Resigning commission in Life Guards to join RFC

[Perth Digger]

In a newspaper dated 29 December 1916 it was reported that 2nd Lt L.S. Ward-Price had relinquished his commission in the Reserve Regiment of the 2nd Life Guards (he had been wounded in France in 1915). On 1 December 1916 he had been given a temporary commission in the RFC.

Most officers, when joining the RFC, were attached from their regiments rather than relinquishing their original commissions. Was there a special reason why Guardsmen could not be attached?

Thanks

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

4 hours ago, Perth Digger said:

In a newspaper dated 29 December 1916 it was reported that 2nd Lt L.S. Ward-Price had relinquished his commission in the Reserve Regiment of the 2nd Life Guards (he had been wounded in France in 1915). On 1 December 1916 he had been given a temporary commission in the RFC.

Most officers, when joining the RFC, were attached from their regiments rather than relinquishing their original commissions. Was there a special reason why Guardsmen could not be attached?

Thanks

Mike

The likely reason for resignation was not wishing to go through the rigmarole of applying for a secondment/attachment, which could take a long time and also be vulnerable to interference from his own regimental officers.  The RFC accepted men as young officers for a direct commission if they were joining from scratch as civilians and they were especially welcomed if they already possessed a Royal Aeronautical Club (RAC) Certificate.  The rest of their officers came from those who applied for an operational flying tour and who once accepted trained until achieving certification, whereupon they joined an operational squadron.  Those who survived, performed well, and achieved a good rating as pilots, could then if they wish apply for a permanent transfer.  Upon success, which was not a given, they swapped over their insignia.  It seems likely that your subject was simply impatient.  There was no instituted formal obligation for him to resign.  Incidentally this protocol for transfer between corps is a typical British Army methodology and still exists today.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Perth Digger]

Thanks Frogsmile. 

Ward-Price maybe was impatient (he boxed for Cambridge University so may have had a belligerent gene!). He appears not to have got an Aero Certificate before joining the RFC. He was killed in March 1917 so did not have much time to settle in (or swap insignia). When they were registering his grave, it looks as if his parent(s) ensured that emphasis was given on the headstone to his time with the Life Guards. 

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

26 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

Thanks Frogsmile. 

Ward-Price maybe was impatient (he boxed for Cambridge University so may have had a belligerent gene!). He appears not to have got an Aero Certificate before joining the RFC. He was killed in March 1917 so did not have much time to settle in (or swap insignia). When they were registering his grave, it looks as if his parent(s) ensured that emphasis was given on the headstone to his time with the Life Guards. 

Mike

That’s interesting Mike as Army protocol would usually require the badge of his substantive corps on the headstone.  For example men or officers still on probation would have their original badge, but in this case he had resigned so presumably that was in effect.

[Matlock1418]

40 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

When they were registering his grave, it looks as if his parent(s) ensured that emphasis was given on the headstone to his time with the Life Guards. 

12 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Army protocol would usually require the badge of his substantive corps on the headstone.  For example men or officers still on probation would have their original badge, but in this case he had resigned so presumably that was in effect.

Not quite so on many grounds.

The headstone is badged RAF - a classic case of the RAF of the time imposing [Future replacement of teh headstone by CWGC will be badged RFC]

But reads 

2nd Life Guards and Royal Flying Corps

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/588245/l-s-ward-price

M

Edited 27 October , 2023 by Matlock1418
add detail

[Perth Digger]

Looking at the headstone photo on CWGC, it looks as if the badge is RAF and the first mentioned regiment is Life Guards. This is an anomaly, then?

Mike

[Perth Digger]

Sent before yours came, Matlock. So, airmen killed pre-April 1 1918 should be RFC on the headstone with one badge, after it would be RAF and another badge?

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

25 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Not quite so on many grounds.

The headstone is badged RAF - a classic case of the RAF of the time imposing [Future replacement of teh headstone by CWGC will be badged RFC]

But reads 

2nd Life Guards and Royal Flying Corps

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/588245/l-s-ward-price

M

That makes sense because he was RFC at the time of death and that is the guiding principle that still applies.  My own brother is laid beneath a headstone of a corps in which he had less than 6-months service, but having passed probation.  There was no mention of the unit before transfer, in which he’d spent 12-years.  In the case of Ward-Price the inscription you quote is not ideal.  More correct would be: RFC, late [of the] 2nd Life Guards.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

Just now, Perth Digger said:

Looking at the headstone photo on CWGC, it looks as if the badge is RAF and the first mentioned regiment is Life Guards. This is an anomaly, then?

5 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

Sent before yours came, Matlock. So, airmen killed pre-April 1 1918 should be RFC on the headstone with one badge, after it would be RAF and another badge?

I was just adding the details when you posted again.

And again! 

= It is a rather unusual mix of badge and details for WARD-PRICE.

Would be one badge to reflect the correct flying service - and this is what CWGC aim to do in the future.

• To 31 March 1918 (Incl.) = RFC
• From 1 April 1918 (Incl.) = RAF

That said there are plenty of 'Blankshire Regiment' badged headstones for 'Blankshire Regiment' and RFC/RAF and 'Blankshire Regiment' att'd RFC/RAF.

Previous regiment and RFC/RAF and Previous regiment and Labour Corps being examples where there can be different listing approaches too - yet to be explained.

In the case of the Labour Corps it might seem/possibly be that the more prestigious regiment won over the less prestigious corps ???  But who might have made that decision??? For flying services badges it seems the RAF won back in the day but these are now slowly being changed to more correctly reflect the date.

Have previously and quite recently enquired of CWGC but they have failed to explain their protocol for the ordering and inclusion of details on their headstones - they are still trying to find out it would seem - and I still await their reply with interest.

M

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

More correct would be: RFC, late of the 2nd Life Guards.

That approach, or similar, is sometimes used.

M

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I was just adding the details when you posted again.

And again! 

= It is a rather unusual mix of badge and details for WARD-PRICE.

Would be one badge to reflect the correct flying service - and this is what CWGC aim to do in the future.

• To 31 March 1918 (Incl.) = RFC
• From 1 April 1918 (Incl.) = RAF

That said there are plenty of 'Blankshire Regiment' badged headstones for 'Blankshire Regiment' and RFC/RAF and 'Blankshire Regiment' att'd RFC/RAF.

Previous regiment and RFC/RAF and Previous regiment and Labour Corps being examples where there can be different listing approaches too - yet to be explained.

In the case of the Labour Corps it might seem/possibly be that the more prestigious regiment won over the less prestigious corps ???  But who might have made that decision??? For flying services badges it seems the RAF won back in the day but these are now slowly being changed to more correctly reflect the date.

Have previously and quite recently enquired of CWGC but they have failed to explain their protocol for the ordering and inclusion of details on their headstones - they are still trying to find out it would seem - and I still await their reply with interest.

M

I can imagine modern minds wresting with this.  Mostly I suspect people who have no service experience, or understanding of the services.  The traditional protocols have mainly always seemed perfectly sensible to me.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Perth Digger]

I think you may waiting a while, Matlock; the CWGC are pretty reticent about their policies implemented in the past, but it looks as if they, ideally, would want to keep to their original policy of complete uniformity (which I personally don't agree with). It would be interesting, Frogsmile, to see if the forces have any influence on CWGC policy about headstones.

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

1 minute ago, Perth Digger said:

It would be interesting, Frogsmile, to see if the forces have any influence on CWGC policy about headstones.

Mike

Yes I think so too.  I suspect it will have to be scrutinised with consideration of contemporary Human Resources policy including equal opportunities and all the other paraphernalia.

[Matlock1418]

14 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

I can imagine modern minds wresting with this.  Mostly people who have no service experience or understanding of the services.  The traditional protocols have mainly seemed perfectly sensible to me.

Traditional protocols - I wish I fully knew what they were and how CWGC applied them [I do sort of basically understand the historical standing and precedence of Guards and Regiments of Foot etc. and the rather traditional pecking order so so speak]

Are you doubting those protocols or just the way the CWGC seem to apply?

I would agree actual sequence [at death and perhaps also before] would seem more logical.

