Regimental Birthday

[wheels]

Mike

I would say that proposing a regimental change of "birthdate" is a fast route to having the subject brushed aside. 

Or, changing the 'conventional' and 'Senate Approved' birthdate of 21 Dec 1883 to the 'DHH official date' of 14 Aug 1863 just might encourage past and serving members of the antecedent Regiments in being more forth coming with their stories. As it stands now some of these members might believe that their stories will be the ones to be brushed aside and marginalized.

Nothing lost and every thing to gain ..... I believe it is worthy of the risk. As this also applies to the R 22e R (which is 'DHH official' dated as o4 Jun 1869), putting them in the sane boat as we are (an amalgamated Regiment).

via con Dios

John

[Michael OLeary]

Or, changing the 'conventional' and 'Senate Approved' birthdate of 21 Dec 1883 to the 'DHH official date' of 14 Aug 1863 just might encourage past and serving members of the antecedent Regiments in being more forth coming with their stories. As it stands now some of these members might believe that their stories will be the ones to be brushed aside and marginalized.

Keep in mind that the date of 21 Dec 1883 also has significant and official importance in DHH terms, even if someone there has focussed on the simple explanation of "amalgamation" and its usual effect of dates of origin.

From A-AD-200-000/AG-000 THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES; 1999-01-04, OPI: DHH:

An armoured or infantry regiment with both Regular and Reserve Force components takes precedence within the Reserve Force according to the regiment's date of origin, and within the Regular Force according to the date its Regular Force component became part of that Force.

To change, we would be no further ahead in the requirement to have one date of origin while having to explain another.  The requirement remains to understand the regimental history and explain it clearly without inaccuracies. Nor should our shared individual and collective responsibility to record the Regiment's history hang on this point.

I do not see how the current regimental solution is "mariginalizing" anyone.  If that were the case, we'd have lots of (originally badged) Royal Canadians writing their stories, and we might have some from those who also served in perpetuated units writing stories to be brushed aside.  Please provide evidence that this is occurring to support your thesis.  In my experience, the problem is that not enough Royal Canadians - of any and all prior regimental backgrounds - are writing their stories at all.  The only story I received as Regimental Adjutant from a past member of a perpetuated regiment, I made sure was published in Pro Patria. This hardly reflects an attitude of "brushing aside or marginalization" and, in my opinion, those who would claim one exists are simply choosing it as an excuse not to try.

[Michael OLeary]

I also have on my shelf another applicable reference:

A-AD-267-000/AF-003
The Insignia and Lineages of the Canadian Forces
OPI: DHH; 2005-03-10

The volume I have is Volume 3, Part 1; Armour, Artillery and Field Engineer Units (I do not believe the Infantry volume has gone to print yet).  There is, however, a general introductory chapter, which includes this paragraph:

The Royal Canadian Regiment, which was authorized to be formed on 21 December 1883, is the oldest infantry regiment continuously embodied in the Regular Force. However, its lineage is traced to 14 August 1863 because of its amalgamated Reserve Force component (the 4th Battalion), the former “The London and Oxford Fusiliers (3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment)”.

That certainly shows that DHH is well aware of the importance of both aspects and dates of origin.

[wheels]

Mike

You are correct in what DHH is aware of and I do not dispute that. But what does it actually mean?
To me it means that The RCR was formed in the regular force - from it's birth -on 21 Dec 1883 and in the next sentence DHH states that it's actual lineage is traced to 14 Aug 1863, upon the amalgamation of 01 Oct 1954.
21 Dec 1883 is really of importance from the stand point that this is were The RCR is counted as the senior Regiment of Infantry in the Regular Force - a very important point.
However DHH also states that the birthdate of The RCR (post 01 Oct 1954) is amended to 14 Aug 1863.
'By convention', the date of 21 Dec 1883 is a purely Regimental affair, to celebrate it's bith in the regular force; but the actual age of the Regiment is dated, twenty years, 4 months and one week earlier, to 14 Aug 1863.
DHH and The RCR are both aware of these facts, but I'm am bewildered why the Regiment wants to celebrate on 21 Dec 1883 - 'by convention - as if nothing happened on 01 Oct 1954.
If the Regiment does not want to celebrate 14 Aug 1863, what is to stop the 4th Bn from doing so? - other than the 4th Battalion itself?

