Why British (and other) royals have a uniform military dress

Much is being made of the possibility, if not the probability, that Prince George — second in line to the British throne — may become the first heir to not be made to mandatorily serve in one of the British defence forces after finishing school. But then again, not many people know that the last British monarch to actually fight in a war was the young prince’s German-born namesake King George II at the Battle of Dettingen way back in 1743 against France. Later, another Prince George — a grandson of King George III and son of the then Duke of Cambridge — became a colonel in the British Army in 1837 and commanded the 1st Division during the Crimean War, taking part in all the major battles. Given that ‘fighting’ princes were rare, it was not surprising that he was eventually promoted to general, field marshal and finally commander-in-chief in 1887 during the reign of his cousin Queen Victoria. In more recent generations, several other Britons with royal connections have seen active duty, from the late Duke of Edinburgh and his uncle Earl Mountbatten of Burma to the Duke of Kent who died in a military air crash during World War II, but they did not lead from the front in the manner of swashbuckling royals of yore. In fact, they probably took up military careers as the most viable default option given the lack of other lucrative careers. Nevertheless, some sections are outraged at the very idea of British soldiers being called to fight for King and Country if the monarch in question has not gone through the motions of military initiation himself. They forget that most countries now have soldiers fighting in the name of heads of state and government who are civilian commanders-in-chief. India, of course, is the largest of them with more than four million men and women in active service. It must be mentioned, however, that Indian rulers — or “princes” as they were called by the British Raj — did personally go into battle till late in the 20th century, quite unlike their uniformed ‘fellow royals’ in Britain. Two in particular stand out: late Maharaja of Jaipur Brigadier Sawai Bhawani Singh and the current titular Maharaja of Kapurthala Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, who earned Mahavir Chakras for bravery in the 1971 war with Pakistan. But why Prince George is expected to do his duty and don a uniform sometime in the 2030s though he will never see a battlefront, needs examination. Why does Little Britain even need soldier-kings now when Queen Victoria, the monarch who ruled over the largest empire in the world of her time, rarely wore even ceremonial uniforms and was very unmilitary in appearance? What message is a royal wearing a uniform expected to convey? One reason trotted out by many these days is that royals in uniform underline the fact that Britain is a “warrior nation” with a long history of battles (led by their kings) even in faraway lands. The sad truth, though, is that no one thinks of Britain in such terms anymore, including most Britons. So forcing British royals to peddle an outdated image makes little sense, especially as monarchs are titular heads of state and ‘reign’ rather than actually rule. Most royals get nowhere near combat these days; the only exceptions are Prince Harry’s stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2012 and his uncle Prince Andrew’s participation in the Falklands ‘war’ of 1982. William, now Prince of Wales, trained at Sandhurst after university and was commissioned into the army in 2006. He spent time in the navy and was a search and rescue pilot in the Royal Air Force for three years but never saw any real “action”. As a 16-year-old princess in 1942, Queen Elizabeth II was given the honorary title of Colonel of the Grenadier Guards and later decided to “join the army”. She entered the Auxiliary Territorial Service just a few months before World War II ended in 1945 and was trained to drive and repair ambulances. But rather than stay in the camp, she went home at the end of the day — to Windsor Castle. But as monarch she held a slew of honorary military ranks. Her husband Prince Philip served in the war in the Royal Navy and attained the rank of a Commander. But as the consort of the reigning Queen and after he had retired from the Navy, Philip was eventually made Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal and Marshal of the Royal Air Force — the topmost ranks in all three services. Those ranks are now held by King Charles III as monarch, who had also risen to Commander while serving in the navy. Military training is thus primarily a rite of passage for royalty in Britain and elsewhere rather than an actual call to arms. It appears to serve a very limited purpose: to legitimise the practice of British royals wearing the gorgeously caparisoned uniforms of the armed forces during ceremonial occasions, though several of those who don them these days, including Princess Anne and Prince Edward, have never actually served in the armed forces. It should sound ridiculous anywhere else except perhaps a tinpot dictatorship, but in all seriousness, Britain promoted Anne, now styled as Princess Royal, to rear admiral in the Royal Navy in 1993, vice admiral in 2009 and then admiral in 2012. In 2020 she was also given the rank of general in the British Army and an air chief marshal in the Royal Air Force despite never having formally joined any arm of the defence forces or completed any training! Her youngest brother Prince Edward was a cadet officer in the Royal Marines for a few months after a degree from Cambridge University, but finally took the fallback option of becoming a ‘working royal’. So he is royal honorary colonel of the Royal Wessex Yeomanry, commodore-in-chief of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, royal colonel of 2nd Battalion, The Rifles, honorary air commodore of RAF Waddington and royal colonel of the London Guards! As both Anne and Edward wore military regalia during the funeral of their mother Queen Elizabeth II, as did their older brother and new King Charles III — who did actually spend 23 years in the navy and RAF in various roles — the inescapable conclusion is that uniforms are crucial for the stature of British royals. Which is why the denial of that right to Prince Harry and Prince Andrew during the royal funeral and coronation signals their fall from grace. It was King George II who made uniforms de rigueur for British royals in the 18th century as he loved regimental dress. Bright uniforms, sashes, lanyards and rows of medals add glamour and an aura of valour to the drearily ceremonial existence of his descendants even today. He also standardised army and navy dress, while his grandson George III introduced the Windsor uniform that still exists today as a faux military ceremonial dress for royals. Thanks to the trend set by the British, monarchies not just in Europe but the world over consider military uniforms the best sort of royal regalia. Royal weddings especially see male royals in uniform, from the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej in 1950 to Crown Prince Hussein of Jordan in 2023. Notably, some royal families are not so keen on military regalia, including those of Japan (for obvious reasons), Saudi Arabia and Bhutan, not to mention African kings. Memorably, Winston Churchill also wore uniforms when he was Britain’s war-time Prime Minister—as Colonel, 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars and Honorary Colonel, 4th/5th (Cinque Ports) Battalion, the Royal Sussex Regiment. He also designed military overalls for himself which he called his ‘siren suit’. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — never a soldier — channels his inner Churchill now with his trademark quasi-military green attire. Military service is mandatory for all citizens in only a handful of countries and Britain is not one of them. Nor is India. But Ukraine has now enforced it for males between the ages of 18 to 60 because of the war with Russia. Israel, Singapore, North and South Korea, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, Cuba, Cyprus and Switzerland have compulsory military service for different periods of time, and it is applicable to both male and female citizens in some countries. Ironically, none of those who are now insisting that Prince George should join one of the wings of Britain’s armed forces would want the same for their own children unless the progeny themselves wanted to become soldiers. However, ordinary young Britons and their parents could be more amenable to military service if they were assured that their careers would be only ceremonial and come with gaudy uniforms, shiny medals and promotions. Indeed, as those assurances are a given for the British royals, the Prince and Princess of Wales should let all three of their offspring do stints in the military after school or university, not only Prince George. It is not as if the young Waleses will ever be allowed to seriously pursue other ‘normal’ professions. This would give them life skills, benchmark their talents, foster camaraderie with real people — and provide some showy uniforms, of course. The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.