News paper report, zulu battalion cut

A real sad state of affairs. Big mistake.

Hi All.
From the quick glance I had it seems there are 3 regt's from the zulu war going ! , Old 24th , 80th and the 91st which has been kept as a Guard or ceremonial detachment of 120 men or so which will still be housed at Stirling Castle . .
A sad state of affairs when famous regiments are disbanded and consigned to History's melting pot !.
Cheers 90th.

There may be a way to save the old 24th from the scrap heap, and that would be to bring the regiment back to its native homeland of England, release the old 6th from their fusilier status (which they didn't want in the first place), and amalgamate them together as the 1st and 2nd battalions The Warwickshire Regiment (6th & 24th). This would bring both Warwickshire regiments back to their former county namesake, and also bring the old 24th back to its real true home of England. Maybe if sites like this and other historical societies, and also other places and people that are concerned about this cutting down of our armed forces, maybe if all concerned petitioned the government, and if we could get the back up of the Warwickshire M.P's (one of them is an ex major), it might go a long way into getting the government to change its mind.

Hi all

I should make it clear that although one battalion of The Royal Welsh has been cut, the Regiment itself remains. The Royal Welsh will continue to uphold the traditions of its illustrious antecedents.

Bill
Bill Cainan
Curator The Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh, Brecon

Quote :

the Regiment itself remains

Good news but for how long.

Quote; "The Royal Welsh will continue to uphold the traditions of its illustrious antecedents"

Can't recall ever reading anything about the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment having a tradition of eating raw leeks, or having men of harlech for its regimental march, or even having a goat for its mascot, did I miss something,

Also missed a word out I think, should that not be "its illustrious ENGLISH antecedents".

Martin, you could add in the word "British." English would be the wrong word, then in 1879 as now; as you well know and fully understand!!!
Continuing to over-compensate, by incorrectly and knowingly labelling the 24th in 1879 as "English" rather than a "British" regiment only detracts from your noble campaign of trying to educate the uninitiated to the correct title of the 24th Foot at the time of the AZW, because you then come across as wrong, not reasonable. You are being just as deliberately bad as Stanley Baker was, in trying to mislead. Quit trying to replace one myth with another.

Keep your campaign true, correct and honest and you will take people along with you and one day we may succeed in educating the public.
Remember - Welsh, English, Scots - we've been on the same side now for quite a while and when I last checked, we still are.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

There may be a way to save the old 24th from the scrap heap, and that would be to bring the regiment back to its native homeland of England, release the old 6th from their fusilier status (which they didn't want in the first place), and amalgamate them together as the 1st and 2nd battalions The Warwickshire Regiment (6th & 24th). This would bring both Warwickshire regiments back to their former county namesake, and also bring the old 24th back to its real true home of England. Maybe if sites like this and other historical societies, and also other places and people that are concerned about this cutting down of our armed forces, maybe if all concerned petitioned the government, and if we could get the back up of the Warwickshire M.P's (one of them is an ex major), it might go a long way into getting the government to change its mind.

The simplest and perhaps most sensible thing to do would be to scrap the archaic tribal (regimental) system that still exists only in the British (not English) Army.
Scrap the different coloured berets, tunics and have one uniform, one badge, one logo, as we do in the RN, RAF, as the Americans have, Danish and every other country's army in the world do.
It would stop all this pettiness.
The British Army's tribal system is viewed as quite peculiar by other forces around the world.

THE 24th REGIMENT AND THE WARWICKSHIRE CONNECTION

I see Martin is persisting in his absurd crusade to have the Regiment returned to its “real true home” in Warwickshire. I think it’s about time that the connection between the 24th and Warwickshire is looked at more closely, and this “crusade” put to rest.

The Regiment was raised in Kent by Sir Edward Dering in 1689. It was (along with other regiments raised at the time) given a number – in this case the 24th. Sir Edward Dering was a Kentish baronet – hence the reason it was raised there. For a few weeks in 1689 the Regiment was quartered in an area between Coventry and Warwick. For the next sixty years, the Regiment tended to be known by its Colonel’s name eg Dering’s Regiment, and it was only in the mid 18th Century that the numbering system became the more common descriptor. Also within that period the Regiment spent over 25 years on the Irish Establishment. At no time (except for a few weeks in 1689) was it based in Warwickshire.

