Last modified: 2009-03-28 by rob raeside
Keywords: united kingdom | union jack |
Links: FOTW homepage |
search |
disclaimer and copyright |
write us |
mirrors
![[Flag of the United Kingdom]](../images/g/gb.gif)
1:2 | 
image by Clay Moss, 16 December 2006
See also:
Other sites:
Whilst the Union Flag has never been officially adopted by law as the national flag of the UK, it has become so by usage (which can count for a lot in the British constitutional/legal system) and the government has stated it is the correct flag for use by British citizens.
Afloat though, the Union Flag has been reserved by the government for specific,
military purposes. It is the jack of the Royal Navy
and the flag of rank for an admiral of the fleet. These are the reasons why it
is illegal for a civilian ship to fly it.
Roy Stilling, 8 February 1996
The "Union Jack" is actually a Royal Flag, used as a national flag by permission
of HM the Queen and on the advice of HM's Ministers (i.e., the government told
us to use it in a parliamentary answer). It is perfectly acceptable to call it
the "Union Jack" - in fact that is the term used by the Government Minister who
stated that it should be used as the national flag. Of course a parliamentary
answer isn't the same as a law or statutory instrument, so legally the UK does
not have a singular national flag, but practically it does. Of course to make up
for this we have more official national flags (of a non singular nature) than
the rest of the world put together. At the last count we had exceeded 500!
Graham Bartram, 7 February 2001
The United Kingdom has two official royal flags; the Royal Standard and the
Union Jack. Since the United Kingdom is a monarchy I reckon they are official
national flags. What was, at one time, not clear was whether private individuals
were entitled to use the official flags. The flags were ratified and confirmed
by the First Article of An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland,
Proclaimed 1st January 1801.
Departmental Blue Ensigns and, before 1894 Colonial Red
Ensigns, were authorised under the Order in Council, July 9th 1864 (Admiralty
Orders In Council, Vol.2, p.46).
Colonial Blue Ensigns were authorised under the Colonial
Naval Defence Act 1865 (28 vic. cap.14)
Colonial Red Ensigns after 1894 were authorised under the
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 vic. cap.80): 73(1).
David Prothero, 10 June 2005
The Union Jack has never been made an official civil flag by any legal process, but it has been authoritatively stated, on more than one occasion, that on land it may be used as though it were a civil flag. It is also used by the army so I would think that it should be (ooo/xxx)
Some extracts from Public Record Office documents.
"That whereas the Union Flag has recently been declared by authority to be the National one, and therefore available to be hoisted by any British subject, His Majesty should be petitioned to grant a distinctive Flag for the exclusive use of His Majesty's Lieutenants of Counties."As a result of this, the Lord Lieutenants of Counties were, in 1911, granted a special flag; the Union Jack defaced with a horizontal sword.
However there was still uncertainty, particularly in some colonies, as to what flag could be flown on land. It was known that the Blue and Red Ensigns were for use only at sea and widely believed that the Union Jack could be flown on land only by the governor or his representative.
In 1917 the Governor of the Windward Islands wrote to the Colonial Office that,
"Residents of St.Vincent are reluctant to fly the Union Jack because it might
have the appearance of discourtesy to the Administrator who is required by
Colonial Regulations to fly the Union Jack on Government House."
[CO 323/1830/20]
The question was again raised in parliament, and on 27th June 1933 the Home
Secretary, Sir John Gilmour, announced in the House of Commons that, "The Union
Flag is the National Flag and may properly be flown on land by any of His
Majesty's subjects."
Question 34 column 1324 of Hansard [CO 323/1272/21]
Much of the confusion in the colonies was caused by the fact that the governor
flew a Union Jack with the badge of the colony on it when afloat, but a plain
Union Jack when on land. The obvious solution was for the governor to fly the
Union Jack with the colony badge whether he was on land or afloat, thus making
it clear that the plain Union Jack was not the flag of the governor and could
thus be flown by any British subject. In 1941 answers to a circular asking
governors for their opinion on this matter revealed differing practices. The
Governor of Ceylon wrote that the Union Jack was often flown in Hong Kong and
Ceylon but not in Straits Settlements, adding that at the Silver Jubilee of
George V (1935) a large British shipping firm had applied for permission to fly
the Union Jack believing the flag to be the privilege of the governor.
