24th Regiment of Foot was the 2nd Warwicksire regiment

With reference to our visit to Pluckley during the exhibition weekend. I came across this and thought it would be worth posting...

"The Royal Regiment of Wales was an amalgamation of The South Wales Borderers and the Welch Regiment, founded in 1689 and 1719 respectively. Raised in Pluckley by Sir Edward Dering, the South Wales Borderers, designated the 24th Foot, fought in Marlborough’s Wars, for much of the time with the Duke as Colonel of the Regiment and continued to serve with distinction throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. It raised 18 Battalions for the First World War and the 2nd Battalion was the only Welsh Battalion to land on D Day. The Welch Regiment was raised as a Regiment of Invalids before being raised to the Line in 1787- joined for a short time by Sir Arthur Wellesley in 1788. It fought in North America, India, the Crimea and Afghanistan before raising 34 battalions for the First World War and eleven for the Second World War. The 69th Regiment of Foot was raised as a Battalion of the 24th before gaining an independent existence in 1758. It served as a Regiment of Marines in many battles before joining the 41st of Foot to form the Welch Regiment in 1881. It had the distinction of fighting shoulder to shoulder with a young Nelson at his first great success, the Battle of the Saints.

The most well known battle of the Royal Regiment of Wales is undoubtedly the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, immortalised by Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in ZULU. The Regiment won more Victoria Crosses in a day than at any other action in saving Natal following the defeat at Isandlwana and was awarded a Silver Wreath of Immortelles which is still borne on the Queen’s Colour."

Hello old historian2

I wonder who was responsible for writing that? I bet the members on here could pick some bones out of it.

There is no mention what so ever that at the time of Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift the 24th was the 2nd Warwicksire regiment, and to say that the south wales borderers was founded in 1689 is a bit of a cheek, it did not exist until 1881 after the reforms. It then goes on to say that the most well known battle of the RRW is the battle at Rorkes Drift, that's a bit odd, the RRW did not come into existance until 1969.

It appears that the name 'Warwickshire' must be avoided at all costs wIth the RRW, it would seem that they want to cover up the fact that it was an English regiment that fought during the zulu wars and not a welsh regiment.

OK, the 2nd Warwickshires had relocated their depot to brecon in 1873, this was so they could have a permenent depot, and also enable them to recruit from the south wales border area, but it was still an English regiment at the time, and this may well have put some welshmen off joining up, however, some welshmen did join up, hence the few welshmen in the regiment at Rorkes Drift. After the reforms of 1881, the regiments name was changed to the south wales borderers (to try to encourage the welsh to join?), and now of course (after other amalgamations), the regiment is part of the royal welsh, but this does not alter the fact that at the time of the zulu wars the 24th was an English regiment named the (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot. It is surprising what the welsh will do to claim this as theirs, they even took the old Warwickshires colours from St Mary's church in Warwick and carted them off to wales, what a cheek.

Considering that of the 122/3 men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that fought at Rorkes Drift, only around 30 were welsh, and of the 7 V.C's won by the 24th, only 2 went to welshmen, I think that what is said in the film about it being 'a welsh regiment with a few forigners (English) in it', can be taken with a pinch of salt, it was in fact the other way round, it was an English regiment with a few forigners (welsh) in it.

Anyway, that's enough 'bone picking' for now, no doubt others will have a good chew of the fat.

Regards, Martin.

An amendment to my post above,

I should of course have said 'only around 30 were welsh', (if you include the 18 from Monmouthshire, which at the time was still being debated if it was either in England or Wales). And if John 'Williams' (who's real name was Fielding), thought himself as being English (he was in the Monmouthshire Militia before joining the 24th), this would then put the V.C. winners at just one Welshman. John Fielding gave the false surname 'Williams' in an attemp to stop his fimily tracing him.

Regards, Martin.

Martin. I think you have just about picked every bone that could be picked. Good observation. No doubt Old H will correct it.

Hello impi

Ha ha, yes I have picked a few bones there haven't I. But it is really annoying when the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, don't get the recognition or credit that they deserve. I blame the film 'Zulu' for this, although a brilliant film, they got it really wrong when they said that it was the south wales borderers that fought this action at Rorkes Drift, the south wales borderers did not even exist when the battle was fought.

Yes, ok, it was a film not a documentary, but you would have thought that the researchers would have at least checked on the history of the 24th before saying that it was a welsh regiment, as since then, a lot of people take it for granted that it was, but then again Stan Baker was co producer of the film, and he was welsh, so he might have had a big say in the matter, and decided to cover up the fact that at the time of the zulu wars the 24th was an English regiment named the Warwickshires.

If there is ever another film made about the battle at Rorkes Drift, I hope that they get it correct next time, it would be funny to see the reactions of the welsh when they heard the soldier say "Yes, the 24th is an English regiment, but there are some forigners in it from wales" , then at the end of the film (where Burton reads out the list of V.C's and says "The 24th regiment of foot (south wales borderers)" this could then be corrected to the real title of the regiment, The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot. Come to think of it, the existing film could be edited to show these amendments, and give the Warwickshires the justice and honour that they deserve.

Regards, Martin.

Hi everyone

Martin and I recently exchanged emails on this subject and I thought it might be of general interest to copy my response to him:

"Thank you (Martin) for your EMail. We do get a lot of similar comments addressed to us on this issue

You are of course correct in what you say. There is clearly an error at the end of the film "Zulu" where the Regiment is identified as the SWB. It would have been nice if they had gotten all the facts right in the film - there are literally dozens of errors, of which you are probably aware. However, the film was not produced as a documentary.

Within the Anglo-Zulu War room in our Museum we do NOT state that the Regiment was either Welsh or English ! The Regiment was of course a regiment of the British Army.

In 1881 the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment (24th Regt of Foot) changed its title to the South Wales Borderers (but was still the 24th Regiment of Foot) to reflect the position of its Regimental Depot in Brecon (where it had been based since 1872/3). So, same Regiment - different title ! Many other Regiments also changed their titles at this time based on their revised geographical locations.

