Sergeant or Serjeant

[alliekiwi]

Ah, found it. A post by Terry Denham on this thread which reads:

The convention used by CWGC in their 'style' manual approved by the military is as follows....

1) The spelling 'serjeant' is to be used for all UK and New Zealand casualties up to November 1953 (except for a small number of later Non-World War Graves in CWGC Care, this is, therefore, for most entries including all War Graves).

2) The spelling 'sergeant' is to be used for all other Commonwealth forces. Any use of 'serjeant' for these nations is an error.

The date change is obviously an 'official' one as members have cited later use of 'serjeant' by some units.

I knew NZ came into it somewhere.

Allie

[Nigel Marshall]

Thanks for that Allie,

Nigel

[Terry Denham]

My comment quoted above does not apply to RAF. They are 'serjeant' as far as CWGC is concerned for WW1 but 'sergeant' for WW2.

[Nigel Marshall]

Cheers Terry

[alliekiwi]

That's good to know. Thanks for the clarification, Terry!

Allie

[Skipman]

Noticed this spelling of Sergeant on Oxford St cemetery,Black Watch.Any reason for different spelling,does it matter .Thanks .Mike.

Forgot to tick enable replies. edit.

[sotonmate]

skipman

I remember this was discussed some time ago (could have been a couple of years or more !) but how to raise the thread again would be a problem in Search,if you put the two spellings you get quite a lot with the spellings in !

For me it seems a residue of an old spelling preference,as both seem to mean the same. There were serjeants in the legal profession but I can't see that this was mixed with military terminology.

Sotonmate

[Guest]

Cheers Sotonmate.As ever you're very helpful.Mike

[Ian Riley]

Serjeant is quite common in WW1. in fact, having just searched the CWGC Debt of Honour for Jones A in WW1/Army/British, the first 13 entries for senior NCOs are all 'Serjeant' or a compound thereof; I searched no further. The Canadians however are showing 'Sergeant' when I searched for Smith A in 1915/16. Usage in regimental documentation varies and I suspect would depend on the practice in individual record offices. If I remember, 'Sergeant' did not become the standard until after WW1. In individual regimental histories and diaries the choice of spelling seems to depend on the author. Can't remember what the case is with medal inscriptions; perhaps again it depended on the record office: a search of the MIC might provide information

Ian

[Ian Riley]

Re Post #2, searching on 'spelling' and 'serjeant' seems promising. At least it takes you to another thread which mentions a 'previous thread' (rather like an infinity of mirrors) here

Ian

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

"Serjeant" was the official legal spewlling, found in such sources as King's Regulations (and Queen's Regulations at least as late as 1955), the Manual of Military Law and the Pay Warrant. "Sergeant" is the common spelling and is found in the British Official History among other places.

The RAF has never used "Serjeant."

In the Household Cavalry a furether spelling is used: "Corporal of Horse."

Ron

[dycer]

Mike.

As has been said this has been discussed before,there is probably some precedent but I'm not sure about consistency.

e.g.8th Royal Scots Movement dated 11 February 1918-Accomodation for the night 11/12th. will be found for the party at the H.Q. of 11th.Bn. Leicester Regt. Sergeant Souness will on arrival report to the Ajdt. of that Battalion,who will instruct him regarding the posting of his guns on the 12th instant.

War and Victory Medals-4208 Sjt. G. Souness R. Scots.

George

Add CWGC -Serjeant George Speed Souness.325002(in case anyone wonders the 4 figure Number is his pre-1908 Volunteer Number and the 6 figure his post 1917 TF Number).

[pmaasz]

My regiment's registers for the mid-1800s, which I am working on, use serjeant exclusively, but the regimental history for WW1 uses sergeant, as does another I checked.

[Terry Denham]

As far as CWGC is concerned, their instruction from the MoD & NZ authorities is to use 'serjeant' for all British and NZ army entries up to the early 1950s (I can't lay my hands on the exact date at the moment). All other entries are to use 'sergeant'.

The 1950s date is important to CWGC as they do care for a large number of post-WW2 graves (Non-World War Graves) under contract to MoD and others.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

The RAF has never used "Serjeant."

I'm not sure if I agree, but the I know that the RFC did! At the moment I can't put my hands on any early RAF service records to Sjts/Sgts.