[CO 323/1830/22]
David Prothero, 23 August 2001
This is not quite the correct
interpretation and illustrates perfectly the dangers of relying on half written
news stories, such as this. The first thing to be borne in mind is that the
Prime Minister is the head of 10 Downing Street, which is his office and thus he
is ultimately responsible for deciding which flags appear above the building.
Moreover, he is quoted in the BBC article "When I came into government I
realised that you could only fly the flag on 18 days in the year and I thought
that was wrong" as referring to the regulations which are posted at
http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/default.htm and are issued by the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). This is the Government
department which is responsible for issuing regulations at Her Majesty's Command
governing the flying of flags on Government buildings only. These regulations do
not apply to privately owned properties.
On 03 July, the Prime Minister issued a Green Paper on constitutional change,
'The Governance of Britain', which was one of his first announcements of new
initiatives upon taking office. Included in this paper was the statement (Box 6)
that "The Government will therefore consult on altering the current guidance
that prohibits the flying of the Union Flag from Government buildings for more
than 18 set days in the year." In the meantime, the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport has announced that "government buildings in England
should have the freedom to fly the Union Flag when they want" - which was the
case, in any event.
The Prime Minister - if the BBC quote is correctly attributed - it appears to me
as if it has been a comment from his Spokesman's weekly press briefing - and the
rest of the Government, are wrong in their interpretation of those regulations,
as published on their own web site. There is nothing in them to prevent the
flying of the Union Flag, or any other flag, on any other day of the year.
Indeed, the DCMS states that the Red Ensign may be flown by Government
departments on Merchant Navy day. The regulations merely stipulate a list of
dates, mainly notable anniversaries and the suchlike, on which the Union Flag is
to be flown. It has historically tended to be the practice that Government
buildings have not flown flags on any other days of the year.
Thus, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, in his web site are giving the impression that they are in fact taking
decisive action on this issue, when they are simply confirming the status quo.
Some people might argue that this is a prime example of Government spin. Other
news sources have even reported that the Prime Minister has made this
announcement to encourage the wider flying of the Union Flag as a response to
the recent terrorist attacks in London and Scotland.
The background of the BBC article, quoted by Michael, that the new Prime
Minister is seeking to promote Britishness and is using the flag to do this, is
a reasonable assessment of the situation. In fact, he has been doing this for
some time before he became the Prime Minister, as he is conscious of the
following factors. That the last three leaders of the Labour Party have been
Scottish (less Margaret Beckett's interregnum), of the coming to power in
Scotland recently of Alex Salmond's minority Scottish National Party
administration which advocates independence for Scotland, of increased powers
for the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland whilst England is
represented by the British Parliament at Westminster, of the over representation
of Scottish MPs at Westminster, of the still unresolved West Lothian Question
whereby Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on issues affecting solely England
whereas those same issues in Scotland and Wales are devolved to their respective
assemblies and more than anything else, of the fact that he needs Scottish MPs
in order to sustain an administration.
Flying the flag isn't really a constitutional issue at all. It is a matter of
individual choice - but it has been put into the Government's Green Paper so
that they can use it to promote their notion of Britishness and that they are
actually doing something, when in fact they are not, because there was nothing
in the previous rules which prohibited the flying of the flag on their buildings
on days which were not prescribed.
In respect of Northern Ireland, Michael is quite right that this new
announcement does not apply to government buildings in Northern Ireland, as
there are "particular sensitivities" there. The Government believes that the
Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 continue to be the most appropriate
way to deal with this matter there. Moreover, the situation in respect of
Government buildings in Northern Ireland is different from that in the rest of
the United Kingdom in that no flag is permitted to be flown at any Government
building at any time, except as provided for in the regulations.
Sources:
(1) British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6276280.stm, last updated Friday, 06
July 2007 0853, as consulted 07 July 2007
(2) Her Majesty's Government, The Governance of Britain, CM 7170, July 2007
(3) Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), web site, Flag Flying,
http://www.culture.gov.uk/flagflying/default.htm, undated but clearly
reflecting recent announcements, as consulted 07 July 2007
(4) Her Majesty's Government, The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000,
Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland, 2000 No. 347, ISBN 0-337-01075-7, 08
November 2000
Colin Dobson, 7 July 2007
A Dominions Office file of 1950, about the use of the Union Jack in the
Dominions, included a curious comment about the flag.
"The Union Jack has
always been the flag of the whole Commonwealth and not exclusively the flag of
the United Kingdom, where however it is always flown, because the United Kingdom
has no flag of its own." [National Archives (PRO) DO 35/3288]
David
Prothero, 10 February 2009
When was the Union Jack (Union Flag) first (widely) used as a national flag by private citizens?
