Hi all with the recent release of the British Army WWI Pension Records on Ancestry.com, I've had great success with a few of my rellies who served in WWI. As is usually the case when you get a couple of answers, they lead to dozens more questions :) I've solved a few puzzles easily, but I'm a bit stuck on this one. One of my not-so-distant cousins was in the Army Cyclist Corp in Hounslow. He served for just 10 months from Nov 1915 to Sept 1916, when he was discharged as being unfit for further service due to pulmanory tuberculosis. He was officially discharged on 1st September 1916. BUT .. and this is the bit that puzzles me .. there is a copy of a letter dated 8th November 1916 from the Metropolitan Police. This letter states that on production of his discharge certificate and signing of a receipt, a Khaki Armlet No.R37970 was handed to Mr Percy Barber (my rellie) with accompanying leaflet which was explained to him. Can anyone tell me what was the reason for the police issuing armlets to medically discharged soldiers? My theory is that perhaps, as he was a young man of 'fighting' age, and apart from his TB he would have looked fit, this armlet would be worn to show that he had in fact served and was discharged. Perhaps something to be worn in public so as not to be 'picked on' by people who would otherwise think him a coward or concientious objector. Any clues would be appreciated. btw - if anyone has relatives from the Harrogate area who served in the Great War, I have 2 booklets containing over 1400 photographs of servicemen and women who were killed, wounded, missing etc. You can see the index of names here .. http://freepages.military.rootsweb.com/~harrogatemilitary/warphotos.htm and I am happy to forward individual scans if you email me with a name. cheers ... Paul

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:40:16 -0500, "Paul Cooper" <paulcooper@tugsworld.com> wrote: >One of my not-so-distant cousins was in the Army Cyclist Corp in Hounslow. >He served for just 10 months from Nov 1915 to Sept 1916, when he was >discharged as being unfit for further service due to pulmanory tuberculosis. > >He was officially discharged on 1st September 1916. BUT .. and this is the >bit that puzzles me .. there is a copy of a letter dated 8th November 1916 >from the Metropolitan Police. > >This letter states that on production of his discharge certificate and >signing of a receipt, a Khaki Armlet No.R37970 was handed to Mr Percy Barber >(my rellie) with accompanying leaflet which was explained to him. > >Can anyone tell me what was the reason for the police issuing armlets to >medically discharged soldiers? >My theory is that perhaps, as he was a young man of 'fighting' age, and >apart from his TB he would have looked fit, this armlet would be worn to >show that he had in fact served and was discharged. Perhaps something to be >worn in public so as not to be 'picked on' by people who would otherwise >think him a coward or concientious objector. You are correct. Here is an article from The Times of 1 November 1915 which makes reference to the introduction of a khaki armlet to certain categories of people: ------------------------------------------------- KHAKI ARMLETS. BADGES FOR RECRUITS AND INELIGIBLES. VIEWS ON A WAR OFFICE INNOVATION. The following official announcement was made on Saturday :- The Secretary of State for War has decided to issue khaki armlets, bearing the Royal crown, to the following classes of men:— (1) Men who enlist and are placed in groups awaiting a call to join the colours. (2) Men who offer themselves for enlist- ment and are found to be medically unfit. (3) Men who have been invalided out of the Service with good character or have been discharged "not likely to become efficient" on medical grounds. There will be a distinctive mark for each of the classes. The armlets are in process of manufacture. Notice will be given when they can be issued, together with instructions as to issue. The decision to issue the armlet is welcomed by responsible people, but the criticism is made that unless recognition is given to classes of war workers who at present wear no dis- tinguishing badge, obloquy will rest where it is undeserved. There are thousands of men to whom, with the approval of the Government, permission to enlist has been refused, but who, under existing or proposed arrangements, will have no badge to indicate their position. Among them are the great body of railwaymen and other indispensable workers. In some quarters there is a desire to abolish the war service badge worn on the lapel of the coat, and to make the khaki armlet the one recognized mark of national service. The idea of issuing armlets is not a new one. In September of last year the National Patriotic Associa- tion, of which Sir George Pragnell is chairman, pro- posed that there should be a voluntary mobilization of the whole country, and that all men and women who placed their services absolutely at the service of the Government should wear either the King's uniform or the King's khaki armlet. We understand that the adoption of the armlet was again suggested to Lord Derby some three weeks ago. Risk of Invidious Distinctions Sir George Pragnell yesterday expressed his satisfaction that the Secretary for War had decided to issue the armlet, but urged that the scheme must be extended. In his opinion, the present war service badge ought to be abolished. The armlet, he thought, ought to be the one distinguishing mark of willingness to serve according to one's qualifications. It would then be very difficult for a man to appear in public without the armlet. People would probably refuse to buy in shops where assistants were employed who did not wear the sign of willingness to serve the State, and the presence of a man without the khaki band in a place of amusement would be regarded as inexcusable. Mr. Richard Burbidge said that many men were doing work more valuable to the country than the service they could give as soldiers, and it would be regrettable if they were to be regarded as "slackers". Sir Charles Macara offered similar criticism. The issue of armlets, he said, was a step in the right direction, but it might operate unfairly if, without discrimination, it left open to public contempt men who were without the badge. The official statement concerning the issue of the armlets does not suggest that the unauthorised wearing of the band would be an offence against the law, but it is probable that the position of a man attempting any false pretence of this kind would be similar to that of a person who illegally wore the King's uniform. ------------------------------------------------- Forrest -- Forrest Anderson, Edinburgh, Scotland. E-mail: forrest@military-researcher.com Website: www.military-researcher.com Forrestdale Research - Military Genealogical Researcher