Tim W Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Can anyone help identify this uniform / cap badge? Both I believe are family but it doesnt really fit the story I know so far. Any ideas anyone? Cheers Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Michelle Young Posted 18 May , 2011 Admin Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Royal Army Medical Corps. They both look very young. Michelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Can anyone help identify this uniform / cap badge? Both I believe are family but it doesnt really fit the story I know so far. Any ideas anyone? Cheers Tim As Michelle says they are both young soldiers of the RAMC wearing Service Dress with the standard red cross arm badge of trained personnel. They are also wearing leather belts of the 'Slade Wallace' pattern with brass union lockets embossed with the motto DIEU ET MON DROIT. Carrying swagger sticks/canes, they are in 'walking out dress' - as was so often adopted by the soldiers of that time for studio portrait photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim W Posted 18 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Thanks for that. I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment on age. They are brothers, my great Uncles. Neither served with RAMC, although both did serve,one with the Foresters, the other either with the Leicester reg or the 20th london. My feeling is they were both too young to serve at the time these were taken and that these are posed studio shots as "would be " soldiers. Is there anything that could date the uniform? I suspect it was taken around or slightly before 1910. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Forgive me, but I believe that the likelihood of these being "would be" soldiers posing in regimental uniforms is so remote as to be virtually impossible. Such a thing would be unheard of. What would they do with such a photograph? Posed studio photographs were quite normal at the time for serving soldiers. The money would not have been wasted on "let's pretend". There is a possibility that they were cadets in the RAMC (if there was such an organisation) and later went on to serve in other regiments but, again, studio photos for cadets would have been seen as a self-indulgent luxury. Although they are young, I wouldn't rule out their being of service age. Yours, Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim W Posted 18 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 May , 2011 That is exactly my thoughts - I can't understand it either. What I do know is that the seated one is Private Cecil Rice, who enlisted with Sherwood Foresters then went on to serve with the Labour Corps before loosing his life to the spanish flu epidemic in 1918. The other is one of his younger brothers, (although I'm not sure which one at the moment) I've followed all the brothers records through their MIC, records at Kew and individual family knowledge, and there is no record of any of them serving with the RAMC, yet here they are, together in RAMC uniform, looking extremely young. I'm surprised they would be "allowed" to pose in uniform, if they weren't enlisted, and who provided the uniform? 1 picture so many questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardog Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Well fitted uniforms, the seated one possibly having 'crossed' putties (so he has learnt that skill), the other having a tailord collar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 That is exactly my thoughts - I can't understand it either. What I do know is that the seated one is Private Cecil Rice, who enlisted with Sherwood Foresters then went on to serve with the Labour Corps before loosing his life to the spanish flu epidemic in 1918. The other is one of his younger brothers, (although I'm not sure which one at the moment) I've followed all the brothers records through their MIC, records at Kew and individual family knowledge, and there is no record of any of them serving with the RAMC, yet here they are, together in RAMC uniform, looking extremely young. I'm surprised they would be "allowed" to pose in uniform, if they weren't enlisted, and who provided the uniform? 1 picture so many questions... Do you know where they were schooled? It is possible that they are in the uniform of a sponsored cadet force aligned with a well established school for the middle classes. The use of Slade Wallace belts (an obsolescent equipment) was common for cadets and in the war fever of 1914 it would be typical for young cadets in well-to-do families to want a posed photograph in uniform. This cadet service would not be mentioned on Army records unless it was a school directly sponsored by the Army, of which there were three: The Royal Hibernian Dublin, The Duke of Yorks London and the Queen Victoria Dunblane. The uniform in the photo is none of these and we would be looking for a school or local cadet force sponsored in some way by the RAMC. The RAMC had especially strong ties with Millbank in London, Netley in Hampshire and Mytchett near Aldershot. As an example, one of the very first RAMC cadet detachments was formed at Walworth in SE London and still exists today. It seems likely to me that these lads subsequently enlisted in other regiments once they came of age. I agree that there is no likelihood of posing in false uniforms what so ever. The uniforms are the third pattern of 1902 Service Dress and the puttees are well tied indicating some elementary training. They are also wearing the brass shoulder titles decreed in 1908. I feel that the photo is quite likely taken in 1914. Uniforms were provided at public expense. The ACF and