Nathan Lamm, 23 July 2002
My guess (for widespread use) would be WW1, 1914-1918. It seems to have been a
slow and lengthy process. It had begun by 1887, Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee,
but was not really completed until the 1930s in Britain, and the 1940s in the
colonies.
David Prothero, 24 July 2002
I used the phrase 'by 1887' to mean 'certainly in 1887, and probably before'.
The use of Union Jacks at a major event such as the Golden Jubilee will be
recorded, but it may be presumed that there will have been some previous limited
use which has gone unrecorded.
In 1887 the Governor of the Isle of Man wrote to the Home Office objecting to
having the badge of the Isle of Man on his Union Flag as he represented the
Crown not the Isle of Man. He noted, "a growing tendency among various places of
amusement to fly flags, and on one occasion I saw a royal standard and sometimes
Union Flags. Uncertain whether I have the right or ought to interfere."
David Prothero, 25 July 2002
The Times : Thursday 18 September 1902.
Editorial.
To judge from the correspondence which we have lately printed, there would seem
to be no little confusion of mind in many quarters concerning the character, the
use, and even the identity of the national flag. There is, indeed, no common
agreement as to what the national flag is. Lord Hawkesbury insists that it is
the Red Ensign and nothing else. No doubt he is right in the sense that the Red
Ensign proclaims the nationality of the unprivileged British merchant vessel,
and is the only flag that can lawfully be displayed by such a vessel as the
recognized symbol of its nationality. But, if the Red Ensign is the only flag
that can properly be called national, how comes it that the flag flying at the
Victoria Tower whenever Parliament is sitting is not the Red Ensign, but the
Union Jack? The question is not altogether without difficulty perhaps. But, with
all respect for Lord Hawkesbury, we must, as at present advised, hold the better
opinion to be that the Union Jack is the national flag properly so called, the
Red Ensign being that form of it which is prescribed by law as the symbol of the
nationality of every British vessel at sea, not being a man-of-war or a vessel
otherwise privileged to wear a different ensign. That the Royal Standard is not
the national flag, nor a national flag in any sense, is a proposition too clear
to admit of dispute. It is the personal flag of the Sovereign, and can be
displayed by a subject only by special permission of the Sovereign, and this,
from the nature of the case, is very rarely accorded. This is established beyond
a doubt by the letter of Lord Knollys to the Vicar of St Michael's, Folkestone,
which we printed on June 7. The Vicar stated that his congregation had, spent
Ten Pounds in buying a Royal Standard, "thinking that they would be able to fly
the flag from the church tower as usual," and he asked that an exception might
be made in their favour. Sir Francis Knollys, as he then was, replied "that the
Royal Standard, which is the King's personal flag, can only be hoisted at the
Coronation. If permission were given in one case, it would be impossible to
refuse it in any others. I must remind you," he added, however, "that you can,
always fly the Union Jack."
It would seem from this that, in the opinion of the King's Private Secretary --
which we may be sure was not lightly given -- the proper flag to fly on any
festive occasion is the Union Jack. Lord Hawkesbury might urge, perhaps, that
this is merely an obiter dictum, and that it does not finally establish
the title of the Union Jack to be regarded as the only true national flag.
But surely this question is decided by the fact that the Union Jack is a feature
common, and the only feature common, to all ensigns, whether white, red, or
blue, which are worn by British ships at sea. Ensigns are not merely flags; they
are essentially distinguishing flags. White, red, and blue ensigns are one and
all symbols of British nationality as distinct from all other nationalities,
and, as between themselves, they distinguish different classes or categories of
British ships. The display of the Union Jack is the international mark of all
three, the colour of the fly being only a municipal distinction, so to speak.
The same conclusion seems to follow, also from the history and structure of the
Union Jack. [Details of history and construction]
Such is the historical evolution of the Union Jack, and it seems to us clearly
to indicate that the Union Jack is, and must be, the only national flag properly
so called. There remains the question of its proper or improper use and display.
This is necessarily prescribed with far greater precision and authority as
regards ships at sea than as regards its employment by private citizens on
shore. [Details of use at sea]
But on land there would seem to be no occasion for the observance of such
precision nor for the exercise of such authority. The national pride in the
national flag should suffice to restrain its improper use and display, and all
that seems to be needed is a wider diffusion of accurate knowledge on the
subject. It should be a reproach to every loyal and patriotic citizen not to
know what the national flag is, what are its proper form and construction, and
what is the proper use and symbolism of the several forms of it; and, were this
the case, public opinion might safely be trusted to discountenance the use of
all forms of it not properly constructed, or not recognized by established usage
and authority.
