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

[aodhdubh]

5 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

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.  

Yes...a clearer view of his (the officer beside the ASM) rank would be nice, but he is at least one of the more recognisable members of the corps, destined to finish in 1924 as CO and a Lieutenant-Colonel, the first of the corps to reach that rank.

1898/02/01 - Promoted from Corporal to Sergeant
1899/11/04 - Promoted to Colour-Sergeant
1900/04/09 - Commissioned Second-Lieutenant
1901/12/ ? - Promoted to Lieutenant
1909/01/25 - Promoted to Captain

If I correctly surmise him to be a Second-Lieutenant in the photo, then it was obviously between 9th of April, 1900, and December, 1901, not 1902. Sergeant-Major E. Belmore, KRRC, retired with pension in May, 1902, and was replaced by Colour-Sergeant (acting Sergeant-Major) Albert Adams, Worcestershire Regiment, who filled the role 'til 1913, so it should be Belmore in the photograph.

 

Edited 1 November , 2021 by aodhdubh

[FROGSMILE]

10 hours ago, aodhdubh said:

Yes...a clearer view of his (the officer beside the ASM) rank would be nice, but he is at least one of the more recognisable members of the corps, destined to finish in 1924 as CO and a Lieutenant-Colonel, the first of the corps to reach that rank.

1898/02/01 - Promoted from Corporal to Sergeant
1899/11/04 - Promoted to Colour-Sergeant
1900/04/09 - Commissioned Second-Lieutenant
1901/12/ ? - Promoted to Lieutenant
1909/01/25 - Promoted to Captain

If I correctly surmise him to be a Second-Lieutenant in the photo, then it was obviously between 9th of April, 1900, and December, 1901, not 1902. Sergeant-Major E. Belmore, KRRC, retired with pension in May, 1902, and was replaced by Colour-Sergeant (acting Sergeant-Major) Albert Adams, Worcestershire Regiment, who filled the role 'til 1913, so it should be Belmore in the photograph.

 

The ASM in the photo has the world weary appearance of a man on the cusp of retirement, so I think that your assessment is most likely correct.  Newly appointed ASMs tend to portray an visual air of palpable enthusiasm.

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

Good Day aodhdubh,

 

I was wondering in you BVRC Bermuda. research have you come across any mention of Battle Honours?  I was wondering where you were lucky enough to access the BVRC 1914-1921 Orders?  I am able to find some items for the BVRC and Bermuda Rifles at the Bermuda Archives and when I search on line for TNA Kew?

If the BVRC 1914 -1921 orders are in digital format (permitted to be share copyright). I would be interested in reviewing for research I am doing for the Royal Bermuda Regiment.  My email is (removed by moderator) 

I am researching battle honours of the BVRC and Bermuda Rifles if you have some across any mentions on permission, the drums or a being added to the BVRC Capbadge.

(email address removed please do not post information like this on your posts, as spammers visit and harvest information) 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Major Preston Gill RBR said:

Good Day aodhdubh,

 

I was wondering in you BVRC Bermuda. research have you come across any mention of Battle Honours?  I was wondering where you were lucky enough to access the BVRC 1914-1921 Orders?  I am able to find some items for the BVRC and Bermuda Rifles at the Bermuda Archives and when I search on line for TNA Kew?

If the BVRC 1914 -1921 orders are in digital format (permitted to be share copyright). I would be interested in reviewing for research I am doing for the Royal Bermuda Regiment.  My email is (removed by moderator) 

I am researching battle honours of the BVRC and Bermuda Rifles if you have some across any mentions on permission, the drums or a being added to the BVRC Capbadge.

(email address removed please do not post information like this on your posts, as spammers visit and harvest information) 

@aodhdubh will be able to give you chapter and verse.  As there are no battle honours on the BVRC colours, or drum emblazons, they clearly do not have any as a discrete unit, but they did send individual volunteers to serve with the Lincolnshire Regiment and Royal Artillery. 

