The Minute Book
Monday, 24 February 2014

Cap Badges; Designs for Corps and Units (1948)
Topic: Militaria

Canadian Army Orders (1948)

29th November 1948

84-1 — Dress Regulations for Officers and Other ranks of the Canadian Army (Provisional)

Part I — Section 11 — Badges and Buttons

Cap Badges — Designs for Corps and Units

16.     Cap badges, collar badges and buttons emblematic of each corps (or unit in the case of the RCAC, RCIC and contingent in the case of COTC) will he selected as far as possible by representatives of all such corps and units or contingents.

17.     The cap badges, collar badges and buttons worn by personnel of corps and units will be those as authorized in Canadian Army Orders from time to time. Existing corps and units, for which designs have been authorized will NOT have alterations made in such badges or buttons without approval of Army Headquarters.

18.     (a)     When the formation of a new corps or, in the case of the RCAC and RCIC, a new unit, and the COTC, a new contingent, is being considered, designs or particulars of the badges and button which it wishes to adopt will be submitted to Army Headquarters at the earliest possible date.

(b)     Designs submitted should be an actual sample or a properly drawn up sketch giving the following particulars in each case:

(i)     Nature of the badge—i.e., cap, collar.

(ii)     Dimensions—i.e., extreme height and width.

(iii)     Nature of the metal—i.e., brass, white metal, bronze, etc, stating difference if any in metals to be used for badges for officers and other ranks. With the exception of Rifle Regiments, who may use black metal, all other corps and units should wear brase or white metal badges or a combination of the two metals.

(iv)     Description of the badge giving history and symbolic significance of the component parts.

(c)     For the information and guidance of all concerned and particularly to assist commanding officers in deciding upon the suitability of designs of badges and buttons desired, the following factors, which influence the approval of designs submitted, will be observed :

(i)     Every badge should have one dominant feature; in a cap badge this should be the distinctive device of the corps or unit. The other elements should be as few in number as possible in order to simplify reproduction, to avoid confusion of details and to maintain significance and individuality.

(ii)     An essential part of the cap badge is the name of the unit, usually displayed on a scroll or annulus.

(iii)     The Imperial Crown, if borne on badges, should conform to the authorized design and should NOT be less than 1/4 the total height of the badge. It expresses the sovereignty of His Majesty the King, and is never to be surmounted by any other feature, although it may be placed upon a maple leaf or other emblem. The use of the Imperial Crown requires Royal Assent.

(iv)     Royal Assent is also required before any motto may be used by a corps or unit; when the use of a motto is sought, traditional or other reasons in support of the request must be advanced. The fact that the motto was previously worn by a unit or corps which is perpetuated by the petitioning unit is considered a sufficient reason for submission.

(v)     On the Garter, the use of any motto or title other than the motto "HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE" is incorrect and improper.

(vi)     Maple leaves if used must conform to the standard maple leaf design in accordance with the diagram hereunder:

CANADIAN MAPLE LEAF
(Acer Sacoherum )

(vii)     It is incorrect to embody in the design any scroll without a name, motto or other inscription thereon. All inscriptions, on scrolls must read continuously.

(viii)     As corps and regimental badges are common to all units forming part thereof, it will NOT be permissible for a number or numeral to be borne thereon except in the case of a regiment where a number is part of the regimental title as a whole; e.g., 15th Armoured Regiment (6th Hussars).

(ix)     Designs for buttons should be as plain as possible to simplify reproduction.

(x)     If a corps or unit desires to adopt the badges of an allied unit as indicated in Section 1, paras 23, 24, there are certain honorary distinctions and devices which would be inappropriate for a corps or unit of the Canadian Army to adopt, examples of which are as follows:

(a)     Honours awarded to the individual allied regiment for conspicuous service in the field, which include such devices as the Sphinx for service in Egypt, etc.

(b)     Special mottoes awarded to the allied regiment by Royal Assent for conspicuous or special service.

(c)      Devices pertaining to a Royal personage, such as the Prince of Wales' plume, the use of which is restricted to units whose designations embody the title of the Royal personage concerned.

(d)     This applies also to devices such as the Coronet of a Royal personage or Peer who might be an Honorary Colonel of a British regiment but who does not hold such association with the allied Canadian unit.

Canadian Army Battle Honours


Posted by regimentalrogue at 12:01 AM EST

Tuesday, 25 February 2014 - 4:14 PM EST

Name: "Phillip Herring"

Mike,

I am curious how these orders regarding cap badge design were applied to The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada.  The officers wear a cap badge with the ducal coronet and cypher of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany.  As far as I can tell, neither he, nor his successor were were ever the Colonel in Chief of the 72nd Regiment Canadian Militia, or its successors.  I realise that the Canadian Seaforths adopted badges and uniform distinctions of the Imperial regiment, but is it "legal" given that neither of the Dukes of Albany were Colonel in Chief of the Canadian regiment?

I look forward to your reply.

Many thanks,

Phil herring

Tuesday, 25 February 2014 - 7:41 PM EST

Name: "Michael OLeary"
Home Page: http://regimentalrogue.com

Good evening Phil. it is possible that elements of their cap badge predate the attempts to control such matters with Army Orders such as the above. Even once promulgated, there's no evidence that I am aware of that the requirements were "back-dated" and existing badges made to comply. In any case, there's always the possibilities of such things as political interference or smple disobedience for a regiment to get what it wants, leaving an open challenge the system to force compliance. The RCR with their Guelphic Crown and VRI (after 1901) are equally counter to precedent and normal pratices.

 

Mike

View Latest Entries

The Regimental Rogue.

Follow The Regimental Rogue on facebook.

« February 2014 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Armouries
Army Rations
Battle Honours
British Army
Canadian Armed Forces
Canadian Army
Canadian Militia
CEF
Cold Steel
Cold War
Commentary
CWGC
Discipline
DND
DND - DHH
Drill and Training
European Armies
Events
Film
Forays in Fiction
Halifax
Humour
LAC
Leadership
Marching
Marines
Martial Music
Medals
Militaria
Military Medical
Military Theory
Morale
Mortars
Officers
OPSEC
Paardeberg
Pay; the Queen's shilling
Perpetuation
RCAF
RCN
Remembrance
Resistance
Russia
Sam Hughes
Soldier Slang
Soldiers' Load
Staff Duties
Stolen Valour
Taking Advantage
The Field of Battle
The RCR
The RCR Museum
Tradition
US Armed Forces
Vimy Pilgrimage
Wolseley Barracks

You are not logged in. Log in
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile