bobyates Posted 20 April , 2009 Share Posted 20 April , 2009 I've just downloaded my grandfathers M.I.C and I just want to clear up a few queries There's a number 2' in the top left hand corner - is this just an indexers mark? 'Star' has been crossed out and 'Badge' written in, can anyone tell me what the difference would be? Also under 'Remarks' there's a series of figures that look a bit like fractions! 3/5/45 or 65 anyone out there got any ideas? any help much appreciated thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dycer Posted 20 April , 2009 Share Posted 20 April , 2009 Bob, Is there a date of entry on the MIC? If there is a date,this should signify whether your Grandfather is entitled to a Star. As regards the other remarks.If you upload the MIC on this Thread,the experts will decipher it but have a look on the Forum guidance you will find a section on how to interpret it. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobyates Posted 20 April , 2009 Author Share Posted 20 April , 2009 George Thanks for your prompt reply - I have looked through the forums but can't find anything to help me. I have now uploaded the mic with the hope that someone might be able help.........anyone? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 20 April , 2009 Share Posted 20 April , 2009 He was not entitled to a Star, not least as he was not enlisted until 21 May 1917. The entry where Star might have been has been replaced by his Silver War Badge number. He appears on two rolls, E/1/101B122 page 2324 and SWB E/1386/1, both of which are held at the National Archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 20 April , 2009 Share Posted 20 April , 2009 "There's a number 2' in the top left hand corner - is this just an indexers mark?" It relates to his regiment - The Queen's (Royal West Surrey Regiment) were the 2nd Foot. Its not uncommon for the regimental number to be added to these cards. Regards Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 20 April , 2009 Share Posted 20 April , 2009 Note the entries in black Ball point pen;they refer to 3rd May 1965 {3/5/65} enquiries about the recipients entitlement & that was when the Badge Number "B~155549" was entered on the MiC,along with date of enlistment & discharge & KR392{xvi} & SWB List page number "S/89" reference.;as until placed with the National Archive the MiCs were living records for the Army Medal Office to respond to veterans & NoK enquiries... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 20 April , 2009 Share Posted 20 April , 2009 Its not uncommon for the regimental number to be added to these cards. Regards Mike S Mike, I ask this because I don't know the answer: is it Regimental Number, or Regimental District? After the Cardwell Reforms obviously many regiments - most regiments, indeed - were amalgamated in pairs (such as the 57th and 77th becoming The Middlesex Regiment), so I wonder if the number refers to the recruiting district of the regiment, rather than the pre-1881 number. I may well be wrong: I don't know the answer, hence my asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Jones Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Morning All, In my opinion it is the Number given to the Regiment in the 1751 reforms. The Worcestershire Regiment was an amalgamation of the 29th and 36th of Foot. The number 29 appears at the top of many WORCESTER Medal Index Cards. Check out David Morgan 9077 on Ancestry. It cannot be a co-incidence. To add to that the Regimental District numbers did not go up that high. I think they only went up to District 9. The Worcestershire Regiment were in District 7, As a aside to that , in the past I have searched for the list of Regimental Districts (I did see it once). Anyone know where I can find it , please? Regards Mike Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Steven That's an interesting thought and a possibility I hadn't considered. I suppose what would clinch it would be a pre-1881 regimental number appearing on one of the MICs. [Edited] - I've just realised that last statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Any number would likely be that associated with the 'successor' regiment. Regards Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Steven Another thought - I've seen KRRC MICs with 60 in the top left corner. That would surely suggest regimental number rather than regimental district? Rfn Henry A Cobb R31617 would be one example found on Ancestry. Regards Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Mike I agree with you that this is probably the 'traditional' regimental number. However surely the 1881 Regimental District for the Worcesters was 29? I too have had difficulty in finding a list of the 1881 district numbers on the Internet. There was one (IIRC) on the late www.regiments.org which might still be accessed via the Wayback Machine archive. However it is difficult to navigate in archive form and I haven't been able to locate it. Otherwise I can find nothing on the internet which surprises me a little. It would be useful to have to hand. Regards Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobyates Posted 21 April , 2009 Author Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Many thanks to all those who have responded..and