The form, construction, history, and proper usage of the national flag might
well be made a definite subject of teaching in every school in the kingdom. It
is full of interest and contains a good deal of history in a very attractive
form. It makes no difference for this purpose whether the national flag is, as
we think, the Union Jack, or the Red Ensign, as Lord Hawkesbury insists, since
no one can understand the Red Ensign or any other ensign unless he first
understands the Union Jack. If this were done, the illicit and improper forms of
the national flag, badly made and futility hoisted, of which we have seen so
many examples of late, would soon disappear altogether. "You can always fly the
Union Jack" says Lord Knollys. Provided it is the Union Jack, properly made and
properly hoisted, it does not much matter, on shore, whether it is flown in the
form of the Red Ensign or of any other ensign duly recognized by authority. But,
lest naval susceptibilities should be offended, it had better be, we think, the
Union Jack by itself.
David Prothero, 22 May 2004
Use of the Union Flag as a Garrison Flag
The British Union flag (i.e., with the union crosses overall) was created
for nautical purposes, and most of the historical information that's available
relates to its use at sea. However, it apparently was also used ashore as a
garrison flag on forts and other installations. Is there a reference that deals
with the authority and regulations for the use of the Union Flag in this role,
and the history thereof?
Peter Ansoff, 16 January 2004
There were probably no official instructions or regulations until the
introduction of the present flag in 1801. The Proclamation of 1st January 1801,
"As to the Royal Style and Titles and as to the Ensigns Armorial, Standard and
Union Jack", did not specify when the Union Jack should be flown, but the Order
in Council, on which the proclamation was based, did. The following instruction,
was issued to Naval Dockyards.
Admiralty Office, 15th November 1800.In one draft of the Order in Council "Flags and Banners _should_ be hoisted and displayed etc." was changed to "Flags and Banners _may_ be hoisted and displayed etc.", but apparently changed back to "should" in the final version.
Gentlemen,
A Report from the Lords of the Committee of the whole Council, dated 4th instant, having been read at the Council Board on the Day following, in the Presence of the King's Most Excellent Majesty, wherein the Lords of the Council declared as their opinion, if His Majesty should so think fit, that His Royal proclamation to be issued on the First Day of January next under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, appoint and declare ..........
That the Committee were further of opinion that the Union Flag should be altered according to the Draught thereof marked (C) in which the Cross of St George is conjoined with the Crosses of St Andrew and St Patrick:
And that on and after the First Day of January next ensuing the said Flags and Banners should be hoisted and displayed on all His Majesty's Forts and Castles within the United Kingdom, and the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, ................
We herewith transmit to you a Printed Copy of His Majesty's Order in Council of the 5th instant approving the Report of the Lords of the Committee afore-mentioned, and do hereby desire and direct you to cause such Flags and Standards as may be necessary to be prepared conformably to the said Draughts, ......with all the dispatch that may be.
You are also to cause the Colours described in the said Order in Council to be hoisted in all the Dock Yards of the Kingdom upon the 1st Day of January next, and to supply the necessary Colours for the use of the Naval Hospitals at Home, and the Naval Yards and Hospitals abroad, in the manner directed by the said Order in Council;
We are Your affectionate Friends,
Arden, J.Gambier, W.Young. Navy Board.
The situation is that the Union Flag (or "Jack" if you prefer) in its
essentially modern form was established by a Royal Order in Council dated 4
November 1800 (proclaimed 1 January 1801), which was in turn issued under
Article 1 of the Act of Union of that same date. There is, therefore, no
question that the Union Flag was correctly and legally established as a symbol
of that Union.
Christopher Southworth, 23 June 2008
This then
raises the question about the status of the Act of Union following the
establishment of the Irish Free State and subsequently the Republic of Ireland.
Presumably the 1801 Act was amended as a result and/or replaced by other
legislation. Does this legislation have anything to say about the flag, and/or
was there a subsequent Order in Council clarifying the position of the flag
following Irish independence?