CCF (Army) can trace their beginnings to the late 1850s. This was when the local Militia units were reorganised into a nation-wide Volunteer Force, the predecessor of the Territorial Army (TA). Some of these new Volunteer units also formed Cadet Companies. At the same time at least eight public schools formed their own school's independent Cadet units, sometimes referred to as School Corps. In the late Victorian period, some other independent Cadet Corps units were founded by Miss Octavia Hill, a pioneering social worker and founder of the National Trust. In 1908, the Volunteer Force was reorganised into the Territorial Force (TF), later the TA. The Volunteer Cadet Companies and the "Octavia Hill" Cadet Corps formed the (TF) Cadet Force under the administrative control of the newly formed TF Association (TFA). The (Public) Schools Corps formed the Junior Division of the Officer Training Corps (JTC). In 1914, the War Office took direct control of the Cadet Force and the title Army Cadet Force (ACF) was adopted. In 1908, the Minister for War, Lord Haldane, also invited universities and schools to form units of new Corps to provide officers for the then newly formed Territorial Force and a reservoir of officer material in the event of war. As a result, 87 schools accepted and formed the Junior Officers' Training Corps. This was administered directly from the War Office, which drew up schemes for training, introduced proficiency certificates and arranged for annual camps and Inspections. HM King Edward VII consented to become the Colonel-in-Chief of the OTC. Some other schools besides those forming the OTC had formed Volunteer cadet units soon after 1900 and subsequently received full official recognition and a small grant from public funds. These units were usually affiliated to TA Regiments and administered through County TA Associations. In 1915, 92 such School Units were attached to various TA Regiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinhat47 Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 Strange -- I don't see any MICs to a Cecil Rice who was in the Notts & Derby Regiment or Labour Corps at all, either on the National Archives or Ancestry, yet there's a "C. Rice" to both these regiments on CWGC who, as you say, died in 1918. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackblue Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 Could simply be pre war TF and then served OS with other regiments? Rgds Tim D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 I'm not totally certain, but didn't medics serve within line regiments, and as such would most probably be badged as RAMC even though serving with Infantry? This may explain the anomaly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 I'm not totally certain, but didn't medics serve within line regiments, and as such would most probably be badged as RAMC even though serving with Infantry? This may explain the anomaly? There are and were two kinds of soldier serving in infantry battalion RAPs. First there are and were a small number of RAMC orderlies supporting the RMO and secondly there are and were a number of battalion men wearing the infantry regiments insignia, usually a sergeant on the RAP staff and some stretcher bearers from the band. The former are RAMC men and that is the unit that appears on their MIC. The latter are of course regimental with appropriate details on their MIC and military record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 Building on Frogsmile's excellent post on cadets, is it possible that this is some sort of pre-War RAMC Militia or Volunteer unit - the lads going on into line regiments when signing up after the outbreak? If not, then cadets it has to be. Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim W Posted 19 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 19 May , 2011 This is a picture of Cecil in Foresters uniform. Taken 1916, in a studio in Belper Derbyshire. He enlisted Dec.1915, served with R company, joined 3rd Bn on 1 Feb 1916. Posted to Labour Coy. April 1916. In the First photo he is considerably younger, which indicates the first pic was pre-war? He never served overseas so no MIC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATNOMIS Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 This is a picture of Cecil in Foresters uniform. Taken 1916, in a studio in Belper Derbyshire. He enlisted Dec.1915, served with R company, joined 3rd Bn on 1 Feb 1916. Posted to Labour Coy. April 1916. In the First photo he is considerably younger, which indicates the first pic was pre-war? He never served overseas so no MIC. Great picture good to see he has got to grip with his putties. Is it not the same belt in the two pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 19 May , 2011 Share Posted 19 May , 2011 This is a picture of Cecil in Foresters uniform. Taken 1916, in a studio in Belper Derbyshire. He enlisted Dec.1915, served with R company, joined 3rd Bn on 1 Feb 1916. Posted to Labour Coy. April 1916. In the First photo he is considerably younger, which indicates the first pic was pre-war? He never served overseas so no MIC. If this is the same man (I don't think the likeness is readily apparent) then the first photo could be as early as 1910. He is still wearing the obsolescent Slade Wallace belt, which you see sometimes, but rarely after 1916. The 3rd battalion was the Reserve battalion formed from the old militia and its function was as a holding, training and feeder unit for the regular battalions. As he went to a Labour company and did not serve overseas it is likely that he was of low physical grade. 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