Just stumbled on this post, excellent photo's and thank you for sharing them!

Couple of questions if I may,

- Where are these wonderful plaques housed?

- The photograph of Pte. Popple 2/24th is one I have never seen, do you know the source of the original photograph, as I would love to have a better scan of the image?

Thanks,

David

Further to my last, some details on Pte. S. Popple 2/24 from Norman Holme's 'The Silver Wreath':

1709 Pte. Samuel POPPLE

The effects roll gives his number incorrectly as '1079'. Attested at Southwick on 21/2/65, aged 23 years 10 months. Served in 'G' Company, killed at the battle of Isandlwana January 22, 1879. Effects claimed by his widow, Medal and clasp '1877-8-9' issued on 7/4/81.

It is very rare to see named photographs of 24th Regt. other ranks, which is why I found the above photo so interesting.

My question still stands - any more information on the fantastic little photo of Popple would be much appreciated....

Hi Mons14

The photo was posted by Tim Needham. You can get hold of him through Admin.

Admin knows how to contact him for you.

I know it does not help much.

Mons14. Tim saw the question on the forum, and e-mail this before I could ask him.
Thanks Tim.

"In answer to the questions from 'mons14' reference the memorial to the men of the 1st & 2nd Battalions 24th Regiment, it is housed in the Regimental Chapel at Brecon Cathedral; the photo of Private S. Popple came from the Keynsham Light Horse. I would be obliged if you could pass this on to him."

Thanks so much for that guys, and to Tim for your help - I'm not familiar with the Keynsham Light Horse...forgive my ignorance, who are they and do they have a web site?

I'm out at the moment, so just a quick note will write a fuller response when I'm back home.

Thanks for your attention,

mons14

Hi. Mons14. Keynsham Light Horse http://www.1879memorials.com Unfortunately the website is no longer running. There main aim was to locate visit and record the Graves of those that took part in the Zulu War of 1879. Without their hard work and dedication nearly all of the photos on this forum and others would not exist. 1879Graves as stated. Rai is a senior member of the KLH and hopefully can give you some more information.

The photograph of the plaque is impressive and caught my attention for more then just that reason - I've just purchased the Isandlwana casualty medal to one of the 2/24th men whose name just happens to be clearly visible in the photo.

I will show you the medal, and identify the recepient once I actually have it in my hands in the next few days.

Very sad that the Keynsham Light Horse no longer has a web site. Is there any other way of making contact with this organization - does it operate as an archive to historians?

Thanks again for all your help,

mons14

I'm a new member who is researching 2038 Pte. Samuel WALKER 2/24
Attested at Sehffield on 23/7/63, apparently aged 19 years (though have reason to suspect he may have been born in 1850, not 1844, but don't know where). Served in 'G' Company. Effects claimed by his father. Medal and clasp '1877-8-9' issued 28/3/82 . My son has his medal, so I've been searching for weeks now on so many related sites and cannot find out any more information on this man, such as where he was born etc. Is he on any war memorial? Would there be more info at the regimental museum, and if so is it all now in Wales, even though he was in 2nd Warwickshire Foot? Would there be more information at TNA? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Linterburg and welcome.
2038 Samuel Walker KIA isandlwana is indeed on the memorial and I have no doubt the fundis on the site will be gathering the information for you

Hello linterbug and welcome to the forum.

Samuel Walker is mentioned in 'The Noble 24th' by Norman Holme, and is listed as attesting in Sheffield as you stated.

Your confusion about the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot now having it's regimental museum in Wales, comes about through the then governments meddling, and the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment being attached (wrongly in my opinion) to the 25th subdistrict which encompassed the South Wales border area, and later (again through government meddling), the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment now finds itself lost in Wales, however, there is little that anyone can do about that now, but I do understand your confusion and hope this explanation helps. The curator of the museum (Bill Cainan) is a member of the forum, he is a good man, and I am sure he will be able to help you with this if you pm him.

Regards, Martin.

