# Ladies From Hell. Documentary about formation and disbanding ofBlack Watch, 1970



## uptheglens (28 Oct 2009)

Somebody posted the entire hour-long program on youtube, and I thought it might be appreciated by some on here. The style of narration is a little dated, but remember it is almost 40 years old after all. Interesting film of the disbanding of the two regular battalions.

Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RflepY0UC4k
Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m8gywrPsKo&feature=related
Part 3:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBkC7wlirqU&feature=related
Part 4:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIVNFUM90ek&feature=related
Part 5:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ZUjFFbcPg&feature=related
Part 6:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IqU2gZLLY8&feature=related
Part 7:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMRDCnnyVok&feature=related
Part 8:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc8MCKclFpY&feature=related
Part 9:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_5z8ZkTMAQ&feature=related
Part 10:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvU8XLYqyTk&feature=related
Part 11:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW1joz_HK3Q&feature=related
Part 12:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azyi_t9rFzI&feature=related


----------



## dapaterson (28 Oct 2009)

Properly speaking, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada had its Regular Force battalions reduced to nil strength, then moved to the supplementary order of battle.  They were not disbanded.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Oct 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Properly speaking, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada had its Regular Force battalions reduced to nil strength, then moved to the supplementary order of battle.  They were not disbanded.



The regular battalions are toast.  The regiment still exists in the Forces as a reserve regiment.  The only regular force regiment in the SOB is the Canadian Guards, as far as I know.  My source is Michael Mitchell's "Ducimus, The Regiments of The Canadian Infantry"


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> My source is Michael Mitchell's "Ducimus, The Regiments of The Canadian Infantry"



Which is not necessarily a good source when used without corroboration by official sources. This is a result of regiments being asked to write their own capsule histories without any rigorous cross-referencing to official sources.  The "spin" selected by some units can be misleading.

One set of examples I used in a recent presentation dealt with unit claims for dates of origin. These ranged from good to unsupportable (in any official sense).


Good - "*General order No. 16 dated 7 June 1872 announced*: “The formation of a battalion of Foot guards ….”
Unspupportable - The regiment is the oldest military unit in Canada. Although the regiment has been *disbanded and reformed many times*, it has in effect been the same regiment since 1795 …. the Fisherman’s Militia which fought [the French in] 1696 … 

History tainted by emotion or regimental lore shouldn't be simply accepted as fact.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Oct 2009)

I tried to find anything to corroberate that the Black Watch of Canada was on the SOB. Having seen various lists over the years and not seen them listed, I used a ready source, the appendixes of which seem to be from official sources although lacking attribution.  I used to know Michael way back.  He was the only soldier in Edmonton with a Black Watch kilt.

Your unsupportable is true in my opinion.  While DND supported including the WWI history of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment without any legal connection or continuity with the current unit, to prevent open warfare with living vets, they denied the unit of 1812 and the militia actions in many invasions.  Foreign military engaged in Newfoundland in 1665, 1673, 1696, 1704, 1705, 1708, 1756, and 1796.  There is only one Newfoundland militia, not 10 different units of 10 different wars.  The official history is official, not necessarily the complete story.  Ditto with the regiments of the various Ontario counties.  They did not appear out of the blue after 1867 or shortly before.  Many had been around since 1783 having originally been formed as Loyalist units in the United States.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Oct 2009)

The reason why DND links the lineage of R NFLD R to its former self is because of the Sovereign.

*On October 24th 1949, almost 30 years after it was disbanded following the First World War, authority was granted by King George VI to remuster The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, as a Militia Unit of the Canadian Forces*. Today as Citizen Soldiers the men of the Regiment are proudly and efficiently doing a job of real importance in their community and for the security of the nation by serving on Humanitarian Assistance, Peacekeeping and peace support Operations throughout the world.


----------



## Red Hackle (28 Oct 2009)

I was the one who posted those videos on youtube, glad you enjoyed them.

Cheers, Ken


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The official history is official, not necessarily the complete story.  Ditto with the regiments of the various Ontario counties.  They did not appear out of the blue after 1867 or shortly before.  Many had been around since 1783 having originally been formed as Loyalist units in the United States.



The official history of a unit begins with its official creation as a unit of the Canadian Army.

Claiming connections with prior local militia units is fine, as long as the distinction is recognized that there is a significant difference between saying "The history of the Blankville Rifles since 1783" and "The history of Blankville militia units up to the creation of the Blankville Rifles" (followed by the creation and further history of the Blankville Rifles).  Any claim to a formal lineage before creation of a unit by a Canadian government is false advertising and only serves to mislead the soldiers and the citizenry.  Coincidences of place, name and even unit members do not establish a right to claiming lineage, no matter how long the local myth has been perpetuated.

But why should we let facts get in the way of claiming our history, right?    :


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Oct 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The reason why DND links the lineage of R NFLD R to its former self is because of the Sovereign.
> 
> *On October 24th 1949, almost 30 years after it was disbanded following the First World War, authority was granted by King George VI to remuster The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, as a Militia Unit of the Canadian Forces*. Today as Citizen Soldiers the men of the Regiment are proudly and efficiently doing a job of real importance in their community and for the security of the nation by serving on Humanitarian Assistance, Peacekeeping and peace support Operations throughout the world.



Although the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (Royal Canadian Infantry Corps) was created in 19149, the perpetuation of Royal Newfoundland Regiment (1914-1919) was not authorized until 1953, at which time it was backdated to 1950.

