Addressing a CSM and a CQMS

[DCM Investigator]

Am I correct in saying that in 1918 a British Private should address as “sir” a Company Sergeant Major but NOT so for a Company Quartermaster Sergeant (as would be the case for a sergeant)? If correct, why did the CSM get the honor of being addressed as “sir” by subordinates?

[FROGSMILE]

On 16/07/2024 at 07:13, DCM Investigator said:

Am I correct in saying that in 1918 a British Private should address as “sir” a Company Sergeant Major but NOT so for a Company Quartermaster Sergeant (as would be the case for a sergeant)? If correct, why did the CSM get the honor of being addressed as “sir” by subordinates?

Yes, you are correct.

As for the reason ‘why’, it had originally (possibly since inception in 1813) been a traditional point of distinction that the infantry company colour sergeant, of whom there were 8 in each battalion (companies A to F), was addressed as sir.  It was a verbal recognition and acknowledgment of respect regarding his role and status as the senior enlisted man in the company, who was responsible for discipline, administration, logistics and pay, as well as when necessary drawing up his officer’s orders in writing, and posting them daily on the company notice board.

To carry out these functions the colour sergeant had to be a competent soldier and NCO, and qualified in literacy and numeracy via Army Certificates of Education 1st Class (ACE 1).  This arrangement was different to the other two combatant arms, the artillery and cavalry, who had instead adopted tactically larger sub-units - batteries** and squadrons - that had for each, a sergeant-major, and a quarter-master-sergeant##.  The sergeant-major covered discipline and the quarter-master-sergeant covered logistics.

In 1913, after over a decade of debate, it was at last decided that the regular¥¥ infantry would restructure and adopt a matching organisation by pairing its old companies into a new ‘double-company’ structure of larger companies usually designated A to D (although there were variations like W to Z).  In each case one of the colour sergeants became sergeant major of the larger company and the other colour sergeant became quarter-master-sergeant of the same company with a division of responsibilities similar to the other two combatant arms.  The sergeant major was senior by appointment, but both men were of the same rank, unlike in the other arms.  They thus initially continued to wear the same badge of rank, as at 1914 (similarly to the artillery).

In January 1915, a further change took place, when all sergeant-majors at the sub-unit level (squadron, battery and company) along with various senior battalion, regimental and formation HQ staff appointments, were elevated to a new rank of warrant officer class II.  This made it crystal clear across the length and breadth of the Army that those holding the sub-unit sergeant major appointment were senior by both, appointment and by rank, to those holding quarter-master-sergeant appointments at the same level (but naturally not including those in the higher level - battalion, regimental and formation headquarters - staff appointments).

This new arrangement unified the system and created a logical precedence across the army as a whole that was underpinned and made clear by a concomitant change in rank badges, with the sub-unit warrant officers badge on the lower arm, but the sub-unit quarter-master-sergeants badge remaining on the upper arm.

In the infantry the appointment of CQMS remained a colour sergeant in rank, but the appointment of CSM was a warrant officer class II and manifestly the superior appointment in the (now much larger) company who thus inherited the status and privilege of being addressed as ‘sir’++.

NB.  I can find nothing about this (i.e. modes of address) in King’s, or Queen’s Regulations for the Army, and so it relies entirely upon published anecdotes and mentions in sometimes quite old personal accounts, going back to Queen Victoria.  Whether strictly observed by every regiment I do not know.  Where there is mention of modes of address they are usually in ‘Regimental Standing Orders’ and appear under the entry for the Sergeant Major (meaning RSM).  Older RSOs dating from before the 1881 Cardwell/Childers Reforms (35th, 52nd and 92nd Regiments), do not mention modes of address at all, neither under the section for Sergeant Major, nor that for Colour Sergeant’s.

In my own copy of RSOs for the RWF dated 1910 it states that the Sergeant Major is always to be addressed as Sir, with the speaker stood to attention.  In the entry under company Colour Sergeants and Sergeants, it makes no mention of using ‘Sir’ when addressing the former and states that sergeants are never to be addressed as anything other than Sergeant (i.e. not Sarge, etc.).  See excerpt - page 50, paragraph 29 - below.  The quarter-master-sergeant referred to is he in the singular, battalion headquarters post, of that title.  Contemporaneous RSOs for the Lancashire Fusiliers are worded similarly regarding the position and mode of address concerning the Sergeant Major.

This accords with my own experience, when for example calling the roll of a company on parade, only if an officer was present on parade would the shouted response be ‘Sir’.  Interestingly this protocol is accurately depicted in the film ZULU by the actor, Nigel Davenport, playing the part of CSgt Bourne, at the end of the action in January 1879 when a roll call takes place. See:https://clip.cafe/zulu-1964/hughes-excused-duty/

My overall take, on reflection, is that the address ‘Sir’ probably was used at one time for colour sergeants in some regiments and most certainly by the Guards, but that at some point that changed.  What seems more likely to me, is that as the first infantry warrant officers, in the form of the battalion sergeant major, were addressed as Sir, it followed on that when warrant officers of a new second class were created and placed over a much larger company, it became protocol to address them as Sir to mark their superior (top) status in the company, too.  As the great Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Unions of India and South Africa were closely associated with the British Army, they too have generally followed the traditions outlined.

** Garrison Artillery were organised in companies, but otherwise structured in a rank hierarchy similar to the field and horse artillery.

## In the artillery wearing the same arm badges despite difference in status. 

¥¥ Territorial Force infantry did not restructure to match until just before or upon arrival in France a year later, largely because the locations of their drill stations (small local barracks) made such a change problematic.

++ From that point on colour sergeants were no longer addressed as sir, with the sole exception of the Foot Guards regiments, whose special status and innate conservatism led them to retain and continue the old form of addess.  It remains so today.

Images courtesy of:

1. 1914 (incl unique to TF) - My collection.

2. 1915 - Forum member Muerrisch.

Edited 29 July by FROGSMILE

[DCM Investigator]

An incredibly detailed response. Thank you for shedding light onto this nuance of rank and improving my education on such.

Cheers.

[FROGSMILE]

3 minutes ago, DCM Investigator said:

An incredibly detailed response. Thank you for shedding light onto this nuance of rank and improving my education on such.

Cheers.

I’m sorry it was a bit lengthier than I’d intended, but the background is complex and if I gave you half an answer it would’ve potentially led to lots of rabbit holes.

[DCM Investigator]

No apologies needed! Your detail was superb and very much what I was hoping for. I am new to the forum but already finding it an absolute pleasure to read and engage with.

[FROGSMILE]

Just now, DCM Investigator said:

No apologies needed! Your detail was superb and very much what I was hoping for. I am new to the forum but already finding it an absolute pleasure to read and engage with.

I’m glad to help.  It is a particularly active forum and I’m sure you will continue to enjoy your engagement here 👍