Talk:Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most highly decorated serving regiment?[edit]

Over what period of time is this referring to, purely of those regiments which served in Iraq in the current conflict presumably? David Underdown 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mills doesn't make it entirely clear, but from the way I read it he means that the Regiment, at that point, had the most serving soldiers who had been awarded medals as opposed to a total number awarded for the entire regiment in its history or compared to the other units which had served in Iraq.

Having said that the PWRR is descended from some of the oldest regiments in the Army so they should have a high number of medals awarded in the past, maybe that crop of medals put them at the top of the medals league as it were Victory Is Mine 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to present day regiments only JS1 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey ACF = 4th Battalion?[edit]

Sorry, I still don't see this. The closest I can find on the Surrey ACF website is this page: http://www.surreyarmycadets.com/regimental_affiliation.asp - but nowhere does that describe the cadets as being the 4th battalion. Indeed, this apge, http://www.surreyarmycadets.com/the_ACF.asp specifically states the the Army Cadet Force is not actually part of the Army, so I find it hard to see how they can be in any meaningful sense be described as a battalion. In any case, the cadets are presumably not a deployable unit, so I don't think it really makes sense to list the strength of the Regiment as 4 battalions. If you can find a specifc reference on the website, please post it here, and I'll reconsider. David Underdown 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey ACF was redesignated 4 (Cadet) PWRR August 2004 (see: http://www.corunna.co.uk/corunnacoy/general/aboutus.asp ). I was slightly disturbed by it when it happened, but it is the trend in the ACF, taken to the extreme by the RWR (who've redesignated their ACFs contingents as 4th - 7th Bns).

If "battalion" means deployable, perhaps we should delete the 3rd Bn? It, in common with all TA inf, was rendered non-deployable by Scott-Bowden. 67th Tigers 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still seems strange that neither the regimental website, nor the overall Surrey ACF website specifically mention it. I take the part about the TA, consider it reworded to say, "even individual members are presumably not deployable". David Underdown 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a serving soldier in 3PWRR. Surrey ACF is NOT part of the regiment. Cadets do not take the oath, or deploy on operations- they're not even part of the Army! And as for deleting the 3rd Battalion? If you do, you spit on all the brave men from my Bde who have deployed over the past years, and are still deploying now. Please, get your facts correct. They may be affiliated to, but are not part of, my regiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.179.178 (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, checking the London Gazette (which I should have thought of earlier), I can find no evidence for the designation either. Surrey ACF is always referred to as just that, whereas other Cadet Force units are referred to as cadt battalions. See [1][2][3][4][5][6]. I'm going to remove the reference to four battalions from the infobox again as well. David Underdown 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to offend anyone currently serving in any of the 3 battalions of the PWRR, but I am currently in Surrey ACF, soon leaving to join the PWRR TA, but we are a 4th battalion as on our colours we have the 4th battalion on them. Although we can not be deployed, we are always taught in lessons about the PWRR history, that we have been recently been turned into a 4th battalion and are one of the few ACF units to do so. As I stated in the beginning I do not mean to offend anyone, and I am merely saying what we have been taught in cadets. - Elliott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.180.66 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added back, but I've reverted again. We really do need a source ebfore we can add this to the article. The regiment's article on the army website only refers to three battalions and of cadets says merely, "there are PWRR army cadet and CCF detachments all across the southern Home Counties." It does not describe these as being the fourth battalion. there are PWRR army cadet and CCF detachments all across the southern Home Counties. http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3479.aspx David Underdown (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana[edit]

I quote the wike "The current regiment was named in honour of The Princess of Wales" and then gives a link to Princess Diana - are you SURE that the regiment was named after her personally? I seriously doubt this 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The current entry for The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment incorrectly states that: "The current regiment was named in honour of Diana, Princess of Wales." The regimental name was derived from the name of the Queen's Royal Regiment, raised in 1661 as The Tangier Regiment of Foot, which in 1714 was named Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales's Own Regiment of Foot. The then Princess of Wales was Caroline of Ansbach who married George Augustus, son of George 1, who became Prince of Wales in 1714 and King George 11 in 1727. (24 Feb 2012 by a senior member of PWRR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigrog (talk • contribs) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Whether or not it was named after Diana, for a significant period the regiment was known (to other regiments at least) as "the Squidgies", in reference to a telephone conversation Diana had with James Gilbey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squidgygate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.35 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verify and put in the article. It would be interesting, too, to know if every Princess of Wales is C.in C. of the regiment. If so, the current one is not. That will be due to the politics that do not even allow her to call herself the Princess of Wales. All this could add to the article. 213.205.198.114 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formed in 1572?[edit]

In her speech at their homecoming in Portsmouth today the mayor said the regiment grew out of a company of troops mustered in London in 1572. True? And what campaign were they sent on - something in Ireland?--Shtove (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised, the Honourable Artillery Company can trace its history to the London trained bands and earlier, but most regiments date to the Restoration at the earliest, the PWRR antecedent regiment The Tangier Regiment is generally stated to have been formed in 1661, even the regiemtnal association only cliams this date (http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/), we'd need very good evidence for the earlier date. David Underdown (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, actually I see The Buffs, another of the antecedent regimetns do claim origin in the trained bands. David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Thank you.--Shtove (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do these claims actually mean?[edit]

I am sorry to join in the jeremiad about claims made in the article but what is the point of stating that PWRR "holds the earliest battle honour in the British Army" and that "through its ancestry via the Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey) (2nd Regiment of Foot), the PWRR is the most senior English line infantry regiment"?

The honour 'Tangier' may be the earliest campaign for which an honour has been awarded but does that somehow indicate a specific quality that other regiments do not possess; that their merit was such that they were granted a battle honour before any other regiment? Given that the honour was not granted till 1909, this is a fairly empty assertion.

The same goes for the claim to be the "most senior" English line infantry regiment. Apart from, presumably, granting the regiment some precedence when only English line regimentsa are on parade, a fairly arcane credential at the best of times, what does this tell us? That the Queen's Regt became the 2nd of Foot was merely a question of timing in the formation of the Old Corps.'

While not wishing for a second to cast aspersions on the records of the numerous component regiments of the PWRR and the men who served in them, surely we should have grown out of this kind of Victorian regimental puffery.

JF42 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)JF42 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment. 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:

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) 16:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Denmark[edit]

Why is she C. In C.? It seems kind of random. 213.205.198.114 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Danish kings had been C-in-C of the Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) since 1906, presumably as a nod towards Queen Alexandra whose brother became King Frederik VIII that year. KDLarsen (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before 2020[edit]

The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment had a number of battalions that have since been disbanded or changed, they include:[1]

  • 1st Battalion (still active)
  • 2nd Battalion (still active)
  • 3rd Battalion (still active as reserve)
  • 5th Battalion (disbanded in 1999)
  • 6th/7th Battalion (disbanded in 1999)

In any case, why the need for italics?

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (UK)". 2007-12-13. Retrieved 2018-11-15.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victor McLaglen[edit]

Why is Victor McLaglen listed under See also? His page doesn't list anything of particular significance as far as this page's subject is concerned. I've taken the liberty of removing it for now. KDLarsen (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_of_Wales%27s_Royal_Regiment&oldid=1201545662"