Talk:46th (South Devonshire) Regiment of Foot

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 46th (South Devonshire) Regiment of Foot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / American Revolution / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Suggestions for improvement

I have just completed the B class checklist and believe that the article could be improved by addressing the following:

referencing - the article needs in line citations on every paragraph and a broader reference base to be up to B class standard;
coverage - it is reasonably broad, but in parts reads like a list of actions rather than an article. If these could be fleshed out in a proper narrative, it would improve the article.

Just some ideas. Hope this helps. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Feathers

The reference to red feathers is not factual.

The 46th Regiment appear to have returned from India in 1833 with their light company sporting red feathers in their shakos as opposed to the regulation green 'ball tuft' introduced for all light infantry in 1830-(previously light infantry had worn a green hackle plume; green being unoffically the light infantry distinctive colour since the American War of Independence; officially since 1800).

We know this because a letter has survived indicating official concern regarding this departure from regulation dress: 24 Oct 1833 "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th Instant and request you will furnish me with a copy of the authority under which the 46th Regiment was permitted to wear the Red Feather." C-in-C's office to Major Clarke, Comg 46th Regiment Canterbury (National Archives: WO3/440)

The letter is ambiguous. The whole regiment may have been wearing a red feather but in any case although the 46th's explanation has not survived, it was clearly accepted: 12th Dec 1833 ..."under all the circumstances stated, the General Commanding in Chief will undertake to recommend to His Majesty that the distinction mentioned may be continued to the Light Company of the 46th Regiment and will accordingly be submitted that the Company be allowed to wear a red ball tuft. C-in-C to Colonel Campbell 46th Regiment (WO3/440)

We can assume the explanation related to events surrounding the night action near Paoli Tavern on September 20th, 1777.

Note- the letter authorised "a red ball tuft," not a red feather. The red feather had been worn in obscurity, possibly by only one company, during the 19 years the 46th were in Australia and Southern India- or at least part of that time- and it had little time to be distinctive since it was done away with almost as soon as the 46th arrived back in Britain and, almost immediately, the Regiment went abroad again. Not until the Crimea did it enter any sort of limelight and again, only one company wore this fairly inconspicuous distinction.

There is no reference in Inspection Reports to the 46th Light Coy's non-regulation distinction being worn between the Regiment's return from the West Indies in 1783 and 1833. Indeed, neither is there any historical reference to its being adopted, allegedly in defiance of American threats of vengeance sometime after September 20th 1777.

The 46th was in Karachi when, in 1858, Flank Companies were abolished in infantry battalions and the whole regiment was authorised to wear the former Light Company's red distinction. This lasted for 20 years until shakos were replaced by a cork helmet and the 'ball tuft', already redundant, became obsolete. Three years later, the 46th were united with the 32nd Cornwall Light Infantry to form the 'Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry.' Over the years a reference to the red feather tradition, on one form or another, was worn by the DCLI and its descendants until 2007

Clearly the 'red feather' was mainly distinctive for the 46th themselves and it would seem the nickname was promoted mainly by the Regiment itself and, since 1881, over the years a reference to the red feather tradition, on one form or another, was worn by the DCLI and its descendants until 2007.

Fair enough, but let's stick to the facts here.

All of which is far too much information for the article as constructed, even if I could be bothered to distill it to the essential facts.... Just so as we know. 86.166.242.104 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]