Why would he have been given a new number?

It's time for another of those, 'this is how it worked' type of posts.  I was dealing with an enquiry in the week where the soldier in question had originally joined the 3rd Battalion of a county regiment in 1902 and, after a short while, had been given a new number, What was the reason for this?

The 3rd Battalion was a militia battalion. This particular regiment had only one militia battalion but many regiments had more than one. Each militia battalion had its own series of regimental numbers which had, at some point, started at 1 and which were issued sequentially. 

So hypothetical Recruit A could be standing in a queue at the regimental depot waiting to be issued with a regimental number for the 3rd Battalion, and Recruit B could be standing next to him in a separate queue waiting for a regimental number for the 4th Battalion. Both battalions drew numbers from their own regimental number sequences, there was no cross-over.

On the other hand, if a man wanted to join the army as a career soldier he would arrive at the same regimental depot and would be issued with a number from the series used by both of the regular battalions. Typically, his army career would begin with the issue of the regimental number and kit at the regimental depot followed by three months' intensive training followed by a posting to the home battalion. Learning his trade there for a further eighteen months or so he would then, in all likelihood be posted to the overseas battalion in one of the British Empire's far-flung outposts - and most likely, India. 

This switching between depot and regular battalions did not impact on a man's regimental number. He retained this number throughout his army career, and it was still retained for him when he joined the army reserve. If he extended his period of reserve service for a further four years as a Section D Reservist, the number would still be his as and when he was recalled to the colours. If he was discharged, deserted or died, his number was not to be re-issued. Queen's and King's Regulations were explicit on this point, this from Queen's Regulations 1895:

As can be seen from this extract, numbers were not finite and, in this instance, when an infantry regiment was close to issuing number 9999 it would have to apply "in sufficient time to obtain authority to start a new series". Read more about regimental numbering as dictated by Queen's and King's Regulations by clicking on the link. 

As regards my questioner, the reason her ancestor had two numbers was that he had first served with the militia and later enlisted with the regular army. In such cases, even though service records may not survive in either WO 96 or WO 97, it is entirely possible (and hugely satisfying) to pinpoint the enlistment dates.

Also see my post on duplicate regimental numbers.

I research soldiers! 

Contact me if you need help with your military ancestor. 

Casualty lists 1914

I'm mid-way through a project to transcribe non-fatal casualties of 1914; a somewhat depressing task which nevertheless is not without its rewards as I inch slowly forwards, one day at a time.

The names below are a small sample of wounded men whose names appeared in The Times newspaper on 2nd November 1914, all of these men reported to be recuperating at the 1st Eastern General Hospital in Cambridge.

Enlistment dates for all of these men could be approximated by using the information published elsewhere on this blog.  So, for instance, go to the Devonshire Regiment page to see that Private Gage must have enlisted in 1902 (and was therefore probably a reservist by 1914), and to the Royal Scots page to see that, coincidentally, Private Gemmell must also have enlisted in 1902.

Private Grace of the Northumberland Fusiliers has a low number because the regiment had reached 9999 by 2nd December 1903 and had then started a new number series from 1 from that date. Private Grace's number therefore dates to late December 1903 or early January 1904. He too was probably a reservist and probably originally enlisted for a period of three years with the colours and nine years on the reserve meaning that when he was recalled to the colours in August 1914 he probably hadn't worn khaki for seven years or more. 

7055 Pte J Gage, Devonshire Regiment 
8237 Pte G Gemmell, Royal Scots
195 Pte P Grace, Northumberland Fusiliers 
7619 Pte A Gray, Scots Guards
8524 Pte C Griffin, Middlesex Regiment 
4755 Pte H Hadfield, King's Royal Rifle Corps
14270 Cpl L Hale, Royal Fusiliers 
8913 Pte W Hancock, Middlesex Regiment 
13996 L-Sgt Alfred W Harper, Royal Fusiliers 
10512 Pte A Harrison, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment
609 Pte W Harrison, Lancashire Fusiliers
7064 Pte W Harvey, Wiltshire Regiment
6713 Pte J Hayes, Connaught Rangers
7984 Pte A T Heart, Coldstream Guards
5130 Pte W Hindon, Wiltshire Regiment

The regimental numbers for The Royal Fusiliers and Loyal North Lancashire Regiment reflect the change in King's Regulations in 1904 which noted that number sequences would now extend to 19,999 rather than 9,999. You can read more about this on my 2009 post which dealt with the all important King's and Queen's Regulations and how these impacted on regimental numbering over the years.

I have borrowed the photo on this post from WW1Photos.org and specifically, the section which deals with wounded men. There are a number of photos published here from the 1st Eastern General Hospital, Cambridge and this is one of them.

I research soldiers! 

Contact me if you need help with your military ancestor. 

Cavalry numbering 1906

In my post the other day concerning Queen's and King's Regulations and changes in regimental numbering, I drew attention to the Army Order 289 of December 1906 which changed the numbering as far as cavalry of the line was concerned.

Prior to this Army Order, all cavalry regiments had numbered individually by regiments. Now, line cavalry and household cavalry were differentiated, and each corps of line cavalry was to use a separate number series extending to 49,999.

