Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club


Silver Membership
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About jf42

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. As I said previously, the Cameronians no longer have a dedicated regimental museum operated in the way as, say, the Black Watch Museum is run. It is part of a wider municipal body, with limited display space, and with storage space that is not infinite either. The museum will have very limited footfall being somewhat off the beaten track The permanant staff will probably also have duties eleswhere. It is undoubtedly of niche interest and its battered state means it is less likely to be displayed. Perhaps the best you can do is record and describe the item clearly and send the museum a file for their archives. You might also let them know where it has gone to, if that is appropriate.
  2. Tell us about the bearskin plumes again, Dad!
  3. The Cameronians Musuem is not a dedicated regimental institution but part of a municipal set up organised in Lanarkshire under the umbrella of 'Leisure and culture.' How many of those dealing with its archives and exhibits have personal connection with, or specialist knowledge of the regiment, I couldn't say for sure but it is not likely to be many. A handful of volunteer enthusiasts at best, given that the regiment disbanded fifty years ago. A subject as niche as the identification of the bugler's cap may very well tax their resources. As you can see, you will have to look elsewhere for information on your man Jacobs. As a general enquiry, you may have some luck from the National War Museum at Edinburgh Castle. They are very helpful there, even though they won't have specialist knowledge of the Cameronians or be able to help you trace an individual. Also, bear in mind that it is August and everything will move slowly until after the holidays. Especially in Edinburgh. It's festival time! Good luck.
  4. Grey C, try posting your photo here. http://www.victorianwars.com/index.php There you'll find a group with a concentrated body of knowledge and expertise relating to this period, including the authors of the uniformology site, who like nothing more than to investigate conundrums such as yours.
  5. PS. I have been told by a member of the British and Commonwealth Badge Forum that in 'The History of The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles)' by John Baynes, there is a photograph of a Bugle Major wearing a Rifles cap/ 'busby'. We don't as yet know which battalion or have a date for that. I am intrigued.
  6. Greetings. Your badge relates to the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, an entirely different regiment, so, ah, best not. In relation to the battered busby, I stand to be corrected but I have never seen reference to a Rifles 'busby' worn by the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles). When the regiment was formed from the union of the 26th Cameronians Regt and the 90th (Perthshire) Light Infantry in 1881, all Rifle regiments were ordered to wear a cloth covered Home Service Helmet in Full Dress. Circa 1890, after much lobbying, "the hideous black helmet" was done away with. The 2nd pattern Rifle 'busby' was introduced for the Rifle Brigade, KRRC and Irish Rifle regiments. A little later, the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) adopted a Rifle green shako instead (based on the 'last model' shako worn by Line infantry up until 1878.) As I say, I stand to be corrected, but I have only ever seen pictures of their buglers wearing either the Full Dress shako unique to the regiment or the glengarry undress bonnet/ forage cap. One possibility to be considered relates to the fact that the marriage of the 26th and the 90th in 1881 was something of a 'shotgun' affair, with the 1st Bn (26th) and the 2nd Bn (90th) doggedly and defiantly maintaining their separate identities well into the C20, referring to themselves respectively as The Cameronians and the Scottish Rifles. The 2nd Battalion embraced their Rifles identity whole-heartedly, having been fitted out as a light infantry corps when raised in 1793. It may be that for a short period the 2nd Battalion (Scottish Rifles) put their buglers in Rifle caps, when these were introduced circa 1890, before the Regiment adopted the shako for all circa 1892. The 2nd Bn were in India until 1895.. I can't decide whether that makes this scenario more or less likely. The 1st Bn, meanwhile, were in England until 1894 I have to say, I am not very convinced myself.
  7. Greetings. The two white horsehair 'plumes' with red tops, between the Foot Guards items mentioned above, are likely to be to Other Ranks of the Northumberland Fusiliers/ Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, for wear in the Full Dress fusilier fur cap. There are a number of threads on the forum relating to these regiments.
  8. The chapeau is technically a 'cap of maintenance' and latterly signifies gentry rather than the rank of peer. My g.grandfather, of comparively humble stock, was granted one in his coat of arms by the Lord Lyon in 1912
  9. The 10th Prince of Wales's Own Hussars badge featured the PoW's emblem of the three feathers over the motto "ich dien' and the regimental title, while the 11th Prince Albert's On Hussars badge featured the crest of the Prince Consort, "a pillar charged with the arms of Saxony rising out of the ducal coronet and also crowned with a similar coronet out of which rise 5 peacock feathers with the motto TREU UND FEST meaning 'Faithful and Strong'." I would say the collar badge in the OP photograph clearly shows the latter.