via con Dios

Pro Patria

John

[Michael OLeary]

Even if 4RCR decided to mark 14 Aug as a significant date, who would be there to celebrate it?  Mid-August is at the height of the summer training season, there would never be a battalion event with a significant number of soldiers on that date.  Trying to re-insert it today would be counter-productive, and it would become a non-event.

Even to try to reestablish 14 August as a date to be celebrated today would mean ignoring over 50 years of established tradition; the only tradition that every serving member now knows.  Does that count for so little it should just be cast aside?

[wheels]

I fully understand your concerns about the summer training season - I was part of it for 22 years. Hence I do get your point.
However, for 87 years the Oxford Rifles celebrated 14 Aug 1863 and then for 4 years London and Oxford Fusiliers celebrated 14 Aug 1863.
That certainly beats 56 years. Then again, have the soldiers of 4th Battalion been made aware of their actual birth date as opposed to the 'by convention' birth date?

via con Dios

Pro Patria

John

[Michael OLeary]

By your own repeated interpretation of general guidelines for amalgamation, it is not just the soldiers of 4RCR who should be aware of these dates. Regiments are amalgamated and the perpetrated heritage is not specific to individual battalions.  If you quizzed the soldiers of any of the battalions on this, would they answer your questions satisfactorily?  No, I highly suspect they wouldn't. Just like most Royal Canadians can't explain Bermuda in the context of the First World War, or the connection to the 2nd Battalion, Canadian Machine Gun Corps (CEF).  The truth is that while most soldiers are proud of their various Regiments' histories, most are also simply not that interested in the details.

The list of perpetuated Militia Regiments and CEF units is now in the Regimental Catechism.  It is now included because I put it there.  At no time since 1954 did anyone, in or out of the 3rd/4th Battalion ever strongly enough make a case to ensure it was taught to every regimental soldier.  Today, it is available to all through the one document that, for many, contains the sum total of regimental history that they will give more than a cursory glance.  That forms a first step in bringing it back into general knowledge for all serving Royal Canadians.

[wheels]

I agree, that for most soldiers (of any Unit), Unit History is not on the list of things to know. Most soldiers have a very low interest in things historical ---- particularly during a war. There are more important things to be concerned with.

The truth is that while most soldiers are proud of their various Regiments' histories, most are also simply not that interested in the details.
........
Today, it is available to all through the one document that, for many, contains the sum total of regimental history that they will give more than a cursory glance.  That forms a first step in bringing it back into general knowledge for all serving Royal Canadians.

But surely the senior ranks (MWOs; CWOs; Field Grade Officers), who have a say on the BOG; REC and Reg'tal Senate, where decisions are made that are affected by or even affect history, are discussed and made mandatory for all ranks to abide by; must have more than a cursory knowledge of their Unit's History?

So what in your opinion would be the second step?

I would (as you guessed) make the actual birth date of the Regiment known to all and not just list it in the Regimental Catechism. Celebration on any other date would just confuse just how old The RCR is. We are, as a Regiment, 147 years old and not 127. How many soldiers, even if they are concerned enough to know, are actually aware of this most tiny, but vital piece of their history?

via con Dios

John

[GElms]

I really enjoy watching this intellectual exchange but alas that is for the most part what it is...taking a very narrow look at something without filling in the historical context.  The reality here is that in 1954 coming out of Korea there was a move to have at least one affiliated militia battalion.  There were other plans to reorganize the Militia coming out of Korea as well but nothing really came of them until some of the Suttie Commission changes were implemented in 1964.