Edited 9 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

[FROGSMILE]

The BVRC did not deploy as an organised unit to the war(s) and so has no officially sanctioned battle honours (e.g. the BVRC, as a unit, were not on the order of battle at Ypres, or the Somme). I’m a bit surprised that as a Major(?) you do not realise that important caveat. It’s well established that men from the BVRC joined other units and fought in the war, but unfortunately there is no formal process by which they may transfer the battles in which they participated to the BVRC colours.  Sadly it’s a common scenario that applied to many colonial auxiliary and pseudo regular units that similarly provided volunteers acting as individuals.  The same principle applied.  There have been numerous examples of all types of units, including regular ones, that for various reasons have been turned down, when seeking recognition of battle honours, by the awarding body in the U.K.  The criterion is strict and I wish I could say that it has been logical and consistent.  It hasn’t and there have been numerous cases in history where the process has been a travesty.  Nevertheless, the fact that formal approval is required still stands.  The BVRC have not (along with many other corps) received that approval.  Painting a drum does not make it so….

Edited 9 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

Hi Frogsmile,

Officially sanctioned (May have been by Bermuda in its own right - did the have the legally authority (as non UK raised force?); but agree most likely not sanctioned by the UK; but still could be official and legal in accordance with the colony/not UK Law).  I have checked the National Archives and did not find anything and have not found any UK sanction of it.

Not sure why my researching the BVRC battle honours has anything to do with my Rank and comes across in a very poor manner as I am researching the fact that the BVRC had battle honours emblazoned and was reported as approved in local newspapers vs the WO/MoD view?   My researching is the simple; why did the drums get emblazoned and who (if any one) granted permission?  What is the point of this forum if not to research such things?  Can Bermuda grant the battle honours to itself now?  Could they have done so pre Bermuda Constitution 1968 (in 1920/30s seems unlikely then).

Problem is the UK does not know a great deal about the Colonial Forces/Local Forces (seems to be some corporate knowledge loss) and that UK Legislation does not apply to local forces raised under local legislation and governed by the Governor's orders vs QR&O/KR&Os.  

It is possible for a Governors as by precedent to issue Governor's Battle honours (East India Company).  It is possible that local Defence Ordinances and legislation could pass local Battle Honours Regulations or local Battle Honours Act?  Appears to be legally possible (in theory).

As a Colonial Forces outside the control of the MoD there is precedent for Crown Dependencies and Colonies are only constitutional affiliated to the British Army and not aligned to the MoD but FCO and in obtaining battle honours and theatre honours such as the Jersey's Militia battle honour the Great War; it is un clear who granted permission to emblazoned the battle honours in Bermuda but there is local information indicating it was officially approved in Bermuda.  Was it a local permission only or UK granted or in consensus with both the UK and Bermudian authorities?

The research problem is that the Official news papers in Bermuda and the Unit orders stated they received official permission to emblazon the  battle honours, this can be found in the Bermuda Rifles Unit Orders and Local Defence Board correspondence.  

I have checked with MoD who are not of the opinion that the BVRC were entitled but they were not aware of most of the supporting material as per your initial response.  Also they don't know who granted permission.  

What I am enquiring is has anyone come across anything in archives, or Unit orders, or Bermuda based orders or FCO correspondence.  The BVRC and Bermuda Rifles, had emblazoned the battle honours as per shown and we have the drums in the Bermuda Regiment Officer's mess and our museums.  Their was a Regular army Brigade and Naval base at the time of Embalzonment.  Also the King, Queen, Prime Ministers inspected the BVRC/Bermuda Rifles on Parade with the Drums present.   Further, the news papers in Bermuda state 'They received permission'; the question is from who?  that is what I am researching whether or not Bermuda just painted the ir drums?  If the Governor of the Day who can approved the Governonrs orders, if the FCO gave permission? Etc.

 

If you have ever come across who (if any one gave permission) or anything that actual stated Bermuda and Battle honours (even in the denial of). I would like to review.    

Thank you in advance.

