Ski Posted 2 January , 2004 Share Posted 2 January , 2004 Hello All, I've attached part of a copy of a MIC to a man who was first in the Wiltshires and then in the Corps of Dragoons. Does anyone know what the inscription means. i.e. does the "Rep" mean medals replaced and why and what does forfeited Dis Para 363(x) Kings Regs 10-9-24 mean? Any help would be great. Cheers, Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 2 January , 2004 Share Posted 2 January , 2004 Hello, Ski, A minor note, but I think that your "Rep" is actually "Ret". Look how the clerk writes a "t" in the word "forfeited." I think that the bit you're taking to be the curly bit of a "P" is a hastily-written lower-case "d" . Could it mean "Returned?" Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 2 January , 2004 Share Posted 2 January , 2004 Ski, Don't know about Para 393, but Para 392(X) means discharged having been convicted by a civil power. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Posted 3 January , 2004 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2004 Tom, Thanks, yeah i can see what you mean about that maybe being a T and not a p. Does anyone know why the medals would have been returned. Ian, Thanks also. Would the PRO be tha place to look for definitions of the Kings Reg's? Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 3 January , 2004 Share Posted 3 January , 2004 According the the Manual of Military Law 1914, Part II - Army Act, Rules of Procedure - Discipline (Scale of Punishments) "...any offender convicted by court-martial may be subjected to forfeiture of any deferred pay, service towards pension, military decoration or any military reward..." A court -martial did not have the power however to remove certain awards such as the Companionship of the Bath or the Victoria Cross. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Posted 4 January , 2004 Author Share Posted 4 January , 2004 Thanks Terry, Now this throws up another dilema. If This man's medals were forfieted due to Court-martial, how would they have come on to the market, could it be a case of the man simply not sending them back to the correct authorities or who ever recieved them in the authorities sold them on themselves. So would everyone be in agreence, that this man returned his medals due to some kind of misconduct under KR 363(x) and which resulted in his discharge on the 10-09-04. Just for interest the man is 21218 Pte George Dormer Wilts Regt, later D/37685 Pte Dormer Corps of Dragoons, awarded British War medal and Victory Medal. Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffsyeoman Posted 4 January , 2004 Share Posted 4 January , 2004 Just for my two-penneth - cross-referencing with other WW1 rolls (my particular case being the Territorial Force War Medal), I would agree that it rather says 'Retd' (with the 'd' being 'superscript'), that is, returned to the mint from the record office on forfeiture, or entitlement being disqualified. This is quite a late forfeiture for WW1 medals ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 4 January , 2004 Share Posted 4 January , 2004 So would everyone be in agreence, that this man returned his medals due to some kind of misconduct under KR 363(x) and which resulted in his discharge on the 10-09-04. No. KR 363 1914 refers to transfer of a soldier of School of Musketry to the Reserve. It has no sub-para. The entry has to be a clerical error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 5 January , 2004 Share Posted 5 January , 2004 So would everyone be in agreence, that this man returned his medals due to some kind of misconduct under KR 363(x) and which resulted in his discharge on the 10-09-04. No. KR 363 1914 refers to transfer of a soldier of School of Musketry to the Reserve. It has no sub-para. The entry has to be a clerical error. If the event was in 1924 (which is what the date on the MIC looks like to me), could Para 363 in the then current version of KR cover the same ground as Para 392 in the earlier, wartime, KRs we are used to ?? Jock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Posted 5 January , 2004 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2004 Thanks everyone for your replies, I think this one is going to be a bit more harder to solve than i first thought. Anyhow that's part of the fun isn't it? Cheers, Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now