The note that Jim refers to from the DHH document actually say it well when it says... The Royal Canadian Regiment, which was authorized to be formed on 21 December 1883, is the oldest infantry regiment continuously embodied in the Regular Force. However, its lineage is traced to 14 August 1863 because of its amalgamated Reserve Force component (the 4th Battalion), the former “The London and Oxford Fusiliers (3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment)” ...The RCR is a Regiment of the Regular Force and by virtue of it coming into being in 1883, it is and will be the senior infantry regiment of the Army.  It can’t be any more senior than it is and because seniority doesn’t transfer between components and isn’t “blended” there wouldn't be a need to amend the birthday of "The Royal Canadian Regiment".  Therefore unlike some other Regiments we have chosen it seems to keep what we have earned and not tried as some have to trace lineages beyond what are ours...and the caveat about our lineage being traced back to 1863 through the 4th Battalion says it quite well while still recognizing the value of that link.  There is a lot more research that can be done on it and I am sure there are several records that will show how these things were done...

To get back to the birthday...back in the late 70s and 80s there were a number of moves to look at Regimental days that brought us to formalize Regimental and “battalion” days...Hill 187 was formalized then but had actually already become the defacto day from the early 70s just after 3 RCR formed in Petawawa.  I don’t know why there seemingly wasn't or if there was a move by 4 RCR to make it their “battalion day”... I remember around 1979  there was a discussion as to whether the "Regimental Birthday" falling as it does so close to Christmas when so many are on leave and the weather tends to go against getting people out to Regimental activities, should be replaced by another "main" Regimental celebration (and I think there was a reference to moving the Birthday in some form.  This was decided against because it just didn't seem to make sense.  That said I know the Col of the Regiment has charged a number of working groups to look at things like how we do things like this in the future and that the CO and RSM of  4RCR are active participants in that process and it will be interesting to see what comes from it

I note much has been said of the “amalgamation”...I am not sure that was really the original intent of creation of the (then) 3rd Battalion and I have seen it elsewhere referred to as an affiliation rather than an amalgamation.  Perhaps the subsidiary titling was aimed at allowing the Militia Battalion to maintain the identity that was important to its members at the time and allow them to decide how fast and how far they would move into the new Regiment.  Looking at our other Regular regiments it is interesting to note that the Militia Battalion of the PPCLI has pretty much reverted to just being the Loyal Eddies and at least two of the R22ER militia bn (they has several) chose to give up the relationship and go back to their own identity and titles.  In our case  4RCR maintains and independent senate and trust structure and other elements that were set down when Cols Weldon, Dillon and others set the process in motion.  The last “fusilier” items – the stripe and hackle went during the time BGen OBrien was the sr serving militia member of the Regiment and my understanding is that it was a 4RCR Senate decision that infact was a popular one among the more junior members of the Regiment who don’t see the need for two classes of Royal Canadian.  That has I think been one of the strengths of our Regiment both in terms of this amalgamation/affiliation and in the way in which we took a number of very positive elements from both the Canadian Guards and the Black Watch and is frankly something we did better than others.  That is the nature of The Royal Canadian Regiment – Canada’s National Regiment.

[wheels]

Mr Elms

1 - The Reserve Battalion of The RCR is not an affiliate, but a full member of The RCR, as a result of the amalgamation, no matter
     how or for what reason, it came to be.
2 - As a direct result, the Reserve Battalion, added several Battle Honours to the Regimental List and actually caused the alteration of
     the Colours to reflect this. This, by itself is a tangible change to the Regiment as a whole.
3 - Another tangible change is the actual birthdate of the Regiment, from 21 Dec 1883, to 14 Aug 1863. As explained by Michael
     O’leary, the former date (21 Dec 1883) is used by, by the Regiment, as a ‘convention’. The true birthdate, is 14 Aug 1863, as a
     direct result of the amalgamation.
4 - This makes the Regiment 147 years old and not 127 years old. DHH has listed 21 Dec 1883, as of importance to the formation date
     of The RCR (as only to it’s embodiment in the Regular Force), but as a result of the amalgamation (25 Apr 1958), the lineage (ergo
     birthdate) begins on 14 Aug 1863. As an aside, according to DHH, 01 Oct 1954, is recognized as a 'legal linkage by affiliation'.
5 - A change to 14 Aug 1863, would not affect the placement of the Regiment in seniority, since seniority is governed by the rules of
     precedence. First one admitted to the Regular (or Reserve) List, wins. It can only be affected if (a very big word) a Guards
     Regiment were to be added to the Regular Force (as occurred from 16 Oct 1953 until 01 Sep 1970 – Canadian Guards).
6 - Whether we like to admit it or not, there are two distinct classes of Royal Canadians – Regular and Reserve. I do not mean to
     denigrate one or the other, but let us be honest with ourselves, Reservists are not Regulars, even when they are Battalions of the
     same Regiment. The only advantage (over a civilian) that a Reservist has, is that he/she is already partially trained when called
     for service with the Regular Force.


