Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Rank Stripe pattern Leeds/Bradford Pal


ilkley remembers

Recommended Posts

Bought this pc recently which shows 18/704 Henry (Harry) James Parkhurst on his wedding day with his wife Alice Winifred Hall in mid 1918. 

 

Harry originally enlisted in to the 2nd Bradford Pals (18th WYR) in April 1915 but at some stage possibly in 1916 after he wounded, transferred into the Leeds Pals (15th WYR) with whom he served for the rest of the war. 

 

His rank stripe and good conduct chevron have a checked pattern which I have seen before on photographs but was always under the impression that they were common on uniforms dating from the early part of the war. This clearly is towards the end of the war and was wondering if anyone could enlighten me as to possible reasons for this pattern of stripe being found this late in the conflict

harry parkhurst leeds pals.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

Bought this pc recently which shows 18/704 Henry (Harry) James Parkhurst on his wedding day with his wife Alice Winifred Hall in mid 1918. 

 

Harry originally enlisted in to the 2nd Bradford Pals (18th WYR) in April 1915 but at some stage possibly in 1916 after he wounded, transferred into the Leeds Pals (15th WYR) with whom he served for the rest of the war. 

 

His rank stripe and good conduct chevron have a checked pattern which I have seen before on photographs but was always under the impression that they were common on uniforms dating from the early part of the war. This clearly is towards the end of the war and was wondering if anyone could enlighten me as to possible reasons for this pattern of stripe being found this late in the conflict

 


They were commonly seen throughout the war, not just at the beginning, albeit proportionately in smaller numbers.  For the supply chain it was just an alternative pattern.

 

It’s a super photo, thank you for posting it.  Really nice seeing a WAAC alongside a soldier.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a SUPER RPPC , their insignia is very clear, never seen a photo of a WAAC so clear.

 

I think the Royal Newfoundland Reg't might have worn a similar checked chevrons.

Newfoundland was not part of Canada then.

 

Thanks for posting!

Bryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

They were commonly seen throughout the war, not just at the beginning, albeit proportionately in smaller numbers.  For the supply chain it was just an alternative pattern.

 

Thank you that seems to clear that question up. Harry Parkhurst seems to have reached the rank rather early in his military career and remained their throughout the war. I must admit that I thought it a rather splendid photograph especially with his wife in uniform as well. Sadly Harry was to die in 1926 and his wife remarried and moved to the Ilkley are where she died in her 90s

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RNCVR said:

I think the Royal Newfoundland Reg't might have worn a similar checked chevrons.

Newfoundland was not part of Canada then.

Obviously rather more common than I thought certainly think that they look rather smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree.

Dont seem to see those checked pattern chevrons much, soon as I viewed the RPPC I thought of RNF'd Regt, but I have to admit I am not a CEF collector so I could well be wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ilkley remembers said:

Thank you that seems to clear that question up. Harry Parkhurst seems to have reached the rank rather early in his military career and remained their throughout the war. I must admit that I thought it a rather splendid photograph especially with his wife in uniform as well. Sadly Harry was to die in 1926 and his wife remarried and moved to the Ilkley are where she died in her 90s

 


It really is a super photo and rather poignant too now that you’ve explained the background to it.  A happy snapshot in time and neither of them could know what was to come.  I have personal experience of that and so it particularly chimes with me.

A minor point, but just one stripe in the cavalry and infantry was not a rank, but an appointment, which was a probationary position to see if a man was suitable for 2-stripes and the responsibilities of a full corporal.  A very few LCpl were paid to fill the place of Corporals employed elsewhere than their position in the establishment (this was backfilling), but the vast majority were entirely unpaid, and instead granted some privileges that made their life a little more comfortable.  The cross-hatched stripes are not in any way special, they just helped to make up the huge surge in demand. 

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RNCVR said:

but I have to admit I am not a CEF collector

 

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

A happy snapshot in time and neither of them could know what was to come.  I have personal experience of that and so it particularly chimes with me.

I don't collect a lot myself but do enjoy getting these cards and filling some of the details of  individual lives and yes the stories often carry with then astonishing poignancy

 

Thanks again

 

IR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, max7474 said:

1918 date judging by the overseas stripes?


Yes it suggests that.  He also has 2-years+ of good conduct and a wound stripe.  I wonder if it was taken after the armistice.  I imagine it might have been as her demeanour seems free from fear of bereavement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the rear of the pc it says wedding day which was 1918. He was discharged from 15/17th West Yorks the following year as was his wife from the WAACs

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ilkley remembers said:

On the rear of the pc it says wedding day which was 1918. He was discharged from 15/17th West Yorks the following year as was his wife from the WAACs

 


So he either got leave to be married before the armistice or married after it.  The fact that she’s in uniform rather than in white seems very telling and quite advanced for its day too. I wonder if they found a way to marry in France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

So he either got leave to be married before the armistice or married after i

 

 

27 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

So he either got leave to be married before the armistice or married after i

Their marriage was registered in Bradford in July 1918, the church records for both C of E and non-conformist churches in West Yorks are well recorded on Ancestry so unless they were Roman Catholic it is likely to have been a civil ceremony. This would have taken place at the Bradford Registry Office on Cheapside which is near (about 300 yards) to their home on Hanover Square. I would imagine that the dress requirements/expectations at a civil ceremony would be less formal than at a church wedding which perhaps explains her wearing the uniform of the WAAC. Winifreds WAAC record is available from the National Archives and from memory doesn't say anything about her getting married in 1918 so I wonder if she hid the fact. It does show that she was discharged on medical grounds the following year after she had served as a clerk at Otley (possibly the Gas School) and at Doncaster.

