James Hoard

Hello Lilo, While it is true that this type of award is given "to the individuals who had participated in the festivities or in preparations to them", ithey are commemmoratives and it is usually the case that very many more people receive them. At least that is the case with British Coronation and Jubilee medals. Indeed, with these it is true to say that more people who didn't attend received them than did attend the actual events. In the case of the UK 1937 Coronation and 1935 Jubilee medal they were automatically given to every ruling prince and his/her heir apparent. In India alone this meant over 500 states, before one starts counting Burma, Malaysia, Nigeria, etc. In the cases of Heirs Apparent I know of at least one case where the boy was born in 1937 itself and was so young that he hadn't even been given a personal name and is listed in the roll as "Yuvraj of X, unnamed". To me, it is inconceivable that the Duke of Connaught would not have received the wedding commemorative of his elder brother in 1899, whether he was there at the actual celebrations or not. The medal commemorated the anniversary itself. Not really the event of its celebration. Supposing the celebratory events had to be postponed or cancelled for say bad weather or illness? Would the medal have been distributed? My answer would be surely yes, because there would still have been an anniversary. Just not a "party". Cheers, James

Normally, broad ribands are not worn with tuxedos in the UK, only one neck badge and one breast star. The above picture actually shows the President wearing, what we call here "white tie" or "evening dress". The Prince is wearing Windsor Uniform, which is only worn at Windsor Castle. This has scarlet lapells and cuffs, with three gilt buttons (on each front) bearing the garter star and Imperial crown, with two sets of two of the same buttons on the back of the jacket. In addition to the points made by Emmanuel, the over the shoulder method results in a lot of "pulling and stretching" when one sits down and rises, especially because of the starched shirt front. Then a bit of tugging to set things right afterwards. One can feel a bit like being imprisoned by a car seat belt. When one dines, one's stomach needs to be able to expand freely! On the Continent, I think they also wear sashes in the same way in Spain only. Most Commonwealth countries that have orders with sashes, wear them the same way, e.g. Malaysia, Tonga, Brunei. Cheers, James

Hi Scott, As far as I was given to understand all three were buried in the same grave, Major Baig, his wife and ten year old daughter. My guess is that the data entry bod accidentally typed in two entries for the wife instead of one for him. The second entry for the wife said "Baig, Diane Helen W/O Baig, Mirza M" then "UNKNOWN RELATIONSHIP TO VETERAN" "MAJ U.S.M.C." Obviously a bad hair day! Cheers, James

... but not Baig himself. Cheers James

Thanks Scott, I would never have thought of just using "VA" in the search terms but it worked. Though the result was a little hit and miss. It gave Baig's daughter and his wife

Thanks Scott, I would never have thought of just using "VA" in the search terms but it worked. Though the result was a little hit and miss. It gave Baig's daughter and wife

Again, Many, many thanks Emmanuel for posting this lovely medal. Odd really that they should call it a coronation when there is no crown and no act of crowning. Installation may be a better description. But ah, in a world where the US president now has a "coronation" at which they sing songs to the tune of "God Save the Queen", I suppose anything goes. Cheers James

I have done a little more "digging" on this gentleman and it seems that his had "previous form". Apparently he was pulled up by the British authorities for wearing a crown device on his shoulder, similar to the rank badge of a major (see picture from ca 1938). The online National Archives website has a file labelled "File 26-G(S)/1944 Use by the Raja of Jath of a Crown on his shoulder resembling to Royal Crown of England IOR/R/1/4/182 1944". So, perhaps the 1911 Delhi Durbar medal, third from right in the above picture, was "self assumed" after 1947 when the Brits were safely out of the way! As regards the unidentified medals/decorations between the India Independence Medal and the 39/45 Star, the device of the third seems to resemble that on the India General Service Medal. Any comments appreciated Cheers, James

Not really sure about that one, Hugh. The British units that took part in the Battle of Paoli in 1777 seem to have been: 16th Light Dragoons. 2nd Battalion Light Infantry (made up of the light companies from 13 regiments) 40th Foot, later The Prince of Wales's Volunteers (South Lancashire Regiment). 42nd Foot, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment). 44th Foot, later Essex Regiment. 55th Foot, later Border Regiment. Cheers, James