Hi Linterbug
sadly, the muster rolls of the 2/24th, regimental diary etc, were all lost at iSandlwana. The records (attestation papers) etc of men who were deceased, were also discarded and further to this, many papers were destroyed in an air raid during WW2.
Therefore, sadly, very little joy will be found at Kew. Ususally, the man's biographical entry in the Noble 24h or Silver Wreath, both by Norman Holme is the sum total of all that there is available to these brave fellows.

Hi Linterbug

As Curator of the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh in Brecon, I would echo Tasker's comments. On Private Walker, we have Norman Holme's work, and that is it.

Also, I can not agree with Martin's statements regarding the 24th, and with which I must take issue. The moving of the 24th to Brecon in 1873 was done for very sound reasons (part of the Cardwell army reforms which included measures to rationalise recruiting), and was not the result of "government meddling". Also the Regiment is not "lost in Wales" - this is mischievous! The Royal Welsh has clear and firm traditions and is proud of its heritage. A heritage that includes different titles (our antecedent regiments include the 23rd Foot, the 24th Foot, the 41st Foot, the 69th Foot, the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, the 2nd (Warwickshire) Regiment, the South Wales Borderers, the Monmouthsire Regiment, the Welch Regiment, and the Royal Regiment of Wales ) and different locations. The Regimental Headquarters of The Royal Welsh is currently located in Cardiff and the Regiment is justifiably proud of its Welsh links.

Martin clearly has serious issues withg the Government deciding to move the 24th Regiment to Brecon in 1873, but it is now clearly too late for him to organise a petition to oppose the move !

Bill

Hi Linterbug

It looks like my friend Bill can't help you with this, which is a shame really, but at least your son has this mans medal.

It would also appear that Bill is getting a little confused with his statement. He first says that it wasn't government meddling that moved the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment to Brecon, but then later, he goes on to say that it WAS the government that decided to move the regiment to Brecon (very confusing).

He then tries to confuse you even more when he gives you the different regimental numbers and names, making it appear that there are more regiments involved than there actually are. Lets go through them and see how it works out.

The 23rd foot (The Royal Welsh Fusiliers), merged with the Royal Regiment of Wales in 2004, the later in 2006 became part of the Royal Welsh.

The 24th foot (The 2nd Wartwickshire Regiment), was moved by the government, and later renamed in 1881 again by government meddling to the South Wales Borderers, it was later merged in 1969 with the 41st (Welch regiment) to form the Royal Regiment of Wales, and is now part of the Royal Welsh.

The 69th foot was actually the redesignated 2nd Battalion of the 24th foot, it was given the name of (The South Lincolnshire Regiment), but again through government meddling in 1881, it was amalgamated into the 41st (Welch regiment), and is now part of the Royal Welsh.

The Monmouthshire regiment which Bill mentions, was the 43rd foot, in 1881 the government amalgamated it with the 52nd (Oxfordshire regiment) which in 1908 became The Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light infantry, and which is now part of 'The Rifles'.

So you will see from the above that the government of the time did meddle around with the Army, and it always makes me wonder if they got things mixed up somewhat. For instance, why move an already established South Wales border regiment (43rd foot Monmouthshire regiment) to Oxford, and then move an already established (24th foot 2nd Warwickshire regiment) to the South Wales borders? It makes no sense to me at all, that is why I said that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment is lost in Wales, it was raised in England for the defence of England, it had an English county title, but for some strange reason it was moved to the South Wales borders, yet the 43rd (Monmouthshire) regiment which was already in the South Wales borders, is moved to Oxfordshire England, does this make any sense? I think that some meddling idiot in the government of the time, must have either been on the bottle or had a brain storm, it just doesn't make sense.

Anyway Linterbug, don't take mine or Bills word for this, I would suggest that you get the opinion of one of the best (if not the best) experts on all this, and that is Ian Knight. Treat yourself to a good book of his called 'Companion to the Anglo - Zulu War', go to page 222 and read what Ian has to say on all this, you will be very much informed.

Regards, Martin.

Are not the government in charge of the army, and have always been?
Martin, the way I read Bill's post was that he was taking issue with the mischievious use of the word "meddling" not "government."
Oxfordshire, Monmouthshire, Welsh or English - we are all on the same side! No ex-soldier likes it when their regiment is amalgamated or subjected to a name change in the interests of some government money saving reform. But with all due respect Martin, you seem to take everything very personally when perhaps there is no need to. There was no conspiracy by the government, or Stanley Baker, or whoever else against the Warwickshire Regiment, or the Monmouthshire Regiment, or the Welsh or the English.

tasker, I think you should read Bill's post again, you will find that Bill was saying 'mischievious' because I said that the 24th was 'lost in Wales'.