 

27 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

 

Edited by ilkley remembers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

 

 

Their marriage was registered in Bradford in July 1918, the church records for both C of E and non-conformist churches in West Yorks are well recorded on Ancestry so unless they were Roman Catholic it is likely to have been a civil ceremony. This would have taken place at the Bradford Registry Office on Cheapside which is near (about 300 yards) to their home on Hanover Square. I would imagine that the dress requirements/expectations at a civil ceremony would be less formal than at a church wedding which perhaps explains her wearing the uniform of the WAAC. Winifreds WAAC record is available from the National Archives and from memory doesn't say anything about her getting married in 1918 so I wonder if she hid the fact. It does show that she was discharged on medical grounds the following year after she had served as a clerk at Otley (possibly the Gas School) and at Doncaster.

 

 


That’s a very revealing scenario I think and I agree that it seems most likely to have been a civil ceremony.  I have the sense that she was a modern, forward looking person who was enjoying her independence and sense of worth as a working woman earning her own wage, at a time when that was a relatively new phenomenon.  I also agree that it’s very possible that she did not notify anyone of her marriage, as if I recall correctly she would have been obligated to resign.  When the WAAC were formed there had been some opposition from the Church of England (still a powerful force back then) on the grounds that it would discourage women from “doing their duty” and marrying.  I think that to reassure clergy it was agreed that they would be obliged to discharge.  I’m not positive of this but I think I did read that somewhere.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The restrictions placed upon women at that time might well have hindered her ability to continue in the WAAC after marriage. It was certainly a restriction placed upon women in several professions including teaching. If the scenario that she hid her marriage is correct then what did Harry Parkhurst do about informing the army? Did he also hide it for fear of the army informing the WAAC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d never considered the ramifications of marriage for a member of the WAAC. I have a couple of 1918 wedding photos of WAAC’s marrying soldiers (in 1 case with other WAAC’s in attendance to the bride), so these sort of ‘double khaki’ weddings did occur without the woman relinquishing her military role (in both of the cases that i cited the women continued to serve in the WAAC, although I can’t remember whether or not the weddings were declared on their service records).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Alice Halls application to join the WAAC there is a section which asks if she is single, married or divorced. It also asks about any children and the nationality of any husband. I suppose that might indicate that married women were allowed to join

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

The restrictions placed upon women at that time might well have hindered her ability to continue in the WAAC after marriage. It was certainly a restriction placed upon women in several professions including teaching. If the scenario that she hid her marriage is correct then what did Harry Parkhurst do about informing the army? Did he also hide it for fear of the army informing the WAAC


That’s a really good point, as long standing army convention required the permission of a commanding officer, but with war raised units I think a lot of those niceties went by the wayside as there was no chance of accompanied service anyway.  It would have been necessary for a pension had he been killed though so it’s quite intriguing to wonder about what they might have done at the time.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

On Alice Halls application to join the WAAC there is a section which asks if she is single, married or divorced. It also asks about any children and the nationality of any husband. I suppose that might indicate that married women were allowed to join


Yes, I think you must be right.  I suppose the authorities just needed to assure themselves that no children or husband were being abandoned.  During my service those that became pregnant were obliged to discharge, which later cost the government a lot of money in damages.  I think that certainly that was still the case back then and was probably when that policy originated.

 

NB.  What that policy seemed to be saying is that you can get married but don’t you dare get pregnant, which at a time when contraception was extremely crude presented significant problems.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

That’s a really good point, as long standing army convention required the permission of a commanding officer, but with war raised units I think a lot of those niceties went by the wayside as there was no chance of accompanied service anyway.  It would have been necessary for a pension had he been killed though so it’s quite intriguing to wonder about what they might have done at the time.

 

5 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes, I think you must be right.  I suppose the authorities just needed to assure themselves that no children or husband were being abandoned.  During my service those that became pregnant were obliged to discharge, which later cost the government a lot of money in damages.  I think that certainly that was still the case back then and was probably when that policy originated.

 

NB.  What that policy seemed to be saying is that you can get married but don’t you dare get pregnant, which at a time when contraception was extremely crude presented significant problems.

 

I would imagine that during wartime and as the size of the army expanded the conventions and regulations which governed military service would have become increasingly difficult to administer. It is also possible that military personal would have become adept at hiding what they did not want the army to know about. 