Good morning Emmanuel Thank you very much for posting this medal. Indeed, you are very right. Very hard to find Swazi decorations for sale. Even finding detailed information and images is hard. I wrote to Cleave & Co in London but they refused. I could understand about images, but they even refused to give out any information about the orders, date of founding, classes or award criteria all on the grounds of confidentiality. Hard to understand how the last three were confidential, but there you go. Cheers, James

Quite frankly, I do not know what the Trent Affair of 1862 has to do with the War of 1812, so shall pass on commenting on that one. Official outrage, diplomatic notes, articles in the press, demonstrations, public meetings over the seizure of diplomatic personnel are all very different from a impressing a few tars and then using that to justify an invasion. By the way, which article of the Jay Treaty disallows impressing tars? I cannot quite find the section or clause myself. It must be somewhere in the verbage, but my copy of the old print makes it difficult to read. As for seizure of ships and cargoes, that is certainly allowed by the treaty. I have already quoted from the relevant article once, but do so again because you seem to wilfully disregard the evidence put before you. Article XVII specifically does not prohibit the stoppage of vessels, but actually says that they can be stopped for suspected contraband. Article XVIII goes on to specify the types of materials that can be considered contraband ?cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, car-casses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket rests, bandoliers, gun-powder, matches, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, head-pieces, cuirasses, halberds, lances, javelins, horse-furniture, holsters, belts, and generally all implements of war; as also timber for ship-building, tar or rozin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted; and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to the enemy?. Note especially that it does not say "... timber for [WAR]ship-building, & etc" it simply says "ship-building, & etc" So that whole section is a rather clever catch-all which the American negotiators obviously missed. Too bad. They should have been awake at the time, and so should the Congress which approved it. As for using local people, I have not claimed that they were not used. It is I who pointed out that First Nation officers served during the War of 1812. But the crucial point is "during". They joined in the defence of Canada and in the proscecution thereafter. Britain did not stir them up in preparation for war with the US. The US was quite capable of stirring them up on their own account without any help from the British whatsoever. The Native American peoples normally resident in US territory who joined the British did so because the US itself had alienated them. Tecumseh, who became such a hero to the Canadians, had been alienated by US highhandedness in November 1811. He did not join the British (in the taking of Detroit) until August 1812, two months after the US declared war and then invaded. If Britain really had aimed at War with the US, British North America would not have had such a small garrison composed of veteran's battalions and militia guarding her. Nor would the US invasion of Canada have had to be repulsed by French-Canadian militia. If a War had been intended, British North America would have been bristling with a strong force of regular troops above and beyond the normal defence establishment. In actual fact, it was considerably run-down well below the normal establishment. Prevost's orders from the government were to defend, not invade. It is only when the US invaded on the 12th of July and they were easily defeated that Brock felt free to order offensive operations. Evidence of the very opposite of an intention to attack the US. What actually happened was that the US saw that the British were heavily engaged in a World War in Europe, on the seas and India at the time and thought that Canada was simply a "matter of marching". They had designs on the British North American territories. Period. All the rest are patently threadbare attempts at justification. Cheers James PS The Fenian Raids were a "one time event" which happened six times; thrice in 1866, once in 1870, and once in 1871.

You keep saying this, but every example you have given so far is either disproved or can easily be explained. Usually, what is being claimed as being in the treaty isn't in the treaty at all. This is quite clear from the examples I presented earlier and which you have not refuted. As for the Native Americans who moved to Canada one can just as easily say in terms of atrocities that they were fleeing from American atrocities committed against them. My meaning wasn't about simple individuals or little groups flitting accross the border area back and forth to cause trouble, like Fenians in reverse. On the contrary, I was talking about whole tribes or septs of tribes that decided to permanently migrate and settle in British territory.

