Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

What an earth are you up to Grandad? aka MMP v 17th Lancers


trsp62

Recommended Posts

I suspect there is only one person who knows the real answer to this, and he is not going to be able to help us!

I have only two pictures of my GF Sgt William Henry PRICE 7681076 (Formerly 802) MMP. One is at the head of his section of 'greys' (from which my avatar is cropped) believed to be 1928 in Wiesbaden with BAOR; the other is his wedding photograph of which more below.

First, though, I would like to set the scene. WHP was born into a British Army camp in Kamptee, India in May 1887: his father Frederick PRICE a Gunner/Collar-maker with G Battery 2nd Brigade, then U Battery 1st Bgde. He was baptised in May at Christ Church Kamptee [still standing see here: <a href="http://www.ans.com.au/~rampais/genelogy/india/kamptee/church.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ans.com.au/~rampais/genelogy/in...ptee/church.htm</a> - it's just incredible what you can find on the web].

He returned to the UK the following year as Fred finished his 12 years with 10th Bty, Coastal Bgde, RA at Tilbury. When he was 20 WHP joined-up in his father's footsteps:-

Enlisted at Portland into the Royal Artillery (Horse and Field Artillery)

Short Service engagement as a Gunner 12.12.07

Posted to No 4 Depot 12.12.07

Posted to 96th Battery 25.02.08

Posted to "T" Battery 16.02.09

Then obviously seeing an opportunity whilst serving in Egypt:-

Transferred to the Corps of Military Mounted Police 25.07.13

And for the record:-

Appointed to Lance Corporal 25.07.13

Extended service to Complete 12 with the Colours 06.10.13

Appointed to Acting Corporal 25.04.17

Appointed to Acting Sergeant 04.03.18

Appointed to Temporary Sergeant 27.09.18

Re‑engaged to complete 21 years service with the Colours 03.09.19

Promoted to War Substantive Corporal 29.07.21

Posted to Tank Workshop Training Battalion 01.09.21

Reverts to Substantive Corporal 09.02.23

Appointed to Acting Sergeant 09.08.23

Promoted to War Substantive Sergeant 15.10.23

Discharged: 11.12.28

Cause of discharge: Termination of engagement

Service with the Colours: 12.12.07 ‑ 11.12.28

Overseas Service:

India 17.02.09 - 05.10.10

En route to Egypt 06.10.10 ‑ 15.10.10

Egypt 16.10.10 ‑ 16.02.19

Salonica 17.02.19 ‑ 05.07.19

Germany 21.01.24 ‑ 24.02.28

Military Conduct: Exemplary

Medals issued:

Meritorious Service Medal

1914‑1915 Star

British War Medal

Victory Medal

Long Service and Good Conduct Medal

Medaille d'honneur en bronze avec glaives from the French

MID 21.7.17 (according to pay book)

[Get to the point, Tim! --- I will, I will, I just want to give a flavour of why it puzzles me]

Now by all accounts William was a serious, humourless, even severe man. For exmple my father had a rocking horse as a child but was only allowed to use it if he gave himself the proper commands out loud, and held the reins in the regulation manner. One of William's relations was in the Royal Warwicks (this may have been a Jack WARD, later to be RSM I believe) and he allegedly arrested him on more than one occasion for not wearing the correct or complete uniform... remember this one as we progress!

And to the photo... well almost... WHP was married in Tipton, Staffs on 5th Apr 1920 (at which time he was between Salonika [July 1919] and the Tank Workshop Training Battalion [July 1921] according to his service record. Now he always said he fought and was wounded in Russia, presumeably the White Russian campaign and therefore perhaps sometime in this gap?

We can perhaps safely assume therefore that the photo is taken in the UK and likely to be 1920.

So to the nub of it 'why-oh-why' is he wearing the dress uniform of the 17th Lancers? Two basic premises: a) he WAS entitled to; and B) he WAS NOT entitled to.

a) I have yet to find anyone who can give me a plausible reason why an MMP could be wearing a Lancer's uniform (as a civvy I was thinking maybe if you were attached to a Regt. you could wear their uniform......but those who know better than I say "no!" ). However the little I know about the man suggests that he would rather die than break King's Regulations, but I presume wearing a uniform you are not entitled to is a fairly significant issue! (see note re Jack WARD above). The uniform clearly has Sgt stripes up, yet my reading of the service summary above is that he wasn't a Sgt in 1920 - compounding the issue with unentitled rank!

Where would he have got the uniform - were the Lancers in the UK in 1920 (were they already associated with Tanks as the 17th/21st would be later? and therefore with Tank Battalion as above?).