How many Welshmen were there in the Regiment at this time ? It's impossible to say, the data is quite inconclusive. All we can say with certainty is that the 24th (and 23rd and 41st) Regiments all contained a higher proportion of Welshmen than the other regiments. The 25th Brigade, based in Brecon, recruited (in theory) from four local counties - but that takes us nicely into the Monmouthshire debate ! The regiment was relocated to Brecon in 1872/3 to take advantage of the recruiting possibilities offered by ther highly industrialised area along the heads of the South Wales valleys. As you are probably aware most recruits at this time were unskilled industrial labourers (as opposed to the previous century when unskilled agricultural labourers provided the bulk of recruits). In simple mathematical terms, if the battalion of 850 men was composed solely of 12 year men, then it would need (on average) to find 70 recruits per year, multiply this by 6 (the number of years at Brecon) and by 2 (the number of battalions) you get something like 50% who OUGHT to have been Welsh. If the battalions were composed wholly of 6 year men, then the percentage OUGHT to have been 100%. However, a person's name, where he was from, and where he enlisted give no real sound indication of a nationality. You can not assume that the name Williams, Evans or Jones equated to being Welsh ! And, there were a lot of Irishmen who were working in the coalfields, and in the iron and steel works in this area!!

Recently we have been looking at the Welsh language press in Wales at this period - there were well over 200 newspapers printed in Welsh. Many of these do describe the 24th as "our Regiment" so there was clearly, even at this stage, a growing sense of identity with Wales. This has obviously continued to develop over the years, through the South Wales Borderers, the Monmouthshire Regiment, the Welch Regiment, the Royal Regiment of Wales, and currently The Royal Welsh."

So there we are - the Regiment remained the 24th Regiment throughout, and merely changed its title in 1881. And how many Welsahmen were there at Rorke's Drift ? - we'll never be able to answer that one !

Bill Cainan
Curator
The Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh
Brecon

Hello Bill and everyone

The reason I said that the 24th was an English regiment is because it was formed in Pluckley, England in 1689, and later it had been given the English county name of Warwickshire, which it had been named in 1782, and it was under this name that the regiment fought in the Zulu wars (Isandlwana, Rorkes Drift, etc), in 1879. The regiment had it's depot relocated to Brecon in 1873, this was so that it could have a permenent depot and to enable it to try to recruit from the Monmouth and south wales border area. However, with the regiment having an English county name, not many Welshmen joined up, hence out of the 122/3 men of the Warwickshires that fought at RD only a handful (around 14) were Welsh, but if you include the men from Monmouth, this brings it up to around 30ish, however, Monmouth was in England at that time.

In the reforms of 1881, the regiment sadly had it's name changed to the south wales borderers (could this have been to encourage the Welsh to join by having the word 'Wales' in the title?), and after other amalgamations it now finds itself lost in the RWR. There was a programme on TV the other week about the RWR, and it was shown that even they keep up this pretence about the old 24th being a Welsh regiment at the time of RD, not once was the real name of the regiment that fought at RD mentioned, the only person to mention the name of the Warwickshires was the narrator, who also said that there was only a handful of Welshmen in the 24th at RD

The 1964 film 'Zulu' more or less created this myth that the old 24th was a Welsh regiment, and I have to ask why was this done. Stanley Baker was Welsh, he was the co-producer of the film, it is said that he also owned the film company that made the film, there were a number of Welsh actors in the film, it was stated in the film that the regiment was Welsh "with a few forigners from England" (when it was actually the other way round). Richard Burton narrated the film, and stated at the end that the regiment was the south wales borderers, he was also Welsh. It does make you wonder if this was done deliberately to create this myth about the old 24th being a Welsh regiment, to give the credit to a handful of Welshmen at the expense of the real heroes of RD (The 24th 2nd Warwickshire regiment).

Let us take a case of 'the boot on the other foot'. Suppose that the 24th HAD been called the SWB at the time, then been renamed 'The Warwickshires', later a film had been made depicting the SWB as being the Warwickshires and giving them the credit for the action at RD, then the SWB being swallowed up in the Royal English regiment, and their old colours taken from Wales and carted off to England, do you think that the Welsh would have sat back and let this sort of thing happen? NO, then why do we allow this farce to continue?

Take a look at the posting above from old historian2. He posted this after a visit to Pluckley, it is written by someone unknown, but just have a read of it. There is no mention whatsoever of the old Warwickshires, it says that the SWB was formed in 1689, but it did not exist until 1881, it says that the most famous battle of the RRW was RD, the RRW did not exist until 1969, if this is not a case of covering things up, then what is?

Warwickshire has lost both it's regiments, the first Warwickshires now being part of the fusiliers (against it's will), and the second Warwickshires now finding itself lost in the RWR. It would be good to re-amalgamate these two regiments into The Warwickshire Regiment, this would give back some pride to the county of Warwickshire, and also restore the credit, honour and glory to the the real heroes of Rorkes Drift, the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment.

Regards, Martin.

Martin and everyone

As I said earlier the Regiment remained as the 24th of Foot throughout (and that number is currently included in the list of antecedent regiments of The Royal Welsh). Although a regiment might change its title, it's traditions are passed on. This is clearly not the case of one unit being disabanded and another one being formed. The 1881 change of title was done to reflect the changed geographical location of its Depot - on the South Wales borders. The current Regiment takes justifiable pride that it's forbears fought as the 24th Regiment (the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment) in the Anglo-Zulu War.

With respect, I do think you are missing the point in that there were NO English or Welsh regiments per-se - they were all regiments of the BRITISH Army ! However, the geographical location of their respective depots did tend to generate local affiliations - eg a regiment with a depot in Inverness would be referred to as a "Scots" regiment; a regiment with its depot in London would be referred to as an "English" regiment; and naturally enough, one with its depot based in Brecon would referred to as a "Welsh" regiment (ie one from Wales). However, there was NO Welsh army, NO English Army or NO Scottish army to which they would have belonged !!!!!! As I've said above, by 1879, it is interesting to note the Welsh newspapers were beginning to refer to the 24th as "our" regiment.

The position of Monmouthshire at this time has been done to death over a number of forums, suffice to say that the western half of the county had a lot more Welsh speakers than the eastern part - and that is true even today ! It's legal entity probably left it in no man's land - neither in England nor Wales !!!! I believe Berwick on Tweed has a similar claim to fame ? Yet again, I will make the point that it is almost impossible to say with any degree of certainty how many "Welshmen" there were at Rorke's Drift. It would require you to initially define exactly what a "Welshman" is/was. A question for you - I was born in Worcestershire, my father was born in Llanelli, I was brought up in Aberystwyth and Cardiff. I have spent most of my adult life away from Wales. I speak fluent Welsh, my father spoke no Welsh. My army enlistement papers show me as "British (English)". I now live in West Wales. Am I English or Welsh ? (The answer to that may, of course, be influenced by the result of the Rugby World Cup !). You can see the problem ?

There is no doubt that in making "Zulu" Stanley Baker did emphasise (over emphasise ?) the Welsh aspect of the men. However, does that make it a bad film ? There are many (minor) faults in the film apart from the South Wales Borders/2nd Warwickshire issue - but do they detract from the overall enjoyment of the film ? The fact that this forum exists is surely a testament to how successful the film has been in elevating the status of the AZW to what it is now.

In the recent programme on The Royal Welsh (NOT the Royal Welsh Regiment - RWR) in the Famous Regiments series on BBC4 you say "the only person to mention the name of the Warwickshires was the narrator, who also said that there was only a handful of Welshmen in the 24th at RD" - this was down to MY input at the editing stage ! I also tried changing "sandbags" to "mealie bags" , but the editor was insistent on leaving it as it was, as the general public would not know what a "mealie" was !!!!!

Once again, I hope this has clarified the position. I would not want to encourage English-Welsh animosity - that needs to remain where it belongs - on the rugby field !!!!

Bill

Bill Cainan
Curator
The Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh
Brecon

Quote :

There is no doubt that in making "Zulu" Stanley Baker did emphasise (over emphasise ?) the Welsh aspect of the men. However, does that make it a bad film ?

"Why is the mostly English regiment portrayed as being primarily Welsh? What were the intentions of the production team?

Origins and Production
At this point, we would do well to examine the personalities of those involved in Zulu's creation. John Prebble was a Scottish historian with over twenty books to his credit, his most famous works being Culloden (1964) and The Highland Clearances (1963). Prebble's leftist political leanings are made quite clear in his own autobiography: "The passion we felt made me, like others, members of the British Communist Party" (Prebble, 1993: 14). In The Highland Clearances, Prebble sheds more light on his own particular leftist ideological philosophy, clearly influenced by English imperialism in his beloved Scotland (Prebble, 1969: 323).

Stanley Baker co-produced Zulu and starred as Lt. John Chard, an officer with a non-aristocratic background who would take practical command of the troops during the battle (Wetta and Curley, 1992: 169). Baker was sympathetic to Welsh causes and had previously collaborated with Endfield in the film Hell Drivers (1957). He was an easy convert to Endfield's project when he learned that it would depict the battle of a regiment based out of his native Wales. With a tiny budget of two million dollars, Baker set out to produce his film on-site in Natal.

Cyril Raker Endfield was the director and co-producer of Zulu; he became involved with the Zulu project during his exile in England. He was best known for the crime drama/thriller The Sound of Fury (1951), a motion picture that was highly critical of the "American Dream" (Booker, 1999: 181). Endfield also wrote and directed a 1948 radio play, The Argyle Secrets, which blurred the lines between democratic America and fascist Germany with a commentary on class and race relations (Langman, 1995: 297). Later, he was blacklisted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) for his membership in Yale's Young Communist League during World War II, pronounced-leftist bias in various films, such as the wartime film Inflation (1942), and refusing to name other Hollywood communists.

Ethnic Groups
A few very different ethnic groups met at Rorke's Drift in 1879, and the film gave all but one an equitable treatment. The English in the film are represented most prominently in the film by Bromhead's swaggering aristocratic character, and not by the bravery of the mostly English troops that he historically commanded. The fact that the defenders at Rorke's Drift were mostly English was glossed over by the film: "This is a Welsh regiment man, although there are a few foreigners from England in it." In fact, the composition of 'B' company, 24th Regiment, although later based out of Wales, actually contained only a small minority of Welsh defenders in 1879. The most genuinely kind character in the film also happens to be Welsh, a private named Tommy who constantly worries about the fate of a calf whose mother had died [1] (Morris, 1994: 99). Additionally, at the real battle, a missionary stood watch on a nearby hill as a sentry to warn of the Zulu's approach. However, once again the film makes a slight, yet telling departure from reality, by replacing the religious figure with two Welsh sentries. In one fell swoop, religion finds itself marginalized and the Welsh are lionized as the outpost's first line of defense. Baker was Welsh by birth and Prebble had been stationed in North Wales during much of the Second World War (to say nothing of the suffering of Baker's Welsh ancestors at the hands of the English) and so it seems fair to attribute the film's pro-Welsh tone largely to its producers (Prebble, 1993: 47)."

This debate has been covered ad nauseum on this forum many times before and if it is to be raised again because Wales have reached the rugby WC semi-finals and England have not, then a few facts need to be straightened out.

30% of the 24th at RD were Welshmen, making it the closest thing to a "Welsh regiment" that was in existance at the time.
If we want to split hairs, we will find that most British regiments and victories of the 19th C, would be considered Irish regiments and victories on the above, ridiculous, criteria of where soldiers were born etc.

Why is it when credit is due to an Englishman/men, he is referred to as English, but when credit is due to an Irish, Scot or Welshman/men he is referred to as British?

As for a Welshman, as the character in the film (or Scot) referring to English as "foreign", this is much more valid than an Englishman referring to a Welsh or Scotsman as "foreign."
A little basic history will tell you that the indiginous Britons who were originally on this island, fled North and West when the Romans, Normans, Saxons, Vikings and every other invader pillaged the British Isles. Thus the Scots, Welsh, Irish, all the Celtic Nations and their Celtic languages are far more indiginous than the English people and their language, both of which are a concoction/mongrel of every invader ever to reach these shores. In essence, the English, whatever that means are the "foreigners" on this island. The Celts are more British.

Being half and half English/Welsh, I feel I see both sides.

Is it not time to put this discussion to bed before it gets ever more ridiculous?!?!?

Tasker. Perhaps you could post a link as to where this subject as been posted before on the forum. Let's not forget, this is a discussion forum as well as a reference. Doe,s it matter how many times the same subject comes up. new information is added each time.

Oh Saul, it crops up all the time, the most recent before this, try the thread:

Subject: Welsh victory. Thu 22 Sep - 10:58

Agreed, i take your point about the forum being a discussion area.
But let's keep the discussions vaguely sensible, respectful and on the topic of the AZW, whilst keeping, pettiness and small-mindedness out.

tasker

I have no interest in rugby.

I would have thought that the 23rd foot would have been the closest thing to a "Welsh regiment" that was in existance at the time.

To my knowledge it is the English that get labelled as British, whilst the other nations are refered to by nationality.

A little basic history would tell you that before Britain became an island, it was connected to mainland europe, people could roam as they pleased. However, after Britain became an island the people who remained formed themselves into tribes etc, with their own leaders, chiiefs, kings, call them what you will, but the people who remained were still a mixture of the ones on mainland europe. So after many years of 'going their own way', and when the island of Britain was invaded by those people from europe, it stands to reason that it was more of a long lost family reunion, but through having developed differences it turned into more of a fight than a reunion.

You mention the Celtic nations, and of the English being the forigners, do you really know where the Celts come from? Not from these islands anyway.

Quote :

Doe’s it mater what nationally they were, at the end of the day, they stood shoulder to shoulder and defended the mission station at Rorke’s Drift. Lets just say they were Raised in Pluckley Kent, and ended up in Brecon.

Absolutely Agree.

Admin

Well said.

Bill

I remember reading a James Clavell novel in the 1980's. I forget which one, but they were quite popular. There was a scene when they discussed possible areas of "communist agiatation" against the west. The idea was suggeted that a fertile area was the nationalistic divides in the UK. At the time (mid 1980's) northern Ireland was in full swing but Clavell's character suggested that Anglo-Scottish and perhaps even Anglo-Welsh antagonisms could all be stirred up to create discontent. AT the time I thought "no way that is just idle scaremongerin" In some ways perhaps Clavell was rather far sighted though. This above conversation makes me wonder.

I think this topic as ran it's course.
Topic Locked.

I notice that the "NEW" header still makes no mention what so ever of the regiments name between 1782 and 1881, just the 'as per normal' 24th regiment.

However, the title '24th regiment' was only in use from 1751-1782, after 1782 the regiment had the title and name of, The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of foot, and it held this until the reforms of 1881. After the reforms ALL the line regiments numbers were officially ended, and new regimental names were used, later, when some regiments were amalgamated, the old numbers were unofficially added to show the precedence of the amalgamated regiments, the numbers were NOT officially part of the title, meaning that the last British infantry regiment to officially have had the numbers 24th in its title, was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of foot, the SWB were NEVER the 24th regiment of foot, they were just the SWB (no numbers).

The header states,; After the battle, B coy, 2nd Batt, 24th regiment, implying the regiment pre 1782, this should read, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment. But notice however, that there are references to the RRW and SWB, but none at all to the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment.

The header also states that the museum gates shows the SWB badge, saying that the Sphinx was presented to the regiment in 1801, this infers that the Sphinx was presented to the SWB in 1801, however, the name SWB did not exist until 1881. The Sphinx was presented to The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, not the SWB.

So yet again we see another deliberate cover up of the Regiments English origins and identity, and the implication that the Regiment has always been Welsh, which it hasn't.

Why don't the museum people give the public the REAL name of the Regiment that fought in the AZW, why don't they give the public the REAL origin and REAL identity of the Regiment, why keep the myth created by the 1964 film alive and well, why pretend the Regiment has always been Welsh when it has not?

Give the public the FACTS not the FICTION.

Bill your on the spot.... He's has a point.

Impi

I'm sorry, but Martin does NOT have a point. Once again he has merely demonstrated that he has no real understanding of how British regiments have evolved over the years and have absorbed the honours and traditions of their antecedent units. As to the retention of numbers -again a clear misunderstanding on his part. Those interested enough can search back and find the detailed I've already provided.

As for the new website - Martin, have you actually read it ? Have a look at the family tree under the heading "Regiment", and look at the headings of the fact sheets. No one is denying, or attempting to hide, the fact that the Regiment was once titled the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot, or that it was once titled The South Wales Borderers, or The Welch Regiment or The Royal Regiment of Wales, or The Royal Welch Fusiliers, and is now The Royal Welsh !!!!

As for Martin's on-going fanatic obssession withn the Warwickshire link, I would ask him once again to list the connections the Regiment had with the county APART from the name ? The INTENTION to provide a link by localisation was certainly there, but did it really happen ? However, the second attempt at localisation in the 1870s and 1880s clearly did work, after the Regiment's move to Brecon.

There is NO deliberate attempt to cover up any of the Regiment's past history, nor to state that is has "always been Welsh" - these conspiracies exist only in Martin's mind !

Apart from Martin, I hope the rest of you enjoy the new web site.

Bill

Quote :

these conspiracies exist only in Martin's mind !

Oh yes I do have a point Bill, and well you know it.

It is you that does not have an understanding of this, and are therefor trying to evade my criticism by making it appear to others that it is "all in Martin's mind". Why don't you answer the points that I have made properly, rather than try to get round them by quoting silly stuff like "Martin's on-going fanatic obssession within the Warwickshire link", and "all in Martin's mind", what sort of remarks are they supposed to be, and what is more, what are they intended to imply? I hope you are not trying to suggest to other members that I have some sort of problem in my mind, because if you are, then let me reassure you that even at my age, I am sound of mind and body, so there is no need for you to imply that I am not.

I have said before in earlier posts on this subject, that it does not matter what name was given to the regiment in 1782, it could have been named "The Back Street Bucket Bangers" for all I care, the point I am making is that it was named "The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of foot, and that was the name that the Regiment fought under during the AZW, and that was the name it had until 1st July 1881.

The Regiment was raised in Kent, England in 1689, and for 62 years it had its Cols name.
In 1751 it became the 24th Regiment, it was the 24th Regiment for 31 years.
In 1782 it was then given the English County name of 2nd Warwickshire.
So from 1782 it was called The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of foot, and held this name until 1st July 1881.

You try to make a lot about what connection the Regiment had with Warwickshire, so let me ask you a similar thing.
What connection did the Regiment have with Wales?
You say things did not work, well, it appears to have worked ok for over 184 years, so why move the Regiment from its natural home of England to a place it had no connection with whatsoever? I would say that it had a lot more connection to England than it ever had to Wales.

ALL British infantry Regiments OFFICIALLY lost their numbers on the 1st July 1881, and new names for the regiments were given to them. The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment lost everything and became the SWB (with NO numbers), therefor the last British infantry Regiment to OFFICIALLY have the numbers '24' in their title were The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment.

The SWB were NEVER OFFICIALLY numbered the 24th, they were just named the SWB (no numbers), therefor the reference to the 24th regiment SWB on the ID card shown in the header is totally wrong.

From 1881 to 1969 the regiment was known as just the SWB (no numbers), 88 years.
It was later amalgamated with the old 41st, and became the RRW for just 37 years. The numbers added in brackets (24th/41st), were NOT OFFICIAL, they were added UNOFFICIALLY just to show the precedence of the amalgamated regiments.

The gates have the badge of the SWB showing the Sphinx, it states that the Sphinx was presented to the regiment in 1801, thereby implying that the Sphinx was presented to the SWB. But the Sphinx was presented to The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, so why not display the proper badge of the regiment that the Sphinx was presented to, and replace the SWB badge with a Glengarry badge of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, the REAL regiment that the Sphinx was presented to?

There is NO mention what so ever of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment in the headers, yet there is plenty of mention of the SWB, RRW, etc. The 24th Regiment only existed from 1751 to 1782, 31 years. After 1782 the Regiment had an English county name added to its title and became The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, not just the 24th regiment, so why do you not give the full and real title of the regiment, why just give its pre 1782 title, is it because you are scared of giving the game away to the public by adding its English county name? The only mention of the 2nd Warwickshire regiment seems to be on the regimental tree, yet there is plenty of mention of the SWB, RRW etc. Don't forget that the name The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was in existance for much longer than the name SWB, so why is it that the name seems to be avoided like the plague?

The old RRW, which of course was the old (24th/41st), is now the 2nd Batt RW, however, the 2nd Batt RW is being axed, meaning of course that this is the end for the old 24th.

The Regiment was raised in England and was an English county titled regiment for 192 years. It was (in my opinion) stupidly moved from its homeland of England to Wales, and has languished there for around 130 years. It seems that it won't survive for much longer now with the 2nd Batt being axed, so maybe a fitting epitaph would be.

"In Memory of The Noble 24th, Born in England - Murdered in Wales".

Martin

Thank you for the response. I think your rant has merely served to confirm the point I made earlier. I have previously on this site put forward the facts with regard to the history of the Regiment and how the traditions have been passed down through various amalgamations and name changes. I'm sure those who are interested can use the search engine to find these points. I see little point in repeating them again.

I sympathise with the views expressed recently by Tasker. It will indeed a very sad day if this site is left in the hands of a small minority who hold extreme and slanted viewpoints.

Fortunately, I am in a position whereby I can give a more balanced view of the Regiment's history to visitors who come to the Brecon museum.

One point with regard to your last paragraph. The two battalions of The Royal Welsh will be merged to form a single battalion, which will uphold the honours and traditions of all the antecedent regiments (including the 24th). I doubt The Royal Welsh will appreciate your epitath - "Born in England, murdered in Wales"

A Merry Xmas to you.

Bill

Quote :

I sympathise with the views expressed recently by Tasker

Bit annoyed that Tasker chose to leave that comment before he left, he didn't exactly help matters, and certainly done his fair share of winding people up. Perhaps he will be missed but some, but not all. I'm just glad we have a reference side to this forum, i'm more than happy to post information that may help others in some way.

Bill.

Rather patronising remarks, but I suppose it's one way of avoiding answering anything.

Yes, you are in a position where you can tell visitors the regiments history, but I wonder if you tell them that not one of the antecedent regiment that makes up the RW is actually Welsh? ie,; 23rd, Shropshire, England. 24th, Kent, England. 41st, Invalids and out patiants from Chelsea, London, England. 69th, The old 2nd Battalion of the 24th, that was redesignated the 69th, and later given the English county title of South Lincolnshire. Umm, nothing Welsh there then is there?

Being 'merged' eh! That means that the part being merged loses its identity, and only the part taking over remains in existence, legally the merged part ceases to exist, having been swallowed by the other part. In other words, the 1st batt RW (the old 23rd), is the only one remaining in existence, the former 2nd Batt (the old 24th/41st), being swallowed by the 1st Batt no longer exists. And if they try to say that 'B' coy of this new Battalion is still going to be called RD coy, then that would be totally wrong, because the 23rd were never involved in the AZW, and therefor were never at RD.

I notice that the museum site is now quoting that,; "interestingly, there were only two Warwickshire born men present at the famous defence of RD". So what? It wouldn't make any difference if there were none born in Warwickshire, the regiment would still have been called the 2nd Warwickshire regiment. Why did they not add,; "interestingly although the 1964 film Zulu depicted the regiment as being Welsh (with a few foreigners from England), it actually wasn't Welsh at all, and of the 123 men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment that fought at RD, just a mere 14 were Welsh" Oh no! can't have that mentioned can we, it would ruin the myth wouldn't it.

I say again, the name '24th regiment' only existed between 1751 and 1782, the name of the regiment from 1782 to 1881 was The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, so by quoting just the '24th regiment' you are implying the regiment between 1751 and 1782, and are deliberately avoiding giving the public the full name of the regiment.

Give the public the truth and the full name of the regiment that fought in the AZW, don't let the myths take over from the facts.

And a merry xmas to you also Bill.

Martin

I had opened a new thread to advise people of the Museum’s new website. However, as with many other threads I see you have yet again hijacked the topic to expound on your personal crusade.

Regiments that were raised in the 17th Century have evolved over the centuries to become what are now the current regiments of the British Army. So it is with The Royal Welsh. This has happened through re-organisations and amalgamations. It is the cornerstone of the traditions and heritage of the British Army. It may be a process you dislike, but it is one that has happened (and continues to happen). The Army accepts it, the Regiments accept it and the public (with a few exceptions) accepts it. To pretend otherwise is both delusional and is insulting to the current regiments in that it would deny them their heritage.

In 1879 (at the time of the Anglo-Zulu War) the Regiment was titled the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. No one is denying that. However, because the Regiment moved to Brecon in 1873 there is obviously a Welsh connection from that point – again no one is denying that. At the time of the AZW the Regimental Depot has been in Wales some six years. 80% of the men who serve in the Regiment during that war have gone through their recruit training in Wales (at the Brecon depot). How many of them were Welsh is clearly a matter of debate, and (as I’ve said before) you would need to come up with a solid definition of “Welsh”. It is my belief that we will never know how many of the men could be regarded as “Welsh” more than to say that it was probable, because of the location of the Regimental Depot and the counties allocated for recruiting, that the Regiment contained more Welshmen than regiments based in Scotland, Ireland or England. And to acknowledge the reality, the title of the Regiment was changed two years later to The South Wales Borderers. The title changed but the men serving remained the same.

As to just quoting “the 24” instead of the full Regimental title – we all do this (have a look at the many entries on this site for example). Indeed many of the letters from men in Zululand also just refer to “the 24th”. It is done for ease and is in no way sinister or part of any conspiracy as you would imply.

I cannot speak for Sir Stanley Baker and the film “Zulu”, but I can assure you that the Regimental Museum does not in any way attempt to deny the public the truth. Please do not confuse the two, We, in the Museum, certainly owe a debt to the film “Zulu” but we continue to emphasise that it was made for entertainment purposes and was not an historical documentary. Where there are anomalies – we acknowledge them. I believe that you have not been to the Brecon Museum to see how we display items, nor have you listened to any of my talks. You are thus not in a position to say how we do, or do not, portray the history of the Regiment.

As to your comments on the legal aspect of the merger – perhaps you should write to the Secretary of State for Defence and make him aware of your perceived observations !!!! And don’t forget to include the phrase “Born in England, murdered in Wales”, which I’m sure he will appreciate !

As I have said before, I doubt that any degree of debate will change your stance on this matter. You will clearly carry on with this fanatical obsession of yours until your dying breath. Fortunately, most people who read your comments will see them for what they are, and will make up their own minds - what is pedantic, what is racist, and indeed, what is most likely to be the truth.

Happy New Year

Bill

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Bill in responce to your excellent reply

Sounds like a welsh regiment to me!!!

Bill. Martin. Have a great Christmas and New Year.

Bill.

'Hijacked the topic' ????

Perhaps you should take another read of your own very first post.

Did you not say that,;

quote
"Constuctive criticism is always welcome".

So I make some critcism, but obviously it is not welcome is it?

"Percieved observations"? I would suggest that you read up at what a 'merger' means, legally the part being merged ceases to exist, and only the part taking over remains in existence. In other words the old 24th, 41st and 69th will have been merged or "swallowed" by the 23rd and will therefor no longer exist.

No, I have not been to the museum, and therefor I have not listened to your talks, and I did not say that I was in any sort of position to say what was what in the museum, or how you portray the history of the regiment, just reading the stuff on the website is enough to show that things are not described properly.

The "phrase" as you call it, was an idea of what a fitting epitaph might be for the axing of the old regiment.

Yes, most people who read my comments will see that they are factual not mythical or fictional.

And a happy new year to you Bill.

Hi Martin

I've not seen the website but when i visited the museum a few months back in the Zulu war room i'm sure there is a sign that stated that the Movie Zulu was wrong and that the regiment that fourght there was not a Welsh but a regiment called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire). Also their was Pulleine's medal and items from Hook and Zulu shields ect, its
realy worth a visit :)

Hope you have a good Christmas and a happy new year



Cheers
Sam

Hello Sam.

Many thanks for that information, I wonder why Bill never mentioned this?

Thank you also for the Christmas and New Year wishes, and I hope that you get all sorts of AZW goodies for Christmas.

Have a great time Sam.

Martin

Yes Martin "constructive" criticism of the web site - is that what you're doing, or are you just crusading ?

You say above: "I would suggest that you read up at what a 'merger' means, legally the part being merged ceases to exist, and only the part taking over remains in existence. In other words the old 24th, 41st and 69th will have been merged or "swallowed" by the 23rd and will therefor no longer exist"..

Well, of course, I have read up the definitions - I think you have totally confused "merger" and "amalgamation" with "take over" !!! However, even if we take YOUR (flawed) interpretation with the "part being merged ceases to exist", then it mean the 23rd would also cease to exist !!! On that basis, no current British Army unit would be able to claim any tradition back beyond a relatively few years. All of the Regimental Colours would then have to be re-sewn to remove the battle honours !!!!! And what about all the other British regiments that have been the subject of mergers/amalgamations - are they all legally flawed as well ?

The British Army is quite clear on mergers and amalgamations - even if you don't like the idea. It does mean that the heritage and traditions of famous regiments are not lost and are maintained by the merged unit. Thus, The Royal Welsh keeps alive the traditions of all its illustrious predecesors - the 23rd, 24th, 41st and 69th Regiments (under whatever titles they have used).

