Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Rank vs Appointment


Recommended Posts

If a soldier was embodied as a Driver, and was, a few months later, appointed as a Shoeing Smith, which should go on their headstone if they died?

In other words, does appointment supersede rank on a headstone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there was actually consistency in this. I know of a Farrier-Serjeant who has Serjeant on his gravestone.

 

Roger M

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think RANK trumps Appointment - IF I have got this terminology right - never too sure.

E.g. CAPTAIN - Adjutant, LIEUTENANT - Platoon Commander; CORPORAL - Section Commander: PRIVATE - Batman

But ... What about a PRIVATE who is a Driver?

How can you tell Rank from Appointment if you only see one of these at a time? [I've seen many discharge papers / Protection Cert. & Cert. of Identity Army Form Z.11 apparently filled out by the soldier when the Rank/Appointment may be muddled [or so it appears to me]

And ... Why is LANCE-CORPORAL said to be an appointment by some people?

Glad you have opened up this topic as I hope to learn plenty from you and/or our more informed members.

All the best - here's hoping ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Quote

Why is LANCE-CORPORAL said to be an appointment by some people?

Because it was in WW1, it was not a rank. It could be granted and taken away by the CO on a whim - rank couldn't be (it's now a rank rather than an appointment).

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin

Rank and appointment can be a funny thing.

 

L/Corporal is a still a private but given an appointment which gives him authority of a private.

A CSM or QMS whilst still a Serjeant would be given authority over a plain and simple Serjeant.

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I would think RANK trumps Appointment - IF I have got this terminology right - never too sure.

E.g. CAPTAIN - Adjutant, LIEUTENANT - Platoon Commander; CORPORAL - Section Commander: PRIVATE - Batman

But ... What about a PRIVATE who is a Driver?

How can you tell Rank from Appointment if you only see one of these at a time? [I've seen many discharge papers / Protection Cert. & Cert. of Identity Army Form Z.11 apparently filled out by the soldier when the Rank/Appointment may be muddled [or so it appears to me]

And ... Why is LANCE-CORPORAL said to be an appointment by some people?

Glad you have opened up this topic as I hope to learn plenty from you and/or our more informed members.

All the best - here's hoping ...

Well, my issue stems from my own ancestor, mentioned in my signature.
I've been researching him and his unit on-and-off for about 20 months now since I discovered him.

He has two medal cards. One lists him as a Driver, and the other as a Shoeing Smith.
The effects register lists him as a Shoeing Smith.
The medal roll lists him as a Driver.

His death record lists him as a Shoeing Smith

The Casualty Clearing Station at which he died at listed him as a Shoeing Smith.

Long story short, CWGC amended their online record of him.


If CWGC themselves amend an appointment to a rank, then surely rank must override appointment? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin


 

Quote

then surely rank must override appointment? 

Not always - look at the rank of Sjt. A CSM or QMS who were Sjts were appointed to those roles and given authority over a plain and simple Sjt in the battalion.

As I understand it Shoeing Smith would be a trade appointment rather than an appointment with any authority over other men - some appointments were for a trade and others involved man management.

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
researchingreg

I have a relative who was a Lance Corporal in the Royal Rifles Reserve Regiment, who was discharged in 1901. He re-joined the Army in 1914 in the Hampshire Regiment he was a private through to his discharge in 1918. So when he was a L/Cpl in his previous service it must have been an appointment, I assume.

Edited by researchingreg
English
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, researchingreg said:

I have a relative who was a Lance Corporal in the Royal Rifles Reserve Regiment, who was discharged in 1901. He re-joined the Army in 1914 in the Hampshire Regiment he was a private through to his discharge in 1918. So when he was a L/Cpl in his previous service it must have been an appointment, I assume.

 

When someone is discharged from a regiment and re-enlists with another, they do not keep their previous rank.

For example, from 1900-1905, my ancestor was a Private. From 1915-1918, he was a Driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
5 minutes ago, Wazzok1 said:

 

When someone is discharged from a regiment and re-enlists with another, they do not keep their previous rank.

For example, from 1900-1905, my ancestor was a Private. From 1915-1918, he was a Driver.

Driver wasn't a rank - he was still a private but appointed to act in the role of a driver.

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ss002d6252 said:

Driver wasn't a rank - he was still a private but appointed to act in the role of a driver.

Craig

No, he re-enlisted with a different regiment, receiving a new regimental number and rank. 
Driver in this case was not an appointment.

6077 Private 1900-1905.
2124 Driver 1915-1918.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin

Para 282 of the Kings Regs 1914 lists all Ranks and the appointments which can fall within that rank (some appointments where they are account of a trade can fall under more than one rank).
 

For privates, for example

 

Capture.JPG

Craig

2 minutes ago, Wazzok1 said:

No, he re-enlisted with a different regiment, receiving a new regimental number and rank. 
Driver in this case was not an appointment.

6077 Private 1900-1905.
2124 Driver 1915-1918.

 

See above  - Driver is a Private. Some branches called Privates various names based on their role - Rifleman, Driver, Trooper etc but still Privates.

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said:

Para 282 of the Kings Regs 1914 lists all Ranks and the appointments which can fall within that rank (some appointments where they are account of a trade can fall under more than one rank).
 

For privates, for example

 

Capture.JPG

Craig

 

See my last post - Driver is a trade appointment given to a Private.

Craig

 

You have misinterpreted the information here; Troopers, Gunners, Drivers, Sappers, Pioneers and Privates could all be equally appointed roles of everything inside the curly brackets. Anything outside the curly brackets is a rank. They are all equivalent, which is why 'driver [...] or private' is on the same line.

'Driver' is nowhere to be found within the curly brackets, thus, it is not an appointment.
However, Shoeing Smith is; meaning Driver is a rank and a Shoeing Smith is an appointment.
Still, this begs the question: does rank supersede appointment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Para 282 of the Kings Regs 1914 lists all Ranks and the appointments which can fall within that rank (some appointments where they are account of a trade can fall under more than one rank).
 

For privates, for example

 

Capture.JPG

Craig

 

See above  - Driver is a Private. Some branches called Privates various names based on their role - Rifleman, Driver, Trooper etc but still Privates.

Craig


You appear to be playing a game of semantics. A Driver is equivalent to a Private. It is not literally the same thing. They do different jobs, for example, which distinguishes them from each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appointments and Roles - Been out to walk the dog and you lot have been busy [and whilst I typed!]

Whilst out thinking[?] wanted to discuss Appointment and Role [and now thanks to Craig's and other info above - Trade appointments too?]

My thoughts were going along the lines of Appointment  e.g. Captain Hook = Adjutant to Nth Blankshire Rifles and Colonel Hy N Mighty = Military Attache to Farawayland

And Role Private Atkins = Batman, Rifleman/Bomber, Lewis gunner, Driver [?] Farrier [???]

??? Now not certain if Driver and Farrier might actually have been Ranks, not appointments, in some units????  

As for Private, Trooper and Rifleman - I understand these were formal Ranks according to custom as per unit 

And now ... so where does "Acting-" come in?  I have commonly taken to mean acting with authority at a rank above actual rank, generally unpaid, though perhaps paid - Appointed??

P.S. Perhaps back to Craig and others - as per your previous = a Private appointed [in WW1] as A L/Cpl has authority over other Privates - seems clear, but ..., [there is always a but], your further explanation is very welcome on this whole general topic :-)

Hope I'm not high-jacking this thread but it is very interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Appointments and Roles - Been out to walk the dog and you lot have been busy [and whilst I typed!]

Whilst out thinking[?] wanted to discuss Appointment and Role [and now thanks to Craig's and other info above - Trade appointments too?]

My thoughts were going along the lines of Appointment  e.g. Captain Hook = Adjutant to Nth Blankshire Rifles and Colonel Hy N Mighty = Military Attache to Farawayland

And Role Private Atkins = Batman, Rifleman/Bomber, Lewis gunner, Driver [?] Farrier [???]

??? Now not certain if Driver and Farrier might actually have been Ranks, not appointments, in some units????  

As for Private, Trooper and Rifleman - I understand these were formal Ranks according to custom as per unit 

And now ... so where does "Acting-" come in?  I have commonly taken to mean acting with authority at a rank above actual rank, generally unpaid, though perhaps paid - Appointed??

P.S. Perhaps back to Craig and others - as per your previous = a Private appointed [in WW1] as A L/Cpl has authority over other Privates - seems clear, but ..., [there is always a but], your further explanation is very welcome on this whole general topic :-)

Hope I'm not high-jacking this thread but it is very interesting


Driver is 100% certainly a rank in the Territorial Force and the Royal Field Artillery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wazzok1 said:

Driver is 100% certainly a rank in the Territorial Force and the Royal Field Artillery.

I have seen that amongst the records I have seen.

Though one of my ancestors was a Private (rank) and a Driver (role - probably better with a small d I guess) in the RFC - eventually ended up in the RAF with a slightly different rank doing same role/job - and a completely different number of course!

Have also seen Army Service Corps Z.11 [several] with Driver given as Rank but think that should have been Private (with a role of driver of horse-drawn and/or motorised transport I presume) - I think soldiers filled them out for themselves [can anyone elaborate please?] or dictated to a harassed and likely rushed clerk - certainly had another ancestor was an Acting Serjeant clerking at Battalion level and later in a Records Office (didn't get discharged until much later than most for his sins!) - rank, role or appointment?? - here we go again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify this for the ASC, soldiers in the Supply Branch were Privatss while those in Horse Transport were Drivers. Can't remember at the moment what those in the Mechanical Transport and Remounts were. Then, they could be promoted from this basic rank to Corporal, etc.

