Social Class Represented in Regimental Surnames: Officers Vs Other Ranks

[JMB1943]

Progress Report-1

Have now taken my first steps down the rabbit hole, and dark it is.....

My first task was to determine what was a normal incidence of "Smith" to expect.

A member of a forum (Rootschat.com) gave me numbers from Ancestry.com for the 1911 Census, that allowed me to calculate for England = 1.60%; for Wales = 0.81% ; and combined =1.55%. [This did not include spelling variations such as Goldsmith/Smyth/Smythe]. @brianmorris547 256 Smith of 16512 OR's from the RE is spot on at 1.55%!!

Second task was to locate a source of the officers' names; I had previously downloaded Hart's Annual Army List for 1914 and this was stamped as March 25, 1914 for receipt at the Advocates Library, Edinburgh. All of the officers names, with the exception of the Hon. Colonel/Medical Officer/Chaplain/Quatermaster, across the various battalions were recorded.

For reasons of personal history, I started with the Royal Sussex Regt., and followed with The Hampshire Regt. and The Border Regt., because they were listed immediately following and preceding, respectively, the RSR entry.

So far, 6 of 455 officer names are Smith or hyphenated-Smith, which is 1.32%.

This obviously is a very small sample size, but will have to contact a statistician to find out how to determine at what level any difference from 1.60% is statistically significant; probably very dependent on size of sample, so may have to wait until near the end of the project.

Regards,

JMB

[oxlade134]

4 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

oxlade134,

Apparently about 37,000 MC’s were awarded during the Great War, so I shall have to take your listing of 476 under advisement, i.e., tucked away in the recesses of the rabbit hole until if/when needed.

Thanks for bringing your listing to our attention, and I hope that you did not have to type out all of those names.

Regards,

JMB

JMB Fortunately extracted automatically:)   Its fair to say,  a list we do not know what the criteria for selection was.

This is in my opinion a very worthwhile exercise, you have kicked off. Thankyou

I'm not a Statistician but a retired Marketing Executive and I think from that working experience, a sample preferably random of about 1850 (5%) of the 37,000 would need to be analysed to show what the social status was of the sample and that should give us a some good pointers on the assumptions contained within this post. I also think amateur genealogist like myself can help with the analysis. I am a member of the Guild of One-Name Studies its members have literally like me 10s of thousands of their family names in their study. I will send out a challenge for them to submit to me known WW1 British Officers  and try to get them to categorise them on basis 'Own Means' ie financially independent, Professional, Clerical and Other

 

[JMB1943]

oxlade124,

We will have to be careful with the MC study (or any other database) because after 1916 the list may well contain officers who were commissioned from the ranks. I am pretty sure that I have read of a winner who had already been awarded the MM as a ranker.

I will continue to work my way through the infantry regiments (IIRC, there are 78) before I start on the RA & RE units.

Are you aware if the same class distinctions (approved schools or university OTC) also operated in the Australian Army?

It will only need  few “Smith” out of place to play hell with averages.

Actually, I am now wondering if SMITH was the best name to use as the marker; they were so numerous from ancient times ( and so important to a lord) that they have had ample opportunity to climb the social ladder. When this study has been completed, it may well NOT have gone the way that I had expected. If that does happen, then another less common “trade” name may be the way to go.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

[oxlade134]

2 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

Progress Report-1

Have now taken my first steps down the rabbit hole, and dark it is.....

My first task was to determine what was a normal incidence of "Smith" to expect.

A member of a forum (Rootschat.com) gave me numbers from Ancestry.com for the 1911 Census, that allowed me to calculate for England = 1.60%; for Wales = 0.81% ; and combined =1.55%. [This did not include spelling variations such as Goldsmith/Smyth/Smythe]. @brianmorris547 256 Smith of 16512 OR's from the RE is spot on at 1.55%!!

Second task was to locate a source of the officers' names; I had previously downloaded Hart's Annual Army List for 1914 and this was stamped as March 25, 1914 for receipt at the Advocates Library, Edinburgh. All of the officers names, with the exception of the Hon. Colonel/Medical Officer/Chaplain/Quatermaster, across the various battalions were recorded.

For reasons of personal history, I started with the Royal Sussex Regt., and followed with The Hampshire Regt. and The Border Regt., because they were listed immediately following and preceding, respectively, the RSR entry.

