Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy
Toby, thank you for the reminder.
Can we look at the squad corporal, identified as a corporal on the print.
He has two chevrons and the grenade, He has no GCBs. That squares with the regulations. As the job usually fell to a sergeant it is almost inconceivable that he has not substantive rank.
There are numerous photos on this thread of unidentified men with two chevrons and grenade and GCBs. Absolutely not allowed for substantive corporals. I submit that they are LCpls, whether unpaid or paid we have no idea, but see below.
Then we have Bailey in one shot with two chevrons only. Later, he wears the grenade. There could be two reasons at least.
1. The QM has no stock, and Bailey could not scrounge one. My verdict: very very very unlikely ..... this is the GG for goodness sake.
2. He is junior to a LCpl. Verdict: he may be a LCpl unpaid, thus the grenade signified paid status.
Toby, is there anything in your knowledge bank to discredit that hypothesis?
|
If defining the 'unpaid' Lance Corporal was so important then it would surely have been more widely taken up in the Brigade of Guards and something similar would have applied in the other Foot Guard regiments, especially when one considers the pan-Army authority and importance carried by the Royal Pay Warrant.
Conversely, demarcating the Lance Corporal/Acting Corporal, who is generally unpaid apart from the few allocated paid positions by the commanding officer, from the more experienced and, above all, 'substantive' Corporal would in my view be seen as more important, especially among the NCOs themselves. Wearing the grenade was the mark of a qualified Grenadier NCO (as seen on the sergeants dress for a very long time), so it's easy to see how that status would then be carried over to the qualified and paid Corporal. In this regard it's worth considering the attitude in the line infantry between the Lance Corporal and Corporal, which was largely very similar.
On balance then, I think that the theory I've outlined carries more likelihood, although in fairness it has to be conceded that there does not appear to have been anything similar in the other Foot Guard regiments.
There is clear visual evidence, but unless we can drill down to its meaning with some written evidence then it remains conjecture. However, you raise a good point about the Good Conduct Badges. I don't know what the answer to that conundrum is.
Are we not somehow splitting hairs here, in that a Lance Corporal (which existed in the Guards at that time but wore two-stripes) was indeed (in most cases) an unpaid JNCO, but he was one full step below the first level of substantive rank, the Corporal (full), who in the Guards just happened to also wear two-stripes? I imagine that this was unpopular among the Corporals. They would have been conscious that in the line regiments their counterparts ran no risk of being confused with a Lance Corporal, the two-stripe/one-stripe differential made it impossible. Not so with the Foot Guards, so one can see how the extra, the 'grenade', might be valued.