Badges of the 63rd Foot - notes from the 1950s

[manchesters]

I wondered if there was more information to hand to explain how and when the 'Fleur de Lis' came to be chosen as a Regimental emblem of the 63rd.

Yes there is.

The Regimental History by Col. H.C. Wylly has its Appendix II dedicated to the subject. Eight pages that give all the information.

regards

[jf42]

Originally Posted by manchesters

The Regimental History by Col. H.C. Wylly has its Appendix II dedicated to the subject. Eight pages that give all the information.

Thank you. Wylly's 2-Volume work is not readily available to consult. Would it be possible to give the gist of his account; for instance, the first form in which the 'Fleur de Lis' was first worn and when? What connection has it with the Guadeloupe campaigns, if that was indeed the origin; was it simply that this was the emblem on the Royal arms of France?

[Frank Kelley]

From memory, the 63rd had actually managed to lose their authority to wear their fleur de lys whilst on campaign in the Crimean war, along with their baggage train.
They must have had the right to wear it though, I have never really had any interest, whatsoever, in the 63rd, but, as soon as you get into the 1870's, they ended up at Ashton under Lyne and were brigaded with the 96th and subsequently became the Manchester's.
As you have already pointed out, it was worn on the epaulette and I dare say it was originally granted to them as a direct result of the campaign on Guadaloupe.
The regiment and particular individuals within, certainly went to considerable trouble down the years to get it back, not, a great fan of it myself though.

[jf42]

Originally Posted by Frank Kelley

From memory, the 63rd had actually managed to lose their authority to wear their fleur de lys whilst on campaign in the Crimean war, along with their baggage train.

Ah, now that's how rumours start. In fact, the 63rd lost their baggage in January 1795, along with a number of other corps, when the French captured the British supply depot at Helvoetsluys on the Rhine-Maas delta near Rotterdam.

Whether their authority to wear the Fleur-de-Lys ('FdL') was lost on that occasion is moot, since however the 63rd came to adopt the emblem, it is not likely that it was the result of an official award. The system of battle honours and distinctions that we recognise today had not come into being.

At that date (1795) only two regiments sported anything resembling an honour on their colours- the 18th Royal Irish for Namur in 1695 and the 15th King's Light Dragoons following Emsdorf in 1760. The first group honour to be awarded for participation in a victory was the ‘Castle’ emblem granted to four regiments who had held off the Spanish at Gibraltar between 1779-82.

Hitherto, a standard token of Royal approval was granting the blue facings of a Royal regiment. Most honours for actions and campaigns before 1801 have been granted retrospectively. Alexandria fought in 1801 was the turning point, with the award of the Sphinx 'superscribed 'Egypt' awarded to all units that served in Abercrombie's expeditionary force.

Various regimental distinctions with uncertain, or informal, origins seem to have emerged in the period between the end of the AWI and 1800 and the Fleur-de-Lys of the 63rd is one of them. (15th KLD, 5th Northumbs, 9th Norfolks, 42nd RHR).

I managed to track down a copy of Wylly's 'History of the Manchester Regiment' (1923). According to notes by D. Hastings-Irwin (Appendix I ), the earliest appearance of the Fleur de Lys is found c.1784 on the epaulette of an officer's coat, a detail seen in officers' portraits from 1795 & 1797, which also show the FdL on shoulder belt plates (apparently not found elsewhere).

Circa 1811-12, the FdL moved from the epaulettes to the coat tails as an ornament on the turn-backs of officers' coatees. Post-1815, it also appeared on officers' undress waist belt plates between 1823 and 1840.

The coat ornament was discontinued in 1855 when the coatee was replaced by the tunic. Stark states that requests to retain the FdL as a badge, he does not say in what way*, were denied for lack of written authority (*officers’ forage cap, perhaps?).

When the 63rd arrived in India in 1870, the emblem re-appeared as an unofficial badge on the pagris of the Welwood ‘airpipe’ sun helmets. In 1880 it was adopted as a regimental badge on officers' Glengarry caps. Finally, a full forty years after its formation in 1881, the Manchester Regiment (63rd & 96th) was granted the Fleur de Lys as it official cap badge in 1923.

In the notes made by Stark, Wylly and Usher, nothing concrete is offered to support the claim that the FdL emblem originated in the periods of service in the West Indies between 1759 and 1818, still less that it was an official award. The earliest this claim is recorded is by Stark in 1884. Whether the West Indies link was his own supposition or whether it was a tradition he learned when he joined the 63rd in the 1850s, is not clear.

When, in 1923, the CO of 1st Bn. Manchesters submitted his request for the FdL to replace the existing badge, he stated frankly, "This request is not put forward on the grounds that the Fleur de Lys should be regarded as a Battle Honour. It is forwarded for consideration on the grounds of long usage, custom and sentiment."

Brigadier Westrop in his account of the FdL for Wylly, wrote in similar terms: "No document has been found to prove exactly when the Regiment was granted, or adopted the badge." Nonetheless, the Brigadier asserted firmly that the Regiment has "a vested right in the Fleur de Lys from long-continued possession and use."

