Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

1913 NCO with four rank stripes (Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps)


aodhdubh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone advise the significance of a fourth rank stripe? The soldier shown is in a group with warrant officers and senior NCOs of the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps in 1913. He is unusual in wearing the new kakhi uniform that was replacing the unique regimental uniform still work by most, which may mean that he was a member of the Permanent Staff detached from regular army battalions (which normally included a Captain as the Adjutant, the Sergeant Major (usually an acting rank for a Colour-Sergeant, and never indicated as CSM or RSM, but given the pre-war strength including HQ and all three rifle companies was 200 all ranks, presumably equivalent today to a CSM (WO2), and three Colour-Sergeants or Sergeants as Sergeant Instructors...in my day called a Permanent Staff Instructor and always a WO2, but a single company of the Royal Bermuda Regiment today normally has the strength of the entire BVRC circa 1913). I've never seen a fourth rank stripe on any other soldier. Was this possibly given to Sergeant Instructors attached to Volunteer/Territorial units at the time?

P1160209m-Four-striper.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

Can anyone advise the significance of a fourth rank stripe? The soldier shown is in a group with warrant officers and senior NCOs of the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps in 1913. He is unusual in wearing the new kakhi uniform that was replacing the unique regimental uniform still work by most, which may mean that he was a member of the Permanent Staff detached from regular army battalions (which normally included a Captain as the Adjutant, the Sergeant Major (usually an acting rank for a Colour-Sergeant, and never indicated as CSM or RSM, but given the pre-war strength including HQ and all three rifle companies was 200 all ranks, presumably equivalent today to a CSM (WO2), and three Colour-Sergeants or Sergeants as Sergeant Instructors...in my day called a Permanent Staff Instructor and always a WO2, but a single company of the Royal Bermuda Regiment today normally has the strength of the entire BVRC circa 1913). I've never seen a fourth rank stripe on any other soldier. Was this possibly given to Sergeant Instructors attached to Volunteer/Territorial units at the time?

P1160209m-Four-striper.jpg

He is a permanent staff “Colour Sergeant Instructor of Musketry” of a Volunteer unit, who despite the formation of the Territorial Force in 1908 continued as ‘Volunteers’ at Colonial stations (overseas dependencies etc).  The four stripes with crown and crossed rifles was a long standing badge for that specific appointment.  It was replaced with the conventional badge in TF units but not at the overseas stations described.  I’m not sure when it was finally abolished.  Notice also his black buttons to indicate the rifles status of his volunteer unit, in this case almost certainly the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps just as you’ve suggested.  The regiment had an official affiliation with the Lincolnshire Regiment that has been inherited and maintained by the present day Royal Anglian Regiment.  See also: https://www.bermudaregiment.bm/about/history

4B384A3D-D016-41B1-B5CC-FE222BBCC17B.jpeg

75F0DC45-B0B1-4A60-83C9-25CA114945ED.jpeg

26411BCE-B09C-4B8A-8630-8317EFF9B5C1.jpeg

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

He is a permanent staff “Colour Sergeant Instructor of Musketry” of a Volunteer unit, who despite the formation of the Territorial Force in 1908 continued as ‘Volunteers’ at Colonial stations (overseas dependencies etc).  The four stripes with crown and crossed rifles was a long standing badge for that specific appointment.  It was replaced with the conventional badge in TF units but not at the overseas stations described.  I’m not sure when it was finally abolished.  Notice also his black buttons to indicate the rifles status of his volunteer unit, in this case almost certainly the Bermuda Volunteer Rifle Corps just as you’ve suggested.  The regiment had an official affiliation with the Lincolnshire Regiment that has been inherited and maintained by the present day Royal Anglian Regiment.  See also: https://www.bermudaregiment.bm/about/history4B384A3D-D016-41B1-B5CC-FE222BBCC17B.jpeg

 

Thank you very much for the confirmation. It seemed likely that was the case, but I was not familiar with the practice and I have not seen another photograph of a BVRC C/Sergeant Instructor from the pre-war period. The BVRC was re-organised on Territorial lines in 1921, and in subsequent photographs that do show Sergeant Instructors they do not have the fourth stripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

Thank you very much for the confirmation. It seemed likely that was the case, but I was not familiar with the practice and I have not seen another photograph of a BVRC C/Sergeant Instructor from the pre-war period. The BVRC was re-organised on Territorial lines in 1921, and in subsequent photographs that do show Sergeant Instructors they do not have the fourth stripe.