I await a response from CWGC to explain their approach, past and present/future

9 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

It would be interesting, Frogsmile, to see if the forces have any influence on CWGC policy about headstones.

Certainly could be of interest.

6 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes I think so too.  I suspect it will have to be scrutinised with consideration of contemporary Human Resources policy including equal opportunities and all the other paraphernalia.

 So no decision or reply anytime soon! 

M

Edited 27 October , 2023 by Matlock1418
perhaps also

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Perth Digger said:

Thanks Frogsmile. 

Ward-Price maybe was impatient (he boxed for Cambridge University so may have had a belligerent gene!). He appears not to have got an Aero Certificate before joining the RFC. He was killed in March 1917 so did not have much time to settle in (or swap insignia). When they were registering his grave, it looks as if his parent(s) ensured that emphasis was given on the headstone to his time with the Life Guards. 

Mike

It (resignation) would definitely have speeded up the process of him getting up flying.  I suspect that he was probably a modernist and impatient with bureaucracy.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

4 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

It (resignation) would definitely have speeded up the process of him getting up flying.  I suspect that he was a modernist and impatient with bureaucracy.

I can understand WARD-PRICE might have been impatient to get on with flying and him choosing resignation from the LG so as to get into the RFC - but I still can't explain the CWGC headstone and how Life Guards got such prominent billing under a RAF badge ???

M

[FROGSMILE]

19 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Traditional protocols - I wish I fully knew what they were and how CWGC applied them [I do sort of basically understand the historical standing and precedence of Guards and Regiments of Foot etc. and the rather traditional pecking order so so speak]

Are you doubting those protocols or just the way the CWGC seem to apply?

I would agree actual sequence [at feathand before] would seem more logical.

They are not complicated and as an analogy follow the same principle as any other substantive process, i.e. who was his parent, whose books was he still on.  Whoever that was should in principle go on his headstone, with any additional caveat mentioned in the inscription such as that which you described.

The Labour Corps is an interesting point and I’m wondering if the policy for them evolved.  For example if a man was permanently downgraded medically and sent to the Labour Corps on compulsory transfer accordingly, then it would seem natural for that corps to appear on his headstone.

Later on, though, I get the impression that some men were temporarily downgraded with the expectation that they would recover, and sent on attachment to the Labour Corps with the intent that fresh air, healthy labour and good food would aid their recovery.  Such men seem to have retained their parent cap badges in many photos and quite a number of case histories have revealed men who returned to the infantry and subsequently became casualties again.

10 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I can understand WARD-PRICE might have been impatient to get on with flying and him choosing resignation from the LG so as to get into the RFC - but I still can't explain the CWGC headstone and how Life Guards got such prominent billing under a RAF badge ???

M

I imagine that it was a compromise, the cap badge showed the actuality at the time of his demise and the wording the fact that he spent more of his service with the 2nd Life Guards.  Honour preserved all round.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

15 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

I think you may waiting a while, Matlock; the CWGC are pretty reticent about their policies implemented in the past, but it looks as if they, ideally, would want to keep to their original policy of complete uniformity (which I personally don't agree with)

Even if the past is unclear they must, surely, have something now to allow them to prepare headstones and commemorations for any future remains recovered and reinterred - Mustn't they?

11 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

The Labour Corps is an interesting point and I’m wondering if the policy for them evolved.  For example if a man was permanently downgraded medically and sent to the Labour Corps on compulsory transfer accordingly then it would seem natural for that corps to appear on his headstone.  Later on, though, I get the impression that some men were temporarily downgraded with the expectation that they would recover, and sent on attachment to the Labour Corps with the intent that fresh air, healthy labour and good food would aid their recovery.  Such men seem to have retained their parent cap badges in many photos and quite a number of case histories have revealed men who returned to the infantry and became casualties again.

I think LC are a project in their own right.  You have offered an interesting hypothesis

Certainly there are examples of:

• Labour Corps, formerly 'Blankshire' Regiment
• 'Blankshire' Regiment, transferred Labour Corps
• 'Blankshire Regiment' and Labour Corps

But I think I/we digress here in this thread.