The Bourbon royal symbol would have been relevant only to the first Guadeloupe campaign in 1759. All the other campaigns were post-1789. Ignoring for a moment that such things were not the norm in the 1750s, we might question whether the granting of the FdL as a distinction in recognition of meritorious service would result in something so subtle as a small feature in an officer's epaulette. It is true that there were fewer places to display badges on 18th century infantry officers' uniforms (belt plate, buttons- and epaulettes). Compared to facings and lace, badges were not a major feature of regimental uniform in the mid-C18th and, other than grenades and the authorised ‘ancient’ badges of the six Old Corps, these would be drawn from Royal emblems; the Prince of Wales feathers, for instance.

Where the Royal emblem of the old enemy stood in this matter, is an interesting point. The French FdL, part of the Royal Arms until 1801, was a feature of coat lace for drummers’ in the Foot Guards as well as in the 8th Kings Regt, from whose 2nd Battalion the 63rd was formed in 1758. Brigadier Westrop hints that the FdL badge of the 63rd may have been a token of that relationship.

It would be satisfying if the Fleur de Lys of the 63rd was adopted to commemorate a specific event such as the capture of a Bourbon standard in Guadaloupe but there is no evidence. It seems unlikely that it would have been adopted in 1759, although the 15th Light Dragoons did adopt their first, unofficial cap distinction after Emsdorf in the following year. However, I am fairiy sure officers' epaulettes suitable for such ornaments were not introduced until the uniform authorised by the Royal Warrant of 1768.

That the FdL originated in the 63rd's undeniably stalwart service in the West Indies seems to have been a mixture of regimental tradition and speculation. It is fair to say that in the early days many authors of regimental history were working in an area where history and folklore met. The suggestion that there was no connection between the wearing of the FdL and the campaigns in the West Indies does not, of course, detract in anyway from the hard won victories and terrible losses to disease suffered by the 63rd during their service there.

In the end what matters is that the emblem clearly came to be valued as an integral, if modest, element of regimental identity, regardless of its origin. It is understandable, given the universally unpopular badge chosen for the Manchester Regiment in 1881, that the Regiment should have turned to the Fleur-de-Lys of the 63rd as a suitable alternative.

[Frank Kelley]

LOL, please remember, I did not actually write their regimental history, nor, have I actually read it for at least two decades.
I still much prefer the cities coat of arms, moreover, regarding your final paragraph, I'm not so sure that it was universally unpopular, but, then I was not around at the end of the Great War, so I cannot really comment on that particular issue.
Perhaps it was little more, in the eyes of some, simply the case that a similar device was worn by employees of the city itself, notwithstanding, the fleur de lys was certainly worn by the regiment, which is really all that matters.

[manchesters]

As a collector of all things Manchester I must say I think the pre-1923 badge is suberb, whereas the "French" looking post 1923 badge that doesnt even have its name on it is a bit naff.

regards

[Frank Kelley]

Afternoon Simon,
I have to agree, I regret to say it, but, in my opinion the badges worn after the Great War appear as complete dross from my way of thinking, but an awful lot of effort appears to have been made by individuals both within and outside of the regiment, in order to get the fleur de lys as a badge.
Regards Frank

[jf42]

I may have inadvertently overstated the case but, arguably, the plain FdL was thought to serve its purpose by being visually distinctive, both in outline and its very unadorned nature, as well as linking to pre-1881 tradition. I can see, though, why that might not be satisfying to a connoisseur.

However, the municipal character of the badge with the City arms, does seem to have been the problem.

"The arms of the City of Manchester as at present worn constitute a Badge of a non-military nature, and they are, moreover, worn at present by every worker in the employment of the City Corporation.

The Badge, therefore, as worn is by no means regarded by all ranks in the Regiment, who mainly come from Manchester, with those feelings which a Regimental Badge should inspire."

Most military emblems seem to be for the benefit of the wearer not the onlooker. I didn't make a note but I think the men called it something like the "bus conductor's badge" (no reflection, etc etc). It's reminiscent of the dislike reportedly expressed for the Coronation Dress and early No. 1 Dress blues because they were reminiscent of a postman's uniform. No danger of that today...

[jf42]

Originally Posted by jf42

.

I managed to track down a copy of Wylly's 'History of the Manchester Regiment' (1923). According to notes by D. Hastings-Irwin (Appendix I ), the earliest appearance of the Fleur de Lys is found c.1784 on the epaulette of an officer's coat, a detail seen in officers' portraits from 1795 & 1797, which also show the FdL on shoulder belt plates (apparently not found elsewhere).

As a follow-up to the earlier discussion on the 'fleur d lis' of the 63rd Regiment and, subsequently, the Manchesters, I was interested to see posted in a discussion on another forum this link to a miniature portrait of 'An unknown officer of the 63rd ( West Suffolk) Regiment of Foot' by NATHANIEL PLIMER (1757-1822) described as:

"Besides being a fabulous portrait by Nathaniel Plimer, It also represents the earliest known instance of the regimental device of the 63rd - the fleur de lys.

Dated 1794 on the obverse"

http://www.ellisonfineart.com/portra...of-foot/248150