Garter vs Annulus

[Bill A]

The question of the garter versus the annulus has been mentioned in a couple of strings. I did some basic research using Mazeas, and found the following regiments appear to have changed their badges from the garter pattern to the annulus. The dates for some GO's for the badges are in the mid 1920's.

• Vancouver Regiment (officer's from Phil Herring)
• Governor General's Body Guard
• Grey Regiment
• Dufferin Rifles of Canada
• 48th Highlanders
• Sault Ste Marie Regiment
• Regiment de Joliette
• Regiment de Maisonneuve
• Regiment de Quebec
• Cape Breton Highlanders

[Doug N]

I think there are a couple more which maybe should be on the list:

• New Brunswick Dragoons
• VIII Princess Louise’s New Brunswick Hussars. Although not strictly illustrated in either Mazeas book, the pre ’22 OR’s badge was buckled.

I know little about the Vancouver Reg’t, but I’d challenge the inclusion of the Quebec Reg’t on the list. I think what Mazeas is showing us is the officers badge (with garter) & the OR’s badge (with annulus). I’m not aware of an OR’s pattern with the garter, nor an officers pattern without. This makes me believe that the two patterns were worn concurrently & not contiguously

[Doug N]

I certainly don’t claim to be a heraldic scholar, but I think I can explain why the garters were taken off these Canadian badges.

In English heraldry, the term garter has a clear definition. It is a buckled circle or oval, with the motto Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense. When represented in colour, it will have a blue background & gold letters. Using a buckled circle, with any text other than ‘ Honi Soit’ is a heraldic error. Similarly, displaying the ‘Honi Soit’ motto within anything other than a buckled circle is incorrect. The regiments mentioned in the preceding posts were out of bounds on the first rule.

We should note there were a number of Canadian badges which did not change, garter vs annulus. A quick list would be:

• RC Engineers
• RCA Service Corps
• RC Ordnance Corps
• RCA Pay Corps
• Canadian Fusiliers
• Royal Regiment of Canada
• Durham Regiment
• Royal Montreal Regiment
• 17th Duke of York’s Royal Canadian Hussars

In each example, the unit is using the garter exactly as defined, & presumably had the requisite permissions & approvals to do so. No foul = no change.

The most interesting question in all of this may be the Duke of York’s badge shown in my avatar. While all the cap badges of this pattern appear to have the garter, collars can be found with both the garter & the annulus. I have example collars by Inglis, Hemsley, Gaunt, & Scully. Of these four varieties, two have the garter & two have the annulus. If these collars represent early & late patterns, is it possible that the Duke of Yorks were the only Canadian regiment told to put a buckle on their badge, while all the others were being told to take it off?

[Bill A]

Good work Doug. I think you may have found the explanation of the reason some badges changed and others didn't. In addition, the two varieties of VIII PLNBH are important to ducument. I don't know how many collectors are aware of the two patterns. The garter pattern must be scarce?
There is another question about the VIII Hussars cap badge, the so-called 1950 pattern. First, Mazeas has the authorization date as 1950, but there is plenty of photo evidence showing that pattern being worn during the latter part of WW2. Secondly, the 1950 pattern appears to have the garter as well, but not with the garter motto.
In reference to the Regiment de Quebec, Mazeas has the officer's badge with an improper motto, Maintiens Droit, for the garter, as does the other ranks. Could there be an error here?
Finally, Phil Herring has posted images of the Vancouver Regiment at The Grey Regiment string.

[Bill A]

Found a reference regarding the inappropriate use of the royal garter. A letter dated March 11, 1929 indicated that any future badges of units that did not have royal approval should not feature the garter and motto.

[fougasse1940]

Originally Posted by Bill A

Found a reference regarding the inappropriate use of the royal garter. A letter dated March 11, 1929 indicated that any future badges of units that did not have royal approval should not feature the garter and motto.

Interesting thread, I wonder if the same thing goes for British badges, as the (pre-Royal) Army Service Corps featured the garter on their badges.
Also, in the Corps of Royal Engineers, the engineers are royal, not the Corps.

Rgds,
Thomas.

[Bill A]

Another reference, this one to the 48th Highlanders. In October 1935, the CO of the Regiment wrote NDHQ that they were not in the financial position to replace the garter badges. This, even though the plain annulus pattern badge had been approved by GO in 1922.