Pro Patria

via con Dios

JN Heddle

[Tim Robinson]

My two cents: Information provided DHH - Official Lineages;

TERMINOLOGY

Amalgamated - means joined with another unit or units to form one new unit; a kind of "marriage".

Perpetuation (perpétuation) - means the authorized inheritance and preservation of the identity, fighting traditions, and honours of a disbanded unit that has gained an honour and/or distinction in the field.

Disbanded (dissous) - means ceased to exist as an authorised unit. Disbanded for the purpose of reorganisation means disbanded with the intent to immediately reform with no effect on lineage. This term was also used to correct terminology errors made by organizational staff.

The Royal Canadian Regiment, which was authorized to be formed on 21 December 1883, is the oldest infantry regiment continuously embodied in the Regular Force. However, its lineage is traced to 14 August 1863 because of its amalgamated Reserve Force component (the 4th Battalion), the former "The London and Oxford Fusiliers (3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment)". The Canadian Grenadier Guards, which were authorized to be formed on 17 November 1859, are the oldest infantry regiment continuously embodied in the Reserve Force.

LINEAGES
A Canadian Forces regiment remains a family of soldiers. Its life-line, or official lineage, begins with its creation as a battalion-sized unit, that is, an organization composed of two or more squadrons, batteries, companies or a headquarters with allocated sub-units. Regimental lineage does not start on the date of formation of its oldest component part and like any 'family' it requires unbroken service to maintain its lifeline. After disbandment, a regiment ceases to exist. Any unit later reconstituted which has continuity in name, number, territory or demography nevertheless does not imply lineal descent of the former regiment; it is a new family. The authority to authorize the formation, disbandment and embodiment of a unit is the prerogative of the Minister of National Defence

Perpetuation is a uniquely Canadian system that institutionalizes the memory of the deeds and sacrifices made by those soldiers who contributed to a unique period in Canada's military history and provides a means of preserving military operational honours for succeeding generations. Thus, the perpetuating unit becomes the official 'safe-keeper' of this heritage for them all.

The system was developed by the army after the First World War and was extensively used to safeguard the heritage of Canadian Expeditionary Force units. The system has changed little over the years. Only combatant units, that have gained an honour and/or distinction in the field, may be perpetuated and only a combatant unit authorized to be an honour-bearing unit may be afforded a perpetuation.

Perpetuation guidelines, developed by the post-First World War Battle Honours Committee and the Army Historical Section, are still followed today:

a.where a connection can be established, whether generic, territorial or titular, it is desirable that units now existing or to be raised in future should perpetuate military units of the past in Canada;

b.where a connection is established between an active unit and a defunct or disbanded unit, no limits should be set to the time elapsed between the disbanding of the former unit and the raising of the present unit;

c.where only a territorial connection is established and where two or more active units now recruit within that territory, perpetuation should be offered to active units in order of date of raising. Only in exceptional cases may dual perpetuations be warranted; and

d.it is policy to perpetuate the memory of predecessor units but there shall be no other effect upon the lineage or precedence of any perpetuating unit.

