![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Im not sure if the FAA is even mentioned in this article. I cannot find it. 194.46.230.25 ( talk) 20:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi anyone know what 30mm guns are being fitted to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier? I have been tryinng to improve the article to at least B Class, but can not find anything that give a make or model for the guns. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
But it only made the top 100 gay list in 2012?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/01/mil-120113-ukmod02.htm
Do we have a source that explains this discrepancy? Hcobb ( talk) 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
At the start of World War II in 1939, the Royal Navy was still the largest in the world, consisting of 15 battleships and battlecruisers with 5 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers with 23 more under construction, 184 destroyers with 52 under construction, 45 escort and patrol vessels with 9 under construction and 1 on order, and 60 submarines with 9 under construction. This is cited in the article. If you want to change the lead can it be discussed first. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not just whose is bigger. By the start of WW-II the RN was around second or perhaps even third in capability. See for example the ten month career of HMS Prince of Wales (53). Hcobb ( talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a list of dockyards of the Royal Navy anywhere on WP; and how dockyards, in general, functioned on their many levels of operation? I am particularly very interested in the age of sail. An adjunct of this would be the primary ports-of-call where RN had its own military establishments, separate from ports-of-call where an allied country simply provided basic maratime services. Benyoch ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid a statement like "It remains a prominent blue-water navy with the ability to project power globally." needs a citation from a contemporary source to remain in the article. -- John ( talk) 10:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an error on this page suggesting the royal navy was surpassed by the american and japanese navies at outbreak of war in 1939. This is incorrect numerically, tactically and training wise. Also in the quality of the ships. Also I would like to add notes about the British navy having trained japans navy. Its misleading to suggest the navy was inferior at this point when the navy was actaully weakened by attrition throughout the war. 2.25.118.233 ( talk) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/arms-navies-smallships-idUSL5E8GN01420120523 Inspired by the fast sailing frigates of the Napoleonic Wars and the corvettes, destroyers and submarines hunters of the Second World War, the "Black Swan" project is controversial. It remains far from clear whether the concept will be adopted and taken further.
The history section discusses the English navy before 1707, and the British navy after 1707, but says nothing about a Scotish navy. Did Scotland had a navy as well? If so, what happened to it after the Union of the Crowns, and the Act of Union? The acticle needs to say somethign about this. Wardog ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs a good modern source which uses these words to describe the RN, else it will have to come out. -- John ( talk) 14:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern, however I do not feel it qualifies as self-promotion as we have revised the sentence to read that the Royal Navy only "considers" itself to be a global force. The article no-longer suggests that the Royal Navy most definitely is a global force/BWN or that it is internationally recognized as a global force/BWN. How the Royal Navy views itself is in my opinion important and adds a certain depth and understanding to the UKs maritime policies. As far as the Royal Navy actually deploying and operating around the globe, this is undeniable fact. A self published source reporting on current deployments around the world is most definitely a reliable source and not self-promotion. Osama is Obama ( talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
John, your problem seems to be that the sources provided are British government or Royal Navy sources or that they don't contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy'. Firstly, I don't see what's wrong with British government or Royal Navy sources. Can you prove that they are unreliable sources? There are plenty of United States government sources used on Wikipedia. One example would be the CIA World Fact Book. Do you think that the CIA World Fact Book is an unreliable source? Most others don't seem to. Secondly, sources are provided supporting the claims that the Royal Navy operates globally and it is acknowledged as a blue water navy on the Blue water navy article. Now, some of those sources may not contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy' if they are British sources because it is a United States Navy phrase. The British equivalent is 'expeditionary' or 'global', which the sources contain. I cannot help but feel that you are nitpicking in order to have mention of the Royal Navy either being a blue water navy or a globally operating navy removed. The article has always over the years stated that the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. If you believe however that this has changed and it is no longer a blue water navy then it is you who should be providing the sources supporting this claim. Quite vivid blur ( talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article's lead currently references, "19 commissioned ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA)." Are there 19 commissioned ships in the RFA? For example, can the six PFI ships be considered to have been"commissioned"? I can find no evidence of their commissioning date, details of their commissioning ceremony or other supporting evidence, and the RFA article does not reference their commissioning, but I have made only a cursory internet search. Thom2002 ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I would also suggest an edit, to the comment that the RN was considerably weaker than the USN at the end of the second world-war. According to David Wragg's book - Royal Navy Handbook 1939-1945 - at the end of the war, there were 863,000 men, 61 battleships and cruisers, 59 aircraft carriers and 864 destroyers. When submarines, frigates, corvettes etc. are added in the RN exceeded 1,000 ships and was larger than the combined numbers of every other navy in the world. Ragebe ( talk) 16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Quote: 'This is often stated because of a lack of understanding on what constitutes a ship. Certain other navies counted just about everything that floats, whereas the RN confined its numbers to 'proper' sea-going ships. That's what a ship is - not a boat, or landing craft or similar...'