 

The issue of pregnancy is an interesting one and I did wonder if Alice's medical condition as noted in her medical record as the reason for discharge, was in fact the expectation of a new addition to the family. As you say this legacy extended until relatively recently and not just in the armed forces. 

 

The manner in which the authorities in both the military and civilian services could examine personal lives of those who served was quite marked until recent times. In the early 1980s as a serving police officer I had to ask permission to get married and my intended was subject to a vetting procedure and interview. She passed you will be pleased to know. Likewise, when the I wanted to move house the address was assessed for suitability.

 

Like restrictions that covered those who fought in WW1 I suppose that these restrictions were largely accepted as being part and parcel of uniformed service even in a predominantly civilian army.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ilkley remembers said:

 

 

I would imagine that during wartime and as the size of the army expanded the conventions and regulations which governed military service would have become increasingly difficult to administer. It is also possible that military personal would have become adept at hiding what they did not want the army to know about. 

 

The issue of pregnancy is an interesting one and I did wonder if Alice's medical condition as noted in her medical record as the reason for discharge, was in fact the expectation of a new addition to the family. As you say this legacy extended until relatively recently and not just in the armed forces. 

 

The manner in which the authorities in both the military and civilian services could examine personal lives of those who served was quite marked until recent times. In the early 1980s as a serving police officer I had to ask permission to get married and my intended was subject to a vetting procedure and interview. She passed you will be pleased to know. Likewise, when the I wanted to move house the address was assessed for suitability.

 

Like restrictions that covered those who fought in WW1 I suppose that these restrictions were largely accepted as being part and parcel of uniformed service even in a predominantly civilian army.

 

 


My father, grandfather and several cousins were also part of the blue line, and I do recall that there used to be a more militarised code and set of protocols, so I think that the permission to marry requirement was a part of that paradigm.  Indeed I remember my father telling me that the chief constables and Met Commissioner were often retired generals with no direct policing experience.  He said that some resented that, but others saw no problem with it as they were largely just figureheads who were the link with County and Municipal authorities, and beyond setting priorities according to political will, had no operational input.  They were different times and my perception is that police unionisation played a part in the profound changes since then.

 

What you described regarding the vetting for suitability of future wives was exactly what happened in the Army, although in its fullest form that evolved in the 19th century as part and parcel of so-called Victorian sensibilities.  If you’re interested in the concept of this there’s a very thorough, but deeply academic style examination of it in a book titled ‘Women of the Regiment: Marriage and the Victorian Army’, by Myna Trustram.  There are extracts available online.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

What you described regarding the vetting for suitability of future wives was exactly what happened in the Army, although in its fullest form that evolved in the 19th century as part and parcel of so-called Victorian sensibilities.  If you’re interested in the concept of this there’s a very thorough, but deeply academic style examination of it in a book titled ‘Women of the Regiment: Marriage and the Victorian Army’, by Myna Trustram.  There are extracts available online.

It looks like an interesting book, although, at £27 for the paperback edition(Amazon) it looks like will have to see if the library can get it, if they are allowed these days. I wonder how the position of wives within the regimental system changed with the onset of WW1. Prior to 1914 both the wives of officers and ORs seem to have held of at least adopted a particular roll especially when battalions were posted overseas. As regular army casualties mounted especially in the early stages of the war the position of wives must have undergone significant alteration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ilkley remembers said:

It looks like an interesting book, although, at £27 for the paperback edition(Amazon) it looks like will have to see if the library can get it, if they are allowed these days. I wonder how the position of wives within the regimental system changed with the onset of WW1. Prior to 1914 both the wives of officers and ORs seem to have held of at least adopted a particular roll especially when battalions were posted overseas. As regular army casualties mounted especially in the early stages of the war the position of wives must have undergone significant alteration


I think that key elements of Trustram’s studies, based on her original thesis, are available in pdf form here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Women-of-the-Regiment%3A-Marriage-and-the-Victorian-Trustram/939a302d14f8d036d61b067b98faf30bd4af9f62

 

The position of regular army wives changed substantially once war at a national level was declared and they either, remained at the peacetime station if at home, or returned to a British garrison if abroad.  It’s arguably an overlooked area for study and I’ve no idea of the detail in terms of problems that it must have presented for regular army authorities at the time.  Mobilisation procedures were extremely well set out, but how they affected established regular army families I am unclear about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

are available in pdf form here

Thank you FROGSMILE, think that I can download that and looks like interesting reading.

 

16 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

It’s arguably an overlooked area for study and I’ve no idea of the detail in terms of problems that it must have presented for regular army authorities at the time.  Mobilisation procedures were extremely well set out, but how they affected established regular army families I am unclear about.

Will be interesting to see if this aspect is the subject of future study. Certainly it seems that impact of the war upon individual lives has attracted considerable interest from researchers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ilkley remembers said:

Thank you FROGSMILE, think that I can download that and looks like interesting reading.

 

It has a very academic style because it was written as a thesis, but providing you can get past that (and its rather feminist trope) it is extremely illuminating and full of relevant historical detail.  Certainly it was well received at the time and was published as a result.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...