So far, 6 of 455 officer names are Smith or hyphenated-Smith, which is 1.32%.

This obviously is a very small sample size, but will have to contact a statistician to find out how to determine at what level any difference from 1.60% is statistically significant; probably very dependent on size of sample, so may have to wait until near the end of the project.

Regards,

JMB

JMB

It depends on what you want to achieve from your study, but the approach of statistical versus a marketing (pragmatic) analysis approach I can comment on.

I was very often in my career at several large telephone companies (AT&T being one) where decisions to spend millions of dollars on a say a market segment program was made on "reasonable data analysis" and bang for the buck payoff. For that reason I suggest you use "your gut feel"  to determine whats a useful sample size and proceed from there. After all (with limited resources) what you report will always have a element of art not science to its conclusion.  

I just googled and found "A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey Experiment" which I haven't yet read but the upon first page review seems like it can help you know what's been found before in this area of interest.  link is https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0038038513481128

 

[oxlade134]

18 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

oxlade124,

We will have to be careful with the MC study (or any other database) because after 1916 the list may well contain officers who were commissioned from the ranks. I am pretty sure that I have read of a winner who had already been awarded the MM as a ranker.

I will continue to work my way through the infantry regiments (IIRC, there are 78) before I start on the RA & RE units.

Are you aware if the same class distinctions (approved schools or university OTC) also operated in the Australian Army?

It will only need  few “Smith” out of place to play hell with averages.

Actually, I am now wondering if SMITH was the best name to use as the marker; they were so numerous from ancient times ( and so important to a lord) that they have had ample opportunity to climb the social ladder. When this study has been completed, it may well NOT have gone the way that I had expected. If that does happen, then another less common “trade” name may be the way to go.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

JMB

I have asked a member of the One Name Guild who studies comprehensively Smith surname for some data if he has it. I will let you know the outcome.

As I posted in my first response to your query in my family there are examples of promotion from the ranks. I can trace these down to either professional men, educated and or sportsmen of significance. 

Lawrence Cave Blencowe 1887-1917 for example enlisted as a Private in the West Yorkshire Regiment, but he was the son on inherited wealth traced back to 14th C lordship and was also a Oxford University 'Blue' who played Rugby for England, His elder brother a Major in the Army as well.  His commission comes in 1916 before he goes overseas as no surprise . https://ww1.blencowe.one-name.net/index-of-names-2/blencowe-lawrence-cave/

 

[PhilB]

As Wiki says:-

"Whatever the reason, changing a family surname from the early 1900’s back was really quite simple.  One just started using their new name of choice.  Researchers are not likely to find a formal record for that name change. It just wasn’t needed."

This would mean that anyone who had risen (or wanted to be seen as having risen) in society could easily change their name to something perceived as more classy. "Common" names didn`t make it into the upper class!

[JMB1943]

Progress Report-2

I have now done my first run through KRRC & Rifle Brigade.

As expected, zero SMITH in either Regt., with only a single Hyphenated-SMITH in the latter, out of an additional ~ 355 officers ,i.e., ~0.3% for this cohort.

Total SMITH = about 7 out of ~812 = ~0.86% overall

Also, as expected, a sprinkling of Norman FITZ (sign of bastardy) in given names, and some French surnames.

MANY titled officers, and VERY MANY hyphenated (and even some doubly hyphenated surnames!!).

This is only a first pass through the officer lists, so I am not giving precise numbers at this point; will only do so after I have checked each listing at least twice more.

Regards,

JMB______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some other thoughts,

1) the two-tailed t-test is used in stats to determine if a difference exists between two sets of numbers, so will probably use that at end of study,

2) will possibly exclude Scottish & Welsh Regts from the officer count, because I want to compare oranges with oranges, not with apples (too many Mac’s and Jones, respectively.)

Edited 15 August , 2023 by JMB1943
Typos

[AndrewSid]

Some anecdotal  thoughts from a relative novice.  Like many here here I’ve had reason to delve moderately into some specific units.  Three examples of note here:

 I was surprised by the number of Yeomanry men from just one Squadron who left for a Commission in 1915 after mobilising as ORs in 1914. Granted there  may have been a tendency for pre-war TF Yeomanry men to be a rung or two up the social ladder but circa 20 were commissioned.  Of note of course is that I think all but one were sent to other units.  Frogsmile’s option C from the last page. 

