RFC identification

[FROGSMILE]

47 minutes ago, Tawhiri said:

Basil Mundy was making the headlines in the Antipodes four years later for his 'extravagance in living and heavy betting and gambling losses'.

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DUNST19280625.2.64

Perhaps at least one of them is contemplating his betting and gambling losses. 

Nothing that a good dose of laxative wouldn’t sort out Tawhiri.

Edited 20 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

1 hour ago, Heroes16 said:

The one attached has a few faces we have already identified such as Acland and Heathcoat.

It’s another post-war picture.

And you can’t go far wrong with a bit of numbering.

8 looks like Captain Clifford Thomas Beckett, M.C., R.F.A. Adjutant from the first officer group picture but appear to be wearing a different cap-badge and is oddly positioned in a group shot for such an important position. The other possibility from the first picture is Lieutenant R.T. Hockey.

19 looks possibly to be Lieutenant Humphrey Pennington Fulford from the first officer group picture and the sports day picture. However I may be being suckered by the identical position in both officer group photos.

None of those present are wearing wings, so I believe that rules out Major William Henry Dyke Acland and Captain Rutter Barry Martyn.

Not at all convinced that there is any overlap between the personnel on both pictures. I can see some where you might think they might be similar, but either one picture has the “suspect” with medal ribbons and the other doesn’t, or the ribbon “colours \ patterns” don’t look like they marry up. Beyond that a few simple metrics, (top and tips of ears in relation to the rest of the facial features is a useful one), would seem to rule the possible matches out as well.

But I am way overdue a sight test

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

Apart from 12, number 5 is the only officer with two rows of medal ribbons and has also lost an eye, leading to his wearing a black patch.  Both these officers are almost certainly former regulars of long service.  Comparing both photos number 12 does look to me very like Acland, but without wings, and also has a DFC ribbon.  If it is him I’ve no idea why the wings might’ve been removed.  Number 13 seems to resemble Lieutenant E W Seymour?

 

Edited 21 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

57 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Comparing both photos number 12 does look to me very like Acland, but without wings, and also has a DFC ribbon.  If it is him I’ve no idea why the wings might’ve been removed.

I see what you're getting at and I may have been too quick to write it off based on the absense of wings. I can see the Air Flying Cross ribbon now, although interesting how the medal ribbon to the right of it looks so different because of the way the light is catching it. Something to bear in mind when comparing the others.

Looking at his ears and the chin it now makes me wonder of the earlier picture of him sourced from MyHeritage is indeed the same man. The first group picture features three Acland's, while the shot of the three former C.O's of the two regiments that appeared in The Tatler includes a Colonel A.D. Acland. There is also an Acland in the pre-war picture. Plenty of scope for family resemblance to mess up actual identification.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 21 October , 2022 by PRC
Typos

[FROGSMILE]

48 minutes ago, PRC said:

I see what you're getting at and I may have been too quick to write it off based on the absense of wings. I can see the Air Flying Cross ribbon now, although interesting how the medal ribbon to the right of it looks so different because of the way the light is catching it. Something to bear in mind when comparing the others.

Looking at his ears and the chin it now makes me wonder of the earlier picture of him sourced from MyHeritage is indeed the same man. The first group picture features three Acland's, while the shot of the three former C.O's of the two regiments that appeared in The Tatler includes a Colonel A.D. Acland. There is also an Acland in the pre-war picture. Plenty of scope for family resemblance to mess up actual identification.

Cheers,
Peter

Yes a strong family likeness would throw doubt on things, but two doppelgänger relatives also having the exact same flying decoration seems to stretch credibility.  I think they probably are the same man.  I seem to recall that there was a period when the wings of another Service were not to be worn, but that it caused such a furore that the ban was eventually rescinded.  I can’t recall the exact dates though.

NB.  I imagine that the one eyed pirate will have an interesting background.

Edited 21 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[charlie962]

10 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

think they probably are the same man.

Ageed

[PRC]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Number 13 seems to resemble Lieutenant E W Seymour?