I appreciate your thoughts on and views.

 

Edited 9 December , 2021 by Major Preston Gill RBR
Adjust Grammar

[aodhdubh]

3 hours ago, Major Preston Gill RBR said:

....I was wondering where you were lucky enough to access the BVRC 1914-1921 Orders?  I am able to find some items for the BVRC and Bermuda Rifles at the Bermuda Archives and when I search on line for TNA Kew?

If the BVRC 1914 -1921 orders are in digital format (permitted to be share copyright)...

Hallo Preston,

I'm anonymous on this website but we know each other. I've just sent you an e-mail.

 

A charaid.

[FROGSMILE]

On 09/12/2021 at 17:25, Major Preston Gill RBR said:

Hi Frogsmile,

Officially sanctioned (May have been by Bermuda in its own right - did the have the legally authority (as non UK raised force?); but agree most likely not sanctioned by the UK; but still could be official and legal in accordance with the colony/not UK Law).  I have checked the National Archives and did not find anything and have not found any UK sanction of it.

Not sure why my researching the BVRC battle honours has anything to do with my Rank and comes across in a very poor manner as I am researching the fact that the BVRC had battle honours emblazoned and was reported as approved in local newspapers vs the WO/MoD view?   My researching is the simple; why did the drums get emblazoned and who (if any one) granted permission?  What is the point of this forum if not to research such things?  Can Bermuda grant the battle honours to itself now?  Could they have done so pre Bermuda Constitution 1968 (in 1920/30s seems unlikely then).

Problem is the UK does not know a great deal about the Colonial Forces/Local Forces (seems to be some corporate knowledge loss) and that UK Legislation does not apply to local forces raised under local legislation and governed by the Governor's orders vs QR&O/KR&Os.  

It is possible for a Governors as by precedent to issue Governor's Battle honours (East India Company).  It is possible that local Defence Ordinances and legislation could pass local Battle Honours Regulations or local Battle Honours Act?  Appears to be legally possible (in theory).

As a Colonial Forces outside the control of the MoD there is precedent for Crown Dependencies and Colonies are only constitutional affiliated to the British Army and not aligned to the MoD but FCO and in obtaining battle honours and theatre honours such as the Jersey's Militia battle honour the Great War; it is un clear who granted permission to emblazoned the battle honours in Bermuda but there is local information indicating it was officially approved in Bermuda.  Was it a local permission only or UK granted or in consensus with both the UK and Bermudian authorities?

The research problem is that the Official news papers in Bermuda and the Unit orders stated they received official permission to emblazon the  battle honours, this can be found in the Bermuda Rifles Unit Orders and Local Defence Board correspondence.  

I have checked with MoD who are not of the opinion that the BVRC were entitled but they were not aware of most of the supporting material as per your initial response.  Also they don't know who granted permission.  

What I am enquiring is has anyone come across anything in archives, or Unit orders, or Bermuda based orders or FCO correspondence.  The BVRC and Bermuda Rifles, had emblazoned the battle honours as per shown and we have the drums in the Bermuda Regiment Officer's mess and our museums.  Their was a Regular army Brigade and Naval base at the time of Embalzonment.  Also the King, Queen, Prime Ministers inspected the BVRC/Bermuda Rifles on Parade with the Drums present.   Further, the news papers in Bermuda state 'They received permission'; the question is from who?  that is what I am researching whether or not Bermuda just painted the ir drums?  If the Governor of the Day who can approved the Governonrs orders, if the FCO gave permission? Etc.

 

If you have ever come across who (if any one gave permission) or anything that actual stated Bermuda and Battle honours (even in the denial of). I would like to review.    

Thank you in advance.

I appreciate your thoughts on and views.

 

Simply put, no, no, no, etc.  Bermuda is (and currently wants to remain as far as I know) a member of the Commonwealth.  The head of the Commonwealth is the Queen.  Battle honours and indeed all other honours are awarded by government authorities (civil service agencies of state) in the name of the Queen (or whoever is monarch).  It’s of course possible, in a democracy, for Bermuda to elect to steer its own course in the way it awards honours, rather like Canada and Australia and New Zealand have, although there has not been a common policy.  For example, some have chosen to stay within the British honours system with regards to Knighthoods, whereas others have not. Some, issue a hotchpotch of their own medals, alongside those of the Sovereign (i.e. the UK) that they still happen to approve of.  The result, has arguably led to a mess.  None of this is to say that the British honours system is a particularly good one, or without fault (and recent tinkering ended up pleasing very few).  Looking at just battle honours, though, is another matter, and issuing past honours differently would clearly be a nonsense and arguably bring the whole thing into disrepute.  It may be that from a certain date future honours will be issued independently, but that seems unlikely with regards to those of the past.  As I understand it, Australia and NZ made a request to the Queen (as their head of state), concerning how they wished their contribution to the Vietnam war to be recognised, as regards battle honours, and an accord was reached.  If a country chooses independence and / or to leave the Commonwealth, then they can of course do what they like, but awarding themselves past honours, arbitrarily, would I think open up a free-for-all and be viewed by many as risible.  As for the Potter drum, Potters are a commercial company, and will put on the drum whatever the customer asks and pays for.  I’m sure it will be very interesting to research with the FCO military (battle) honours, there has been a committee that considers such matters for some time, but I believe it’s set up, as and when required (generally after wars, or campaigns) and often many years after the events that they consider.  It’s not a standing committee, in permanent existence.  Awarding a unit an honour for an action, at which they were not present, would be an absolute nonsense.  Units are awarded battle honours (for their effort as a discrete body**), not individuals, that is an inviolate principle that is logical and sensible.  Individuals who attend are instead awarded campaign medals and clasps, and gallantry medals for instances of outstanding bravery, regardless of their unit.  That, too, is logical and sensible.  What you seem to be advocating would make a nonsense of a well-established and well-understood system of principles, and would be very problematic indeed.  One might say it would open a can of worms.

NB.  I must again say that I remain surprised at having to explain principles that seem to me to be as plain as a pike staff.

** Quite a number of regular units were refused an honour because it was decreed by a committee that insufficient companies of the battalion concerned were present at the action to constitute a unit effort.

Edited 15 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

Hi Frogsmile,

Appreciate your  comments and thoughts.  I agree with your sentiments.  

The Bermudians sent a contingent in the First World War and fought as a Company, wearing there the BVRC capbage.   There is precedent for several units receiving battle honours as company formations attached to other Regiments.  

In WW2 they were rebadged as Lincolnshire Regiment.

At the end of WW1 the Honours and Awards committee invited Bermuda to apply for battle honours as in the Case of the Jersy Light Infantry for the Battle Honour; The Great War (Which is a theatre honour);  Bermuda was noted in the Army lists as have fought in France and Flanders from 1915-1918 (actually both the BVRC as a company and BMA as part of the RGA) were there.

At the End of WW2 their was an attempt to rectify colonial units that fought with company size organisation but because Bermuda had Rifle units and Artillery units they were not included this was an initiative by the King, but as Bermuda did not have colours the matter was not pursued/or awarded but other Colonies that sent smaller contingents were given honours.  

I will dig through my notes and archives and provided the appropriate notation.

Bermuda were first colonial force in WW1 and disproportionately provided to both WW1 and WW2 and unfortunately have been lefty out of sensible attempt to address the contributions of smaller colonies (through unknown reasons/unit types/or missed opportunities.

The UK still has an opportunity to address and Bermuda does have an interesting case as there is several precedents.  

But the local mystery of why our papers say permission was granted, and by whom?  (likely a local initiative), likely just painted on, but would they do that with a Governor Commander in Chief, a British Brigadier, and Navy in Bermuda at the time?  I would imagine it must have been with approval perhaps not Officially Honours Committee sanctioned but noting a Company Did go and fight and it would be hard to tell them not to emblazon the drums (or perhaps they got local approval after the fact).    As for Potters Drums,  I requested a record check but they believe the records were destroyed in the Blitz during the battle of Britain.

