Finalised Layout: Precedence at 1918 finalised

[TomPC]

Hi All,

Further to my several posts about precedence at 1918 I think I've settled on the right order. I attach my proposed layout of my cap badge collection. With apologies for the quality, I also attach the Order of Precedence of 1914 as amended to the King's Regs of 1912, which I've used as a principle guide in this layout but it has some glaring omissions.

My collection (as a reminder!) is Regular Unit OR Cap Badges at 1918. The badges featured will be the most recent ones issued (excepting brass economy badges) so the 1KDG badge will be the star, not the double-headed eagle. I've decided to change the date from 11 Nov 1918 to 31 Mar 1918 - the day before the RFC became the RAF - so I can feature my RFC and GMG Bn badges and to completely avoid the "Royal" Prefixes brought in on 27 Nov 1918 (eg RAOC, RASC).

I am starting with a representative badge for the RN - the Petty Officers' badge, being the only metal OR cap badge I could find. I've "decided" that the RND were not regular units (though please pick me up on this) and so have ignored them completely - mostly to save the £700 cost of buying them - but I've broken the same rule later on by including the Household Battalion Badge who probably had the same "reserve" status.

I've deemed the RM to be serving under Navy rather than Army orders so they appear in the next row (instead of RMA before RA and RMLI after R Berks).

Next we have the Household Cavalry and RHA row. I have (for sh*ts and giggles) determined that the RHA in my collection are on parade with their guns and so they appear first, before the Life Guards regiments. After the RHG I have chosen to place the Household Battalion (who were drawn from the reserves of the HH Cav). Maybe they don't truly deserve a place in this collection of regular units, but I like the badge. Comments from purists welcome.

Then we have the Cavalry of the Line. I've made two controversial decisions here:

(a) I've put 5L after 17L as they lost their precedence after their "treachery" and disbandment in 1799 (reinstated 1858). [This is why we have the 16th/5th instead of the 5th/16th.] I'm not sure whether in 1918, though, they actually ranked after the 4th, as they appear in Army Lists.

(b) I've added the Army Remount Service after the cavalry. I have no evidence for doing so bar seeing them appear there in other unofficial precedence lists, such as the one at regiments.org (link below). They are simply not mentioned in the King's Regs.

(http://web.archive.org/web/200701061...sts/ba1918.htm)

Next - easily enough - we have the RA, RE, RFC and The Brigade of Guards.

Having tweaked my collection date to 31 March, I can end this row with the five-pointed GMG Bn badge rather than the GMG Regiment "guns" one, as the regiment was formed in May 1918. Plus I don't own it (more money saved!)

Next come the 69 badges of the Infantry from the Royal Scots to the Rifle Brigade with an extra back badge for the Gloucesters.

These are followed by the War-Raised Infantry regiments
-Army Cyclists
-Machine Gun Corps
-Tank Corps (they follow the MGC in precedence because they were 'born' out of them)
-Labour Corps
-Royal Defence Corps (which I have finally satisfied myself wasn't TF).

As per the Order of Precedence in the KRs of 1908/12/14 we next have the West India Regiment. I have followed this with two war raised "Colonial-yet-British-Army" regiments: the R Newfoundland Regt (not yet part of Canada in 1918) and the British West Indies Regiment. This is also where they appear in regiments.org's precedence list.

For reasons I can't explain, the KRs of 1912/14 choose to sandwich the three "official" Corps that existed at that time - ASC, RAMC, A Vet C - between the aforementioned colonial units and two others, the Malta Artillery and the West African Regiment. This is mind-boggling and not particularly pleasing but it's there in black and white.

The other services were called the "Departmental Corps" and they were not listed or put into order until the KRs of 1923. The order I have chosen is based on the work of Major T Edwards "Precedence of Administrative Departments and Corps". In effect, no official order existed, but later published precedences (eg 1923) give a guide to what the right order should have been.

I am aware that the Chaplains were officers but will include their badge (or badges if I can get hold of the Jewish one) as there was no OR equivalent badge. I end this section with FANY, who were not part of the British Army and I probably shouldn't include them, but their work was incredible and... I like the badge. And the notorious name.