In 1782 a Royal Warrant conferred county titles on the line infantry regiments. The 24th was given the title of the " 2nd Warwickshire Regiment". The aim was to link regiments to geographical areas, where they could establish an identity and focus on their recruiting. In the case of the 24th this simply did not work. No special links were forged with the County Militia or Volunteer Regiments; no Regimental Depot was established in the County; no permanent recruiting Depots were set up within Warwickshire; and the Regiment was not quartered within the area. In 1804 a second battalion of the 24th was raised (to last 10 years) and this was raised in Warwick, with Warwickshire being nominated as its recruiting area. However, recruiting in the County proved very poor and most of its recruits actually came from outside of Warwickshire. At the same time the recruiting area for the 6th Regiment of Foot – the 1st Warwickshire Regiment – was nominated as Liverpool ! This was clearly indicative of the recruiting situation. In 1858 the 2nd Battalion was re-activated but its depot was established in Sheffield, not Warwick, again a reflection on the poor recruiting in Warwickshire (at the same time the Depot of the 1st Battalion was in Chatham).

In the 1870s Cardwell’s army reforms tried once again to establish regimental geographical links, this time with much more success. In 1873, the 24th Regiment was allocated to the 25th Brigade Depot at Brecon. This Depot incorporated all of the local militia and volunteer units under its command. The success was confirmed in 1881 by renaming the Regiment “The South Wales Borderers” to reflect its geographical location.

So there we have it, from 1782 to 1881 the 24th Regiment of Foot, apart from its title ”The 2nd Warwickshire Regiment”, had NO real connection with Warwickshire.
• It was not based or barracked in the County
• It had no Regimental Depot in the County
• It had no permanent recruiting offices in the County
• Recruiting from the County was very poor (as witnessed by the 2nd Bn between 1804 to 1814)
Therefore, to call Warwickshire its “true home” is clearly absurd. I hope Martin has not already put forward his ideas to the Warwickshire MP mentioned in his post above !

I would conclude by pointing out that the title “2nd Warwickshire Regiment” is one of the many traditions that are preserved by the current regiment – The Royal Welsh.

Bill

Can't see how anyone (except MC) could argue with that Bill. Thanks for the information.
So basically, changing the name to the SWB in 1881, was correcting the "wrongness" of it being called the Warwickshire, because the name Warwickshire in its title was an incorrect and irrelevent misnomer so to speak?

This is an interesting debate. Thank you for posting that historical summary.
Regards
DTSG

During the Zulu War the regiment was known as the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment. After it was known as the South Wales Borderers. If you look at the many Graves we have to the RD defenders the inscription reads South Wales Borderers. Because that was the name of the regiment they belonged to before they left the service for whatever reason.

Martins point, the film should have depicted the regiment as the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment and not the South Wales Borderers because that regiment didn't exsist.

Hi tasker.

I think you have mis-understood what I meant by saying English antecedents, you see, of the antecedent regiments of the RW there are none of them that are actually all Welsh.

The 23rd was raised by Lord Herbert of Chirbury in Shropshire, England, and assembled at Ludlow, Shropshire, England.

The 24th was raised in Kent, England, and was later given the county title of Warwickshire, England.

The 41st was raised as an invalids and Chelsea (London, England), out patients regiment.

The 69th was the redesignated old 2nd battalion of the 24th, it was given the title The 69th (South Lincolnshire) regiment.

So as you will see from the above, there is not actually one of these regiments that is an actual Welsh regiment, all of them being raised in England, and that is what I meant by English antecedents.

Hi Bill.

I suggest that you read my post again, I did not say that the regiment should be returned to its real true home of Warwickshire, I said it should be returned to its real true home of England.

The regiment was raised in England, it was raised for the defence of England, it was later given the English county title of Warwickshire. It had no connection whatsoever with Wales until it was moved by the government of the day to the south Wales border in 1873, and even by the start of the AZW in 1879, neither battalion had been to Brecon.

And why move an established regiment from the south Wales border (43rd Monmouthshire) into England, and move an established regiment from England 24th (2nd Warwickshire) to the south Wales border, it does not make any sense at all. The 24th had a lot more of a connection with England than it did to Wales, and I should say that the 43rd had a lot more connection to Wales than it did to England, so why move them, it just seems a stupid thing to do.

You say that the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment is one of the many tradtions preserved by the RW, I would suggest that anyone reading that statement should visit their website, where they will find nothing is mentioned about the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, however, they will see that there is plenty mention of the SWB as being the regiment that fought with Marlborough, and at Chillianwallah, and at Rorkes Drift, etc, etc, etc, but no mention at all of the name of the actual regiment that did the business, some preserving that is. Credit is being given to a regiment who's name did not even exist at the time (SWB), yet the real name of the regiment 24th (2nd Warwickshire),and its English origins are avoided like the plague, it is all done to make the general public believe that the regiment was, and always has been a Welsh regiment, which it has not.

Read again Bill, I said Country (England), not County (Warwickshire).



.

Martin

I have re-read your original post a number of times.. You state quite clearly that you would wish the 24th to be retitled as one of the battalions of a reconstituted Warwickshire Regiment. The point I have clearly made is that as the connections to Warwickshire are minimal at least, why re-title it as such ? You say quite categorically - “This would bring both Warwickshire regiments back to their former county namesake, and also bring the old 24th back to its real true home of England” and “if we could get the back up of the Warwickshire M.P's....”. Surely in your mind, the new “Warwickshire Regiment” would have its Depot in that county ? I was merely questioning the Warwickshire connection that would justify such a momentous change !

You refer to the Museum’s web site – I think you have been looking at the old RRW website ! We are developing a new Royal Welsh website which will include the “family tree” clearly showing the name of the Regiment in the AZW – the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment. Similarly we are about to re-issue our Museum leaflet which does likewise. Send me your address and I will send you a copy. I have on numerous occasions suggested you visit the Museum in Brecon to satisfy yourself over this issue, but unfortunately you have not been able to make it. However, please do not assume that we have it wrong in Brecon, without checking yourself !

The English v Welsh saga has been gone over many times. As others have said – they were BRITISH regiments. Indeed I’m surprised you haven’t included Ireland in your debate, the amount of time the 24th was based there (and indeed was on the Irish Establishment for some 25 years at one point). You have said a number of times that you are not anti-Welsh, but I’m sure that many readers are probably doubting that assertion.

The Regiment has now had its Depot in Wales for nearly 140 years and this leads to it, quite understandably, being referred to as a “Welsh” regiment. The current links are undoubted. However, as there is no Welsh army, it is in reality a BRITISH regiment.

Your beef seems to be based purely on the fact that in the film “Zulu” the regiment is referred to ONCE as The South Wales Borderers. A slip either accidental or deliberate ? Who can say ! But “Zulu” is NOT a documentary and contains many other errors. It, for example, has Schiess as a member of the NMP as opposed to the NNC. Nevertheless, without the film the AZW would undoubtedly have remained in relative obscurity and we would not have web sites such as this discussing the pros and cons.

You obviously feel so strongly about the issue that I would ask if you’ve written to that Warwickshire MP, to the MOD, or indeed to the Colonel of The Royal Welsh ? And indeed what about the men serving in The Royal Welsh today, after having clear Welsh links for 140 years, how do you think they would feel about being re-titled as “The Warwickshire Regiment” !!!! The same could not be said in reverse in 1881 as the links at that time to Warwickshire were tenuous to say the least.

Come to Brecon !

Bill

Hi Bill.

The regiment was raised in England, for the defence of England, it was later given an English county title, it would not have mattered what English county title it was given, it could have been called the Trumpmuckton on the Wold bucket bangers for all I care, my point is that it was given the English county title of The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, and it was under this title that the regiment served for the best part of 100 years, including the AZW, and it was under this name of The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment in which many brave lads fell in the battle of iSandlwana, and also at RD, however, this, and its other pre 1881 history, including its English origins, are glossed over, hidden, not mentioned, reduced to the small print that no one reads, and substituted for Welshness by referals to the SWB, RRW, RW, it is if as though the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment never even existed, and it is this unjust treatment of the noble 24th that I resent most strongly.

The website I refer to is the RW British Army one, click onto history, and then scroll down to the bit about the SWB, there is not the remotest mention of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, it is all the SWB, whos name did not even exist at these times, they even claim that the Duke of Marlborough was the SWB's colonel, what a load of propaganda.

I mentioned the 6th (1st Warwickshire, later Royal Warwickshire) regiment, and the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, being amalgamated to try to stop the old 24th being dumped on the scrap heap. Warwickshire has lost both it's regiments, so if they were both amalgamated into the 1st and 2nd batt's of a new Warwickshire regiment, that would save the old 24th and also free the old 6th of its fusilier status (which it did not want).

It is not a case of English versus Welsh, it is a case of fact versus fiction. The fact that the name of the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD was The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and not a fictional Welsh regiment who's name did not exist until 2 years after the AZW. this is the main point of the matter. You know that I have Welsh connections in my family, and also you know that I am not anti Welsh, but by you keep suggesting it, I assume that you are trying to persuade readers that I am, but you know that you are wrong Bill.

Are you sure you are correct about the old 24th carrying on after the cuts?

The way I understand it, it is the 2nd Btln RW that is going, if that is the case, then am I right in thinking that the 1st Btln RW was the old 23rd, and that the 2nd Btln RW was the old 24th and 41st, so if it is the 2nd Btln getting the chop, then that means the old 24th and 41st are going to the scrap yard. Hope to be corrected on this, but it does look rather ominous for the old 24th.

Martin.

"The fact that the name of the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD was The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and not a fictional Welsh regiment who's name did not exist until 2 years after the AZW. this is the main point of the matter"


......and I think everyone on this forum understands this Martin. There is no argument with this.
This is the exact point you need to convey and keep conveying to the uninitiated.
Everything else you write about Stanley Baker, Welsh plottings, leek eating etc is unnecessary, and as Bill says, makes you appear to be anti-Welsh (at which point reasonable people stop listening to you), pro Warwickshire and not a man to be taken seriously.

You might understand my 'beef' better if you read the newspaper article posted by DB. Below the painting of the defence of RD it states; "the herioc defence of RD by the Royal Welsh", how can this possibly be the case??? the Royal Welsh did NOT exist at the time of RD, why could they have not given the true name of the regiment that defended RD, why keep up the pretence that it was a Welsh regiment and thereby add to the the myth created by the film. And just look at the "Ancestry of a famous regiment" Nothing is given about its English roots, and just the briefest mention of "The Warwicks", everything being geared towards the "Welsh" aspect rather than giving people the true history and identity of the regiment, what a disgrace.

You say the regiment has had its depot in Wales for nearly 140 years, and that this leads to it, "quite understandably", being referred to as a "Welsh" regiment. So by using this same logic, the regiment was raised in 1689 and was not moved to Wales until 1873, and did not have its name changed until 1881, so would that not be "quite understandable" to it being referred to as an "English" regiment for all those 192 years, which is a lot longer than it has ever been a "Welsh" one, over 50 years in fact, yet all its pre 1881 "English" battle honours and glory are always credited to the "Welsh", ie; SWB, RRW or RW. Why is this "English" history of the regiment always hidden, glossed over, not mentioned, or otherwise disguised, and substituted by false "Welshness"? Is it done in an effort to keep up the myth created by the film I wonder??

Martin

Have you written to the MOD, the Warwickshire MP and the Colonel of the Regiment to make your point ? I would be interested to see what replies you get, if any.

All I can say is - come to Brecon and see for yourself how we portray the situation.. I will also gladly explain to you exactly how amalgamations work in the BRITISH army.

Bill

I think a trip to Brecon, would be beneficial to some of us I have never been.
Perhaps take Bill out for a beer and a bit of lunch after. Kids will be off school soon, so would be an ideal time to get away for the day - the kids.

24th

I look forward to it. Give me a ring before you set a date to make sure I'm in !

All the best

Bill

Bill, is the museum open everyday.

I don't wish to enter the 24th/SWB debate, but it does strike me that in Victorian times, and a little before, there was often a political reason behind the location of army garrisons. Not so much English versus Welsh but rich versus poor. While it is true that the new industrial areas provided a fresh ground for recruiting, they also posed a real threat in the minds of the Victorian ruling class. It is no co-incidence that a Garrison is located at Brecon - it is an ideal location to command the South Wales Valleys and provide military support to the civil authority when required.

In May 1831, just down the road in Merthyr Tydfil, thousands of workers rose up. Merthyr had become the largest Iron working area in the world with a population of 40,000. But there was no sanitation, no fresh water, no member of parliament, no police force and wages had been arbitrarily cut by the Ironmasters. When rents could not be paid, bailifs were sent in to take what meagre posessions the workers had. The Marquis of Bute, the major local landowner and Lord Lieutenant said of the rising" From that moment the local people thought they were irresistible and could act with impunity". Rioters shouted "Remember Paris" where the French monarchy had been overthrown a year earlier, and the red flag was flown for the first time anywhere in the world. The Government acted.

From Brecon Garrison came the 93rd Highlanders (now theres a Welsh regiment !) but they were met by the rioters and forced back to the Castle Inn. The next day the town was under workers control and the troops retreated to a local defensible mansion. The day after, thousands more protestors were stopped by 450 soldiers just east of Merthyr. Gradually the uprising lost momentum but not before one of the supposed ringleaders had been hanged at Cardiff for stabbing one of the soldiers with his own bayonet (that remains a matter of great controversy).

This is a potted history (and I apologise for straying quite a long way from the AZW), but I think it demonstrates that there is sometimes much more than meets the eye about the location of British Troops at home - it was not always about the defence of the nation - be it Welsh or English or Irish or Scots.

Rusteze

Bill.

Whether I had or I hadn't written to any of those you mentioned, it would not make a bit of difference, not one of those would take any interest in someone trying to get true justice and historical recognition for the old 24th, so it is pointless.

I do know how amalgamations work, and how the "new" regiment is supposed to carry on the traditions of the others. This works fairly well to some degree when the regiments involved are kept in their native country, however, it is another matter when a regiment is moved from its English homeland, and then finds that its pre 1881, 192 year English existance is denied, hidden, glossed over, not mentioned, etc, etc, and all its honours and glorious actions are substituted by false impressions by the nation that the regiment was moved to, in an effort to make people believe that it has always been a regiment from that particular nation, when actually it existed for much longer in its native homeland of England than it ever has in the country that it was (in my opinion), wrongly moved to. To deny a regiment of its true National identity, its glory and its honours, and substitute it with another countries falseness, is an insult to the memory of all those men that served, fought, and died in the regiment before it ever became a "Welsh" regiment.

I don't know if you read my earlier post, but I asked if you had it right about the old 24th still remaining after the cuts. If it is the 2nd Btln that is getting the chop, then that would be the old 24th and 41st, and if it is the 1st Btln that are being kept, then that would be the old 23rd, so it does look like the old 24th are going to be cast to the scrap heap. I wonder if my suggestion about amalgamating the old 6th and 24th would be worth putting to the government planners, it would at least save the old 24th and also bring it back home to its native country of birth.

Yes, I would like to visit Brecon and meet you Bill, we could go for a good meal and a few beers, and have a right old natter about this and that. The big problem is getting there and finding somewhere to stay that allow dogs (the good lady won't go anywhere without her dog), It would be a change to have a look around and see the museum, I might have to leave the good lady and her dog back at home, ha ha.

Martin.

Martin

A quick point with regard to the recent defence cuts. Despite what you say, I'm not sure you do understand the nature of BRITISH army amalgamations. As I've said before with regard to The Royal Welsh, it is a BATTALION that has been cut, NOT the REGIMENT, in this case the 2nd Battalion.

The Battalions were titled:

The Royal Welsh 1st Battalion (The Royal Welch Fusiliers)
The Royal Welsh 2nd Battalion (The Royal Regiment of Wales)
The Royal Welsh 3rd Battalion (Territorial Army)

However, it is the REGIMENT that will carry on upholding the traditions of ALL of its illustrious antecedent regiments, and that will include: the 23rd, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 24th, the 24th (2nd Warwickshire), the Monmouthshire Regt, the South Wales Borderers, the Welch Regt and the Royal Regiment of Wales. Because there is the RWF museum in Caernarfon, we in Brecon, focus on the rest.

And please remember, it is the BRITISH army.

Bill

South Wales Borderers Museum: Fact sheets
Fact Sheet No. B3
The 24th Regiment and its local links

"The 24th Regiment has served this Country continuously for over 300 years. In the process, 23 soldiers have been awarded the Victoria Cross; the highest number awarded to a line regiment. For the last 130 years, the Regiment has recruited mainly in Wales and continues to do so.
The 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot) currently forms part of 1st (UK) Armoured Division and is based in Paderborn in Germany.

It was on 8th March 1689, that King William and Queen Mary signed the Proclamation for the raising of 10 Regiments of Foot to fight in Ireland. Sir Edward Dering, a Kentish baronet, was given the task of raising one of those Regiments, which in 1751 became known as the 24th Regiment of Foot. In those days, there were few permanent training depots and most regiments recruited soldiers from wherever they were stationed. The events in Scotland (in the 1750s) and Ireland (in the 1830s) and the growth of the large Cities always provided the majority of recruits for the British Army. Wales was only sparsely populated until the expansion of the coal, iron and steel industries in the late 19th century.
The 24th Regiment most certainly had a link with Warwickshire and this commenced on 31st August 1782 when a Royal Warrant conferred County titles on all regiments not already possessed of special designations such as "The Queen's" or "The King's Own". It was intended that regiments should cultivate a recruiting connection with the Counties whose names they took, and the Twenty-Fourth, who were given the title "2nd Warwickshire", were ordered to send a recruiting party to Tamworth after their return from the American War of Independence. No special link with the County Militia was ever established nor were any Depots or permanent recruiting centres set up in Warwickshire.
Incidentally, the 6th Regiment of Foot, a separate regiment, at the same time where given the title "1st Warwickshire". The 6th Foot subsequently became The Royal Warwickshire Regiment (1832), The Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers (1963) and The Regiment of Fusiliers (1968). The 24th Regiment has never been part of the 6th Foot.

The Regiment was honoured to carry the title "24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot" until 1st July 1881 when again measures were taken to give County names to infantry regiments of the line. The 24th Regiment, who had established their Depot in Brecon in 1873, became "The South Wales Borderers Regiment". This was the title of one of the Militia battalions that since 1873 had been under the command of the Officer Commanding the Brigade Depot at Brecon.
The 24th Regiment had recruited in the Counties of Brecknock, Cardigan, Montgomery, Monmouth and Radnor for six years before the Zulu War. The Welsh influence in the composition of the two battalions of the Regiment in 1879 can be seen by the typical Welsh names of some of the more junior soldiers. There were thirty-four named "Davies", twenty-four named "Evans", fifty-six named "Jones" and fifty-one named "Williams". Private John Williams who was awarded the Victoria Cross at Rorke's Drift came from Cwmbran in Monmouthshire.

It was the 1964 film 'Zulu' which suggests the title of the Regiment in 1879 was 'The South Wales Borderers' and that Welshmen formed the major element of the defenders at Rorke's Drift - neither was true.

In 1936, the Chillianwallah Colours of the 24th Regiment that were carried in the Second Sikh War of 1849 and which had been laid up in St Mary's Church, Warwick since 1868, were removed to the Regimental Chapel in Brecon Cathedral. The Church Council of St Mary's Church, understandably, was not inclined to part with the Colours but the Regiment applied for a faculty for their removal. The case was argued before the Chancellor of the Diocese of Coventry on 6th May 1936, and judgement was given in the Regiment's favour.

If fate had taken another turn the 24th Regiment might have become an established regiment of Warwickshire. Had this happened, the Regiment would have been just as proud to be Warwickshire "Lads" as it has been to be Brecon "Boyos".

The spirit of the 24th Regiment is strongly maintained by The Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot). It is one of the outstanding regiments of the British Army, one with a distinct Welsh flair. Its motto is proudly displayed on the Regimental Colour - "Gwell Angau na Chywilydd" - "Better Death than Dishonour"."

Bill.

Yes, I am fully aware that the regiments are all British regiments of the British Army, I was using your own logic of the regiment being in Wales for 139 years, "quite understandably" being referred to as being a "Welsh" regiment, so (by using the same logic), with it being raised in England and then not being moved by the government of the day to Wales until 1873, and not being re-named (again by the government of the day) until 1881, would that not be "quite understandable" to it being referred to as being an "English" regiment for 192 years?

