Inconsistency in naming Regiments - Liverpool

[E Wilcock]

This isnt so much a query as an observation that my attempts to research my uncle who was killed in 13th King's Liverpool have been complicated by the way the regiment is listed - So that though I know it as King's Liverpool, the Lives of the FWW seems to show it as The Liverpool Regiment.

I know someone on this forum has a friend Tony who researches the King's Liverpool and in posts he refers to it as such. But who is Tony and where is a website for King's Liverpool.

Because Tony (it seems) is doing a BBC programme on Liverpool pals which gives it another title again. In my ignorance I dont know what the Liverpool pals are.

All of which leaves me confused.

My great uncle was an officer in the TF force at Liverpool (infantry, I am pretty sure) as I have a prewar photo of him in a camp. Family letters show he was in France. But I havent found an officers file yet and havent even started to find people who know about the Liverpool TF and might have records of who did what.

[Stephen Nulty]

Usually referred to as the King's (Liverpool) Regiment - but also as the King's (LIverpoool Regiment). I always use the former

The "Pals" Battalions of the regiment were the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th - also known as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th City Battalions

Territorials were the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Battalions (though the 7th was Isle of Man and was classed as Volunteers rather than Territorials.

[pgardiner1418]

Just to confuse matters further there were 4 battalions of The King's that had the number 7 in their title during the war

1/7th Battalion The King's (Liverpool) Regiment (Territorial Force)

2/7th Battalion The King's (Liverpool) Regiment (Territorial Force)

3/7th Battalion The King's (Liverpool) Regiment (Territorial Force)

7th (Isle of Man) Volunteer Battalion

This came about when the old Volunteer battalions changed to the Territorial Force in 1908 the old 3rd and 4th Volunteer Battalions became The 7th Battalion The King's (Liverpool) Regiment (Territorial Force) but the old 7th (Isle of Man) Volunteer Battalion refused to change thus 2 battalions carrying 7th in the title until October 1914 when a second line territorial battalion is added with the 3rd line battalion forming in May the following year.

All of the other Territorial battalions formed 2nd and 3rd line battalions during the war.

1/7th King's also had the addition of (Bootle) in its title.

All the best,

Paul.

[Stephen Nulty]

Glad we cleared that up

[pgardiner1418]

Stephen,

We are Scousers and as such are supposed to be both complicated and interesting!

If i remember correctly there was an Irish battalion that also kept on its Volunteer Battalion designation following the reforms.

E Wilcock,

What was your Great Uncles name? I have photographs of most of the 1/7th Officers prior to going to France in 1915.

Paul.

[CarylW]

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. I get totally confused by it all too. As far as Liverpool Territorials go though I can't recommend this book highly enough. I keep referring back to it for one reason or another 'Citizen Soldiers: The Liverpool Territorials in the First World War' Helen B McCartney.

[Fattyowls]

All of which leaves me confused.

I'm afraid the confusion is my fault, apologies. However it is genuinely confusing, to me at least.

I tend to use the term the King's Liverpool as shorthand for the regiment when discussing it with my friend Tony who is off to France with the BBC (I'm not envious honest). Stephen is correct as ever. One of the soldiers I have researched was in the 2/10th (Scottish) battalion, the King's (Liverpool) Regiment and the experts are rightly insistent about the brackets around the word Scottish. I've just finished reading 'Citizen Soldiers'; interestingly Helen McCartney refers to the regiment as the King's Liverpool Regiment without the brackets in the text. I think I may have subconciously followed her lead. The book is superb as Caryl says.

My understanding is that at the outbreak of war the regiments of the regular army would have a 1st and 2nd battalion; one battalion would be at home and one stationed somewhere in the empire. There would also be a 3rd reserve battalion probably based at the regimental depot which undertook training and provided replacements. It was these battalions that formed the army which went to France in August 1914.

The Territorial battalions of regiments were formed as home service troops which in the event of war would allow the regular army to be deployed overseas. They were linked to the regular battalions through their numbering so for example the Liverpool Rifles were the 1/6th, there was also a 2/6th and a 3/6th. The Liverpool Irish were the 1/8th and the Liverpool Scottish were the 1/10th. The numbers are sometimes written as 1st/10th etc.

I think the Pals battalions took their name from a statement by Lord Derby when he was raising a battalion of volunteers in Liverpool; they became the 17th (Service) Battalion, the first Liverpool Pals and were followed by the 18th, 19th and 20th as Stephen points out. The word service was added to differentiate them from the regular and territorial battalions. There is a post on the forum about the first Pals battalion which suggested that the 1st City battalion were the second to be formed but the first to be referred to as Pals.

I've been writing this offline while Stephen, Paul and Caryl have added their posts; I hope I haven't confused matters even further. Any errors are entirely down to me; hopefully the experts can correct them.

