Whilst trawling the net recently I remembered how many sites (and books and people for that matter) get it wrong about the ’45. The most common mistake seems to be that the army that fought against the Jacobites was Hanoverian. It wasn’t nor was the Government. The army was made up of British citizens, from all four elements of Great Britain.
As far as I am aware there weren’t even any Hanoverian  agents, or advisors amongst the ranks of the British Army. Of course there will be those who argue that the King was from Hanover, and therefore the army being a royal army was Hanoverian. That argument holds no water what so ever as it was the government that controlled the army, not the king.
Hanover id have it’s own army that was deployed in Europe. It is not a real surprise to learn that the uniforms were almost identical to the British. The company I work for has its head office in Hanover and I have visited the museum there on several occasions. They have an absolutely stunning painting there. It is of George II reviewing the Hanoverian army. The detail is wonderful as each character is about 3 ½” high. The painting fills the whole side of one of the galleries. I managed to get hold of several copies of the book about the painting for our Redcoats, unfortunately it’s in German, but non the less as it details several areas of the painting it is worth it for the costume references.
Back on subject! Saying that the British Army is Hanoverian is as ridiculous as saying the Jacobite army was made up French troops.

Tod,
Do you know of any documentary evidence that would indicate that those in the Jacobite forces of the Army of King James serving under HRH Prince Charles Edward Stuart referred to the forces serving at the order of King George II, and particularly those under the command of his younger son William Augustus (Butcher Billy), the Duke of Cumberland, whom he had placed in command of the forces opposing the Jacobites invasion of England, only as "British" or "English" and that they never referred to them as "Hanoverian" referring to the House of Hanover that was occupying the throne of the UK at that time?  I understand that there were elements of the forces opposing the Army of King James from loyalist Whig clans and nobles in Scotland, from other parts of the UK (i.e. Ireland, Wales) as well as some from Butcher Billy's earlier days as Commander-in-Chief of the Hanoverian Army and allied forces on the Continent.  But as George I was the Elector of Hanover and the family still held Hanover as part of their domain under his son George II, and as the House of Hanover was in command of the forces that opposed the Jacobites in the Army of King James, would it be any more inaccurate to refer to their forces as "Hanoverian" than it would be to refer to the Army of King James as "Jacobite" or "Scottish" due to the presence of forces other than Jacobite and Scottish in the ranks?  
Just seeking historical correctness...       

Short reply for now, I'll look up some references.
The commanders of the army were appointed by the government not the King. Since the Civil War in the 17th century the king held no real power or authority over the army. If they did King James wouldn't have legged it over to France. The king of course could make as many requests as he liked to the government and the government consulted him on many issues, that of course is putting it very simply. With that in mind there is no way the army can or could be described as Hanoverian, if it was what would you call the one from Hanover ?
;)

I was aware that Parliment controlled the purse strings of the UK, but I guess I was under the mistaken impression that the crown commanded and controlled the armed forces.  Would Parliment's approval have been required for the appointment of William Augustus as Commander-in-Chief?

Due to being in the middle of moving house I can't get to the references, but the army was under parliaments command and the militia the crown.  This was because the army could be sent to any colonial or british dependant and serve abroad, but the militia was for defence of the realm.

How about calling it the Georgian Army?
They were fighting to protect King George's position on the throne?

Just a stupid blonde proposal or a nice idea?

greenthings Wim-Jaap

You are correct in that it is a Georgian Army, but historians refer to it as the British Army in all other conflicts and aspects, so that is the term we should use.

On the subject of how or why people got commands. Commissions were bought, and sold. In general those who raised Regts. never appeared with them in the field, however it was a good source of income and of course credibility. You could also lobby to get a posting. After the '45 many high ranking officers who were posted in Scotland requested postings in Europe (Gibraltar for example) and America/Canada. But that's a whole different subject and maybe needs a new thread.