The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) and the Welsh.

old historian2 wrote:

Martin your last post reads, as though your blaming the Welsh. I would like to evidence of this other than the film Zulu.

OH2.

You only need to visit the army web site and look at the regimental history of the RW.

You can see for yourself that there is no English history of any of the regiments mentioned, but just read what it says about the swb, if that is not a load of twaddle, then I don't know what is.

There is no mention at all about the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, yet it was that regiment that served in the AZW and NOT the swb, but the way it is worded, it gives the impression that it was the swb, and it also gives the impression that Marlborough was the swb's colonel, what a load of nonsense, talk about throwing flowers at themselves, jeez!

There is no mention that all of the old line regiments that make up the RW were all in fact raised in England and were therefor English regiments NOT welsh.

23rd raised in Shropshire, England. 24th raised in Kent, England. 41st raised as an invalid regiment in Chelsea, London, England. The 69th was the old second battalion of the 24th (and if memory serves, I am almost sure it was raised in Warwickshire), it was later redesignated as the 69th and later given the English county title of the 69th (South Lincolnshire) regiment. So there you have it OH, there is not one of the predecessors of the RW that are actually welsh, they were all raised in England.

So if it's evidence you want that the welsh are covering up facts, then just take a look at the army web site for a starter. There are also more sites that you can find that also give the false impression that the regiment as always been welsh when it never was.

The 24th regiment of foot was the title of the regiment from 1751-1782, after that it became the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, so by them just saying the 24th foot, they are infering the regiment from 1751-1782, and deliberately leaving out the English county title of Warwickshire, so that the gullible public will just assume it was welsh.

The film is almost one big agenda OH, Baker knew axactly what he wanted to convey to the gullible public, and the bigger picture and concept of the film was to give the false impression that the regiment and most of its men were welsh (with a few foreigners from England), when in actual fact it was the other way round, most of the men were English, and the few foreigners were a mixture of welsh, Irish and one Scot.

Yes, ironic isn't it, that Baker (who had an anti English chip on his shoulder), should play an Englishman, mind you, there wasn't a welsh officer hero for him to play was there, and he wanted to be the hero didn't he, so he had not much choice if he wanted to be 'The Hero', he had to play at being an Englishman (I bet that hurt his welsh pride a bit).

waterloo50 wrote:

From the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh.

The Royal Welsh is Wales's infantry regiment. It has inherited a distinguished military tradition from its predecessors: The Royal Welch Fusiliers (23rd Foot) and The Royal Regiment of Wales (formerly the 24th, 41st and 69th Foot - and later the South Wales Borderers, Welch Regiment and Monmouthshire Regiment). Although, in some respects, the story only began on 1st March 2006 when The Royal Welsh was formed, its history reaches back to the year 1689 when the 23rd and 24th Regiments of Foot were first raised.

I think that this is what people object to, this write up from the museum gives a false impression, it doesn't claim that the 24th were Welsh but if you didn't know better you would assume that they were.

Spot on waterloo, that is exactly my point. Never any mention of the English origins of the regiment, never no honour given to their predecessors who were mostly Englishmen or their regiment that was raised in England, never no mention of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment being the REAL name of the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD.

As I said in my post above to OH, take a look at the army web site for the RW, just read the twaddle they write about the history regarding the swb, all totally and deliberately misleading, and written in such a way as to convince the gullible public that the regiment was always welsh, I don't think I ever read as much nonsense in my life, and if that is not trying to con the public then I don't know what is.

This is the view of Bill Cainan, curator of the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh, based at Brecon, Powys.

That is where the soldiers were based and in the film were portrayed as a fundamentally Welsh regiment, with Rhondda Valley-born actor Stanley Baker in the leading role. Except that they weren't, says Mr Cainan, who himself served in the army for 37 years. Although the regiment had been based in Wales for six years by the battle of Rorke's Drift, they were still titled as the 24th Regiment of Foot (2nd Warwickshire Regiment).

For generations the regiment had recruited from the big strong farmhands working in the fields of Warwickshire and neighbouring counties.

But because it is such a well-crafted film, many people treat it as a documentary, When you start to say 'that's not quite right' the eyebrows start to raise and people say 'but I've seen the film!' But in the wake of the rapid industrialisation of Wales, and the south Wales valleys in particular, the Army had moved the regiment's base to Brecon to recruit from unskilled industrial labourers. Yet even then no more than a third of the men in the regiment at that time would have considered themselves Welsh, says Mr Cainan.

It is the sort of occasion where he comes up against the many myths perpetuated by Zulu, he says.

He said: "Stanley Baker just wanted to put some Welshness into it. He played the regiment as being the South Wales Borderers whereas it was still the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment.

"Mind you, it took the Army nine years - two years after Zulu war - to rename it, to reflect its geographical location

I go along with most of what Bill said, but I think he is using a bit of poetic licence when he talks about generations of recruiting strong farmhands from the "fields of Warwickshire and neighbouring counties".