Thank you that is extremely useful information and does make sense as there was a substantial reorganisation of the regular and auxiliary forces in 1922 (largely retrenchment, mergers and permanent organisation in regional formations, most notably in India) so that does seem a likely time for the rank badge change at the colonial stations, thus bringing everyone in line.  As mentioned in another thread the service dress was revised too and non-rifles SNCOs began to wear scarlet sashes with that dress also (they had long done so with khaki drill).

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Thank you that is extremely useful information and does make sense as there was a substantial reorganisation of the regular and auxiliary forces in 1922 (largely retrenchment, mergers and permanent organisation in regional formations, most notably in India) so that does seem a likely time for the rank badge change at the colonial stations, thus bringing everyone in line.  As mentioned in another thread the service dress was revised too and non-rifles SNCOs began to wear scarlet sashes with that dress also (they had long done so with khaki drill).

The regular army, as you say, was drastically cut back below pre-war levels after the war, with many of its duties shouldered by the TA. Part of the cutbacks involved ideally getting rid of all regular garrisons in the colonies. As a Naval dockyard and base required in case of war (and desired not to be obtained and utilised by a foe in said war), Bermuda could not be left unguarded but the regular component of the garrison was slashed with the reserves taking on more responsibility. I expect that having the BVRC made up of volunteers who might all resign from the corps when most needed was considered undesirable, so all were discharged in 1921, and those willing to engage for a term of service were re-attested. The BMA soldiers already engaged for terms of service, but the removal of the regular RA and RE companies (leaving a district establishment and a detachment, respectively) in 1928 meant their militia training and embodiment schedule was not suitable when they were responsible for the constant, or at least immediate, manning of the guns, so they were re-organised on territorial lines in 1928.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

The regular army, as you say, was drastically cut back below pre-war levels after the war, with many of its duties shouldered by the TA. Part of the cutbacks involved ideally getting rid of all regular garrisons in the colonies. As a Naval dockyard and base required in case of war (and desired not to be obtained and utilised by a foe in said war), Bermuda could not be left unguarded but the regular component of the garrison was slashed with the reserves taking on more responsibility. I expect that having the BVRC made up of volunteers who might all resign from the corps when most needed was considered undesirable, so all were discharged in 1921, and those willing to engage for a term of service were re-attested. The BMA soldiers already engaged for terms of service, but the removal of the regular RA and RE companies (leaving a district establishment and a detachment, respectively) in 1928 meant their militia training and embodiment schedule was not suitable when they were responsible for the constant, or at least immediate, manning of the guns, so they were re-organised on territorial lines in 1928.

Thank you, that’s all entirely logical and understandable.  It’s a particularly good example of the retrenchment and reorganisation that took place across the empire, I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Thank you, that’s all entirely logical and understandable.  It’s a particularly good example of the retrenchment and reorganisation that took place across the empire, I feel.

I could write at greater length on the subject in reference to Bermuda, but I'll stop myself. The BVRC had sent its contingents to serve with the Lincolnshire Regiment during the war and the two were officially allied after the war. From 1931, the Lincolnshire Regiment became the source of all regular Army personnel on the BVRC Permanent Staff. The BVRC sent two contingents to the Lincolnshire Regiment in the Second World War, also. This is Sergeant Instructor Fretwell and RSM Grange, two Lincolnshire Regiment soldiers on the BVRC PS during the Second World War.

BVRC-Sergeant Instructor Fretwell & RSM Grange PS Lincs cr.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.  That’s a good view of the khaki drill ensemble together with the NS SD cap adopted in the early 1920s. We should not stray from the lead up to and duration of WW1 though.  You can do so via private message instead.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Thank you.  That’s a good view of the khaki drill ensemble together with the NS SD cap adopted in the early 1920s. We should not stray from the lead up to and duration of WW1 though.  You can do so via private message instead.

