FROGSMILE Posted 25 September , 2023 Share Posted 25 September , 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, tankengine888 said: Despite your answering a question from a now inactive member, it is still spins a rather good yarn on my end. Excuse my possible ignorance, but when was the height of medal ribbons standardized? Zidane. Dress Regulations iteration of 9th July 1900, issued under the hand of Field Marshal Wolseley as Commander-in-Chief. By 1911 it had evolved that a military medal riband was 1 1/4 inches wide, was to be no longer in suspension than 1 inch unless the number of clasps dictated more, and that ribands, when worn alone, to were be half an inch in length (height). Edited 25 September , 2023 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 25 September , 2023 Share Posted 25 September , 2023 1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said: Afternote: I’ve only just realised that David B has not been seen online here since July 2021. Despite his absence, a very interesting and informative post for the rest of us. Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 25 September , 2023 Share Posted 25 September , 2023 31 minutes ago, charlie2 said: Despite his absence, a very interesting and informative post for the rest of us. Charlie I’m pleased that it’s of interest Charlie. 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 26 September , 2023 Author Share Posted 26 September , 2023 I'm trying to write the story of the lads from my area who served in WW1. Regarding names, I know one lad was called 'Dade' by his family. That's nice to know but will probably use 'David' to identify him, I know another 'Alexander' was known as Alick (which I will probably use). There's another soldier James Reid. Hardly anyone in Scotland, or Perthshire at least uses 'James' nine times out of ten it's 'Jimmy' or occasionally 'Seamus' or any other nickname. Would I get away with using 'Jimmy' even though I have no idea if he was called that. It's just that 'James' doesn't feel right. Obscure or what? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierssc Posted 26 September , 2023 Share Posted 26 September , 2023 13 minutes ago, Skipman said: . There's another soldier James Reid. Hardly anyone in Scotland, or Perthshire at least uses 'James' nine times out of ten it's 'Jimmy' or occasionally 'Seamus' or any other nickname. Would I get away with using 'Jimmy' even though I have no idea if he was called that. It's just that 'James' doesn't feel right. Obscure or what? Mike My Edinburgh James was Jimmy to his parents but Jim to his friends, if that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 26 September , 2023 Author Share Posted 26 September , 2023 10 minutes ago, pierssc said: My Edinburgh James was Jimmy to his parents but Jim to his friends, if that helps. Aye there are a few options. I suppose my point is this - It seems to me that historians (rightly) try to he as honest and accurate as they can be. I have no idea what he was called other than 'James' so, to be historically accurate I should us 'James' it just doesn't look or feel right to call him that. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 26 September , 2023 Share Posted 26 September , 2023 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Skipman said: Aye there are a few options. I suppose my point is this - It seems to me that historians (rightly) try to he as honest and accurate as they can be. I have no idea what he was called other than 'James' so, to be historically accurate I should us 'James' it just doesn't look or feel right to call him that. Mike A lot depended on his social class, which you haven’t mentioned. It permeated everything in British (including Scots) society. I agree with Piers that if he was working class Jimmy and Jim would almost certainly be the most accurate form of address in the absence of any family to say otherwise. Edited 26 September , 2023 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierssc Posted 26 September , 2023 Share Posted 26 September , 2023 Can you just call him by his surname? If you want to make it more personal, then you have to make an editorial decision. You don't know the name by which he was actually known. Using a likely short form of his name could be right, could be wrong, but would maybe make him more real. I don't know if your narrative will allow it, but perhaps you have already given the answer. Introduce him as James. Say that hardly anyone in Scotland, or Perthshire at least uses 'James' - nine times out of ten it's 'Jimmy' or occasionally 'Seamus' or any other nickname. You don't know how he was known, but for the purposes of your narrative rightly or wrongly you will refer to him as - whatever name you settle on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 26 September , 2023 Author Share Posted 26 September , 2023 Many thanks both. Will think on it a while and decide when have to. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 29 September , 2023 Author Share Posted 29 September , 2023 One Aberfeldy soldier was a time-served tailor working with a local firm when war broke out. He had joined the 6th Black Watch in March 1914. He would have known by the evening of the 4th that they were to be mobilized on the 5th. Do you think the 4th August would have been a normal working day for him and others in similar position. 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