Go Back   Scotland Discussion Forum > Culture > Genealogy


Well Fancy That !

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 10th September 2010, 05:35
Lachlan09's Avatar
Lachlan09 Lachlan09 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duthill View Post
What part of Professor MacLennan's paper do you disagree with ?
Was he related to the MacLennan lady who taught me that Gaelic phrase (see other thread !)
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 10th September 2010, 06:40
Duthill Duthill is offline
Quarantined Users
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Otautahi , Te Wahi Pounamu (NZ)
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachlan09 View Post
Was he related to the MacLennan lady who taught me that Gaelic phrase (see other thread !)
I dunno mate , give him a ring and ask

Lachie ,
have you looked into the 'Bantam Battalions'

Quote:
In 1914, the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead, Alfred Bigland, pressed the War Office for permission to form a battalion of men who were under regulation size but otherwise fit for service. A few days later, some 3,000 men had volunteered, many of who had previously been rejected as being under height. The original men were formed into the 1st and 2nd Birkenhead Battalions of the Cheshire Regiment (later redesigned the 15th and 16th Battalions). Other regiments began to recruit similarly: the Durham Light Infantry, Lancashire Fusiliers, West Yorkshires, Royal Scots, and Highland Light Infantry most notably. Many of the recruits were miners. Eventually these units were formed into the 35th Division. Another, the 40th, had a mixture of bantam and regulation units, although it is generally recognised as a bantam Division. The bantams were very popular at home, and were often featured in the press. However, by the end of 1916, it was found that the general fitness and condition of men volunteering as bantams was no longer up to the standard required. Brigades were informed that no more undersized men would be accepted, and the Divisions lost their bantam status as replacements diluted the number of small men in the mix. (5ft 3in + being the regulation height). The "bantams" were composed of men who were technically too short or of too small a stature to be admitted into the regular battalions. Despite this limitation they fought valiantly in all Theatres of the War.
I found that a while ago on some family's genealogy page , looks interesting .
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 10th September 2010, 07:29
wullie m wullie m is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 875
Lachlan, hate to be pedantic but Strathpeffer's in Ross-shire. The MacLennan's were evicted from Strathconnon by Balfour the PMs family, don't fancy any made tit to Harris. Re' WW1 I think they got less choosy as things progressed. I have heard it said that the quality of officers gradually improved as the products of Eton & Harrow were mown down and they had to recruit amongst the lower orders. wullie m
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 14th September 2010, 13:30
Lachlan09's Avatar
Lachlan09 Lachlan09 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
Posts: 1,066
Sorry Wullie, you're right - I got my knicks in a twist about Strathpeffer. But the event I mentioned was true, but in Sutherland.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.