Talk:Nathaniel Wells

Commission

This desparatley needs a good cite. Commissions should eb recorded in teh London Gazette, I can find his appointment as Sherrif, but nothing is turning up for the Yeomanry (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/exact=Nathaniel+Wells;sort=oldest/start=11). It should also be born in mind that Yeomanry and Milita commissions were issued by the local Lord Lieutenant(see http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/1800-01-01;1820-12-31/exact=commissions+signed+by+the;sort=oldest/start=1 for examples), and were not regarded as being on a par with a regular army commission, signed by the King-particular in regard to the position in relation to Tull's later commission. David Underdown (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At that time (1818), Lord Lieutenants of the appropriate county were empowered by a statute of George III (1803) to issue commissions in the Yeomanry. As such they would not appear in the London Gazette, but would have been publicised locally. The recipient would also receive a hand written document being the commission itself, duly signed by the Lord Lieutenant. Judging from other extant examples,the wording of such a commission would read "I, the said....... by and with the approbation of His Majesty Do by this writing under my hand constitute appoint and commission you the said .......to be Lieutenant in .......". The book which includes references to Wells's commission is by Wyndham-Quin, who was a Major of many years standing in the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars (RGH), the successor regiment to the Gloucestershire and Monmouth Yeomanry. It is based upon his researches into the archives of the RGH. These are now held in the Public Records Office in Gloucester - but are not currently available electronically.

Although not ranking as highly as their regular army equivalents, a Yeomanry officer in uniform would still receive the same honours (salutes etc) as a regular officer of that rank. However, clearly the Yeomanry did not have the same status as the Regular Army. It might be correct to describe Wells as "the first black person to be commissioned into the Armed Forces of the Crown". (Christoryland (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Some Yeomanry and militia commissions were gazetted, as shown by the serach results above. I even found one example for the Chepstow Troop, but not for Wells. They woud certianly have received salutes etc from other militia and yeomanry officers, but I have seen it suggested (can't quite track it down at the moment though), that since they did not hold the King's commission, a Yeomanry lieutenant-colonel (say) could not actually order a regular army officer of lesser rank to do something - particularly when the Yeomanry was not actually embodied. It should also be remembered that Tull is usually claimed as the first black combat officer, while Wells may well have participated in what would now be called exercises of military aid to the civil power, he never saw combat. David Underdown (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Meant to say that, agreed, "the first black person to be commissioned into the Armed Forces of the Crown" is probably better wording. David Underdown (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ive just seen a copy of Wyndham Quin and some of the information I was given was wrongly dated. He states (page 78) that an entry appeared in the London Gazette as follows "Nathaniel Wells, Gent., to be Lieutenant, vice Buckle, promoted June 20th 1820" Also the action re miners/colliers (page 81) is one and the same and occurred in 1822 Christoryland (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I managed to track down a contemporary official list of yeomanry officers, and that date agrees with what was in there. I did read that the Yeomanry was briefly disbanded around that time, so it is just possible he was first commissioned in 1818, and recommissioned after the Yeomanry was reformed, but we had better go with the date we can substantiate. I'll have another go at tracking down the Gazette entry, now I ahve a better idea of when it would ahve appeared. David Underdown (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathaniel Wells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117042111/http://www.starvanschurch.org.uk/history.shtml to http://www.starvanschurch.org.uk/history.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)