Andre Coutanche, 23 June 2008
I am not a lawyer, but posed this self-same question some years ago (to
someone who was), and was informed that the creation of the Irish Free State
amended but did not abolish the 1801 Act of Union, and that Article One
(therefore) remained in force. As far as I could find out the 1921 legislation
made no mention of flags and of course, the 1936 Irish Constitution establishing
the tricolour is irrelevant to this issue. I will, none-the-less, make enquiries
with the Palace (or more accurately the Privy Council Office) to see if any
Orders in Council were issued which may clarify the situation?
Christopher Southworth, 23 June 2008
Some excerpts from the National Archives:
9th December 1921. Lt-General Sir T.E. Clarke (Quarter Master General) to Sir
H.J. Creedy (Secretary to Army Council) "Applications have been received for the
renewal of Regimental Colours and the stock of Union Jacks is now very low. Have
to provide 800 to Egyptian Government. Is any alteration in the present form
contemplated?"
13th. H.J. Creedy to Secretary of State. "It will be for
decision whether we revert to the pre-1801 pattern or devise a new Imperial
Flag. Will you take up the matter with Cabinet, or shall we address the College
of Heralds ?"
16th. K. Lyon to H.J. Creedy. "Secretary of State thinks we
might write officially to the Cabinet Secretariat asking whether the point has
been considered or decided."
20th. H.J. Creedy. to Acting Secretary to
the Cabinet. "I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that their
attention has been drawn to the question of a possible revision of the 'Union
Jack' flag in consequence of the Treaty providing for the creation of the Irish
Free State." Reference to low stocks. "They would request therefore to be
informed as to whether any change in the existing flag is contemplated."
11th January 1922. Provisional Government of Ireland Committee. Extract from
Conclusions Reached at first four Meetings. P.G.I. 16. "In reply to an enquiry
by the War Office the committee have given the opinion that the 'Union Jack' is
the flag of the British Empire, and even if not accepted and used by the new
Irish Government, no alteration should be made in it by the rest of the Empire.
This question should not however be raised for discussion with Mr. Griffith. The
Committee think that their opinion should be brought to notice of the Cabinet."
4th Minute Conclusion 2. T.St.Q.Hill, (A Principal in the Cabinet Secretariat)
12th. T.E. Clarke to H.J. Creedy "The above Minute is not a Cabinet
decision, and includes the opinion that the matter should be brought to the
notice of the Cabinet. The position is not sufficiently clear to proceed with
manufacture. Could you get in touch with the Cabinet Secretariat?"
13th.
H.J. Creedy. to T.E. Clarke. "Mr. Churchill (Secretary of State at the War
Office) has since told us that the committee has plenary cabinet authority so I
think we can regard the decision as definite."
17th. T.E. Clarke to
Director of Equipment and Ordnance Stores. "Make a note of cabinet decision."
[National Archives (PRO) WO 32/4945]
David Prothero, 23 June 2008
[...]but of course, the position of H.M's Government with regard to the Union
Flag as the National Flag of this country is already known and is (in essence)
above restated. However, a cabinet decision does not the law make (as neither
does a statement by a cabinet minister), so in one sense we are still left up in
the air with regard to the strict legal status of the Union Flag.
Another
interesting point that I have just discovered is that an Order in Council, if
issued under authority granted by statute, remains in force until and unless any
subsequent legislation specifically revokes it (not just the right to grant, but
whatever had been granted). If this is accurate it follows, does it not, that if
the Union Flag was established under powers granted by statute law, and that
there was no Act subsequent which abnegated the design chosen, then it remains
as "Symbol of the Union"?
Christopher Southworth, 23 June 2008
It was noted that in Photographic Memories of Scotland (1995) many Scottish scenes from the period between 1890 and 1905 show flags in them. I noticed in several photos that red ensigns were flown from buildings ashore. I discovered that there seemed to be a break at the year 1900. In no photo prior to 1900 did I see a red ensign flown ashore, only Union Jacks. However in the 1900 and later photos, all flags flown ashore that I could identify were red ensigns, and NO Union Jacks. The pair of photos that brought this immediately to my attention were two of the same scene in different years. The scene is the Argyll Hotel in Dunoon. In a photo dated 1897 the Argyll Hotel and two nearby buildings are all flying Union Jacks. On the same page, in a photo dated 1904, the same three buildings are all flying red ensigns. Why are red ensigns being flown ashore? And why are they flown apparently to the exclusion of the Union Jack from 1900 to 1905 in these photos?
Devereaux Cannon
In 1902 - just about when it appears the Union Jack was eliminated from the
scenes in the book described above - it seems that moves were taken to in fact
grant it at least semi-official recognition as Britain's National Flag. This
transition seems to have started with Edward VII's coronation, and the
preparations therefore. In the spring of 1902, St Michael's Church, Folkestone,
purchased a new Royal Standard, (for the not inconsequential price of ten
pounds), with the full expectation that as loyal subjects they would be allowed
to fly it in conjunction with the coronation's festivities. Unfortunately, for
the parishioners of St Michael's, the King issued the now well-known general
prohibition against the use of His Royal Standard when he was not personally
present. Upset at their apparent waste of good money, the Rector of St Michael's
wrote to the Palace seeking an exception for his church. Not surprisingly, he
was denied special dispensation, but the King's secretary, (Lord Francis Knolly),
in an apparent attempt to ease the parish's disappointment, pointed out that
"..you can always fly the Union Jack".
This correspondence was revealed in the London Times of 7 June 1902, (p. 12.),
and apparently came as quite a surprise to many "in the know" for it seemed to
have sparked quite a controversy, with a series of editorials and letters to the
editor on the subject, running in the paper through to the end of the year. It
is also worth noting, in this regard, that the respected journal "Notes and
Queries" also had a spat of exchanges on the subject at about the same time. The
debate centred around the question: what is the British National Flag?; with
positions coalescing around the Red Ensign (since it is the private subject's
national flag at sea); and the Union Flag, (based upon the King's Private
Secretary's statement given to the Rector of St Michael's, quoted above). Those
in favour of the Red Ensign's usage ashore, claimed that Lord Knolly's statement
could only be considered a mere "obiter dictum", (i.e., an incidental
remark providing no basis for decision); but supporters of the Union Flag
suggested (and I think fairly) that "we may be sure that (his opinion) was not
given lightly". He did, after all, speak for the King. Since this debate was in
fact national - and included participants right across the UK - it seems
reasonable to suggest that the owners (or at least decision-makers) for the
Scottish hotels in the photographs (as well as, indeed, Scots in general) must
have been aware of the debate. Since
the debate was never really satisfactorily resolved, perhaps the owners
or decision makers for these hotels (and the people flying flags in the other
photos) once becoming aware of the debate, decided that the arguments proferred
in favour of the red ensign, vice the union flag, made more sense to
them, and as a result simply decided to switch flags.I would never bet my
mortgage on this, however; but I am afraid that in the absence of a piece of
evidence, in the mode of a "smoking gun" (such as an in-house memorandum
specifically explicating the change), I fear that reasoned speculation, (such as
I hope I have just presented) is all we have to go upon.
Glen Hodgins
The Union Flag (union jack) is used in the following ways at sea:
Joe McMillan, 4 June 2003
This statement might be true if applied only to merchant or other private
vessels--anyone know the flag rules for a royal visit to a non-state-owned
ship?
Joe McMillan, 4 June 2003
The flags which may legally be flown by a British merchant vessel are
exactly defined (as we know) and the UJ is not amongst them? The presence of
HM The Queen aboard a civil vessel would (I assume) mean it flying the Royal
Standard as a matter of course, but the remaining flags should remain
unaltered? If the rules for a royal visit aboard a vessel of Trinity House are
anything to go by, the Royal Standard is the only flag which acknowledges HM's
presence (although all allowed flags are flown including a jack whilst
underway).
Christopher Southworth, 4 June 2003
When under way a naval ship flies a Union Jack at the bow if it is flying the Royal Standard, or if it is escorting a ship flying the Royal Standard. Merchant ships vary. When King George V went to France in 1923 on the Southern Railway Steamship 'Biarritz', Naval Stores supplied a White Ensign, a Royal Standard and an Admiralty Flag, but not a Union Jack. [ADM 1/8650/237]
In 1939 King George VI went to Canada in the RMS Empress of Australia. The
Canadian Pacific House Flag was flown at the bow and the White Ensign at the
stern. However when the SS Gothic was used for a Royal Tour of Australia in
1951 it was arranged that a White Ensign or a Red Ensign would be flown, as
directed by the King; a Union Jack with the White Ensign, and the Company
House Flag with the Red Ensign. Princess Elizabeth had to take the place of
the King and the arranged procedure was followed, with Admiral Lambe advising
which ensign should be flown. [ADM 1/25471]
David Prothero, 4 June 2003
The actual flags flown were:
Jack: house flag of Shaw Savill and Albion Line (which was almost identical
to the NZ flag of the 1830s)
Foremast: Admiralty flag
Mizzenmast: Royal Standard
Ensign: Red Ensign
Also note that the year of the tour was in 1953-54
Miles Li, 4 June 2003
Admiralty Sessions, Old Bailey, Friday 25 April 1823. Solicitor's Department,
Customs.
