Talk:Captain General Royal Marines/Archive 1

The Duke of Sussex
Hi, I reverted your edit of the The Duke of Sussex's Post holder information similar to my 2 May edit with "Incumbent (suspended duties on 31 March 2020)" in the Left office column. He is still the incumbent as another person hasn't been appointed or appointed in an acting capacity. The press release on Prince Harry's official website stated "During this 12-month period of review, The Duke’s official military appointments will not be used as they are in the gift of the Sovereign. No new appointments will be made to fill these roles before the 12-month review of the new arrangements is completed." The press release from Buckingham Palace "..are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments." --Melbguy05 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Insignia
The rank insignia has been changed in this article from field marshal equivalent to colonel. The Duke of Edinburgh wore the FM insignia during his time as Captain General but the Duke of Sussex wore the insignia of a colonel. I don’t know the Duke of Sussex’s reason for wearing the insignia of a colonel but surely the correct insignia is the FM equivalent. The main article on the Royal Marines has it as such, the post is not Colonel in Chief and surely the title Captain General shows that the rank is some type of general. Have the Navy regulations changed the insignia or has it been changed here purely because of what the Duke of Sussex wore? Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.165.133 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - My understanding is that unless the appointee holds the rank of brigadier or higher and decides to wear higher insignia, the Captain General ranks in the same way as a colonel of a regiment and will therefore wear the insignia of a colonel. Dormskirk (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is a compelling explanation. Where did you get the information from? The thing I would say is that having just quickly googled the Dukes of Edinburgh and Kent, the Prince of Wales and “Colonel-in-Chief”, in none of the photographs are they wearing anything other than a Colonel’s insignia even though they are all Field Marshals. Therefore none of them are exercising the choice you describe. The only exception is the Duke of Edinburgh in the uniform of Captain General of the RM. Surely therefore it is his belief that being Captain General is not the same as Colonel-in-Chief and he is wearing what he believes to be the correct insignia (FM equivalent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.162.101 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - Please see Army Dress Regulations section 1, paragraph 02.13 "Honorary Colonels of Regiments and Colonels Commandant of Corps, when wearing their regimental/Corps uniform, will do so with the rank badges of a colonel, irrespective of their rank in the Army." I am less familiar with Navy Dress Regulations but assume this rule is applied across the forces. I am unable to comment on what the Duke of Edinburgh does or does not believe! Dormskirk (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at the equivalent Royal Navy Dress regulations para 4017 https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/reference-library/br-3-vol-1/chapter-40.pdf and the Duke of Sussex does have different insignia to the Duke Edinburgh - the regulations say it is the same as a Major General.....can’t see any rationale for that but there it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.162.101 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - I agree that looks pretty definitive. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps both the FM and MG insignia should be uploaded for context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.162.101 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to wait until the next captain-general is appointed because para 4017 seems to be "person-specific". Dormskirk (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Current
While the role might be held open for him, the official statement is "The Duke’s official military appointments will not be used as they are in the gift" and "The Duke will not perform any official duties associated with these roles". Seeing as the roles roles will neither be used or preformed, it would make the position de facto vacant. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi - My concern is that this goes to the core of the litigation against the Daily Mail. It was alleged by the Daily Mail that "top brass were considering removing Harry from his post as Captain General of the Royal Marines". Prince Harry strongly denies this: the clear implication is that he retains the post even though his duties have been suspended. My understanding is that while "The Duke will not perform any official duties associated with these roles" he has not been removed from the role and indeed no attempt has been made to remove him from the role (notwithstanding the fact that the Daily Mail alleged otherwise). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Right, he hasn't been removed, but neither Harry nor anyone else currently performs the duties as Captain General. And if there is no one who performs the duties, then it would mean it is (de facto) vacant. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do understand the point you are making. My only concern would be any implication, real or implied, that he was been removed or had otherwise left the post (which "vacant" might imply). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But stating a "de facto" vacancy, would not imply he has been removed or left, unless people have no idea of what "de facto" means. Best Skjoldbro (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I would not object to your proposal on that basis (providing other editors are not similarly concerned). Dormskirk (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is new CG but no idea how add the reference aka articles. Prince Harry has been removed by a resignation at Sandringham, no doubt. He has never returned as a working royal so no official military duties and honourary titles anyway. Vacant for sure. Dixiepixie12 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Captain General Royal Marines