so quickly..you have indeed a wealth of expertise and knowledge! I'll keep digging and will probably ask for some more expert help soon thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Jones Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Hi Mike S, I know for sure that the Worcestershire Regiment was in District 7 in the Great War. I have to admit that I do not know when these districts were formed but assumed it was in 1908. District 7 included Warwicks, Worcs, Glousters, Berkshires and the Oxford and Bucks. One way you can tell which district any Regiment was in is to check it's Training Reserve Battalion numbers. If you look at the Medal Index Card for Edward Barlow, Worcestershire Regt.. You will see his Training Reserve Number is TR/7/5635. The 7 indicates District. Also top left of his card is 29, our old Regiment Identification Number. Regards Mike J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themonsstar Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Mike were did you get your info about districts Regimental District Numbers go form No1 to No 102. The Royal Fusiliers were district number 7 This started in 1881 Try "General Monthly Returns of the Regimental Strength of the British Army" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themonsstar Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Line regiments were grouped in geographical regions a round the Records Offices and given an individual code following the Records Office letter code. The Worcestershire Regiment would be letter code L ( Warwick records office covered the L area). L-Warwick Gloucestershire Regiment. L/101/B Worcestershire Regiment. L/102/B Royal Warwickshire Regiment. L/104/B Berkshire Regiment. L/105/B Ox & Bucks Light Infantry. L/106/B L/103/B Not identified. From General Monthly Returns of the Regimental Strength of the British Army WW1. Regimental District Numbers: Gloucestershire Regiment.28 Worcestershire Regiment. 29 Royal Warwickshire Regiment. 6 Berkshire Regiment. 49 Ox & Bucks Light Infantry. 43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Jones Posted 21 April , 2009 Share Posted 21 April , 2009 Evening Mons Star, I got my info on the Disticts from the Long, Long Trail (LLT) and years of digging. I will copy a bit from the LLT about Districts. I have my Grandfather's original marriage certificate. He had to send this in for official record keeping. It is date stamped 8th April 1913 by " Infantry Records Office District No. 7 Warwick" If you look on Ancestry Service records. Put in Richard Marsh 9078 Worcestershire Regiment. His record survived the fire. Look at Form 118, Effects. It is clearly on there. COPIED FROM the LONG. LONG TRAIL. "The numbering of soldiers of the Trainin Reserve Each battalion was allocated a block of 4000 numbers. The standard form for a number was "TR/the number of the District in which the Record Office of the unit was (there were 12 such Districts)/the man's unique number". In other words, something like TR/3/12345" Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 22 April , 2009 Share Posted 22 April , 2009 Mike I believe we're talking about two different "District" numbering schemes here. The "Regimental District" was created as part of Cardwell's localisation scheme whereby the country was divided into 66 Regimental Districts based on county boundaries and population density. As you rightly point out the Worcestershire Regiment was formed from the 29th and 36th Regiments of Foot. The Regimental District for the Worcesters took the number of the 'senior' foot regiment and thus became Regimental District No.29 (note there is no No.36 Regimental District). I believe it is these Regimental District numbers that are shown on the MICs. These Regimental Districts were grouped together for administrative purposes under a number of Record Offices, the Worcesters coming under Warwick Record Office as Roy has already shown. It would appear that there were 12 such Record Office Districts (although I can't find anywhere that lists them with their numbers), Warwick Record Office was obviously "Infantry Records Office District No. 7". By way of example of the two schemes: "Infantry Records Office District No.7" included the Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Royal Warwickshire & Berkshire Regiments along with the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry. "Regimental District No.7" was the Royal Fusiliers. Hope this makes sense. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 22 April , 2009 Share Posted 22 April , 2009 there were 12 such Record Office Districts (although I can't find anywhere that lists them with their numbers) What luck, Ron has annotated post #2 on this thread http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...p;#entry1168600 with the 'Grouped' District numbers. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Jones Posted 23 April , 2009 Share Posted 23 April , 2009 Hi Steve, Yes it does make sense to me, now. Thank you. Also we now have both sets of details, which I have copied into my records. I have tried for some months to get the list off the internet anywhere, no luck. So this Forum has, as usual, ground breaking only source information. Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now