Trooper_D

Thanks, Prussian. What's the badge on the front of his hat, do you know? Now, that made me laugh! Found two more of them with face-on views of the hat and badge.

Again, a great photo, Prussian. I wonder if you or anyone else would be kind enough to tell me what this gentleman is wearing? It looks like the kind of thing one might wear in South West Africa rather than Belgium.

Thank, I look forward to seeing it, Prussian. Would you be kind enough to post a link to it, here, when the thread is started so we don't miss it? Thanks again.

What a wonderful photo, Prussian, with much to discuss - I have a number of questions I want to ask about it - but perhaps off topic, so not here. Why don't you post it in a new thread so we can deconstruct it?

Are there any labels or stamps on the inside of these tunics, Dave?

Mike I think it might be a mistake to think in terms of 'Aussies', with the informality that implies, during the nineteenth century. I'm sure that they would all think of themselves as 'Brits', with all the formality - including uniforms - that that implies!

Mike Some quick searches on Google suggest that it is colonial. A Convict Department was certainly set up in Australia and, perhaps South Africa as well - PM Mervyn Mitton as he might like to comment on the SA connection. Some links for you. This thread asks pretty much the same question you have, http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21042 Here is a cap badge (from the back, so the lettering is in reverse), with a similar design, from Australia, http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=303337 Here is a newspaper article, dated 1836, concerning the setting up of the Convict Department in Australia, http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3340027 I hope that helps.

Fascinating story, Enzo. Historical anomalies like this one are always interesting (although I suppose a Turk serving in the Imperial German army isn't such a surprise, considering their respective military links).

Thanks for your clarification, Kasle, and for posting a photo of the rear of you button. As we all know, sometimes the rear of a button/badge/medal is as informative as its front.

OK, I did say things could be murky in the world of the St John's orders! Upon further investigation, it appears that the 'official' Military Order of St John uses different crowns according to grade within the order. To illustrate this, see this Pinterest page, which appears to show official awards of the order, wherein a variaty of crowns can be seen, including a version very similar to that on Kasle's button-hole badge. https://www.pinterest.com/HistorySeeker/decorations-of-the-order-of-malta/ It therefore seems that a Russian connection was a red herring and that Kasle's badge is official. My apologies, Kasle, for the doubt I may have cast on it. I would be most obliged if anyone could point me to an authoritative source which could explain these variations.

After their expulsion from Malta by Napoleon, the Military Order of Malta came under the protection of Czar Paul I in 1798 and elected him Grand Master. After Paul's assassination in 1801, his son, Czar Alexander I, appears to have rescinded the protection his father granted. Thereafter, things get murky and, despite Alexander's attitude, some of the so-called false St John's orders claim their legitimacy from Czar Paul's original act of benevolence. I have tried to summarise a very complicated situation in too few sentences, so more can be learnt here (scroll down to the heading 'After 1789'), http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/ordmalta.htm I suspect, therefore, this lapel-badge might be associated with one of the 'Russian' Orders of St John - and interesting it is too, as a result.

I'm afraid the anniversary had passed me by, so thank you for reminding us, Bernhard.

I just wanted to say what an interesting thread this has been and I'm hoping that, if it is bumped, either someone will have an answer for North Denmark or some other information will be posted.

What an interesting post, aussiesoldier, thank you. Indeed he was, and a very sobering read his account of the realities of the charge of the 21 Lancers is too (particularly from p.190 onwards), which can be found at this link, https://archive.org/stream/rovingcommissino001321mbp#page/n219/mode/2upParticularly germane to your post is that, due to a preexisting injury - a dislocated shoulder caused in an accident when boarding a boat - Churchill went into the battle with his famous Mauser pistol as his sidearm rather than a sword. He wrote (p.101)

Thanks for the update, Iver.

To answer my own question, it seems he was still going strong in 1916, as an Oberst. I have to conclude that he wasn't a British subject - by this point, if he ever was - as I would doubt that his employment would have been continued after 4 August 1914. Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vi5VAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=mannock

Good spot, Markgraf - and he was still there in 1914, as senior Major! I wonder what happened next? :-(

​Thank you, Hugh. At this stage, it was purely curiosity but should that change, I will get back to you.

Top marks for initiative, Hugh! Google is not helping me, greatly, so, as a matter of interest, can you recall which Danish order it was, please?

​Top tip!

Just wonderful, Hugh!​

Thank you for your comprehensive and informative post (which I have filed away for future reference), Lambert, and for allowing us to see your example of this wonderful award.

​Thank you, Stefan. So not 'official' at all.

​How interesting. Thanks for pointing out such a useful website.

​Nice photo, Deruelle. What is the medal, please, and why is he wearing the badge hanging from a bow rather than a normal medal ribbon? I would normally associate bows with medals awarded to women.