Tunic Facings

[Stuart Bates]

I was checking out a scarlet infantry tunic with regimental facings, this morning, and came across a confusing contradiction between the Dress Regulations and some other references.

It was the reforms of 1881 by Hugh Childers which abolished the numbering system for regiments and introduced territorial designations. At this time facing colours were rationalised to white for English and Welsh regiments, yellow for Scottish and green for Irish. However, my other reading tells me that from 1890 some regiments regained their original facings.

What is interesting (confusing) is that the Dress Regs. from 1883 onwards describe the tunic collar and cuffs as being in the regimental facings but then has a separate paragraph entitled Facings which states the national colours above and blue for Royal regiments.

The DRs are, prima facie, in direct contradiction to the Childers reforms.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Graham Stewart]

Facings as far as I'm aware under the 1881 Reforms, which were actually constituted by Cardwell and finished by Childers and are always known as the "Cardwell Reforms", were blue for Royal Regiments, this included the Guards, "Royal" Scottish and Irish regiments. White for non-Royal English and Welsh, green for non-Royal Irish and Yellow for non-Royal Scottish. The re-introduction of facings from my own studies and from photographs I've seen didn't make a re-appearance until c.1902.

However what you have to remember that this may not have included units then currently on the Indian establishment as British units in India wore a different pattern of scarlet jacket while in service there, which may have re-introduced facings earlier than the home units.

[Stuart Bates]

Hi Graham,

I used Childers because he actually implemented the reforms that I am concerned with, and you will often see the term Childers Reforms, but that is not relevant to my question.

I have seen various dates for the re-introduction of regimental facings and this varied by regiment - pity I didn't record the website.

However the basic problem for me is the contradictory paragraphs in the Dress Regulations.

Stuart

Edited March 12, 2010 by Stuart Bates

[Stuart Bates]

OK, found the website http://wapedia.mobi/en/Childers_reforms

The Buffs - White, changed to buff in 1890

The Northumberland Fusiliers - White, changed to gosling green in 1899

The Norfolk Regiment - White, changed to yellow in 1905

The Devonshire regiment - White, changed to Lincoln green in 1905

etc.

Stuart

[peter monahan]

Gentlemen

I don't begin to have your detailed knowledge of uniforms, especially in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. However,in the period I do study a little - Napoleonic era - much of the minutiae of British dress regulations were honoured as much in the breech as in the observance. Ranting letters from Horse Guards notwithstanding, units on service anywhere but Britain, and even units there with bloody-minded colonels often were 'unable to comply' or just plain didn't. The unavailability of materials in overseas postings rarely seemed to prevent inventive officers producing new local variants of uniform though it often made compliance with new [unwanted] changes in the regulations 'impossible'.

Without actual photos for our period it is trickier to make definite statements but from period illustrations and letters it was certainly the case thast many uniforms were worn with flagrant disregard for the regulations, with everything from regimental tradition to supply problems to 'The new one looks funny." offered as a defence. I understand that these practices are supposed to have been tidied up in the Victorian period, but the British Badge Forum contains a number personal anecdotes about regiments wearing King's Crown badges until the supply ran out, regardless the regs., and similar.

I am highly skeptical of notion of universal compliance with dress regs. in most armies in most periods: Treasured customs, canny quartermasters and hidebound officers trump paper printed in far away London any day!

My tuppence and change.

Peter

[Stuart Bates]

Hi Peter,

you are correct. It is well known that regulations were flouted by Colonels and even individuals of a regiment especially when on overseas service. And the propensity to use up superseded stock before issuing new pattern replacements was actively encouraged by the War Office.

However, my question relates specifically to the Dress Regulations apparent contradiction in their specification of facing colours. The description of the Tunic states"Scarlet cloth, with cloth collar and cuffs of the colour of the regimental facings..."

But a subsequent paragraph Facings states "Blue cloth for Royal regiments, white cloth for English (and Welsh) regiments, green cloth for Irish Regiments."

Is this an admission that some regiments did not conform to the national colours?

BTW: Scottish regiments are treated separately but still have the same wording for tunics and state yellow for facings.

Stuart

Edited March 12, 2010 by Stuart Bates

[leigh kitchen]

I'm a little confused by the wordng of post no. 1 Stuart - "What is interesting (confusing) is that the Dress Regs. from 1883 onwards describe the tunic collar and cuffs as being in the regimental facings but then has a separate paragraph entitled Facings which states the national colours above and blue for Royal regiments."

Are you finding a contradiction between the terms "regimental facings" & the reference to the simplified national facings, as in, if they're national then they're not regimental?