  10. Indeed, the Fosten images were clearly based on the Morier paintings; a remarkable resource, (although incidentally, I believe the date of the set is more usually estimated between 1749 and 1751, which may be based more on official papers relating to the uniforms illustrated than any more forensic detail relating to the artist or the paintings themselves). Your point about the Morier grenadiers being painted from life is an interesting one, given that the regiments of the British army were dispersed around the kingdom, colonies and other foreign possessions ( the same observation applies to the less ambitious Dayes set comissioned by Howgill for the Duke of York in the early 1790s). The likelihood of an individual from each regiment, fully dressed and accoutred, or even said clothing and accoutrements on their own, being sent to Morier's studio for him to paint, is not great. There may have been some sealed items stored in London, although at this point in history, so many elements being at the discretion of the Colonels rather than presscribed by central authority, I doubt that much data for Morier's set could have come from that source. I believe by the mid-C18th regimental lace was being logged centrally to ensure consistency and to avoid duplication but, apart from that resource, Morier may therefore have had to work up his figures mostly from written information. As for those fronds/vines, we can only guess. They are clearly there to fill space according to the shape of the individual badges or monograms, although the distinctive examples shown for the 17th and 32nd are both fitting round the standard "GR" rather than the individual badges of the 'Old Corps.' As the illustrations show, even the 'GR" emblem presented considerable variation. Given the cottage industry element in uniform manufacture at this time, quality control and consistency of execution was not as likely as the word 'uniform' might suggest. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.
  11. Thanks Flash heart for posting this reference material. This question is slighty off topic but I notice that the Fosten article nor any other commentary refers to the decorative fronds flanking the badges on the front of the grenadier caps illustrated. These vary considerably in form and seem in the case of some regiments to represent something more specific, in the colour of leaves, buds or fruit as it may be. e.g. the 6th, 17th and 32nd Regiment examples. Anyone care to hazard a guess as how we might describe these decorative elements?
  12. Can't argue with the numbers. Looks like it's WO 12 for you, my lad.
  13. That would seem to be a valid working hypothesis; perhaps the most convincing element being the claim made in the land grant application- (athough technically, simply by enlisting in August 1783, one might argue he served two months before the war was officially ended, but that is not an area I have knowledge of). It seems to be quite common that, for operational reasons, Muster Rolls might be completed some time after the end date for the period they covered. It's not impossible that the relevant facts were lost, although presumably the bulk of the men (allowing for the odd death or desertion) would have been present in Nova Scotia to provide the relevant information anew when records were being adjusted. I take it that the Muster Roll does not state where the new men were enlisted. Clearly, if it did then there would be no question. This detail could also have been supplied by the men. The recording of the new enlistments on the same day as the discharge of the group being sent back to Britain is interesting; one might even think conveniently neat, except that the army were unlikely to deal in approximate dates, since it would mean paying a man more, or less, than the amount he was due. Perhaps, these men were all enlisted 'in country' at the same place on the same day, from regiments that were shipping home. Another possibility is that these were American individuals from the Loyalist community, who were enlisting for want of other means to survive in their imminent exile. Is there a possibility that your ancestor was a colonial; perhaps even a soldier in one of the Provincial or Loyalist units? All that said, in case I didn't express myself clearly, I think it is worth restating that, while the 57th Regiment were undoubtedly in New York in the summer of 1783, recruiting parties of the regiment, meanwhile, would have been operating back in Britain, as they would have been throughout the war. One thing we can be sure of is that the party shipped back to Britain in August 1783 were not discharged simply because they had become surplus to requirement. Losing ten out of sixteen trained drummers at one time would have been inconvenient. After seven years of campaigning, ill health and general exhaustion may have resulted in the older, or less robust men being weeded out. With the regiment only numbering 352 in November 1781 and 77 men being sent home in August 1783, the 57th with a peace establishment of about 450 enlisted men would certainly have been in need of men, whether they found them locally or 'at home.' Anyway, good luck. Let us know how you get on.