4

I have a person who was discharged from the British Army "discharged under para 1805 (iii) (4)".

Anyone know what that means, or where I can find the text of that regulation (preferably online)?

  • 2
    Did you mean 1805 or 1905 in the question? – TomH Oct 16 '12 at 17:44
  • Examining the first group of pages in the text (link) provided by @ColeValleyGirl brings about the same question for me, TomH. – GeneJ Oct 16 '12 at 18:17
  • It seems odd that he would be discharged under the 1806 regulations in 1905 as I'm sure they were issued more often than that - certainly wikipedia claims a 1901 version existed. – TomH Oct 16 '12 at 18:35
  • Definitely 1805 – ACProctor Oct 16 '12 at 18:49
3

There is a list of discharge reasons under the 1912 regulations here which includes links to images of the actual text.

Assuming that paragraph (iii) in the 1805 regulations was basically the same then the reason would be "Not being likely to become an efficient soldier".

It looks like the British Library have a large number of editions of King's Regulations of various dates if you want to try and find the exact detail of the regulation.

| improve this answer | |
  • I think it's the same regulation, although probably renumbered. Clause (c) caught my eye as this man enlisted twice. He was posted to S. Africa the first time (2nd Anglo-Boer war), but his 2nd attempt lasted exactly 1 month. The details are fragmentary and barely readable so I can't tell whether he was injured before, or whether it was his mental state. – ACProctor Oct 16 '12 at 18:52
  • OK, I took a magnifying glass to the text and it says "discharged under para 1805 (iii) (4)". Hence '1805' may not be a date at all. However, most references to that regulation say "para 392". The sub-classes are also alphabetic rather than numeric (as in "(4)") so I'm wondering whether it is the same regulation in an older edition or not. – ACProctor Oct 16 '12 at 19:44
  • I imagine it's an older version of KR where the discharge reasons were in para 1805 rather than 392. Maybe the 1901 edition? – TomH Oct 16 '12 at 21:58
1

There's a dreadful ocr'd copy of a Manual of Military Law 1907 at http://archive.org/details/manualofmilitary00greauoft which may help. I haven't searched for other relevant books.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    ColeValleyGirl, are you able to summarize what the referenced material reports about ACProctor's question? – GeneJ Oct 16 '12 at 17:36
  • There's a PDF of that if you use the "other formats" button, but as far as I could see it didn't include a copy of Kings Regulations. – TomH Oct 16 '12 at 17:43
  • @GeneJ, not without reading 844 pages of Military law that doesn't seem to have any cross-correlation between its content and the Regulations. – user104 Oct 16 '12 at 17:50
  • I'm sure this link would help but it's a monster of a document, and a great example of how not to publish electronic books. I've been looking for a while and can't find that regulation. – ACProctor Oct 16 '12 at 18:54
  • @acproctor, have you found the image copy, which is at least legible (but doesn't seem to have a unique URL, let alone a decent index)? In any case, I suspect "Not being likely to become an efficient soldier" isn't going to get much of a mention, when the focus seems to be misbehavious, crimes and court martials. – user104 Oct 16 '12 at 18:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.