From Bermuda's perspective, we want to learn more or perhaps make a Case for Battle Honours(with a full breadth of research) or if we can further what actually happened let things lie the way they are; key is to get to the bottom of it be doing the research.

Hopefully there is not a fracture in the award of British Battle honours but it may mirror the fracture of British Forces raised in UK know as United Kingdom Forces and British overseas territories Forces, Both Her Majesty's Forces.  Some controlled by the MoD some controlled by the FCDO.  

The Battle Honours Systems as you have noted has not adhered to its own criteria at times, sadly Bermuda has (even when exceptions being applied been consistently overlooked when even being sympathetically mentioned in archives etc).  

Out of the BOTF I believe until recently only the RBR and the RG had Colours.   With Cayman Regiments getting some/or in the process.  But Bermuda appears to have a case for WW1 France and Flanders 1915-1918 (covering the BVRC and BMA as company contingents attached to allied units).  WW2 is less of a case but Northwest Europe 1944-1945 (as a contingent broken into individual augmentation), the Bermudian (Company sized) contingent attached to the Caribbean Regiment served in Italy and Egypt is likely the weakest argument (But could see the request of theatre honours from the Caribbean Units (Barbados, Bermuda, Jamaica, and Trinidad).

Albeit the UK likely does not want to revisit it they would have to consider official requests and consider any compelling new evidence and precedents.  Some only coming to light as new archives become available and through internet become easier to access.  There may be some mileage or perhaps just some more insight to the history of the units.  

The UK policy is not to revise battle honours  periods unless they make invitation to make an official request (on their terms etc).  Perhaps nothing will change or the UK may as they have done in the past seek to address some of the Colonial Forces that have been overlooked by circumstance, size and royal favour/prerogative.

Enjoyed your views.  I will post some of the neat things I have come across.

 

Best Regards

 

 

 

Edited 9 December , 2021 by Major Preston Gill RBR

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

In review of a war office file WO/32/2901 there appears to be promising pathway to the granting of battle honours that provides both a clear precedent and a possible gross error in the application of the awards.  The file WO 32 / 2901 is a War Office file pertaining to the original request for Battle Honours made by the BVRC back in the late 1920's, which was obtained from the UK National Archives at Kew.  Also, our key notes from Alexander Rodgers works ‘Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991’ of note our pages 84-85.

[FROGSMILE]

On 09/12/2021 at 20:23, Major Preston Gill RBR said:

Hi Frogsmile,

Appreciate your  comments and thoughts.  I agree with your sentiments.  

The Bermudians sent a contingent in the First World War and fought as a Company, wearing there the BVRC capbage.   There is precedent for several units receiving battle honours as company formations attached to other Regiments.  

In WW2 they were rebadged as Lincolnshire Regiment.

At the end of WW1 the Honours and Awards committee invited Bermuda to apply for battle honours as in the Case of the Jersy Light Infantry for the Battle Honour; The Great War (Which is a theatre honour);  Bermuda was noted in the Army lists as have fought in France and Flanders from 1915-1918 (actually both the BVRC as a company and BMA as part of the RGA) were there.

At the End of WW2 their was an attempt to rectify colonial units that fought with company size organisation but because Bermuda had Rifle units and Artillery units they were not included this was an initiative by the King, but as Bermuda did not have colours the matter was not pursued/or awarded but other Colonies that sent smaller contingents were given honours.  

I will dig through my notes and archives and provided the appropriate notation.

Bermuda were first colonial force in WW1 and disproportionately provided to both WW1 and WW2 and unfortunately have been lefty out of sensible attempt to address the contributions of smaller colonies (through unknown reasons/unit types/or missed opportunities.

The UK still has an opportunity to address and Bermuda does have an interesting case as there is several precedents.  

