Childers' logic

For general discussions on the British Army of the Victorian era or specific regiments.

Childers' logic

Postby jf42 » 26 Jan 2016 09:54

59th (2nd Nottinghamshire) Regiment of Foot

30th (the Cambridgeshire) Regiment of Foot

- united in 1881 to form

The East Lancashire Regiment

At a first glance, it is difficult to grasp the logic how the two antecedent regiments with the subsidiary regional titles selected in 1782 ended up with the regional title agreed in 1881. It is one of the more distinctive examples of curious decisions made during the Childers Reforms.

Does anyone know how the decision was reached?

Other examples include:

20th (the East Devonshire) Regiment of Foot < 1st Bn. The Lancashire Fusiliers
40th (the 2nd Somersetshire) Regiment of Foot< 1st Bn. The Prince of Wales's Volunteers Regiment (South Lancashire Regiment)
63rd (the West Suffolk) Regiment of Foot< 1st Bn Manchester Regt)

The focus on the northwest of England is interesting. Perhaps that was to do in part with exploiting population areas with untapped recruiting potential.
User avatar
Senior Veteran member
Posts: 2337
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 15:12

Re: Childers' logic

Postby Frogsmile » 02 Sep 2017 11:31

My understanding is that it was merely a coincidence of them (i.e. their depot companies) already being collocated as a result of the earlier reform of the depot system to create numbered Brigade depots (aka 'the Localisation Scheme'). In short there was no logic and it was all about coincidental geography. A similar thing occurred when it was decided which Ghurka regiments would transfer to the British Army and which would stay with the Indian Army after partition in 1947.
Relic of many a fight and siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Forum Fellow
Posts: 5077
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Return to The Army

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest