Jump to content

Talk:King's Guard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateKing's Guard is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

old comments

[edit]

Just a quick query - why is the fictional Kings Own Fusillers from "Soldier Soldier" mentioned in the line infantry section? Its not relevant and the way it reads it implies that they exist and did actually perform guard duty. Hellfire83 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) GIAN PICHLER[reply]

Just removed said image. There is not such unit as the "King's Own Fusiliers". It was a screen shot from the TV show "Soldier Soldier" featuring Robson Green. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed the offending entry in the list and fixed the footnotes. Adding fancruft as truth like this is, in my opinion, tantamount to vandalism. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nzarmy.gif

[edit]

Image:Nzarmy.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pakistan army coat of arms.gif

[edit]

Image:Pakistan army coat of arms.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RGR.JPG

[edit]

Image:RGR.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armed?

[edit]

Stupid question, but are the Guard's weapons loaded when they're on watch? Obviously they have bayonets, but since they are meant to be a serious part of the protection would their weapons be loaded with live ammunition? --J.StuartClarke (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent question! The article seems to have made unsourced statements on this in the past. Googling for this produces assorted answers, none with any technical (or otherwise, really) "reliability". It's possible the information isn't actually made public. As there are armed police on duty, and as the guardsmen aren't really trained in "police actions", I'm guessing they're not (normally) armed with loaded weapons. But I wouldn't take that to the bank (or indeed the article). Anyone have a source either way? 84.203.37.16 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed an unsourced statement from the lead that said they are not armed. I think we should have a source before saying anything about this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cefcap117.jpg

[edit]

Image:Cefcap117.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Coldstream-Guards-Cap-Badge.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended animation?

[edit]

"However, when the 2nd Battalions of the Grenadier Guards, Coldstream Guards and Scots Guards were put in suspended animation, a decision to replace one of the three Foot Guard battalions then engaged on public duties by a line infantry battalion was taken, so as to enable the Foot Guards battalion to increase the proportion of its effort employed on training for operational roles."

I don't know of any meaning for that phrase other than freezing or otherwise preserving a living thing in stasis of some sort in order to revive them later, a hypothetical science fiction device. Is there some military use of this phrase in regard to inactive military units, as it seems to indicate here? If so, someone should provide a link to something that explains that usage of the phrase, either on wikipedia or elsewhere. Otherwise, this phrase should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.203.68 (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Ten years later and the phrase "suspended animation" is still in the article. I am not up on British military terminology, but a US military unit may be "inactivated" and later "reactivated" (see for example 6th Infantry Division (United States) active 1917–1921, 1939–1949, 1986–1994, inactivated three times, reactivated twice). Bases and equipment may be reassigned or put in mothballs; but the personnel are usually reassigned rather than put in hibernation. Perhaps the phrase "suspended animation" is a British military term for the period between inactivation and reactivation. I am surprised no one familiar with Brit usage has chimed in. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timings for Changing the guard at Buckingham Palace

[edit]

I was told that the guard changes on alternate days for part of the year, I would hate to miss this when I am in London, any ideas on where I can get more info on this?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Changingtheguard (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Regiments Forming the Queen's Guard

[edit]

This article states that the first army regiment to form the Queen's Guard is either the Cheshires or the one of the old Gurkha Regiments. It states that only 2 line battalions have formed the guard prior to 1996.

There have been at least three occasions when the Queen's Guard has been formed by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (all three have been ignored): 2nd Battalion, 1913; 1st Battalion 1970s; 1st Battalion late 80's or early 90's.

Could this article please be updated to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Cowan (talk • contribs) 11:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if it's likely that I could watch a Welsh changing of the guard in London.I would love to. --Wikivalles (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff is missing

[edit]

Shouldn't this article talk about their hats, and the "can't smile or laugh or talk" thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Yeah I came here to see how much truth the "cant talk/move/smile" idea actually had, but theres nothing about it, anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.2.225 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-I echo both of these sentiments. I was expecting to at least find a short "Lore" or "Tourist Interest" section at the end. It seems especially relevant since the article discusses an incident between a guard and a tourist that changed the entire way the patrols operate, but mentions nothing about why a tourist would pester a guard in the first place.Cuttycuttiercuttiest (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC) belated signature[reply]

I'm struggling to find an online source. I believe that they're allowed to shout "Stand clear of the Queen's Guard!" if you're being too much of a nuisance and there are any number of YouTube videos of guards giving troublesome tourists a good shove to get rid of them. I recall a newspaper article in the 1980s describing a Horse Guard breaking up a scuffle outside his sentry box by threatening the fighters with his sword. I have posted a request on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history page. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Queen's Guard#Procedure Whilst at Post - many thanks to all at WikiProject_Military history. Alansplodge (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of England Picquet

