24th Regiment of Foot was the 2nd Warwicksire regiment

John, so are we saying the original 24th was an Irish regiment? Not English or Welsh?


Rusteze.
You have the book in-question, is the same text in your book.

John wrote:

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

I don't know who wrote this, but they got some of it wrong.

The regiment that became the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, was raised in Pluckley, Kent, England.

I don't know who wrote this   You see, things aren't always what they seem!  

More research is required me thinks:r;:

Yes impi, by the bloke who wrote it in the first place.

  Still, it's a very interesting thought. An Irish regiment!

I think possibly the chap who wrote that, was a bit confused in that the 24th served in Ireland, in the same year in was founded in Kent.

Here's what the book says. I sense another controversy coming on!

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

Steve

   Well, if Pluckley, Kent, is in Ireland rather than England, then yes, it would be very interesting.

You could well be right about that LH.

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

"Sergeant Thomas Henry 2nd Battalion of 24th Foot. South Wales Borderer's.

Thomas Henry was born in the town of Hounslow Middlesex 1847, he was a saddler by trade standing 5" 6' tall with a fresh complexion, grey eyes and brown hair. Now aged 21 years Thomas enlisted to the 2/24th regiment of foot on the 28th of July 1868. Regimental number 2055, and received a levy payment of £1-1-0d.

Thomas Henry had a varied career having been promoted, demoted, imprisoned and courtmarshald on several occasions as was common with the drinking soldier.  Private Henry Thomas saw action in the South Africa campaign against the Gcalekas and the Gaikas tribes 1877-78.

On the morning of 22nd January 1879 the 1st and 2nd of 24th foot now camped at Isandhlwana. Thomas I would suspect was out with Lord Chelmsford's column in the pursuit of Zulus that had been seen in the area. After Rorkes Drift the remains of the 1st & 2nd 24th, returned to England. Thomas was promoted to Lance corporal on the 27 Dec 1880 only to be demoted to Private on the 25th Aug 1881, and then imprisoned (84 days) for desertion on the 12th Sep 1881. Serving in India he was again promoted to Lance Sergeant 21 Jan 1884, and again to Col Sergeant 16th May 1884 only to be demoted to Private 26th Jan 1886. Now aged 40 years he was again promoted to Lance Corporal 2nd of Feb 1887, and then again to Corporal 16th March 1889. Corporal Thomas Henry was discharged on the 7th May 1890 at the age of 43 years having served a total of 22 years with theSouth Wales Borderers.

South Africa Medal (2055 SERGT T HENRY 2-24TH FOOT)                                            With Clasp, 1877-8-9.

Yet another instance of the swb being called the 24th foot (which they never where).   

It appears that Thomas Henry was an ok soldier whilst his regiment was called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, even getting a promotion in Dec 1880. Later however, he seems to have had a rethink after his old regiment suffered the loss of its line number and title (due to government reforms) and later became a virtually 'new' regiment called the swb, as from Aug 1881 he appears to have have a varied career until his discharge in May 1890. He didn't serve 22 years with the swb, he only served 9 years, the other (earlier) 13 years were served with the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, why can't people get it right?   

While Mr Cooper you are as always technically correct, you can only be a bystander, men of the SWB even in the 1960s still referred to their regiment as 'the 24th'. In fact I heard it only last week at a gathering of former comrades. Sadly, for your feelings, this colloquialism, however does not include 'Warwickshire' as it would become a bit of mouthful - and 'Warwickshire' on its own could mean 6th Foot. The 24th did not come a virtually new regiment in July 1881 (you may be unhappy about the loss of the Warwickshire connection) - there was just a change of title and move to standard infantry facings - it also gained two militia battalions. Unlike many other infantry battalions which had forced marriages to form their two regular battalions such as 41st Welsh and 69th South Lincolnshire. Warwickshire never produced vast quantities of recruits for 24th - as you wish to believe - perhaps this is why it base was moved to Brecon.