I have also had comment that the metalled epaulettes were Indian Army regulation and the 17th Lancer's shouldn't have them in Europe at this time?

I have also had comment that the correct dress uniform for the 17th for other ranks, would be 'white' leather gloves?

Incidently WHP always wore the glove on the left hand, because he had been shot through the wrist. The bones were joined together with silver tubes, but there was no skin-grafting or closing of the wound, so you could see the bones moving below. He wore a leather supprt bracer under the glove. Interesting that this didn't make him unfit for service!

B) The most plausible explanation I have had is that MMPs only had khaki drill and did not have a dress uniform in 1920, and he may have wanted something a little more 'fancy' for his wedding photo. Yet my late father was adament that William would not have done this on a whim and would not wear a uniform he wasn't entitled to (but WHP died when my father was very young, so.....).

Anyway at long last for your inspection.....

post-18351-1219589628.jpg

Any thoughts much appreciated.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tim

I'll take the easy bits!

In 1920 he was a temporary Sergeant so he was entitled to wear the three stripes.

Shoulder chains were standard for British cavalry regiments, as well as Indian.

I cannot be sure about the white gloves, but they may have referred to full dress, which was obsolete after 1914. The photo shows him in undress uniform (in full dress, the lancers had a double-breasted tunic) and brown or black gloves may have been appropriate.

By 1920 soldiers had been issued with army-wide numbers, not regimental ones, and the record may have missed a transfer into 17th Lancers at the time of his re-enlistment.

I don't think there was any connection between 17th or 21st Lancers (merged in 1922) and the Tank Corps in 1920.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the record may have missed a transfer into 17th Lancers at the time of his re-enlistment.

Ron

Thanks, missed that temp Sgt line! Don't think so on the tfr though as the other pic which is reputedly later - 1928; is definitely MMP.

(I have recently applied for his full service record from ARC and hope that may clear up some of the questions, but thought I'd post anyway and see what came up).

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I still think he is wearing the badge of a Farrier. I wonder if his skill as a blacksmith was in some way used with the Tank Workshop. Are you sure there is no way he went from the MMP's to the Lancers, trained as a farrier etc. Does all your info come from his paybook? I think your best bet would be to get his service records. You could also get a copy of his marrage certificate, it should have his rank and unit on it, this might answer a few questions for you.

Good luck,

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I still think he is wearing the badge of a Farrier. I wonder if his skill as a blacksmith was in some way used with the Tank Workshop. Are you sure there is no way he went from the MMP's to the Lancers, trained as a farrier etc. Does all your info come from his paybook? I think your best bet would be to get his service records. You could also get a copy of his marrage certificate, it should have his rank and unit on it, this might answer a few questions for you.

Good luck,

Stewart

Various sources.

I have wedding cert - original family copy has "Sergeant" but no unit. As I say, if the other photo is 1928 then he was still in MMP at discharge. Pay book is interesting too - might consider a separate post on that, as appears to have all been filled in at the same time - 1925 in Cologne, which seems odd.

First child born in '21 in Wareham (was this army camp?), second in '22 at Bovington (I presume the camp and where Tank museum now is, and guess that tallies with Tank Training BTN); 3rd '23 location unknown; 4th '25 Wiesbaden (Germany BAOR posting).

Paybook also states: Trade on Enlistment: "Electrical Engineer"! this sounds very grand for a man who sees his future in the 'rank and file' of the armed services, and my father and I often puzzled over this.

His father Fred (of RA above) is a Steel Melter on the 1901 Census, but by the wedding of William's elder brother in 1903 he is an "engineer". So I guess profession statements may be open to interpretation.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Various sources.

I have wedding cert - original family copy has "Sergeant" but no unit. As I say, if the other photo is 1928 then he was still in MMP at discharge. Pay book is interesting too - might consider a separate post on that, as appears to have all been filled in at the same time - 1925 in Cologne, which seems odd.

First child born in '21 in Wareham (was this army camp?), second in '22 at Bovington (I presume the camp and where Tank museum now is, and guess that tallies with Tank Training BTN); 3rd '23 location unknown; 4th '25 Wiesbaden (Germany BAOR posting).

Paybook also states: Trade on Enlistment: "Electrical Engineer"! this sounds very grand for a man who sees his future in the 'rank and file' of the armed services, and my father and I often puzzled over this.

His father Fred (of RA above) is a Steel Melter on the 1901 Census, but by the wedding of William's elder brother in 1903 he is an "engineer". So I guess profession statements may be open to interpretation.

