RANK OF "KING'S CORPORAL" IS NON-EXISTENT

Chronicle (Levin), 23 August 1947, Page 4

RANK OF "KING'S CORPORAL" IS NON-EXISTENT

'■ Extensive investiga tions have failed'to disclose any factual basis for the ssuggestion made from time to time that there is, or has been within living memory, any such rank as "King's Corporal." — Sir James fi-rigg, Secretary of' State for War, in the House of Gommons, October, 1944. Anyone with the briefest contact with Army life knows full well that the rank of 11 King's Corporal,'? "King's Sergeant" has existed or did. exist for many years: or, has it? S.Q writes Major T. J. Edwards, la'te of The Worcestershire Regiment, in a recent is^ue of "The Anny Quarterly." "It's a pity to debunk such a pretty i myth, but until it gets elothed in' a little more substanee it will have tq continue in eompany with other myths such as the Loch Ness Monster. " Tiiat is Major Edwards' summing up, and m support of his contention he quotes a number of these entertaining barrackroom myths.

' ' Story Was a Fahle ' ' In the eai'ly days of the 1914-18 war the Transport Sergeant, an old regular reservist, of a Service Battalion in Kitchener 's New Army on Salisbury Plain, was noticed wearing a coat-of; arms very much resembling the present rank badge of a W.O.l just above histhree stripes. On being asked tiie reason ,f'or this he replied that he was a King's Sergeant, having been pro? moted on the field in South Afriea and that was the badge officially approved for that rank. Moreover, he asserted, that being a "King's Sergeant" he could not be .redueed from that rank vvithout the King's approval. The matter was taken up with Brigade H.Q., etc., and the repiy came bacn that the sergeant 's story was a fabie and that he must take down the coat-of-arms badge forthwith. And down it came. In an effort to discover some officiaJbasis for this somewhat eommon belief an extensive seareh was made at the War Office in 1921. Every likely regulation, warrant, letter, etc., was examined. The investigators drew a blank. Like most people who had served a few years in the Arn;y those making the search had heard of "King's Oorporals" but had never mei one^in the flesh, at least one that would stand up to official scrutiny. "Kitchener's Sergeants" Details of the rank and distinguishing badge worn by King's Corporals were asked for in 1935 in the ".TournaL of- the Society for Army Historical Researeh. ' ' Next year there was an answer in the forni of a quotation from the "Naval and Military Record" as follovvs: — " In 1901 there was an official suggestion to the effect that soldiers who had distinguished themselves in wartime, but were xiqsuited to be n.c.o. 's in peace-time, should be given some mark of distinetidn on the right arm, preferably an embroidered band, carrying with it a step in rank while actually on active service, with additional pay,

and a donation of £10 at the end of it. "Some members of the War Office committee who sat to eonsider the proposal objected to the monetary grant, urging that such was derogatory to the soldier, but one pointed out that Lord lioberts had not hesitated to accept £100,000 at the end of the-Sonth African War, so why should not a soldier receive £10? ' ' The idea was, however, not adopted, though some men were special iy promoted on the field in thejater stages of the Boer War, and they were generally known as "Kitchener's Sergeants." This expression "Kitchener's Sergeants" does seem to contain tHe germ of the idea from which sprang that of 1 ' Iving 's Sergeants. ' ' Then the Argument Began No less an authority than General Sir Franeis Davies, who joined th.e Grenadier G-uards in 1884, and was the autho.r of the standard work on the Sergeant-Major, confessed that he had never heard of the alleged rank of ' ' King 's Sergeant. ' ' Generals, colonels and others wrote to the newspapers at the end of 1944 expressing great surprise that the Seer.etarv of State for War had never heard of the rank of "King's Corporal." To ' support their statements they .quoted "known" cases in which they were eonceriled in some way. These cases were followed up with the appro;iriate Record Offices, and in no case was it found that any man had been officially deseribed as a "King's Corporal. ' ' "Colonel Lost the Bet" Then there is the picturesque . story, continues Major Edwards, of the C.O. who redueed a "King's Corporal" in rank, upon which the soldier bet him £5 that he would regain his stripes within a fortnight, and won his bet. This one was iinpossible to verify because 110 regiment, unit, detail of the n.c.o. or place where it occurred were mentioned. To sum up according to our researches tliere has never been any mention of the rank of "King's Corporal" or similar rank in the King's Regulations or Royal Warrant for Pay, neitlier has any Record Office to whom we have referred cases for. verilication traeed in any soldier 's official documents a reference to the supposed rank. So there the matter rests, according to the War Office experts. Their hunt 1 for "King's Sergeants and Corporals"" was worse than looking for the prQverbial needle in the haystack."