Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Corporals as NCO's

Expand Messages
  • Craig Williams
    This is a good point Ray, Back in the day, this was a hot topic of discussion at Ft. York and after some investigation there was reference found that the rank
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      This is a good point Ray,

      Back in the day, this was a hot topic of discussion at Ft. York and
      after some investigation there was reference found that the rank
      "lance corporal" was introduced at the same time as the earliest
      advent of chevron use in the British army (1802). The lance corporal
      did exist at that time but they were called chosen man, they were
      paid slightly more than a private, they were an appointed rank and
      they didn't wear the single chevron until later than the Napoleonic
      wars.
      So the single chevron is probably an anachronism. I am no near my
      library right now but I believe this information is in one or other
      of the histories of the british army .

      Craig
      On 2-Feb-06, at 10:40 AM, ray hobbs wrote:

      > Which raises another topic. Several regiments in the hobby (including
      > ours, the 41st) have men wearing one chevron as "Lance Corporals". In
      > my reading of many, many primary documents I have never come across
      > this rank for the 1812 period. It is absent from the muster rolls I
      > have read.
      >
    • Chris McKay
      Interesting Craig, but (not trying to be impudent) I m afraid you raise as many questions as you answer. In looking through the paylists for the Royals for
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting Craig, but (not trying to be impudent) I'm afraid you
        raise as many questions as you answer. In looking through the
        paylists for the Royals for 1814, there is no mention of any Chosen
        Man pay anywhere. This isn't all that conclusive because there
        isn't a section for Colour Sergeants either. Rather, some Sergeants
        simply earn more pay than others. So, checking with the privates,
        there are many cases where some of them are to receive seven or
        eight pence a day from the standard six. All of these cases seem to
        be for seven and fourteen years (or more) service respectively.
        Would these men be considered Chosen Men simply because of their
        years of service? Or was it possible that this rank was simply not
        used in the Royals? You didn't mention a requisite strength of
        Chosen Men, so perhaps the battalion simply didn't see anyone as
        worthy or didn't see it as a position worth filling.
        I was also trying to find some mention of their duties in some of
        the documents I have because, if they existed, this is the next
        logical step. In Cooper's Light Infantry manual, he refers only to
        Sergeants, Corporals or other "Intelligent Men." I suppose these
        would be the Chosen men, but it seems odd that he would not refer to
        them by this name. Is it possible, since there's no uniform
        distinction, that Chosen Man is not, technically, a rank, but rather
        simply indicates a man chosen to be next in line. This would not,
        however, come with a pay raise.
        I've probably asked more questions about this than there are
        answers for, but I'd love to read more about this rank, so if you
        can find where you read about it, please pass it on.

        Thanks,
        Chris

        --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Craig Williams <sgtwarner@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > This is a good point Ray,
        >
        > Back in the day, this was a hot topic of discussion at Ft. York
        and
        > after some investigation there was reference found that the rank
        > "lance corporal" was introduced at the same time as the earliest
        > advent of chevron use in the British army (1802). The lance
        corporal
        > did exist at that time but they were called chosen man, they were
        > paid slightly more than a private, they were an appointed rank
        and
        > they didn't wear the single chevron until later than the
        Napoleonic
        > wars.
        > So the single chevron is probably an anachronism. I am no near my
        > library right now but I believe this information is in one or
        other
        > of the histories of the british army .
        >
        > Craig
        > On 2-Feb-06, at 10:40 AM, ray hobbs wrote:
        >
        > > Which raises another topic. Several regiments in the hobby
        (including
        > > ours, the 41st) have men wearing one chevron as "Lance
        Corporals". In
        > > my reading of many, many primary documents I have never come
        across
        > > this rank for the 1812 period. It is absent from the muster
        rolls I
        > > have read.
        > >
        >
      • lalozon
        From: Chris McKay To: Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: ... In
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>
          To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 PM
          Subject: [WarOf1812] Re:

          "... In looking through the paylists for the Royals for 1814..."



          Chris

          Was there any mention of 'Lance Corporals' in the paylists for the
          1st (Royal Scots) Regt?

