Stretcher Bearer cloth badge

[Hinckmeister]

Hi everyone

The attached photographs are of Charles Leslie Cranston of the Queen's (Royal West Surrey) Regiment. I note that he is wearing the coloured cloth version of the Stretcher Bearer badge in his left upper-sleeve. I have seen another post on this forum stating that this version of the badge was Australian AIF issue. How could this turn up on the uniform of a Queen's private?

Also, I cannot locate an MIC to this man. Does this indicate that he did not serve overseas? 

Any and all advice gratefully received. 

Thanks in advance

Paul 

 

[FROGSMILE]

48 minutes ago, Hinckmeister said:

Hi everyone

The attached photographs are of Charles Leslie Cranston of the Queen's (Royal West Surrey) Regiment. I note that he is wearing the coloured cloth version of the Stretcher Bearer badge in his left upper-sleeve. I have seen another post on this forum stating that this version of the badge was Australian AIF issue. How could this turn up on the uniform of a Queen's private?

Also, I cannot locate an MIC to this man. Does this indicate that he did not serve overseas? 

Any and all advice gratefully received. 

Thanks in advance

Paul 

 

I’ve never heard of it being an AIF badge only.  It can be seen on a wide range of regiment’s stretcher bearers.  See:

 

Edited 4 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Andrew Upton]

46 minutes ago, Hinckmeister said:

...The attached photographs are of Charles Leslie Cranston of the Queen's (Royal West Surrey) Regiment. I note that he is wearing the coloured cloth version of the Stretcher Bearer badge in his left upper-sleeve. I have seen another post on this forum stating that this version of the badge was Australian AIF issue. How could this turn up on the uniform of a Queen's private?...

Essentially whoever said that was wrong - the interlocking SB badge was commonly in use pre-WW1 in British service, and remained in Volunteer Force use throughout the war, albeit in reducing numbers. It is sometimes seen on troops of other nationalities (eg Canadian) so it seems likely that someone has seen one on an Australian at some point and assumed it was a particularly Australian thing.

[FROGSMILE]

The other common type was a simple armlet with the large block letters SB.  Contemporary photos suggest these were the more common of the two for all parts of the BEF.

Edited 4 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[TEW]

Maybe he didn't serve overseas and therefore has no medal entitlement.

Best to check all possibilities though.

There is a MIC to G/435 Charles Cranston of The Queen's, his date of entry is 2/6/15 but the card seem to be for 15 Star only. He must have other medals.

Another MIC to G/1818 Leslie Cranston of The Queens. Different entry date - 27/7/15. Discharged with SWB Dec 1916. The SWB roll may give an age which may help.

435 & 1818 are almost certainly different men but the 1915 Star only MIC needs further exploration.

There is a Charles L Cranston of the MGC 106571 BWM & Vict only which may seem unlikely but your photo is undated I presume and may show a man in his pre-theatre or early war role.

Occasionally very odd things happen, G435 and 106571 may be the same man. That at least needs exploring further. He may have originally served in France with The Queen' s and then transferred to the MGC. Admin issues could cause two seperate MICs.

Or of course,  these are two different men!

TEW 

[TEW]

I've looked at the medal rolls for G/435, G/1818 RWS and 106571 MGC.

The BWM & Vict roll for 106571 gives his full name as Charles Leslie Cranston. This lends support to the idea that he has two MICs. One for the 15 Star as G/435 and another for the BWM & Vict. as 106571.

Image courtesy of Ancestry

There is a 'Pension Ledgers and Index Card' card for him which may connect the two numbers. I can't view the PIC so I can't help.

Alternativley, you'd have to determine his RWS battalion, download the diary and see if it mentions transfers to the MGC. The MGC diary may also confirm this. EDIT actually it won't as it's not been digitised

Graham Sacker's database shows 106571 to be 251st MGC Coy. which was 48th Division. Not sure I see a connection other than G/435 was wounded twice and shows in Casualty Lists dated 13/9/16 and 16/8/17. He may have been transferred to the MGC after recovery.

G/1818 (Leslie Cranston) seems much less likely, he has a few pages of a Pension file that gives a location of Rowtown, Chertsey and an age of 19Y 1m in Sept 1914.

TEW

 

[Hinckmeister]

Great, helpful responses. Thank you so much. 

Paul 

[FROGSMILE]

6 hours ago, Fromelles said:

I don't read the above quote as stating this was used by the AIF only, nor is this statement 'wrong.' The entwined SB badge had been issued in Australian since at least 1912 (a 'Regimental Stretcher Bearer' badge is also referred to in the 1906 dress regulations, but isn't described). This badge was indeed used by the AIF during the war. 

Dan

 

To be fair Dan no one has said any different.  The OP asked the question and then all contributors have pointed out, albeit via various forms of words, that the coloured thread badge was used by both the British Army and the AIF, and not just the latter. In short, all were in agreement with each other.

Edited 6 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

Paul (Hinckmeister) wrote "I have seen another post on this forum stating that this version of the badge was Australian AIF issue." This statement is absolutely correct! But somehow he was under the impression this meant only the AIF wore this badge. That's fine he was asking for clarification. 

Maybe I need to reread the replies, but I'm sure it was written that whoever wrote the above statement was 'wrong.' All I was doing is was pointing out the statement (as quoted) was indeed correct...to be fair

Dan 

If you re-read the thread Dan I think you’ll find that’s exactly what the conclusion was. 

[FROGSMILE]

17 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

If I re-read the this thread will I find that the statement was said to be wrong?

The key clause in the OP’s query was: “How could this turn up on the uniform of a Queen's private?” [i.e. if it was AIF issue only].  It was pointed out by various posters that it was worn by both, the AIF and the British Army before your post was made. 

[FROGSMILE]

39 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

 

Is this not what was written?  

I said the statement was in fact correct and added a little info on the badge from the Oz perspective, that's it!

I know what was the OP's query was and understand why it was asked. It was in response to the replies posted that I made the comment that the statement was not 'wrong'. No one was saying is was just a Brit or Oz thing. 

If I'd known this was going to cause so much grief I wouldn't have posted. 

Dan, you and me both, and to be clear I’ve absolutely no beef with you.  I give up on defending what Andrew personally said, and he hasn’t asked me to anyway, but on a greater point you’ve unfortunately missed the crystal clear nuance in the OP’s query that he thought the badge had been alleged as: “Australian AIF issue” [in the context of - only].  It was then pointed out that wasn’t the case and it was worn on both uniforms.  I’ll happily leave you now to no doubt have the last word…

Edited 6 December , 2023 by FROGSMILE