Just by the by,

Dress Regulations 1900:

Tunic – Scarlet cloth, with collar and cuffs of the colour of the regimental facings ..….

Facings – Blue cloth for Royal regiments, white cloth for English and Welsh regiments, green cloth for Irish regiments. In the “Buffs” (East Kent Regiment), the facings are of buff cloth. In the Northumberland Fusiliers, Gosling green. In the West Yorkshire Regiment, buff. In the Yorkshire Regiment, grass green. In the Queen’s Own (Royal West Kent Regiment) they are of velvet.

“Queen Victoria’s Highlanders (Osprey Men at Arms442, by Stuart Reid) states:

In 1899 the Seaforth Highlanders requested & were granted permission to wear buff facings.

“Their Glory Shall Not Be Blotted Out” (Lt Col Olaf MacLeod, Lutterworth Press 1986), mentions that the Buff’s buff facings date from 1667 although the colour at that time was variously described as “flesh” or “ash-coloured”.

[Graham Stewart]

Apologies for my error in stating c.1902, as it was in that year that the new jacket was introduced with the pointed cuff. As far as I'm aware the Northumberland Fusiliers certainly didn't regain their facings in 1899, as I have the regimental journal for that year and no mention or illustration shows them in wear. If my memory is correct it's the journal for 1900 that mentions and shows the restoration of the facings, but only by the 3rd and 4th Battalions as by then both the 1st & 2nd Bn's were serving in South Africa. I think I would be also correct in saying that it wasn't until 1903 that they actually saw their old facings, but by then the new pattern tunic had been introduced. However all all of my stuff is thousands of miles away and I'm going purely off memory.

[Stuart Bates]

I guess that I am wondering whether the DRs, in describing the tunic, are actually saying that regimental colours are used on collar and cuff if so allowed and the Facings para is saying that all other regiments will conform to the national colours.

If so then a round-about way of going about it.

Graham,

I specifically put in the reference to the Northumberland Fusiliers as I knew both you and Leigh would have a comment as to its veracity. However, the link I gave, which lists such details, does cite from some "impressive" sources.

Stuart

[Graham Stewart]

"The Childers Reforms restructured the infantry regiments of the British army. The reforms were undertaken by Secretary of State for War Hugh Childers in 1881, and were a continuation of the earlier Cardwell reforms."

I'm afraid I'm always suspect of these sites where in my opinion bits and piecs are taken from various sources which are then clubbed together and then become gospel. It's like the above copied first statement because as far as I'm aware it was Cardwell who was the brainchild behind "territorialisation" and thats what most of our histories quote, even down to pariamentry discussion. I have a brilliant academic history at home on the Victorian Army by a modern author which covers all of this.

As for the Northumberlands they certainly didn't have gosling green facings in 1899. I've been trying to post a photo here showing the 1st Bn, on the boat for South Africa in their frock coats complete with white facings. The following volume for 1900 of the regimental journal celebrates the return of the facings with a coloured plate to that effect, but it wasn't immediate and was slowly introduced both to the 3rd and 4th Bn's. As mentioned in my last post by the time the 1st and 2nd Bn's returned to the UK, the new pattern tunic with pointed cuff was already on it's way into universal wear at home.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Graham Stewart

[Graham Stewart]

At last, although cut down considerably - 1st Bn, NF on the boat for South Africa, 1899 with their frock coats still displaying white collars.

[Graham Stewart]

Senior NCO's and Officers 4th Bn, Northumberland Fusiliers 1904 clearly showing the new pattern scarlet jacket and new pointed cuff, which in they case of senior NCO's is trimmed with gold lace.

[Stuart Bates]

Hi Graham,

I did not doubt you, as I know that you have spent years researching the NFs. As I said, that is why I listed them to ensure that you responded.

Childers gives credit where it is due and it is unfortunate that some writers ascribe undue credit for the reforms to him. This is a transcript of a speech given by Childers in 1882 where he gives full credit to Cardwell.

http://freepages.gen...ganisation.html

However, he must be due some accolades for implementing the reforms that Cardwell didn't get to.

Stuart

PS. I will never use the term "The Childers Reforms" again :(

[Graham Stewart]

Stuart I have to agree that poor old Childers seems to get little credit for completing Cardwell's work, but politics works in mysterious ways to us laymen and alas he remains unrecognised. When I'm next at home I'll send you the title and author of the book I referred to earlier. Even though an academic work it was well written and a pleasure to read.

As for the NF sadly being stuck here means a lot of my responses are done from memory, when really I could do with all of my notes and books being to hand. Age doesn't help either as at coming up to 56 this year and the old grey matter just doesn't seem to hold what it once did. :beer: