REGIMENTAL NAMES- ETIQUETTE OF "THE"

[Guest]

OK- up for being shot down on this one if the answer is obvious- Just blame age, drink,cataracts, St Vitus's Dance, Lidl,etc,etc.

 

    Plenty of rolls of names where names of regiments ar,eeg "Essex Regiment".    Is there an etiquette about putting/not putting "The" in front of them??   This is to avoid a lot of corrections.

 

(Coming from Plymouth, as Uncle George will know, we get apoplectic about  TV presenters etc (usually American or Islington) referring to HMS  Dreadnought, for instance, as "The HMS Dreadnought"

 

Do similar niceties exist for referring to regimental names???

[Terry_Reeves]

The Army Lists various show "The".

 

TR 

[Cheshire22]

 

Soldier and officers died, British Regiments all state The 

 

 

[Matlock1418]

The London Gazette doesn't seem to use "The" for regiments

Edited 21 November , 2019 by Matlock1418

[ss002d6252]

As a general rule the Annual Army returns didn't use 'the'

 

Craig

[Ron Clifton]

In some cases "The" is part of the official regimental title, in others it is not. Some years ago I compiled a list of the various parts of SGDW for STAND TO! and I made this point then, in order to simplify the list by omitting "The" throughout. I don't think there is any ambiguity whether you include "The" or not. The correct titles (if there really are such things) are given in the Army List.

 

Ron

[cmf]

Although it'll always be clear what you're referring to, whether you say or write, for example, "1st Battalion, Essex Regiment", or "1st Battalion, The Essex Regiment", personally I'm a stickler for following The Army List, which I think should be taken as the correct guide re. the use of the definite article in unit or formation titles (using the main entry, not that found in the Contents, nor [strangely enough] on the 'Alphabetical List of Regiments' page, both of which forego 'The' altogether'). I think it quite logical that The Army List would follow official convention (or set it) in deciding which form to use, e.g. 'Coldstream Guards'; 'The Border Regiment'; 'Seaforth Highlanders (Ross-shire Buffs, the Duke of Albany's)'; 'West Riding Division'.

 

Chris

Edited 23 November , 2019 by cmf

[Michelle Young]

I've noticed that on  headstones from WW2, they will say (for example)The Essex Regiment, but WW1 stones say Essex Regiment. 

 

Michelle 

[Matlock1418]

 

10 hours ago, cmf said:

Although it'll always be clear what you're referring to, whether you say or write, for example, "1st Battalion, Essex Regiment", or "1st Battalion, The Essex Regiment", personally I'm a stickler for following The Army List, which I think should be taken as the correct guide re. the use of the definite article in unit or formation titles (using the main entry, not that found in the Contents, nor [strangely enough] on the 'Alphabetical List of Regiments' page, both of which forego 'The' altogether'). I think it quite logical that The Army List would follow official convention (or set it) in deciding which form to use, e.g. 'Coldstream Guards'; 'The Border Regiment'; 'Seaforth Highlanders (Ross-shire Buffs, the Duke of Albany's); 'West Riding Division'.

So the Army List is selective in its usage

Got to note that historically GRU and IWGC/CWGC didn't/don't use it. Edit; Just noted Michelle has simultaneously posted on this. :-)

And as previously noted neither do the London Gazette

Got to question use of "The" when using in the likes of C21st spreadsheets and for brevity & consistency for searches, sorting etc.

 

I think in written lists it is probably better to not have the "The" and in written or spoken prose it probably works better to use it, especially if the regimental name is not preceded by a sub-unit such as a numbered battalion  .... The Blankshire Regiment  .....  [Then you have the issue or capitalising the "The"/"the" or not! ] ---v---  ..... Xth Battalion, Blankshire Regiment ..... 

 

Edited 23 November , 2019 by Matlock1418
addit

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michelle Young said:

I've noticed that on  headstones from WW2, they will say (for example)The Essex Regiment, but WW1 stones say Essex Regiment. 

 

Michelle 

`

     Thank you all-  Michelle- this suggests some sort of change of policy by CWGC at some stage, so I will ask them.  Had never noticed that before  

[Uncle George]

(Coming from Plymouth, as Uncle George will know, we get apoplectic about  TV presenters etc (usually American or Islington) referring to HMS  Dreadnought, for instance, as "The HMS Dreadnought"

Yes: or “Forty Two Commando”; “the Pilgrims”; and just last week “Exmouth” - the ‘mouth’ pronounced as with the cake-hole.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Uncle George said:

Yes: or “Forty Two Commando”; “the Pilgrims”; and just last week “Exmouth” - the ‘mouth’ pronounced as with the cake-hole.

 

      Then we had better steer clear of pronouncing "Aveton Gifford" or "Lauceston" then.  ....Must pop off and see The HMS Belfast....

[cmf]

15 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

 

So the Army List is selective in its usage

Got to note that historically GRU and IWGC/CWGC didn't/don't use it. Edit; Just noted Michelle has simultaneously posted on this. :-)

And as previously noted neither do the London Gazette

Go to question use of "The" when using in the likes of C21st spreadsheets and for brevity & consistency for searches, sorting etc.

 

I think in written lists it is probably better to not have the "The" and in written or spoken prose it probably works better to use it, especially if the regimental name is not preceded by a sub-unit such as a numbered battalion  .... The Blankshire Regiment  .....  [Then you have the issue or capitalising the "The"/"the" or not! ] ---v---  ..... Xth Battalion, Blankshire Regiment ..... 

 

 

As you say, I would always capitalise 'the' if it formed part of the regiment's/formation's title (and was preceded by a sub-unit/sub-formation), e.g. '2nd Battalion, The Border Regiment', leave it out if it did not, e.g. '1st West Riding Infantry Brigade, West Riding Division'; and in prose, because the capitalised definite article as part of the title would clash with the definite article used in the grammar of the sentence, I would simply use a non-capitalised 'the', e.g. ' . . . he joined the Royal Dublin Fusiliers in March 1906 . . .' rather than ' . . . he joined The Royal Dublin Fusiliers in March 1906 . . .'. Of course, if the regimental/formation title did not include the definite article, you would still use it grammatically if needed, e.g. ' . . . he was awarded the Victoria Cross whilst serving with the Irish Guards . . .' rather than ' . . . he was awarded the Victoria Cross whilst serving with Irish Guards . . .', but could get away without using if it made grammatical sense, e.g. ' . . . she spent the war as a Staff Nurse with Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service'.

 

Chris

 

Edited 24 November , 2019 by cmf