Imperial Service Brooch worn in late 1917/ early 1918

[rolt968]

How unusual is it to find a picture with an IS brooch being worn as late 1917 to early 1918?

The subject was a TF RFA Driver from (presumably) 2 Highland RFA. He was very young (born in May 1899).

In the picture, which comes from a batch of four which seem to have been taken in late 1917 to 1918, he is wearing fairly straight forward RFA uniform, including a stiffened SD cap, simplified SD jacket and lanyard on left shoulder. He has 3 row RFA shoulder titles, but it is not possible to read the curved bottom line.

He would have been fifteen at the start of the war; so presumably was too young to serve overseas. He still looks very young in the photo.

Roger.

[4thGordons]

In my experience it would be very unusual indeed!

Although I don't know the formal regulations I have not seen any displayed on photos after early 1915, with the majority dating from 1914.

While I would never say "never" it would be a new one on me.

Are you confident on the dating to that late? Frankly I would be very surprised.

I think it was possible to be in the TF as a "boy" under age and then it appears COs had some discretion (in practice if not officially) as to whether these individuals could remain with the battalion (or this case battery?) upon mobilisation.

Chris

[Muerrisch]

The simplified jacket tends to die away from view from say late 1916 .............. what is the basis for dating 1917/18 please?

Pre-war, a man could enlist in the TF from age 17 to 35 [boys 14 to 17 years], for four years at a time, up to age 40. Minimum height standard was 5ft 2ins

By the way, the badge is not a broach or even a brooch, but is called a tablet.

Don't ask!

[rolt968]

If this post turns up twice, apologies. I edited the spelling in the heading and my reply disappeared!

Brooch not broach (which is a type of spire), except it's a tablet. Definitely a senior moment.

the evidence for date the picture to late 1917 to mid 1918 is largely circumstantial. It is one of a batch of four which were taken in exactly the same lighting conditions against the same studio backcloth (fake panelling), presumably by a local photographer. Far various reasons I can date all the other three to late 1917 to mid 1918, with the most likely date for all three being early 1918. I haven't found any other photos taken against this background (yet!).

In addition although the subject looks young, he looks older than 15. He might just, be a very mature 16.

However I had also thought what has been said already about its being unlikely for late 1917 and hence posted this to see if could come up with anything definitive, yea or nay. Unfortunately for copyright reasons I can't post the picture.

Were there any regulations against wearing the IS Tablet as the war went on, or did it just go out of use? I suppose if you were entitled to wear it, but had not been allowed to serve overseas, you might want to wear it to show that you had volunteered or at least put it on for a photo.

Roger.

[4thGordons]

I am not sure but wouldn't the introduction of conscription (1916) and related reorganizations within the forces have meant that the distinction between a territorial soldier and a prewar regular and a wartime volunteer/conscript were less relevant or perhaps not relevant at all?

I suppose I am wondering out-loud what effect the Military Service Act had on the status of "TF men" or indeed if such a status existed for men joining post 1916 (whether conscript or volunteer)

Having said that -- your last line does make a lot of sense to me too.

Chris

[rolt968]

I am not sure but wouldn't the introduction of conscription (1916) and related reorganizations within the forces have meant that the distinction between a territorial soldier and a prewar regular and a wartime volunteer/conscript were less relevant or perhaps not relevant at all?

I suppose I am wondering out-loud what effect the Military Service Act had on the status of "TF men" or indeed if such a status existed for men joining post 1916 (whether conscript or volunteer)

Having said that -- your last line does make a lot of sense to me too.

Chris

TF men who had not opted to serve overseas could be compelled to once conscription was introduced. I have seen reports of a couple of cases appearing in reports of tribunals in newspapers.

Roger.

[4thGordons]

TF men who had not opted to serve overseas could be compelled to once conscription was introduced. I have seen reports of a couple of cases appearing in reports of tribunals in newspapers.

Roger.

Which would seem to render the purpose of the IS tablet null and void wouldn't it?.... apart from as an unofficial expression of pride on a private photo as you suggested.

Chris

[squirrel]

IMHO a TF soldier who had volunteeered for overseas service pre war might very likely wear his IS Tablet for a photograph later in the war even if it officially no longer had any relevance.

[rolt968]

This brings me to the second part of the puzzle.

I have not been totally convinced that I have found a MIC for this man. I have found one which would fit his name and initials (and unit).

However assuming that he did have an IS Tablet as a result of signing the Imperial Service Obligation in or before 1914, and couldn't go overseas until 1918 because of his age, wouldn't he qualify for the TF War Medal?

Roger.