GGFG

[servicepub]

Am I correct in assuming that the GGFG only had three patterns of unit shoulder title; WWII - full name in white on red wool with a white perimeter line (plus a variant where this is printed in canvas); Post-war - full name in white on red wool, and; 1970's Garrison Dress - full name in white on embroidered red cotton.
Somewhere I have the correspondence from GGFG to Ordnance explaining that they wish to modify their titles, by omitting the white line in future production, in order to conform to (UK) Brigade of Guards practice.

[Bill A]

Clive, There were at least five patterns, and maybe more if you count varieties of the title.

1. Governor General's Foot Guards pre-1940 pattern (different letter heights in title)
2. Governor General's Foot Guards with margin embroidery (variations in thickness of embroidery, and colour of embroidery thread exist)
3. Same as above but printed canvas
4. Governor - General.Foot Guards, small title, embroidery 1/4 inch high compared to 3/8th inch of standard size titles
5. Governor General's Foot Guards, no embroidered border

I would be most interested in any documentation regarding the change in the pattern of title, removing the embroidered border.

[servicepub]

Bill,

Your example (last title, first image) is new to me. I can't see the Regiment approving any title that shows "Governor-General Foot Guards", i.e., hyphenated name, non-curved shape and no "apostrophe - s'. If I saw this I would say unequivocally that it was a bad fake.

[Bill A]

Hi Clive, I have no provenance on the last title, and I have my suspicions about it as well.
Note, I do not have an example of the pre-war pattern. (I should have indicated that in the initial post.)

[servicepub]

I don't think that there was a pre-war shoulder title. Photos I have seen have the regiment in the old pattern Service Dress with the brass "Maple Leaf over GGFG". With the introduction of Battledress they wore the worsted slip-on title. I believe that it was only with their exposure to the British Guards, and permission from CMHQ to follow British practice, that the GGFG adopted the shoulder title we all recognise as being the war-time pattern.

[Bill A]

Interesting point. The GGFG, along with the CGG, PPCLI and Provost are all indicated as having had embroidered titles prior to the war. (1943 Dress regs.)There is also a comment in the GGFG regtl history:
“upon conversion to armour, the Regiment assumed the official title of “21st Canadian Armoured Regiment”. However its identity was preserved by the retention of the initials “G.G.F.G.” after the armoured designation. … The rank of “Guardsman” (not Trooper) was retained, and apart from correspondence and official documents the battalion was invariably referred to as the “G.G.F.G.”, or when a shorter title was used, the “FOOT GUARDS”. At the same time the tankman’s black beret was taken into wear, while the companies were now called squadrons, but the scarlet ‘G.G.F.G’ shoulder titles and cap badge were worn throughout the war. (Pg 64)
Perhaps this is just diction in the writer's expression, but it would seem that the GGFG had the embroidered title from the very beginning.

[servicepub]

At home I have an excellent photo of the Governor General meeting, in Ottawa, with two GGFG WOs 1st Class, one is the RSM and wears the "officer style" Service Dress, but with closed collar as permitted by Dress Regs, while the other wears BD. The one in BD does not wear a red/white shoulder title so that rules out the GGFG at home. I have a series of photos showing the GGFG and CGG disembarking and, again, none wears a shoulder title. As both were 4th Div I believe that we can rule out titles pre-war. Now it is a question of identifying just when the titles came into wear.
I have about 60 pages of 'stuff' on GGFG dress from the Archives but, again, its "there" and I'm not.

[Bill A]

Clive, further to your photo evidence, there is some LAC documentary material that suggests the regiments of the 4 CAD obtained their titles in Canada before proceeding overseas.
Here, in one discussion, is the complexity and confusion around the use of cloth titles in the Canadian army. Army policy indicates a suggested practice, which often appears to be contradicted by the actual evidence. A very complicated area to analyze and document accurately.