Talk:Grenadier Guards

Military history: British / European / World War I / World War II C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion 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
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Adding to Insignia portion

Tried to add some more information to the Insignia part of the box, but it does not show on the page. Does it need resizing of the box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suredev (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I believe I've fixed the issue with this edit: [1]. The problem was that the identification labels were not sequentially numbered. Incidentally, I think there is a limit to the number of id symbol fields the infobox will take (I think four might be the limit, hence why the abbreviation is now not showing). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess the abbreviation does not belong in "Insignia" anyway. But we can same a field by putting the collar and shoulder insignia in the same field. Let me do that for now. Suredev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13.13.16.1 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Role

What does "this will be fixed" mean? Rojomoke 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be stable, nailed on, immutable, permanent. Or at least that's what I take it to mean but given the vagaries of MOD at the moment.... At least TCH has gone. Try taking the issue to ARSSE Jatrius (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the regiment

Ironically, at Waterloo they fought brillantly and defeated "French Imperial Chasseurs" and not "French Imperial Grenadiers". At least they kept the good bearskin (I mean the one of the Chasseurs which was without a metal plate in front).

The: "Source specifying who the British Guards defeated at Waterloo" in the body of the text, is one of the most biased anti British screeds I have ever clapped eyes on.Scan your eyes over it and you will see nothing but the English and British being scared, beaten and driven off right, left and center. Funny how they won the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treviboy (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it's like all over wikipedia mate on every war England has even if it's a draw or Even an English victory say your reading an article about the nine years war it will have every battle the English were defeated on slapped on the article with a link with a completely one sided reference completely making the English army look as if they were completely defeated there are battles that we well know was a English victory being edited as indecisive or Tactical failure or Strategic failure there are even people deliberately making articles about battles the English lost, and skipping over the battles we won like it never happened you just look on the battle of Hastings article it's basically saying that half of continental Europe joined in, it just irritates me if someone was to write the articles about English battle victories like that there would be consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.225.157 (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, but after reading the wiki article and several books on Waterloo, this unit of Guards indeed defeated Imperial Chasseurs and not Imperial Grenadiers. "you will see nothing but the English and British being scared, beaten and driven off right, left and center. Funny how they won the battle." Well that's a change considering the British litterature production on Waterloo ; during years, it was the Allies - especially Dutch and Belgian - of Britain who were labelled as cowards, paper tigers, bastards or mad dogs. This is just a question of perspective and time to time of national bias. Does that change the view of this unit's famous history, I don't think so. 90.42.251.97 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headgear

Can someone write some brief remark about the uniforms they wear, especially the headgear? Thanks. 4.227.234.202 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content

I have removed the following from the article as it seems more like commentary that should be on the talk page rather than in the articlespace. I am placing it here if anyone wants to discuss. I do not have any opinion about its accuracy, however, I am currently trying to help out by rewriting the history section was quite light on, hence I am putting it here for safekeeping. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

As a result of their actions in defeating the French Imperial Grenadiers at Waterloo, the 1st Guards were renamed by as the 1st or Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards, thus becoming the only regiment in the British Army to win its name in battle. ^{[dubious – discuss]} The 1st British Foot Guards never faced the French Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard. They in fact with the help of the adjacent British brigade of General Adam, beat and routed roughly three battalions of French Chasseurs of the Imperial (Middle) Guard; Source specifying who the British Guards defeated at Waterloo. One can even research the uniforms of the Imperial Guard and see that the British Grenadier adoption of the bearskin bonnet uses the Chasseur Imperial guards type that has no brassplate on the front. The Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard had this distinct brass plate on their bonnets.

”

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grenadier Guards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grenadier Guards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Thought I would put this in talk page:

Regimental Headquarters
- Band of the Grenadier Guards - Medical Support in event of big war
- No.25 Company ???? - Gained Information from person inside band.. Possible other support unit?
1st Battalion
- Headquarters Company
  - Regimental Administration Office
  - Quartermaster's Office
  - REME Light Aid Detachment
  - Assault Pioneer Platoon - Provided by Corps of Drums
  - Medical Section
  - Provost Unit
  - Unit Pay Group
- No.1 (Queen's) Company
  - Company Headquarters
  - 1 Platoon
  - 2 Platoon
  - 3 Platoon
  - Support Platoon
- No.2 Company
  - Company Headquarters
  - 4 Platoon
  - 5 Platoon
  - 6 Platoon
  - Support Platoon
- No.3 (Inkerman) Company
  - Company Headquarters
  - 7 Platoon
  - 8 Platoon
  - 9 Platoon
  - Support Platoon
- Support Company
  - Company Headquarters
  - Sniper Platoon Platoon
  - Reconnaissance Platoon
  - Mortars Platoon
  - Machine-Gun Platoon
No.2 (Nijmegan) Company
- Company and Support Platoon
  - Support Section
  - Quartermaster's Section
  - Tailor's Group
- 1 Platoon
- 2 Platoon
- 3 Platoon

Totally spamming. BlueD954 (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two colonels?

Two people are listed as 'Colonel of the Regiment' - The Duke of York and Lieutenant Colonel Piers Ashfield. Can you separate-out their roles? Valetude (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date of formation

The intro says 1662 and the main text says 1656, which agrees with the entry on Lord Wentworth's Regiment and the one on the British Army order of precedence.

Manolan1 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to 1656 for consistency. Most sources seem to support that date. Dormskirk (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Company or King's Company

I note that "Queen's Company" has already been changed to "King's Company". Some elements of the media e.g. this article are suggesting that "The Queen’s Company is expected to be renamed in the King’s honour later this year." That suggests no decision has been made yet. Dormskirk (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the army here:

The Company, which is effectively the Sovereign’s Company, changes its official title in the event of a gender change of a succeeding Monarch.

The Queen’s Company will retain its title up until the point when Her Majesty is laid to rest in St George’s Chapel, Windsor. The Company then changes to reflect the gender of the new sovereign. It heralds an intense period of activity as every button and badge on the numerous uniforms and items of dress will need to be replaced.

Caps, capes, shoulder insignia, jackets, tunics, great coats, blazers, service dress etc. will all need to be re-buttoned and their insignia altered from ER to the new monarch.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's very clear - many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regimental structure - King's Company

The sentence referring to the Malplaquet replacement must be wrong; in 1709 Queen Anne was monarch - George II didn't take the throne until 1728. If it was George II, it was a different date and battle. 88.111.184.40 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]