Order of precedence

[Devils Own]

Here is a stupid question:

In the information on infantry units on the LLT site we can view the regiment data in alphabetical order or in order of precedence. What does the latter mean?

Cheers

Steve

[Staffsyeoman]

For want of better phrases, pecking order, order of seniority etc etc.

The order of precedence will be arranged by infantry units' former existence as 'regiments of foot' (6th Foot, Royal Warwicks etc etc) generally mirroring their dates of original formation.

[swizz]

I assume that where, say, two former regiments of foot were merged, the earlier date is used?

Swizz

[Muerrisch]

Not hard and fast, but more-or-less. Precedence is defined in KR as being: 'see monthly army list!'

[Devils Own]

Thanks fellas.

Interesting to note that 9 out of the most recent 10 are Irish or Scottish regiments (6 being Irish).

Did this order of precedence mean anything with regard to how the regiments were teated or viewed by the high command?

Steve

[swizz]

Thanks Langley

Swizz

[Muerrisch]

Thanks fellas.

Interesting to note that 9 out of the most recent 10 are Irish or Scottish regiments (6 being Irish).

Did this order of precedence mean anything with regard to how the regiments were teated or viewed by the high command?

Steve

Teated.

Now that's a thought.

No idea, I expect the high command were too busy or too old to view teats.

[Wienand Drenth]

Hello,

My view is that (modern) precedence was determined by the moment a regiment joined the English establishment. Prior to 1707 the British Army consisted of English, Scots and Irish establishments. The former two "merged" in 1707 (act of Union), and the Irish merged in 1801. This explains by for example the Royal Scots Fusiliers (raised in 1678) only ranked as 21st, whereas the Lancashire Fusiliers date only from 1689.

The reason for so many low precedence Irish regiments is because the greater part of Indian european regiments (Madras, Bengal and Bombay) amalgamated to the British army by the 1860s. Following the territorialization of the army (Cardwell reforms) they were given recruiting districts in Ireland.

Regiments from Scotland were also raised relatively late, i.e., late 18th century. This may have been the result of the 1745 rebellion, and mistrust of the Highlanders. Also, common practise in those days was to disband the regiments that raised latest (last in first out).

I hope the above makes some sense.

Regards,

Wienand

[Devils Own]

Teated.

Now that's a thought.

No idea, I expect the high command were too busy or too old to view teats.

Don't knock it until you've tried it. ooh err.

[Desmond7]

You will find that several of the Irish regiments actually find their ancestral roots in military formations employed by the East India Company.

This will explain the relatively high numbers.

Des

[squirrel]

And IIRC The Leinsters (Royal Canadians) were originally raised for service in Canada hence the name.