I am quite sure the RN considered its Destroyers to be ships, even if they were less than 2,000 tons displacement. And a 'boat' would be a submarine. However, my question is with regard to the statement in the main article, that the USN was larger than the RN in August 1945; Wraggs book contradicts such a statement. 984 ships that were classed as Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Battlecruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers. These are not MTBs/MGBs/Corvettes/Sloops/Mine Hunters/Landing Craft or even Submarines and Frigates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragebe ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There is a new page for the Warrant Officer of the Naval Service. If anyone can contribute or help with linking please feel free 07:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There is another documentary about the "Royal Navy", it covers not just the "normal stuff" but also the change after WW II and the role the Navy plays in the present time, like "Deasater Aid" etc., in greater detail. It was a seven or eight part series 45 - 60 min running time. The first episode coverd Nelson, the last begun with a frigate taking part in a "desater relief"- drill. ~ 2000s.
-- 109.91.86.150 ( talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The British Royal Navy is not even remotely the only "Royal Navy" still on Earth, (to say nothing of historically), and therefore should not continually be referred to here as "the Royal Navy". While the term is certainly appropriate in Britain, amongst British, (just as an American who says "the Navy" at home is referring to the USN), it is offensively Anglo-centric in a more cosmopolitan context such as this. I have made this observation on this page once a couple years ago, when it was deleted quickly without comment or reply. Is Wikipedia in English a Commonwealth-only club, uninterested in other viewpoints? Ernest Ruger ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 02:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The Royal Navy is made up of five arms. The might of ships in the Surface Fleet, the aerial strength that is the Fleet Air Arm, the covert Submarine Service, the elite and amphibious Royal Marines, and the civilian fleet central to our effectiveness, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
It seems that this article covers four of them in separate section under "Royal Navy today": Surface Fleet, Fleet Air Arm, Submarine Service, and Royal Marines, but not the Royal Fleet Auxiliary? Is there a reason that it is not covered? -- PBS ( talk) 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
is outdated Phd8511 ( talk) 00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nato-summit-2014-pm-end-of-summit-press-conference
but if you don't want to educate others by putting this information fine. Phd8511 ( talk) 10:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The navy of the United Kingdom is always referred to as the "Royal Navy" both in the United Kingdom and other countries.
Just Not True. Some of the many instances of "British Navy": Google Scholar; FDR's Four Freedoms speech [1]; British websites: dailymail, independent, BL, Guardian. jnestorius( talk) 14:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I added a link to naval-history.net to the Royal Navy page and it was removed, I understand, because it didn't add anything to the topic. I was disappointed as the approach we have always used is that our information should be readily available to all - including Wikipedia users. The site is well known, used by major museums, universities, the Naval History Branch (MOD), crowd sourcing projects etc, and I would have thought be a useful additional resource. To be dismissed as not adding anything was a bit of a blow.
Thinking anyone could add to a site, I did just that, but as finnusertop ( I can't find how to thank him for his advice) pointed out, anyone can also remove it, presumably yourself as the topic lead. It was also pointed out that I should have approached you first, which I was not aware of.
I think I'm even more concerned because a link I made to a recent page on the 1946 Corfu Channel Incident was also removed and that included maps that would have added to the topic.
Perhaps you can tell me how Wikipedia can make use of our work as indeed we do of Wikipedia.
Thank you, Gordon Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines." - in this case, another editor has already decided that adding your site to the external links section was unnecessary. User:MilborneOne is both an experienced editor and a site admin, meaning he is quite familiar with this site's policies and guidelines. WP:ADV also applies to your edit at the 1946 Corfu Channel Incident article. I appreciate you're trying to help and I also appreciate that it can be frustrating when things don't seem to make sense around here sometimes. We do hope you'll stick around and contribute. Read through the 'welcome' template I added to your talk page, there are some useful links there to help you get to know this project. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
HI The Wolf Child, Thanks for your feedback. The Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about adding links to one's own site. Our material is there for anyone to use subject to the occasional copyright constraint which is spelt out (not my copyright but others), so what I'll try is going to the talk page of specific subjects and inviting whoever to use any of the material on the NHN page. It'll then be up to them if they use any of the contents. In the first instance I've offered the work on the HMS Amethyst Incident which includes detailed maps, casualty lists and honours awarded. All best, Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This page asserts that the use of naval forces in UK goes back to King Alfred. On King Alfred's page, it says "King Athelstan of Kent and Ealdorman Ealhhere had defeated a Viking fleet in 851, capturing nine ships", and asserts that the claim that King Alfred was the start is incorrect. Anyone know for sure? 69.142.70.108 ( talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Chief of Fleet Support/Chief of Materiel (Fleet) http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-naval-staff/chief-of-fleet-support is missing from the organisation list.
Should it be added? JessPavarocks ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Navy. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a new article dealing with the structure of the Royal Navy in 1989: Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989. The information for most units of the Royal Navy in 1989 are complete and correct. However there are some doubts as to the home ports of some of the minor surface units of the Royal Navy, therefore anyone with information about the RN's history, please feel free to expand/improve/correct the article about the RN's structure at the end of the Cold War. noclador ( talk) 14:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Navy. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Pam-javelin: - do you have a reliable source that supports
your comment that
supercarriers are "Normally over 1000ft and nuclear powered
"...? Thank you -
theWOLFchild
17:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a Supercarrier hence why I link it to Supercarrier page and not aircraft carrier page, the aircraft carrier page says it's a Supercarrier and the it's listed in the Supercarrier page so it's a Supercarrier.....
I served on both HMS Ark royal and illustrious carriers..... Gavin99799 ( talk) 09:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I've recently watched the 1984 film
The Bounty (starring
Anthony Hopkins and a young
Mel Gibson) , not really a remake of the perhaps more famous 1962 film
Mutiny on the Bounty with
Marlon Brando, as
William Bligh's perspectives stands somewhat more to reason. A lesser tyrant if compared, and only between the return from Tahiti and the mutiny. Then he turns out to be a decent leader in the little boat.
But the ship, The Bounty belongs to the Royal Navy. Despite it's a rather small and a merchandise ship, certainly not a Man-of-war. So my question is, were all British ships owned by the Royal Navy (as of 1789) ? Also in this film Bligh isn't a Captain, although he is the commander of the ship. That sounds military to me. Grateful for any replies or comments
Boeing720 (
talk)
14:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
but is naturally the commander of the Bounty) Boeing720 ( talk) 23:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Change to British Royal Navy, as the term "royal" is a generic word, and not a specific name. - Inowen ( nlfte) 20:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Royal Navy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Change RFA ship count to 11. RFA Tiderace has been commissioned. 37.203.156.241 ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The Sea Cadet Corps description needs changing as it isn't solely aimed at teenagers. As it has a Junior (10-12) division, it should also be expanded to mention the Marine branch as well, as that is relevant to this page. Palynium ( talk) 00:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey all. I just noticed the infobox marks the Royal Navy as having been the navy of Scotland before 1707. Isn't this incorrect, as it would have been the Royal Scots Navy? It was folded into the Royal Navy in 1707, but was surely a distinct navy up till that point? -- ERAGON ( talk) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. We are looking at the moment at splitting the History of the Royal Navy article, which at the moment is extraordinarily long. Looking at the Royal Navy article there seems to be a large amount of ground that is covered twice, as this article has a huge history section. While I am splitting the other article, unless there are any concerns I also intend to cut down the "history" bit here to a two paragraph summary, with a link to the main article on the dedicated page. -- ERAGON ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Cooee Cobbers, currently the broad structure of the page does not read well, and is standard across many military pages. I propose to change the structure to increase standardisation and increase readability. The restructure would look something like this:
I've done similar things in the past and this would elevate the page in my opinion. IronBattalion ( talk) 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to put together a future vessels section fi there are no objections? Imperialpeace ( talk) 08:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Are there any units of the RN which are primarily or to a significant extent responsible for diving operations (including training)? The words dive and diving do not currently show any results on a page search. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Her Majesty's Naval Service be merged into the Royal Navy? Garuda28 ( talk) 13:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The two organizations, which have seperate articles on Wikipedia, appear to be the same entitiy according to the first sea lord. As part of this, the Navy Executive Committee has agreed that, when speaking about the Royal Navy as a whole force, we should use the term “Royal Navy” rather than “Naval Service.” There is a strong public understanding of Royal Navy as a powerful, resonant and historic brand, in much the same way as our sister services use Army and RAF to encompass their full range of activities and elements.
