Guest blossoms Posted 17 March , 2004 Share Posted 17 March , 2004 has anybody heard of the 'royal lancashire regiment'. this has appeared on the medal role for my great grandfather who served with the lancashire fusiliers, which is also cited on the medal role. could this be a misutake of the person entering the regiments onto the medal role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 17 March , 2004 Share Posted 17 March , 2004 I think this refers to the The King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster). 4th Foot became in May 1881 The Royal Lancaster Regiment (The King's Own) becoming in July 1881 The King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) They merged with the Border Regiment in 1959 becoming The King's Own Border Regiment. Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Seymour Posted 17 March , 2004 Share Posted 17 March , 2004 Malcolm, One of my Old Boys, Charles Wells, was, according to CWGC, in 7th Bn. Royal Lancaster Regiment before he transferred to the RFC. Any idea why CWGC doesn't refer to it as 7th Bn. The King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster)? Regards, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 17 March , 2004 Share Posted 17 March , 2004 In WW1 it was the King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment). Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 17 March , 2004 Share Posted 17 March , 2004 Take a tip. Read the Long, Long Trail for questions like this. Try it. Type lancaster into the search box and see what you get, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Seymour Posted 17 March , 2004 Share Posted 17 March , 2004 Chris, Always check main site after fiasco with Casualty Clearing Stations! Found two King's Owns: Lancaster and Scottish Borderers. Just wondered why CWGC doesn't use King's Own tag for Lancasters. Couldn't be any confusion with only two. Was it, perhaps, a regimental custom not to use the King's Own tag? Regards, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 18 March , 2004 Share Posted 18 March , 2004 Was it, perhaps, a regimental custom not to use the King's Own tag? Nope. Within the regiment, it was simply known as the "Kings Own" (forget the "Royal", the "regiment" and the "Lancaster") when used in conversation and/or written about in anything other than official documentation. (There was no confusion, as the other "kings own" were always referred to as the "Kosbies" or "KOSB", or the "Koylies" or "KOYLI", etc. etc.). The shoulder titles. the cap badge and the serving soldiers (my father included) only ever used the term "Kings Own", and ,on rare occasions, "the Kings Own Lancasters". The official designation is as previously mentioned, however. (But who ever likes to keep things on the official lines when in the Army? ) Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 18 March , 2004 Share Posted 18 March , 2004 The official designation is as previously mentioned, however. (But who ever likes to keep things on the official lines when in the Army? ) Dave. Oh so true Dave! Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Soul Posted 18 March , 2004 Share Posted 18 March , 2004 The CWGC seem to use both "Royal Lancaster Regiment" and "King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment" for WW1 commemorations. There is no apparent logic as to which variant is used. Regards. Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Seymour Posted 18 March , 2004 Share Posted 18 March , 2004 Dave, Most interesting - thanks. Andy, Perhaps they'll discover logic one day! Regards, David 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