I did consider it as one of several potential matches, but each one fell on the medal ribbon test. It's not definative, but enough to hold me back from prejudicing things by posting up side by side comparisons.

For me it's a no, but others may see things differently.

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

Hansard 1945 has a great discussion on RFC wings etc:

"Hansard

UK Parliament Hansard Commons: 18 January 1945 Commons Chamber Orders Of The Day Supply British Army (Rfc Observer's Badge) 

British Army (Rfc Observer's Badge)

Volume 407: debated on Thursday 18 January 1945

 

7.0 p.m.

Now that the captains and the kings have departed, I desire to raise the question of the right to wear the Royal Flying Corps observer wings on Army uniforms. This question has been raised by means of Question and answer in the House, by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and myself, and the position, as it has been elucidated by Questions put to the Secretary of State for Air and Secretary of State for War, is that pilots in the Royal Flying Corps in the last war are entitled to wear their pilot's wings on Army and R.A.F. uniforms, but that those who were observers are only entitled to wear the observer's single wing of the R.F.C. of the last war, on R.A.F. uniforms and not upon Army uniforms. I believe it is subject to some sort of qualification, which was made by the predecessor of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply, and that it is subject to active service, and to being mustered; also that men are only entitled to wear the pilot's wings and the single observer wings in the R.A.F., if they have not been allocated to some other flying duty, in which case another badge has to be worn.

 

That is the position to-day. The whole point is this. Permission having been given to former pilots of the R.F.C. to wear their double wings on R.A.F. uniforms and on Army uniforms, for some unknown and amazing reason the observer badge is not allowed on khaki. This was a minute or regulation of the Air Council dating, I believe, to June, 1940. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what reason on earth, or in the air, he can discriminate unfairly against this gallant band—the "Battle of Britain" pilots, the observers in the last war, the "few" of the last war—and refuse to allow them to wear the observer's badge on the Army uniform. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor, when this question was raised before, said that the observer's wing is not a personal insignia, but part of the R.A.F. uniform. I want to say, with all the emphasis that I can, that this single observer's wing was granted or awarded for operations. They were not awarded, during the days of the R.F.C., simply because one had done so many hours in the air. One had to do so many operations against the enemy, and htey were definitely looked upon by the gallant men who were able to win them as personal insignia and something which they had won.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air has written me a letter about this matter owing to a Question which I asked earlier, and his letter is rather abrupt. I said that I wanted to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I wished to ascertain whether it was the Air Ministry or the War Office which was responsible, and the right hon. Gentleman said in his letter that the Secretary of State for Air is responsible. I am not so sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. These Royal Flying Corps wings were awarded to the observers, who had to win them when they were in effect members of the Army. They were awarded to members of the Royal Flying Corps—not members of the Royal Air Force—who were then attached to the Army. That was before the Royal Air Force came into being. I know that since those days there has been much more red tape at the Air Ministry than there was in the past, but I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air is right and that he is really responsible. I have received a letter from a very gallant observer in the last war in which he says:

"To take away a decoration or mark of operational efficiency is a mean piece of work."

That represents the feeling of many of these gallant men about this position.

I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he will, to tell me why this discrimination has been made against the observers. His Majesty the King, I believe, wears the pilot wings, and the Prime Minister is also entitled to wear the pilot wings on his air commodore's uniform and a number of senior officers are also entitled to wear them. But these other men are not allowed to wear them and they have very strong feelings about it. They are the veterans of the Royal Flying Corps. There cannot be many of them left, and I hear that they say they are going to petition His Majesty the King, in order to endeavour to retain this hard-won honour. I appeal to the Prime Minister to see that justice is done to this gallant band of veterans, because the right hon. Gentleman himself had something to do with the Air Force in the last war. I also appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air, who is a very distinguished flyer of this war. He has shown great courage and has distinguished service as one of the flyers of this war, but he also knows of the last war. I ask him, new as he is to his duties, to show great courage and stand up to the Air Minister so as to get the Order reversed and enable these gallant men to wear a decoration in recognition of what they went through in the last war.

7.9 p.m.

