Regimental Birthday

[wheels]

The RCR has always celebrated 21 Dec 1883, and all Battalions, BSL and ERE Personnel joined in celebrating that date. But are we, as a family been wrong in celebrating this date ?
Recently I had contacted DHH, on an unrelated matter, and in their reply (dated; Monday, February 08, 2010 12:51 PM) I learned that the :
Quote
      In the particular case of The RCR, the regiment is an amalgamation of The Royal Canadian Regiment, The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), 2nd Machine Gun Battalion, CMGC and The Oxford Rifles. An amalgamation is a marriage and the regiment is entitled to all honours, perpetuations and lineage of the former independent component partners. In fact, in addition to the perpetuations, The RCR's official lineage, or formation date, is now 14 August 1863!
Unquote

Why does the RCR use 21 Dec 1883 instead of 14 Aug 1863 ?

The above was quoted to me by :
John MacFarlane
Directorate History and Heritage (DHH) Direction Histoire et Patrimoine (DHP)
Chief of Military Personnel(CMP)/Chef du personnel militaire(CPM)
National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ)/Quartier général de la Défense nationale (QGDN)
101 Colonel By Drive/101 promenade Colonel By
Ottawa, ON  K1A 0K2
Telephone 613-998-7052 Fax/Télécopieur 613-990-8579
Government of Canada/Gouvernement du Canada
http://www.dnd.ca/dhh

Pro Patria

JN Heddle

[Michael OLeary]

From the current edition of the Regimental Catechism.

4. WHEN WAS THE REGIMENT FIRST FORMED?

On 21 December 1883. It was then called the "Infantry School Corps". In 1892 it was renamed "Canadian Regiment of Infantry", and on 24 May, 1893, Queen Victoria's birthday, the honour of a "Royal" prefix was granted and the name changed to "The Royal Regiment of Canadian Infantry". Again in 1899, the name was altered to "The Royal Canadian Regiment of Infantry", and finally, in 1901 to "The Royal Canadian Regiment". The Regiment is the oldest Regular Force infantry unit of the Canadian Forces. It was decided on amalgamation of the Reserve Battalion in 1954 that the Regiment would continue to celebrate 21 Dec 1883 as the Regimental birthday.

Perhaps when the Regimental Adjutant has an opportunity, he can quote the minutes of the Regimental Senate that confirmed the decision to stay with 21 Dec 1883.

[wheels]

My apologies, I did not know of the decision in 1954, during the amalgamation procedures. That would go someways of explaining a caution I was warned about when Woodstock Garrison was closed out in 1970. The meeting must have been filled with a bit of acrimony (probably not in the minutes) if the bitterness was still sore 16 years later.
I can understand why the Regiment, on amalgamation, opted to keep celebrating 21 Dec 1883 as the birthday, but also noting that the formation date and lineage date of organization was 14 Aug 1863.
So is the age of The RCR, of to-day, 147 years or does the Regiment maintain that it is 127 years ? 

Pro Patria

JN Heddle

[Michael OLeary]

By convention, the Regiment numbers its "age" from 1883.

It is only in recent years, in part through my own work on the regimental timeline, perpetuation, battle honours and the addition of the perpetuated units in the Regimental Catechism, that we have brought the contributions of the perpetuated units back into a more accessible regimental history.

Some of the fault for this absence from our familiar regimental history must rest with those past members of the Canadian Fusiliers and Oxford Rifles who did not work aggressively to ensure their regimental stories were better understood as part of the history of The RCR.  Notably, in the many editions of the Connecting File and Pro Patria I have read, mentions of these perpetuated units are few and far between.  

Similarly, we need a better presentation of this part of our history in the updated regimental museum, when that comes to be.  I know from the discussions on the future expansion that I attended that a gallery dedicated to the perpetuated regiments and CEF units was part of the plan.

[wheels]

I agree with you, especially on the where 'part' of the fault lies.
I've been searching and gathering bits and pieces of the histories of the Reserve Units with a view of forming a paper for printing (or is it just a dream).
A gallery in the Museum is admirable, but costly.
In the mean time :
     1 - How can our 'collective' histories be better presented to all members of The RCR ?
     2 - Can the 'age' convention of 1883 be altered to reflect the official lineage as starting from 1863 ?
     3 - Can the Regimental Senate re-visit the 1954 Amalgamation Minutes, with a view to revising them from the standpoint of hindsight ?
     4 - Are all the above taboo ?
During my service in The RCR (1964-1986) there was a growing of amity and a feeling of brotherhood between Regular and Reservist Members of The RCR, that continues to grow with every passing year. I've a feeling that this is still growing.
4th Bn can not (by law) be rotated through Afghanistan (or any overseas mission), as our brothers in 1st; 2nd and 3rd Bns, however a continual flow of 4tn Bn Volunteers are volunteering for Afghanistan and other overseas missions.

Pro Patria

JN Heddle

[Michael OLeary]

The gallery in the Museum is already part of the plan, for which funds have been raised.  It is now up to the Museum to execute that plan.

Our 'collective' histories can best be presented to the Regiment by having those with the stories and the research share them with the Regiment.  One of the greatest challenges with publication of regimental journals has been getting information from members of the Regiment.  If the history is not brought forth, it cannot be published, and continues to be marginalized and forgotten.  Keep in mind, however, it needs to be factual history, not simply unsubstantiated oral narratives, because if the latter are undermined by subsequent research then doubt is cast on all of it.

This forum also provides an excellent venue to share that history at very little cost.  Artifacts and information will also be needed by the Museum to help deliver that story (do not presume the Museum has any amount of prepared material simply waiting for space).