          I assume that you mean the 1st Regt when you say 'Royals'

          Yrs.,
          L2
        • Chris McKay
          Sorry, yes, the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists were the ones to which I was refering. There are only the following ranks: Serjeant-Major;
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry, yes, the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists were
            the ones to which I was refering. There are only the following
            ranks: Serjeant-Major; Quarter-Master Serjeant; Pay-Masters Clerk;
            Armourer as Serjeant; Drum-Major as Serjeant; Serjeants; Corporals;
            Drummers and Fifers; and Privates.

            Chris

            --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "lalozon" <lalozon@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>
            > To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 PM
            > Subject: [WarOf1812] Re:
            >
            > "... In looking through the paylists for the Royals for 1814..."
            >
            >
            >
            > Chris
            >
            > Was there any mention of 'Lance Corporals' in the paylists
            for the
            > 1st (Royal Scots) Regt?
            >
            > I assume that you mean the 1st Regt when you say 'Royals'
            >
            > Yrs.,
            > L2
            >
          • lalozon
            From: Chris McKay ... the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists ... Thus no mention of Lance Corporals, which
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>

              "... the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists ..."



              Thus no mention of Lance Corporals,
              which reinforces Doctor Hobbs
              and my research so far

              Thank you

              L2
            • Kevin Windsor
              Don t worry Mark, I will copy this, blow it up really BIG and give it to you!!! (oh wait Chris is married, so he is used to being wrong now!!) KW
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Don't worry Mark, I will copy this, blow it up really BIG and give it to
                you!!!
                (oh wait Chris is married, so he is used to being wrong now!!)

                KW

                ----- Original Message -----

                > So, mystery solved, I was wrong.
                > Chris
              • Richard Feltoe
                Dear listoids In combing through yet more obsure out of period and irrelevant documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 12, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear listoids
                  In combing through yet more "obsure" "out of period" and "irrelevant" documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a professional museum curator; I have come across something which they are certain to dismiss once again. On the other hand, for those who are willing to accept the following terms of relevance, it may prove of interest.
                  regards
                  Richard Feltoe


                  The document is entitled
                  "The Standing Orders for the Norwich or Hundred and Sixth Regiment"
                  and was published in 1795
                  (for those not familiar with this regiment it was officially formed in April 1794 and was disbanded in 1795).
                  If we accept that since it was a new regiment, starting from scratch, it had no prior regimental traditions or oral proceedures learned by generations of ready-made NCO's to fall back on. Instead, recruiting and establishing itself from a range of sources, this publication was created; outlining every aspect of the duties and functions of the several ranks, as well as the regulations to be applied in the running of the regiment.
                  These statements and regulations could not have been simlpy made up as unique regimental preferences, instead they would have had to follow the letter of the overall army regulations and be compatable with those of the other regiments of the line. As such, I have to conject that this gives us a pretty good snapshot of what was the regimental standard of the day, and since this is only seventeen years prior to the outbreak of our war, and the British Army was not renouned for changing established rules and proceedures at a breakneck pace, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that a similar policy could have been in effect in 1812 as to the effective position as an NCO in the British Army. At least that's the way I see it.

                  "...NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
                  Non Commissioned Officers are to be thoroughly informed of the standing Orders of the Regiment, and to attend strictly to every circumstance of conduct and behavior of the private men, and to make it their business to find out every thing irregular. They are to see that the Arms, Accoutrements, and Necessaries are properly taken care of; that the men are cleanly and perfectly exact in every duty of the Regiment. They must insist on a most strict compliance with their orders; and as their authority must be supported, they must use it with discretion,not to gratify any personal resentment. On the contrary, they must behave well to the men, still avoiding too much familiarity: they must consider the respectable situation in which they are placed. They must positively exert their authority, and they must set the Privates a proper example by a manly, soldier-like, obedient conduct on their part, and a great decency of appearance. Any non-commissioned Officer who connives at or overlooks any irregular and unsoldier-like behavior of any kind, or who does not himself set a good example, will certainly be reduced as one who has not the good of the service at heart, and does not feel for his situation.

                  Non-commissioned Officers running in debt will be reduced, as unfit to preserve authority or keep up good order amongst the men. No non-commissioned Officer is to have any money transactions whatever with a Private. Every non-commissioned Officer is to keep up that degree of respect which is due to him from the men; whoever is deficient in that particular must be reduced, as wanting that Propriety of conduct and behavior which will always procure respect, and which alone can procure it. No non-commissioned Officer must ever suffer himself to to be treated by the private men, or ever drink with them on any account; either from a notion of gratitude the non-commissioned Officer will think himself bound to be partial to the men that treat and drink with him, or the men will flatter themselves they are entitled to some indulgence: whenever this rule is not observed the Serjeant or Corporal will be immediately reduced to the Ranks as totaly unfit to support any authority as non-commissioned Officers..."