The regimental history (Atkinson) says "A Royal Warrant of 1782 conferred county titles on all regiments not already possessed of special designations..........The 24th, who became the 2nd Warwickshire, were ordered to send a recruiting party to Tamworth. No special link with the county militia was however established nor were any depots or permanent recruiting centres set up."

My bet would be that Snook is right about the make up of the regiment and that it did not change much over time. It was like any other with English, Scots, Irish and Welsh whatever its title was at the time. As with all regiments, you would see a move from recruiting out of work agricultural labourers to out of work urban factory workers as the industrial revolution progressed. That new recruitment pool in the South Wales industrial towns was what lay behind the move to Brecon.

Steve

The interesting point here is that the statement was made by the curator of the museum, I agree that his description of 'strong farmhands from the 'fields of Warwickshire and neighbouring counties' is poetic licence, a bit of Catherine Cookson.

It would make sense to recruit from areas where there was high unemployment but the period we are interested in appears to have had a bit of a boom in industry, Plenty of industries grew alongside mining. For much of the Victorian period Wales was the world’s most important producer of slate, non-ferrous metals, iron and tinplate, and was a significant steelmaking country. Supporting industries such as brick and tile manufacturing, engineering, transport and brewing also flourished. Industrialists, merchants and landowners ploughed much of their wealth back into the infrastructure of railways, docks and towns.' its hard to see how unemployment could have been a factor in the move to Brecon but I suppose the Army did offer a better standard of living compared to that of a miner for example. Having said all that some rural areas began to suffer because most of the big industries were in the city and the result was that many people abandoned the rural areas. If unemployment was a factor then why didn't the Army look closer to the regiments home. I suspect this had more to do with Politics than anything. We have to remember that during this period there were a number of harsh report on education and the people in Wales. The Welsh were painted as ‘ill-educated, poor, dirty, unchaste, and potentially rebellious’. although these reports were written some years before 1879, the attitudes of the Victorian English towards the Welsh hadn't altered a great deal, some people still hold with some of these views today.  It wasn't really until the end of the 19th Century that things began to improve for the Welsh. I wonder if there was some political gain to be had from placing the regiment in Wales.

Waterloo

Ah! it looks like my old sparring partner Bill has finally come around to my way of thinking.

What he omits to say is that although the regiment had been based at Brecon since 1873, that this was on paper only, as by the start of the AZW in 1879 NEITHER of the battalions of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment had EVER been to Brecon.

He also says that Baker wanted to put 'some' welshness in it, SOME?
Hell! Baker practically filled it with false welshness.

Wales has never raised a line regiment of its own, maybe the 23rd was as near to being a welsh regiment as it could get with it recruiting not only in England but also in the welsh border counties, however, the regiment was raised in Ludlow, Shropshire, England, so it was not actually a welsh regiment even though it was later given the title RWF. The 24th, 41st and 69th, were all raised in England, and although they are now part of the RW, they were not actually raised in wales, so in that respect, the Royal 'Welsh' are not actually all that 'Welsh' after all are they because their pre 1881 history is not welsh at all, but English.

I hope they are taking good care of OUR regiments for us, as if, or when, the break up of the UK comes about, and England can be free of looking after the rest of the UK (and others), we can claim OUR regiments back and bring them back home to England.

waterloo.

There was already a regiment on the borders of south wales, this was the 43rd (Monmouthshire) regiment, so why move the 24th to the borders of south wales and move the 43rd from the borders of south wales into England, it doesn't make sense. The only reason I can think of is that Monmouth at the time was classed as being part of England, and the 43rd had become a light regiment, whilst the 24th was still a line regiment, and later the 43rd became amalgamated with the 52nd, and through various other amalgamations over the years, they are now part of the rifles. But it still seems odd to move an established English regiment of the British Army into a place that it had no connection with whatsoever, maybe some jobsworth in an office just drew lots out of a hat, and unfortunately for the poor old 24th, they copped for the short straw, so to speak.

Martin

Where did the new drafts come from to fill up the battalions when they were overseas? Could that be Brecon by any chance?. Whether or not either battalion is in residence in Wales is neither here nor there. Brecon was the home depot. If you asked the soldiers at the time where their home base was what would they say?

Waterloo

You put your finger on an interesting point. Soldiers marched from Brecon to put down the Merthyr riots. Not just a recruiting area but also a control on the rebellious poor.

Steve

Hi Steve.

I think you are forgetting that there was also the local militias based at Brecon, and these would most likely have been used locally, don't forget that by the start of the AZW, both battalions of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment had never been to Brecon, so it could not have been them.

OK, men might have been signed on there to eventually be moved on to the battalions, but because they signed on there, it does not automatically mean that they were welsh. And after the disaster at iSandlwana, trained men were 'volunteered' from other regiments to make up for the losses, very few replacements were 'raw recruits', as most of them were already vet's from other regiments that made up the losses at iSandlwana.

