But, if we’re questioning precedent… We need look no further than The Royal Marines Cadets.
6 Likes
Added a bit there. It’s not new that we’re part of a Royal organisation.
2 Likes
Funnily enough I was only reading through the sensitive words regs a few weeks ago for my masters. I have a feeling I will be having nightmares about them until my exam!
Back on topic … whether those regulations even apply to our organisation is a question for someone more qualified in company law than I am (having read the relevant sections of the Companies Act, because that’s the fun kind of activity I get to do for my masters, and not wanting to spend all night intensively researching statutory definitions, the best answer I can come up with is “maybe”).
As others have stated, we’re not the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, we’re the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, called as such to bring our organisation and branding in line with our parent service. We are using the name as part of the RAF (in the same way as the examples @themajor has given), not a separate entity which suddenly decided to claim separate rights to use the word “royal” from 2017. As such, even if we are subject to the regulations I doubt we would have been required to seek permission under them.
Given the amount of time we have been using the name, and how long we used the RAFAC logo and branding before then, I would imagine if we did not have authority to use it we would have known about it by now.
1 Like
Interestingly though I’m told the Royal Agricultural College Beagles have separate permission to use the Royal title from the college itself, ie. they are the Royal Agricultural College Beagles not the Royal Agricultural College Beagles.
As a result, when the RAC became the RAU, the beagles didn’t change their name.
1 Like
Thank you all - I think @tmmorris comes closest here to my line of thinking. The Air Training Corps has never (prior to 2017), been branded 'Royal Air Force {anything}, however the Air Cadet Organisation suddenly became the ‘Royal Air Force Air Cadets’ - so essentially the branding change adopted the ‘Royal’ name by virtue of association with the Royal Air Force.
To me it feels like this was done to bolster the ‘blue footprint’; but I still question whether (especially as our Cadets, NCOs and Officers are not members of the RAF), how it could be claimed we can use their name as we are not part of them, but rather we are ‘sponsored’ by them.
Given that we fall under the jurisdiction of 22Grp, I’d say that’s reason enough.
2 Likes
I was just clumsily wording something similar, but I think this sums it up nicely!
You see though that despite being part of 22 Group at the same time this rebranding took place plans to remove the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve Commission from officers were well underway thereby reducing the relationship with the parent service. That’s at odds with the rebranding, where the opinion is that we are entitled to use the Royal Air Force name as we are ‘part’ of the RAF.
Why is it?
We can report to, and be parented by, the RAF without being active members bound by the same rules, given our volunteer status. The change in commission is an entirely separate thing and shouldn’t be mixed in with this. Whatever this is.
1 Like
That is quite different to ‘being part of’ and therefore having the right to use the RAF name. What changed in 2017 to make us the Royal Air Force Air Cadets as opposed to the ‘Air Cadet Organisation’?
Did no one think ‘Hold on, we’re going to write to our volunteers to tell them we’re taking away their RAF Reserve Commissions; but we’re going to call ourselves the Royal Air Force Air Cadets’ .
We are either part of the RAF and can therefore use their name, ranks and commissions and abide by their regulations; or we are outside the RAF and ‘Air Cadets’ free of the restrictions we seem to keep having imposed on us.
I’m pretty sure no. Because it’s a kids club and nobody really cares that much.
And if you want evidence of that assertion, it’s been 4 years and nobody else has made that argument.
We were outside the RAF. Then we were issued a royal warrant. Just because we didn’t use the name royal doesn’t mean we’re now inappropriately using the title. And it also doesn’t mean that we can’t use their ranks, structures and uniform.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see the point of this argument.
10 Likes
What ‘argument’, it’s a discussion/ query. 
You have answered by saying ‘no one really cares’, which is a shame.
I don’t mean aggressive argument, or one with animosity. Just that you have presented an opinion and are defending it, ergo it’s an argument.
1 Like
Let’s not also forget that we are not a private company/charity/entity but rather are run by the government, aka the Crown.
1 Like
We are akin to Supply or MT
Run to the Air Forces requirements rules and for their benefit…
…but manned by an outsourced organisation - in our case volunteers
3 Likes
From an outsider point of view, @Squadgy it looks like you have formed an opinion and are now trying to back it up with facts. It doesn’t appear the facts do that though, so I’m not sure what else this is going to achieve.
And, the reality is, no one does really care any more. It was a rubbish rebranding, but it’s done.
Conversely, I actually think it was a good rebrand.
The old Air Cadets brand was poor. The logotype was hideous (that’s a personal opinion I’ll grant you). It showed no obvious link to the one element of the organisation which makes us who we are - the link to the RAF.
I never much liked the strapline to be honest, but now that it appears alongside the RAF logo it makes a lot more sense. It finally has a context, instead of just being a Star Trek knock-off.
On a different point - The move to CFC instead of an RAFVR commission is not “at odds” with the rebrand in any way. RAFAC Officers perform the same role they always have, the link to the RAF is still there in the use of “RAFAC” as a postnominal instead of “RAFVR(T)”. It’s just a different type of Queen’s commission.
In addition to that, the balance was further pushed towards an increased link to the RAF by bringing all the WOs and SNCOs under the same RAFAC umbrella where previously we had no such obvious link.
I’m afraid that to claim that we have reduced the relationship with the RAF just sounds like the sort of thing that an officer who is disgruntled at no longer being able to claim RAF Volunteer Reserve might say.
As to whether we have the ‘right’ to use the word “Royal” I’d say that we are owned and operated by the RAF under control of 22 Gp… They can call us whatever they’d like, including using their own name.
We are not alone in the realms of pulling brands closer in. The umbrella term of “RAF Reserves” is now commonly used to refer to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in just the same way as RAF Air Cadets is now commonly used to refer to the ATC.
9 Likes
*and the CCF(RAF)
1 Like
if we instead consider the flip of your question.
rather than why are we the Royal Air Force Air Cadets
but instead ask
why are we not the Air Force Air Cadets
firstly the repeated use of “air” is pointless - easily deleted and thus being the “Air Force Cadets”
however Air Force Cadets not only is ambiguous but makes no reference to the RAF if only because there is the dropping of the Royal.
Although colloquially persons may say “…when I was in the Air Force…” it is recognised that they are referring to the Royal Air Force - but the brand/name/title for the organisation should not be colloquial and thus no need to drop the Royal.
So why are we not the Air Force Air Cadets?
the title “Air Force” makes the link to the RAF ambiguous - in the same way the Air Scouts title sits with the RAF.
Not only this, it has a repeated use of Air - for no reason.
Thus by including the Royal in the title, it makes the rest of the name make sense as a name, and makes a direct link to the RAF who is the sponsor and manager of the organisation.
and can fully see the argument that if the Sea Cadets aren’t referred to as the Royal Navy Sea Cadets why should the Air Cadets be prefixed with RAF, but the two situations are not apples Vs apples.
the Sea Cadets are handled in a vastly different way by the RN that the Air Cadets are by the RAF
there was also a general RAF branding exercising bringing everyone into line with a standardised logo and title
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 minutes after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.