Identify regiment

[david redding]

This a photo of my great grandfather George Edward Lovelock. I would love to know in which regiment he served in World War 1 and this is the only photo I have of him. Any information would be appreciated. I know he was living in the Sussex/Essex area at the time. He was born in Islington, North london. His date of birth was 18 July 1870 and he died dec 1944. He lived in Wiltshire in 1900. That is all of the information I have on him.

[James123]

He's wearing a Essex Reg cap badge David 

[Michelle Young]

Welcome to the forum David. He’s wearing the Imperial Service badge as well which denotes he was a member of the Territorial army.

Michelle 

[FROGSMILE]

He is Essex Regiment TF as already mentioned and I think he’s wearing the cap badge of a unit that had served in the 2nd Boer War as a Volunteer Battalion of that regiment.  To reflect this they had their own honour scroll on the bottom of the badge, but as per the initial policy of 1908 were not permitted the regulars EGYPT honour and so the scroll beneath the Sphinx was left blank.  Eventually all battalions wore the same badge design. 

[david redding]

James, That is great news thank you. So could he have fought in a certain battle or could they have been stationed anywhere? Also is there a website that may have details about him. Can I thank you so much for taking the time to reply. this really means a lot and I am dying to pass this onto my family. David

[david redding]

43 minutes ago, Michelle Young said:

Welcome to the forum David. He’s wearing the Imperial Service badge as well which denotes he was a member of the Territorial army.

Michelle 

Hi Michelle, That is great news thank you. So does that mean he didn't actually serve abroad? Was it like "Dad's Army" he would have been in his late 30s!  Also is there a website that may have details about him. Can I thank you so much for taking the time to reply. this really means a lot and I am dying to pass this onto my family.

 

[Michelle Young]

Members of the Territorial Army had to sign to agree that they would serve overseas. As per Frogsmile above, looks like he saw action in the Boer War. I had a quick look on Ancestry for his medal index card but didn't find it, doesn't mean that he doesn't have one, I'm not great at searching. Re is there a website that may have details, if his service papers have survived, (approx 60% were lost in an enemy bombing raid in WW2) , they would be on Ancestry. There are a lot of very helpful and knowledgeable people on this site who can also help. 

Michelle 

[FROGSMILE]

11 minutes ago, david redding said:

James, That is great news thank you. So could he have fought in a certain battle or could they have been stationed anywhere? Also is there a website that may have details about him. Can I thank you so much for taking the time to reply. this really means a lot and I am dying to pass this onto my family. David

The detail of individual soldiers was rarely recorded, they were different times then without the individualistic focus of today.  There was no NHS, women died giving birth to children, there were few cures for disease, and so all in all life expectancy was short.  This made the attitude to individuals very different, especially those below commissioned officer rank.  Given the age of your forebear he might not have served overseas during WW1, although it’s clear that he volunteered to do so some time after the Imperial Service Tablet was introduced in 1910.  There is a website focusing on the Essex Regiment here: http://www.essexregiment.co.uk/websitestovisit.html

Edited 20 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[PhilB]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

He is Essex Regiment TF as already mentioned and I think he’s wearing the cap badge of a unit that had served in the 2nd Boer War as a Volunteer Battalion of that regiment.  

 

With that information, would you expect him to wear an appropriate Boer War ribbon?

[FROGSMILE]

6 minutes ago, PhilB said:

With that information, would you expect him to wear an appropriate Boer War ribbon?

 

Not necessarily Phil, no.  It was the battalion that earned the honour on the cap badge, not the individual.  Many joined the auxiliary forces after the Boer War (after much fuss and jingoism) and given the absence of ribbons it seems like that this man was one of them.  The turnover in auxiliary units was (and still is) a huge problem, and not enough stayed more than a year or two.  By 1910 I doubt that many Boer War veterans of the auxiliary forces were still serving. 

Edited 20 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Andrew Upton]

I believe the badge in the photo is not a variety with the additional scroll, but the standard badge:

 

 

Edited 20 July , 2020 by Andrew Upton

[CorporalPunishment]

He is wearing the regular pattern cap badge but with blank plinth, there is no SA honour scroll at the base of the badge. Given that he is wearing a bandolier but is not wearing spurs I think he was a member of 8th.(Cyclist) Battalion, Essex Regiment TF.  Only the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Battalions TF were entitled to wear the badge with the SA honour scroll.  Pete.

[david redding]

Hi Everyone, Can I thank you all so much for contributing and if there is anything else you could add, my family are all enthralled with the information I am giving them through you all. This is such a fantastic source of knowledge.

There is no indication in the family research that he was in the Boer War, in fact he got married in 1900 and in the 1901 census he was a Woodturner in Sussex! However he would have been 44 years old at the start of WW1, which may be a little old?

Also regarding a possible tenuous cyclist link to the 8th Cyclist battalion, he  was one of the first AA (Automobile Assocation) responders on a bicycle.

This is the only other photo I have of him now wearing 3 chevrons on his arm, not sure what that means.

You are all wonderful people.

David

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, CorporalPunishment said:

He is wearing the regular pattern cap badge but with blank plinth, there is no SA honour scroll at the base of the badge. Given that he is wearing a bandolier but is not wearing spurs I think he was a member of 8th.(Cyclist) Battalion, Essex Regiment TF.  Only the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Battalions TF were entitled to wear the badge with the SA honour scroll.  Pete.

 

Bang on the money Pete.  Cyclists it is methinks.

 

14 minutes ago, david redding said:

Hi Everyone, Can I thank you all so much for contributing and if there is anything else you could add, my family are all enthralled with the information I am giving them through you all. This is such a fantastic source of knowledge.

There is no indication in the family research that he was in the Boer War, in fact he got married in 1900 and in the 1901 census he was a Woodturner in Sussex! However he would have been 44 years old at the start of WW1, which may be a little old?

Also regarding a possible tenuous cyclist link to the 8th Cyclist battalion, he  was one of the first AA (Automobile Assocation) responders on a bicycle.

This is the only other photo I have of him now wearing 3 chevrons on his arm, not sure what that means.

You are all wonderful people.

David

 

 

The three stripes indicate that he is a sergeant (so promoted by one rank from the previous photo) and in this photo he is wearing a waist belt from the emergency leather equipment that was issued at the beginning of WW1.

 

The 8th (Cyclist) Battalion was a part of the Territorial Force (TF), which was formed in 1908, just as he was in the photo with the Imperial Service Tablet.  The TF were formed specifically for home defence and that was intended as a primary motivation to join, to defend home and hearth.  Until conscription in 1916 no man could be compelled to go overseas and as there were not enough volunteers for the small element that it was hoped would volunteer without any great incentive (i.e. adventurous types) the tablet was introduced as a visible (and cheap) incentive.

 

 

Edited 20 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[david redding]

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

The detail of individual soldiers was rarely recorded, they were different times then without the individualistic focus of today.  There was no NHS, women died giving birth to children, there were few cures for disease, and so all in all life expectancy was short.  This made the attitude to individuals very different, especially those below commissioned officer rank.  Given the age of your forebear he might not have served overseas during WW1, although it’s clear that he volunteered to do so some time after the Imperial Service Tablet was introduced in 1910.  There is a website focusing on the Essex Regiment here: http://www.essexregiment.co.uk/websitestovisit.html

Thanks Frogsmile, I checked the website but no mention of any Lovelock names. I think he may have been part of the Territorial Army during WW1, more research is needed!

 

[david redding]

So could he have served abroad during WW1 even if he was 44+ ?

[FROGSMILE]

10 minutes ago, david redding said:

So could he have served abroad during WW1 even if he was 44+ ?

 

Older men did serve overseas and by end 1918 military age was upped to 51, but he would have been considered old in 1914 and might well have been thought more useful as an instructor for the younger TF recruits that surged as the war began.

Edited 20 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[CorporalPunishment]

1 hour ago, david redding said:

Hi Everyone, Can I thank you all so much for contributing and if there is anything else you could add, my family are all enthralled with the information I am giving them through you all. This is such a fantastic source of knowledge.

There is no indication in the family research that he was in the Boer War, in fact he got married in 1900 and in the 1901 census he was a Woodturner in Sussex! However he would have been 44 years old at the start of WW1, which may be a little old?

Also regarding a possible tenuous cyclist link to the 8th Cyclist battalion, he  was one of the first AA (Automobile Assocation) responders on a bicycle.

This is the only other photo I have of him now wearing 3 chevrons on his arm, not sure what that means.

You are all wonderful people.

David

I think you will find that the likelihood of him being a member of 8th (Cyclist) Battalion is more than "tenuous" as you put it.   Pete.

[david redding]

19 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

I think you will find that the likelihood of him being a member of 8th (Cyclist) Battalion is more than "tenuous" as you put it.   Pete.

I'm sorry I phrased it wrongly in my post. I meant to say that his job as AA cyclist is a link to him being a 8th battalion cyclist. Not that I think your research is tenuous. My apologies.

[CorporalPunishment]

13 minutes ago, david redding said:

I'm sorry I phrased it wrongly in my post. I meant to say that his job as AA cyclist is a link to him being a 8th battalion cyclist. Not that I think your research is tenuous. My apologies.