The image above (click on it to see a readable version) illustrates this point nicely. Albert Beech joined the 8th Hussars on 30th October 1901 and was given the army service number 5494. He was posted to the 15th Hussars on 15th January 1903 and given a new number, 4372 (same Corps of Hussars, but different regiment, hence the new number). He then remained with the 15th Hussars until 1st November 1909 (picking up two good conduct stripes along the way - the first issued after two year's good conduct, the second issued after three years' good conduct). He was then transferred back to the 8th Hussars. By now, the numbering had changed to numbering by corps rather than regiment and so Albert was issued with the next number in use, 4840. (4822 had gone to a 20th Hussars man, 4837 to a 13th Hussars man).

4840 Corporal Albert Beech was discharged as medically unfit from the now demolished Netley Military Hospital on 21st April 1911. His service record survives in the WO 363 series at the National Archives. Click on the link below to view Albert's service record and thousands of other records like his.

British Army WW1 Records


I also offer a comprehensive, fast and cost-effective military history research service. Follow the link for more information.

The Queen's & King's Regulations - Regimental Numbers

This post will look at Queen's and King's Regulations for the Army between 1889 and 1914, and how they dealt with regimental numbering during those years. Click on the images below to see a readable version!

The Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Army. Part II. 1889

The Queen's Regulations and orders for the Army. 1895

The King's Regulations and Orders for the Army. 1904.

The 1904 Regulations ushered in fundamental changes regarding number sequences. Infantry regiments which had previously had to apply to start a new series once they were approaching 9,999 were now permitted to extend their numbering up to 19,999. (Nevertheless, the change in regulations came too late for some regiments which, having reached 9,999, had already started a new series from 1. I've mentioned these regiments in an earlier post on Regimental Numbering Series).

The Royal Artillery was now differentiated as [1] Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Field Artillery and [2] Royal Garrison Artillery, both numbering up to 49,999 as opposed to the 99,999 which had been used prior to 1904 for the Royal Artillery as a whole.

The 1904 Regulations also specifically mentioned the cavalry regiments (numbering up to 9,999).

Army Order 289 - December 1906

Army Order 289 changed the numbering as far as the cavalry of the line was concerned. (The regiments of Household Cavalry retained their regimental numbering sequences but were to only number up to 9,999). Prior to this Army Order there had been no numbering differentiation between Household and Line cavalry, and each individual regiment had maintained a separate numbering series. Now, the line cavalry was to re-number by the three corps: Dragoons, Hussars and Lancers.

I am unsure of the precise date when this Order came into effect. The lowest numbers currently on my line cavalry databases are 30 (Dragoon Guards on 9th January 1907), 15 (Hussars - 1st January 1907), and 104 (Lancers on 12th February 1907). Men already serving with the cavalry line regiments were not re-numbered and so one assumes that there must have been duplicate numbers in the three corps.

For example, before the Order came into effect, most of the line cavalry were numbering in the high 5000s, 6000s and even 7000s in some regiments (7th Dragoon Guards, 7th Hussars and 5th Lancers to give three examples of the latter).

With the change in numbering, the Dragoons had again reached 5000 by August 1910, the Hussars by December 1909 and the Lancers (which had always had fewer regiments) by December 1913. This also presents today's researchers with another conundrum. Does my line cavalry ancestor's number belong to the pre 1906 series or the post 1906 series? I'll deal with the individual cavalry regiments and the corps of cavalry in future posts.

The King's Regulations and Orders for the Army. 1908.

The 1908 Army Order extended the numbering series in the RHA and RFA to 99,999 whilst the RGA maintained the 49,999 limit which had first been indicated in the 1904 King's Regulations.
The King's Regulations and Orders for the Army. 1912. Amended up to 1st August 1914.

The amended 1912 King's Regulations extended the numbering series in the Army Service Corps and Royal Engineers from 29,999 to 39,999; all other series remained unchanged. And when Britain went to war with Germany three days later, it was these regulations which were in force. There would be many more changes over the next four years.

My grateful thanks to joseph of the Great War Forum for the copy of the 1889 Queen's Regulations, and to Graham Stewart for all the others. View British Army WW1 Records here.

I also offer a comprehensive, fast and cost-effective military history research service. Follow the link for more information.

The Special Reserve - Army Order of 23rd December 1907

Thanks are due to Graham Stewart who has sent me much useful information in the form of Queen's and King's Regulations, Army Orders, and Army Council Instructions relating to army service numbers. I've re-published some of this information already, and my post concerning the creation of the Special Reserve in 1908 is now wonderfully augmented with a copy of the Army Order of 23rd December 1907 which dealt with the "Scheme for the provision, organization, and training of the Special Reserve required to supplement the Regular Army, and the application of the Scheme to the existing Militia".

Digging through some of my files, I also came across the image above which illustrates the choices which Militiamen were offered when the Special Reserve was created.

As can be seen, Militiamen were strongly encouraged to join the Special Reserve and a £2 bonus in 1908 would have probably been ample persuasion for many.


I also offer a comprehensive, fast and cost-effective military history research service. Follow the link for more information.