But the local mystery of why our papers say permission was granted, and by whom?  (likely a local initiative), likely just painted on, but would they do that with a Governor Commander in Chief, a British Brigadier, and Navy in Bermuda at the time?  I would imagine it must have been with approval perhaps not Officially Honours Committee sanctioned but noting a Company Did go and fight and it would be hard to tell them not to emblazon the drums (or perhaps they got local approval after the fact).    As for Potters Drums,  I requested a record check but they believe the records were destroyed in the Blitz during the battle of Britain.

From Bermuda's perspective, we want to learn more or perhaps make a Case for Battle Honours(with a full breadth of research) or if we can further what actually happened let things lie the way they are; key is to get to the bottom of it be doing the research.

Hopefully there is not a fracture in the award of British Battle honours but it may mirror the fracture of British Forces raised in UK know as United Kingdom Forces and British overseas territories Forces, Both Her Majesty's Forces.  Some controlled by the MoD some controlled by the FCDO.  

The Battle Honours Systems as you have noted has not adhered to its own criteria at times, sadly Bermuda has (even when exceptions being applied been consistently overlooked when even being sympathetically mentioned in archives etc).  

Out of the BOTF I believe until recently only the RBR and the RG had battle honours.   With Cayman Regiments getting some.  But Bermuda appears to have a case for WW1 France and Flanders 1915-1918 (covering the BVRC and BMA as company contingents attached to allied units).  WW2 is less of a case but Northwest Europe 1944-1945 (as a contingent broken into individual augmentation), the Bermudian (Company sized) contingent attached to the Caribbean Regiment served in Italy and Egypt is likely the weakest argument (But could see the request of theatre honours from the Caribbean Units (Barbados, Bermuda, Jamaica, and Trinidad).

Albeit the UK likely does not want to revisit it they would have to consider official requests and consider any compelling new evidence and precedents.  Some only coming to light as new archives become available and through internet become easier to access.  There may be some mileage or perhaps just some more insight to the history of the units.  

The UK policy is not to revise battle honours  periods unless they make invitation to make an official request (on their terms etc).  Perhaps nothing will change or the UK may as they have done in the past seek to address some of the Colonial Forces that have been overlooked by circumstance, size and royal favour/prerogative.

Enjoyed your views.  I will post some of the neat things I have come across.

 

Best Regards

 

 

 

You make an interesting argument and, although recognising the effort of company-sized military endeavour as worthy of battle honour recognition is problematic, I can understand both, the strength of feeling, and argument for it.  That said, I’ve never been a fan, personally, of looking at the past through the prism of today (I think it’s fundamentally wrong), but if statues can be torn down and an entire war’s worth of executed court-martial convictees be pardoned, and a statement of exoneration issued in Parliament, then nothing will surprise me.  The fundamental issue is that it will create the mother of all precedents and could conceivably lead to decades of appeals from all kinds of units dating back to the Napoleonic actions (the first to be decided by committee if I recall correctly) being submitted, and reviewed, as well as a great many subsequently where unfairness or inconsistency has been perceived.  My own view is to let sleeping dogs lie.  BVRC members were honoured individually as is right and proper, and no matter which way you look at it, it’s de facto that a single company (or even two companies) did not constitute a unit, and the aspirations of todays generation of Bermudians to wallow in the glory of the efforts of their forebears, does not, in my opinion, justify the mess that such a change as you advocate would make. 

Edited 15 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[aodhdubh]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

....Bermuda is (and currently wants to remain as far as I know) a member of the Commonwealth.....

Bermuda is only part of the Commonwealth in that it is part of the British realm, which is a Commonwealth member.

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

Bermuda is only part of the Commonwealth in that it is part of the British realm, which is a Commonwealth member.

That’s just splitting hairs.  Bermuda is in the club so it follows the club rules.  This is on the verge of becoming silly.