Tim

While trying to trace family history I found an abundance of engineers. Since most of them were connected to the coal mines or the railways, I found it a little puzzling. What I later found out was a tendency for train drivers, and those who worked with steam engines, to be called engineers on birth and marriage certificates.

Since coalmines used steam engines of various descriptions I found this explanation feasible {the engineman/engineer who worked the shaft cage for example}.

Also as per the uniform, my father was in the E.Yorks but I've a studio photo of him in highlanders uniform, but he never insisted on me giving the rocky horse proper commands. Maybe on re-enlistment he took what was on offer before transfer to his choice of regiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe on re-enlistment he took what was on offer before transfer to his choice of regiment?

I supposed that re-enlistment was just a case of "your times up next Wednesday, Price - You want another 10 years? ... Oh go-on then sign us on Sgt." but am I missing something here - is it not as straight forward as staying on in the same unit?

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any possibility of some jiggery-pokery by a photographer to superimpose the uniform? On the image I see there seems to be a lot of retouching on the 'groom's side, but not on the bride's. Also the cap and collar do not appear to fit well. The original may tell you more. Just a thought.

Daggers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any possibility of some jiggery-pokery by a photographer to superimpose the uniform? On the image I see there seems to be a lot of retouching on the 'groom's side, but not on the bride's. Also the cap and collar do not appear to fit well. The original may tell you more. Just a thought.

Daggers

This is a scan of a print the original that my father had re-touched to take out some tears over the bride, and I have had to reduce the resolution considerably to post of course. I don't have the orignal to hand, but will take a look at it the next time I am at my Mum's. Had never considered the possibility of an original 'forgery' !

Am happy to email higher quality scan (of my re-touched print) if anyone wants to look at it.

TimP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paybook also states: Trade on Enlistment: "Electrical Engineer"! this sounds very grand for a man who sees his future in the 'rank and file' of the armed services, and my father and I often puzzled over this.

Engineer and electrical engineer cover a very wide range of trades and professions. My father is shown on my birth certificate as an electrical engineer (he was involved in the setting up of hush hush communications centres at the time) but it could equally have been applied to someone who wired up the lights in your house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Engineer does not have a trade, nor does he wire up the lights in your house, or even try to fix your washing machine with a 7lb lump hammer. However these technicians, labourers and wannabes like to use the name Engineer. Same goes on marriage certificates and census returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.................

Paybook also states: Trade on Enlistment: "Electrical Engineer"! this sounds very grand for a man who sees his future in the 'rank and file' of the armed services, and my father and I often puzzled over this.

..................

Tim

If he saw his future in the Army then both before and after the great war, it would of necessity have been in the rank and file. A commissioned officer on a home posting required an independent income unless single and with no other commitments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he saw his future in the Army then both before and after the great war, it would of necessity have been in the rank and file. A commissioned officer on a home posting required an independent income unless single and with no other commitments.

It's also of course a truism of the forces even today that real authority and knowledge lie with WO1s .......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 1920's the Army saw major reductions in numbers and as such he could have transferred to the 17th Lancers, as the Corps of Military Police would have been much reduced in numbers. Having previously served in the Mounted Branch of that Corps transfer would have been no problem, but you do have a situation wherebye with the new 1920's numbering system, his CMP regimental number would have gone with him into the Lancers, with no change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 1920's the Army saw major reductions in numbers and as such he could have transferred to the 17th Lancers, as the Corps of Military Police would have been much reduced in numbers. Having previously served in the Mounted Branch of that Corps transfer would have been no problem, but you do have a situation wherebye with the new 1920's numbering system, his CMP regimental number would have gone with him into the Lancers, with no change.

That's interesting Graham, but still falls at the 2nd photo being in MMP uniform (if it is 1928 of course, can't prove that). Will have a look at his medal cards again when I get home tonight. I am pretty sure that the LSGCM card has a 1926 date on it and states MMP, so still leaves the question open of why the Lancer's uniform in 1920 (unless he went MMP- Lancers-MMP!).

Have just had a letter back from ARC saying all Family History searches on go-slow as they have overload of core activities at the moment.... 'it's the waiting that gets you'.

TimP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checked the LSGCM medal card and it is dated 1926 and Corps of Miltary Police/ MMP are the units mentioned (see below). At that's well after the wedding photo was taken.

