How does a mix-up differ from down-right confusion?
The photo which shows Sub/Constable Brown and inscribed Reg.#262 was sent in by Ms. Denise Farwell from Assiniboia Detachment, 'F' Division (SK).
On the surface, does anything appear irregular with the Regimental number (Reg.#262)?
Well, since the inception of the North West Mounted Police (NWMP) in 1873, there began a mix-up in the regimental numbering system for recruits as well as Officers -- it seems that the Comptroller's Office in Ottawa and other recruit sign-up points all issued regimental numbers which added to long reign confusion. In short, no one kept track of regimental numbers through the use of a single 'master list'.
As well, in the early days, regimental numbers were recycled -- if a member quit it was easy to reassigned his number to an incoming recruit. The Force was very small and apparently no one considered reserving assigned numbers in the event that an ex-member might rejoin the NWMP at a later date.
This early 'error' resulted in Sub-Constable Brown and many other NWMP actually being assigned three different regimental numbers -- one number (OOS115) was assigned when Brown first joined the Band in Regina, another number (Reg.#262) when a 'new system' was implemented and another number (Reg.#171) when he re-joined the NWMP after a short absence.I explained to Denise Farwell that when I tried to enter Brown’s Reg.# in the database, I discovered that another old timer (Constable William D. Armstrong) already had also been assigned Reg.#262 -- the reason was because there was a short period when Constable Brown was out of the Force so his original number 262 was given to new recruit Armstrong and when Brown rejoined in 1878 he was given another old recycled number of 171!
This whole mix up has confused historians since 1873 and it means that the entire regimental numbering system is out of wack --- some believe that everyone presently in the Force should have a number about 3 less or 3 more…
Anyway, it's all part of history and it can be counted among the least of our worries today.
'Maintain our Memories'
Reg. #23685 more or less
No comments:
Post a Comment
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your note. Please be assured that I will reply, but some e-mails require a little more research and time or reflection. If your comment hinges on policy for graves, the e-mail may have to be referred to the RCMP for an authoritative response.
*You may check this blog for your e-mail as well as my reply.
Yours truly,
BuffaloJoe
Reg.#23685