M

[Perth Digger]

On the CWGC headstone pages of his file, page 1 (https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/588245/l-s-ward-price/#&gid=2&pid=1), the RFC was going to be given precedence, but there is some red writing that I cannot read properly, and then on page 3 (https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/588245/l-s-ward-price/#&gid=2&pid=3) the Guards win out. Clearly, someone made a policy decison, but who and on what grounds?

Mike

Edited 27 October , 2023 by Perth Digger

[Perth Digger]

Ward-Price's observer, Harry Athelstan Chuter, is in another cemetery, under a headstone that gives precedence to the RFC and mentions 2nd Royal Fusiliers (TF?), his original regiment in which he went overseas initially to Egypt, secondly. There is no photo so I can't confirm that the RF material is on the headstone. So, totally different.

Funnily enough, I find this quite comforting. I have never liked Ware's rabid insistence on conformity.

Mike

[FROGSMILE]

14 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

On the CWGC headstone pages of his file, page 1 (https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/588245/l-s-ward-price/#&gid=2&pid=1), the RFC was going to be given precedence, but there is some red writing that I cannot read properly, and then on page 3 (https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/588245/l-s-ward-price/#&gid=2&pid=3) the Guards win out. Clearly, someone made a policy decison, but who and on what grounds?

Mike

I imagine it’s connected with the length of time he spent with each comparatively Mike.  The Life Guards might have won out with the inscription but it seems he was still laid to rest under the correct RFC badge (and will be again).

[FROGSMILE]

5 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

Ward-Price's observer, Harry Athelstan Chuter, is in another cemetery, under a headstone that gives precedence to the RFC and mentions 2nd Royal Fusiliers (TF?), his original regiment in which he went overseas initially to Egypt, secondly. There is no photo so I can't confirm that the RF material is on the headstone. So, totally different.

Funnily enough, I find this quite comforting. I have never liked Ware's rabid insistence on conformity.

Mike

2nd Bn Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) were regular army.

2nd Bn London Regiment (Royal Fusiliers) were TF**

**only Britain can cause such confusion…

[Matlock1418]

39 minutes ago, Perth Digger said:

Funnily enough, I find this quite comforting. I have never liked Ware's rabid insistence on conformity.

You may feel a further fuzzy warm glow to know that other stones have variants too.

I give examples of the Royal Garrison Artillery who use a Cross or a Triangular badge variant [I have a photo of two officers who died on adjacent days and lying next to each other who have different style headstones] and similarly the Royal North Lancashire Regiment.  The 'Triangular' version appears to be a special variant in some cases but I can't explain why.

M

Edited 27 October , 2023 by Matlock1418
add the word badge for clarity

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

You may feel a further fuzzy warm glow to know that other stones have variants too.

I give examples of the Royal Garrison Artillery who use a Cross or a Triangular variant [I have a photo of two officers who died on adjacent days and lying next to each other who have different style headstones] and similarly the Royal North Lancashire Regiment.  The 'Triangular' version appears to be a special variant in some cases but I can't explain why.

M

Are you referring to badges?  If so each regiment had the choice of using 1898 cap insignia or the historically older regimental crest.  Most chose the former, but some didn’t.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

Apologies - yes, the badges

I hope you may be able to offer your thoughts on the RGA officers for a start.  ???

M

Edit: Both headstones display a cross so seemingly not a case of wanting religious symbology excluded [as perhaps for athiest or non-conformist] - or an alternative faith such as Jewish.  BAKER's personal inscription is also rather unsual in that it is more than just words - can anyone explain that?

Edited 27 October , 2023 by Matlock1418
edit

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Apologies - yes, the badges

I hope you may be able to offer your thoughts on the RGA officers for a start.  ???

M

I don’t know why they’re different.  The badge itself is the standard cap badge design that I mentioned, it’s the location of the cross that’s different, along with the concomitant positioning of the inscription of the deceased’s personal details.  I imagine a proprietary engine search using the terms “CWGC headstone design” would provide the answer.

Edited 27 October , 2023 by FROGSMILE