peter monahan

Interesting. I did a very quick search through Google and every one of the 35+ references was to this award ceremony, not a single reference to the award itself, the granting monarch or his 'people'. Wish I had more time to explore this one!

Bilco's selection earlier is also a favourite of mine, and fairly well known, appearing in various anthologies. here is a companion poem, less commonly seen, by the same pote: LESSONS OF THE WAR II. JUDGING DISTANCES Not only how far away, but the way that you say it Is very important. Perhaps you may never get The knack of judging a distance, but at least you know How to report on a landscape: the central sector, The right of the arc and that, which we had last Tuesday, And at least you know That maps are of time, not place, so far as the army Happens to be concerned—the reason being, Is one which need not delay us. Again, you know There are three kinds of tree, three only, the fir and the poplar, And those which have bushy tops to; and lastly That things only seem to be things. A barn is not called a barn, to put it more plainly, Or a field in the distance, where sheep may be safely grazing. You must never be over-sure. You must say, when reporting: At five o'clock in the central sector is a dozen Of what appear to be animals; whatever you do, Don't call the bleeders sheep. I am sure that's quite clear; and suppose, for the sake of example, The one at the end, asleep, endeavors to tell us What he sees over there to the west, and how far away, After first having come to attention. There to the west, On the fields of summer the sun and the shadows bestow Vestments of purple and gold. The still white dwellings are like a mirage in the heat, And under the swaying elms a man and a woman Lie gently together. Which is, perhaps, only to say That there is a row of houses to the left of the arc, And that under some poplars a pair of what appear to be humans Appear to be loving. Well that, for an answer, is what we rightly call Moderately satisfactory only, the reason being, Is that two things have been omitted, and those are very important. The human beings, now: in what direction are they, And how far away, would you say? And do not forget There may be dead ground in between. There may be dead ground in between; and I may not have got The knack of judging a distance; I will only venture A guess that perhaps between me and the apparent lovers, (Who, incidentally, appear by now to have finished,) At seven o'clock from the houses, is roughly a distance Of about one year and a half.

James Live and learn! Although, I should know better than to spout the conventional about official racism without stopping to think. And, obviously, most rules have exceptions. I know, for example, that there were two Parsis who served as city councillors in London boroughs before WWI, which would strike many as improbable and even African doctors in the West African colonial service even earlier, though they're tenure apparently ended when the 'memsahibs' arrived out there. I thought the same about the medal dimensions and wondered whether it might be a non-military award: civil, arts, or even fraternal[?]

Jean-Paul All correct. The Naval general service medal was authorized in 1847 and issued in 1848 but applied to actions going back to the 1780s. What's more, anyone who felt himself qualified for a medal and bar - there were about 200 bars - had to APPLY for it. That meant, especially for the older actions, only literate men, mostly officers, who read the London Gazette and heard of the medal, would have applied. In addition, many of the bars were for single ship actions or small boar raids, where there may have been as few as 50 participants. There are at least 2 or 3 bars for which no one applied. Lieutenant Andrew Bulger was the only recipient of the bar "3RD & 6TH SEPTEMBER 1814" to the NGS. With Lt Miller Worseley, Royal Navy, a few sailors and about 50 men of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, Bulger's unit, he attacked the American schooner Tigress. She was at anchor in Georgian Bay, Lake Huron and the British troops rowed up on her in the night and boarded, with only minor casualties. Two days later they sailed Tigress alongside the anchored US schooner Scorpion at dawn and repeated the feat. Bulger, Worseley and their men were mentioned in despatches and Bulger used the facts when he petitioned for a Captain's half pay [pension] after the War of 1812, even though he had not been promoted Captain. In fact, he was the only British officer to start AND end the war as a lieutenant. All the others died or were promoted while he, despite a very good record, was not, almost certainly due to his actions in 1814 down ion the Mississippi, where he embarrassed His Majesty's government, but that's another story! Bulger also received the Military General Service Medal with bars "DETROIT" and "CHRYSTLER'S FARM". The Newfoundlanders served at Detroit in 1812 and were mentioned in despatches by General Brock. In 1813 Bulger was serving on a small flotilla of what the British called 'mosquito boats' [small gunboats] which shadowed the US army which invaded Lower Canada en route to Montreal and at least the officer on those boats qualified for the bar. I understand from a member of the Newfoundland Reg't Museum's board that they paid about $15,000 Cdn for the medal.

Lovely collection of steel!

Yes, my first reaction on hearing of the sale was to wonder whether or not it might have been the widow 'making a statement' along the lines of "Thanks so much for a bit of tin, but how about a decent pension/settlement?". Not judging either way!

Me being sloppy again! I should know the difference between the Geneva and the Hague Conventions, even though I haven't a diplomatic bone in my body! Ask my wife or former students about that! Haven't read through either in decades, however, so forgot or never knew what exactly they did and didn't cover. Is it still 'foot in mouth' when one types it rather than says it? [blush] What particular bit of diplomacy was your forte, Irish? Enquiring minds wish to know. Peter

Excellent! :)

James I agree with the tentative dating on the uniform. Clearly not 1850s! Nor, frankly, would a non-white officer from the 1850s be very likely at all. The badge on the helmet looks like a Rifle regiment to me: Maltese cross with a crown on top. Can you make out any detail of even the ribbon on his single medal? I can't even see how many stripes it has, which would be some help. I take it the Bengal Assoc. publication is mute on his Major's rank. Possibly honorary, if he was an artist or man of letters? A most intriguing puzzle! Peter

Sounds reasonable. Good luck with the sale! Peter

# 2 is almost certainly a unit descended from the former Hyderabad State Forces [india],as Golconda was an important city, now ruined, in that state. I believe that #3 may be a formation sign [WWII] for Burma and #4 was a WWII British Armoured unit, raised in '40 or '41 and disbancec in 1945.

I'd not seen this thread before. I was going to guess Indian Police service, but it looks as if Gwynne has got it!

Gordon I know a little of nineteenth century uniforms, as I have made a few copies myself [1812-15 period] and seen many more and the details in your second lot of photos certainly look as if they are from the last century, when hand sewing was still the norm. So that plus the multiple washings suggests to me either a repro. worn by a re-enactor [hobbyist or historic military site staff] or something from the second half of the 19th. The combo. of machine and hand stitched is very very common for repro. costumes: long seams done by machine but details hand finished. Even 'museum quality' usually means that the invisible seams are machined and only the outside work hand done, so I'm tending to think that a good quality repro. is what you have. Very nice!

"Have You News of my Boy Jack? "Have you news of my boy Jack?" Not this tide. "When d'you think that he'll come back?" Not with this wind blowing, and this tide. "Has anyone else had word of him?" Not this tide. For what is sunk will hardly swim, Not with this wind blowing, and this tide. "Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?" None this tide, Nor any tide, Except he did not shame his kind - Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide. Then hold your head up all the more, This tide, And every tide; Because he was the son you bore, And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!" Doubly ironic because Kipling pulled strings and lied to help his son Jack get into the Army. Jack was posted 'Missing, presumed dead' after only three weeks at the front. R.I.P. them all.

Realithcheck Yes, same fellow: "Field Marshal Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts VC KG KP GCB OM GCSI GCIE VD PC (30 September 1832 – 14 November 1914) was a British soldier who was one of the most successful commanders of the 19th century. He served in the Indian rebellion, the Expedition to Abyssinia and the Second Anglo-Afghan War before leading British Forces to success in the Second Boer War. He also became the last Commander-in-Chief of the Forces before the post was abolished in 1904." [Wikipedia] He was also the model for W.S. Gilberts' "Modern Major General" from the "Pirates of Penzance". A great warrior as well as a soldier, but with the flaws all of us have. There's quite a nice little essay on him by the Kipling Society, giving Kipling - who knew him personally - assessment of him as a general and prehaps explaining why 'Bobs' was so beloved of the common soldier. It's here: http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_lordroberts_moore.htm

