Talk:Admiral (Royal Navy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Admiral of the Red/Blue[edit]

There are a number of redirects to this article such as: Admiral of the Red Admiral of the Blue Vice Admiral of the Blue etc.

None of them are explined in the article and I was intrested in the hisotry of the Ranks/Titles or whatever they are. Does anyone know enough about it to add it to the article or am I better off asking google? Dalf | Talk 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Um...all of those ranks are already explained in the article. There is in fact a list of the various Admirals and thier colors (or, as the English guys are wierd). -Husnock 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So it is I got lost in a sea of redirects and articles and ended up comminting here apparently withouth looking at the article properly. I did read several others and thought I was there I guess. my confusion came from the fact that Vice Admiral of the Blue and Rear Admiral of the Blue both redirect to Admiral which does not mention them instead of here. I actually had thought that I was commenting there and did not realise that I had managed to arrive at the right place afterall. Are those redirects pointing at the right article. Dalf | Talk 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Badge of Rank[edit]

The shoulder badge shown in the article is wrong: three stars designate a Vice-Admiral. For a "full" Admiral, there should be four stars. See: (talkcontribs) 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

When did the UK switch to French/US-style stars? I always thought they used the pattern where 1 star = Rear Admiral... (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In the (mid?) 1990s. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The following is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history:

Admiral's shoulderboards - Commonwealth Navies[edit]

Some time in the last 20 years (maybe 5 or 10), the Australian and British Navies changed the shoulder boards of Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral and Admiral from containing 1, 2 and 3 stars to containing 2, 3 and 4 stars. (Refer and Can anyone tell me when this happened? If you can point me to some references, that would be useful too. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you badly want to know, you can send an email to Gieves and Hawkes, the naval officers' tailors in Savile Row, London. (They made Nelson's uniforms and still provide them for the royal family.) They will know and be able to tell you which warrant, if any, is applicable. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was when Commodore was made a substantive rank, some time in the late 90s I think? Commodore is the One star rank, hence altering the boards.
ALR (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably as a way to give a "British" explanation for changing to a non-British (actually Rest of Europe) system :D. (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I always thought the One Star = Rear Admiral was the Rest of Europe (German Navy before WWI etc) and that France was the odd one out... (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry (for myself) to sound thick, but what's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it was more of a throwaway comment, hence the dots at the end. (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah huh. I now understand. (Thanks.) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation Chill Pill Needed[edit]

I can certainly see and respect the need for citations in instances actually in accordance with the policy - statements that are "dubious or sufficiently controversial" ...but come on. In the case of this short article, I find myself a bit surprised by the end of it that the rogue editor hasn't demanded independent proof of the very existence of this alleged "Royal Navy", or the so-called "ocean" they supposedly plied. As only the most egregious example... Isn't the rank of Nelson at death pretty well a matter of common knowledge and/or at least public record? (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Honor

Promoting Unsuccessful Captains[edit]

I find this sentence odd:

Another way was to promote unsuccessful captains to the rank of admiral without distinction of squadron (a practice known as yellowing — the Captain so raised became known as a yellow admiral).

This sounds more like a way to give a successful captain a promotion when no slot was available, but the word "unsuccessful" has survived several close by edits. Am I missing something? Ferritecore (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording is correct, though maybe could be more clearly expressed. As promotion to flag rank was by seniority rather than ability, if there were a number of captains, some unsuccessful and some successful, there was no way to promote only the successful to the next rung on the ladder, the unsuccessful above them in seniority would also have to rise. So to get Captain C to rear-admiral, captains A and B would also have to be promoted. If the Admiralty were not keen on waiting for their man to reach the requisite slot in the queue they could promote the unsuccessful and undistinguished Captains A and B, but they were not given any commands and were immediately retired, to live ashore on half pay. Captain C on the other hand would then be promoted in turn and receive a command, and the former Captains A and B would now be the 'Yellow Admirals'. So the other way to rise was to have someone below you in seniority but who exceeded you in ability. You could then rise by default if the Admiralty made promotions to get the man they wanted, and as a side-effect bumped the undistinguished ones in between to flag rank. Benea (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Admiral (Royal Navy)Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Admiral (United Kingdom)Admiral (Royal Navy) — Rank pre-dates the creation of the UK, not the creation of the RN. Also change would bring consistency with Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy), Commodore (Royal Navy), Captain (Royal Navy), etc Greenshed (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support — Consistency, and it being more accurate, seem to be supported by WP:DAB
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Well-reasoned proposal. Jafeluv (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Currently the text states: As there were invariably more admirals in service than there were postings, many admirals remained unemployed, especially in peacetime.

Please expand. Were they full, partially or not paid? Were they posted to locations where they may have been needed in an emergency but still not assigned a duty? Were they considered retired but liable to be called to service? Any other oddities? WikiParker (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If an Admiral (or any other officer) on the Active List wasn't employed then they went on half-pay, where they languished until they were employed or until they were placed on the Retired List for non-service; then they received retired pay. Here's the Order in Council showing the regulations for non-service in place from 1914. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)