I would say that proposing a regimental change of "birthdate" is a fast route to having the subject brushed aside.  The important requirement, in my mind, is to better develop the regimental understanding of our history, and open more people's knowledge to that Militia side of the family and its antecedents.  When that part of our shared history is better understood by all, then any desire to change the regiment's birthdate will evolve naturally.

[wheels]

Agreed and I'm working on something but I've two problems at the moment. One, i'm out of the country and away from my notes and files and two I do not have references for my notes (am working on the references). Factual writings has to be supported by references, anything else is fiction based on facts and, as you said ; " ..... undermined by subsequent research then doubt is cast on all of it."

John

[aldi]

Good discussion on this thread.  Allow me to insert my two cents, if we're talking about what the regiment evolved into through amalgamation and integration.  Perhaps some consideration might be made for the two regular force regiments who joined the family in 1970.  They, too, are a part of our history and contributed to what we have become.  For example, the annual pace stick competition was brought from the Canadian Guards, as was the person for whom it is named.  Just a thought . . .aldi

[Michael OLeary]

But as we consider the contributions of personnel and customs of those other regiments (which were reduced to nil strength and not amalgamated), we must keep in mind the distinction between formal lineage and those less formal relationships.

I do agree that those stories also deserve to be told, and similarly have not been well documented by those who were there and later became Royal Canadians.  In some cases, the stories were told in ways that confused and misled, without serious efforts being made to distinguish the formal historical lineage from the evolving oral narratives, such as those who came to believe that there was a more formal association between The RCR and the Perth Regiment than actually existed.

[aldi]

Mike,

Good points, although the distinction between 'reduced to NIL strength' and 'amalgamated' may be a bit fine.  The process whereby 2 Cdn Gds became 3RCR and 1 and 2 RHC became 2RCR in the space of day would seem to defy either definition so I'm not sure how we should treat that, for historical purposes.  Perhaps it might be worthwhile to simply collect anecdotes about the events from those who went through them and eventually compile a cohesive narrative.  Here's a start . . . the 2RCR Colours were carried from Fort York to Gagetown by Lt. Luigi Rossetto and handed over to the senior Black Watch officer in preparation for the founding parade of the newly-designated 2RCR.  aldi

[Michael OLeary]

Actually, it's not "a bit fine" at all, it's a very important distinction.  While the differences may have been invisible to a soldier who wore one badge one day and a different badge the next, that does not diminish the difference between the two situations, or the importance of understanding how they fit in the Regiment's history.

For example, the Perth Regiment was reduced to nil strength, and some of its soldiers became Royal Canadians.  We do not perpetuate their history.  If we had been amalgamated with the Perth Regiment, we would today see their Battle honours among our own.   Although we share some honours, we do not carry  "Melfa Crossing", or "Delfzijl Pocket", among others.

Similarly, we do not carry "Thiepval Ridge" or "The Scheldt" (again, among others) from the Black Watch battle honours.

Should we remember that these regiments provided soldiers to The RCR - Yes.  Does this absolve us from understanding a clear history of those changes and contributions - No.

The reason we have confusion today, and some have resisted grasping the nuances of those changes (which may have appeared subtle to some participants at the time, but remain important distinctions nonetheless) is because not enough members of the Regiment considered it important to understand them based on the formal aspects of lineage.

We do ourselves a disservice if we do not work to record and remember all the threads of our history, but we must do it within a solid fact-based historical narrative to be faithful to those who have gone before us and their individual and collective contributions.

[aldi]

Mike,

I yield, kneel and offer my sword in surrender but remain mystified as to how, or even if, we should record such events -- including the sudden similar transformation of 3 Mech Cdo into 3RCR -- for the regiment's posterity.  aldi

[Michael OLeary]

I would suggest we need to maintain two parallel lines of approach.

The first is to maintain a clear a understanding of the regimental lineage, so that stories collected from the regimental service of Royal Canadians, and those stories of soldiers who became Royal Canadians can be placed in their proper perspective.  Within that perspective we can describe both those units that were amalgamated and perpetuated, and those whose soldiers were badged to The RCR after their own units were reduced to nil strength (but without presuming to "own" the historical legacy of the latter).

The second is the collection of those stories, anecdotes and relevant historical documents. (We can never presume that because someone in the Regiment has, or has seen, a particular document that it also exists in the Regiment's archives.)  In the 2006 Issue of Pro Patria, my closing editorial offered a challenge to members of the Regiment - a challenge to write only 1000 words on any aspect of regimental life, history or experience.  Pro Patria went out to about 3600 Royal Canadians (serving and Association), and the challenge was later published n the regimental website - One Thousand Words.  I received two responses - and only two.  One was from a Medic who served with the Regiment in Korea, the other from a man who had served as a the regimental bugler in the 1st Battalion, Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) during the Second World War. Both were published in the 2007 edition of Pro Patria.

So, I would ask you, where are the Regiment's stories, and whose responsibility is it to record them? Any time two Royal Canadians are in a room together, stories are being told - but we, as a regiment composed of all those individuals, are not recording those stories.  It is simple to say "the Regiment should do that".  "The Regiment" is ready to save those stories, but the few staff at RHQ cannot write them for us, they cannot because they are not their stories.  All of our stories must be written by those who know and tell them. Past and serving members of the Regiment owe it to themselves and those they served with to help save those stories.

[ranrad]

I agree whole heartedly Mike, and i encourage all brothers out there to give real thought to doing just that. They are so important to the history of the Regiment and Cdn History as well.. i hope to see a lot putting pen to paper, voice to recorder , and fingers to these little key pads..ranrad

[aldi]

Mike,
You are correct about the responsibility of the individual to provide input and I am crearly guilty of not responding to your appeal for 1,000 words.  You and Tim have made the opportunity available and now it's up to us old farts who were there to get off our duffs and do it.  Mea culpa.  aldi