[centurion]

The two spellings appear to have existed side by side since long before WW1 with the modern spelling certainly in use in the 19th Century - there is, for example, an account written in the 1880s of how Sergeant Rhind, of the 92nd Highlanders caused a minor diplomatic incident by appearing at the court of a senior Persian official wearing a kilt. From memory I think Napier uses this spelling when writing on the Peninsular war. Yet my Great Uncle who died in Salonika in 1917 has a gravestone with Serjeant on it.

[MBrockway]

Pals,

Serjeant is the preferred traditional usage in the English rifles regiments - i.e. King's Royal Rifle Corps and Rifle Brigade. Not certain about the other regiments of the rifles family, but I suspect they followed suit.

Modern-day The Rifles still maintains this usage.

That said, I regularly come across the "sergeant" spelling in the KRRC Chronicle!

Cheers,

Mark

[Ron Clifton]

I'm not sure if I agree, but the I know that the RFC did!

Yes. I meant "the RAF" i.e. the service formed on 1 April 1918, not "the RAF and its predecessors." The RFC, being part of the Army, would have followed Army usage.

Ron

[Anthony Gorst]

Hi all

So when I eventually put up an online memorial should I go with the CWGC usage or follow the physical memorial which uses Sergt. Also Rifleman or Private for The Rangers for example?

[MBrockway]

Hi all

So when I eventually put up an online memorial should I go with the CWGC usage or follow the physical memorial which uses Sergt. Also Rifleman or Private for The Rangers for example?

Anthony,

I personally use Rifleman in preference to Private for KRRC men, but I did read on the new website for The Rifles that the regiment regards all its members as riflemen ... regardless of rank. The idea of the regiment being a community of equals, where command is achieved by respect rather than rank, is an important part of the rifles ethos, and that was certainly true of the RGJ and, earlier, the KRRC and RB.

Same would apply to The Rangers.

Interesting nuance eh?

Again, I see both Private and Rifleman used interchangeably throughout the KRRC Chronicles - LOL!

Cheers,

Mark

[David Filsell]

Parrallel spellings are not unusual in English. When I did my apprenticeship on the drawing board the old spellings shew and shewing (for show and showing) were insisted upon on all the plans prepared in my office. I don't know if this is still the case.

[Ron Clifton]

Anthony

I suggest you opt for "sergeant" as being the modern expected spelling, unless you are trying to reproduce the "authentic contemporary" feel of the period, in which case "Serjeant" would be strictly correct. But it is really a matter of personal taste for any non-official memorial.

For the lowest rank, "Private" is always right although for KRRC and RB Rifleman might be preferred. Other alternatives such as Guardsman (introduced 1918 after the Armistice) or Fusilier could be used, but "Kingsman" (for the King's Liverpool Regt) and "Ranger" would definitely not be correct for the Great War period.

Good luck with your memorial anyway!

Ron

[centurion]

Anthony

I suggest you opt for "sergeant" as being the modern expected spelling, unless you are trying to reproduce the "authentic contemporary" feel of the period, in which case "Serjeant" would be strictly correct. But it is really a matter of personal taste for any non-official memorial.

As I've pointed out ealier Sergeant was in use long before 1914 so this would be no less authentic or contemporary than Serjeant. To modern eyes unfamiliar with the nuances of orthography, military history and tradition serjeant might seem a little quaint.

[T8HANTS]

As I've pointed out ealier Sergeant was in use long before 1914 so this would be no less authentic or contemporary than Serjeant. To modern eyes unfamiliar with the nuances of orthography, military history and tradition serjeant might seem a little quaint.

All ther more reason to use the old spelling, we are trying to educate after all!

[Anthony Gorst]

Hi all

Many thanks - has helped me clarify a few things - Sergeant rather than Serjeant and if it is good enough for the Rifles it is good enough for me (especially as the Rangers lineal descendants are based just down the road from me in West Ham) so I guess Private it is - also thinking about the 'audience' Rifleman might be a bit too esoteric (maybe a note on ranks and usage somewhere on the page(s) - with due acknowledgement to your good selves). I hope to have something up before Xmas ( a quick and dirty version) with a more refined version before Easter.