War Diaries Talk

Kings Regulations

  • Cameronian_Volunteer by Cameronian_Volunteer

    Does anyone know what Paragraph 108 of King's Regulations refers to?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    The only references I can find online refer to para 392, which covers discharge from service. 108 must be something to do with discipline.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Moving this to the Historian's Arms.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    I've found an online index of the contents of KRs 1914 version. Paragraph 108 comes under the Chapter - "Duties of Commanders" and specifically the section entitled "officer commanding a unit".

    Might it refer to the draft reporting to the officer rather than him personally being reported? I think it can be read either way! Does he get any further mention?

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    I don't know...It looks like 'reported 2nd Lt. Woodford under...', which sounds more like he was reported for something. Perhaps it was a case of him not having met the duties outlined in para 108?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    Look at the entry for 22nd higher up the page - is that reporting a Court martial for the same officer and then saying he was acquitted?

    London Gazette has an entry for June 1916 that a 2Lt HR Woodford RFA resigned his commission. Now we need someone at Natl Archives to look at his service record and tell us if he's the right one!

    Posted

  • Cameronian_Volunteer by Cameronian_Volunteer

    I noted the entries about court-martial and acquittal. That's really what got me curious. I note that Second Lieutenant Woodford is recorded on LFWW as being in Royal Field Artillery.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Yes, that entry for the 22nd is definitely him being acquitted at court martial, isn't it? I've checked LFWW too, and I can't find a service record for him, unfortunately.

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to ral104's comment.

    I can 😉 http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C1056979 I think...

    Posted

  • Cameronian_Volunteer by Cameronian_Volunteer

    He is ordered home to report to War Office on 17th May

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator in response to Cameronian Volunteer's comment.

    And then resigned his commission in June it seems. I'm fascinated to know what he'd done!

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    If I find myself at Kew anytime soon, I'll try and find out!

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    I cannot find a standard medal index card for him (Officers had to apply for their medals and he may not have done so) but there is a card recording an application for a Silver War Badge (issued to men who had been discharged from the Colours, so they had something to wear to show they had served and thus avoid being given white feathers!) in June 1917 and the card is marked "Refused", which I assume to mean they would not award him one as he did not qualify. I'm somewhat surprised that he was not conscripted into the ranks but he seems not to have been.

    There is a photo and further details on Ancestry if we have the right man. Born 1878 died 1928, was married and had children.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    Oh, I see. That application lists him as Harry L Woodford. There's a Gunner Harry L Woodford on LFWW:

    https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/4862211

    I wonder if they're the same person?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    I don't think we're looking at the same card. I'm looking at this one in the name of H.R. Woodford (which gives a rank of 2Lt) for a SWB application on 21 June 1917, which was refused. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=D5987719

    I think you're looking at the one for the Gunner who did get awarded his SWB along with BWM and Victory Medal

    The one I'm looking at has no other medals mentioned on it. I suppose I'm surprised that a year after resigning his commission he's not been conscripted, but maybe there were other reasons we're not aware of.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    So I am! It'd certainly be interesting to get the full story behind this, wouldn't it?

    Posted

  • HeatherC by HeatherC moderator

    As ever there's someone on the Great War forum who has a copy of KRs!

    http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=213857

    "It is the duty of the CO to bring specially to the notice of the inspecting General any officers .. . who, from incapacity or apathy, are deficient in knowledge of their duties, or who do not afford him that support which he has a right to expect,, or conduct themselves in a manner injurious to the efficiency or the credit of the corps"

    So it was to do with his unfitness in some way to be an officer, though it does not say exactly how.

    Posted

  • ral104 by ral104 moderator, scientist

    That's really interesting - thanks for finding out the details! I do wonder what exactly it was that made him unfit to be an officer. Perhaps that had some bearing on why he wasn't conscripted afterwards.

    Posted