So there you have it. On one side the British Army's interpretation and on the other side, your's !!!! Once again, I would suggest if you feel the British Army's interpretation is legally wrong, then you ought to write to the Secretary of State for Defence, through your MP.

As Curator of the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh I feel I am obliged (now and again) to refute your more outrageous statements to preserve the position of the Regiment's heritage. You may not like what I say, and of course you have the right to say so, but I think you ought to consider the fact that your views on how the British Army has evolved over the years reflect a significally minority viewpoint.

Bill

PS:
My apologies to the other readers of this forum having to plough through all of this - time and time again. Read our website, come to the Museum, listen to what I say - then make your own minds up !!!

Iechyd da a Nadolig Llawen i bob un.

Bill

Martin. Click on link.

You will notice the South Wales Borderers comes after the 24th, 2nd Warwickshire Regiment

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then Click on the 24th, 2nd Warwickshire Regiment. Now look at the fact sheet index you will see
Zulu War 1879.

Bill.

It is not MY (flawed) interpretation at all. I have looked on many sites for the definition of a merger, and all appear to agree on what it means, ie,; the junior part being merged ceases to exist, and only the senior part remains in existence. This would mean the the junior 24th, 41st and 69th would cease to exist, but that the senior 23rd would remain in existence.

According to other sources, there is a difference between an amalgamation and a merger, ie,; an amalgamation is a joining together, but a merger is to absorb into, with joining together, both parts are still there together, but with absorbing, one part as 'swallowed' by the other and therefor ceases to exist.

Please note,This is NOT my interpretation, it is what I have read on various sites.

But no doubt the various brass hats and lawyers will attempt to sort out some gobbledegook wording, and cobble together something that allows RD coy to to be kept going by the remaining battalion, however, that could be looked upon by other regiments that have got the chop as being 'a bit of a farce' couldn't it?

Cheers.

Hi Pete.

Many thanks for the link. Yes, I have read these, and also many other items on the site, and although they are indeed very interesting, I feel that more could be done to give better recognition to the regiment and its name pre 1881, and especially the part it took in the AZW, but still a very interesting read.

Thanks again Pete, and all the very best for Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Come on Martin. The website isn't purly deadicated to the Zulu War. If you want wider recognition, then you should start your own website. Admin a shown the website shows its an English regiment that took part in the Zulu War, including Rorkes drift. That should be sufficient for anyone.

Hi CTSG.

Yes, I know the site is not just for the dedication of the AZW, and I did say pre 1881, meaning from 1689 to 1881. It's just that there appears to be a certain reluctance to give credit to or mention the name that the regiment had longest, and that of course is the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment. But I did say that it was still a very interesting read.

Have a good Christmas, and mind what you are doing in that taxi of yours. ha ha .

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Martin

My apologies, I didn’t realise that you were a solicitor as well as an expert on the British Army ! I notice your expertise is gained from “I have looked at many sites” – but is not a little knowledge a dangerous thing ? However, if you are absolutely clear that your interpretation is correct then why have you not written to the Secretary of State advising him of the fact that most of the current British regiments are legally unsound ? You might like to reflect on how many of today’s infantry regiments have not been subject to an amalgamation at some time or other ?

You may recall that the Brecon Museum was originally the Regimental Museum of The South Wales Borderers, then became the Regimental Museum of the Royal Regiment of Wales, and is now the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh. With each change there were considerable legal implications which all had to be dealt with. Do you honestly believe the British Army is not aware of the legal implications that come with amalgamations ?

Your continued stance that The Royal Welsh cannot claim the heritage and traditions of its illustrious predecessors is verging on the insulting and indeed is a poor reflection on the thousands of Royal Welsh soldiers who daily strive to uphold those traditions in the most difficult of conditions. Shame on you.

Bill

Bill.

There is no need whatsoever for all that sarcasm, I thought that you were an adult, so why lower yourself to childish remarks.

I did say that it was NOT my interpretation, and did give an you an explanation saying that "According to other sources" there was a difference between an amalgamation and a merger, and gave you what the difference was.

I have never said that the RW cannot claim the traditions of its predecessors, you are deliberately misquoting me about this in an attept to impress others, so leave it out and stop being ridiculous.

Look at the RW, the 1st bt is the old 23rd (senior), the 2nd bt is the old 24th/41st (junior), and according to you, these are going to be "merged", you did not say amalgamated, you said "merged", so if the definition of merged is correct, then that would mean the junior being absorbed "swallowed" by the senior, and, according to the definition (not me), the junior (24th/41st), would therefor no longer exist, however, the senior (23rd), would still be in existence. Therefor if the definition is correct, that would mean the old 2nd bt RW (24th/41st) would cease to exist, and only the 1st bt RW (23rd) would remain. If the definition is correct, then how could a regiment (23rd), that was never involved in the AZW, be allowed to claim something from a regiment that no longer exists (24th)?

However, like I said, no doubt the top brass and legal jargon busters will be able to cobble together something to allow something of the old regiments to keep going, but that could well be looked upon by the other regiments and battalions that have been given the axe, as looking like "a bit of a farce" couldn't it?

Again, there was no need for all the silly sarcasm and childish like digs, either act your age or try to become an adult and grow up.

Hang on Chaps, you didn't wish each other a happy Christmas!!!

Quote :

why have you not written to the Secretary of State advising him of the fact that most of the current British regiments are legally unsound ?

Martin this would solve the problem.

Martin

Of course there was a degree of sarcasm in my posting – are you surprised ? I have tried to explain how the British Army amalgamates its regiments, and how the 1st and 2nd Battalions of The Royal Welsh will merge to form a new 1st Battalion, but you chose not to understand. Fortunately everyone in the British Army understands.

I wondered just how long it would be before your posts would start to include phrases like “childish” and “act your age” – you have not disappointed me.