 

Colonel Greenwell

(The Hartlepools)

Sharethis specific contribution

In rising to support the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) at this late hour I will be as brief as I possibly can, but I would like to begin by correcting a small point upon which he has fallen into error. The observer's badge was originally a brevet in the Royal Flying Corps, but it is not quite correct to say that it was a Flying Corps brevet only, because after 1918 it was also awarded to officers again serving in the Royal Air Force. I think that the House will appreciate that point. I think a brief history of the origin of this badge and how it was awarded might help to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary how sincerely and deeply those people who, in the past, were entitled to wear it, feel about it. In the early days of the Royal Flying Corps, when the war began in 1914, I think it is correct to say that every officer—because there were very few "other ranks" then actually engaged on flying duty—was a pilot officer. Those in two-seater machines who occupied the passenger seat had undoubtedly taken a pilot's course. Later on, as production grew, the demand for pilots became such that observers were taken without previous flying experience. Now there is a great deal of difference between a pilot's brevet and an observer's badge, and that difference is this: a pilot could gain his wings in England on learning to fly; as soon as he passed his pilot's course he was awarded his wings in the Royal Flying Corps or in the Royal Air Force. He did not get an observer's badge in that way; he had to fly for a considerable time, either in an aeroplane or in a balloon, in the face of the enemy before he was awarded that badge. Many of my friends in the last war were actually shot down and killed before they had the badge awarded to them.

 

Now, Sir, I will tell you the sort of thing that confronted an observer. Volunteering from an infantry regiment for the Royal Flying Corps, selected not to go home to learn to fly but to be engaged on observing duties, he would go out with an experienced pilot in an aeroplane in a two-seater squadron flying either Harry Tates or Quirks or F.Es, as we called them in those days, and he would not know what was coming to him. If he was lucky, he would gain experience as time went on without being killed in the process, and after possibly some hundreds of hours of flying time, as the hon. and gallant Member for Rusholme (Major Cundiff) will testify, he would probably be involved in a crash in which his own pilot might be killed or incapacitated. As a result he would be detailed by his flight commander to take up an absolutely raw pilot. You can imagine the feelings of an observer having to take over the enemy lines a pilot who had perhaps done a total of 20 hours' flying time. Those men, I think, had a tougher time than pilots, and the few of that happy band who escaped at the end of six or even nine months, and who got home to take a pilot's course and learn to fly, rather treasured that observer's badge. So much did they treasure it that many of my friends in those days—and I was one of them—used to sew it under the lapel of their tunic as a little memento of what they had been through. It had no insignia of the R.F.C. or the R.A.F. on it; the pilot's badge did. There are some pilots alive to-day who are only entitled to wear pilot's wings with R.F.C.; others who were there after the Air Force came into being in 1918, wear the R.A.F. I remember that in the R.F.C. then there was a totally unauthorised badge with "R.F.C." in the middle and a little "O" underneath. That was never authorised by the Air Ministry, but some pilots were so proud of having been observers that they bought those illicit badges.

There are few men involved in the wearing of this distinction to-day; it is a band which is dying out. It is a matter of small moment to the R.A.F. that such men should be allowed to wear this badge, and it will cost the country nothing, it will cost the prestige of the Air Force nothing, and it is a very niggardly thing to take away a treasured distinction from some men who have most worthily earned it. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will give this question very full consideration before he turns it down.

7.14 p.m.

 

Major F. W. Cundiff

(Manchester, Rusholme)

Sharethis specific contribution

I wish to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell) with whom, I think, I share the privilege of having served in the R.F.C. They have covered the ground, and, very briefly, I would like to quote two cases. The first case is this: On a certain afternoon during the last war a B.E.2E went up to do an observation shoot with a pilot and an observer. At about 5,000 feet, just on the lines, they were attacked by five Albatross B.4's. Early in the fight the pilot was killed; the machine stalled, and he fell out, but the observer, with his very crude dual control, and with one hand on his Lewis gun, managed to fight off the five Albatross planes and somehow crash land in our own lines. He spent many months in hospital, having most of the flesh of one thigh blasted off, but eventually he became fit, and at the beginning of this war was a territorial lieut.-colonel commanding a gunner regiment. He wore this observer's badge but was told to take it down.