To add petrol to the fire Ive just spent a really nice 2 hours 12 minutes and 39 seconds watching 'Zulu'. I did it with a note pad and a stop watch so to just to put at rest some issues.
Every single main character from Chard to John Williams VC was represented as English.
Welsh referals.
Private Owen to Chard" Every Welsh regiment has a choir"
Private Owen sings a few bars just before going up the hill on sentry duty, that with an unnamed soldier.
Chard as the Zulus are chanting to Private Owen 'Do you think the Welsh could do better than that Owen."
Men of Harlech is sung
End of the movie Men of Harlech is sung by a choir as the credits roll.

Mentions of the 24th
In the initial commentary by Richard Burton the regiment is given its full and correct title.
Bromhead when he first meets with Chard introduces himself as the 24th.

In comparison with all the known characters portrayed, Chard, Bromhead, Borne, Windridge, Hook, Hitch, Cpl Allan, Reynolds, Dalton etc al are English
There are only three Welsh portrayed. Private Owen, the duet partner before going up the hill on sentry and his companion on sentry duty.

The movie is 2 hours 12 seconds and 39 seconds long.
Welsh accented english is spoken for 1 minute and 23 seconds.

I have no agenda just putting out the exact situation about the movie.

Cheers

Martin wrote:

You only need to visit the army web site and look at the regimental history of the RW.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Links that mentioned the 24th Warwickshires.


Video by Admin.

On the second link I found this statement in the FAQ about John Chard, I have cut and pasted direct from source.

John Chard was the senior officer at Rorke's Drift and naturally took command. He was a Royal Engineer. The Regimental Museum in Brecon commemorates the history and soldiers of the 24th Regiment, South Wales Borderers.

Again, the above statement is a bit misleading. Now, the Museum isn't stating that the 24th and the SWB are the same but in the context of Rorkes Drift it is easy to see how this could be interpreted by the general public.

I think it should read 'The Regimental Museum in Brecon commemorates the history and soldiers of the 24th Regiment (and the later) history of the South Wales Borderers.

I understand that this may look incredibly picky of me to raise this point, but when you consider that there are a number of similar statements within the Museum website, it then becomes easy to understand how the general public would go away with the impression that the 24th was a Welsh regiment.

Out of curiosity, I asked my better half to read the statement and then I asked her what she thought it meant, (she is Welsh herself) she read it as the 24th and the SWB were one and the same, but then I guess she would.

Regards

Waterloo.

I know what you mean, but in what way are they not the same? It is the same group of people - they just got called something different didn't they? I could understand this better if some other regiment had been shipped in and then proceeded to steal the achievements of the 24th. But that is not what happened. The SWB even had 24 as their collar tabs and on their Colours through to at least the 60s.

Steve

Waterloo wrote:

history of the South Wales Borderers

The 24th Warwickshire are part of the History South Wales Borderers. The latter stemming from the 24th.

Ulundi

I said 'the later history' of the South Wales Borderers'

rusteze

SWB wearing the 24 on their tabs, do you know if they were worn in 'Honour/Memory of the 24th' or was it 'We are the 24th ? The SWB did wear a belt badge in Roman Numerals XXIV. Regiments of today still wear a belt badge when there is an affiliation between two regiments or in honour of a regiment.

With regards to your question about 'but in what way are they not the same?'

I want to answer your question as honestly as I can but its difficult to debate the history of the 24th and SWB without being viewed as suffering from ethnocentrism. You say that 'its the same group of people- they just got called something different didn't they' and to a certain extent your right, but that's not really the issue for me; what bothers me is that the 24th is viewed by many as a Welsh regiment, the reason that bothers me isn't because I dislike the Welsh, its because I am a great believer in 'credit where credit is due'. I think I would be happier if the general public were correctly informed by the Museum in Brecon that the 24th was a British regiment rather than hinting that it was Welsh.

I also suspect that one of the reasons that the 24th was changed to the SWB was because it would have been difficult to recruit men to a regiment that had suffered so badly. (Just a thought)

Regards

Waterloo

You say the 24th is viewed by many as a Welsh regiment.
There's only two. You and Martin. Anyone who has an ounce of interest in the Zulu War, is more than capable of finding all the facts and history of the 24th.