(
https://royal-naval-association.co.uk/news/the-whole-force-naval-service-to-royal-navy/)
This does not remove the separate identities of the individual components that make up the Royal Navy. The Regular Service, Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves, Royal Navy Civil Servants, Naval Careers Service and QARNNS all continue to exist as distinct elements, and should be referred to individually as appropriate. However, when talking about all these elements together, they should be referred to as the Royal Navy rather than the Naval Service.
This seems to definitively state that they are the same entity.
Garuda28 (
talk)
23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
0101. Composition of the Naval Service 1. The Royal Navy is comprised of the General Service and Submarine Service, the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Marines, the Maritime Reserves, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the Naval Careers Service. The Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service (QARNNS) officers and ratings also form part of the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is governed by the Admiralty Board of the Defence Council.Garuda28 ( talk) 12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The Royal Navy is part of Her Majesty's Naval Service, which also includes the Royal Marines.We need to reconcile the ambiguity. I could see Her Majesty's Naval Service being a sub-article, which is technically a stand-alone article but with conditions, that it exists to support and compliment the main RN article - ie it would serve to explain the differences between the formal distinction and common usage while such differences exist. (Presumably, Queens Regs will be probably be amended to remove the ambiguity.) The most useful part of the present Her Majesty's Naval Service article, is that it reports the former structure of the Naval Service, which wouldn't merge easily with the RN article; however, that part of of the article could be retitled as "Her Majesty's Naval Service (pre ????)". Hence, I can see a couple of alternatives but none retain Her Majesty's Naval Service in its present form. Garuda28, did you look at this example? It is just a rough guide to one possibility. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with knowlege of RN officer ranks take a look at the photo with the caption, The Lord High Admiral’s passing out parade at Britannia Royal Naval College in Devon, at https://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2021/dec/16/gathering-storm-and-a-sprout-harvest-thursdays-best-photos and amend the Ranks, rates, and insignia paragraph, if required. The cadet ranks are missing and one person in the group has a single ring. 109.148.58.99 ( talk) 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The cadets in the picture from the Guardian are forming a Guard of Honour. Traditionally the Lord High Admiral’s Division are the best-performing Division in the first term at BRNC Dartmouth. The white “mudguards” on their shoulders indicate that they are still Officer Cadets, and are half way through their training. All Officer Cadets (unless carrying seniority forward eg. previous service as an ex-ranker) are titled as Midshipmen, but have the white mudguard (training tab) to indicate that they have not completed their training and are not yet commissioned.
The single ring you mention is a Sub-Lieutenant - an Officer who has commissioned (hence why he is carrying a sword and not a rifle) and is leading the Guard of Honour but not at the same stage of training as them. I hope this helps! The Beanster ( talk) 13:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Kingdom of Scotland should appear in country plainlist. The Royal Navy of Great Britain was formed after the merger of the Royal Navy of England and the Royal Scots Navy in 1707. David eyre ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
An alternative approach could be to follow the example on the British Army page, and to start the Country plainlist at 1707. This would not be my preference, as the separate Kingdom of England entry underlines the importance of the Navy as the Senior Service. David eyre ( talk) 05:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this shouldn't be controversial. If the Royal Scots Navy was merged into the Royal Navy, then obviously the current Royal Navy incorporates the two predecessor navies. The example of the British Army entry has already been cited. The Parliament of Great Britain entry lists the two proceeding Parliaments of England and Scotland. It seems very strange to have information included on this page about the Royal Scots Navy history and its merger with the Royal Navy of England, without including the flag of the Kingdom of Scotland. David eyre ( talk) 22:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I have added reference from 'The Old Scots Navy from 1689 to 1710' published by the Navy Records Society. The author states that the 'the Scots and English navies were united' and refers to an order in council by Queen Anne directing the resulting change of colours on Royal Navy ships. In short, the St George's Cross was replaced by the Union Flag, which includes the Scottish Cross of St Andrew. I think it is clear that placing that flag in the country plainlist is entirely appropriate. I'll wait for a couple of days for further discussion here, before I make that edit. David eyre ( talk) 07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom, not about the Royal Navy of England. David eyre ( talk) 14:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
'The Royal Navy (RN) is the United Kingdom's naval warfare force.' This is the first sentence of the article. David eyre ( talk) 23:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy_(before_1707) David eyre ( talk) 00:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you believe outside sources are irrelevant, as I'm the only editor to have cited them in this discussion. David eyre ( talk) 09:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Im not sure if the FAA is even mentioned in this article. I cannot find it. 194.46.230.25 ( talk) 20:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi anyone know what 30mm guns are being fitted to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier? I have been tryinng to improve the article to at least B Class, but can not find anything that give a make or model for the guns. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
But it only made the top 100 gay list in 2012?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/01/mil-120113-ukmod02.htm
Do we have a source that explains this discrepancy? Hcobb ( talk) 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
At the start of World War II in 1939, the Royal Navy was still the largest in the world, consisting of 15 battleships and battlecruisers with 5 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers with 23 more under construction, 184 destroyers with 52 under construction, 45 escort and patrol vessels with 9 under construction and 1 on order, and 60 submarines with 9 under construction. This is cited in the article. If you want to change the lead can it be discussed first. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not just whose is bigger. By the start of WW-II the RN was around second or perhaps even third in capability. See for example the ten month career of HMS Prince of Wales (53). Hcobb ( talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a list of dockyards of the Royal Navy anywhere on WP; and how dockyards, in general, functioned on their many levels of operation? I am particularly very interested in the age of sail. An adjunct of this would be the primary ports-of-call where RN had its own military establishments, separate from ports-of-call where an allied country simply provided basic maratime services. Benyoch ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid a statement like "It remains a prominent blue-water navy with the ability to project power globally." needs a citation from a contemporary source to remain in the article. -- John ( talk) 10:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an error on this page suggesting the royal navy was surpassed by the american and japanese navies at outbreak of war in 1939. This is incorrect numerically, tactically and training wise. Also in the quality of the ships. Also I would like to add notes about the British navy having trained japans navy. Its misleading to suggest the navy was inferior at this point when the navy was actaully weakened by attrition throughout the war. 2.25.118.233 ( talk) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/arms-navies-smallships-idUSL5E8GN01420120523 Inspired by the fast sailing frigates of the Napoleonic Wars and the corvettes, destroyers and submarines hunters of the Second World War, the "Black Swan" project is controversial. It remains far from clear whether the concept will be adopted and taken further.
The history section discusses the English navy before 1707, and the British navy after 1707, but says nothing about a Scotish navy. Did Scotland had a navy as well? If so, what happened to it after the Union of the Crowns, and the Act of Union? The acticle needs to say somethign about this. Wardog ( talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Needs a good modern source which uses these words to describe the RN, else it will have to come out. -- John ( talk) 14:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern, however I do not feel it qualifies as self-promotion as we have revised the sentence to read that the Royal Navy only "considers" itself to be a global force. The article no-longer suggests that the Royal Navy most definitely is a global force/BWN or that it is internationally recognized as a global force/BWN. How the Royal Navy views itself is in my opinion important and adds a certain depth and understanding to the UKs maritime policies. As far as the Royal Navy actually deploying and operating around the globe, this is undeniable fact. A self published source reporting on current deployments around the world is most definitely a reliable source and not self-promotion. Osama is Obama ( talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
John, your problem seems to be that the sources provided are British government or Royal Navy sources or that they don't contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy'. Firstly, I don't see what's wrong with British government or Royal Navy sources. Can you prove that they are unreliable sources? There are plenty of United States government sources used on Wikipedia. One example would be the CIA World Fact Book. Do you think that the CIA World Fact Book is an unreliable source? Most others don't seem to. Secondly, sources are provided supporting the claims that the Royal Navy operates globally and it is acknowledged as a blue water navy on the Blue water navy article. Now, some of those sources may not contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy' if they are British sources because it is a United States Navy phrase. The British equivalent is 'expeditionary' or 'global', which the sources contain. I cannot help but feel that you are nitpicking in order to have mention of the Royal Navy either being a blue water navy or a globally operating navy removed. The article has always over the years stated that the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. If you believe however that this has changed and it is no longer a blue water navy then it is you who should be providing the sources supporting this claim. Quite vivid blur ( talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article's lead currently references, "19 commissioned ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA)." Are there 19 commissioned ships in the RFA? For example, can the six PFI ships be considered to have been"commissioned"? I can find no evidence of their commissioning date, details of their commissioning ceremony or other supporting evidence, and the RFA article does not reference their commissioning, but I have made only a cursory internet search. Thom2002 ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I would also suggest an edit, to the comment that the RN was considerably weaker than the USN at the end of the second world-war. According to David Wragg's book - Royal Navy Handbook 1939-1945 - at the end of the war, there were 863,000 men, 61 battleships and cruisers, 59 aircraft carriers and 864 destroyers. When submarines, frigates, corvettes etc. are added in the RN exceeded 1,000 ships and was larger than the combined numbers of every other navy in the world. Ragebe ( talk) 16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Quote: 'This is often stated because of a lack of understanding on what constitutes a ship. Certain other navies counted just about everything that floats, whereas the RN confined its numbers to 'proper' sea-going ships. That's what a ship is - not a boat, or landing craft or similar...'
I am quite sure the RN considered its Destroyers to be ships, even if they were less than 2,000 tons displacement. And a 'boat' would be a submarine. However, my question is with regard to the statement in the main article, that the USN was larger than the RN in August 1945; Wraggs book contradicts such a statement. 984 ships that were classed as Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Battlecruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers. These are not MTBs/MGBs/Corvettes/Sloops/Mine Hunters/Landing Craft or even Submarines and Frigates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragebe ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There is a new page for the Warrant Officer of the Naval Service. If anyone can contribute or help with linking please feel free 07:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There is another documentary about the "Royal Navy", it covers not just the "normal stuff" but also the change after WW II and the role the Navy plays in the present time, like "Deasater Aid" etc., in greater detail. It was a seven or eight part series 45 - 60 min running time. The first episode coverd Nelson, the last begun with a frigate taking part in a "desater relief"- drill. ~ 2000s.
-- 109.91.86.150 ( talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The British Royal Navy is not even remotely the only "Royal Navy" still on Earth, (to say nothing of historically), and therefore should not continually be referred to here as "the Royal Navy". While the term is certainly appropriate in Britain, amongst British, (just as an American who says "the Navy" at home is referring to the USN), it is offensively Anglo-centric in a more cosmopolitan context such as this. I have made this observation on this page once a couple years ago, when it was deleted quickly without comment or reply. Is Wikipedia in English a Commonwealth-only club, uninterested in other viewpoints? Ernest Ruger ( talk) 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 02:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The Royal Navy is made up of five arms. The might of ships in the Surface Fleet, the aerial strength that is the Fleet Air Arm, the covert Submarine Service, the elite and amphibious Royal Marines, and the civilian fleet central to our effectiveness, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
It seems that this article covers four of them in separate section under "Royal Navy today": Surface Fleet, Fleet Air Arm, Submarine Service, and Royal Marines, but not the Royal Fleet Auxiliary? Is there a reason that it is not covered? -- PBS ( talk) 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
is outdated Phd8511 ( talk) 00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nato-summit-2014-pm-end-of-summit-press-conference
but if you don't want to educate others by putting this information fine. Phd8511 ( talk) 10:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The navy of the United Kingdom is always referred to as the "Royal Navy" both in the United Kingdom and other countries.
Just Not True. Some of the many instances of "British Navy": Google Scholar; FDR's Four Freedoms speech [1]; British websites: dailymail, independent, BL, Guardian. jnestorius( talk) 14:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I added a link to naval-history.net to the Royal Navy page and it was removed, I understand, because it didn't add anything to the topic. I was disappointed as the approach we have always used is that our information should be readily available to all - including Wikipedia users. The site is well known, used by major museums, universities, the Naval History Branch (MOD), crowd sourcing projects etc, and I would have thought be a useful additional resource. To be dismissed as not adding anything was a bit of a blow.
Thinking anyone could add to a site, I did just that, but as finnusertop ( I can't find how to thank him for his advice) pointed out, anyone can also remove it, presumably yourself as the topic lead. It was also pointed out that I should have approached you first, which I was not aware of.
I think I'm even more concerned because a link I made to a recent page on the 1946 Corfu Channel Incident was also removed and that included maps that would have added to the topic.
Perhaps you can tell me how Wikipedia can make use of our work as indeed we do of Wikipedia.
Thank you, Gordon Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines." - in this case, another editor has already decided that adding your site to the external links section was unnecessary. User:MilborneOne is both an experienced editor and a site admin, meaning he is quite familiar with this site's policies and guidelines. WP:ADV also applies to your edit at the 1946 Corfu Channel Incident article. I appreciate you're trying to help and I also appreciate that it can be frustrating when things don't seem to make sense around here sometimes. We do hope you'll stick around and contribute. Read through the 'welcome' template I added to your talk page, there are some useful links there to help you get to know this project. Cheers - theWOLFchild 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
HI The Wolf Child, Thanks for your feedback. The Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about adding links to one's own site. Our material is there for anyone to use subject to the occasional copyright constraint which is spelt out (not my copyright but others), so what I'll try is going to the talk page of specific subjects and inviting whoever to use any of the material on the NHN page. It'll then be up to them if they use any of the contents. In the first instance I've offered the work on the HMS Amethyst Incident which includes detailed maps, casualty lists and honours awarded. All best, Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This page asserts that the use of naval forces in UK goes back to King Alfred. On King Alfred's page, it says "King Athelstan of Kent and Ealdorman Ealhhere had defeated a Viking fleet in 851, capturing nine ships", and asserts that the claim that King Alfred was the start is incorrect. Anyone know for sure? 69.142.70.108 ( talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Chief of Fleet Support/Chief of Materiel (Fleet) http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-naval-staff/chief-of-fleet-support is missing from the organisation list.
Should it be added? JessPavarocks ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Navy. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a new article dealing with the structure of the Royal Navy in 1989: Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989. The information for most units of the Royal Navy in 1989 are complete and correct. However there are some doubts as to the home ports of some of the minor surface units of the Royal Navy, therefore anyone with information about the RN's history, please feel free to expand/improve/correct the article about the RN's structure at the end of the Cold War. noclador ( talk) 14:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Royal Navy. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Pam-javelin: - do you have a reliable source that supports
your comment that
supercarriers are "Normally over 1000ft and nuclear powered
"...? Thank you -
theWOLFchild
17:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a Supercarrier hence why I link it to Supercarrier page and not aircraft carrier page, the aircraft carrier page says it's a Supercarrier and the it's listed in the Supercarrier page so it's a Supercarrier.....
I served on both HMS Ark royal and illustrious carriers..... Gavin99799 ( talk) 09:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I've recently watched the 1984 film
The Bounty (starring
Anthony Hopkins and a young
Mel Gibson) , not really a remake of the perhaps more famous 1962 film
Mutiny on the Bounty with
Marlon Brando, as
William Bligh's perspectives stands somewhat more to reason. A lesser tyrant if compared, and only between the return from Tahiti and the mutiny. Then he turns out to be a decent leader in the little boat.
But the ship, The Bounty belongs to the Royal Navy. Despite it's a rather small and a merchandise ship, certainly not a Man-of-war. So my question is, were all British ships owned by the Royal Navy (as of 1789) ? Also in this film Bligh isn't a Captain, although he is the commander of the ship. That sounds military to me. Grateful for any replies or comments
Boeing720 (
talk)
14:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
but is naturally the commander of the Bounty) Boeing720 ( talk) 23:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Change to British Royal Navy, as the term "royal" is a generic word, and not a specific name. - Inowen ( nlfte) 20:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Royal Navy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Change RFA ship count to 11. RFA Tiderace has been commissioned. 37.203.156.241 ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The Sea Cadet Corps description needs changing as it isn't solely aimed at teenagers. As it has a Junior (10-12) division, it should also be expanded to mention the Marine branch as well, as that is relevant to this page. Palynium ( talk) 00:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey all. I just noticed the infobox marks the Royal Navy as having been the navy of Scotland before 1707. Isn't this incorrect, as it would have been the Royal Scots Navy? It was folded into the Royal Navy in 1707, but was surely a distinct navy up till that point? -- ERAGON ( talk) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. We are looking at the moment at splitting the History of the Royal Navy article, which at the moment is extraordinarily long. Looking at the Royal Navy article there seems to be a large amount of ground that is covered twice, as this article has a huge history section. While I am splitting the other article, unless there are any concerns I also intend to cut down the "history" bit here to a two paragraph summary, with a link to the main article on the dedicated page. -- ERAGON ( talk) 15:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Cooee Cobbers, currently the broad structure of the page does not read well, and is standard across many military pages. I propose to change the structure to increase standardisation and increase readability. The restructure would look something like this:
I've done similar things in the past and this would elevate the page in my opinion. IronBattalion ( talk) 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to put together a future vessels section fi there are no objections? Imperialpeace ( talk) 08:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Are there any units of the RN which are primarily or to a significant extent responsible for diving operations (including training)? The words dive and diving do not currently show any results on a page search. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Her Majesty's Naval Service be merged into the Royal Navy? Garuda28 ( talk) 13:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The two organizations, which have seperate articles on Wikipedia, appear to be the same entitiy according to the first sea lord. As part of this, the Navy Executive Committee has agreed that, when speaking about the Royal Navy as a whole force, we should use the term “Royal Navy” rather than “Naval Service.” There is a strong public understanding of Royal Navy as a powerful, resonant and historic brand, in much the same way as our sister services use Army and RAF to encompass their full range of activities and elements.