Kenny, no matter how many old vet's like to think of themselves has being 'the 24th', they were not and they will never be, the swb were NEVER the '24th' (and neither are any of its decsendants), all line numbers OFFICIALLY ENDED in 1881, the swb were just the swb with NO line number. The line numbers and the 'old' regiment name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot officially ended with the reforms of 1881, and a 'new' name was given to the regiment therefor making it a virtually 'new' regiment. Yes, I do know that the old 6th was one of the two Warwickshire regiments, they were forced against their will to become a fusulier regiment, and the 24th was moved to Brecon (wrongly in my opinion), where, just a few years later, it lost its name and line number and became the swb in 1881. The 41st and 69th were also two ex English regiments, the 41st being formed of Chelsea outpatients and invalids, and the 69th the old 2nd Battalion of the 24th regiment that was later designated the South Lincolnshire regiment. I have never said that the regiment ever produced vast quantities of recruits from Warwickshire, so I have no idea why you should think that I believe that, and I know that the 24th recruited from other areas as well as Warwickshire, ie, there were roughly about 12 from the dear old Red Rose County of Lancashire that fought at RD. It is a total mystery why the government moved the 24th to the borders of South Wales, as there was already a regiment there, ie, the 43rd Monmouthshire regiment, yet the government moved the 43rd Monmouthshire regiment from the South Wales borders into England where it later became a part of the Ox and Bucks, whilst the 24th was moved from its homeland of England to the South Wales border and later (2 years after the AZW), bacame the swb, rather silly I think. The regiment had survived since 1689 in its native home of England, so why they moved it to a place that it had no connection with whatsoever was (IMO) a rather stupid thing to do, then again, governments do do stupid things don't they?

Martin came across this article.

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

Denbighshire Free Press 22nd April 1882

Martin, this one mentions the regiment being raised in Kent, as we all know!!

"SOUTH WALES BORDERERS. "Old Comrades Reunion. Past and present comrades of the 24th Regiment, now the South Wales Borderers, writes a correspondent of the "Morning Post" met in reunion on Saturday and Sunday at the Infantry Barracks at Chatham. This is only the fourth year since the "Old Comrades" Club of the regiment was established, but already the results have been most gratifying in comment. orating traditions and assisting to link up those now in the ranks with the others who have previously served. Unfortunately, the usually joyous character of the gathering was on Saturday saddened by the news of the death of a former comrade. Lady Carrington, remembering the anniversary, bad written to Major- General G Paton, the Colonel of the Regiment, to say that her husband was very ill, and information of Sir Frederick Carrington's death was received during the evening, to the great regret of all. On this occasion it is the 1st Battalion that is at home. They are quartered in the old barracks at Chatham, which have so often been condemned by generations of Boards of Inquiry into their fitness. General Paton, one of the first to arrive, was met and welcomed by Colonel H M Graham, commanding the home battalion, and, along with other officers, non- commissioned officers, and man, attended a meeting of the "Old Comrades" Club in the Buckley Institute. Everyone was delighted to learn that the mess had secured at last, after a series of efforts, the picture painted by de Neuviile of the tight at Rorke's Drift, when a party of the 24th saved the Colony of Natal from being overrun by the hordes of Cetewayo. The picture is the original one from which was drawn the familiar engraving, but afterwards de Neuville painted another and larger one. of the same subject, which was purchased by, and is now in possession of, the Commonwealth of Australia. The first painting occupies the place of honour in the room of the mess of the 24th, and was the property of Mr Colvin White until it came into the market some time ago. It was disposed of privately in New York, but one of the officers succeeded in re- purchasing the painting, which has only just arrived back from its voyage across the Atlantic. The greatest treasure, however, possessed by the regiment is a faded wreath of immortelles enclosed in an oak box adorned with silver plates and decorations, placed by Queen Victoria on the Queen's Colour which Lieutenants Melville and Coghill lost their lives in saving after the disaster of Isandula. The Colour itself, worn and tattered, was found in 1he river not far from where the two officers lay dead with a ring of Zulus they had killed in front of them, and is still with the battalion. It was borne in by a subaltern to the dining- room on Saturday, and was on parade on Sunday. The top of its shaft carries a copy in silver of Queen Victoria's wreath of immortelles, and the explanation is given by the following description on the oak case already mentioned :— "This wreath was placed on the Queens Colour by H.M. Queen Victoria to commemorate the devoted gallantry of Lieutenant and Adjutant T. Melville and Lieutenant N. J. A. Coghill, who gave their lives to save the Colour from the hands of the enemy on 22ud January, 1879, and in recognition of the noble defence of Rorke's Drift. As a lasting memorial of her gracious act a facsimile of the wreath in silver was commanded to be borne on the Queen's Colour of Doth battalions of the regiment. Authority, dated 15th December, 1880. Queen and country." The 24tb is the only regiment which has this distinction. In the evening the annual dinner of the "Old Comrades" Club took place in the dining-room of the former officers' mess. General Paton presided, and among those present were :— Colonel Graham, Colonel Curll, Major H. E. B Leach, Major Gillespie, Major G. H. Grant, Captain Welby, Captain Ellis, and Sergeant Drummer Harney, who fought at Chillianwallab, who is eighty one, and joined the regiment fifty-seven years ago and Private Williams, Y.C., one of the heroes of Rorke's Drift. The menu card bore portraits of two of the colonels of the regiment, Sir Edward Dering, of Surrenden, who raised the corps in March, 1689, and was known as the Black Devil of Kent," and John Duke of Marlborough, the victor of Blenheim. The regiment was Kentish in origin, it may be noted, and it served on board ship like another famous Kentish regiment. General Paton proposed The Veterans," making allusion to the objects of the Old Comrades" Club, and expressing the deep regret they all felt at the death of General Sir Frederick Carrington. General Paton spoke with pride of the history of the two battalions. He mentioned that there were now remaining very few of the men who had fought at Chillianwallah. They baa one present in Sergeant Drummer Harney, and be had seen at his home in the neighborhood of Chatham another survivor in Genera! de Berry, who later transferred to the 12th Regiment. He was now over ninety years of age and was the officer who, after the battle or Chillianwallah, went cut and recovered the bodies of the thirteen officers killed there and hid them out on the mess table He also took out next day the two flank companies and buried the slain, and while thus engaged the Sikhs came round, but seeing their occupation, did not interfere. The 24th, the General pointed out, had received no fewer than seventeen Victoria Crosses since that reward was instituted. They included five, received at one time by Assistant Surgeon Douglas and four men who were with him in the Andaman Islands engaged in the rescue of an English party who had landed there. Another was that of Lord Gifford, who won it over and over again in Ashanti, and others were those of the men who had obtained it for their gallantry at Isandula and Rorke's Drift. Of the total number then were still with them, Williams and W. Jones, of Rorke's Drift, and I Bell, of the Andaman Islands Private Hitch had died only recently in London, and was another of the Rorke's Drift heroes, and Jones was in Manchester. Most of the Old Comrades stayed over till Sunday morning, when a special service was held in the church, conducted by the Rev. H. L. Parker. On Monday the sergeants gave a dance as a close to the annual reunion. An unofficial announcement, which was warmlv welcomed, was made that when Colonel Graham in due course relinquishes his command during the year he is to be succeeded by Major Leach.

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

Hi LH, thanks for those.   

Notice how the name swb is plain for all to see in those articles, and also the '24th Regiment', however, not one mention of the '2nd Warwickshire', now I wonder why?   

Yes, we all know that the regiment was raised in Pluckley, Kent, in the Kingdom of England by Sir Edward Dering, and that it was called Derings regiment, and, like most other regiments of the time, it took its colonels name (including Marlborough), until 1751, then in 1751 it was given the line number 24, making it the 24th regiment of foot. It only held this title for just 31 years, as in 1782 it was given a county title and became the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, it then held this title for the best part of 100 years, longer than any other title in its entire history. Then of course in 1881 came the government reforms which altered almost everything in the Army and officially ended all the infantry line numbers and the old regimental names, the reforms then created 'new' names which were given to these virtually 'new' regiments that evolved on the 1st July 1881.

The last infantry regiment to officially have the line number 24 in its title was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, after the 1st July 1881 no other infantry regiment was ever the '24th' as all line numbers officially ended in 1881, meaning that the swb were just the swb, they were NEVER the 24th, even though they (and their descendants) like to think they were/are.

Mr Cooper

What you say could be applied to all those pre-1881 numbered infantry regiments - so from your prospective Britain's regimental history from earlier years closed in 1881 - we should no longer remember the daring deeds of past years in our modern army. What a shame!

Yet the official name of the RRW was The Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot) a regiment which continued to carry with pride the unique honour of the silver wreath awarded by Queen Victoria. This honour continues with the Royal Welsh.

You are entitled to your own particular views about Britain's military history but what upset me was your post was the suggestion that Sgt Thomas Henry's career suffered because of the change of regimental title - what nonsence! I might suggest that it was really the loss of 596 men of the 24th at Isandlwana on 22 January 1879 - many of whom in 2/24th he would have known personally that most certainly severely affected his later mental stability. Have some passion.

Kenny, The reforms of 1881 more or less ended the old ways and started a new way for the army, and no, I am not suggesting that we should no longer remember the daring deeds of the past, however, what should be remembered and honoured are the old regiments of the past that did those daring deeds. For instance, articles, books, magazines, newspapers and web sites, etc that state that the RW, or RRW or SWB fought at Rorke's Drift, or Chillianwallah is total nonsense, the regiment that fought at both RD and Chillianwallah was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, likewise, stating that Marlborough was the SWB's colonel is also total nonsense. The numbers in brackets are not official, they were only added to show the seniority of the amalgamated regiments, and the honour of the silver wreath (like the sphinx) was awarded to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment not the SWB, the RRW or the RW. It's all well and good carrying the honours and awards given to another regiment before amalgamations, but the old 23rd, 41st and 69th did not fight at RD, so it is unfair to the old 24th that these other regiments should also wear that honour when they had no part to play in it. If the new modern regiments want to carry on wearing or displaying these sort of honours and awards, then it would also be only right and proper to honour the regiment that won them by giving the public its name and not disguising or hiding it behind a myth. Nowhere have I mentioned that Sgt Henry's career sufferd because of a change of regimental title, however, I did say that he might have had a rethink, and who knows, he may have been thinking of his old comrades of the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment who were lost at the battle of iSandlwana. Kenny, as an old soldier myself and a long term active member of the Royal British Legion, I have very great compassion for ALL who serve and have served in HM forces.

Something of interest occurred last month (April). The 2nd battalion RW (the old RRW, which in turn was the old 24th, 41st and 69th), has been "MERGED" (swallowed up), by the 1st battalion RW (the old RWF which in turn was the old 23rd), making just one single battalion of the RW. This of course means that the junior battalion, the old RRW (ie the former 24th, 41st and 69th) no longer exist, so that is the end of what was once the remains of the old 24th.   

I looked at the pictures of this and saw that the 'new' single battalion was wearing the fusiliers 'white hackle' which would of course mean that the regiment is now an all fusilier regiment, meaning that the senior regiment (the old RWF (23rd) is now the only regiment left of the four originally English regiments (23rd, 24th, 41st and 69th) that became allotted to Wales.  

An interesting thing crops up here. Now that the junior (old RRW (24th, 41st and 69th), no longer exist, having been merged (swallowed up) by the senior (old RWF (23rd), the former 'B' (RD Coy) of the now defunct 2nd battalion RW also does not exist anymore, so they can't name 'B' coy of the 'new' battalion RD coy, because the 23rd never fought at RD, and did not take part in the AZW.

Martin

Think you have got your definition of "merged" wrong old friend.

To merge means:

"Join (together), join forces, amalgamate, consolidate, integrate, unite, unify, combine, incorporate, affiliate, coalesce, meld, agglutinate, team up, link (up), band (together), ally, league, federate."

Therefore, the new Battalion is a merger of both of the old Battalions, so of course they can properly have a RD Company if they wish.

Nowhere does it say "swallowed up", which surely implies one taken over by the other.

Steve

'agglutinate', where the hell did you dig that up from steve?

Cheers

PS. I have a feeling Pandoras box has just opened   

Springy

A word I use all the time - don't you?

Now seriously, are you allowed to laugh yet or might it do some damage? If so I will ask Martin not to take the bait.

Steve

Hell wouldn't miss Martins reply for the world, time to lay back and savour the oncoming storm.
Cheers Mate

springbok9 wrote:

'agglutinate', where the hell did you dig that up from steve?

Cheers

PS. I have a feeling Pandoras box has just opened   

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Is far better than agglutinate!

Springy mate, there is no need to wait, just go back through this thread and read the 'debate' that Bill and I had about this when it was first announced that this was going to happen. You will see that there is a difference between a 'merger' and an 'amalgamation', ie, the junior part being merged with the senior part is absorbed by the senior part and is therefor swallowed up by them and no longer exists. Again, please note that this is NOT my own definition of things (as Bill suggested), the definition is online for all to see, so if that is the case, and the 1st Bat RW (the old RWF ex 23rd) have 'absorbed or swallowed up' the 2nd Bat RW (the old RRW ex 24th, 41st and 69th), then by definition they no longer exist, and the senior is the only part remaining, and that part is the 1st Bat RW (the old RWF ex 23rd). Before this 'merger', both 1st and 2nd Batt's of the RW each had their own different identities, one (the senior) was a fusilier batt, the other (the junior) was a line batt. Now look at the pictures online, the 'new' single batt are wearing the fusilier 'white hackle', does this not suggest that they (the senior) have 'absorbed or swallowed up' the junior 2nd batt, and that the junior no longer exists? The 23rd was a fusilier regiment, it did not take part in the defence of RD nor in the AZW, and with it now 'absorbing or swallowing up' the old 24th, 41st and 69th and being the only one left, how on earth can one single fusilier battalion (ex 23rd), be allowed to carry on the traditions and honours of three (24th, 41st and 69th) now none existant line regiments, is this not absurd? What are the soldiers being called I wonder, 'private' or 'fusilier'?

"Where Have All the Regiments Gone? The Modern Descendants of the Regiments of the 1815 British Army: the Guards and 1st to 25th Foot

Compiled by Donald E. Graves



In 1815 there were 137 regiments of guards, infantry of the line, veterans battalions, garrison battalions and overseas units such as the West India regiments, Ceylon regiments and the five Canadian fencible regiments as well as a number of humbler entities -- some of which had no title such as the rather forlorn “Regiment at the Cape of Good Hope.” In 2009 the regular infantry of the British army consists of the five battalions of Guards (Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots, Irish and Welsh), and ten regiments, all of which have more than one battalion except the The Royal Irish Regiment which has only one. Six of the ten regiments are entirely new creations arising out of the 2006 re-organization and, in order of seniority, they are:


The Royal Regiment of Scotland (formed 2006, 5 battalions)
The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment (Queen’s and Royal Hampshires) (formed 1992, 3 battalions)
The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (formed 1968, 2 battalions)
The Royal Anglian Regiment (formed 1964, 2 battalions)
The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment (King’s, Lancashire and Border) (formed 2006, 2 battalions)
The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th and 33rd/76th Foot) (formed 2006, 3 battalions)
The Mercian Regiment (formed 2007, 3 battalions)
The Royal Welsh (formed 2006, 2 battalions)
The Rifles (formed 2007, 5 battalions)

In addition, there is The Parachute Regiment with three battalions, and The Brigade of Ghurkas with the two battalions but as these are post-1815 creations, they do not concern us here. This being said, let us see how the Guards regiments and the 25 senior regiments of foot of the 1815 army have fared as indicated in the chart below.

Not surprisingly. Her Majesty’s Regiments of Guards have done relatively well, compared with the infantry of the line. All three 1815 Guards regiments are extant today as independent entities, the only change being that the 3rd Regiment had undergone a title change and is now The Scots Guards.

This is not the case with the regiments of the line which experienced major upheavals in the 2006 re-organization. With reference to the county attributions of the 1815 regiments, these were first assigned in 1782 as an incentive to recruiting but in most cases the regiments had little to do with the counties with which they were connected until the Cardwell reforms of the early 1880s when each regiment had a depot located in its county.

The 1st Foot, the senior regiment of the line, raised for the king of France in 1633 but brought into English service in 1678 is now the senior battalion of the new Royal Regiment of Scotland. Note how its appellation cites it title first, its battalion number second and its regiment third which is in contrast to the more normal, battalion/regimental title sequence. Clearly the regiments that were amalgamated to form the Royal Regiment of Scotland (a very unpopular move) are striving to retain their earlier identities.

The lineage of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 17th, and 20th Regiments of Foot has not changed since 2006 as these regiments were part of earlier amalgamations carried out between 1964 and 1992.

However, the 4thand 8th Foot are now part of the new Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment while the 11th and 13th now form a senior battalion of The Rifles which, as we shall see, also incorporates the 43rd and 52nd light infantry and 60th and 95th rifles of the Napoleonic period. The 14th, 15th , and 19th Foot are now part of the new Yorkshire Regiment while the 21st and 25th are in the new Royal Regiment of Scotland.

There were always three clearly identified Welsh regiments in the army – the 23rd, 24th and 41st. The 23rd was The Royal Welch Fusiliers (note spelling) which enjoyed an independent existence for 317 years until it was amalgamated in 2006 with The Royal Regiment of Wales (former 24th and 41st Foot) to form The Royal Welsh. The 23rd is now 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh (Royal Welch Fusiliers) but as an indication of their pride (and their obstinacy) have retained their unique but archaic spelling of “Welch” in their sub-title vis-à-vis the more common “Welsh” in their main title. Both battalions of the The Royal Welsh are now fusiliers which begs the question why a regiment that is Royal, Welsh and fusilier is not called the The Royal Welsh/Welch Fusiliers but there are boundaries to investigating such matters beyond which is not wise to tread.