Springy mate, are you sure that you are watching the right film

Richard Burton does NOT give the full and correct title of the regiment, he gives the title of the regiment between 1751 and 1782 (ie; the 24th regiment of foot), the full and correct title of the regiment from 1782 until 1881 was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot. Near the start of the film, Bromhead is out shooting, a soldier leans out of the 'hospital' window and asks CS Bourne what the shooting is, Bourne calls him 'Hughes', there was no 'Hughes' at RD, this was added because of the 'welsh' sounding name 'Hughes'. We then have Bromhead returning to the post, he says who he is and then says the 24th, no mention of 2nd Warwickshire regiment. There is a soldier sat on a rock, Chard asks who he is, he replies that he is Owen, and says that Chard has got Williams (his solo tenor) in the water, and that he (Owen), is a baritone, this of course is to lead up to the false statement that 'every welsh regiment has a chior'. Well, for a kick off, there was no Owen, and the regiment was NOT welsh, however, it was added to give the impression to the gullible public that it was a welsh regiment. Then there is the false welsh Owen's mate Pte Thomas (Tommy with the calf), he speaks with a welsh accent, however, Pte Thomas came from Lancashire, so he would not have had a welsh accent, more likely he would have had a scouse accent coming from Liverpool, so again, more false welshness to add to the welsh flavour of the film. Now we come to the false welsh 'Owen' singing MoH to himself, again added for more false welshness, he is then told to go up the hill and keep look out with his mate the false welsh 'Tommy', as they are leaving Sgt Windridge throws the false welsh 'Owen' his rifle and calls him a stupid welshman, again more false welshness, and the false welsh 'Owen' could not have gone up the hill with the false welsh 'Tommy', as there was no 'Owen' there. Now we come to a real stinker of false welshness, in the hospital there are two 'Jones's', one of them says 'this is a welsh regiment man, though there are some foreigners from England mind', now if this was not added to give the viewer the false impression that it was a welsh regiment, then I don't know what is. He then goes on to say where both 'Jones's' are from, however, he is not right is he? Both the 'Jones's were awarded the VC, and both 'Jones's' came from England, one from Bristol the other from Monmouth (which was then part of England). Later we see the false welsh 'Owen' speaking with the false welsh 'Tommy', Tommy tells Owen that 470 Davies got it in the throat, Owen says that Davies was a great bass baritone, again, this is to give the impression that Davies was a singer in the false welsh chior. When they are bayoneting their way through the wall, a figure comes through the hole, one of the English Jones's says 'you bloody Englishman', surely, he would not call his fellow countryman a bloody Englishman would he? No, this was added to give more false welshness and make it appear that there were only a few Englishmen there and that most of the men were welsh. Now we come to another stinker of false welshness, the 'sing off'. This of course never happened, however it was added, again to give even more false welshness to the film. Chard askes the false welsh 'Owen' if 'the welsh can do better', and of course they break into MoH, it never happened, it was just added so that the viewer would get the false impression of the regiment being a welsh outfit when it wasn't, and even if they had sung a song, surely they would have sung their own regimental song which was 'The Warwickshire Lad' and not bloody MoH. Then comes the roll call, and the false welsh 'Hughes' is mentioned again, and now Burton reads out those awarded the VC, the way he read them out (making them sound more welsh than they actually were), and the way the camera pans around, it gives the impression that these men were mostly welsh, when in actual fact all 7 VC's awarded to the men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment were all Englishmen, even though some of them had welsh sounding names. Now when he comes to read out Bromheads name, he says 24th foot the south wales borderers, now come on mate, that is totally bloody wrong, the swb did not exist during the AZW, so this must have been added deliberately to give the impression to the public that the regiment was welsh and called the swb, and there is never ever one mention of the REAL name of the regiment that fought at RD, the mostly Englishmen and their regiment have been slung out and replaced by a fictional welsh outfit that did not exist during the AZW.

Steve.

All line numbers were abolished on the 1st July 1881, the regiments titles were changed and there were no line numbers included in the new titles. The swb were NEVER the 24th foot, that honour belongs to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment. The collar badge you speak of, if I remember correctly, had to be applied for special permission for the swb to wear as it was not theirs, they were just the swb (no line numbers, and therefor not the 24th). Also the colours of the old regiment would still be carried until replaced later by new colours. The old line numbers sometimes given in brackets after the regiments title, are only added to show the seniority of the amalgamated regiments, they not officially part of the title, just a reference to show the old line regiments order of seniority.

waterloo.

You are correct, the way that things are worded is all done deliberately to confuse the reader and give them the false impression and make them believe that the regiment has always been welsh, it's an old trick that is used by many other organisations, it's not actually telling a lie, but then again, it's not actually telling the truth, it is however, a very unfair way of disguising and covering up certain things that they would rather keep from the public, it's all smoke and mirrors to disguise certain things and make them appear as something different from what they actually are. Glad that you can see through it all.

Actually Martin read my summary correctly and you will see Ive picked up on virtually all of your points. My point on Burton speaking is that the regiment was refered to as the 24th, an acceptable form of mention as was Bromheads. Again an analogy, my own regiment was always refered to as the 11th Hussars, very very seldom was the full title off Prince Alberts Own added.

Sorry mate but your over the top. Don't really know whats driving the paranoia and frankly Im out of this debate, its travelled more than its share of distance.

Cheers

OH

Sorry, I'm not going to take the bait. I'm entitled to an opinion the same as your good self.