Pete.

[Stephen Nulty]

Looks good to me, Pete

[Fattyowls]

Looks good to me, Pete

Thanks Stephen, my work here is done.

Pete.

P.S. I was going to mention the 1/11th (Pioneer) battalion but I think I'm getting a bit obssesed. I was also going to try and explain K1, K2 and K3 battalions but I think I may need to go and lie down now.....

[Stephen Nulty]

Yes, have a rest. It'll all seem clearer when you wake up

[daggers]

Just to stir the soup a little, the brackets round "Liverpool Regiment", which applied during WW1, were moved at various periods, giving even more variations.

Also the invaluable "Geoff's Search Engine" which provides an alternative search system of the CWGC's database, lists the regiment under "T", not "K" or "L".

D

[Stephen Nulty]

Just to stir the soup a little,

There's always one, isn't there?

:-)

And of course CWGC lists variations, neither of which is the form that I use........

[Fattyowls]

And of course CWGC lists variations, neither of which is the form that I use........

Stephen, you are the king of Excel pivot table. Makes me think of the opening to the American comedy show 'Soap'. Confused? you will be.

Pete.

[Steven Broomfield]

Out of interest, does anyone expect consistency in the naming of Regiments? Half the fun is not knowing what's going on.

[IPT]

I still call them Princess Anne of Denmark's Regiment of Foot.

I suppose that makes me very old-fashioned these days.

[Stephen Nulty]

Out of interest, does anyone expect consistency in the naming of Regiments? Half the fun is not knowing what's going on.

[E Wilcock]

This is to thank you all - and yes when it came to a new data base Lives of the FWW, I did expect consistency and the word "Kings". Not the fault of anyone here. 3 days of computer driver problems mean a delay in replying and hopefully posting picture.

[Ron Clifton]

I'm afraid the confusion is my fault, apologies. However it is genuinely confusing, to me at least.

...

The Territorial battalions of regiments were formed as home service troops which in the event of war would allow the regular army to be deployed overseas. They were linked to the regular battalions through their numbering so for example the Liverpool Rifles were the 1/6th, there was also a 2/6th and a 3/6th. The Liverpool Irish were the 1/8th and the Liverpool Scottish were the 1/10th. The numbers are sometimes written as 1st/10th etc.

...

Pete.

Pete (and others)

The fractional designations of the Territorial battalions had nothing whatever to do with any affiliation to the Regular or (Special) Reserve battalions.

Pre-war the TF battalions had simple numbers, in the case of the King's Regt, 5th to 10th. On mobilisation for active service, each battalion was split into two: a 1/5th (etc) containing those men who had volunteered for overseas service, and a 2/5th (etc) for those who had not. A further battalion, 3/5th (etc) was formed to supply drafts and reinforcements to the other two.

Later in the war, after conscription was introduced, men could no longer opt for home service only and many of the 2/ units went overseas - in the case of the King's Regt battalions, with 57th (2/West Lancs) Division.

Ron

[Fattyowls]

Pete (and others)

The fractional designations of the Territorial battalions had nothing whatever to do with any affiliation to the Regular or (Special) Reserve battalions.

Pre-war the TF battalions had simple numbers, in the case of the King's Regt, 5th to 10th. On mobilisation for active service, each battalion was split into two: a 1/5th (etc) containing those men who had volunteered for overseas service, and a 2/5th (etc) for those who had not. A further battalion, 3/5th (etc) was formed to supply drafts and reinforcements to the other two.

Later in the war, after conscription was introduced, men could no longer opt for home service only and many of the 2/ units went overseas - in the case of the King's Regt battalions, with 57th (2/West Lancs) Division.

Ron

Ron, this is brilliant; I was hoping that some clarification would emerge if I put up my partial understanding. Suddenly the whole thing starts to make sense; or at least more sense. I keep finding anomalies which didn't fit the model if you like; I am researching a man called James Roy who served with the 5th/6th Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) for example. I know how that came about but there are other designations that I can look at afresh. I believe my grandfather served in the 57th Division ammunition train so the information about the division's formation will help too.

Pete.

[Ron Clifton]

Pete

Purists in these matters tend to prefer "1/5th" etc to "1st/5th" (although the spoken version was invariably "First Fifth") precisely so as to distinguish the TF first, second and third lines from formations such as 5th/6th Cameronians which are mergers of two battalions. As a quick rule of thumb, if the first figure is a 1, 2, 3 or occasionally 4, it represents a TF battalion, whereas if it is 5th, 6th or above it represents a merged battalion.

In Feb 1918, as part of the reduction from four to three battalions per brigade, a lot of 2/ battalions were merged with their corresponding 1/ battalion, and the combined unit dropped the prefixes, thus resuming the pre-war titles.