Did I mention 'conspiracy' or 'Baker' ?

It would appear that you enjoy trying to find faults with peoples postings on this forum, then trying to correct them with your own interpretation of how you see things (which must be right of course).

Could I have hit the nail on the head here I wonder?

No, you have just smashed your own finger again with your own hammer.

Martin, if you read my above post, you will see I was referring to the word "meddling" not mischievous.

You did not mention conspiracy or Baker in your above post, but in the spot the mistakes in Zulu thread, you mention that Baker had "a score to settle with the English and saw his chance in the film Zulu."

(Ridiculous, quite frankly)!

Well I can't feel any pain.

Read Bills post again, he said "Also the regiment is not 'lost in Wales'-this is mischievous".

You said that the way you had read Bills post was that HE was taking issue with the mischievous word 'meddling'.

I then corrected you and said that Bill was saying mischievous because I said 'lost in Wales'.

I have told you about the 'write up' that was posted by littlehand, in which it said that Baker had a score to settle with the English, and that he saw his chance with the film Zulu, but like you say, that was on the Zulu-spot the mistakes thread, so what has it got to do with this thread?

Martin what it has to do with is this: the single thread that runs through almost every one of your posts on every thread, is your recurring theme that the 24th Foot in 1879, being entitled the Warwickshire Regiment.
No one disputes that, you're preaching to the converted.
Where your arguments become irrational, is when you imply that:

1. Stanley Baker's epic British made film, Zulu, was somehow his way of settling "a score with the English." This loses me, if you actually really do believe that.
2. The Cardwell Reforms incorporating the 24th Foot into 25th brigade, causing it to be "lost in Wales" - a British Regiment lost in Britain - was the result of "some meddling idiot in the government of the time, must have either been on the bottle or had a brain storm" - now that is not rational, or sensible is it?

As Bill says, it is 131 years "too late" for you to do anything about the latter and Zulu will always be the epic film that it is, irrespective of your opinions or your anger over them. Please don't allow events that happened before you were born, bother you so much, I do worry for you somewhat. I would suggest that when/if you retire and have some time on your hands, you consider writing a paper, article or book on your views about the Zulu War, the 24th, Zulu, the whole lot. It would be something positive for you to channel your energy into, cathartic and I would certainly want to be the first to buy a copy.

tasker

It is obvious that you haven't read the write up I mentioned, otherwise you wouldn't be lost at point1;

To answer point 2; Can you see the logic in moving an already established South Wales Border regiment (43rd Monmouthshire), to Oxfordshire in England, and moving an already established regiment from Warwickshire in England (24th 2nd Warwickshire), to the South Wales Border? Would it not have been far easier just to rename the 43rd Monmouthshires to the SWB (as it was already there), and if an amalgamation of two regiments was necessary, then it would have been a very simple thing to have amalgamated the 6th (1st Warwickshire) regiment with the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment into the 1st and 2nd Btns The Warwickshire Regiment, would this not have been a lot simpler, rather than uproot two established regiments and move them miles away from their bases? Monmouthshire (since the 1970's), is now part of Wales (and always has been according to you), but its regiment (the 43rd) is now lost in England, Warwickshire is in England but the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, is now lost in Wales. Now do you understand why I said that some meddling idiot in the government of the time, must have either been on the bottle or had a brain storm? If you read one of my posts above, you will see that I have already said that there was little that anyone can do about it now, but then again, you never know, someone in the government may well see the error that was created back then and decide to make it right, but I doubt it.

Martin

Oh dear, I had hoped the “bring back the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment” campaign had run its course, but clearly it hasn’t !!!!