I'm looking through the BVRC order book for clues on dress and Sergeant Instructors in the 1913-1921 period. I know which SI were on strength by the end of 1913, but not when each left. I have a list of all from 1894-1933, but no dates for each, just an order of appointment. The regimental pattern uniform seems to have still been in the process of being phased out when the war began (the local reserves often received new dress and equipment quickly as they were provided for from the regular garrison Quartermaster, though there were clearly shortages at times...note the second overseas contingent of 1916 wearing Canadian SD, due doubtlessly to the CEF battalion then in the garrison). Unfortunately, the order book ends with November 1914. Evidently, orders were not retained through the war or have been lost. One interesting thing I do see:

 

Secondary sources all state the first overseas service contingent was formed at Warwick Camp in December, 1914. The November, 1914, orders, dated 2ns of November, indicated it already existed as a subunit, presumably as a list of volunteers, by the start of November.

P1140976.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

I'm looking through the BVRC order book for clues on dress and Sergeant Instructors in the 1913-1921 period. I know which SI were on strength by the end of 1913, but not when each left. I have a list of all from 1894-1933, but no dates for each, just an order of appointment. The regimental pattern uniform seems to have still been in the process of being phased out when the war began (the local reserves often received new dress and equipment quickly as they were provided for from the regular garrison Quartermaster, though there were clearly shortages at times...note the second overseas contingent of 1916 wearing Canadian SD, due doubtlessly to the CEF battalion then in the garrison). Unfortunately, the order book ends with November 1914. Evidently, orders were not retained through the war or have been lost. One interesting thing I do see:

 

Secondary sources all state the first overseas service contingent was formed at Warwick Camp in December, 1914. The November, 1914, orders, dated 2ns of November, indicated it already existed as a subunit, presumably as a list of volunteers, by the start of November.

P1140976.JPG

A very interesting and a rare sighting of that procedure whereby the progeny of married regular soldiers were taken “on the strength” (meaning formally on the “married establishment”) with a specific start date published on unit orders.  This only occurred if the wife had previously been declared on the strength and entitled her to half government rations and each child to a quarter ration.  This process was also used to govern separation and child (dependency) allowances when introduced. 

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

A very interesting and a rare sighting of that procedure whereby the progeny of married regular soldiers were taken “on the strength” (meaning formally on the “married establishment”) with a specific start date published on unit orders.  This only occurred if the wife had previously been declared on the strength and entitled her to half government rations and each child to a quarter ration.  This process was also used to govern separation and child (dependency) allowances when introduced. 

I suppose the child was added to the father's own regiment's stregth w.e.f. the same date? Sergeant William A Dickens, 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment, was appointed to the A Company, BVRC as a Sergeant Instructor in August, 1911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

I suppose the child was added to the father's own regiment's stregth w.e.f. the same date? Sergeant William A Dickens, 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment, was appointed to the A Company, BVRC as a Sergeant Instructor in August, 1911.

If he was already married and with children they would all have been added to the unit strength.  In past times there had also been men who married off the strength (without permission) and their families received no support, often leading to destitution if the soldier was sent away, or killed.  The addition was only to the unit where the soldier and his family were located.  When he was struck off his previous unit strength so was his family.  In effect the family moved as a unit, in the form of an attachment to him. Sometimes nicknamed (rather unkindly) ‘baggage’.  In Britain the Married Establishment was suspended in August 1914, the families sent home and funded via separation and child allowances, plus allotments from the soldier’s pay.  I don’t know what happened in the colonies but I suspect it varied depending on the circumstances.  It was really only necessary if the soldier himself was sent away to war and it was easy (viable) for their dependents to return to their families.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

If he was already married and with children they would all have been added to the unit strength.  In past times there had also been men who married off the strength (without permission) and their families received no support, often leading to destitution if the soldier was sent away, or killed.  The addition was only to the unit where the soldier and his family were located.  When he was struck off his previous unit strength so was his family.  In effect the family moved as a unit, in the form of an attachment to him. Sometimes nicknamed (rather unkindly) ‘baggage’.  In Britain the Married Establishment was suspended in August 1914, the families sent home and funded via separation and child allowances, plus allotments from the soldier’s pay.  I don’t know what happened in the colonies but I suspect it varied depending on the circumstances.  It was really only necessary if the soldier himself was sent away to war and it was easy (viable) for their dependents to return to their families.

