General List v Special List

[QUEX]

I've been trying to get my head round these and trying, unsuccessfully, to find some definitive regulations concerning them.  This is what I think - I would be grateful for the opinion of wiser heads, and also for pointers to documentary sources.

 

General List:  This effectively functions as a 'regiment' for officers employed in specialist roles, who are either directly commissioned into it or transferred to it from other regiments and corps, and whose commissioning, promotion and appointments are gazetted as General List.  They 'should' wear the GS capbadge, collar dogs (?) and buttons.  There is no 'regimental' list published in the Army List (AL).  And it is nothing to do with ORs being enlisted for general service, or officers serving in general staff appointments.

 

Special List:  At the outbreak of war the AL contains multiple Special Lists - staff college graduates, officers with qualifications in modern languages, serving with the Egyptian Army, etc, etc. An officer can appear on several Special Lists - a Russian speaking staff college graduate serving with the WAFF would appear on three.   The one that matters is entitled  'Officers holding Honorary, Temporary or Local Rank' or variants thereof. This is where all(?)/most(?) General List officers appear in the AL during the war - although not all officers on this Special List are General List.  Although there are some gazetting of officer described as 'Special List' this is comparatively rare.

 

Am I on the right track?  And where do I find the definitive authority on this?

 

  

 

[Don Regiano]

Sorry, can't help with your query but here is one I cam across last summer:

 

 

[PhilB]

2/Lt L H Barnard, temp 2/Lt, 22nd Bn Manchester Regt, 3/4/15.  I`m surprised he didn`t have a Manchesters badge?

 

LieutenantBARNARD, LEWIS HAROLD

Died 25/08/1916

Aged 23

23rd Bn.
Manchester Regiment

attd. 104th Trench Mortar Bty.

Enlisted Sept., 1914. Part of the first Canadian contingent. Son of Thomas W. Barnard, of Dauphin, Manitoba, Canada.

Edited 31 December , 2019 by PhilB

[Ron Clifton]

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that "General List" corresponds to the regiment or corps into which an officer was commissioned, and although there may be a few examples of "Special List" being used in the same way, I don't think that it was intended for that purpose. As the OP says, it is used in connection with the various special lists shown in the Army List. It may also have been used to cloak the identities of certain officers in intelligence or "political" appointments.

 

Ron

[QUEX]

2 hours ago, Ron Clifton said:

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that "General List" corresponds to the regiment or corps into which an officer was commissioned, and although there may be a few examples of "Special List" being used in the same way, I don't think that it was intended for that purpose. As the OP says, it is used in connection with the various special lists shown in the Army List. It may also have been used to cloak the identities of certain officers in intelligence or "political" appointments.

 

Ron

Ron,

 

Ta.  I think we've both come to the same general conclusion. What bugs me is that I can't find any official description  - and I've looked at KRs, Pay Warrants, precedent books, etc, etc.  I've not even seen a reference in any officer's file that throws any light on this.  I'm beginning to wonder if there are actually pre-war rules that ran on and because 'everybody' knew what they were there was never any need to (re)explain them.  But given the expansion of the army and the number of inexperienced administrators you would have thought there would be something. 

 

Q

[MaureenE]

There is a previous GWF topic Special List

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/79213-special-list/

 

Cheers

Maureen

[QUEX]

Maureene,

 

VMT - I did search but missed that one (there are a couple of time I've lost the will to live trying to get this straight in my head'.

 

The image posted by pbrydon looks useful, but sadly isn't totally legible. So @pbrydon - any chance of repost please?  I presume it's from quasi-official guide to regiments and corps?  Gale & Polden perhaps?