I agree with Frank, 'its travelled more than its share of distance.

Regards

Waterloo

A vast majority of people appreciates that while not 100% accurate it is hardly the gross misrepresentation of the past that so many other films are guilty of.
The points Martin raise are nothing new. The film was made for entertainment, not as a factual documentary. And do we really think, the men fighting at RD really gave a dam what regiment they were in, everyone that day was wishing he was some where else.

Some historical facts.

The regiment was raised in 1689 in Pluckley, Kent, England.
It was raised for the defence of the English Kingdom.
It was later given the English county title of Warwickshire.
Most of the men in the regiment were English.
It was an established English regiment of the British Army, it had no connection with wales whatsoever, yet it was stupidly moved to the border of south wales in 1873, but this was on paper only, as by the time of the AZW in 1879, neither battalion had ever been to Brecon.
The regiment that fought during the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.
At the defence of RD 7 VC's were awarded to 7 men of the regiment, all these men were English.
The regiment kept its English county title until 1st July 1881, when reforms were introduced to the Army.

All infantry regiments line numbers were officially abolished and new titles were given to the regiments, these new reforms sounded the death knell for the old established regiments, and virtually new regiments arose from the ashes of the old established regiments like phoenix's. The virtually new regiments now all had different names and no line numbers, however, old habits die hard, and the old line numbers were still quoted for some time, especially by the older members of the new regiments, but officially the line numbers had been abolished on the 1st July 1881, meaning that officially the new regiments just had their new titles and no line numbers. The old 24th's new title was the south wales borderers (SWB), and not the 24th SWB, the SWB were never the 24th, they were just the SWB. Special permission had to be obtained for the SWB to be allowed to wear a collar dog which consisted of the wreath of immortalles which had been placed on the colours of the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment by HM Queen Victoria's own hand. Inside the wreath of immortalles were the numerals XXIV, which were the numerals of the old 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, the special permission was granted, and for a time the SWB were allowed to wear this collar dog with the numerals XXIV, however, officially they were never the 24th, the badge was just an honourary token that the SWB were temporary allowed to wear.

Problems can arise when regiments are moved from one location to another or when amalgamations occur, it takes time to get accustomed to the new surroundings etc, however, it's not such a big problem when regiments are moved within their own country, but it is a big problem when a regiment is moved from its native homeland to foreign pastures. I have no problem with new regiments carrying on the traditions of its predecessors, however, when the new regiment doesn't acknowledge or give any credit to nor hardly ever mention their predecessors English regiments title or its English roots, and words its history in such a way as to give the impression that its English past never even existed, and gives the false impression that it has always been welsh, then that is totally unacceptable. If they want to honour their predecessors then they should do it properly, by telling the public of its English origins, and by giving the true facts about its real name and its mostly Englishmen that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and RD, let the public know that there was not one welsh regiment that took part in the AZW, and stop the pretence that it was a welsh outfit that defended RD.

Maybe if the film was remade and the real true facts were given to the public, then this just might put a stop to this myth that the regiment and its men were welsh and that the regiment was called the SWB, and hopefully justice will finally be given to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and its mainly Englishmen that defended RD.

There were NO welsh regiments that took part in the AZW of 1879.
The regiment that defended RD was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and not the SWB.
The majority of the men were English not welsh.
All 7 VC's awarded to the men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment went to Englishmen.
The SWB were NEVER the 24th regiment of foot, they were just the SWB.
The new name SWB did not come into existance until two years AFTER the AZW.
Marlborough was NEVER the SWB's colonel.
The Sphinx was presented to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment NOT the SWB.
The wreath of immortalles was presented by HM Queen Victoria to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment NOT the SWB.
The honour and the glory for the defence of RD belong to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and its mainly Englishmen, and not to a fictional welsh outfit that did not exist at the time of the AZW.
Baker had an anti English chip on his shoulder, and that is why he made the film pro welsh.
Baker created the myth to con the public into believing that RD was an almost all welsh affair.
A new film should be made to put an end to this myth and give the public the truth, and give the credit back to where it rightfully belongs.

Yawn!!!!! Martin what's the source for the above.

Chard, Oh dear!!! you do seem very tired yawning like that, obviously far too tired to have read the sources that have been provided in other posts, you might be better off going back to sleep, have a good gonk me old china.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Martin

No, I will never come round to your way of thinking, basically because you spout so much anti-Welsh rubbish. The quotes come from a newspaper article and are NOT what I said word for word !
I have in the past specifically addressed the points you have made, clearly with no success. However, I am sure the majority of visitors to this site clearly understand the historical aspect and have grown tired of your incessant tirade.

The Regiments of the British Army are just that – British. There is no Welsh army, no English Army no Scottish Army and no Irish Army. Any references to “English” or Scottish” or “Irish” or “Welsh” invariably refers to where the regiment’s Depot is based and from where they traditionally recruit.