With apologies to Royal Monmouth Royal Engineers (Militia) lovers everywhere, I have chosen to end the collection with an HAC badge to represent all the non-regular units. Queen Victoria said they would take precedence immediately after the regular army and just because some bureaucrat in the War Office invented the special reserve and bumped them up the precedence it shouldn't spoil her clear intentions! As you may have guessed - I'm ex-HAC.

I would be very interested to hear any views before I seal the collection. Otherwise I'll have a lifetime of hearing them over and over again!

[Alan O]

I would put the Army remount service in Corps with the ASC rather than the Cavalry. They were definitely not cavalry. The ARS was part of the ASC so must sit with them.

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army...ounts-service/

[TomPC]

Originally Posted by Alan O

I would put the Army remount service in Corps with the AVC and ASC rather than the Cavalry. They were definitely not cavalry.

Thank you very much for your feedback, Alan. They've given me a headache by being remarkably unwritten about!

I certainly agree that they're not cavalry. The problem is they are not acknowledged anywhere as being departments or corps. They do not appear in the 1923 or 1934 KRs when almost all the departments and corps were given a position (except police and provosts) nor in Maj Edwards' journal article (see above) about the relative precedence of the services.

My decision was based on two sources: the Nov 1918 Army List, in which they appear immediately after the cavalry (whereas all the other departments and corps are well after the infantry), and the regiments.org order of precedence which also places them in that position.

The good news is that we both "feel" there's something unsubstantiated there. Please let me know if you can find any documentation that suggests they should be moved down the list.

Thanks and best wishes,

Tom

[gb64]

Originally Posted by TomPC

Thank you very much for your feedback, Alan. They've given me a headache by being remarkably unwritten about!

I certainly agree that they're not cavalry. The problem is they are not acknowledged anywhere as being departments or corps. They do not appear in the 1923 or 1934 KRs when almost all the departments and corps were given a position (except police and provosts) nor in Maj Edwards' journal article (see above) about the relative precedence of the services.

My decision was based on two sources: the Nov 1918 Army List, in which they appear immediately after the cavalry (whereas all the other departments and corps are well after the infantry), and the regiments.org order of precedence which also places them in that position.

The good news is that we both "feel" there's something unsubstantiated there. Please let me know if you can find any documentation that suggests they should be moved down the list.

Thanks and best wishes,

Tom

Hello Tom, like Alan,would have to be both Corps for me also.

Gerard

[TomPC]

AMENDMENTS TO LAYOUT

RHA removed (GvR badge not issued till 1934)
QMAAC changed to WAAC (as at Mar 1918)

[Hoot]

The Royal Defence Corps, formed in March 1916, should take precedence over the Labour Corps, formed in February 1917. Three other units need to be added as well, the Army Gymnastic Staff, the Corps of Army Schoolmasters and the Non-Combatant Corps.

[Alan O]

Originally Posted by TomPC

Thank you very much for your feedback, Alan. They've given me a headache by being remarkably unwritten about!

I certainly agree that they're not cavalry. The problem is they are not acknowledged anywhere as being departments or corps. They do not appear in the 1923 or 1934 KRs when almost all the departments and corps were given a position (except police and provosts) nor in Maj Edwards' journal article (see above) about the relative precedence of the services.

My decision was based on two sources: the Nov 1918 Army List, in which they appear immediately after the cavalry (whereas all the other departments and corps are well after the infantry), and the regiments.org order of precedence which also places them in that position.

The good news is that we both "feel" there's something unsubstantiated there. Please let me know if you can find any documentation that suggests they should be moved down the list.

Thanks and best wishes,

Tom

Tom

Have you opened the link to the Lono Long Trail? It's quite clear they are ASC.

[TomPC]

Originally Posted by Hoot

The Royal Defence Corps, formed in March 1916, should take precedence over the Labour Corps, formed in February 1917. Three other units need to be added as well, the Army Gymnastic Staff, the Corps of Army Schoolmasters and the Non-Combatant Corps.