The Isle of Man Volunteers (7th Volunteer Battalion of the King's) was, I am fairly sure, the only such anomaly in 1914. I don't think there was a corresponding Irish unit although the North Irish Horse, South Irish Horse, Antrim RGA and Cork RGA were units of the Special Reserve, the successor of the old Militia. There were no TF units raised in Ireland.

Ron

[Fattyowls]

Pete

Purists in these matters tend to prefer "1/5th" etc to "1st/5th" (although the spoken version was invariably "First Fifth") precisely so as to distinguish the TF first, second and third lines from formations such as 5th/6th Cameronians which are mergers of two battalions. As a quick rule of thumb, if the first figure is a 1, 2, 3 or occasionally 4, it represents a TF battalion, whereas if it is 5th, 6th or above it represents a merged battalion.

In Feb 1918, as part of the reduction from four to three battalions per brigade, a lot of 2/ battalions were merged with their corresponding 1/ battalion, and the combined unit dropped the prefixes, thus resuming the pre-war titles.

The Isle of Man Volunteers (7th Volunteer Battalion of the King's) was, I am fairly sure, the only such anomaly in 1914. I don't think there was a corresponding Irish unit although the North Irish Horse, South Irish Horse, Antrim RGA and Cork RGA were units of the Special Reserve, the successor of the old Militia. There were no TF units raised in Ireland.

Ron

Ron

I like the idea of battalion numbering purists; I wonder if there is a gap in the market for a t-shirt? Seriously though this is all making a lot more sense to me. I'd not considered the merger in 1918 where the TF battalions were concerned; although some of my footballers serving in the 17th Middlesex (the 1st Footballers), were transferred to the 23rd (2nd Footballers), much to their chagrin apparently.

Pete.

Pete.

[David_Underdown]

This is to thank you all - and yes when it came to a new data base Lives of the FWW, I did expect consistency and the word "Kings". Not the fault of anyone here. 3 days of computer driver problems mean a delay in replying and hopefully posting picture.

But the information is derived from (transcriptions of) the medal index cards, so it is quite possible that different clerks used different variations in drawing up the cards (plus the effects of transcription).

[Muerrisch]

I take the Army List August 1914 as my authority.

Full title: THE KING'S (LIVERPOOL REGIMENT).

Short title :Liverpool Regiment. to be abbreviated as: L'pool R.

Shoulder Title: KING'S

The old 8th Foot

all of which leads me to offer also:

THE KING'S OWN (ROYAL LANCASTER REGIMENT)

Short title: Lancaster Regiment, Royal. to be abbreviated as: R. Lanc. R.

shoulder title KING'S OWN

The old 4th Foot

Nobody said it was easy but .................................... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PhilB]

I seem to remember that men who served /had served in the Liverpools generally referred to the Kings rather than the Kings Regiment, so Grumpy`s offering rings true. I don`t know about WW1 but, in my time, city regiments like the Manchesters, Liverpools, & HLI etc weren`t based in the same posting as trouble tended to follow. They tended to have more than their share of hard nuts as compared to, say, the Berkshires who were much more tractable.

[Fattyowls]

Gentlemen, thanks for these.....

But the information is derived from (transcriptions of) the medal index cards, so it is quite possible that different clerks used different variations in drawing up the cards (plus the effects of transcription).

David, I've been known to use different variations in the same paragraph so I can't take the high moral ground.

I take the Army List August 1914 as my authority.

Full title: THE KING'S (LIVERPOOL REGIMENT).

Short title :Liverpool Regiment. to be abbreviated as: L'pool R.

Shoulder Title: KING'S

The old 8th Foot

all of which leads me to offer also:

THE KING'S OWN (ROYAL LANCASTER REGIMENT)

Short title: Lancaster Regiment, Royal. to be abbreviated as: R. Lanc. R.

shoulder title KING'S OWN

The old 4th Foot

Nobody said it was easy but .................................... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grumpy, thanks for this. The Army list should be an unimpeachable authority. Shall I put you down for one of the t-shirts?

I seem to remember that men who served /had served in the Liverpools generally referred to the Kings rather than the Kings Regiment, so Grumpy`s offering rings true. I don`t know about WW1 but, in my time, city regiments like the Manchesters, Liverpools, & HLI etc weren`t based in the same posting as trouble tended to follow. They tended to have more than their share of hard nuts as compared to, say, the Berkshires who were much more tractable.

Phil, the Kings (or should it be King's? I've used both) has a real ring to it. I wonder if the same could be said of the very distinguished Royal West Surrey regiment; I bet that leaving out the apostrophe has caused the odd scuffle over the years.