The Army’s initial attempts to geographically link regiments was not a great success. In the case of the 24th, it was given the title “2nd Warwickshire” to link it to that county. At that time most of the Army’s recruits were unskilled farm labourers (with Britain being in its pre-industrial state). It was thought that Warwickshire could therefore sustain two regiments – the 6th and the 24th. In reality the link was not really fully formulated. The 24th did NOT establish a Depot in the County; it was NOT based in the county; had NO LINKS with the County Militia units; and only RARELY recruited in the County. The title “2nd Warwickshire” was therefore tenuous in the extreme ! Regiments generally recruited from the area around wherever they happened to be garrisoned.

In 1881, as part of the Cardwell Army reforms, the question of geographical links was again looked at. By then Britain had gone through the Industrial Revolution and most of the Army’s recruits were now unskilled INDUSTRIAL labourers. The recruiting base therefore had shifted from the traditional agricultural areas to the new industrial conurbations. This had already been recognised in 1873 when the 24th’s Depot was established at Brecon, to enable them to recruit from the industrial areas at the heads of the Welsh valleys. Anyone who joined the 24th after 1873 would have gone to Brecon for his recruit training before posting to either of the Regiment’s two battalions.

Another factor to be considered is that as part of the Army reforms, the length of service had been reduced from 12 years to 6 (with the additional 6 in the Reserve). Therefore in 1879 the larger part of both battalions would have enlisted under the 6 year engagement, and it was only those who had been in more than six years who would have been serving under the previous terms. I have analysed the enlistments dates of B Coy 2nd Battalion at Rorke’s Drift, and around 75% were 6 year men and would therefore have done their training at Brecon. So, whatever their nationality it is not unfair to say that they “came from Wales” (ie Brecon) !

On the subject of nationality, I have made the point before, what defines a “Welshman” – is it where he was born; is it where his father was born; is it where he lived/worked; is it what he thought of himself as ? We simply do not have all four facts for each of the defenders of Rorke’s Drift. Cliff Richard was born in India – does that make him Indian ? The 23rd, 24th and 41st contained more Welshmen than most of the other regiments in the British Army because of where their Depots were located and because of the counties allocated to them for recruiting. That is really all we can say definitively about the %age of nationalities.

In 1881, to reflect the fact that the Depot of the 24th had been based in Brecon for eight years, the name of the Regiment was changed to reflect its geographical link and it became the South Wales Borderers. Everything in the Regiment remained the same, only the title was changed, the SWB were thus able to claim on the heritage of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment. Those men who fought at Rorke’s Drift as part of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment were the SAME men who in 1881 were part of the SWB. John Williams VC, for example, who was in the SWB would be able to claim his, and his unit’s, heritage back before 1881. Your insistence that there is no connection between the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment and the SWB, is an injustice to this brave man, to his colleagues and to his Regiment.

Martin, you clearly have no concept of what an amalgamation, or change of title, means in the Army. With ever increasing financial constraints the Army has had to reduce in size. Amalgamation was a way in in which proud regimental traditions and heritage could be maintained in the new smaller force. I have suggested that if you are unhappy with the way that the Army deals with amalgamations/name changes, then you ought to write to the Army, your MP and the Secretary of State for Defence to express your views. Have you done this ?

With reference to the “Welshness” in “Zulu”, I think Frank’s analysis hits the nail on the head. For all your dislike of Stanley Baker, he has clearly not gone overboard as you would insist. Yes, there is no doubt that he was an ardent Welshmen and was proud of what his ancestors had done at Rorke;’s Drift, whether the percentage of Welshmen (define ?) there was 5% or 30%.

I would add one point to Frank’s excellent analysis – on the singing of “Men of Harlech”. At no stage does the Stanley Baker (Lt Chard) character ask “Pte Owen” to sing the Regimental march – but just to sing. “Men of Harlech” was a traditional marching song and I believe there is evidence of the 4th Regiment singing this on their march in Zululand. A stirring moment in the film, which probably never happened in reality !

I have been told that there are over 140 historical inaccuracies in the film – but that is the point – it is a popular FILM made for entertainment, and not a historical documentary. In my opinion none of the inaccuracies detract from the essence of what went on at Rorke’s Drift. It was good entertainment in 1964 and remains so today, 50 years later. And, of course it is the reason so many of us today have an interest in the conflict.

I have on a number of occasions over the last five years invited you to Brecon to view the Museum and to see how we portray things, but regrettably you have not been able to make it. So please do not presume to interpret what the Museum says and does not say.

You clearly hold a (significantly) minority viewpoint and I doubt that this response will in in any way change your mind. Indeed I suspect you will come back with a response equally as long, repeating ad-nauseum your long held views. Like Frank, I won’t be responding any further.

With the current struggle to hold the United Kingdom together, your anti-Welsh crusade does you no credit and puts you firmly in the camp of the fanatics. Be proud to be British – as were the defenders of Rorke’s Drift !