 

The second case is that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House who was serving as an observer in the Kite Balloon Section of the R.A.F. It is not very much fun having to jump even to-day, but having to jump from an aircraft in the last war, when parachutes very often did not open, was a very serious matter. This particular officer jumped from his kite balloon on three occasions. I submit that it is wrong that these two people cannot wear this observer's brevet to-day. It is something which is gained in battle, something totally different from a pilot's wings. I am not making a personal plea in this matter, because while I was an observer at the beginning of the last war I was one of the fortunate few who qualified later as a pilot. I think it is wrong that men should be told that they cannot wear this observer's badge. As has been said, it is something which is very much treasured, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary to give the matter his most sympathetic consideration and, at a later date, say that these people may put up their observer's brevets.

7.18 p.m.

 

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air

(Commander Brabner)

Sharethis specific contribution

First I would like to say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) for the courteous way in which he gave me information of this Adjournment Motion, and also how interesting it was to hear Members' reminiscences about the last war. While I do not think I can give a favourable answer to their request, I am sure they will not accuse me of being in any way unsympathetic to what was described just now as the "String and Tape Brigade" of the last war. I appreciate, as any man who has done any flying in this war appreciates, that their job was a real job which required everything of a most exceptional nature, particularly courage. But I think all three Members who have spoken have made a fundamental mistake in the way they regard this badge. I cannot say anything new; it has all been said before, but the plain fact is that this is a R.A.F. matter, and that this badge is not a decoration. It is a part of the R.A.F. uniform. That is something I must emphasise, because that is the whole basis of the case which I want to make.

 

Major Cundiff

Sharethis specific contribution

What is the difference between the wearing of the observer's badge and the wearing of the pilot's badge?

 

Commander Brabner

Sharethis specific contribution

The fundamental thing is that the badge is part of the Royal Air Force uniform. You may well say, "Why cannot observers wear the badge as well as pilots?" I should like to give a resumé of the reasons why pilots in other Services, particularly the Army, have been allowed to put up pilots' wings and not observers' wings. Before the present war the Army had a number of pilots seconded to the R.A.F. for flying duties. They underwent flying training and won their pilots' wings. They then went back to the Army and took their wings off. On a review of the matter it was decided that those who had been seconded to the R.A.F. to fly and had gone back to the Army and were liable during the succeeding four years for recall to the R.A.F. should still be allowed to wear their pilot's badge. That seems reasonable. The subject was again reviewed in 1938 when it was agreed that army officers should be given permission to wear their pilots' badge for the remainder of their service. When the war started a large number of R.A.F. officers of the last war were called up for service and it was suggested they should be permitted to wear the pilot's badge; this permission was granted. There was then a request to allow observers who were in the Services to wear the observer's badge. The Air Council considered this at some length and with very great sympathy and seriousness said:

 

"as long as they are in R.A.F. uniform they can wear the badge."

Now there has never been any liability on any observer serving outside the R.A.F. for service with the R.A.F., and that is the point on which I think the argument which my hon. Friends have put to me falls down. If you permit these gallant men to put this brevet up, it becomes a decoration straight away, but it is not a decoration, though these gallant deeds of which we have heard might well be the subject of a decoration.

Colonel Greenwell

Sharethis specific contribution

My hon. and gallant Friend has not told us how it is possible to wear pilot's wings on an Army uniform but not possible to wear an observer's badge.

 

Commander Brabner

Sharethis specific contribution

Those members of the Army who are liable to service with the R.A.F. and have flown with the R.A.F. are permitted by my Department to wear the pilot's badge.

 

Colonel Greenwell

Sharethis specific contribution

I think my hon. and gallant Friend is saying something quite beside the point. I was in the Army at the beginning of the war——

 

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

(Mr. Charles Williams)

Sharethis specific contribution

We can only have questions now—no more experiences.

