56 (LONDON) DIVISION CONUNDRUM

[KENDO]

Hi all,

 

In the 56 Division the battalions in the 168 and 169 Brigades were distinguished by shape - circle, square, diamond and inverted triangle, but in the 167 Brigade the order was diamond (1/7 Middx), inverted triangle (1/8 Middx), circle (1/1 Ldn) and square (1/3 Ldn).

 

Becke's Order of Battle Part 2A, ranks the 1/7 and 1/8 Middx senior to the 1/1 and 1/3 London. My question is why is the shape sequence different to the other two brigades. Why didn't the two Middx battalions wear the circle and square instead of the diamond and inverted triangle?

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

 

Kendo   

 

[Drew-1918]

Hello KENDO,

 

I have often wondered about this question too. I hope you don’t mind me guessing, but I can only think that it might be something to do with the fact that they are both part of the Territorial Force (and therefore only affiliated?). In that sense, the Royal Fusiliers are higher up in the order of precedence than the Middlesex Regiment. 

 

I realise that this is just speculation, but I thought it might at least bump up your query again. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris 

[Drew-1918]

Thinking about it more, when the London Regiment was formed, those units with RF affiliations went straight to the top (to much chagrin), whereas others were grouped lower according to their pre-1908 affiliation (It also mattered whether they were City

or County of London though I suppose that is not relevant here). 

 

Edited 20 July , 2019 by Drew-1918

[KENDO]

Hi Chris,

 

Thank you for your comments and thoughts, I know the 28 London (Artists Rifles) were not best pleased about their high number when they were issued.

 

It seems like the Middx battalions were ranked senior to the other London battalions in the brigade but we're given the junior patches.

 

Best regards,

 

Ken

[Drew-1918]

Hi Ken,

 

You're absolutely right, of course, about Becke's Order of Battle. Nonetheless, as I am sure you know, the 56th Division History consistently refers to the order as, 1/1st London Regt., 1/3rd London Regt., 1/7th MIddlesex Regt., and 1/8th Middlesex Regt. This order matches the evidence from the way the patches were assigned. This shows that some sort of priority was given to the London battalions, whatever the official stance was. I realise that I am in danger of missing your initial question. I suppose I am saying, in reference to your OP, that in my opinion, the shape sequence is not different, it is the same as the other brigades. It is just that seniority has been ignored/overlooked/changed, or whatever you want to call it.  This may be unthinkable with the regular Army, but it seems these Territorials can sometimes write their own rules. This is all despite Hull being an old Middlesex Officer who commanded the 4th battalion at Mons!

 

Apologies, as you were probably after firmer evidence than this. However, it is a topic I am interested in so I hope you do not mind me engaging with it. Perhaps somebody will come up with better evidence at some point. I do think though, that despite the Middlesex Regt. being senior to the London Regt., somebody has made a decision that, as Territorials, the RF are senior. The London Regiment is a bit different, after all. 

 

Regards,

 

Chris