Bill

Hello Bill,
I really think your post above gives a measured view of the whola affair, as I said is an earlier comment, I fell for the fact that the RD defenders were in a Welsh Regiment as a result of viewing the film years ago and on a number of later occasions. I support your views above and have visited the Museum at Brecon twice over my visits to the UK. I think it is a wonderful tribute to all concerned.

Not being British Subject any more, I was, before our government dropped it to be Australians years ago, I agree again with your remarks on that point. I still have a strong association with the British people and have been over on 8 trips and about to make my 9th in August. Amalgamations in yiur Army have led to a lot of heartache and even one of my favourite ones, the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) disbanded in 1968 when they refused to do so. Perhaps this topic may have played itself out ?
Nitro450

Bill - that is exactly how I see it.

The British Army is organic and has changed and adapted over centuries. Regiments amalgamated and kept the traditions and history of their predecessors and view the men, traditions and history of those earlier regiments as the same as themselves - part of the regiment irrespective of what name or number it now has.

The film was made for entertainment and is not a documentary.

Now now Bill, I see that you are still trying to convince people that I am anti welsh by your rant, when you know full well through our previous 'conversations' that I and my family have welsh relatives, and that I have welsh friends. You also know that I have nothing against the welsh people, the problem is with the various parties that promote the false impression that the regiment that fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and especially RD was a welsh regiment, and with the people that persist with this myth that was created by Baker's film.

I have never ever suggested that there was a Welsh, Irish, English or a Scottish Army, I said that the regiment was an established English regiment in the British Army, and that it was raised in England, as were all the other regiments that make up todays RW, ie; 23rd, 24th, 41st and 69th. Besides, if they are all BRITISH regiments, then why did Baker go out of his way to give the false impression that it was a 'Welsh' regiment,ie; "every Welsh regiment has a chior", "this is a Welsh regiment, though there are some foreigners from England mind", "Can the Welsh do any better Owen", plus all the other little bits and pieces of false welshness, and Burton's quote at the end of the film, ie; "24th foot South Wales Borderers".

I also said that the history of the RW found on the British Army web site, gives the false impression that the regiment was always welsh, they even say the Marlborough was the swb's colonel, which is a total impossibility.

I suggest that you should read again, I never mentioned the museum or its website, it was the Army web site I mentioned, not the museum.

I have never said that there was no connection between the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and the swb, I said that the regiment had no connection with wales, yet it was stupidly moved there. John Williams (Fielding) fought at RD and was awarded his VC whilst his regiment was named the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, not the swb, and I never said that he had no connection with the swb, so I suggest you read it again.

You can rant all you want to try to convince others that I am anti Welsh, but it won't wash, because if they have already read our previous 'crossing of swords', they will know that you have tried that ploy before and failed, and that is because I have Welsh relatives in my family on my mothers side, and they agree with my point of view about how the regiment is portrayed, and how certain parties still try to convince people that the regiment was always Welsh when it wasn't. So again, you are barking up the wrong tree with the anti Welsh nonsense, you know that I have nothing at all against the welsh people, it is the ones that continue to promote the myth and try to con the people into believing that the regiment that did the business at RD was Welsh when it most certainly was not.

If the break up of the UK does happen, then it will not be me nor the English that will be to blame, you should look elsewhere for that, and you know it, so don't try to suggest that it is me or the English that are the fanatics when you know full well who and where the culprits are.

No matter how much you try to convince others that the regiment suddenly became 'Welsh' after just a few short years when it had been an established English regiment since 1689, is, I think, a bit of a 'grasping at straws' sort of thing, all the historical facts in my post are still valid, and history itself will back me up on that.

Martin, Bill doesn't have to convince any of us, you posts say it all, you are 100% Anti Welsh!
Bill excellent post.
Martin instead of looking at Bill's post as a rant! Look at it has a History lesson.

John, I don't think that the welsh members of my family would take very kindly to your suggestion that I am 100% anti welsh, I rather think that they would be more than a little angry at your accusation, put it this way, they know me, you don't.

I suggest that it is you (and maybe some others), who should read the history of the regiment, you will then realise that it is not me that needs a history lesson.

There is an old saying that says "you should put your brain into gear before putting your mouth into motion", I think that you should remember that young man.

"At Brecon Cathedral. Old Colours of 1st Battn. S. Wales Borderers laid up." 

The wreath of immortelles can be clearly seen!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Click on link below after you have watched the news reel.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Didn't the original wreath of immortelles get stolen at some point ?

Hi John,

 In the 1980s  Queen Victoria’s silver wreath was  stolen  from  Brecon  Cathedral  and  later  found  in  the  River  Honddu  not  far  from  the Cathedral. Lost and found symbolism of the Buffalo and Honddu rivers, connecting the present with the past

Regards

Waterloo

Thanks mate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The special distinction of the South Wales Borderers was the adornment of the Queen's Colour with this silver Wreath of Immortelles. It was given to the regiment by Queen Victoria at Osborne House on 28th July 1880 and has been carried on the top of the flag-staff ever since. It is still carried by the Royal Regiment of Wales.