First let me clarify one point. Tasker was quite correct in the way he interpreted what I had said above, Martin, you were not, despite quoting me ! I was, and remain, very concerned that you consider the setting up of the 24th Regimental depot in Brecon to be the result of “meddling” and that you have now qualified that with an ever more outlandish statement - “some meddling idiot in the government of the time, must have either been on the bottle or had a brain storm?” By “meddling idiot” can I am presume you are referring to Edward Cardwell, Secretary of State for War between 1870 and 1874 ? There can be no one that doubted that the Army was in serious need of reform in 1870 – the shortcomings experienced by the British Army in both the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny are self evident. In addition the Prussian victories over Austria and France clearly indicated how far Britain had fallen behind in terms of military professionalism. Cardwell as a result began a series of sweeping reforms that were to continue through to 1881 and which today carry his name – “Cardwell’s Army Reforms”. Following the undoubted success of these reforms, I doubt that many (if any) would class Cardwell as “some meddling idiot” !!!!!

You need to look in detail at the state of the army in 1870 and I can do no better than refer you to two classics on the subject – “The Late Victorian Army 1868-1902” by Edward M Spiers and “The Victorian Army at Home 1858-1899” by Alan Ramsey Skelley. Both are packed full of statistics which put the state of the army at that time into proper perspective. You need to appreciate that army recruits in the 18th Century were mainly non-skilled agricultural workers, by the second half of the 19th Century, this had changed to non-skilled industrial workers, reflecting the increasing industrialisation of Britain. Regiments needed to be based close to these new potential recruiting areas as opposed to the old rurally focussed locations. Within South Wales, the “heads of the valleys” had seen a massive increase in population with the establishment of the coal, iron and steel industries. The area attracted a huge influx of people, particularly from Ireland. In times of economic downturn, this area would prove very fruitful in terms of recruiting – basically, starve or join the army ! Cardwell, aware of the problems the army was facing in getting recruits, decided on a re-organisation of the regimental structure as a means of dealing with the issue. For example, Warwickshire which is predominantly rural in nature, and therefore with few potential recruits, had to supply men for two line regiments (the 1st and 2nd Warwickshire Regts), while the South Wales borders with plenty of potential recruits had no line regiments at all to supply. It is therefore fairly easy to understand why the second of the two Warwickshire Regiments was moved to Brecon. And, in any case, what ties did the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment actually have with that county (apart from the title) ? How many recruits came from the county ? Was the Regiment based in the County ? Did the Regiment have a Depot in the County ? It is also important to understand that any move of the regiments of the line also needed to link in with the location of militia battalions, and various volunteer corps. There were sufficient of these in the Welsh border area to justify the location of a Brigade Sub-Depot there. Not withstanding their county titles, for the first time in the Army’s history, regiments enjoyed a permanent static centre or “home” firmly associated with a territorial area or county. This applied equally to the 24th and thus Brecon became “home” . They were given the counties of Cardigan, Radnor, Brecon and Monmouth for recruiting purposes, though (as the records show) the recruiting sergeants did not ply their trade specifically to those counties !

This worked fairly easily for the first 25 regiments of the line which had two battalions, but was not so easy for those with only one battalion. The grouping of two single battalion regiments was (in theory) focussed on the seniority of the senior of the two regiments, but this was not always so. The 69th Regiment therefore came into Wales to join the 41st Regiment and the 43rd Regiment left Wales to join the 52nd Regiment. In 1881, regimental names were changed, where necessary, to reflect the actual locality of the regimental depot. The 2nd Warwickshire’s name was therefore changed to “The South Wales Borderers”. However, the regimental numbers were clung to almost religiously as they of course reflected seniority. So 18 months after B Company had defended Rorke’s Drift under the title of the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment it was re-titled the SWB. However, they were the same men, the same company, the same regiment (still the 24th) – just the headed paper changed !!!!!

On another point – your condemnation of Stanley Baker and his epic film “Zulu” needs looking at. You ascribe various motives to him, but offer no evidence to support these ideas. Have you read any of his biographies ? Have you spoken to his widow , Lady Ellen Baker ? Have you read Sheldon Hall’s book ? No, so how do you know he had “biased” views and “had a score to settle with the English” (you have said this above and as the phrase is not in inverted comers, I presume they are your own words ?). I have made the point before that I think you are seeing things in the film that others do not. How many of the named (speaking part) characters are clearly “Welsh”, how long do these characters have on screen as a percentage of the whole ? Clearly Stanley Baker is reflecting the fact that the 24th had a greater percentage of Welshmen than most other regiments at that time (the exceptions being the 23rd and 41st Regiments). And yes, we all (well, most of us) accept the errors contained in the film without thinking in terms of any deliberate attempt to mislead.