                  (Of course it's just conjecture on my part, but I think this could be hinting that Corporals is NCO's, but just in case there are those who still don't accept this, it continues)

                  "...When a non-commissioned Officer has the charge of a squad he is entirely responsible for it; besides the common visitation he muse frequently look into and discover if the men are regular and obedient to orders, and he should take a pride in having it in perfect order. A non-commissioned Officer may be certain that, by overlooking the irregularities of the men, he not only incurs the censure of the Officers, but also the contempt of the men themselves. If a non-commissioned Officer is taken ill, he must report it to the Serjeant of his squad...

                  (Let's look at this here, the sick NCO is to report to the Sergeant, It's therefore not the sergeant and can't be the privates, so who's left? old two stripe!)

                  ...or if he commands a squad, to the Sergeant Major...

                  (i.e. the sergeant or the corporal where there is no sergeant)

                  ...Non-commissioned Officers must be extremely well dressed at all times, and have an air that distinguishes them. The Serjeants and Corporals must have small pocket brushes when they parade their squads to clean any dirt or dust on the men's hats and coats - the same at turning out a relief when on guard. ...
                  A Serjeant has authority to confine a Corporal and both Serjeants and Corporals have authority to confine privates, which, of course, they must do with discretion...

                  ...Non-commissioned Officers are to be promoted according to seniority if they merit it; but if the eldest of a rank is not fit for promotion the next who is must be taken, for no man will be promoted who is not really fit for the service; and Lance Corporals, if found equal to the appointment, will be promoted the same as full Corporals, and in every respect be obeyed and considered as such..."

                  (Here's one that surprised me, official reference to Lance Corporals, New discussion please!)


                  In addition to this material, this document outlines details for Officers, Regimental Staff, the Sergeant Major, Dummers, Regimental tailors and Recruits etc. It also covers numerous aspects of regimental life, including marriage!

                  If anyone is interested, I'd be willing to put up some more exerpts from this little gem.
                  Richard Feltoe

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • dancingbobd@webtv.net
                  Richard, Great stuff. A good guide for behaviour in public times at events. Please do post more. I would be interested in the Staff Officer section and the
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 12, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Richard,

                    Great stuff. A good guide for behaviour in public times at events.

                    Please do post more. I would be interested in the Staff Officer section
                    and the Company tailor section as well.

                    THANKS!!

                    Regards,

                    Bob Dorian
                    Surgeon 14 LD
                    US Engineer
                    Sometimes sewing guy - not a tailor, that would be Maj. Abolt! ; * )
                  • awash
                    Dear Richard, Concerning Corporals as NCOs, I believe that I can support your statement. The USMC (or at the time the Continental Marines) based their ranks on
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 13, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Richard,
                      Concerning Corporals as NCOs, I believe that I can support your statement. The USMC (or at the time the Continental Marines) based their ranks on the system used by the English.
                      Corporals of Marines are now and always have been NCOs. Supporting documentation for this I found in the Marine NCO handbook which covers topics like history of the Corps, its ranks, customs and courtesies, etc.
                      From this same tomb I read that the rank of Lance Corporal came from the French, it meant an old campaigner or one that has broken many lances in battle.
                      Respectfully
                      Andy Wash
                      Sergeant of Marines


                      ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
                      From: "Richard Feltoe" <feltoe@...>
                      Reply-To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:01:45 -0400

