Genealogy Chat

On a victorian army record what does '7 years with the colours' mean please.

hiya Each regiment in the army had a different flag known as the 'colour' - so it would mean that he was in the same regiment for 7 years! cheers!

I think that 7 years was the minimum you signed up for, and that being 'with the colours' meant that you were with the regiment in the field as opposed to being in training camp or barracks. But I am not sure. nell

When you first signed up, it was for a fixed term. I believe '7 years with the colours' would mean active service for 7 years, then you would also have to do (say) 5 years in the reserves.

I think it just means being in the army full time, ' after successful completion of the apprentice training s/he will be required to serve a minimum period of full-time regular army service (so-called 'colour service') '

this does not answer the question but thought you may be interested. In battle, Colours were carried by Ensigns in the centre of the front ranks where they could be easily seen and recognized. They became the centre of the most bitter fighting. In 1813, the rank of Colour Sergeant was introduced to give the Ensigns some local protection, but so heavy were the losses amongst Colour parties that, during the later battles of the Crimean campaign, Colours were ordered to the rear once battle had been joined. Colours were last carried into battle in 1881 Roy

Hi,interesting. He actually signed up for 12 years plus 'a further 12 months if the country were at war'. I think I can see what Nell and Vicky are saying - that he may have been on active duty for the seven years and then perhaps in a training capacity or something for the last 5. He was a sergeant by then, so perhaps he trained the recruits or something for the last 5 years.

being in the reserves just meant he was free to follow another occupation, but would be called up if needed. (eg outbreak of hostilities) Still applies today. Think of the TAVR, only it wasn't voluntary. They don't like to think they put all that effort into training you then you walk away from it after you've done your stint.

Vicky, but would he still be allowed to live in married accommodation? His last children were born in Horseferry Road near the Wellington Barracks. Many thanks for enlightening me - its wasnt such a harsh life as we imagine in the military then.

I think he'd have to be 'on the active list' if they were still in army accomodation. Are you sure it was? Perhaps he liked the first stint so much he signed up for another? The pay was quite good in those days. As for the 7+5 or whatever he originally signed up for, I don't think they made a distinction between being away somewhere or back at the barracks in whatever capacity. Its normal for soldiers to have several postings - some are out of the country & others aren't. Whatever job you did was just part of your duties, they weren't off fighting ALL the time. My gt grandfather ended up as a Regimental Quarter Master Sergeant, so he would have been bashing the rookies into shape. But at that time he was definitely not in the reserves. He is a 'farmer' on a birth certificate in 1909. He WAS in the reserves when WW I was declared, and so got called up again, within a few months. I doubt he'd volunteer, being 49 with 7 kids at the time!

Ive just got the papers this morning and havent properly digested them. Its fascinating stuff, loved reading the physical description and about his 6 days in hospital, makes him so real. On it there is a set questionnaire (they are so organised, I didnt think that it would be so modern in presentation). It says Has he had a notice - Yes. Who gave it to him - cant quite read it but an officer. It says you agree to 12 years service followed by a possible 12 months extra (not in these words) if the country is at war and he signs yes. I know he was a Wellington Barracks and I believe they were in Horseferry Road. The kids born 1895-1897 all have Horseferry Road Westminster as there birth places. In 1891 he was in lodgings at Bermondsey with wife and one kiddie. I understand from the Scots Guards that this would mean he was probably at The Tower of London.

Heather - how old was he when he signed up - what year did he join - did he also see service in WW I?

I was just wondering that Vicky when you said about your chap being in at nearly 50. This chap would have been 52. Surely they wouldnt have pulled him back at that age. He was finished in the army by 1897. Probably just more senior ranks like your fellow to train the recruits. But Im really grateful for that information, as it all makes sense - just realised last kiddie's birth cert has dad as a Railway Porter. That had concerned me for a long time, decided it was a mistake. He got married in 1890 (4 weeks before the first child!!) in a registry office. And the marriage cert had his occupation as Gardener which really threw me as he had been a soldier everywhere else. I decided the clerk had copied Guardsman down wrongly but I wanted to definitely check he wasnt a Walter Mitty character - which is why I got the researcher to go to Kew for me. Relieved to say he was genuine! But it does show, that certificates can be very wrong. If I hadnt had other documents I would have assumed he was a gardener and never looked up his military stuff.

I admit to being surprised to see my gt grandfather HAD seen active service in WW I - I was looking for my grandfather's medal card & out popped HIS fathers - (on the same page so I got them both for one fee!) He was in France, so he wouldn't have been training them then. I have been told that there were soldiers aged in their 60's serving in the war, I don't know what the cut-off was. In the early days when they were asking for volunteers they didn't want anyone over 40, which makes me wonder if the older chaps were reservists. If your chap was definitely out of the army by 1897 he wouldn't have still been in the reserves in 1914.

I am really grateful Vicky for you making this all so much more clear to me. Thank you.

Good to see you've got this service record, should answer all those questions now. If he signed up for 12 years it would have been 6 with the colours and 6 in the 1st class reserves. The 1st class reserves would have been the first to be called back in times of emergency. They should have a Day / Year count for his service with the colours and when he was transferred to the 1st class reserves also Time Expired date when he was finally released.

I wondered where you were Keith - thought youd gone to the pie and mash shop! Im going to get all the papers out again and sit and try to make out all the writing on them. I tell you what else surprised me, silly thing, giving his weight in pounds not stones and pounds. And I know hubby is a bit of a short **** but I thought a guard would have been bigger than 5'9' - or was that comparatively tall for that era? I must google to see what uniform he would have worn.

Not the Guards, but on Saturday I was looking at an old recruiting poster for the Lancs & Yorks from around the early 1920's - minimum 5 ft 3 inches. We are all a lot taller now!

So 5'9' would have been a fair giant of a man! Still cant find a good uniform website.

Keith and Vicky, I would be grateful if you could read my and Natalies thread re occupations on marriage certs and give your opinions please. My goodness, I have 8 months worth of registration paperwork to do here and Ihavent touched it yet today!!