http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Generals-Current.pdf http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Air%20Marshals-Current.pdf although some names are not listed BlueD954 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not opposed to adding the posts you mention above. However, I see no reason to remove those that are currently part of the table. The section on appointments seeks to provide information on offices that merit attention at the commander-in-chief level. I don’t know why offices\posts below 2* are not dealt with at commander in chief level or for that matter why those above are.

However, since they are delt with at the level of C in C and this article is itself about the C in C it would seem to me perfectly reasonable to include at least a partial list of them. I am adding posts to the list as time permits. I have just added the Air, Navy and Army Secretarys for example.--Marked4life (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

What sort of logic?!BlueD954 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

BlueD954 Thank you for the source http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Generals-Current.pdf I have added it to the list of sources. I'm adding posts listed in it as time permits. Also thank you for your addition of the post Chief of Joint Operations. Best wishes--Marked4life (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This list is too much; Com JHC is not as significant as many other 2* counterparts. I suggest a summarising. BlueD954 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

To further https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-appointments/ BlueD954 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You feel Com JHC is " not as significant " as "other" 2* posts? i’m not really sure how this is relevant. There is nothing preventing you from adding additional 2* or other posts to the list, as you did with the Chief of Joint Operations. I see nothing wrong with this article on the commander in chief having a section on posts that are dealt with at the cammander in chief level. The list gives the reader a good samplying of the posts dealt with at this level.--Marked4life (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It does not. Then I might well add division commanders, AOCs, all Rear admirals, all Major Generals. What on earth is this about? There is not clear reference the Queen does not provide letters to even OF-6s-not one-stars or even joint commanders or British NATO commanders. You seeem like spamming. Listen to people like Dormskirk. BlueD954 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

This table is causing too much disruption and, as I have stated above, needs to be removed. The selection of officers is unsourced and arbitrary. It should not be re-added without consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Dormskirk I have been an editor on wiki for a number of years now. I want to reassure you that my edits to this article are all in good faith, I am not trying to “spamming“ the article as some one above has said. . I am a handicapped editor here on Wikipedia. Due to some spinal and neurological injuries it is very difficult for me to type with great skill. I experience considerable pain while typing, as a result I do make a number of mistakes, typos and I apologize for that. I want to thank you for having taken the time to correct some of my mistakes. my only intention is to expand the information available in the article on the commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. I must admit it was distressing to find the time and effort and pain I experienced while editing the table has been for nothing. I’m only trying to answer the questions that I asked myself while reading this article. What are the positions\posts that the Commander in chief spends their time on? all I’m trying to do is to keep others who might have that same question from having to expend a great deal of time answering it. please, could we come to an agreement on the inclusion of a table that would give the reader a good idea of which posts are delt with by the commander in Chief?possible by first agreeing to a number of posts to be listed. I dont think the table ever got past 20 posts, would you be open to that area for a number? Also, im willing to agree on each post included here befor adding it. would you ( or others, all are welcome ) be willing to put forth potential posts? please, i do want to come to an agreement that satisfies everyone. Best wishes. --Marked4life (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry but believe that I was clear on 23 July 2020 that I thought the table should be removed and I do not seem to be only editor of that view. I appreciate the effort you have put in here but I believe that any selection of posts would be arbitrary and not representative of the many posts that the Queen does approve. I hope you will understand. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that the section on The King being head of Bermuda's armed forces should be moved as this page is written for the head of the British Armed Forces. Dbainsford (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed and removed. Dormskirk (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply