Territorial Force & Imperial Service

[stewart scott]

I am trying to establish how many, and which, Territorial Force units were accorded 'Imperial Service' or 'Imperial Force' status (not certain that these two terms are 'official Army nomenclature'!) by dint of 90% or more of the soldiers in the unit having volunteered for Imperial Service. I understand that these soldiers would only have been entitled to wear the Imperial Service badge if the unit itself had been accorded that status. Actually, I am particularly interested in 1/4th Battn Lincolnshire Regiment in this respect as I am researching a Lt in that Battn who was shot dead by a sniper in 1915. If anyone knows of a book or published article or can otherwise offer any help whatsoever in pointing me in the right direction I would be most grateful (I have tried National Army Museum but no luck there). Thank you in anticipation. Stewart

[headgardener]

I can't answer the main thrust of your question, but my understanding is that it was intended to be worn by any officer or man who signed the Imperial Service Obligation and not merely men from units which were marked in the Army List as having achieved 90% 'sign up' (so that would presumably allow the 10% who didn't sign the ISO to wear the badge... ?!?). 

[stewart scott]

Hi, thanks for your interest and responding. I do not believe that it could be worn unless the minimum 90% 'sign-up' had been achieved; those that hadn't signed for Imp Service would not have been permitted to wear the badge (I don't think?) even if the unit was accorded that status - in any case, these men would not then have gone overseas. The main issue for me revolves around establishing if there is, or likely to be, a list of units that met the minimum 90% qualification figure. As you can probably tell, I'm a mere beginner, so any help, leads or advice most welcome!

[squirrel]

[headgardener]

They're listed in the Army List. Each TF unit that achieved the 90% 'sign up' had a symbol printed next to the unit's name (of the top of my head, I think it was a St Andrew Cross with a circle surrounding it). It's the only list I know of that records the '90%' units and, logically, the list must have varied over the years (the badge was instituted in 1910).

Edited 25 September , 2020 by headgardener

[stewart scott]

14 minutes ago, headgardener said:

They're listed in the Army List. Each TF unit that achieved the 90% 'sign up' had a symbol printed next to the unit's name (of the top of my head, I think it was a St Andrew Cross with a circle surrounding it). It's the only list I know of that records the '90%' units and, logically, the list must have varied over the years (the badge was instituted in 1910).

Thank you!

18 minutes ago, squirrel said:

 

18 minutes ago, squirrel said:

Thank you!

[ss002d6252]

Each man who signed would be given a badge - the badge and the overseas service of the unit are two different matters.

 

In yr to 30 Sep 1913 there were only 6 units which had the 90% figure - presumably the 90% was set at the point where there were enough men to warrant the unit being able to go overseas and still be efficient without it's full complement.

 

 

Craig

[ss002d6252]

It as announced in January 1910
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl%2f0003187%2f19100107%2f085&stringtohighlight=territorial "imperial service"

 

 

Craig

[stewart scott]

Thank you. Clearly if the original TF unit was overseas the men must have signed for Imperial Service. This has - sort of - prompted my question because of the several photos that I have of the soldier I'm researching, his brother, brother officers and men of the unit, not one badge may be seen in any of the photos. Howard Williamson, in one of his Great War medal books, suggests a correlation between the two?

[ss002d6252]

Quote

Thank you. Clearly if the original TF unit was overseas the men must have signed for Imperial Service.

 

Yes - those who didn't couldn't be forced until the MSA1916 changed their terms of service.

Craig

[stewart scott]

Thank you ss002d6252 for you second response; I think it is becoming much more clear now!

[stewart scott]

Thanks again Craig. I now need to interrogate the Army List for 1914 (or 1915) to see if 1/4th Battn Lincs had that 90% figure. Presumably available only at TNA. Stewart

[ss002d6252]

Just now, stewart scott said:

Thank you ss002d6252 for you second response; I think it is becoming much more clear now!

There was a lot of initial doubt over forcing the men to serve overseas due to their agreed terms of service. Before they bit the bullet and forced them they stopped enlisting new men in to the TF if they didn't agree to sign the ISO as part of the enlistment.

Craig

[stewart scott]

Thanks for that; I had wondered at what point men would ceased to be enlisted into the TF units as Territorials. Stewart

[ss002d6252]

Just now, stewart scott said:

Thanks again Craig. I now need to interrogate the Army List for 1914 (or 1915) to see if 1/4th Battn Lincs had that 90% figure. Presumably available only at TNA. Stewart

The army lists don't always keep right up to date with changes . 

 

The 1/4th went to France in March 1915 so they had enough men signed by then - most, if not all, TF battalions had at least one line that was ready for overseas service by then.

Certainly, as far as the Annual Returns pre-war go, the 4th Lincs hadn't hit the 90% figure by Oct 1913 so between Oct 13 and Mar 15 they did.

Craig

[stewart scott]

Thanks again Craig; I think that's about 'unravelled' it for me. Still find it strange that none of the men in the photos I've mentioned are wearing badges and neither was there one amongst the medals, ephemera etc of the brother to the officer I am researching -  I would have thought they would have been proud to wear it (but what do I know!). Stewart

[headgardener]

I've just checked - the words 'Imperial Service' (of course!!) appear under the unit's title in the Army List. It would take quite a lot of trawling through the AL in order to count the numbers of units that had hit the 90% though. 

 

The surge in volunteers following the outbreak of war meant that men who didn't sign the ISO would end up in the 2nd or 3rd line battalions allowing them to form an overseas service battalion from all the men who did sign. 

 

BTW, what was the suggested 'correlation' in the medal book that you mentioned earlier? I think you were saying that there was a correlation between the absence of badges and.... I wasn't sure what? I'd imagine that there might have been a run on IS badges in the early days of the war, so perhaps that's why they don't appear in the photos you have? I think their use petered out quite quickly once the units were in France, so maybe that's also relevant. 

Edited 25 September , 2020 by headgardener

[stewart scott]

The book states that "To qualify for the badge, 90% or more of the unit had to volunteer for overseas service (AO3 of 1910)". However, with the various responses received, including yours, I am now coming to the conclusion that this is not strictly correct; undoubtedly there could have been a number of reasons why the wearing of the badge (certainly in 1/4th Lincs) was not prevalent. Anyway, thanks to everyone who has responded and enlightened me on this issue. Stewart

[Steven Broomfield]

43 minutes ago, stewart scott said:

The book states that "To qualify for the badge, 90% or more of the unit had to volunteer for overseas service (AO3 of 1910)". However, with the various responses received, including yours, I am now coming to the conclusion that this is not strictly correct; undoubtedly there could have been a number of reasons why the wearing of the badge (certainly in 1/4th Lincs) was not prevalent. Anyway, thanks to everyone who has responded and enlightened me on this issue. Stewart

 

I would not say 'it's not strictly correct': I'd say it's completely wrong.

 

Incidentally, the historian of the 7th Middlesex (Lt Col E J King, CMG, FSA) states that his battalion, on the introduction of the Imperial Service Obligation, took the decision not to recruit anyone unwilling to sign. By the end of 1910, 90% of the Battalion had signed up and the Battalion received a letter from the War Office, expressing the King's satisfaction and confirming that the words 'Imperial Service' would be shown under its title in the Army List, thus making the 7th Middlesex the first to do so. King then confirms Craig's comment about the 8th Middlesex and 6th East Surreys being the only other infantry battalions to gain this appelation by the outbreak of the Great War.

[headgardener]

51 minutes ago, stewart scott said:

The book states that "To qualify for the badge, 90% or more of the unit had to volunteer for overseas service (AO3 of 1910)". However, with the various responses received, including yours, I am now coming to the conclusion that this is not strictly correct; undoubtedly there could have been a number of reasons why the wearing of the badge (certainly in 1/4th Lincs) was not prevalent. Anyway, thanks to everyone who has responded and enlightened me on this issue. Stewart

 

No, it’s not strictly correct. In fact it could reasonably be described as ‘wrong’. [EDIT: I see Steve has come to the same conclusion as myself...!]:  AO 3 of 1910 is very clear that the badge (which is actually described as a ‘tablet’) is awarded to any officer or man who signs the ISO. There are 2 separate but linked issues which he is evidently conflating: there’s the award of the badge/tablet to individual officers and men, and then there’s the ‘Imperial Service’ designation that was applied to any unit who surpassed the 90% target. As Craig said, this 90% target established that the unit in question was capable of ‘General Service’, and had nothing to do with the badge/tablet beyond the fact that at least 90% of the members of an ‘Imperial Service’ unit were entitled to wear one. A further error is that the 90% target was dropped in September 1914 in favour of a lower figure (60% or 70%, I think).

Edited 25 September , 2020 by headgardener

[stewart scott]

Dear Steven & headgardner. Thank you both for the clarification on this - very much appreciated. Stewart

[Graham Stewart]

I recently attached this section of T.F. Regulations 1912(amended to 1st December 1914) to another post regarding the Imperial Service Section, although it is not specific as regards numbers within units, but it details exactly what was expected of those whose enlisted into the T.F..

[Steven Broomfield]

2 hours ago, headgardener said:

A further error is that the 90% target was dropped in September 1914 in favour of a lower figure (60% or 70%, I think).

 

The Historian of the London Scottish states 75%. I have a memory that I've seen that figure elsewhere, too. Indeed, I was going to mention it before but wasn't sure and wanted to check.

[rolt968]

I doubt if Imperial Service badges were worn overseas. I wonder if they were worn once a battalion was designated 1/.. which meant that all men in the battalion were willing to serve overseas. I have wondered if the badge was worn most by men who had volunteered to serve overseas but for some reason didn't get to go at once (under age? not fit enough at the time?). Somewhere I have seen a photo of a TF artilleryman wearing an IS badge who was certainly under age in 1914.

 

I think we have discussed the signing of the Imperial Service Obligation before. Battalions seem to have had very differing practices - I raed somewhere that a number of men who signed up immediately in August 1914 had not been sasked to sign before.

 

I once (very unwisely) ploughed through the 1914 Army List looking for the Imperial Service annotations. I'm sure I missed one or two, but there were not many. It's clear where the annotation was put on infantry battalions and yeomanry regiments, but where would it have appeared for artillery, ASC and so on?

RM

[headgardener]

1 hour ago, rolt968 said:

I doubt if Imperial Service badges were worn overseas. I wonder if they were worn once a battalion was designated 1/.. which meant that all men in the battalion were willing to serve overseas. I have wondered if the badge was worn most by men who had volunteered to serve overseas but for some reason didn't get to go at once (under age? not fit enough at the time?). Somewhere I have seen a photo of a TF artilleryman wearing an IS badge who was certainly under age in 1914.

 

I think we have discussed the signing of the Imperial Service Obligation before. Battalions seem to have had very differing practices - I raed somewhere that a number of men who signed up immediately in August 1914 had not been sasked to sign before.

 

I once (very unwisely) ploughed through the 1914 Army List looking for the Imperial Service annotations. I'm sure I missed one or two, but there were not many. It's clear where the annotation was put on infantry battalions and yeomanry regiments, but where would it have appeared for artillery, ASC and so on?

RM

 

With regards to the Artillery, ASC, etc: the AL has a separate listing for the various TF units of the various regiments and Corps, and these will show the relevant 'Imperial Service' annotation. 

 

With regards to the wearing of the Imperial Service badge/tablet, I have never seen a photo of these being worn by a man serving overseas. I *think* that they weren't worn much after early/mid 1915, although I couldn't explain why that would be the case. I have various images of them being worn by men who were in 1st line TF units prior to serving overseas. I suspect that they continued to be worn for longer by 2nd and 3rd line units, which may explain what you say about them being worn more by men who didn't serve overseas in the earlier stages of the war.