(
https://royal-naval-association.co.uk/news/the-whole-force-naval-service-to-royal-navy/)
This does not remove the separate identities of the individual components that make up the Royal Navy. The Regular Service, Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves, Royal Navy Civil Servants, Naval Careers Service and QARNNS all continue to exist as distinct elements, and should be referred to individually as appropriate. However, when talking about all these elements together, they should be referred to as the Royal Navy rather than the Naval Service.
This seems to definitively state that they are the same entity.
Garuda28 (
talk)
23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
0101. Composition of the Naval Service 1. The Royal Navy is comprised of the General Service and Submarine Service, the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Marines, the Maritime Reserves, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the Naval Careers Service. The Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service (QARNNS) officers and ratings also form part of the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is governed by the Admiralty Board of the Defence Council.Garuda28 ( talk) 12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The Royal Navy is part of Her Majesty's Naval Service, which also includes the Royal Marines.We need to reconcile the ambiguity. I could see Her Majesty's Naval Service being a sub-article, which is technically a stand-alone article but with conditions, that it exists to support and compliment the main RN article - ie it would serve to explain the differences between the formal distinction and common usage while such differences exist. (Presumably, Queens Regs will be probably be amended to remove the ambiguity.) The most useful part of the present Her Majesty's Naval Service article, is that it reports the former structure of the Naval Service, which wouldn't merge easily with the RN article; however, that part of of the article could be retitled as "Her Majesty's Naval Service (pre ????)". Hence, I can see a couple of alternatives but none retain Her Majesty's Naval Service in its present form. Garuda28, did you look at this example? It is just a rough guide to one possibility. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone with knowlege of RN officer ranks take a look at the photo with the caption, The Lord High Admiral’s passing out parade at Britannia Royal Naval College in Devon, at https://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2021/dec/16/gathering-storm-and-a-sprout-harvest-thursdays-best-photos and amend the Ranks, rates, and insignia paragraph, if required. The cadet ranks are missing and one person in the group has a single ring. 109.148.58.99 ( talk) 20:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The cadets in the picture from the Guardian are forming a Guard of Honour. Traditionally the Lord High Admiral’s Division are the best-performing Division in the first term at BRNC Dartmouth. The white “mudguards” on their shoulders indicate that they are still Officer Cadets, and are half way through their training. All Officer Cadets (unless carrying seniority forward eg. previous service as an ex-ranker) are titled as Midshipmen, but have the white mudguard (training tab) to indicate that they have not completed their training and are not yet commissioned.
The single ring you mention is a Sub-Lieutenant - an Officer who has commissioned (hence why he is carrying a sword and not a rifle) and is leading the Guard of Honour but not at the same stage of training as them. I hope this helps! The Beanster ( talk) 13:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Kingdom of Scotland should appear in country plainlist. The Royal Navy of Great Britain was formed after the merger of the Royal Navy of England and the Royal Scots Navy in 1707. David eyre ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
An alternative approach could be to follow the example on the British Army page, and to start the Country plainlist at 1707. This would not be my preference, as the separate Kingdom of England entry underlines the importance of the Navy as the Senior Service. David eyre ( talk) 05:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this shouldn't be controversial. If the Royal Scots Navy was merged into the Royal Navy, then obviously the current Royal Navy incorporates the two predecessor navies. The example of the British Army entry has already been cited. The Parliament of Great Britain entry lists the two proceeding Parliaments of England and Scotland. It seems very strange to have information included on this page about the Royal Scots Navy history and its merger with the Royal Navy of England, without including the flag of the Kingdom of Scotland. David eyre ( talk) 22:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I have added reference from 'The Old Scots Navy from 1689 to 1710' published by the Navy Records Society. The author states that the 'the Scots and English navies were united' and refers to an order in council by Queen Anne directing the resulting change of colours on Royal Navy ships. In short, the St George's Cross was replaced by the Union Flag, which includes the Scottish Cross of St Andrew. I think it is clear that placing that flag in the country plainlist is entirely appropriate. I'll wait for a couple of days for further discussion here, before I make that edit. David eyre ( talk) 07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is about the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom, not about the Royal Navy of England. David eyre ( talk) 14:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
'The Royal Navy (RN) is the United Kingdom's naval warfare force.' This is the first sentence of the article. David eyre ( talk) 23:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy_(before_1707) David eyre ( talk) 00:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you believe outside sources are irrelevant, as I'm the only editor to have cited them in this discussion. David eyre ( talk) 09:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)