I see. Thanks. Reading one officer's memoirs, he had observed of his time in Bermuda specifically, but also in other stations, that there had been problems with men evidently marrying without permission because they knew they could abandon their wives when their regiment moved on. He proposed the army enforcing the husband's responsibility (short of taking the wife on strength) as the way to curb the practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also interesting is to see militia or volunteer officers appointed to a garrison position, Assistant Provost Marshall, normally filled by a regular officer. Appointments of that type I expect were normally given to officers serving in battalions or companies in the garrison, rather than to officers serving on the garrison staff. Presumably this had been filled prior by an officer of 2nd Battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment, that had arrived in Bermuda in January, 1914, for a three years posting, but was unexpectedly withdrawn in Autumn and sent to France. Any garrison appointment filled by battalion officers would therefor have been vacated.

Edited by aodhdubh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

If he was already married and with children they would all have been added to the unit strength.  In past times there had also been men who married off the strength (without permission) and their families received no support, often leading to destitution if the soldier was sent away, or killed.  The addition was only to the unit where the soldier and his family were located.  When he was struck off his previous unit strength so was his family.  In effect the family moved as a unit, in the form of an attachment to him. Sometimes nicknamed (rather unkindly) ‘baggage’.  In Britain the Married Establishment was suspended in August 1914, the families sent home and funded via separation and child allowances, plus allotments from the soldier’s pay.  I don’t know what happened in the colonies but I suspect it varied depending on the circumstances.  It was really only necessary if the soldier himself was sent away to war and it was easy (viable) for their dependents to return to their families.

I found Dickens' service records online. He evidently arrived in Bermuda unmarried on the 18th of January, 1910, with the 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment from Gibraltar. He married at the West End on the 2nd of August, 1911. He transferred to Permanent Staff BVRC on 16th of September, 1911. 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment left Bermuda without him in 1912. He remained in Bermuda through the war. He had previously re-engaged to complete 21 years service. It's possible he may have faced being returned to unit after the war, requiring his leaving Bermuda where he had obviously built a life,  as he was discharged at his own request in 1920 after 18 years of service, at which time his address was shown as East Side, Somerset, Bermuda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

I found Dickens' service records online. He evidently arrived in Bermuda unmarried on the 18th of January, 1910, with the 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment from Gibraltar. He married at the West End on the 2nd of August, 1911. He transferred to Permanent Staff BVRC on 16th of September, 1911. 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment left Bermuda without him in 1912. He remained in Bermuda through the war. He had previously re-engaged to complete 21 years service. It's possible he may have faced being returned to unit after the war, requiring his leaving Bermuda where he had obviously built a life,  as he was discharged at his own request in 1920 after 18 years of service, at which time his address was shown as East Side, Somerset, Bermuda.

He was very lucky to have missed the war.  I doubt that that he would have survived had he returned to his battalion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

I see. Thanks. Reading one officer's memoirs, he had observed of his time in Bermuda specifically, but also in other stations, that there had been problems with men evidently marrying without permission because they knew they could abandon their wives when their regiment moved on. He proposed the army enforcing the husband's responsibility (short of taking the wife on strength) as the way to curb the practice.

This (abandonment and other abuses) was a common problem that the Army did nothing about for a long time.  There’s an interesting academic study on how the situation came about, evolved and was eventually put right in a books ‘women of the regiment’ by Myrna Tristram and ‘on the strength’, by Veronica Bamfield.  Both are very informative although the former has a much more academic style, based as it is on a dissertation for a MA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

This (abandonment and other abuses) was a common problem that the Army did nothing about for a long time.  There’s an interesting academic study on how the situation came about, evolved and was eventually put right in a books ‘women of the regiment’ by Myrna Tristram and ‘on the strength’, by Veronica Bamfield.  Both are very informative although the former has a much more academic style, based as it is on a dissertation for a MA.

I'd be very interested in reading those and will look for them. There was no shortage of soldiers who took their discharges in Bermuda and married locally, like my great-great-grandfather, and substantial numbers of both the BMA and BVRC soldiers who went overseas during the First World War were sons or grandsons of regular soldiers, like my grandfather's uncle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

I'd be very interested in reading those and will look for them. There was no shortage of soldiers who took their discharges in Bermuda and married locally, like my great-great-grandfather, and substantial numbers of both the BMA and BVRC soldiers who went overseas during the First World War were sons or grandsons of regular soldiers, like my grandfather's uncle.

Myrna Tristram’s book covers wider ground but is a more challenging, academic read.  Veronica Bamfield had been an army wife at the height of empire and so her account is far more personally based.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Myrna Tristram’s book covers wider ground but is a more challenging, academic read.  Veronica Bamfield had been an army wife at the height of empire and so her account is far more personally based.

Thanks. I'll search for them. I have just found another BVRC photograph with four-striper. Seated to the left of the officers (the right of the photograph).

P1160207crm.jpg

P1160207crm bvrc PS Sergt Instr.jpg

Edited by aodhdubh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

Thanks. I'll search for them. I have just found another BVRC photograph with four-striper. Seated to the left of the officers (the right of the photograph).

Yes, that’s the instructor of musketry alright.  At the opposite end of the row of officers that he flanks is another (at the time unique badge) of four inverted stripes lower sleeve with crown above (this latter out of sight), as worn by the “Acting Sergeant Major” (ASM).  He is holding a parade cane as his badge of office.  Unique to auxiliary forces he was a senior colour sergeant specially selected to be the sergeant major of battalion and wore the badge worn by regular sergeants major of battalion prior to 1881.  He could not be a warrant officer because at the time it had been decided (partly for financial reasons to do with pay and more expensive uniform) that only regulars (as in full time professionals) could hold WO rank.  However, the ASM of the auxiliary units were categorised (for pay and dress) as a sergeant major (and so had certain privileges accordingly, albeit less than those of a warrant officer) and you can see these mentioned in clothing regulations where sergeant major and warrant officer are delineated.  In 1915 that all changed and the position was granted the same WO rank and badge as regulars.

NB.  It must all seem very confusing to the unfamiliar.  Basically a regular in that position had the rank of warrant officer and the appointment of sergeant major (of battalion).  An auxiliary had the rank of colour sergeant (by then a type of staff sergeant) and appointment of sergeant major (of battalion).  I hope that the subtle, but nevertheless significant difference is clearer now.  Only we British could fudge things in such a way.

F1377627-94EA-405B-A576-95F7C2FEFDCE.jpeg

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes, that’s the instructor of musketry alright.  At the opposite end of the row of officers that he flanks is another (at the time unique badge) of four inverted stripes lower sleeve with crown above (this latter out of sight), as worn by the “Acting Sergeant Major” (ASM).  He is holding a parade cane as his badge of office.  Unique to auxiliary forces he was a senior colour sergeant specially selected to be the sergeant major of battalion and wore the badge worn by regular sergeants major of battalion prior to 1881.  He could not be a warrant officer because at the time it had been decided (partly for financial reasons to do with pay and more expensive uniform) that only regulars (as in full time professionals) could hold WO rank.  However, the ASM of the auxiliary units were categorised (for pay and dress) as a sergeant major (and so had certain privileges accordingly, albeit less than those of a warrant officer) and you can see these mentioned in clothing regulations where sergeant major and warrant officer are delineated.  In 1915 that all changed and the position was granted the same WO rank and badge as regulars.

NB.  It must all seem very confusing to the unfamiliar.  Basically a regular in that position had the rank of warrant officer and the appointment of sergeant major (of battalion).  An auxiliary had the rank of colour sergeant (which was type of staff sergeant) and appointment of sergeant major (of battalion).  I hope that the subtle, but nevertheless significant difference is clearer now.  Only we British could fudge things in such a way.

