Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

London Gazette


Gary Samson
 Share

Recommended Posts

When quoting the date on which announcements were made in one of the Supplements to the London Gazette is it common practice to quote the date on which the Gazette itself was published or rather the date on which the Supplement appeared (which is usually one or two days later)?

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

Given that the supplement is a separate (unique) publication, I would quote the date on which it was published, rather than the date on which the Gazette was published.

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the supplement is a separate (unique) publication...

Thanks, Robbie. That's really the nub of my question, is the supplement a separate, unique publication? As promotions and appointments weren't officially recognised (or paid at the higher rate, I presume) until gazetted the date becomes quite important.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gary,

One could argue that it IS a separate publication. For example, the British Psychological Society (BPS) publish supplements to their publication the Psychologist. Typically these supplements consist of conference proceedings/abstracts. In this instance the supplement date of pub. is cited.

Hence, if the supplement contains additional material OR original material that has been reproduced in a different format then cite the supplement pub. date.

In your case, the original Gazette date of pub. would be cited in the case of REPRINTS only.

That's my reading of it..so back to square 1?

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of another example, one which is perhaps more appropriate - the BPS publish a memorandum of jobs (posts) each month as a supplement to |The Psychologist. Hence, i expect one would cite the job supplement rather than the Psychologist in this case.

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, all reference footnotes and bibliographies are designed to do is enable the reader to be able to trace the documents used by the author as easily as possible, whether that be for reasons of verification or to encourage further reading.

If giving the LG issue would be misleading, because the actual information cited appeared in a supplement that would then have to be found (or be reliant upon this deduction being made by the reader), one should make reference to the supplement as being the source.

Ricardo (ed.), Unwitting Nudists Caught On Film, (Dick-Twitcher, 2003), Chapter 4, Page 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricardo,

Could you advise the ISBN of your edited monograph please?

Robbie :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you advise the ISBN of your edited monograph please?

Hmm, wonder what that might stand for in the light of Ricardo's shady publishing proclivities. Individuals Seen Bo**ock Naked? :lol:

Gary

Gary

However, have you had any luck locating this tome on Amazon?

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally the dates quoted in most Publications of London Gazette Promulgations are in fact of the Gazette rather than the Supplement,The Date given in Regimental Histories often varies by a Day or so from the Actrual date the Promulgation Appears in Print in the actual supplement. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you advise the ISBN of your edited monograph please?

Hmm, wonder what that might stand for in the light of Ricardo's shady publishing proclivities. Individuals Seen Bo**ock Naked? :lol:

Gary

Gary :P

However, have you had any luck locating this tome on Amazon?

Robbie

Actually, there are a couple of Amazons in it - well, Brazilian geezers in skirts and carrying spears, who were on some march, chasing away the photographer (may he rest in peace).

Unfortunately, due to my artistic and commercial differences with the police, enquiries for purchase can now only be dealt with via the Vice Squad and may incur a hefty fine and/or a public flogging along the bounds of Portsdown Hill.

Ricardo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for everyone's replies. Just so that I have this absolutely clear in my head, let's assume an officer is promoted from, say, Second Lieutenant to Lieutenant. The London Gazette is published on Friday 27 July 1917 and the announcement itself appears in a supplement three days later on Monday 30 July 1917.

Here's the question, is that officer a serving and fully paid Lieutenant before the weekend, when the London Gazette was published, or after the weekend, when the supplement containing the actual announcement appeared?

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for everyone's replies. Just so that I have this absolutely clear in my head, let's assume an officer is promoted from, say, Second Lieutenant to Lieutenant. The London Gazette is published on Friday 27 July 1917 and the announcement itself appears in a supplement three days later on Monday 30 July 1917.

Here's the question, is that officer a serving and fully paid Lieutenant before the weekend, when the London Gazette was published, or after the weekend, when the supplement containing the actual announcement appeared?

Gary

Yes he is, but cite the SUpplement. As an illustration, suppose I was promoted to Professor and the date of the promotion letter to me was 1.1.2005, but the annuouncement appeared in the University newspaper on 4.1.2005. I would be a Professor from 1.1.2005, not from 4.1.2005; yet the newspaper of 4.1.2005 would be cited as public notification.

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an illustration, suppose I was promoted to Professor and the date of the promotion letter to me was 1.1.2005, but the annuouncement appeared in the University newspaper on 4.1.2005. I would be a Professor from 1.1.2005, not from 4.1.2005; yet the newspaper of 4.1.2005 would be cited as public notification.

That may be so but it doesn't hold for LG announcements of awards for gallantry. A serviceman involved in an action on 21 March 1918 and subsequently awarded a VC that's announced in the LG on 10 January 1919 doesn't become a VC holder from the date of the action but from the public notification in the LG.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm. I still would go with the BEFORE rather than AFTER the london gazette pub. date. Just a thought, there must be guidelines re this somewhere..e.g., often a promotion letter states that from the date of this letter or from x.x.19xx ..

Robbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having searched through the online LG using a couple of well-known examples it does appear the supplement date (if the announcement appears there) is the date to cite. For instance, Siegfried Sassoon's MC was gazetted on 27 July 1916, the date of the supplement to the LG that was published on 25 July 1916. I'm assuming the same applies to promotions, ie they don't take effect until publicly announced (and that may be the supplement date) unless that announcement explicitly backdates the award.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary

Sounds logical to me, however, it would be good to find confirmation of this assumption, wouldn't it? Perhaps the relevant government papers at PRO or similar?

Robbie

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...