The Royal Canadian Regiment perpetuates a number of units of the Canadian Militia and the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) of the First World War. The units of the Canadian Militia are as follows:
•Units of the Canadian Militia:
The London and Oxford Fusiliers (3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment), which were formed by the amalgamation of:
The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), which started as the "7th Infantry Battalion, 'Prince Arthur's Own'" in 1866, and
The Oxford Rifles, which started as the "Twenty-second Battalion Volunteer Militia Rifles, Canada" in 1863,
2nd Machine Gun Battalion, Canadian Machine Gun Corps (1919–1938).

I believe it is quite clear that our lineage does not force us to adopt the birth date of the Oxford Rifles (oldest component) though the Regiment’s lineage is traced to 14 August 1863 because of its amalgamated Reserve Force component (the 4th Battalion) because:

a.   Regimental lineage does not start on the date of formation of its oldest component part and like any 'family' it requires unbroken service to maintain its lifeline.

b.   it is policy to perpetuate the memory of predecessor units but there shall be no other effect upon the lineage or precedence of any perpetuating unit.

[wheels]

Either I missed something or what I wrote, was taken out of context or I’ve misunderstood something.
     Firstly; The Royal Canadian Regiment does not perpetuate any Unit of the Canadian Militia. The RCR was amalgamated with a Militia Regiment (The London and Oxford Fusiliers). By this amalgamation The RCR was united with, The Oxford Rifles, The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) and the 2nd Machine Gun Battalion, CMGC, 1919-1936.  This amalgamation actually formed a new Regiment, incidentally, designated as, The Royal Canadian Regiment, as called for by the amalgamation committee of 1958.
     Secondly, the RCR, does perpetuate several Battalions of the CEF; 1st, 33rd, 71st, 142nd and 168th Bns, CEF as well as 2nd MG Bn,
CEF, and as you have shown in your email, there is a difference between amalgamate and perpetuate. Just to reiterate, I cite :
     “DHH -                    Amalgamated - means joined with another unit or units to form one new unit; a kind of "marriage".
               Perpetuation (perpétuation) - means the authorized inheritance and preservation of the identity, fighting traditions, and
                                                       honours of a disbanded unit that has gained an honour and/or distinction in the field.”
     Forcing, an individual or a Regiment to do anything is counter-productive to whatever your ultimate goal is. One must convince the person or the Regiment, much like lawyers in a courtroom must convince a jury, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that what he advocates is correct.. The rules of ‘lineage’ will take their due course. As DHH states; “A Canadian Forces regiment remains a family of soldiers. Its life-line, or official lineage, begins with its creation as a battalion-sized unit”. These matters will be properly dealt with, discussed and decided upon, by the REC, as well as the Regimental Senate.
     However, I now plead my case for a change in the ‘age’ of the Regiment from 127 years (1883) to 147 years (1863). The actual day (21 December), of celebration, by the Regiment, is a minor and mute point. Since it was decided by the REC and Senate of the day, it can also by changed by the REC and Senate of to-day.
     21 Dec 1883, is of great importance to the Regiment, because it is the date on which they were embodied on the Regular List. Changing our birthdate will not change this most important fact (seniority). Even. Le Royal 22e Régiment, with their new lineage date (04 Jun 1869), can not challenge us to this most coveted position.
     Since The RCR  only dates from 25 Apr 1958, are we to date our ‘age’ from the founding of the oldest component of Battalion size (14 Aug 1863) ? Or use the date, on which the Regiment was amalgamated (25 Apr 1958)?

     a - There is a fine line between Battalion and Regiment. In 1900 the Militia Department, arbitrarily re-designated all Militia
           Battalions as Regiments. I know that you, and others, might (or might not)  say that there is no fine line, but a very distinct and
           important one.

     b - There is a major difference between ‘Amalgamated’ and ‘Perpetuated’. I was discussing the age of The RCR after the
           amalgamation of; ‘The Oxford Rifles (14 Aug 1863); The Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) (27 Apr 1866); The
           Royal Canadian Regiment (21 Dec 1883) and The 2nd Machine Gun Battalion, CMGC, 1919-1936 (01 Jun 1919). I was not
           discussing any of our perpetuated Regiments, all of which are CEF Battalions.

via con Dios

Pro Patria

JN Heddle