Jump to content

Talk:Field marshal (United Kingdom)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Life appointment

I have a recollection that the rank of Field Marshal is held for life and the holder never formally retires. Anyone confirm or debunk? Folks at 137 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello From The Philippines. http://www.michaelmanalolazo.winnerforum.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.104.90 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Williamslim.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Abeyance

I understand from Army colleagues that this rank is no longer used in the UK because the Americans do not like a British officer to have as many "stars" as their most senior-ranking officers. 86.7.211.128 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And why would you understand that?
You understand "from Army colleagues". From colleagues in which Army?
"because the Americans do not like a British officer to have as many "stars" as their most senior-ranking officers" - That may well be true, but it would not make any difference to, or have any influence on, the British, or any other nation for that matter. Despite their over-inflated opinions of their own self importance, most nations don't really give a F*** what the Americans might think or feel about their own superiotity.
"because the Americans do not like a British officer to have as many "stars" as their most senior-ranking officers" - Are you trying to imply or state that the Americans have an inferiority complex? I'm unconvinced.
When it comes down to it, what is it that you are trying to say?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"I understand from" is another form of "I've been told by" so what's the problem?; it's British Army colleagues with whom I work; many nations care about or do what the Americans say (whether they like to or not), especially ones who must serve under an American commander in NATO and/or serve alongside an American military - in numerous theatres - who always call the shots and make decisions; yes, the inference is that the Americans want to stand above (in seniority) those they command or serve alongside. I've edited out the repeat in my original post. 86.7.211.128 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You have misquoted me. What I sort of said was: most nations don't care what the Americans might think or feel about their own superiority. Yes, I agree that the golden rule is: "The one with the gold, rules.", and the Americans do indeed seem to have lots of gold to spend. But again, it's unclear to me what your question is. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
By-the-way, I don't think the Americans currently have any 5 stars. I believe the most recent appointment was in 1950, and the last of them died in the 1980s. Except for ceremonial appointments, honourary appointments, and self-appointments(!), I don't think any nation has made any appointment to that level for some time. (e.g. List of field marshals)
(But I could be wrong ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Even prior to appointments to the rank being stopped, 5 star rank was only used for those holding the appointment of Chief of the Defence Staff, not for anyone who held an operational command, so there wouldn't have been a direct problem with a British officer out-ranking a US officer. The change had more to do with the realisation that with the reduced size of British forces after the end of the Cold War, there simply wasn't any justification for having an active 5 star (a comparison with the size of US forces may have had some influence here), and it was part of the general cost-cutting within the British defence establishment at the time. Since 5 stars never technically retire, they go on costing money. I've been told by someone in a position to know, that Marshal of the RAF Michael Beetham still has a driver paid for by the MOD as technically he's still on active duty. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

5 star rank?

Is 5 star rank a generally understood and used term, or is it US specific? And is it appropriate to describe Field Marshal as 5 star, or should it be expressed as "the equivalent of a 5 star US rank"? Historically, Field Marshal had more do do with the similarly named rank in other countries. 82.18.78.13 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Is 5 star rank a generally understood and used term" - I don't know about "generally", but its use is wide-spread.
"or is it US specific" - US origin, but no longer US specific.
"And is it appropriate to describe Field Marshal as 5 star" - Yes.
or should it be expressed as "the equivalent of a 5 star US rank" - It can/could be, but not "should".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Queen's appointments?

I know the Queen is an honorary colonel. Is she actually a Field Marshal? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:UK-Army-OF10-shoulder.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UK-Army-OF10-shoulder.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Field_marshal_(United_Kingdom)/Archive_1&oldid=1030977447"