TimP

post-18351-1220006677.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Some time on and I am still worrying away at this! As I said right at the top I don't suppose I will ever get a definitive answer but it won't be for the want of trying. I now have GFs records from the ARC and I can state categorically that he was in MMP from 1913 til the end of his service in 1928. No hint of a temporary stint in 17th Lancers at his re-engagement to complete 21 years at 3.9.19. (which is noted as "authy: Mil. Police Part II Orders 190/1919).

Can anyone confirm where the 17th Lancers were in April 1920? I have from Wikipedia:

"When the war ended in November 1918, the 17th went to Cologne, Germany, as part of the British Army of Occupation. In 1920 the 17th went to Ireland where it took part in the Irish War of Independence. In 1921 the 17th's title was altered slightly to the 17th Lancers (Duke of Cambridge's Own)."

Its that gap between Cologne and arriving in Ireland where there is just the chance that they may have crossed paths with a certain MMP Sgt!

TimP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some time on and I am still worrying away at this! As I said right at the top I don't suppose I will ever get a definitive answer but it won't be for the want of trying. I now have GFs records from the ARC and I can state categorically that he was in MMP from 1913 til the end of his service in 1928. No hint of a temporary stint in 17th Lancers at his re-engagement to complete 21 years at 3.9.19. (which is noted as "authy: Mil. Police Part II Orders 190/1919).

Can anyone confirm where the 17th Lancers were in April 1920? I have from Wikipedia:

"When the war ended in November 1918, the 17th went to Cologne, Germany, as part of the British Army of Occupation. In 1920 the 17th went to Ireland where it took part in the Irish War of Independence. In 1921 the 17th's title was altered slightly to the 17th Lancers (Duke of Cambridge's Own)."

Its that gap between Cologne and arriving in Ireland where there is just the chance that they may have crossed paths with a certain MMP Sgt!

TimP

Tim, my understanding from both own research over the years and a Corps history 'buff' colleague in the RMP, is that it was not until after National Service ended that direct entry to the Military Police was permitted. Before that a man had to serve and gain experience in another arm of service and then transfer. The intent was that every man should have experience of being a soldier before becoming a policeman and also to spread a mix of backgrounds within the Corps. With that in mind I imagine that your man must have enlisted at some point in the 17th Lancers and then transferred to the CMP (MMP). The MMP had to expand rapidly from its formation and at various other times in its history and apparently the method used was to seek volunteers from the cavalry and RHA/RFA of mature men with service beyond a certain number of years on temporary detachment. These men would serve with the MMP, but might either stay and transfer fully or return to their original unit. Apparently, moving back and forth was not uncommon. This did not however apply to their brethren within the CMP - the more pedestrian men of the Military Foot Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope not that.. he transferred from the Artillery. I have copies of records from MMP Corps Order Books of his transfer, and his service records clearly show the same. The photo, at 1920, dates at 13 years into his service and seven after the transfer to MMP. Best suggestion I have had is still probably that he had the uniform 'somehow' and just thought it would look good to get married in! It is just that my late father was absolutely adamant that his father did everything by the book. If I can place him in the same location as the 17th Lancers though, might take me half a step towards explaining when he got the uniform.

TimP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having arrested and charged at least one family member with being incorrectly dressed, I would imagine that there would be no way that he would have his own flagrant breach of regulations on display in his wedding photo for all and sundry to see!! At the very least the relative would get his own back! Either that, or we have an early example of a "Walt" dressing up in some finery for the wedding photo. Is there no way his wife's family may have had 17th Lancer connections, so he wore a fancy borrowed uniform just to please his bride's family?

i can't see (given all your information) how he would have worn, however uncomfortably, a uniform to which he had no entitlement whatsoever, yet despite your long searches, there appears to be no evidence of any involvement by him with 17th Lancers.

An insoluble riddle, given what you state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope not that.. he transferred from the Artillery. I have copies of records from MMP Corps Order Books of his transfer, and his service records clearly show the same. The photo, at 1920, dates at 13 years into his service and seven after the transfer to MMP. Best suggestion I have had is still probably that he had the uniform 'somehow' and just thought it would look good to get married in! It is just that my late father was absolutely adamant that his father did everything by the book. If I can place him in the same location as the 17th Lancers though, might take me half a step towards explaining when he got the uniform.

TimP

I categorically do not believe a military policeman would have worn a uniform to which he was not entitled. At that time to do so was both a civil and military offence and to be caught in breach would have ruined his career totally. As a minimum he would have been reduced to the ranks and lost his place in the MMP as a result (the minimum rank being LCpl). There must be an explanation for this I believe, it is a question of finding it, e.g. how positive are you that it's him? Could he have had a twin brother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...