Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Cedarblue

Pages: [1]
1
Armed Forces / Re: 1877 - Gibraltar
« on: Saturday 29 April 23 16:49 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: scrimnet on Saturday 29 April 23 13:15 BST (UK)
Kings or Queens Regulations for the Army give a list of varying categories for discharge.

This is the main health one, from flat footedness to loss of a limb or anything between, including mental health issues.

This category and exact wording is still in use today...I used it myself to discharge the injured Toms from Afghan!


Many thanks - fascinating!

Cedarblue

2
Armed Forces / Re: 1877 - Gibraltar
« on: Tuesday 25 April 23 06:56 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: ShaunJ on Monday 24 April 23 23:04 BST (UK)
Unfortunately there's nothing in his surviving army papers to to tell us why he was deemed to be unfit for further service. It's usually to do with health or eyesight.

He'd have been in Gibraltar on garrison duty.

That's right.
Nothing with conduct or similar.  I think some health issue is the remaining assumption.
Thanks for the help.

CEDARBLUE

3
Armed Forces / Re: 1877 - Gibraltar
« on: Sunday 23 April 23 20:50 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: ShaunJ on Sunday 23 April 23 19:59 BST (UK)
It strongly suggests a health issue. What was his name?

Welcome to Rootschat!
[/quote


Thanks for the welcome.
His name was George Edward Tullett.

I thought might mean he wasn't suitable army material? That's what happened to his son,  my grandad. He was discharged,  something like 'unsuitable to be an effective soldier '......

CEDARBLUE

4
Armed Forces / 1877 - Gibraltar
« on: Saturday 22 April 23 16:08 BST (UK)  »
Hello all

My gr grandfather enlisted in 1873, was in the 102nd Regiment, 66th Brigade and a drummer. He went to Gibraltar in 1876 and was discharged in 1877, reason given: "being found unfit for further service".  He did not appear in the defaulters register, he was never tried, not wounded and his character and conduct was "very good".

I'm guessing that he didn't take to taking orders too well?? lol
This was a legitimate reason for discharge??

Were the army there simply as part of the British rule's presence?  Was anything else going on there?

Many thanks for any additional information.

Cedarblue

Pages: [1]