No problem. Being an AA cyclist would have made him an ideal candidate for the 8th Battalion.   Pete.

 

 

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

5 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

I believe the badge in the photo is not a variety with the additional scroll, but the standard badge:

 

Sorry Andrew, I wasn’t ignoring you, I missed your post.  Both you and Pete were correct and what I thought I could see on my phone screen was clearly a figment of imagination.

[Tom K]

16 hours ago, CorporalPunishment said:

... Given that he is wearing a bandolier but is not wearing spurs ...

 

In this case the bandolier may not have any particular significance.

 

In the original post, Cpl Lovelock is wearing standard Pattern 1903 accoutrements for dismounted soldiers (less greatcoat carrier, water bottle and haversack). If the photo was taken before his TF battalion was equipped with more modern equipments, he would be attired as a typical TF infantryman of the period between 1903 and the start of WW1.  Given that in the later photo the now Sgt Lovelock is wearing a 1914 Pattern belt, I'd say there is a better than even chance that his TF battalion wore full P03 until the outbreak of WW1, in which case his wearing the 50 round bandolier does not necessarily indicate mounted duties or cyclist service.

 

That said,  it is also likely that the OP photo predates WW1 - evidenced by the Magazine Lee Enfield ("Long Lee") and the 1888 Pattern Lee-Metford Bayonet (although these too persisted in service with the TF until early ww1).

 

Interestingly he is wearing  2 x 15 round pouches on each side of the belt, instead of the standard  layout of 1 x 10 round (nearest the buckle) and 1 x 15 round on each side. 

 

Tom K

 

Edited 21 July , 2020 by Tom K

[david redding]

5 hours ago, Tom K said:

 

In this case the bandolier may not have any particular significance.

 

In the original post, Cpl Lovelock is wearing standard Pattern 1903 accoutrements for dismounted soldiers (less greatcoat carrier, water bottle and haversack). If the photo was taken before his TF battalion was equipped with more modern equipments, he would be attired as a typical TF infantryman of the period between 1903 and the start of WW1.  Given that in the later photo the now Sgt Lovelock is wearing a 1914 Pattern belt, I'd say there is a better than even chance that his TF battalion wore full P03 until the outbreak of WW1, in which case his wearing the 50 round bandolier does not necessarily indicate mounted duties or cyclist service.

 

That said,  it is also likely that the OP photo predates WW1 - evidenced by the Magazine Lee Enfield ("Long Lee") and the 1888 Pattern Lee-Metford Bayonet (although these too persisted in service with the TF until early ww1).

 

Interestingly he is wearing  2 x 15 round pouches on each side of the belt, instead of the standard  layout of 1 x 10 round (nearest the buckle) and 1 x 15 round on each side. 

 

Tom K

 

Thanks for all of the interesting information. From what you say it sounds like my Great-Grandfather may have been in the TF prior to WW1. The second photograph (with the family) I think was taken around 1917, judging by the ages of the children (my Grandma), but I don't know the date of the first photograph.

[CorporalPunishment]

8 hours ago, Tom K said:

 

In this case the bandolier may not have any particular significance.

 

In the original post, Cpl Lovelock is wearing standard Pattern 1903 accoutrements for dismounted soldiers (less greatcoat carrier, water bottle and haversack). If the photo was taken before his TF battalion was equipped with more modern equipments, he would be attired as a typical TF infantryman of the period between 1903 and the start of WW1.  Given that in the later photo the now Sgt Lovelock is wearing a 1914 Pattern belt, I'd say there is a better than even chance that his TF battalion wore full P03 until the outbreak of WW1, in which case his wearing the 50 round bandolier does not necessarily indicate mounted duties or cyclist service.

 

That said,  it is also likely that the OP photo predates WW1 - evidenced by the Magazine Lee Enfield ("Long Lee") and the 1888 Pattern Lee-Metford Bayonet (although these too persisted in service with the TF until early ww1).

 

Interestingly he is wearing  2 x 15 round pouches on each side of the belt, instead of the standard  layout of 1 x 10 round (nearest the buckle) and 1 x 15 round on each side. 

 

Tom K

 

The bandolier, the lack of spurs, the cap badge of 8th (Cyclist) Battalion, I just put those points together and used my loaf.   Pete.

[david redding]

Thank you to everyone who contributed. You were right, I did some more research once you pointed me in the right direction and found my great-grandfather on the Automobile Association role of honour for the 8th (Cyclist) Battalion of the Essex Regiment plus a few fantastic photos. Although the photo attached is not of my great grandfather, it does show the uniform well.