King versus Marinel Krans and Others.
H.M.Revenue Cutter
'Badger' in the service of the Customs Department encountered a vessel that was
suspected of smuggling, and hoisted a red pendant and a Revenue Ensign as a
signal that the vessel was to heave-to. When it did not, an unshotted gun
was fired to draw attention to the signal. The vessel, which proved to be a
cutter named 'Four Brothers', continued on its way and hoisted no colours. A
shot was then fired into the 'Four Brothers', which returned the fire. After a
three hour engagement, in the course of which one member of the Custom cutter's
crew was killed, the 'Four Brothers' was boarded when off Dieppe and the
crew called for quarter.
At the trial the prosecution had to show that
the signal requiring a ship to stop, had been hoisted correctly. The relevant
regulation was an Order in Council of 1 February 1817. Before firing, a
Revenue Cutter should, "wear a pendant with a red field having a regal crown
described thereon at the upper part next the mast", and, "for an ensign a red
jack with a Union jack in a canton at the upper corner thereof next to the
staff, with a regal crown described in the centre of the red jack."
The
prosecution stated that before firing, a Revenue Pendant, having a red field
with a crown next the mast, was hoisted at the masthead, and a Revenue Ensign,
Union at the upper corner in a red field, at the peak-end.
Justice
Park, and King's Advocate Jervis, questioned the Revenue Cutter's Commander,
Henry Nazer, a Lieutenant in His Majesty's Navy, with a commission from the
Excise Department.
Park. Describe what the field of the ensign was.
Nazer. The field was red.
Park. Have you any technical term for that in the
navy ?
N. No. I should call it the Revenue Ensign.
Park. Is there any such
thing in your naval description as a jack ?
N. Yes.
Park. Had it a jack ?
N. Yes, at the corner.
Jervis. What was the Union jack in ?
N. In the
ensign.
Jervis. Have you any word to describe that ?
N. No.
Jervis.
Have you such a word as a 'canton' ?
N. No.
Jervis. At what corner was it
?
N. The upper corner next to the peak.
Jervis. Is that what you call the
staff ?
N. Yes, it should be.
Park. Tell us what it was, not what it
should be.
N. It was next the peak; the upper corner of the ensign.
Jervis. What is the peak ?
N. The gaff of the main sail.
Pendant and
ensign produced in court.
Park and Jervis question Badger's 1st Mate.
Park. Is that the ensign ?
1st Mate. Yes.
Park. Which would go next the
mast ?
1st Mate. This part (the end containing the Union jack).
Park. Is
there any regal crown there ?
1st Mate. Yes, in the centre.
Park. Do you
know the word 'jack' at all ?
1st Mate. Yes.
Park. Which is the 'jack' ?
1st Mate. This (pointing to it).
Park. Just open that part again where the
crown is in the ensign; what is that chequered thing in the middle ?
1st
Mate. That is what we call the Union. This (pointing to the red part) is what we
call the field.
Jervis. He does not know the term 'canton'. It is a term of
heraldry. Are those the usual signals ?
1st Mate. Yes, they are.
Park. And
you put them up before you fired the unshotted gun ?
1st Mate. Yes.
Gurney, prosecuting, and Brougham, defending, questioning John Ferrier,Vice-Admiral
of the Red.
Gurney. You saw the jack displayed just now ?
Admiral.
Yes.
G. Is that a red jack with the Union jack in a canton at the upper
corner ?
Admiral. It is usually called a Red Ensign, the 'jack' is commonly
called the 'canton'.
Judge. Is that an ensign; a red jack with a Union jack
in a canton at the upper corner there, next the staff, and with a regal crown
described in the centre of the red jack ?
Admiral. It is what is usually
called a red ensign.
Judge. Does it bear that character ?
Admiral. Yes it
does, it is the usual way in which ensigns are made.
Brougham. What is a
canton ?
Admiral. It is generally understood as the upper part of the ensign,
next to the staff, where the Union jack is fixed, attached to the ensign.
B.
Is it not a part of the flag partitioned off by a separate division ?
Admiral. It is attached to it. It is what they call the Union jack, which forms
the ensign, and is a quarter of the flag.
B. Is it not enclosed in lines of
some different colour ?
Admiral. The Union jack is formed of different
colours.
B. You say, if I understand you, that the ensign and Union jack is
in the canton ?
Admiral. No, it is termed the canton.
B. The Union jack is
called a canton of itself ?
Admiral. No, I do not mean to say that.
B. Is
it in a canton ?
Admiral. Yes, it is in a canton.
B. Is the Union jack in
a canton; is that the nature of the thing ?
Admiral. I do not exactly
understand you.
B. You tell me the Union jack is in a canton.
Admiral. I
tell you what is generally done.
B. Does that not imply that the Union jack
is in a part called the canton ?
Admiral. I did not exactly understand
before. The ensign is to be considered as composed of four cantons.
B. What
do you understand by 'Union jack in a canton' ?
Admiral. As forming one part
of the ensign. Supposing it divided into four parts, that in the upper part of
it; and it is generally hoisted next the mast or ensign staff.
B. You would
call those four parts the canton ?
Admiral. I suppose so. I do not know that
it is so.
B. It appears that the jack is in one of the four cantons ?
Admiral. Yes.
Justice Park in summing up said.
"On the subject of the
canton, which is an heraldic phrase and, which every person acquainted with the
subject knows, forms a small district in that ensign separated from the rest and
surrounded with crowns. That is the description in books of heraldry of what
a canton is. Therefore I think upon that part of the case it is as well to
relieve your minds from it at the outset."
Krans and the crew were
acquitted by what the judge called 'a merciful jury', as the ship was foreign
owned and more than half of the crew were foreign born. The seizure was made off
Dieppe, which was within 'limit for natives' but beyond 'limit for
foreigners'. Locally it was known, but not proved, that most of the crew were
English simulating ignorance of the English language, and that the vessel's
owner lived in Folkestone.
[National Archives (PRO) CUST 143/11]
David
Prothero, 30 December 2008
The Union Jack only goes in the centre of an odd number of flagpoles if the
other poles are empty, or the central pole is taller than the others (quite
common in Britain). Otherwise it is left to right as in the USA. We used to have
a very complex centre, left of centre, right of centre, left of left of centre,
right of right of centre, etc. A complete nightmare that no one understood so we
scrapped it. Left to right is so much simpler and the general public can
understand it. We also discourage flagpoles of different heights in the same
stand as these make things so much more complex.
Graham Bartram, 8 December 2007
An amendment to the 1993 Local Government Regulations specifically exempts
our national flags from planning restriction. This means that, where before we
needed local planning permission to raise a flagpole (often very difficult if
not nearly impossible to get), we can now do so without applying for Local
Government consent providing it is to fly the flags of the UK, England, Scotland
or Wales (if there is an extension of this I would be interested to hear about
it).
Christopher Southworth, 17 September 2003
From:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606840.hcsp:
Class 7 in Schedule 3 is sub-divided (by Regulation 6) into Classes 7A and 7B.
The present Class 7 in the 1992 Regulations (an advertisement in the form of a
flag on a single flagstaff projecting vertically from the roof of a building)
becomes Class 7A but is otherwise unchanged.
From:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606218-03.hcsp#TopOfPage:
A national flag of any country. Any national flag may be flown on a single
vertical flagstaff, so long as it does not have anything added to the design of
the flag or any advertising material added to the flagstaff.
Thus, if my understanding of all the wordage is correct, a flagpole may be erected anywhere, now, within the curtilage of a property, not just projecting from the roof; if:
Marten Gallagher, 18 May 2004
What constitutes a flag under English Law?
As far as I can find, the term "flag" is nowhere defined in English
constitutional law, although the term occurs in (for example) the Local
Government Regulations in it is apparently assumed that the definition is as is
generally understood. It is very probable, however, that in common law anything
which is designed to look like (or represent) a flag could and probably would be
so considered. In other words, to burn a paper representation of the Union Flag
is to burn the Union Flag?
Is the law different for Scotland?
I don't know
Are there penalties in either or both legal systems for flag desecration?
I cannot comment about Scottish law, but under English law the desecration of a
flag is not (in itself and of itself) a crime, however, in so doing the
perpetrator could possibly be committing another offence?
Does this apply also to the desecration of foreign flags?
Yes it does.
Ron Lahav and responses by Christopher Southworth, 14 April 2004