I'm sure the Geneva Convention had something to say about elephant guns, though probably not by that term. Certainly doesn't mean they weren't used though. Shot guns, definitely frowned on, were very efficient trench fighting weapons. A lot of it probably came down to what the business boys call a cost-benefit analysis: did the extra efficiency outweigh the extra weight and, probably more importantly, were the intended victims likely to do something nasty and permanent to the owner of such a weapon if captured? I believe, for example, that German WWI pioneer units ground the saw backs off their bayonets because being captured carrying one was a very good way to get shot by irate Tommies, who regarded them as cruel and unusual. [ As if getting perforated with a non-sawback bayonet were going to be any better!] However, as Mervyn, one of the First War mavens will undoubtedly have an answer or suggest a source for one, as well as correcting me if I'm wrong! BTW, welcome aboard! Peter

Steelbonnet A name in the collar is significant - see above for "Mark your kit, you horrible little man!" I did think of 'new but looks old' but that's not my area of rudimentary competence, never mind expertise, so I let it go. I'm sure that the knowledge that he was preserving a long standing piece of naval history was small consolation to Hugh in a navel emergency. Mervyn's point is also very good. I've seen many examples of genuine kit 'improved on' by theatrical and film costumers, often to the serious detriment of both authenticity and the survival of some really neat uniforms. Grrr! But that's another rant for another day. Peter

Bien sur! Otherwise we'd be climbing down, not up, and that can't be right!

Indeed! A very fine blade. Hope it went to a good home.

And then I looked back at the title of this thread and thought... 'Oh, what's the use. Might as well keep typing.' I blame it all on Rick. The global warming has melted his meds again!

Well you guys are, if nothing else, dependable! Always leaping joyfully into the taste abyss. But we have not yet reached the pinnacle of our depravity, so I guess I'll have to keep reading!

The style certainly looks as if it could be modelled on 19th century fashion. The fall front was standard in men's trousers throughout the first half of the century though apparently US Civil War era sailors were wearing fly front trousers, so the style may be earlier than the 1860s. Not sure exactly when that style of button came in but I want to say 1830-1840ish. The adjusting gusset and tie at the rear is also early 19th C or earlier. The absence of any markings at all is a bit troubling. I would have expected something sewn in or drawn on in permanent ink, as sailors and soldiers were penalized for losing kit and tended to mark everything! Some close up shots of the seams and inside construction would help but if they're machine stitched that puts them post 1860 which, with the early style, means a later construction in an earlier style, so they may be a well made costume or perhaps uniform for an historical site, long-running play or... who knows. Extra detail would help. Peter

Actually, Brian and I have met, once. Left Hobbiton and Hardbottle at dead of night and met at a ... wait for it... gun show! Of course it did make it a touch harder to pick Brian out of the crowd: "Look for a guy with a musket." Right up there with visitors I get at 1812 re-enactments, who are told: "I'll be wearing a red tunic." And when I got back I got a visit from the neighbourhood hobbit watch. Rumours I was hanging about with DWARVES! Even though Brian is all of 5 feet tall. But I'm glad to hear about the beer store. I was afraid that plus the feed mill weren't going to be enough to keep old Charlie in hard tack and kerosene, especially after the winter of '09-'10 when the road was closed for all those weeks. I think keeping the beer store open all day on Sunday, even if the rest of the time its by appointment, will improve the economic life of New Hamburg immensely. Peter [not a hobbit] Monahan [Do I have too much time on my hands, d'ya think?]

Chris That's unfortunate! To be diplomatic. Missed the first appearance but can I assume that the seller agreed to pull it when it was IDed as a possible bad'un?

Don't disbelieve you for a minute, but could you explain the differences, please? What I like best about this forum, besides Chris' beer photos, is the sharing of info. by many many members, each expert in his or her own field.