Source:South Wales Borderers

Waterloo. What's your source regarding them being stolen.

The original immortelles are in Brecon Cathedral - I assume it was these that were stolen and not the silver replica on the Colour staff?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Steve

Source: Transcript of the Sermon taken at Brecon Cathedral 'Rorke's Drift' Service, Sunday 18th January 2015 Service held by the Very Revd Dr Paul Shackerly, Dean of Brecon.

There is also an archived newspaper cutting held in the archives at the Regimental Museum of the Royal Welsh Brecon. Reference Zb24A.

Regards

Waterloo

This from the Brecon Cathedral website. Looks like it was the originals that were stolen and were washed away. So only the replacements remain.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Steve

littlehand wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The special distinction of the South Wales Borderers was the adornment of the Queen's Colour with this silver Wreath of Immortelles. It was given to the regiment by Queen Victoria at Osborne House on 28th July 1880 and has been carried on the top of the flag-staff ever since. It is still carried by the Royal Regiment of Wales.

Source:South Wales Borderers

Waterloo. What's your source regarding them being stolen.

'Quote'

The special distinction of the swb

It was given to the regiment by Queen Victoria at Osborne House on 28th July 1880


Well, doesn't that say it all, and doesn't it just prove what I have been saying all along.

Anyone reading that would presume that the Silver Wreath of Immortalles was presented to the swb, when in actual fact it was presented to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and NOT the bloody swb. The swb did NOT come into existance until 1st July 1881, so how the hell could HM Queen Victoria have presented the Silver Wreath of Immortalles to the swb in 1880 when they didn't exist at that time

So typical of the way things are worded by these people, just so that they can avoid mentioning the English county title of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and pretend that it was the welsh and the bloody swb, what a disgusting way to treat the memory of the mainly Englishmen of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment who fell at iSandlwana and the REAL name of their regiment.

Here is a link that explains the history of the 24th and the Wreath of Immortelles and the connection with the SWB.

The original Wreath made of Dried flowers was presented to the 24th in 1880. On the 15th December 1880, QV gave permission for a Silver Wreath to be borne on the Queens colour pike of both Battalions for ever more.

I hope this helps.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Kind Regards

Waterloo

Yes, there is an obvious link between the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and the swb, however, the Silver Wreath of Immortalles was NOT presented to the swb by HM Queen Victoria, she presented it to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment NOT the swb, but the way that things are worded in many write ups and in regimental histories, gives a false impression to the public.

Just look at the picture posted by Steve yesterday at 10:39 pm, it just reads '24th Regiment' rather than 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment. It is this sort of thing that gives a false impression to the public, the title '24th regiment' only existed for 31 years (1751-1782), after that the correct title of the regiment was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, a title it held for the best part of 100 years (longer than any other title in its entire history), however, the title it held the longest is very rarely mentioned, it always gets reduced to 24th foot, 24th regiment, or just the 24th, and even the swb get mentioned rather than the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, thereby giving the false impression to the gullible public that the swb have always been the 24th when they certainly and most defineitely have not. They were just the swb, they were NEVER the 24th, but they like to pretend they were, so that they can steal the glory from the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and pretend it is theirs. The way they word things of course, enables them to avoid mentioning the English county title of 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and also avoid mentioning the mainly Englishmen of its ranks, what a lousy way to treat the memory of those men and their regiment, just so that the welsh and the swb can stick their chests out with false pride, steal the glory and also gain the credit, utterly shameful.

Your posts continually demonstrate a severe lack of generosity of spirit.  It is difficult for any of us to judge whether one regiment of the British Army is superior to another. Significantly, more men served with the South Wales Borderers, many giving their lives in two World Wars & other conflicts, than 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot.  In your next posts, as I am sure this topic will not go away, I would like to see 'SWB' rather than your continued use of 'swb'.

Do not constantly blame the loyal soldiers of the South Wales Borderers - the correct thing to do is to place responsibility where it correctly lies - with the Secretaries of State - Edward Cardwell and Hugh Childers.  You should remember in 1873 it would have been impossible for the County of Warwickshire to recruit and support 4 regular battalions and 4 militia battalions. Yes, it was regrettable that the old 24th had to move to new recruiting ground in Wales.  Yet, SWB and R WELSH (note correct abbreviation) has continued to show that indomitable spirit, they have surely inherited from their gallant and courageous predecessors.  Lets have no more 'swb' but SWB.

I remember seeing a Wreath from Queen Victoria for Lt. John Rouse Merriott Chard at St Johns Church in HatchBeauchamp. I wonder if it's still there? I' am sure that it was the original wreath that QV had sent. It had an inscription: 'A mark of admiration and regard for a brave soldier from his sovereign'.