The Royal Welsh claims the traditions and heritage from its precursor regiments – the 23rd, 24th, 41st and 69th Regiments. This is a FACT whether you like it or not. You can (or not) believe me when I say that all legal requirements have been met with regard to both amalgamations and mergers. There has been NO conspiracy within the Army (“top brass” and “legal jargon busters”) to deny or alter the heritage of The Royal Welsh. The Army is happy with this, the Regiment is happy with this, and the thousands who have served (and are still serving) are happy with this. Most people who study the AZW are happy with this (based on those who have been to Brecon). The men of B (Rorke’s Drift) Company, 2RW cherish their connection with the gallant defenders of Rorke’s Drift. There appears only one dissenting voice – yours ! As I keep saying - if you feel there is a legal issue - write to the Secretary of State for Defence

We all accept that Sir Stanley Baker was at fault in describing the regiment at the end of “Zulu” as The South Wales Borderers (to put alongside the other 100+ historical errors in the film !). However it was a film designed for entertainment and not as a historically correct documentary. The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment would become The South Wales Borderers two years later – however, the Regiment remained the same, the Depot remained the same, the men remained the same, only the Regimental title changed. The Regiment did NOT cease to exist in 1879 – it merely changed it’s title.

There is the real world and there is a fantasy world (more sarcasm) !

Bill

Bill.

I have read that the RWF (old 23rd), a regiment that had never been amalgamated, were very annoyed and unhappy about being amalgamated with the RRW (old 24th/41st). And because they were a fusilier regiment they did not want to lose their fusilier status, and that because of this (and with them being the senior regiment), an agreement was made whereby they became the 1st bt RW keeping their old title of RWF, and also keeping their fusilier status, whilst the RRW (old 24th/41st) became the 2nd bt RW and also kept their old title RRW. Thus the two battalions of the RW were not fully or properly amalgamated, each keeping their own seperate identities as the 1st bt RW (RWF), and the 2nd bt RW (RRW). But now that the 2nd bt (RRW) bt is being axed, the 1st bt (RWF) is even more angry at the thought of being merged with the 2nd bt (RRW), as they want to retain their fusilier status. I have also been on various sites to read what the soldiers themselves have to say about all this, and it appears that both sides are very unhappy. One side (1st bt RWF) want the soldiers to be called "fusilier", and the other side want the soldiers to be called "private". Some even suggest that their will be different companies of "fusiliers" and "privates", whilst others say that in effect (with the axing of the 2nd bt), the RRW will have gone and will only be there "on paper". So it appears that there are a lot more dissenting voices than you seem to think there are. I have said before, that it is NOT my interpretation of things, but you keep suggesting that it is. Maybe if you search online you will see for yourself what the difference is between the definition of amalgamation and merger, and if you read what the soldiers themselves have to say, you will see that there are a lot of very annoyed and unhappy lads out there that see this merger for what it is. I never said that the regiment ceased to exist in 1879, and besides, you are wrong, it wasn't until 1881 that it had its name changed.

Hi Martin

Ah, some progress at last. I see you have stopped calling me childish, and stating that I need to grow up, etc., etc. My grandsons will be pleased ! I also see that you have gleaned from your recent research that the RWF and the RRW did AMALGAMATE (in 2006) and have confirmed that the two battalions will be MERGED shortly. Is this not what I have being saying over and over again ? See what a little research can do for you !

All amalgamations and mergers will cause some dissent, as everyone would like to see “their” regiment go on forever {as you do with the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment}. However, does the dissent you refer to reflect on the 2006 amalgamation or to the up and coming merger – it’s not clear from what you say ? And as to the actual dissent, let’s get this in proportion – you have use the word “lot” , so can you define this ? Can you define it in percentage terms -1%, 5%, 10% 25%, 50% or 75%, (even approximately )- how much dissent you feel there is ? It would also be useful to identify which particular websites you looked at to get this information. I’m sure the Commanding Officers of both battalions would be very interested to hear that their men are “annoyed and unhappy” ! Despite what you have read, I have spoken to many serving soldiers of The Royal Welsh, and I can confirm to you that they now, six years after the amalgamation, fully see themselves as members of that Regiment and not of the RWF or RRW (although of course there will always be a few die-hard exceptions).

My apologies for putting 1879 in my last posting, you are quite right, I meant 1881.

To summarise, Dering’s Regiment became the 24th Regiment which then became the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, which then became The South Wales Borderers. These all refer to the SAME Regiment and are purely changes in title. The South Wales Borderers AMALGAMATED with The Welch Regiment to become The Royal Regiment of Wales, and in turn that Regiment AMALGAMATED with The Royal Welch Fusiliers to become The Royal Welsh. Easy isn’t it boyo ?

Do you not think you are in a substantial minority in your views ? On one side the British Army and the way it does things, and on the other Martin Cooper, and the way he would have liked to have done things ? !!!!! Anyway, have you as yet written to the Secretary of State, or are you just confining your crusade to this website ? Perhaps he will restore the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment for you – or was that Santa I’m thinking of ? And have you written to the distributors of “Zulu” to get it withdrawn, because of its pro-Welshness ? You clearly haven’t been to the Brecon Museum to see how we identify the Regiment that fought at Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift – shock-horror, we actually say it was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment (as does our website) !!! We are also honest in stating how many Welshmen there were at Rorke’s Drift. So, Martin, just where are you going with all this ? Who is perpetuating this myth you worry so much about ?

I’m hoping to see the “Hobbit” later this week – that other well known documentary !

Bill

All of this has been covered before, and I'm sure everyone who looks at this forum is aware of the truth. Martin does have a valid point however - this Christmas Zulu is on TV again, and programme notes have repeated the fiction that Rorke's Drift was defended by mainly Welsh troops! It's not being unreasonable or racist to point out that at the time the regiment was the 24th (The 2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. Happy Christmas.

So Bill, you have to lower yourself to sarcasm, innuendo, and even more sarcasm.

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, or at least it was before you came along.

Martin

Ah, that's more like it. I thought for one awful moment you might have chosen to answer some of my questions !

Hope to see you in the Museum one day, when we can continue this debate.

Happy New Year.

Bill

I will be visiting in the summer.

Impi

I look forward to your visit.

Give me a ring beforehand to confirm day and time so that I can make sure I'm in that day.

It's always nice to put faces to names. See you in the Summer.

Bill