5th Gurkhas mystery solved

[gurkharifles]

I'd always been aware that when the 5th Gurkha Rifles were granted the title "Royal" in 1921, the badge was changed to incorporate the King's crown. I have a couple of examples where the badge just has a crown, but there was a change in design again in 1927 to incorporate the lion above the crown - I had always wondered what had triggered the change to add the lion and over the weekend I found this reference in the Regimental History - "When the 5th Gurkhas became a Royal Regiment, a Tudor Crown was superimposed on the five of the regimental crest. Later because the crests of half the regiments Royal or otherwise, of the Indian army bear a similar crown, it was felt that the addition failed to meet the case. Permission was therefore sought to replace the crown by the Imperial crown and Lion, and in August 1927, it was intimated that his Majesty had been graciously pleased to sanction the change"

It did make me wonder about the number of Regiments that have or had the crown and lion, rather than just the crown, and what if anything does it signify?

[fougasse1940]

Don't think there is any rhyme or reason; the British Parachute Regiment feature the crest (lion with crown) and are not a Royal regiment, the the British Royal Artillery have to do with just the crown.

Rgds, Thomas.

[Piffer]

The 12th Frontier Force Regiment of the Indian Army in late 1945 on dropping the numeral 12, also changed their badge: the new badge incorporated not only the Crown and Lion, but also the Prince of Wales's plumes.

[peter monahan]

'Because the crests of half the regiments Royal or otherwise, of the Indian army bear a similar crown, it was felt that the addition failed to meet the case'. My strong suspicion is that 'failing to meet the case' meant that the badge was simply not visually distinctive enough to avoid confusuion and that the crown PLUS lion would be an obvious change.

I'm not aware that the addition of the lion has any particular significance in armourial or royal 'rules', so I'd guuess t was simply a matter of individual regiments trying to be 'different' and the authorities agreeing to the change/design. Lord knows, far less attractive or obvious crests were approved!

My tuppence worth.

[pinfrin]

Originally Posted by peter monahan

'Because the crests of half the regiments Royal or otherwise, of the Indian army bear a similar crown, it was felt that the addition failed to meet the case'. My strong suspicion is that 'failing to meet the case' meant that the badge was simply not visually distinctive enough to avoid confusuion and that the crown PLUS lion would be an obvious change.

I'm not aware that the addition of the lion has any particular significance in armourial or royal 'rules', so I'd guuess t was simply a matter of individual regiments trying to be 'different' and the authorities agreeing to the change/design. Lord knows, far less attractive or obvious crests were approved!

My tuppence worth.

Many thanks can still learn here, this last kind restaurant at end of the U
now that the IMHS is closing down ( pique / internal politics ? )
Hope the learned lot there -> to this forum soon.

[peter monahan]

As a co-founder of the IMHS, I can say with confidence that niether pique nor politics is the cause of its demise. Tony, the Treasurer, has done the job for 34 years and took over the whole thing for a while when the two founders bailed out on short notice - of which I'm not proud! He has now decided to take a well earned retirement and, so far, no one has stepped up to fill his shoes.

[Piffer]

The " Old Order Changeth Yielding place to New"....RIP IMHS. It was not entirely unexpected. In this age of internet, FB, etc, it failed to provide a platform for a quick discussion over the net as this forum and some other forums do. Let's hope this forum can eventually upgrade itself to have its own heading.

[peter monahan]

Originally Posted by Piffer

The " Old Order Changeth Yielding place to New"....RIP IMHS. It was not entirely unexpected. In this age of internet, FB, etc, it failed to provide a platform for a quick discussion over the net as this forum and some other forums do.

Well said, sir.

[pinfrin]

Reprieve !

[peter monahan]

Yes! Huzza for those who have stepped up.