Colours of the SWB

 

Cant recall German's being present at any of those Battles..
so a German who happened to be the Sovereign decided
that the newly designated 24th cannot parade their colour's
denuded of battle honour's....so she made a decree, simply
to transfer said honours to the ' new ' regt!..she could pretty
much do as she pleased..and did!. Steve, talking about
chucking petrol on the fire.

Like Les says, HRH could do whatever she wanted.

But as far as I am concerned, ALL, and I repeat, ALL pre 1st July 1881 battle honours and awards, and the glory that went with them, belong to the old regiment, as does the line number and title "The Noble 24th".

192 years of English regimental glory and history stolen, and the mainly Englishmen of the old regiment swilled down the drain pipe of history to be forgotten and replaced by a hoax and a myth.

Well I for one won't forget them, nor the honour and glory they brought to their old regiment, only to be taken from them and handed on a plate to a 'new' regiment that never existed before 1st July 1881, bloody shameful.

I think we have probably moved on to another position, which is the Queen wasn't entitled to be the Queen because she was German.
Wern't the Tudors Welsh?  

Steve

Ummm, I didn't know that Kensington Palace, London, was in Germany.   

Henry VII.

Mother, Margaret Beaufort, born Bletsoe Castle, Bedfordshire, England.

Father, Edmund Tudor, born at either Much Hadham Palace, Hertfordshire, England, or Hadham in Bedfordshire, England. Although he was born in England, he was a member of the Tudor family of Penmynydd, North Wales.

Henry was a Lancastrian (no, I don't mean one of us from up here), he became King after the Lancastrian victory over the Yorkists and their usurper Richard III at the battle of Bosworth Field 1485.

Yeah you can have that one! had no cause to study
that in battle in detail! i'm ofay as it relates to the
24th's first col, subsequent interest is of course
churchill (W.L.S.) but i was of course alluding to a
much bigger picture than that! and setting aside
your and Martin's ' thing ' which i enjoy..

For you to throw in that the Tudor's were Welsh has
what? to do with the price of fish?. i'm talking about
the capricious nature of that particular dynasty which
of course continues to the present day!

HM,QV, lets it be known, requests, ( orders ) that certain
battle honours should be accredited to a newly formed
regiment which will be carried thenceforth inperpetuity!
i assumed that would have been carried out after due
consultation with George or whoever that was in actual
fact..i have no problem with that, the SWB have served
with distinction all over the world..has had its successors.
i note the same as Martin the sliding into obscurity the
name of the 2nd Warwickshire's, and i lament the fact that
such a glorious regiment is no longer mentioned in connection
with the deeds so famously and proudly earned! as for that!
thats all, thats it!.

Now, getting on to the ' bigger picture ' in this centenary year
of The Great War..i would like to draw attention to the Saxe
Coburg Gotha's..as most people know the Old Queen Vic was for
most of her reign, after the death of her husband, a very insular
monarch who did not trust her eldest son to even look at an
official despatch box! he incidently went on to become a much
loved king, an era was named for him.cutting to the chase!..
the war time king realizing how unpopular all things German were,
had an inkling that his surname might have to go! so sitting in
Windsor he cast around in desperation for a suitable english name!
well we all know what he came up with..and the british people
being fed wholesale to the guns..never raised an eyebrow! now
come up to date and we have another heir to the throne who
does not like to use the surname he was born with..and thinks,
now? what can one call one?! he's the incumbent Prince of Wales..
so guess what he calls himself..and his two sons on their combats
is stitched the word Wales..capriciousness..they do what they want
when they want. and they prop up the system handing out shiny
baubles to sycophants..i dont mean ' real people ' like lollypop
persons who protect our kids, or fire fighters and the like..

Am i then an anti royalist..NO..they rule by our consent! and give so
much back in other way's..much better them than dirty sweaty
politicians.. i have my eyes open! other views as they say are
available.

Gracious of you on Blenheim. As to the price of fish, my point in throwing in the Tudors was to illustrate that being precious about the national origins of the monarchy is a profitless exercise. We are all mongrels and better for it.

