WW 1 56th Division

[Desert Rat]

Is this the correct formation sign for the 56th Division?

[Mike Jackson]

Yes - a "short sword" colloquially referred to at the time as "Wat Tyler's Dagger" - the weapon forms part of the Armorial Bearings of the City of London and the design was selected by the GOC, Maj Gen Sir Charles Hull.
(Divisional and Other Signs, by Capt V Wheeler-Holohan, 12th London Regt, 1920)
The same weapon reappeared in WW2 and was worn by 56 Inf Div Signals. Mike

[grey_green_acorn]

56th London Division

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ictureid=46258

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ictureid=46256


http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/for...ictureid=46257

Tim

[johnG]

Mike is of course quite correct in saying the short sword of 56 Division was known as 'Wat Tyler's Dagger', and attributed to the armorial bearings of the City of London, and I am sorry to be pedantic about it, but truth is the sword depicted in the City of London arms is the Sword of St Paul, and not Wat Tyler's dagger.

From memory, the Wat Tyler dagger was (and probably still is) kept at Fishmongers Hall, London, and looks nothing like that of 56 Div emblem.

I suggest the emblem adopted by 56 Div was a depiction of the short Roman sword to commemorate the Roman past of the City of London.

The idea of the 56 Div sign being Wat Tylers dagger and all same City of London armorial bearings was probably dreamed up by an imaginative journalist, but it stuck, and will probably be so referred to for ever more.

Regards,

John

[Mike Jackson]

Originally Posted by johnG

Mike is of course quite correct in saying the short sword of 56 Division was known as 'Wat Tyler's Dagger', and attributed to the armorial bearings of the City of London, and I am sorry to be pedantic about it, but truth is the sword depicted in the City of London arms is the Sword of St Paul, and not Wat Tyler's dagger.

From memory, the Wat Tyler dagger was (and probably still is) kept at Fishmongers Hall, London, and looks nothing like that of 56 Div emblem.

I suggest the emblem adopted by 56 Div was a depiction of the short Roman sword to commemorate the Roman past of the City of London.

The idea of the 56 Div sign being Wat Tylers dagger and all same City of London armorial bearings was probably dreamed up by an imaginative journalist, but it stuck, and will probably be so referred to for ever more.

Regards,

John

John,

You are quite right, but as I said, it was a colloquial reference to what the soldiers called the weapon and was recorded as such in 1920 - when memories were still fresh. The colloquialism lived on through to the 1940s and 56 Inf Div Signals. Here's a 1917 dated reference with outstanding artwork:
56 Div WW1 1917.jpg

[John L]

Originally Posted by Mike Jackson

Yes - a "short sword" colloquially referred to at the time as "Wat Tyler's Dagger" - the weapon forms part of the Armorial Bearings of the City of London and the design was selected by the GOC, Maj Gen Sir Charles Hull.
(Divisional and Other Signs, by Capt V Wheeler-Holohan, 12th London Regt, 1920)
The same weapon reappeared in WW2 and was worn by 56 Inf Div Signals. Mike

Mike ,
Do you have a picture of the 56 Div. Signals that you could post?

Thank you
John

[Desert Rat]

Thank you gentlemen for your educational responses.

Mike, if possible, I would also like to see a picture of the 56th Infantry Division Signals formation sign.

[Mike Jackson]

Originally Posted by John L

Mike ,
Do you have a picture of the 56 Div. Signals that you could post?

Thank you
John

Herewith. There's also an image in the Imperial War Museum collection showing three soldiers wearing the flash sitting on the banks of the River Arno (?) fishing! If I can find it, I'll post that too. In the meantime:
56 Inf Div Signals.01.jpg

[Mike Jackson]

Further to the above:
56 Inf Div Signals.02.jpg

[John L]

Mike,

Thank you very good pictures

John

[johnG]

Originally Posted by Mike Jackson

Further to the above:
Attachment 103271

I note in this photograph the cats tails are facing to the rear and the divisional sign does not have a sword superimposed on it, i.e. the infantry version.

In the 1950's I wore the armoured division version of the badge, with red sword superimposed on the black cat, and dress regulations were badges worn with the cats tails facing forwards.

Perhaps the way of wearing the badge changed with the role of the division, or perhaps it was a regimental thing. Can anybody please explain.

Thanks,

John