Edited 9 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Major Preston Gill RBR]

I get the inconsistencies of the Regular Units awards.  But the Battle honours of the small colonies and company size organisations is a bit of a funny grey area; although the normal considerations need to be considered it has different dimensions and precedents to it.  After reading every book I could get on battle honours and flying to the UK Archives, and considerable local research it is less straight forward (the actual files that considered making the awards is probably the best area to read on the exceptions).  Why some awarded why some turned down.  In many ways there is no rhyme or reason.  The emblazoned drums and newspaper articles and Bermuda Rifles permissions noted (does not say from whom).  Is interesting; but local historians believe it would have came from the Governor and Commander and Chief; the Queens Representative.  Must have likely had approval from FCO/WO/ our Monarchy.   (But if its not written down somewhere?  Did it actually happen?). Bit of a mystery. 

The difference is the Armed Forces of Bermuda (have been many different Regiments over the years) have not been granted battle honours (or if they have in the case of the BVRC/Bermuda Rifles) why didn't the RBR get them....in the formation file it came down to getting colours issued in time November 1965 to align with Princess Margarets visit to the United States and Bermuda would miss the opportunity'if the required time for researching and subsequent time to add the out -battle honours to the colours.  So decision was made to get the colours first.  Subsequent attempts to obtain the BVRC/Bermuda Rifles battle honours have been result of limited to no research submitted with the request and the BVRC File noting Bermuda does not have colours as a rifle unit.   

[FROGSMILE]

13 minutes ago, Major Preston Gill RBR said:

I get the inconsistencies of the Regular Units awards.  But the Battle honours of the small colonies and company size organisations is a bit of a funny grey area; although the normal considerations need to be considered it has different dimensions and precedents to it.  After reading every book I could get on battle honours and flying to the UK Archives, and considerable local research it is less straight forward (the actual files that considered making the awards is probably the best area to read on the exceptions).  Why some awarded why some turned down.  In many ways there is no rhyme or reason.  The emblazoned drums and newspaper articles and Bermuda Rifles permissions noted (does not say from whom).  Is interesting; but local historians believe it would have came from the Governor and Commander and Chief; the Queens Representative.  Must have likely had approval from FCO/WO/ our Monarchy.   (But if its not written down somewhere?  Did it actually happen?). Bit of a mystery. 

The difference is the Armed Forces of Bermuda (have been many different Regiments over the years) have not been granted battle honours (or if they have in the case of the BVRC/Bermuda Rifles) why didn't the RBR get them....in the formation file it came down to getting colours issued in time November 1965 to align with Princess Margarets visit to the United States and Bermuda would miss the opportunity'if the required time for researching and subsequent time to add the out -battle honours to the colours.  So decision was made to get the colours first.  Subsequent attempts to obtain the BVRC/Bermuda Rifles battle honours have been result of limited to no research submitted with the request and the BVRC File noting Bermuda does not have colours as a rifle unit.   

As I’ve said, you have an interesting case, and I wish you good luck with your research.  The inconsistencies have been many over the centuries and trying to correct them all would in my opinion create a far reaching problem and end up with only those with the loudest mouths achieving resolution.  Who, for example, would speak for all the disbanded units of the regular army, not some colonial unit of auxiliaries intended primarily for local defence, but professional soldiers who served the crown for generations (centuries in several cases), not just in world wars, but in the many campaigns of Pax Brittanica across the globe.  I remain of the view that the interests of today’s island defence forces to preen in the aura of their forebears is not worth the upset it would create.  In the end it would just be a political sop.  I don’t really have anything more to say on the matter.

Edited 9 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[aodhdubh]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

That’s just splitting hairs.  Bermuda is in the club so it follows the club rules.  This is on the verge of becoming silly.

It's not splitting hairs. It's an important distinction...a Commonwealth country is a sovereign state...Bermuda is basically a glorified English county, entirely subordinate to the UK Government.

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

It's not splitting hairs. It's an important distinction...a Commonwealth country is a sovereign state...Bermuda is basically a glorified English county, entirely subordinate to the UK Government.

Yes I understood that and it wasn’t my meaning to make light of it.  I meant it wasn’t really relevant to the point about following the rules of the club.  It makes no difference in that context whether you’re a member of the constituting nation or one of the subsequent joinees, the rules are for everyone.  I should think that was self evident.

Edited 9 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[aodhdubh]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes I understood that and it wasn’t my meaning to make light of it.  I meant it wasn’t really relevant to the point about following the rules of the club.  It makes no difference in that context whether you’re a member of the constituting nation or one of the subsequent joinees, the rules are for everyone.  I should think that was self evident, and as I said this is getting silly.

Certainly. Thanks. I was not disagreeing, but confirming that Bermuda must toe the line, which is not a comment as to where the line might be drawn.

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, aodhdubh said:

Certainly. Thanks. I was not disagreeing, but confirming that Bermuda must toe the line, which is not a comment as to where the line might be drawn.

Yes I understand, but you did not make that context clear until now, so it appeared, albeit inadvertently, to cloud the matter.

Edited 9 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[trooper23]

At the risk of hijacking this topic, and particularly not wishing to get involved in this specific Bermuda VRC farago...

I would ask Frogsmile to comment on the fact that (as per the the following British Military Badge web site comment) the Battle Honour (S Africa 1900-01) seems to have been granted to only 28 men!

""The origins of Cambridge University Officers’ Training Corps date to 1803 when, with Britain under threat of French invasion, Cambridge University undergraduates formed a corps of Rifle Volunteers to help defend British shores. Thereafter, the Cambridge University Rifle Volunteers (CURV) was formally raised in 1860. During British involvement in the Second Boer War in 1899 there was a public focus on volunteering for the forces serving in South Africa. In response to this, more than one hundred members of CURV applied; however, due to age, qualifications, training and, critically, the ability to shoot excellently, only 28 were successful. All the Volunteers were made Honorary Freemen of the Borough of Cambridge and on 21 December 1904, three years later, CURV was granted the battle honour “South Africa 1900-01″. In 1908, CURV was renamed Cambridge University Officers’ Training Corps and remains the only Officers’ Training Corps to be awarded a battle honour""

 

I ask because, being an alumnus of Oxford, I was intrigued to note that Cambridge OTC, but not Oxford OTC, had a Battle Honour.

 

Your intrigued etc 

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

3 hours ago, trooper23 said:

At the risk of hijacking this topic, and particularly not wishing to get involved in this specific Bermuda VRC farago...

I would ask Frogsmile to comment on the fact that (as per the the following British Military Badge web site comment) the Battle Honour (S Africa 1900-01) seems to have been granted to only 28 men!

""The origins of Cambridge University Officers’ Training Corps date to 1803 when, with Britain under threat of French invasion, Cambridge University undergraduates formed a corps of Rifle Volunteers to help defend British shores. Thereafter, the Cambridge University Rifle Volunteers (CURV) was formally raised in 1860. During British involvement in the Second Boer War in 1899 there was a public focus on volunteering for the forces serving in South Africa. In response to this, more than one hundred members of CURV applied; however, due to age, qualifications, training and, critically, the ability to shoot excellently, only 28 were successful. All the Volunteers were made Honorary Freemen of the Borough of Cambridge and on 21 December 1904, three years later, CURV was granted the battle honour “South Africa 1900-01″. In 1908, CURV was renamed Cambridge University Officers’ Training Corps and remains the only Officers’ Training Corps to be awarded a battle honour""

 

I ask because, being an alumnus of Oxford, I was intrigued to note that Cambridge OTC, but not Oxford OTC, had a Battle Honour.

 

Your intrigued etc 

 

 

We would need to see the rationale behind the application for this honour to make any sense of it, it’s not something that I’m familiar with.  The BVRC provided a contingent that was integrated fully within a battalion of the Lincolnshire Regiment and so militarily that was their unit.  It would be interesting to know what the CURV personnel’s operational circumstances were, how they were deployed and with whom.

Edited 10 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[trooper23]

Apologies for the delay - I've had COVID!!

I appreciate your comments