[edit]

From 1780 to 1973, the resident guard battalion also found a guard for the Bank of England in the City of London. A reference can be found at The Bank of England: 1950s to 1979 by Forrest Capie (pp. 63-64). Although not strictly a royal duty, I think it could be included here, but not sure where exactly. Any suggestion? Alansplodge (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Surely there should be a bit of info about the stereotypes of them not being able to move and such, and the common depiction of them in media (people messing with them outside Buckingham Palace, I Love Lucy, etc)? It's such a well known trope, I'm surprised to see no mention of the Hollywood depictions of them... maybe it's a different Wikipedia page I'm looking for? 66.168.165.37 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Queen's Guard. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queen's Guard. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queen's Guard. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Queen's Guard. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen's Guard. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'functional firearms loaded with live ammunition'

[edit]

"The Queen's Guard are highly-trained, operational-duty soldiers armed with functional firearms loaded with live ammunition, but when responsible for the protection of Royal Palaces, these soldier's rifles are not loaded."

This sentence is misleading.

I have amended it to:

'...armed with functional firearms, but when responsible for the protection of Royal Palaces, these soldier's rifles are not loaded." JF42 (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'operational-duty soldiers'

[edit]

'operational-duty soldiers'- what does that mean, exactly? Might it be clearer, for example, to say"

'Highly trained infantrymen'-

or something similar? JF42 (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Originally we had a different statement, supported by a source. People kept changing the statement until it was so different from what the source said that someone removed the source. I have restored the source, and changed the text to say what the source says. See WP:V. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

I don't think the lead image meets the objective at WP:LEAD: "...it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." You can tell there are some guys on horses, but it is not immediately apparent to me that they are part of the Queen's Guard. Would it be appropriate to replace this with the image captioned "A sentry of the Scots Guards at Buckingham Palace"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queen's Guard. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen's Guard. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC) GIAN PICHLER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.47.169.61 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incident

[edit]

In the "Incidents" section, mention should be made of the one time the Horse Guards were pressed into action, during the "hunger riot" of October 1932 when vandalizing marchers tried to get to 10 Downing Street. As recounted in "Winston Spencer Churchill: Alone", by William Manchester, at p. 40 - 41:

"At this point, less than four hundred yards from their objective, the marchers' luck turned against them. The open ground between the rioters and the entrance to Downing Street was occupied by the parade ground of the Royal Horse Guards. As long as anyone could remember, the only duty of these cavalrymen had been to perform ceremoniously for admiring tourists. Now, preparing to fight for King and Country, they buckled on their glittering helmets, mounted their handsome steeds, and formed a very thin red line. The sheer weight of the mob could have overwhelmed them, but the marchers, most of them in London for the first time, seemed awestruck. They wavered and milled around. By the time they had regrouped, reserves from Bow Street were there in force, sending them reeling back toward Trafalgar Square."

68.196.1.236 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC) captcrisis[reply]

Uniforms

[edit]

These guys are on TV right now and the article doesn't say anything about their uniforms, which seems like one of their more interesting aspects. Can anyone knowledgeable do something about this? Particularly how can they see with those bearskin hats pulled all the way over their eyes? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5DD0:0:0:0:256B (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly in the clamour to change "Queen" to "King" no thought is given to the anachronistic errors it creates

[edit]

I notice that all mention of the Queen's Guard has been converted to the newly-named Kings Guard. Well it should be noted that all the images being used in this article were taken during the lifetime of Queen Elizabeth not King Charles III. That means they are pictures of the "Queen's Guard" not the afforemetioned "King's Guard". Renaming them is an anachronistic error. This article and so many like them have been totally messed up by the heavy-handed rush to change from the word Queen to King. Charles took ownership the moment he became king not for what preceded his acccession. King and Queen are interchangeable for the purpose of identifying title but for purposes of historical chronology they clearly cannot overwrite each other because neither can exist together at the same time! The errors in these article are hilariously bad. eg in 1973 the "King's Guard" led the Tropping of the Colour, what? I think you'll find it was the Queen's Guard etc.150.143.66.222 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I looked this question up but couldn’t find an answer. Do you have to be British to be a Kings’ Guard? 74.70.157.255 (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is an entire section in this article that lists non-British units that have mounted the guard (see King's Guard#Commonwealth units). Leventio (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King%27s_Guard&oldid=1207985165"