A special note must be made of the 22nd Foot, first raised in 1689 and which acquired its Cheshire county title in 1782. Like the 23rd, the 22nd managed to survive as an independent entity through all the major amalgamations of the army in the 1880s, 1920s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1990s only to be felled in 2006 when it was made the first battalion of the new Mercian Regiment, although it managed to retain its Cheshire sub-title – at least for now.

Finally, the 18th Foot was disbanded, along with five other Irish regiments, at the time of the creation of the Irish free state in 1921. At that time it was The Royal Irish Regiment. I believe its Battle Honours are now held by the last surviving Irish regiment, also called The Royal Irish Regiment, which was formed in 1992.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Sources

The Army List, 1815: Ministry of Defence and regimental websites: Victor Sutcliffe, compilor, Regiments of the British Army; A Handbook with Lists. Part 1, Infantry (East Rudham, 2008); Arthur Swinson, ed., A Register of the Regiments and Corps of the British Army (London, 1972)

Hi All,
I know Bill is a big enough and does not need me standing shoulder to shoulder with him, helping him fight his battles. I mean that is absurd, an Englishman and Welshman standing side by side in a common battle there is just has no mileage in that whatsoever.  

All I would say is, I have been a few times and have had the pleasure of meeting Bill, go and visit this wonderful historic museum for yourselves and see how it is presented and how the staff present it, in terms of it's history,accuracy and authenticity. Bill is one of the most genuine blokes I have ever met, he openly welcomes you and time taken out of his busy schedule is never a burden.

His passion, professionalism and knowledge is exemplary, so before you form an opinion go and see for yourselves you might end up enlightened and broader minded for the experience.  

Hi Richie
I do admire you for leaping in to defend Bill but Im pretty sure that Martin does have the utmost respect for Bill and the Museum. That, im again sure, goes for the rest of the forum. I don't really recall any circumstance that tends towards impugning Bill in any way. Martins beef, wrong or right is the issue of the Regiment and its naming with regard to RD, and of course its history. Both he and Bill, and Kenny, have respective viewpoints and debate robustly those issues, and that's good after all we are on a discussion forum. I and Steve really enjoy throwing the odd gallon of petrol on the fire and that's done in the spirit of just having fun. Martin and Bill recognise that fact Im sure.
Personally I agree with your view, the museum is a wonderfully run place, Bill is an accomadating guy and as for Ms Celia Green, brilliantly efficient lady.

Cheers Mate

Yes, you are correct springy, I do have the utmost respect for Bill and also the museum, and you are also correct about the regiments history pre 1881. I cannot see how people should be allowed to get away with quoting the wrong name of the regiment that fought at both iSandlwana and RD, or any other battles pre 1881. When the reforms were enforced in 1881 the old regiments should have been allowed to retire gracefully and take all their honours and awards with them, and the 'new' regiments should have started over again, this would have stopped all the nonsense of these 'new' regiments stealing the old regiments glory by saying that they did this and they did that, and it would have stopped them claiming the old regiments line numbers (which officially ended in 1881), after 1st July 1881 there were NO regiments of foot and NO line numbers, there were just regiment names. By all means it is right that the old regiments should be respected and honoured for the deeds they did and their old names should be blazed in glory, however, in the case of the old 24th this seems to be totally ignored and replaced by the swb, which is entirely wrong, and when later regiment amalgamations occur, it is also wrong that these other regiments can then claim honours and awards that they were not involved in, ie, it was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD, NOT the SWB or the RRW or the RW, yet the SWB claimed to be the 24th (which they never were), and the later regiments claim this honour and very rarely mention the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment or its mainly Englishmen that did the business, they prefer to let people carry on believing the myth that it was an all Welsh affair, it seems to be so well fixed in their own minds that they actually believe it themselves. And now that the 1st Batt RW has absorbed (swallowed up) the 2nd Batt RW by this new merger, this by definition means that the 2nd Batt no longer exist, which in turn means that the old RRW (24th, 41st and 69th) are now defunct and no longer exist, so how on earth can the 'new' single Batt of fusiliers the RW (old 23rd) be allowed to claim the honours and awards of three now none existant line regiments when they did not have any part to play in those honours and awards. The 23rd were not involved in the AZW and did not defend RD, so it would be absurd for them to be allowed to carry that, because that honour belongs to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, and NO other. Bill by his own admission is NOT Welsh, he is an Englishman, however, I think he has his own different thoughts about that.

What would we do without petrol   

Martin

The trouble with your argument is that, if all the Regiments had to start again in 1881, none would now carry the honours of the Peninsula, Waterloo, etc. etc., perhaps with the exception of the Guards. What a sad state of affairs.

Pass me the can Springy.

Steve

What is wrong with the post 1881 regiments having a dedicated section to their predecessors, showing the names of the predecessor regiments and their achievements? This would stop all the nonsense of the post 1881 and later amalgamated regiments claiming the glory and the honours of another earlier regiment. The old pre 1881 regiments should be respected and honoured for what THEY did, the post 1881 and later amalgamated regiments played no part in those pre 1881 honours, yet they just love to wrap themselves in the glory of those earlier achievements but without even a mention of the actual regiment that did those glorious deeds, and this cannot be right.

As well as my own hard earned gongs, I have my fathers and grandfathers, would it be right for me to claim the honour and glory that was my fathers and grandfathers? NO!!! Did I fight in the mud and blood of the trenches of WW1? NO!!! Did I take part in the sacrifice that was the Normandy landings in WW2? NO!!! Although I have these medals they are not mine, they are my fathers and grandfathers, do I cherish the memory of these two brave men, am I proud of them, do I honour them, bloody right I do, but I would NEVER bring shame to the memory of these two great men by claiming that the medals, honour and glory were mine, that would be absurd. So why can't the post 1881 and later amalgamated regiments do the proper thing and honour and respect their pre 1881 predecessors by giving the general public their old names and line numbers? Could it be that they want to hog all the honour and glory for themselves?

The Regimental Colours and the honours they display are not there to inform the public, they are there to remind the current members of the Regiment of the sacrifices made by their predecessors. That is why the Colour is always saluted. The lineage is understood by the Army - they don't need a full blown explanation of every detail on the Colour itself, for some Regiments you would need a Colour the size of a Bus to do what you suggest.

The Regimental Museums and Regimental Histories is where the detail is set out, and often the medals of those who have served going back to the year dot, are displayed. I just don't see the conspiracy to hog all the honour and glory that you seem to do.

Steve

Yes Steve, I do know what the colours represent, thank you.

However, I do think that more should be done to make sure that the correct regiment is given the credit for its past achievements, rather than be forgotten or substituted by a later regiment that had no involvement whatsoever in the honours and awards of an earlier regiment.

Springy, you can always try HEXI solid fuel, it burns a lot cleaner than paraffin and doesn't stink as much as petrol, and it's a lot lighter to carry in your pack when you are 'in the field'.

I will answer these points in the next few days.

Meanwhile I maintain the FC Cup was won this year by Highbury FC, and not a place south of the River Thames.

The official abbreviation of the present day regiment is R WELSH and not RW.

Martin wrote:

Could it be that they want to hog all the honour and glory for themselves?

No!!!  A childish remark to make.

Bill put this discussion to bed a long time ago.

thought i might as well chuck this in the mix.
for no obvious reason!   

just cant watch this magnificent man without seeing a priest struggling up a hill with a bucket of soil.    

Dam! Is there a part 2

Hiya springbok morning, yeah he was a character alright,
hope your back in your own gaff, nothing like kipping in
your own pit!.

ctsg, iv'e not put the rest on yt yet, will do that later mate.

sorry again i meant to say Martin dont react
badly! he was a fervent nationalist, he is not
doing a Baker, just sticking it to the English
establishment as was his wont! Kenneth was
a truly remarkable man, not a mealie mouth
sycophant..i suspect a lot of people breathed
a sigh of relief when he went.

Hi Les.

No mate I won't.

Thanks for posting this, it just proves my point doesn't it.

Talk about stealing a regiments identity,,,,,, jeez!

Morning Les
Yep got home yesterday, nice to be back with the family. Got a couple more bits of stainless steal to add to the body collection, should last for another few months.

Cheers

Ummm! maybe we should start calling you 'Robobok'   

Funny thing that, the young lady Ive slept next to for the last 46 years calls me something similar.    

Springy mate, no wonder she calls you names if all you have done for the last 46 years is sleep next to her