 

All the best,

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
researchingreg

Re: RFC Ranks see this link to a previous post

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ss002d6252/Craig: You offer an abstract of Army KR 1914 [which is great but which has elicited some discussion! - but hey, that's what the Forum is partly for isn't it?] Please - Is there an electronic/on-line version(s) that I/we can access?  Please - Can you share with us to use? [perhaps for this and certainly for many other purposes I am sure] In hope ...

 

Waggoner: "Just to clarify this for the ASC, soldiers in the Supply Branch were Privatss while those in Horse Transport were Drivers. Can't remember at the moment what those in the Mechanical Transport and Remounts were. Then, they could be promoted from this basic rank to Corporal, etc". = Thanks for that enlightenment - ASC drivers (role) were Drivers (Rank) but not otherwise - Simple eh?

 

Wazzock1: back to your original posted question! - I still think substantive RANK trumps Appointment (or Lance-/Acting- etc). [but the discussion may rage on ...] and that is why CWGC changed from the the paper record(s)/Grave Registration documents of Shoe-smith to Driver for your ancestor's on-line record [though I am sure other CWGC paper & on-line records and headstones contain a mix!].  Thanks for raising the topic - the discussion may yet go on ... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
41 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I still think substantive RANK trumps Appointment (or Lance-/Acting- etc).

Should all be covered in the Kings Regs (probably Para 282 onwards)

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

ss002d6252/Craig: You offer an abstract of Army KR 1914 [which is great but which has elicited some discussion! - but hey, that's what the Forum is partly for isn't it?] Please - Is there an electronic/on-line version(s) that I/we can access?  Please - Can you share with us to use? [perhaps for this and certainly for many other purposes I am sure] In hope ...

 

Waggoner: "Just to clarify this for the ASC, soldiers in the Supply Branch were Privatss while those in Horse Transport were Drivers. Can't remember at the moment what those in the Mechanical Transport and Remounts were. Then, they could be promoted from this basic rank to Corporal, etc". = Thanks for that enlightenment - ASC drivers (role) were Drivers (Rank) but not otherwise - Simple eh?

 

Wazzock1: back to your original posted question! - I still think substantive RANK trumps Appointment (or Lance-/Acting- etc). [but the discussion may rage on ...] and that is why CWGC changed from the the paper record(s)/Grave Registration documents of Shoe-smith to Driver for your ancestor's on-line record [though I am sure other CWGC paper & on-line records and headstones contain a mix!].  Thanks for raising the topic - the discussion may yet go on ... :-)


Funnily enough, the only Shoeing Smith listed in CWGC's records is Albert Simpson, who is the same rank, regiment, unit and cemetery as my great great grandfather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wazzock1 - Thanks to Craig I have seen more of the KR but still can't give you a definitive answer - now there is a surprise, not!

It's not surprising/is totally forgivable if the clerks of the Grave Registration units sometimes went off-piste, especially with more esoteric Ranks/Appointments given the horrific numbers of casualties they had to process.  The mind boggles at the the task in the field and the paperwork in the office.  May they, casualties and clerks, all now RIP.

 

Craig - Many thanks for the KR link - a "good read" that will take quite some digesting (and not just on this topic). Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz in Eastbourne
19 hours ago, Wazzok1 said:


Funnily enough, the only Shoeing Smith listed in CWGC's records is Albert Simpson, who is the same rank, regiment, unit and cemetery as my great great grandfather.

 

There's at least one other, Shoeing Smith Alfred John Friend of the 9th Lancers, killed in 1914. Shoeing Smith is given as his rank.

Liz

Edited by Liz in Eastbourne
Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz in Eastbourne

Wazzok1, I produced my previous example  because I remembered him from researching the last lance-on-lance charge of the 9th Lancers - but  I then searched CWGC records for men with the rank 'Shoeing Smith' in any nationality of army in WW1 and the figure 587 came up.  From a quick glance, most seem to be British, with some Canadians. I haven't time to check which units are involved  (a lot of Royal Field Artillery, not surprisingly) but this could of course be done. So your impression that only one other man apart from your great-grandfather was listed by CWGC with this occupation as a rank is quite wrong.

 

EDIT I am  not arguing against the King's Regs, of course - just saying that CWGC has listed this occupation as their rank. It isn't 'playing semantics' as you said to Craig above to differentiate rank from trade appointment/occupation, but CWGC obviously doesn't always make this distinction. 

 

Liz

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...