The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done), That is an American claim, not established fact. The treaty established the right of Native Americans to freely travel between the territories of both the USA and the Britain. They are human beings with loyaties and prejudices of their own, entirely capable of choosing their own friends and enemies without prompting from anyone. And, likewise advising their fellow compatriots to do the same. That many preferred the British to the US wasn't unreasonable, since between the two, the ballance of harshness was greater on the American side. Indeed, some of the leaders among their number were far from simpletons. They included sophisticated and educated men of standing. During the war to come, several served as fully commissioned officers in the British Army. In the century to come, they were to make the choice even more plain to see. Whole tribes voted with their feet and migrated to Canada. putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done) Article XVII specifically does not prohibit the stoppage of vessels, but actually says that they can be stopped for suspected contraband. Article XVIII goes on to specify the types of materials that can be considered contraband ?cannon, muskets, mortars, petards, bombs, grenades, car-casses, saucisses, carriages for cannon, musket rests, bandoliers, gun-powder, matches, saltpetre, ball, pikes, swords, head-pieces, cuirasses, halberds, lances, javelins, horse-furniture, holsters, belts, and generally all implements of war; as also timber for ship-building, tar or rozin, copper in sheets, sails, hemp, and cordage, and generally whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels, unwrought iron and fir planks only excepted; and all the above articles are hereby declared to be just objects of confiscation, whenever they are attempted to be carried to the enemy?. As for impressing crews. There was no official policy of seizing and impressing Americans. Establishing a person's identity or nationality in the late 1790's and early 1800's wasn't a simple matter of asking them to present their passport. allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done). Again, a misreading of the treaty. Actually, it only allowed for vessels to trade between ports in the Caribbean territories and the United States. It did not allow free trade per se. Not trade by American vessels to other countries, nor American immigration and settlement, nor coastal trade and a number of other types of trade. Article XIII, for example, included the following: ?And the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited?. So at the end of the day either side only actually allowed trade which they did not prohibit! The free trade clause, Article XIV, concerned HM?s European territories and the US. To look at the reverse of the coin, the Mississipi was supposed to be open to British trade and British vessles. That never happened. Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. On the other hand, one could say that signing a treaty, then misrepresenting its terms in order to claim a breach is bad faith in itself. Now, one can claim that the US negotiators was hoodwinked, that they were not as skilled in negotiating the terms as their British counterparts, that they settled on terms that their fellows agreed not. These are all valid points to make. But ignoring or deliberately misreading the contents of the treaty the US signed up to in order to claim British bad faith is simply not on. Cheers James

"The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done)" That is an American claim, true. Not an established fact. The treaty allowed for the free movement of native Americans between the two territories. They are human beings with loyalties and prejudices of their own. Perfectly capable of choosing sides and agitating or not agitating amongst their fellows all upon their won account, without the help or prompting of the British. In the century to come, whole tribes were quite capable of making up their own minds, voted with their feet, and migrated to Canada. "putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done)" While true, that wasn't a question of official policy to specifically target Americans and impress them by force. Establishing a person's nationality in the 1790's and early 1800's wasn't simply a question of asking them to present a passport. ", and allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done)". And the Mississipi was supposed Actually that isn?t quite so. For example, the treaty only allowed for vessels to trade between ports in the territories and the United States. Not free trade per se, not trade by American vessels to other countries. It also prohibited American immigration and settlement, coastal trade, trade between British territories and a number of other types of trade. Article XIII, for example, even included the following: ?And the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited?. The free trade clause, Article XIV, concerned HM?s European territories and the US. Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. One source I've read suggests the "strong arm" actions were a show of force suggesting "don't mess with us" or else we'll get really mad, with the objective of presenting a perception to Americans that Britain was far stronger than the reality of the situation. Some might call it the idea of a strong defense is a strong offense. Well, claiming that the treaty says one thing, when it clearly does not, seems to be a an undisputed act of the bad faith on the part of the party misrepresenting the treaty.