 

Colonel Greenwell

Sharethis specific contribution

I will put it this way. If an officer was in the Army at the beginning of this war and in 1939 received by an Army Council Instruction permission to wear pilot's wings, he was in no measure liable to return to the Air Force. He might have been an elderly gentleman who happened to be in the Army, and who could not be expected to serve again in the Air Force.

 

Commander Brabner

Sharethis specific contribution

I am sorry I am not making myself entirely clear, but I was coming to that point. I had been talking about pilots who were liable to be recalled to the R.A.F. At the request of the War Office, pilots who had qualified in the last war in the R.A.F. were per- mitted to wear their pilot's wings as a gesture. They were permitted to do so by the R.A.F., just as R.A.F. officers of the last war are allowed to wear the wings to-day.

 

Captain Prescott

(Darwen)

Sharethis specific contribution

Why cannot a similar gesture be made to observers?

 

Commander Brabner

Sharethis specific contribution

I have only a short time left and there are two other points I want to bring out. These pilots were liable for service, except in the cases of older men, with the R.A.F. At the same time, the pilot's wing badge was current in the Army. When Army officers were allowed to wear the R.A.F. pilot's wings on army uniform, the observer's badge was not current in the Army, and there has never been any liability for Army officers who thought they might have a right to wear this badge, to serve with the R.A.F. on flying duties. It has been the policy of the Air Ministry to resist, and I think rightly, applications from any other Service to wear part of the R.A.F. uniform. We have had applications from the Royal Observer Corps, the police, special constables and St. John Ambulance Brigade, and I have seen dozens of applications from other services for permission to wear what is not a decoration but what is part of the R.A.F. uniform.

 

The case I am making is that we are doing no more in keeping this to the R.A.F. than other services are doing with their badges. No Army officer is entitled to wear a naval badge with his uniform, and no naval officer is entitled to wear the badge of any other Service. He is not even entitled to wear R.A.F. pilot's wings on naval uniform. The authority for seconded Army officers to wear the flying badge on Army uniform has been broadened to bring in the classes of men who won their pilot's wings in a former time. At one time this permission was granted only to officers, but it has been extended to soldiers. In April, 1940, the Army Council asked that the R.A.F. observer's badge might be worn on Army uniform but the Air Council felt unable to agree since the badge is not current in the Army as a flying badge, whereas the pilot's wings are. There is, in my submission, no ground for wearing the observer's badge unless a case can be made that it is a decoration and not part of a uniform. I hope that hon. Members will accept that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is fundamental to the argument that this is not a decoration but a part of the uniform. I hope that hon. Members will not think I am in the least unsympathetic to the heroic deeds of these "string and tape" men who fought in the last war, but I ask them to accept the view of my Department in the matter.

It being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 30th November.

Adjourned at Half after Seven o'Clock.

© UK Parliament 2022

Edited 21 October , 2022 by charlie962

[charlie962]

From that Hansard article, I presume that once those former RFC pilots had extinguished their 4 year RAF recall liability, they had to remove their wings but in 1938 they were reinstated?

[charlie962]

9 minutes ago, PRC said:

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Number 13 seems to resemble Lieutenant E W Seymour?

 

For me it's a no, but

Agreed. not same face nor ribbons.

Edited 21 October , 2022 by charlie962

[FROGSMILE]

Only in Britain could there be such bureaucratic nonsense!

I imagine that the matter of wearing wings on army uniform had been raised before, possibly just within the army itself and without airing in parliament.  The removal after a set period seems likely.  Such pettiness also meant that wound stripes were eventually banned, which seems even more mean.

[FROGSMILE]

6 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Agreed. not same face nor ribbons.

Yes he has more ribbons and I thought it not impossible that he may have earned long service plus commemorative medals subsequent to the earlier photo, but that’s admittedly a long shot (gunner pun unintended!).

Edited 21 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

On 20/10/2022 at 09:41, PRC said:

7: Lieutenant R.T. Hockey.

Previously identified from the London Gazette as Quartermaster and Honourary Lieutenant.

