Except the London Regiment did not, and still does not, have a "Royal"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil9713
Printable View
Except the London Regiment did not, and still does not, have a "Royal"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil9713
As it has AJP on the barrel and Parker Hale on the receiver, I'm guessing that at some point these were on two different rifles.
Beerhunter,
Take that totally on board, however,the title Royal London and my suggestion of (Regiment(s) was no more than that, could account for RLR on the rifle. In the late 19th into the early 20th Century Royal London was stretched in Military history to include many Regiments of the line, some UK based, but many of which were Canadian based to for example:
Royal London Fusiliers Monument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Royal London title was often stitched prefacing lots of Regiments, don't ask me why specifically Royal Lincolnshire Regiment/Royal Leicestershire Regiment but also Royal Labrador Regiment which later became the Royal Newfoundland Regiment in Canada many at the time the Lee Speed was being developed.
So my theory and hopefully helpful suggestion was merely for the melting pot, as I know from my own Regiment we stamped EVERYTHING as we rarely gave things back once broken:):)
I have never heard of the Royal Fusiliers being called (even informally) the Royal "London" Fusiliers and I was around when they were extant! They were the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).
Nor have I heard of any regiment being called, even informally, as the Royal London anything. I speak as an ex-member of the oldest Regiment of London. Or, as far as we are concerned, anywhere else in the UK for that matter :-)
As to why some regiments are Royal and others are not it is because the "Royal" has to be earned or inherited. e.g the former Royal Hampshire Regiment (1946) and the latter: the Royal Air Force's Army antecedents - Royal Engineers and from them the Royal Flying Corps. Or the Royal Signals, also from the Royal Engineers.
Oh thats why my Regiment never became ROYAL then, we couldn't have earnt it or been involved in enough battles ??
Maybe some one didn't ask. I agree is is an anomaly. Perhaps someone should take it with your Colonel in Chief. He aught to have some pull with his mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil9713
My old Regiment, in spite of its age and record, is also not Royal - merely Honourable. :-)
:lol::lol: Yes Charles did slip up there, but frankly it wouldn't go down to well now anyway, we have got used to being what we are. HAC know a few there, especially those that frequent the bar:cheers: or did you mean Fusiliers?
Getting back to Jeff's original question about the R.L.R, non of us have a clue really but we do like to try and help if we can. Lets not forget, these stamps were in a generation when everything got stamped including passports.............now thats a thing of the past too. :lol::lol:
That may well be the case, but it doesn't resemble a regimental marking either IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
Has that marking been seen elsewhere in association with the "Royal London Rifles"?
I'm not even finding a regiment of that name via Google - except a reference in Canada: "The Royal London Rifles (1st Canadian Regiment)"
Would a regiment have such a tiny little stamp made up - and it is obviously a one-piece stamp - to mark their kit in such a insignificant and unclear way? Seems doubtful to me. They would have something quite a bit larger and more obvious I suspect.
Yes agree in part, and only threw into the pot the Canadian angle of the Royal London Regiment or Rifles, because it was on that continent. They are clearly not letters stamped by Parker Hale or any manufacturer and are offset as if an after thought or merely a unit or group identifier as their ownership. I would hedge a bet they were for "Junior Riflemen" to learn to shoot with a Military school or organization, but IMHO a Military unit nevertheless.
Could it not just be a commercial rifle and not actually have any military affiliation?