                      ><html><body>
                      >
                      ><tt>
                      >Dear listoids<BR>
                      >In combing through yet more "obsure" "out of period" and "irrelevant" documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a professional museum curator; I have come across something which they are certain to dismiss once again. On the other hand, for those who are willing to accept the following terms of relevance, it may prove of interest.<BR>
                      >regards<BR>
                      >Richard Feltoe<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >The document is entitled<BR>
                      >"The Standing Orders for the Norwich or Hundred and Sixth Regiment" <BR>
                      >and was published in 1795<BR>
                      >(for those not familiar with this regiment it was officially formed in April 1794 and was disbanded in 1795).  <BR>
                      >If we accept that since it was a new regiment, starting from scratch, it had no prior regimental traditions or oral proceedures learned by generations of ready-made NCO's to fall back on. Instead, recruiting and establishing itself from a range of sources, this publication was created; outlining every aspect of the duties and functions of the several ranks, as well as the regulations to be applied in the running of the regiment. <BR>
                      >These statements and regulations could not have been simlpy made up as unique regimental preferences, instead they would have had to follow the letter of the overall army regulations and be compatable with those of the other regiments of the line. As such, I have to conject that this gives us a pretty good snapshot of what was the regimental standard of the day, and since this is only seventeen years prior to the outbreak of our war, and the British Army was not renouned for changing established rules and proceedures at a breakneck pace, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that a similar policy could have been in effect in 1812 as to the effective position as an NCO in the British Army. At least that's the way I see it.<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >"...NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS<BR>
                      >Non Commissioned Officers are to be thoroughly informed of the standing Orders of the Regiment, and to attend strictly to every circumstance of conduct and behavior of the private men, and to make it their business to find out every thing irregular. They are to see that the Arms, Accoutrements, and Necessaries are properly taken care of; that the men are cleanly and perfectly exact in every duty of the Regiment. They must insist on a most strict compliance with their orders; and as their authority must be supported, they must use it with discretion,not to gratify any personal resentment. On the contrary, they must behave well to the men, still avoiding too much familiarity: they must consider the respectable situation in which they are placed. They must positively exert their authority, and they must set the Privates a proper example by a manly, soldier-like, obedient conduct on their part, and a great decency of appearance. Any non-commissioned Officer who connives at or overlooks any irregular and unsoldier-like behavior of any kind, or who does not himself set a good example, will certainly be reduced as one who has not the good of the service at heart, and does not feel for his situation.<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >Non-commissioned Officers running in debt will be reduced, as unfit to preserve authority or keep up good order amongst the men. No non-commissioned Officer is to have any money transactions whatever with a Private. Every non-commissioned Officer is to keep up that degree of respect which is due to him from the men; whoever is deficient in that particular must be reduced, as wanting that Propriety of conduct and behavior which will always procure respect, and which alone can procure it. No non-commissioned Officer must ever suffer himself to to be treated by the private men, or ever drink with them on any account; either from a notion of gratitude the non-commissioned Officer will think himself bound to be partial to the men that treat and drink with him, or the men will flatter themselves they are entitled to some indulgence: whenever this rule is not observed the Serjeant or Corporal will be immediately reduced to the Ranks as totaly unfit to support any authority as non-commissioned Officers..." <BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >(Of course it's just conjecture on my part, but I think this could be hinting that Corporals is NCO's, but just in case there are those who still don't accept this, it  continues)<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >"...When a non-commissioned Officer has the charge of a squad he is entirely responsible for it; besides the common visitation he muse frequently look into and discover if the men are regular and obedient to orders, and he should take a pride in having it in perfect order. A non-commissioned Officer may be certain that, by overlooking the irregularities of the men, he not only incurs the censure of the Officers, but also the contempt of the men themselves. If a non-commissioned Officer is taken ill, he must report it to the Serjeant of his squad...<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >(Let's look at this here,  the sick NCO is to report to the Sergeant, It's therefore not the sergeant and can't be the privates, so who's left? old two stripe!)<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >...or if he commands a squad, to the Sergeant Major...<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >(i.e. the sergeant or the corporal where there is no sergeant)<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >...Non-commissioned Officers must be extremely well dressed at all times, and have an air that distinguishes them. The Serjeants and Corporals must have small pocket brushes when they parade their squads to clean any dirt or dust on the men's hats and coats - the same at turning out a relief when on guard. ...<BR>
                      >A Serjeant has authority to confine a Corporal and both Serjeants and Corporals have authority to confine privates, which, of course, they must do with discretion...<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >...Non-commissioned Officers are to be promoted according to seniority if they merit it; but if the eldest of a rank is not fit for promotion the next who is must be taken, for no man will be promoted who is not really fit for the service; and Lance Corporals, if found equal to the appointment, will be promoted the same as full Corporals, and in every respect be obeyed and considered as such..."<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >(Here's one that surprised me, official reference to Lance Corporals, New discussion please!)<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >In addition to this material, this document outlines details for Officers, Regimental Staff, the Sergeant Major, Dummers, Regimental tailors and Recruits etc. It also covers numerous aspects of regimental life, including marriage!<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >If anyone is interested, I'd be willing to put up some more exerpts from this little gem.<BR>
                      >Richard Feltoe<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      ></tt>
                      >
                      ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      ><br><br>
                      ><tt>
                      >The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...<BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >Unit Contact information for North America:<BR>
                      >   ---------------------------------<BR>
                      >Crown Forces Unit Listing:<BR>
                      ><a href="http://1812crownforces.tripod.com">http://1812crownforces.tripod.com</a><BR>
                      ><BR>
                      >American Forces Unit Listing<BR>
                      ><a href="http://usforces1812.tripod.com">http://usforces1812.tripod.com</a> </tt>
                      ><br><br>
                      >
                      ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      > <br><br>
                      > <div style="width:500px; text-align:right; margin-bottom:1px; color:#909090;">
                      > <tt>SPONSORED LINKS</tt>
                      > </div>
                      > <table bgcolor=#e0ecee cellspacing="13" cellpadding="0" width=500px>
                      > <tr valign=top>
                      > <td style="width:25%;">
                      > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=yOCD4LRv1cJGnuoPW5xb_Q">United kingdom</a></tt>
                      > </td>
                      > <td style="width:25%;">
                      > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+history&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=OHAGtWlQE0gApi5weVc9_w">United state history</a></tt>
                      > </td>
                      > <td style="width:25%;">
                      > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Living+history&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=sBWxzPE0XY3mv1_rm7tx9Q">Living history</a></tt>
                      > </td>
                      > </tr>
                      > <tr valign=top>
                      > <td style="width:25%;">
                      > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=War+of+1812&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=GM4gWo_3xdFX-GDJfiPhow">War of 1812</a></tt>
                      > </td>
                      > </tr>
                      > </table>
                      >
                      ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      ><br>
                      > <div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
                      > <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
                      > <tt>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</tt>
                      ></div>
                      ><br>
                      ><ul>
                      > <tt><li type=square> Visit your group "<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOf1812">WarOf1812</a>" on the web.<br> </tt>
                      > <tt><li type=square> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br> <a href="mailto:WarOf1812-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">WarOf1812-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> </tt>
                      > <tt><li type=square> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                      ></ul>
                      ><br>
                      ><div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
                      > <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
                      ></div>
                      ></br>
                      >
                      ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                      >
                      >
                      ></body></html>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Kevin Windsor
                      Well done Sir! I would like to read more. I am convinced, but you had me at Corporal s as NCO s! Alas, we only have to convince Chris, who I think, is only
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 13, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well done Sir! I would like to read more.