Page 3853 of the Supplement to the London Gazette dated 4 June, 1928 as Lieutenant Reginald Thomas Hockey, T.D., 96th (Royal Devon Yeomanry) Brigade, Royal Artillery, Territorial Army included in a long list of names to be made Members of the Military Division of the Order of the British Empire. This was a Birthday Honours List.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/33390/supplement/3853/data.pdf

So updating the names associated with the first group image:-

Edit 23/10/22. Picture removed and moved to the latest update posting in the thread.

 

Standing.

1: Captain Rutter Barry Martyn, M.C.
2: 2nd. Lieutenant Peter Bevil Edward Acland
3: Captain Arthur William Acland M.C.
4: Lieutenant Edward William Seymour.
5: 2nd Lieutenant B.H. Hare – probably Eric Henry Hare. Thanks to @Tawhiri    
6: Lieutenant Brian Edward Stanley Mountain
7: Lieutenant Reginald Thomas Hockey.
8: Lieutenant Derick Heathcoat-Amory.
9: Captain Reginald John Collings, R.A.V.C. – Thanks to @Tawhiri  
10: Captain John Arthur Pethbridge Martin.

Sitting.

11: Major William Henry Dyke Acland, M.C., A.F.C.
12: Major Harold Richardson Fox, M.C.
13: Major Hugh Wetherall Goldney, O.B.E., M.C., R.A. Staff Captain
14: Captain Clifford Thomas Beckett, M.C., R.F.A. Adjutant
15: Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Claude Mardon, D.S.O., T.D. – Thanks to @Tawhiri  
16: Commanding Colonel Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt, D.S.O., R.A.
17: Major Philip Percy Kenyon Slaney, M.C.  
18: Major Viscount Ebrington, Hugh William Fortescue, M.C.

In front

19: 2nd Lieutenant P. Martin
20: 2nd Lieutenant Godfrey Basil Herbert Mundy – Thanks to @charlie962 and @Tawhiri
21: Lieutenant Humphrey Pennington Fulford.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 23 October , 2022 by PRC
1)Typo 2) delete attachment 23/10/22

[PRC]

So next up is another picture question round. Please feel free to confer

Is officer 15, (centre in the panel below), either Captain Arthur William Acland, M.C. (left hand picture is a known image) or the Honourable Denzil George Fortescue, M.C. (right hand picture is a known image) or someone else altogether. All three images show a man who has been awarded the Military Cross. But the next medal ribbon on our mystery officer is unlike anything worn by Acland or Fortescue. Any idea what it could be and why it takes precedence over service medals?

Supplementary picture question which may help with your answer. Arthur William Acland started his military career with the Grenadier Guards. While looking for details of any additional awards he might have received I found another picture. This was of Lieutenant Arthur William Acland MC Grenadier Guards which can be found in the IWM Bond of Sacrifice collection, (Catalogue number HU 114302). However caption says date of death not known. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205289331

There is no likely candidate for an Arthur Acland on CWGC for the Great War era.

So is it possible then, looking at the features, this is the younger version of the images known to be of Arthur William Acland?

If so, is he the younger version of Officer 15?

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, PRC said:

So next up is another picture question round. Please feel free to confer

Is officer 15, (centre in the panel below), either Captain Arthur William Acland, M.C. (left hand picture is a known image) or the Honourable Denzil George Fortescue, M.C. (right hand picture is a known image) or someone else altogether. All three images show a man who has been awarded the Military Cross. But the next medal ribbon on our mystery officer is unlike anything worn by Acland or Fortescue. Any idea what it could be and why it takes precedence over service medals?

Supplementary picture question which may help with your answer. Arthur William Acland started his military career with the Grenadier Guards. While looking for details of any additional awards he might have received I found another picture. This was of Lieutenant Arthur William Acland MC Grenadier Guards which can be found in the IWM Bond of Sacrifice collection, (Catalogue number HU 114302). However caption says date of death not known. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205289331

There is no likely candidate for an Arthur Acland on CWGC for the Great War era.

So is it possible then, looking at the features, this is the younger version of the images known to be of Arthur William Acland?

If so, is he the younger version of Officer 15?

Cheers,
Peter

In my opinion after scrutinising the excellent comparative images that you’ve provided the answers to your questions are yes, and yes.

[Tawhiri]

6 hours ago, PRC said:

19: 2nd Lieutenant P. Martin

The date of the Tatler issue is 18 June 1924. As a candidate for 2nd Lieutenant P. Martin I would offer 2nd Lieutenant Philip Michael Martin who was commissioned with the 96th (Royal Devon Yeomanry) Field Brigade a month earlier on 16 May 1924.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/32997/page/8672

Edited 21 October , 2022 by Tawhiri

[PRC]

14 hours ago, Tawhiri said:

The date of the Tatler issue is 18 June 1924. As a candidate for 2nd Lieutenant P. Martin I would offer 2nd Lieutenant Philip Michael Martin who was commissioned with the 96th (Royal Devon Yeomanry) Field Brigade a month earlier on 16 May 1924.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/32997/page/8672

Seems perfectly plausible and rounds off the name for the faces on the first posted picture nicely

On 20/10/2022 at 20:05, Heroes16 said:

The one attached has a few faces we have already identified such as Acland and Heathcoat.

Let me know what you think!

Which one do you think is Heathcoat-Amory?

Also any idea from the source as to which order the post-war pictures were taken. I'm assuming for now that the second picture, taken in front of a building, was the later on the basis of the earlier discussion about the wearing of wings. Unless there was some convoluted saga of "can wear them, can't wear them, can wear them, can't wear them" that came into play, then seems the most logical order.

However that rules out some of the potential matches between the two pictures as it would appear the individuals concerned had suffered a demotion.
It also brings into play additional individuals who were commissioned into or joined the regiment post June 1924, introducing the possibility of false positive matches.

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

18 hours ago, PRC said:

So is it possible then, looking at the features, this is the younger version of the images known to be of Arthur William Acland?

If so, is he the younger version of Officer 15?

Cheers,

Peter, iwm have a further photo just after his MC award. This makes the transition easier! 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205289330

Edited 22 October , 2022 by charlie962

[PRC]

1 hour ago, charlie962 said:

Peter, iwm have a further photo just after his MC award. This makes the transition easier! 

Thanks Charlie - another good find!

So if I've got the timeline right, (see previous post), then youngest is on the left, oldest on the right, in this comparison. Wonder if @Heroes16 has got anymore to fill in the gaps

I do not claim any new IP has been created as a result of producing the above. All image rights remain with the current owners.

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

Arthur William Acland did subsequently pick up an OBE and TD at least. But that extra ribbon isn't either of these. I wonder what it is?

Edited 22 October , 2022 by charlie962

[FROGSMILE]

14 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Arthur William Acland did subsequently pick up an OBE and TD at least. But that extra ribbon isn't either of these. I wonder what it is?

Had there been a jubilee, or coronation in the interim?

Edited 22 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[charlie962]

Sidetrack but here is Acland's MC citation. Courtesy London Gazette.

[PRC]

4 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

But that extra ribbon isn't either of these. I wonder what it is?

And why would it appear in order of precedence between a gallantry medal, (his M.C.) and his service medals., the Victory Medal and British War Medal. Could it be a foreign award that he had only recently been granted permission to wear on his uniform?

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

3 minutes ago, PRC said:

Could it be a foreign award

Wouldn't that go on extreme right?

[charlie962]

On 20/10/2022 at 00:42, PRC said:

14: Captain Clifford Thomas Beckett, M.C., R.F.A. Adjutant (MiC. When he applied for his Great War service medals he is shown as Captain and his contact address was c\o 95th Brigade RFA (TA) Exeter. Subsequently received a General Service Medal as a Lieutenant-Colonel

Actually Clifford Thomason Beckett. Became Major General.

Wiki biog here 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Thomason_Beckett 

A rather appropriate description of him in 1935 

"..Major C. T. Beckett, the Director, a Mussolini-like figure among them. " 

This is him 1937

Edited 22 October , 2022 by charlie962