I think you are saying you are in my camp on the continuity of the Colours? It would be a sad state of affairs if none of the regiments had a battle honour earlier than the Sudan - which would be the consequence had all the "new" regiments lost their history in 1881.

I am not sure that the words trust and Bertie should be put together in the same sentence - ask his long suffering wife.

And finally, one of my great uncles was blown to pieces at Jutland aged 20. His family had also felt the need to change their name, German names were a little more than just "unpopular" by 1916 - my great grandfather had by then been declared an alien ( he had only been here since 1848 ). So I don't condemn so readily, after all, whats in a name?

As you say, other views are available.

Steve

Gracious of you on Blenheim. As to the price of fish, my point in throwing in the Tudors was to illustrate that being precious about the national origins of the monarchy is a profitless exercise. We are all mongrels and better for it......Gracious..i was'nt being, sarcasm! yes i employ the same..readily!

Being precious!..is certainly not a profitless exercise! you have to know where you come from.
to understand..maybe, where your going! i understand your mongrel concept but find in this now,
and permanent multicultural society too simplistic and therefore redundant!.

I am most certainly not, ' in your camp ' i think for my self, extract other views and hopefully
make a balanced assessment. if you read my piece again you might come to the conclusion that i
under stood the transference of said battle honours, but lamented the fading into the ether of the
regt that had so gloriously earned them!.

I am not sure that the words trust and Bertie should be put together in the same sentence - ask his long suffering wife......What! who are you to judge any man's domestic arrangements and his
failings as a husband..and how do you propose i ask Queen Alex? your response there smacks of
gossipy tittle tattle which leaves me cold.

Yes actually,i understand your family's history and can readily sympathise with what you say!.
German names were a little more than just "unpopular" by 1916.....yes my friend that even for
an englishman, is a gross understatement! i understand why they had to do it. and even why
the old king had so little imagination as to choose Windsor. if i was attacking the monarchy
per se, have i not the right to do so? given the two awful conflagration's in the early and middle
part of the 20th century? my own grandfathers served. as did all the others, wifes, children, wars
leave nothing untouched! they all fought ( and won ) so people like me can spout off in this way.

No offence intended in any of this, i dont argue just for the sake of it, but i do react and respond.
  

And no offence taken my friend.

By "in my camp", what I meant was I thought you agreed with me on the colours question. As to the old regiment fading, I just don't see it - you trip over 24th 2nd Warwickshire at every turn in this subject.

Who am I to judge a mans failings?  Like you, I reserve the right to have a view about anything and everything, and to express it. I might equally say who are you to judge his strengths. In truth of course, neither view might have much merit, but thats not the point.

The sad thing is that while I would like to agree with you that the world wars were fought so that you and I could express ourselves freely. I fear they were caused by bloody minded nationalistic tendencies that still surface from time to time. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose (as we're into French at the moment).

Steve

Yeah its all the same really! history has passed judgement on Edward's
reign ( history, whatever that really is! usually set down by victors )
there are some excellent books on ' alternative history ' with a more
balanced view! do agree with your last statement though..

I'm not into french at any moment..simply replied to a forum member in
his own tongue so he could read my views and assimilate instantly!
google translate..its a piece of p.   

Hi Les.

Yet another misleading piece of information, ie; they give out all that info infering it was the swb, then right at the very end they say that it wasn't assigned the title swb until 1881, so all that info predates the swb and therefor does NOT apply to the swb then does it?

It belongs to their predecessors, but notice that there is no mention whatsoever of the real name of the regiment that the silver wreath of immortelles was presented to by HM Queen Victoria, nor the real name of the regiment that defended and won at RD, nor the real name of the regiment that the sphinx and the word 'Egypt' was granted to.

Yet another example of dumping the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment to the scrap pile of history and feeding the general public with misleading info, and thus keeping the hoax and the myth alive and kicking. Anyone not in the know reading that would not have a clue that it was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that they were actually talking about, they would automatically assume that it was the swb that they meant, how wrong is that mate, what a con.

There are lots of examples of this sort of misleading stuff, and it's about time it was all corrected and history put right again, talk about stealing the glory, jeez!