Peter35

On the subject of Boy Drummers (as opposed to Boy Soldiers): I've been researching three RA ancestors who enlisted as underage "Drummer & Trumpeter"s at ages 11, 13 and 14 between 1819 and 1853 and subsequently attested at age 18 I've come across these youngsters: Colour Sergeant John Murray ….. 50th Foot ….. enlisted 1786 ….. aged 5, "youngest boy recruit to (TACA's) knowledge ….. beats:" James Wade ….. 9th Foot ….. served throughout Peninsular Campaign ….. aged 7 (http://www.archhisto...ca/history.html) Lieut General/Major General Joseph Brome…. RA …. enlisted 1741 / 1751 … aged 8 (http://www.revwar75..../musician1.htm; http://gihs.gold.ac.uk/gihs24.html) David Morton ….. RA ….. enlisted 1815 ….. aged 9 (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/t ... 1164212562) Quartermaster Sergeant James McKay ….. RA ….. enlisted 1803 ….. aged 11 (http://www.reubique.com/mckay.htm) William Lang ... RA … enlisted 1853 ….. aged 12 … served two years, Crimea (Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 1932, XI, No 42) "In general, drummers were sons of soldiers who were on strength with the regiment …" (http://rnchs.ca/tattoo/band02.html) CCP Lawson quotes Bennett Cuthbertson: "Of this [preferred] sort, the soldiers' children afford a sufficient supply, and a preference is to be given them, for the sake of serving the father (if he deserves it) and because such boys from being bred in the regiment from infancy, have a natural affection and attachment to it and are seldom induced to desert having no other place to take shelter at." (Lawson, CCP, A History of the Uniforms of the British Army. Volume III, p 122) Interestingly, Lawson continues: "Boys under fourteen, however, were an encumbrance to a regiment, especially on service, as they were often "unable to bear fatigue or even carry their drums on a march", which got damaged by being placed on the wagons". The fathers of all my three were RA. Two fathers died while serving. In the case of the 11 year old, he enlisted the year his mother died. He had three other younger siblings. Drummer Thomas Flinn, 64th Foot, (together with another 15 year old) is the youngest ever winner of the VC. Indian Mutiny, November 28, 1857: "during a charge on the enemy's guns, although wounded himself, he engaged in a hand-to-hand encounter with two of the rebel artillerymen killing them and capturing the artillery piece".(http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/cornwell.htm)

Posts 10 & 11 discuss the apparent contradiction in Kipling and King of two 1896 Helmet plates for the AOD ….. and AOC. It seems the confusion is caused by Kipling and King stating the facts so baldly. Mike Comerford, on his History and Insignia of the British Army Ordnance Services site, quotes from: Appendix 'B' to Précis No. DEP 4/17 - 'The Corps Badge' published by the RAOC School (Revised May 1956), with comments of his own. With regard to 1896, he comments: "Two designs of Helmet Plate exist for both the AOD & AOC - Monogrammed & 'Ordnance Shield'." (http://homepage.ntlw...ORDNANCE/09.htm)

Continuing to answer my own question (Post #14), the print in question is included on the Grosvenor Prints web site with the following details: British Royal Artillery. Field Battery Marching Order. Drawn by Wm. Heath. Printed by Graf and Soret. London, Published by Colnaghi & Co., No. 23, Cockspur Street, Charing Cross. Printsellers in Ordinary to His Majesty & to H.R.H. the Duchess of Kent. [n.d. c.1840.] Lithograph in frame. 277 x 407mm. 10¾ x 16". From "Heath's Royal Artillery. c.1840. No. 1." From the Collection of Major J.B. Talbot M.C. R.A. Ogilby: 410. [(Grosvenor Prints’:)Ref: 12998] The print I am endeavouring to identify / locate is described: “In a coloured print published by Ackerman in 1840, entitled “Royal Artillery”, a field gun is shown in action. “In the centre of the picture, in the background, is a Trumpeter, mounted – red coat, and blue grey trousers. “The NCO and Gunners of the detachment are in full dress – dark blue coatee ……. blue grey trousers ….. ” (Journal of the Society For Army Historical Research, Vol II, 1923, October, No 10, Replies. 88, p 163) As an aside, these three separate images of the same print illustrate the difficulties that can be encountered in relying on postings of images. Whereas the British Empire image depicts a clear and definite red coat of a Trumpeter; Leigh’s is a muted brown colour; and Grosvenor Prints’ is a definite blue!, albeit a mid blue compared with the dark blue coatees of the other artillerymen. On the other hand, only the Grosvenor Prints’ image depicts blue grey trousers. Incidentally, full details of the corrupted link in my previous post: britishempire.co.uk, Armed Forces, Army, Uniforms, Artillery, Royal Artillery, Pre 1850

Perhaps answering my own question (Post #12), there is a clearer image of the print posted by Leith in Post #5 on http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyuniforms/britishartillery/ra1840.htm i) Titled: Artillery Exercising, 1840 ii) Litho print by William Heath iii) which clearly shows mounted trumpeter in a red coat

Hello Leigh. Is "A Field Battery Royal Artillery, Marching Order, Circa 1830, published by RA Printing Press Ltd, circa 1960's" in your post #5 by any chance: a print published by Ackermann in 1840 entitled "Royal Artillery"? I'm reasonably certain the artist was William Heath. If not, I would appreciate anyone directing me to where I could find an image of that print. I'm interested in the mounted Trumpeter that's reported as "in the centre in the background". Although not in the centre, the horseman in the front extreme left does appear to be wearing the Trumpeter's red coat. Thanks.