Hi Hoot,

Thanks for your comments.

There is something about the RDC that I do not fully understand yet to do with its status - not quite regular army - not quite territorial force - not quite reserve. It was officered by the TF and its men were reservists, generally too old to serve on the front lines, but its members appear to have been paid in the same way as the Regular Infantry.

In the Nov 1918 Army List, which *broadly* follows precedence it is listed as follows in the "Schedule of Arrangement":

6. Infantry
7. Army Cyclist Corps
8. Machine Gun Corps
9. Tank Corps
10. Training Reserve Battalions
11. Labour Corps
12. "Royal Defence Corps, Territorial Force" (sic)
13. Army Service Corps

Where precedence is not clearly defined by the 1912 KRs I am (in general) trying to follow the Army List's precedence.

I do not think the Corps of Army Schoolmasters had a cap badge (did they?)

Good point about the APT Staff (as they became in 1918, but not sure which month). I don't know whether the crossed swords badge had come in yet. Any idea?

NCC: I have thought about it and I know Churchill himself said they "must be thought of as soldiers". However, I am not convinced they were a regular army unit, even though their officers and NCOs were.

Let me have your thoughts on this, please.

Tom

[TomPC]

Originally Posted by Alan O

Tom

Have you opened the link to the Lono Long Trail? It's quite clear they are ASC.

Hi Alan,

I did open the link but must have just scan-read it as "Army Remounts Service" where it actually read "ASC Remounts Service".

Now I've revisited it and you've opened my eyes.

So what to do next? I have some options to ponder:

1. Place it after the ASC....

2. But if it's part of the ASC, maybe it shouldn't appear at all

3. Leave it with the cavalry (in compliance with the Nov 1918 Army List implied precedence)

Thinking cap on!

Thanks for your observations

Best wishes,

Tom

[Alan O]

I would place it after the ASC.

The PT corps were wearing the swords badge in 1918. I used to work in a place with a huge group photo of the PT Corps in 1918 and the badge was in use.

[manchesters]

Tom,

Whats your position on Infantry War raised Service Battalions?

They were not Territorials and therefore should they be classed as Regular too?

Whole host of 'Pals' cap badges there.

regards

[Alan O]

I would not go down the Pals route on the basis of cost and rarity. Even with a blank cheque book it would take years to find an example of each.

[Hoot]

Tom, the Corps of Army Schoolmasters wore the crown and cypher badge the same as the MPSC. The Royal Defence Corps, the Labour Corps and the Non-Combatant Corps were all war raised units so I would class them as Regular Army.

[CAM]

Originally Posted by Alan O

I would not go down the Pals route on the basis of cost and rarity. Even with a blank cheque book it would take years to find an example of each.

Yes that has stopped me but every so often I do get get tempted!

[TomPC]

Originally Posted by manchesters

Tom,

Whats your position on Infantry War raised Service Battalions?

They were not Territorials and therefore should they be classed as Regular too?

Whole host of 'Pals' cap badges there.

regards

Hi Manchesters,

Not all WWI war-raised units were regular units. To the best of my knowledge the RFC, Machine Gun Guards, Army Cyclist Corps, MGC, Tank Corps, Labour Corps, RDC, Royal Newfoundland Regiment, British West Indies Regiment and WAAC (later QMAAC) were, although the RDC's status is more complex. I am not 100% certain of the status of the Household Battalion or the RND battalions which comprised reservists.

The first and second battalions of most regiments were regular forces, with the third as a reserve or training battalion and the fourth and sometimes fifth as Territorial Force battalions (who couldn't be compelled to fight overseas, initially). Subsequent battalions were volunteer battalions of the New Army (or Kitchener's Army) or Home Guard. Like the TF battalions, I'm reasonably sure these were not regular forces.

There is a place for the Yeomanry, Special Reserve, Militia, TF and Volunteer units in the over-arching order of precedence, but I have chosen not to include them in this collection. I'd never get to the end!

Best wishes,

Tom