"The Jay Treaty called for the British to stop agitating American Indian tribes in the NW (not done)" That is an American claim, true. Not an established fact. The treaty allowed for the free movement of native Americans between the two territories. They are human beings with loyalties and prejudices of their own. Perfectly capable of choosing sides and agitating or not agitating amongst their fellows all upon their won account, without the help or prompting of the British. In the century to come, whole tribes were quite capable of making up their own minds, voted with their feet, and migrated to Canada. "putting an immediate and final stop to halting US flag-carrying ships and forcibly impressing crews, (not done)" While true, that wasn't a question of official policy to specifically target Americans and impress them by force. Establishing a person's nationality in the 1790's and early 1800's wasn't simply a question of asking them to present a passport. ", and allowing expanded American trade to certain ports in the Caribbean (also not done)". And the Mississipi was Actually that isn?t quite so. For example, the treaty only allowed for vessels to trade between ports in the territories and the United States. Not free trade per se, not trade by American vessels to other countries. It also prohibited American immigration and settlement, coastal trade, trade between British territories and a number of other types of trade. Article XIII, for example, even included the following: ?And the citizens of the said United States, may freely carry on a trade between the said territories and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation respectively, to or from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited?. The free trade clause, Article XIV, concerned HM?s European territories and the US. Signing a treaty agreement and then not adhering to the terms is bad faith. Why Britain pursued these and other actions despite the terms of the Treaty are subject to speculation. One source I've read suggests the "strong arm" actions were a show of force suggesting "don't mess with us" or else we'll get really mad, with the objective of presenting a perception to Americans that Britain was far stronger than the reality of the situation. Some might call it the idea of a strong defense is a strong offense. Well, claiming that the treaty says one thing, when it clearly does not, seems to be a an undisputed act of the bad faith on the part of the party misrepresenting the treaty.

If I intended quoting you, I would have used quotation marks. I did not. As far as I know Australia was originally settled by the Aboriginals, not the English. The British, not English, arrived very much later. The empire ceased having any relevance to Britain so far as Australia was concerned in 1931. Even so, Australia demanded and received the insertion of specific clauses exempting it from certain aspects of independence given by that legislation. Nevertheless, it still decided not to pass even the watered down version into its own laws. It only did that when circumstances demanded it over the stationing of foreign (US and Dutch) troops on Australian soil during WW2. The VC for Australia wasn't copied from its British counterpart until 1991.

Sounds to me like you are amply demonstrating American bad faith, rather than British! Cheers, James

Curtailed not eliminated. Besides continental America, they also had substantial interests and bases in the West Indies. Their interests in the region were far from over. Cheers, James

Perhaps you missed my answer. I said refer to post 6. I was responding to a post which seemed to suggest that the actions of the recipient were more in line with the standards of the GC rather than the VC. Not some offshoot of the empire? Foreign flag? Funny thing to say in a series of posts about a decoration copied hook, line and sinker from that so-called foreign country!

Refer to post 6. Incidentally, 1) the VC isn't a medal, it is a decoration and 2) the GC is in the Australian table fo awards, it is simply not awarded there any longer.

Conditions of award for GC and VC respectively. George Cross: ?It is ordained that the Cross shall be awarded only for acts of the greatest heroism or of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger? Victoria Cross: ?most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy? Source: UK Ministry of Defence Cheers, James Hoard

No, it is the breast star of the Order of the Black Eagle blue enamelled Garter with motto of the English Order of the Garter. I have a picture of it somewhere and will see if I can find it again and make a scna, but I cannot quite remember where it is right now. Note also that there is no "Grand Cross" of the Black Eagle. It was a single class order of "Knights". Cheers, James

Mark, He succeeded his father Wilhelm I as Emperor Friedrich III but died after a very short reign after contracting throat cancer. His wife was Victoria, the Princess Royal, eldest daughter of Queen Victoria. They were the parents of the notorious Wilhelm II "Kaiser Bill". Cheers, James

I do not know about American designs being minimal. They included places like Bermuda, the Bahamas and the West Indies. One forgets nowadays that the economic value of just Jamaica and Barbados exceeded the whole of the then United States. James

Perhaps not. There wouldn't have been a reason for the confederation if an American threat had not existed. James