Hi - I see you have inserted the insignia of a Field Marshal in the infobox. You may not have seen the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Captain General Royal Marines) but it appears that Prince Harry, in his capacity as Captain-General, wore the rank of a colonel in the Royal Marines. As he is still the incumbent (although it has been confirmed he will be relinquishing it based on an announcement on 19 February 2021) I think where we we got to is that we leave it with a colonel's insignia until the new Captain General is appointed. Please feel free to contribute on the talk page. Dormskirk (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I corrected what I believe to be an error (ie; see Royal Navy officer rank insignia). If for whatever reason Harry chose to wear a Colonel's insignia, then perhaps that should be noted in the article and/or in the table entry for him. But for the infobox of the article, we should be using the correct image. This is about the rank, not just a particular person. IMO - wolf  16:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * captain-general is not a rank: it is a position of "ceremonial head of the Royal Marines". There has already been quite a discussion on this and para 4017 of the dress regulations seems to suggest that the insignia is "person-specific". And in this case the last person to hold the position was Prince Harry. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that the rank is ceremonial as opposed to operational, but that doesn't change the fact the insignia is the OF-10 image and I don't believe that Harry choosing to wear a Colonel's insignia changes that. Rather, there should be detailed notation of the anomaly with reasons for it and refs attached. I'm not sure why this wasn't done. I see the brief exchange above between you and an IP user last August, but I also see that there are at least a half-dozen other pages that denote the rank of Captain General Royal Marines with the OF-10 image, with no apparent mention of Harry and his Crown & pips. - wolf  16:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are half a dozen pages that denote the rank of Captain General Royal Marines with the OF-10 image, then in my view, those pages are incorrect. In my view the best place to look for an explanation on this issue is the dress regulations, rather than other wikipedia pages, and para 4017 of the dress regulations seem to suggest that the insignia is "person-specific". Your suggestion seems to be that Harry / his military dress advisors got in wrong: I don't think they did. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say "Harry / his military dress advisors got it wrong", I'm trying to determine if we did. Let's keep this simple, and start with the source you're using; can you point out on which page it states that because of Harry, a Colonel's insignia should be used to represent this rank? Thanks - wolf  17:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Army Dress Regulations section 1, paragraph 02.13 "Honorary Colonels of Regiments and Colonels Commandant of Corps, when wearing their regimental/Corps uniform, will do so with the rank badges of a colonel, irrespective of their rank in the Army." The naval regulations use similar wording. I have not seen any regulations specific to the Royal Marines. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I already saw where you quoted that up above, but that's Army regs (I'll come back to that). The Navy regs have been mentioned a few times now, and I wanted to know just exactly how they supported the use of the Col insignia here. The only mention I could find wrt Harry, in the whole document, is para 4017, which indicates he should have the insignia of a Major General. (The same table mentions Philip, and states he should wear a the Field Marshal insignia.) Those are the only two mentions of "Captain General" in the whole document. (Not sure how helpful that is).Getting back to the Army Regs; well... they're Army regs, not RN/RM. They speak to Honourary Col/Col in Chief, which is not a rank or position in the Royal Marines. I don't see how it applies here. You say things like "seems to indicate" and "appears to suggest", which is basically wp:synth. I'm looking for a source that clearly supports the change of insignia from FM to Col, because of Harry. Lastly, I should apologize, as I wasn't clear earlier. I didn't mention the other wp pages that cover this rank as support to change it to back to FM, I mentioned them becuase I was wondering why they weren't changed to Col when this page was. - wolf  18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As regards "seems to indicate" and "appears to suggest" that is just my style - I never like to assert that I am right and somebody else is wrong....because very often I do get it wrong. But in this instance I think the army regulations are pretty clear. The relevance of the Army Regulations is that, as I understand it, the post of Captain-General in the Royal Marines is akin to Colonels Commandant of Corps in the Army. But without sight of the RM dress regulations it is difficult to be definitive here. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the style point, and I get that it makes things more collegial in a general discussion, but when it comes to content, and deciding one way or t'other, I think we need to be definitive, if not assertive. And I might understand using the Army regs as an equivalent, if we didn't have Naval regs... but we do. Ones that specifically address Royal Marine officers, ones that specifically address Harry. Now, I don't know why they say it's the MG insignia for him, but they do. If anything, that negates the change of insignia here to Col. That said, I am not suggesting the image be changed to MG, just as I wasn't suggesting that the FM images on all the other pages that mention CGRM be changed either. I think the best solution is to leave all the images as FM, and on this page, add info regarding occasions when the insignia worn may differ and why, and source it. It just seems to be the only reasonable route to take here, with the info and sourcing we currently have available. - wolf  21:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did say on 6 August 2020 that "It might be a good idea to wait until the next captain-general is appointed..." At that time, and ever since until today, the infobox to this article was showing the insignia of a colonel (because that had been the insignia that Harry had been using). So the status quo would be to have the insignia of colonel on this page until we have complete clarity. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Status quo seems to imply that the current version is the correct version, meaning it's supported by clear sourcing. But the sourcing does not seem clear, even by your very own words; "...until we have complete clarity". You're ignoring the Navy regs for the Army regs, but even then only to draw some kind of equivalence, with the claim "that's the insignia that Harry has been wearing". And instead of addressing the issue now, you want to wait until the next CGRM is appointed (whenever that is) to hopefully fix this issue for us? Unless the is a reason for the current CGRM to wear a different rank, the default insignia is that of FM. That is what should be in the infobox. If a particular appointee wears a different rank for some reason, then that rank, the insignia, the reason, and refs in support, can all be included in that person's entry in the table. Along with that, we should have some general information about possible changes in rank and insignia in the prose section. Right now, the insignia is different from the insignia on the UK military rank tables and others pages, there is no info to explain why that is and I'm not the first person to attempt to address this. But each time that happens, we're directed to the talk page, which provides no further answers, just more questions, and the only support so far seems to be quotes from other editors. Help me out here. - wolf  22:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have cited chapter and verse very clearly from army regulations (section 1, para 02.13) (which supports colonel) and I have cited chapter and verse very clearly from naval regulations (para 4017) (which supports major-general) but you have not, so far, produced any citation from the dress regulations to support your assertion that the insignia of the captain-general should be that of a Field Marshal. I agree that the position is completely contradictory between Army Regulations and Navy Regulations but all the evidence presented here points to colonel or major-general. That said, I am not going to die in a ditch over this because the information is contradictory and, because (and I make no apology for this) my style is collegial. I genuinely believe that is how wikipedia should operate. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were contesting the FM insignia. (Wait... are you?) I'm sure all the articles, rank tables, etc., that have CGRM with the FM insignia, have sourcing for it. The Naval regs we've mentioned here specifically state that for Captain General (Prince Philip) the rank insignia is that of a Field marshal (United Kingdom) (two crossed batons on a laurel wreath with a crown above). But speaking of refs, I did come across a few of interest; This one, in regards to Harry taking over CGRM from Philip, states that; "The uniform and insignia that Prince Harry will wear are that of a field marshal.". And this one from last year, regarding the announcement of Harry stepping down as Captain General, said; "As the ceremonial head of the elite unit, Harry is entitled to wear the uniform and insignia equivalent to a Field Marshal.". And, then this one, in a general comparison of ranks said; "Within the British model, the Captain General Royal Marines is the ceremonial head of the Royal Marines, wearing the uniform and rank of a Field Marshal". As for "dying in a ditch"... I wouldn't think anyone (certainly not I), would expect that of you. And I agree 100% that your style is collegial, I have always noticed that about you. While we've managed to drag this out pretty good (over an image no less!), there is no ill-will on my part. So where to go from here? You've now stated that the support behind your edit is contradictory. I would suggest restoring the infobox image to FM, to match up with a the rank pages. But, add the Col insignia image to the Harry entry in the table. You can add your Army regs ref, until a better ref is found. You are still presenting the information your are arguing for. I think this is a reasonable resolution. Whad'ya say? - wolf  02:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. And many thanks for providing the additional support for the insignia of Field Marshal. Please go ahead and make the changes you are proposing. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you changed the infobox, but did you still want to add something about Harry specifically? Say, in either his entry in the table, or in the 'History' section? Perhaps something to the effect of;


 * ...or something along those lines? Anyway, this is just an example/suggestion. I don't know if you're working on something, but I found a couple of news articles with pics of him and added them above. Cheers. - wolf  01:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - This looks ideal. I have added the narrative to the history section. I am not inclined to complicate things by adding a further insignia. Best wishes and thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. Glad it worked out. Cheers - wolf  13:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I am the IP address from last year. I am not seeking to change the insignia on the article as I believe it should be an FM. The position was changed from Colonel in Chief to Captain General which more than implies that it was a higher rank (and I know it is an appointment and not a rank). All the other articles will be stating the position from the days of the Duke of Edinburgh so they can't be taken as the definitive source of the insignia as they all feed off each other. Army regulations are as irrelevant as RAF regulations - the Royal Marines are legally part of the Royal Navy. I cannot understand why current Navy regulations state the insignia is that of a Major General - ther seems to be no logic for it. I also believe that the Duke of Sussex was technically wrong to wear the insignia of a colonel but might well have done so out of choice to avoid comparing himself with his grandfather. It would be useful if we could what insignia see King George VI wore after the post changed to Captain General. I would therefore stay as we are as we have a consensus and lets see what the next incumbent wears - and I hope it is FM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.169.168 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)