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

Remembered Today:

London Regiment or City of London?


chids

Recommended Posts

Can anyone help, I need to find out if Royal Fusiliers (London Regiment) is the same as Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).
 Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chids said:

Can anyone help, I need to find out if Royal Fusiliers (London Regiment) is the same as Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).
 Thanks!

No.  See this thread: 

 

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok thanks which regiment does this badge belong to please 

80EFB51F-552C-4829-A71A-9AD24FABC194.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, chids said:

Ok thanks which regiment does this badge belong to please 

80EFB51F-552C-4829-A71A-9AD24FABC194.jpeg

I’m sorry I’m having trouble posting links and I don’t know if it’s because my battery is low or if the GWF software is faulty.

The badge is primarily for the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), a large line infantry regiment that had 4-regular battalions and over the course of WW1 raised many more for the duration of the war only.

In addition it had 4-Territorial Force (auxiliary part time) battalions that unusually and only because they were a part of the metropolis, were administratively encompassed within a separate and discrete, “London Regiment”, which had battalions numbered 1st to 28th.  The 1st to 4th were affiliated to the Royal Fusiliers and wore their badge but different shoulder titles comprising 5-tiers instead of 2-tiers of regulars.

This means that your badge could be regular, war-raised or Territorial Force.  One problem that was caused was duplication of the numbered battalions 1st to 4th.  There were the regular 1st to 4th and the Territorial Force 1st to 4th and although the latter were numbers of the separate, London Regiment, the full formal titles included the words Royal Fusiliers, which when abbreviated, as it often was, caused confusion.  It is a peculiar facet of the Royal Fusiliers alone.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant thank you so much for that once again so helpful 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photo attached of hopefully the right regiment

B9A642DD-54CD-4FDD-AED7-8CB372DC0C9A.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, chids said:

Photo attached of hopefully the right regiment

B9A642DD-54CD-4FDD-AED7-8CB372DC0C9A.jpeg

Yes and I can ascertain from the shoulder title that he is not a Territorial. The post war new specification cap and the wearing of collar badges, together indicate a photo taken in the early 1920s.  A regular army Royal Fusilier.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes and I can ascertain from the shoulder title that he is not a Territorial. The post war new specification cap and the wearing of collar badges, together indicate a photo taken in the early 1920s.  A regular army Royal Fusilier.

That’s brilliant thanks so much for your help and expertise it’s very much appreciated 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, chids said:

That’s brilliant thanks so much for your help and expertise it’s very much appreciated 👍

I’m glad to help.  The waist belt is obsolescent and from the Slade-Wallace individual load carrying equipment, but the belt was retained as a smart item for walking out of barracks and certain other duties.  The remaining items from the equipment were discarded by 1918.  The Foot Guards still wear a similar belt today, but with regimental pattern clasps rather than the ‘Union clasp’ worn by your fusilier (see below).

He also clutches a swagger stick of ‘whangee’ (cane) type that was popular for battalions serving in (or recently in) the Far East.

4233F87B-362C-4687-B360-E2B54E303E3B.jpeg

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s brilliant that will to try and help identify who the soldier is thanks again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the image give any clues to his rank? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, chids said:

Yes that’s the correct regiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chids said:

Does the image give any clues to his rank? 

Until 1920 his rank was ‘Private’ (he is not a non-commissioned-officer) but it then became ‘Fusilier’.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for confirming that much appreciated 👍

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...