You persist in trying to deny that there no more than a handful of Welshmen in the 24th and/or at Rorke’s Drift , but you have consistently failed to answer the question that I raised some time ago – exactly what defines a “Welshman” ? Is it where he was born, where his father was born, where he lived, what he spoke, what nationality he felt he was. It is only if you apply a fixed definition EQUALLY to ALL of the men, that you will get the definitive answer you seem to be seeking. However, that information is simply not available. We have a mixture of “qualifications” being applied to the names, and of course that means the results will always be open to interpretation. As I’ve said a number of times before, we simply do not know how many “Welshmen” there were in the 24th, only that the Regiment including a higher proportion of them than most other regiments.

Most of your points are not argued on the basis of primary sources, but on wishful thinking. You frequently rely on secondary sources and occasionally even misquote those ! An example of that would be the statements you made on the number of long service/short service men serving in 1879. You misquoted Ian Knight on that, and once I had produced statistics (based on primary sources in the Museum) to disprove your assumption, you conveniently let the subject drop. I notice recently that you refer readers to Ian Knight’s “Companion to The AZW” and specifically to his section on “Wales and the AZW”. However, nowhere in that article does Ian make any statement as to WHY the 24th moved to Brecon, though you seem to imply that he did.

As to the historical advisor on any re-make of “Zulu”, I notice you favour Ian Knight and Julian Whybra, two excellent historians who I have the utmost respect for. However, you surely are aware that even with their comprehensive knowledge, there are occasions when even they do not agree ! This is what History is about – there are very few things that have happened in the past where you will get universal agreement from people as to what exactly went on – even if those people were actually there !

I will conclude this lengthy (over lengthy ?) response with a plea -if you are going to make “definitive” statements could you please state your evidence (sources) you are using to substantiate the statement, or clearly precede the statement with the words “It is my opinion that .........” or “I believe that ....”. That way readers of this site will be able to make up their own minds on the validity or otherwise of the points being made. I would very much endorse the points Julian has made on other threads about the importance of using primary rather than secondary sources. Please, please come to Brecon and read the surviving primary sources that we hold – it may (though I doubt it) for example, change your stance on the move of the 24th to Brecon.

My apologies to those of you who are already bored with this regularly repeated topic.

Bill

Bill

I think that you should read your own post agian regarding the word 'mischievous'. You ended a sentence with the words "and not the result of "government meddling". FULL STOP. You then began another sentence saying, "Also the regiment is not "lost in Wales" - this is mischievous! Now to me, this implies that you are saying 'this is mischievous', to me saying 'lost in Wales'.

I did NOT say that the 'meddling idiot' was Cardwell. You know as well as I do that these reforms involved a complicated process with much debate between MANY OTHER PEOPLE including Childers, so please dont imply that I was calling Cardwell himself the 'meddling idiot'

It does not matter how many 'facts, figures and statistics' you wish to quote about the 24th regiment (to try to justify the government moving it to Wales), the fact of the matter is that the regiment had no connection whatsoever with Wales, it was raised in England, for the defence of England, and it had an English county title, therefor why uproot an established regiment to the south Wales border, when they could have simply amalgamated the 6th and 24th into 'The Warwickshire regiment'. The 43rd (Monmouthshire), was already there in the South Wales borders, so why move it to Oxfordshire in England?

I have mentioned the write up article posted recently by littlehand, if you read it, it will give you all you need to know about Endfield, Baker and the film, and also inform you about Bakers 'score to settle with the English'.

There were some figures posted recently by Julian, of the 123 men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that fought at RD, the figures show that there were only 15 Welshmen there.

I did not misquote Ian, it was a mistake on my part, and if you look at my later post I said that I had missed out the word 'mostly'.

In 1881 the regimental numbers were ended, and new titles were ordered by the government. the 2nd Warwickshire regiments name was changed to the SWB, therefor any reference to the 24th foot as being anything other than the 2nd Warwickshire regiment is wrong.

No matter how many historians were involved in a remake of the film, the facts that they could not disagree on are that the regiment was NOT Welsh, and that the name of the 24th regiment of foot that fought in the zulu war at Isandlwana and RD was called the 2nd Warwickshire regiment and not the SWB.

It's very easy to write off history by a headed paper change, but let's not forget that before the headed paper change happened, the battle honours (including Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift) of the regiment belonged to the 24th regiment of foot, and no other, those changed names that followed, ie; SWB, RRW, RW only inherited those battle honours, the honours themselves belong to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.

You are right Bill, regardless of 'facts, figures or statistics', I will never change my stance on (what I see) as the sillyness of uprooting and moving an established regiment from Monmouthshire in the south Wales border, to Oxfordshire in England, and uprooting and moving an established regiment from Warwickshire in England to the south Wales border. The government of the day would have done a lot better if they had shown some common sense and kept a south Wales border regiment in the south Wales border, and kept an English county titled regiment in England, as moving them just does not make any sense.

Martin, feelings on army reform and the losing/amalgamating of regiments are unerstandable to an extent, but yours are completely disproportionate to all but the most picky and finickity of desk-driving administrators, more concerned with what the army terms "BS" than the care and welfare of human resources and people management.
I understand to an extent, your feelings and those of proud Blackwatch men and Highlanders etc who have seen their regiments disappear.
But the important and really serious issues that we should be up in arms about today, are the lack of funding and proper support for injured sevicemen, the closing of Military and Naval hospitals and the farming out of injured soldiers to civilian services. The lack of support for mentally ill, homeless, depressed and combat-fatigued soldiers.


Bill Cainan
I think all your posts are crystal clear, well thought through and on the mark.

tasker

Yes, I totally respect and fully agree with what you say on the important and really serious issues. Being a member of The Royal British Legion, I can assure you that we collect money and try to give as much support as we can to these ex servicemen. I also contribute to the Help the Heroes campaign and wear my badge with pride (as I do my poppy), to my mind, these brave lads will NEVER be forgotten.

I have a deep respect for all of them.

Well said Martin.

The generosity of the RBL, Help for Heroes charity, Haig Fund and the great British public is legendary and it never cease to amaze.

However, it is a national disgrace that charity has to fill and make up the shortfall that various British governments have penny-pinched from the armed forces and elsewhere.
Charities, injured service personnel and the general public, nurses, teachers, bin men, hospital laundry workers (who have also had their pockets picked by this particular government) in terms of pay freezes, paying more for their pensions, working longer and getting less, are being expected by this government, to pay off the missing money in the country's finances that has been stolen by City bankers.

Martin, yes i think you did hit the nail on the head

This was a very good discussion. Good to see members standing their ground throughout and come together at the end.

Hi Martin / Bill.
Very well debated between the two of you , the only thing missing was the ' Pistols at 10 paces ' . Good to see you can still have a chat afterward . Martin you should take Bill up on his generous offer and head off to Brecon , god knows I'd be there in a flash !
Bill if I get to the UK again , I'll surely be contacting you . .
cheers 90th.

tasker

Well, it looks like we have found something that we both agree on.

Since I came out of the Army, I have been an active member of the RBL. They help with all sorts of problems, they even try to help you with the awful pictures that you see from time to time in your minds eye, they are very supportive.

Thanks also to Towerboy and littlehand for your comments, much appreciated.

I think that tasker and I, and hopefully also my friend Bill, can now come to some sort of agreement about all this, as it does seem rather pointless arguing about something that none of us can now alter, and as tasker rightly said, there are more importand and really serious issues that are a lot more relevant in todays world.

Martin.

Hi 90th

Thanks for the comments, and yes, I did have a laugh at the 'pistols at ten paces', nice one mate.

Bill is a good sport, and I would really like to meet him at the museum in Brecon, but I have explained to him in a pm, that there are a few problems about getting there, accommodation, etc, but I will have to try and get down there to see him and shake him by the hand (although he might want to shake me by the neck),

Martin.