I’ve recently looked at a 1918 Salonica Battalion.  11 of the 17 officers who went forward on an attack were commissioned ORs.  All came from other Infantry units and they included the Adjutant. 

From a group of 70 infantry who were a mix of conscripts and Derby  Scheme men in 1916, only one was Commissioned. He was the only obvious one who held perhaps a suitable background ie he was a schoolteacher.  However he was the only one to win the MM out of the 70.  Surely battlefield conduct played a sizeable chunk of the decision of the CO to progress a man from the ranks? 

Edited 15 August , 2023 by AndrewSid

[kenf48]

12 hours ago, AndrewSid said:

Surely battlefield conduct played a sizeable chunk of the decision of the CO to progress a man from the ranks? 

From 1917 the Army had to find about 10,000 officers annually.  Each Division had to nominate fifty NCOs each month who were recommended by their C.O. As noted in Beckett and Simpson, "A nation in Arms - A Social Study of the British Army in the First World War", and perhaps familiar to many in employment, not always the best candidates were put forward. Similarly there was a reluctance amongst competent NCOs to take the next step, for many reasons.  Nevertheless some 229,316 combatant commissions, i.e. from the ranks, were awarded during the war.

Not being critical, just curious, the social class of the British Officer in the Great War has been extensively researched, what relevance is their surname to social class?

These Tables may be of interest in this context they show the occupation of fathers of those admitted to Sandhurst and Woolwich respectively:-

 

 

The tables show a steady decrease in the numbers of 'gentlemen' admitted to these institutions, accelerating as the Second World began, which arguably saw the 'democratisation' of the officer class.  Interesting too the number of 'gentlemen' admitted in 1917 - were they already serving?

We can assume that up to the Great War these entrants irrespective of class had attended public schools, and once again this aspect has been extensively researched, notably in Gary Sheffield "Leadership in the Trenches".

 

[JMB1943]

2 hours ago, kenf48 said:

Not being critical, just curious, the social class of the British Officer in the Great War has been extensively researched, what relevance is their surname to social class?

Kenf48,

Thanks for posting those Tables, which quantify the upper-class origins of the officer corps.

Frankly, I am somewhat surprised at your comment, given my very first sentence in the OP.

My premise is that there is possibly a DIFFERENCE between the surnames of the Officers vs OR's.

This has been amply demonstrated so far, by inspection of a minimal sample of five infantry regiments (three non-elite county regiments and two very socially-elite regiments) using the criteria outlined in the OP.

At some point over the last few days I had considered asking on GWF what were the other socially-elite infantry units (apart from Foot Guards) that I should l look at.

However, I am beginning to think that I can use ONLY absence/presence of certain names to DEFINE the socially-elite regiments; that is yet to be determined.

Because of the extra costs associated with horses, I assume that the cavalry regiments will all be amongst the socially-elite units.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[Mk VII]

Commanding Officers were put under considerable pressure to recommend candidates, but, few O.C's will want to loose their most experienced and capable NCOs and WOs - these are the very men they need to make a success of their unit, and if they are posted elsewhere, as they will probably will be, (and should be, as it is difficult to reign over the people with whom you once served alongside) then they are seen as a net loss to the btn.  This was a rather shortsighted attitude, but it was common, the temptation was recommend the 'problem children' in the hope that they will never be seen again. 

The Marquis of Anglesey's History of the British Cavalry notes that the prewar army had been getting its officers on the cheap, requiring them to live a certain lifestyle, but not willing to pay them enough to enable them to do it, and expecting them to make up the difference from their private fortune. 

[FROGSMILE]

On 16/08/2023 at 12:50, kenf48 said:

Not being critical, just curious, the social class of the British Officer in the Great War has been extensively researched, what relevance is their surname to social class?

I must confess I share your view.  The rather crude and one dimensional use of surnames seems a spurious basis on which to find truly meaningful statistics.

Edited 18 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[JMB1943]

Frogsmile,

Well, I must say that I am surprised at your view.

The primary objective here is to discover whether the names of officers are "different" from those of OR's.

As a spinoff, to determine whether the social class can be determined from an imbalance (over/under represented) of particular surnames.

If there is anything, short of turning this into an MA thesis, that could be included I am all ears.

How would you suggest that I improve my "rather crude and one-dimensional use of surnames" to provide "truly meaningful statistics"?

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

8 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

Frogsmile,

Well, I must say that I am surprised at your view.

The primary objective here is to discover whether the names of officers are "different" from those of OR's.

As a spinoff, to determine whether the social class can be determined from an imbalance (over/under represented) of particular surnames.

If there is anything, short of turning this into an MA thesis, that could be included I am all ears.

How would you suggest that I improve my "rather crude and one-dimensional use of surnames" to provide "truly meaningful statistics"?

Regards,

JMB

 

 

I mean no offence, it is just a personal opinion based on my experience of living in British society over a period of continuous social change, alongside that of almost forty years in the army that you are using as the underpinning of your study.  If it’s a subject of interest for you then I hope you get enjoyment and enlightenment from it in equal measure.

You might find the book whose cover is shown below useful background reading.  It is available through libraries.

Edited 18 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[JMB1943]

Frogsmile,

No (permanent) offense taken, because my lightly bruised ego usually heals within a couple of…..decades.

Please excuse my snarky response, which was dictated by said bruised ego.

I’ll look into chasing down French’s book at some point.

Although the class of the officer corps was a given, and has been extensively researched, I was thinking about whether an indirect indicator could be identified. An online search failed to reveal whether a “different surname” had been researched so I gave myself a project for the autumn.

I may have to look into the incidence of “posh” names of OR’s on the CWGC database to confirm/refute my hypothesis.

Regards,

JMB

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, JMB1943 said:

Frogsmile,

No (permanent) offense taken, because my lightly bruised ego usually heals within a couple of…..decades.

Please excuse my snarky response, which was dictated by said bruised ego.

I’ll look into chasing down French’s book at some point.

Although the class of the officer corps was a given, and has been extensively researched, I was thinking about whether an indirect indicator could be identified. An online search failed to reveal whether a “different surname” had been researched so I gave myself a project for the autumn.

I may have to look into the incidence of “posh” names of OR’s on the CWGC database to confirm/refute my hypothesis.

Regards,

JMB

I think you will have a better understanding of the multiple layered British society from which both, officers and men were sourced regardless of their surnames, if you read David French’s book first, but of course that is entirely up to you.  I wish you well with your project whatever you decide.  

Edited 18 August , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[JMB1943]

Progress Report-4

Grenadier Gds/ Coldstream Gds/ The Queens (R.West Surrey)/ The Buffs (East Kent)/ The Kings Own (R. Lancaster)/ The Northumberland Fusiliers

bring the SMITH number to 8 of ~1660 officers = 0.48%

Regards,

JMB

[JMB1943]

Progress Report-5

I have been given the following numbers,

Census 1911, England: SMITH 511, 488 ; Total 34, 043, 076 

SMITH = 1.50%

I took a trawl through the CWGC database for the socially-elite (italics) and not socially-elite infantry battalions shown in the Table, below.

It is very apparent that the socially-elite regiments took their fair share of SMITH's in the rank-and-file, just as the other regiments did.

Regards,

JMB

Regiment	Smith OR’s Dead	Total War Dead	%-Smith
Grenadier Guards	73	4844	1.51
Coldstream Guards	51	3964	1.29
Rifle Brigade	197	14027	1.40
Kings Royal Rifle Corps	194	13186	1.49
Royal Sussex	97	7362	1.32
Border	83	6988	1.19
Hampshire	101	8004	1.26
Kings Own Royal Lancaster	80	6690	1.20
Queens Own (Royal West Surrey)	134	8543	1.57
Northumberland Fusiliers	222	17761	1.25
The Buffs (East Kent)	86	5941	1.35
TOTAL	1318	97310	1.35

[DavidOwen]

Smith Officer records 2,767 Search results: smith | The National Archives

MIC 75,292 Search results: smith | The National Archives

Officers 3.68% (bear in mind officers had to apply so may be under-reported)

[JMB1943]

David,

Thank you for posting those numbers.

At first sight, 3.68% of Smiths were officers looks like a very robust number, but unfortunately it is misleading.

If there were no sociological bias either way, we would expect about 1.5% of the officer population to be named Smith.

I took a look at "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War" p. 234-5 to determine how many officers were in the army at 4-Aug-1914 and how many were subsequently commissioned until 1-Dec-1918.

These two numbers are about 28,060 and 247,061**, respectively, for TOTAL = 275,121

[**See p. 235, para. 6: does not include "a great number of Commissions granted to officers for special duties, but covers all combatant Commissions."]

We therefore expect 275,121 x 1.5% = 4127 Smith commissions, if no bias.

The actual number of Smith commissions at 2767 shows a considerable deficit vis-a-vis the number expected on a purely statistical basis.

Regards,

JMB

[DavidOwen]

It could be more Smiths as officers as if they served post 1920 then they wouldn't have been picked up by my search.

It might be useful if anyone has the time or inclination to survey the number of officers named Smith pre-war? A number may have come through the ranks during the war.

As always statistics are just that, statistics... 

[DavidOwen]

Jones:

Officer records 1,871

MIC 49,466

Officers 3.78%

Brown:

Officer records 1,901

MIC 37,719

Officers:  5.04%

[PhilC]

I just want to pick up on one of the assumptions made in the first post which appears to have been overlooked; that "Officers in the British Army were only commissioned from a select list of public schools (i.e., private, fee-paying schools". Only is rather a strong word to use as there had always been small numbers of people commissioned from outside that set, including soldiers promoted from the ranks and the Great War wasn't the first time it happened. The previous Great War, now known as the Napoleonic Wars, saw roughly five per cent of commissions going to rankers due to a mixture of high losses among the officers and the expansion of the army although I think only two got beyond Major. The most well known of these (other than Sharpe of course) was John Elley, who was the son of a London innkeeper and enlisted in the Blues (Royal Horse Guards) in 1789.  He appears to have been a bit of a flyer and received a quartermaster's commission in 1790 before becoming a cornet (2nd Lieutenant in today's ranks) in 1794. By the time of Waterloo he was Colonel Sir John Elley and eventually, in 1837, Lieutenant General.

It still happened in the Victorian era with one being the ill-starred Major General Sir Hector MacDonald who was the son of a highland crofter:

https://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyunits/britishinfantry/gordonsmacdonald.htm

And I presume most here will be aware of this chap who was admittedly rather unusual in going all the way from private to Field Marshall:

[FROGSMILE]

17 hours ago, PhilC said:

I just want to pick up on one of the assumptions made in the first post which appears to have been overlooked; that "Officers in the British Army were only commissioned from a select list of public schools (i.e., private, fee-paying schools". Only is rather a strong word to use as there had always been small numbers of people commissioned from outside that set, including soldiers promoted from the ranks and the Great War wasn't the first time it happened. The previous Great War, now known as the Napoleonic Wars, saw roughly five per cent of commissions going to rankers due to a mixture of high losses among the officers and the expansion of the army although I think only two got beyond Major. The most well known of these (other than Sharpe of course) was John Elley, who was the son of a London innkeeper and enlisted in the Blues (Royal Horse Guards) in 1789.  He appears to have been a bit of a flyer and received a quartermaster's commission in 1790 before becoming a cornet (2nd Lieutenant in today's ranks) in 1794. By the time of Waterloo he was Colonel Sir John Elley and eventually, in 1837, Lieutenant General.

It still happened in the Victorian era with one being the ill-starred Major General Sir Hector MacDonald who was the son of a highland crofter:

https://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyunits/britishinfantry/gordonsmacdonald.htm

And I presume most here will be aware of this chap who was admittedly rather unusual in going all the way from private to Field Marshall:

Good point Phil and I couldn’t agree more.

Who can ever forget Wullie Robertson!

I’ve always thought that the story of Hector MacDonald was quintessentially British, with its typically hypocritical attitudes to tropes of social class and homosexuality.  I’m surprised that Channel 4, or Netflix haven’t commissioned a drama about it.

Unfortunately I doubt that the numbers of Smiths, Bakers and Cutlers commissioned are likely to make much difference to the statistics.  It’s one of the reasons that I feel this study is unlikely likely to hold much weight.

Edited 4 September , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[PhilB]

It seems the Australian forces (and presumably those of other Empire armies) were equally dependent to a large extent on Public School input. From a review of Public Schools and the Great War (Seldon and Walsh):-

“They give the background to public schools in 1914 and discuss their contribution and that of their pupils and staff to the war. For this they consider not just schools in the UK, but also similar schools across the Empire. (Apparently, even as 'democratic' a force as the Australian Army was much reliant on public school boys as officers.)”