 

Thank you again. I have the orders and other records, so I was aware that the Sergeant Majors through this period were acting, with substantive ranks of Colour Sergeant, but did not realise that was the result of a policy, or that it was in common with militia and volunteer (and I assume Yeomanry) generally. Today, the Royal Bermuda Regiment has Colour Sergeants, rather than Staff Sergeants. Its RSM is normally a WO1, and its CSMs and PSIs are normally WO2s. A modern company is not the same as a 1914 company, of course, which is always the first point of confusion in trying to understand past practice based on today's. Thank you for the information on the ASM rank insignia. That will be useful for identification purposes. This particular photograph is undated, though doubtless predates the June, 1915, departure of the First Overseas Contingent for the Western Front as the officer sitting beside the ASM left in command of that contingent. This is possibly 10195 Colour-Serjeant James H. Conibear, KOSB, who was Acting Sergeant Major, BVRC, through the First World War, who was appointed to the role in 1913, or his predecessor, Colour-Sergeant (acting Sergeant-Major) Albert Adams, Worcestershire Regiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

Thank you again. I have the orders and other records, so I was aware that the Sergeant Majors through this period were acting, with substantive ranks of Colour Sergeant, but did not realise that was the result of a policy, or that it was in common with militia and volunteer (and I assume Yeomanry) generally. Today, the Royal Bermuda Regiment has Colour Sergeants, rather than Staff Sergeants. Its RSM is normally a WO1, and its CSMs and PSIs are normally WO2s. A modern company is not the same as a 1914 company, of course, which is always the first point of confusion in trying to understand past practice based on today's. Thank you for the information on the ASM rank insignia. That will be useful for identification purposes. This particular photograph is undated, though doubtless predates the June, 1915, departure of the First Overseas Contingent for the Western Front as the officer sitting beside the ASM left in command of that contingent. This is possibly 10195 Colour-Serjeant James H. Conibear, KOSB, who was Acting Sergeant Major, BVRC, through the First World War, who was appointed to the role in 1913, or his predecessor, Colour-Sergeant (acting Sergeant-Major) Albert Adams, Worcestershire Regiment.

Yes I believe it did include yeomanry although terminology might have been slightly different, I’m unsure.  The differential was driven by the decreed line of delineation between regular and auxiliary.  A satisfactory alignment was finally reached in Jun-Jul 1915 and rank badges and appointment titles were standardised accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2021 at 09:09, FROGSMILE said:

Yes I believe it did include yeomanry although terminology might have been slightly different, I’m unsure.  The differential was driven by the decreed line of delineation between regular and auxiliary.  A satisfactory alignment was finally reached in Jun-Jul 1915 and rank badges and appointment titles were standardised accordingly. 

Actually, staring closely at that last (group) photograph, the officer at the centre appears to be a Major, making him CO BVRC. I do not recognise his face, but can say he is not the officer who was CO from 1903 to 1920. The rank of the officer sitting beside the ASM is obscured, but appears to be a Second-Lieutenant or possibly Lieutenant. The Hart's Army List shows he was promoted to Captain in 1909. I'm led to the conclusion that this photo was taken in 1902 (as I suspect the ASM shown is the one who was replaced in that year by one who could occupy the position for a decade, whom I believe I have a photograph of and is a different man).

Edited by aodhdubh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/10/2021 at 15:48, aodhdubh said:

Actually, staring closely at that last (group) photograph, the officer at the centre appears to be a Major, making him CO BVRC. I do not recognise his face, but can say he is not the officer who was CO from 1903 to 1920. The rank of the officer sitting beside the ASM is obscured, but appears to be a Second-Lieutenant or possibly Lieutenant. The Hart's Army List shows he was promoted to Captain in 1909. I'm led to the conclusion that this photo was taken in 1902 (as I suspect the ASM shown is the one who was replaced in that year by one who could occupy the position for a decade, whom I believe I have a photograph of and is a different man).

It’s always satisfying to be able to assess a photo’s date with reasonable accuracy and it’s often a mixture of already known factors corroborated by uniform details including the type and make up of rank insignia shown.  

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...