                        I am convinced, but you had me at Corporal's as NCO's! Alas, we only have
                        to convince Chris, who I think, is only doing this to shirk the
                        responsibilities of an NCO and lay a greater burden on his poor Serjeant!
                        (who by the way has still not caught up on his sleep from being a new
                        father).
                        Poor old serjeant!
                        Mean nasty corporal! ;-)

                        Though, the idea that an NCO should not be treated to by the privates, might
                        convince any corporal that they are not an NCO because for them to admit
                        that would mean the privates couldn't buy them a drink anymore!

                        Kevin
                        89th


                        -----Original Message-----


                        Dear listoids
                        In combing through yet more "obsure" "out of period" and "irrelevant"
                        documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a
                        professional museum curator; I have come across something which they are
                        certain to dismiss once again. On the other hand, for those who are willing
                        to accept the following terms of relevance, it may prove of interest.
                        regards
                        Richard Feltoe
                      • Jim Krause
                        Dear Richard, Very interesting, indeed. I would certainly be interested in the duties and responsibilities of the Drummers of the Crown Forces, especially the
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 14, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Richard,
                          Very interesting, indeed. I would certainly be interested in
                          the duties and responsibilities of the Drummers of the Crown Forces,
                          especially the Drum Major, and Fife Major.

                          Yours,
                          Jim Krause
                          Music Director, Fife Instructor
                          Kaw Valley Fife & Drum Corps
                          http://www.old-sod-shanty.com/KVFDC.html
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.