Bill, please read what I said again, I did say a Battalion being cut, and not the regiment, and I also said the 2nd Battalion. You have listed the 2nd Battalion as being the ex RRW, which of course is the old 24th and 41st, so if it is the 2nd Battalion that is getting the chop, that would mean the old 24th and the old 41st are doomed to the scrap yard.

You have listed the 1st Battalion as being the ex RWF, which is of course the old 23rd, and the 3rd Battalion is the (T.A.). The Monmouthshire regiment that you mention cannot be the old 43rd Monmouthshire regiment, as that regiment was moved to Buck's in England, and later bacame a part of The Rifles, so which is the one you mention, is it either a malitia or some other unit of the T.A?

Will they be keeping Lance Corp William Windsor I wonder? or is he being given the order of the boot?

Martin.

Bill.

Sorry to dig this up again, but I have been reading various reports (online), that say that the 2nd Btn RW is definitely being disbanded, if this is the case, then that would mean the end of the old 24th and 41st. Can you say if you know anything more about it?

Martin.

Martin

It is not quite as straight-forward as the press reports. As I've said before, The Royal Welsh is to lose one battalion. The Regiment will remain along with its links to ALL of the antecedent regiments (including 24th, 41st and 69th). As I understand it there are on going talks as to what format and titling the remaining battalion will have. For example, B Coy of the 2nd Bn is currently titled "Rorke's Drift Company", it is hoped that this title will transfer to B Coy of the remaining battalion.

Bill

rusteze: many thanks for that potted history - I for one found it to be a very well written and an interesting slant on some of the less talked about thinking behind this issue. Much appreciated.

John's Fact sheet seems to be very fair and balanced, quote:

"The 24th Regiment had recruited in the Counties of Brecknock, Cardigan, Montgomery, Monmouth and Radnor for six years before the Zulu War. The Welsh influence in the composition of the two battalions of the Regiment in 1879 can be seen by the typical Welsh names of some of the more junior soldiers. There were thirty-four named "Davies", twenty-four named "Evans", fifty-six named "Jones" and fifty-one named "Williams". Private John Williams who was awarded the Victoria Cross at Rorke's Drift came from Cwmbran in Monmouthshire."

This fact sheet does indeed indicate that the 24th Regiment did have a very Welsh flavour indeed in 1879, whilst also accurately highlighting the common misconceptions that annoy Martin.

Hi Bill.

Thanks for the information.

Still a little confused about all this. If the 1st Btn RW (which was the old 23rd (RWF), is the one Btn being kept, but the 2nd Btn RW (which was the old 24th and 41st (RRW), is the one being disbanded, then that would mean the end of the old 24th and 41st (RRW).

These on going talks you speak of regarding the format and titling of the remaining 1st Btn, seems rather odd. Are they trying to take elements of the axed 2nd Btn, ie; the old 24th and 41st (RRW), and keep them to form "bits and bobs" of the 1st Btn (old 23rd RWF)?

For instance, if they transfer the old name of the axed 2nd Btn (ie; 'B' coy title (RD Coy), to 'B' coy of the 1st Btn, then that would be incorrect, as the 23rd (RWF) were never involved in the defence of RD, that honour belongs to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment alone, and no other.

So if they do try to transfer this name to 'B' coy of the 1st Btn (old 23rd (RWF), would that be allowed by the powers that be? and if so, then that would be very strange, and also totally wrong, as the 23rd were never at RD.

Martin.

Martin

I have tried to explain the situation, but unfortunately your mis-understanding of how the Army works will not allow you to see the position clearly.

Suffice to say that, as usual, you are wrong in your assumptions !

Bill

Bill.

Read your own post of Tue July 10th 2012 at 7.31pm.

You yourself say that it is the 2nd Btn that is being cut, you then go on to list the titles, saying that The RW 1st Btn was the RWF, and that The RW 2nd Btn was the RRW. This being the case, if, like you have said, it is the 2nd Btn that is being cut, then that is the old RRW, which was of course the old 24th and 41st, so if I am wrong in my assumptions, then it is through the unclear way that you have worded your post.

Martin.

Thanks Tasker 224, thought the post had entered a black hole!

On the significance of the cuts to the RW, surely the position is that the remaining Regiment retains its links to all of its predecessors. It is no different to the current 2nd Battalion retaining links to two predecessor Regiments , in future the single Battalion will have three - simplze.

Whatever nonsense is written in the press, or sometimes spouted by retired Generals, the fact is the old numbered regiments ceased to exist long ago along with those who served in them. What remains is their history and tradition. Say the RW became no more than a colour party in some future single UK wide regiment (I am not suggesting it should!) they would still retain their historical links and with just as much validity. Whatever you do with current structures, and whatever you call things now, has no bearing on that.

Rusteze

Rusteze.

Yes, the old regimental numbers were officially ended by the government of the day in July 1881, however, the numbers were added (unofficially) to show the precedence of regiments that had been amalgamated.

The old 23rd (RWF), had never been amalgamated until 2006, and therefor has never had any predecessors, and even when it was supposed to have been amalgamated with the old 24th and 41st (RRW), it actually kept its own identity and formed the 1st Btn RW, whilst the old 24th and 41st (RRW), kept its own identity and formed the 2nd Btn RW.

Now with the disbandment of the 2nd Btn RW (the old 24th and 41st RRW), that leaves just the 1st Bth RW (the old 23rd RWF), and as it has no links with any predecessor regiments, it cannot carry on the traditions of any predecessors except its own, ie; the old 23rd (RWF).

Martin.

Hi Martin.
Sorry mate I failed Algebra so your post made no sense to me !. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
90th.

Hi 90th.

The surviving 1st Btn of the RW is the old RWF (23rd), and they were never amalgamated with any other regiments, so they cannot carry on any other regiments traditions only their own.

The disbanded 2nd Btn of the RW was the old RRW (24th and 41st).

In 2006 they were supposed to have been amalgamated as the RW, however, they were never properly amalgamated, as each kept their own identities, ie; 1st Btn RW (RWF), 2nd Btn RW (RRW). So how can the surviving 1st Btn carry on the traditions of the 2nd Btn when they were not properly amalgamated, as each kept their own identities seperate?

Maybe that is what the talks Bill mentioned is all about, they will realise that through allowing the battalions to keep their seperate old regiments identities, they were not properly amalgamated, and therefor they have made a pigs ear of things, so they may be having talks to try to "shoe horn" elements of the old disbanded 2nd Btn, ie 'B' coy (RD coy), into the surviving 1st Btn in an attempt to salvage things, however, this would be wrong, as the 23rd (RWF), were never involved in the AZW, and therefor it should not be allowed.

Martin.

Martin

As I understand it, your argument hinges on the fact that there was no "proper" amalgamation of RWF and RRW in 2006. I can see why this may be so, given the retention of former regimental titles by the current two battalions ( although it may just have been window dressing to appease local politicians who made a fuss at the time). But even if it has some more substantive basis, it surely only requires the powers that be to decide to amalgamate just before they reduce to one battalion - then, presumably, all is OK and they can legitimately retain a Rorke's Drift Company if they wish. It simply needs a paragraph on a piece of paper.

All the best
Rusteze

Hi rusteze.

I think it was a case of the old 23rd (RWF), having never been amalgamated with any other regiments during its long history, having the desire to retain its own identity, so it was decided to just merge the two regimets under the name of RW but both keeping their seperate identities, ie; the 1st Btn being the old 23rd (RWF), and the 2nd Btn being the old 24th and 41st (RRW). This being the case, the problem now arises of how to retain an element of the old RRW, ie 'B' coy (RD coy), within the remaining 1st Btn RW (old 23rd RWF), and if like Bill says in an earlier post, the 2nd Btn has been cut, then maybe that is what the talks are about. But it seems wrong to try to "shoe horn" an element from a disbanded 2nd Btn (ie 'B' coy of the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment), into the 1st Btn (ie 23rd RWF regiment), which had nothing whatsoever to do with the AZW. However, like you say, it may all be worked out on a 'simple piece of paper', and let's not forget that this 'simple piece of paper' trick has been done before, ie; 192 years of the English history of the old 24th was wiped out on a 'simple piece of paper' in 1881, it is surprising what can be done on a 'simple piece of paper' (and of course with the help of an almost fictional film in 1964).

Martin.