*Canadian Army Order, Issue No. 367, 28 Dec 1953*



> 33-1 -- Battle Honours -- The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
> 
> His late Majesty, King George VI, was graciously pleased to approve the perpetuation by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, of Great War Battle Honours awarded to the Royal Newfoundland Regiment (1914-1919), as shown:
> 
> ...


----------



## exspy (28 Oct 2009)

Dennis,

The reason that you could not find The Black Watch (RHR) of Canada on the Supplementary Order of Battle is because it is not there.  Regiments are placed on the SOB, not battalions of a regiment.  Hence the inclusion of The Canadian Guards, but not the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the RHC.

In this particular case, Michael Mitchell and 'Ducimus' are correct.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Oct 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> But why should we let facts get in the way of claiming our history, right?    :



Why should we let legalities get in the way?

My ggg-grandfather was on the nominal role of the Hastings militia in 1834 so they existed then.  The 49th Hastings Rifles were formed in 1866 and have carried on through mergers as todays The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment.  There was no practical disconnect between 1834 and 1866, just a legal one.  I totally see your point but not recognizing a continuity that existed when the army chooses to recognize other iffy history isn't all that accurate either.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Why should we let legalities get in the way?
> 
> My ggg-grandfather was on the nominal role of the Hastings militia in 1834 so they existed then.  The 49th Hastings Rifles were formed in 1866 and have carried on through mergers as todays The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment.  There was no practical disconnect between 1834 and 1866, just a legal one.  I totally see your point but not recognizing a continuity that existed when the army chooses to recognize other iffy history isn't all that accurate either.



The confusion arises when it is claimed that an unbroken lineage exists (which it doesn't) and that Confederation and the creation of units by a Canadian Government is an unnecessary detail (which it isn't).  The continuity of militia service in an area is not the same as an unbroken unit lineage.  That "legal disconnect" is a critically important detail, and to overlook it is to perpetuate a mythical lineage.


----------



## uptheglens (28 Oct 2009)

Red Hackle said:
			
		

> I was the one who posted those videos on youtube, glad you enjoyed them.
> 
> Cheers, Ken



Thanks for taking the time to post the whole program. I remember seeing the march-off months ago, and I was hoping and praying that whoever posted it would post the rest of the program. Thanks for taking the time to post it all.

Where did you dig it up to begin with?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 Oct 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That "legal disconnect" is a critically important detail, and to overlook it is to perpetuate a mythical lineage.



I don't think it would be hard to find 100 iffy perpetuations starting with the CEF of WWI.  As far as legalities go, you are right.  When all that is required is tweeking the law, I simply don't understand why it was never done.  Canada was not created from nothing.  The provinces all had militia that fought wars and Canada inherited it.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't think it would be hard to find 100 iffy perpetuations starting with the CEF of WWI.  As far as legalities go, you are right.  When all that is required is tweeking the law, I simply don't understand why it was never done.  Canada was not created from nothing.  The provinces all had militia that fought wars and Canada inherited it.



So your solution would be to "tweak" the creation of Canada as nation out of the equation so militia units could pretend they had unbroken lineage.  Sure, why not, an army as an instrument of a nation really isn't that important a consideration is it?

And for the French-Canadian units, lets just ignore the fact that those preceding local militia units were sometimes French, and sometimes British in origin.

Hell, let's just extend back to roving Native American bands on the warpath and call that part of the units' lineage by geographical affiliation too.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 Oct 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And for the French-Canadian units, lets just ignore the fact that those preceding local militia units were sometimes French, and sometimes British in origin.



It wouldn't bother me for a second were Quebec units to perpetuate the Quebec militia whose guns were pointed at Wolfe.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> It wouldn't bother me for a second were Quebec units to perpetuate the Quebec militia whose guns were pointed at Wolfe.



Of course not, because it supports your flawed thesis.

But what about the First Nations? Aren't they part of your local military history?  After all, you say it doesn't matter which way the bullets (arrows?) were flying with respect to any Anglo-British heritage in Canadian origins.  Shouldn't your reborn northern Alberta militia unit, if it ever comes to be, also claim that heritage by your reasoning?

Map of Treaty Areas in Alberta


----------



## K.Schults (29 Oct 2009)

Thank you for the documentary of the Black Watch of Canada.


----------



## Jungle (29 Oct 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And for the French-Canadian units, lets just ignore the fact that those preceding local militia units were sometimes French, and sometimes British in origin.



It's already happening; look at this link:

http://www.army.dnd.ca/land-terre/units-unites/unit-unite-eng.asp?id=532



> *4e Bataillon Royal 22e Régiment, (Châteauguay)
> (4 R22R) *
> 
> Unit History
> ...



I believe the Voltigeurs de Québec claim a similar lineage.

This is from a DND web site.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Oct 2009)

And the proliferation of such claims only makes it more difficult to separate the factual history from the mythologies.

Establishing local connections is one thing, claiming formal lineage quite another.


----------



## Jungle (29 Oct 2009)

Honestly, I don't care much for that stuff; I knew about the Régiment de Châteauguay because I was raised in the area where that battle took place.

I am busy enough preparing to deploy, deploying and returning from deployment, then starting the cycle again, to pay much attention to some obscure regt'l affiliation claims. They can claim whatever they want, as all this stuff is good for is raising glasses at mess functions, which I try to avoid anyway.

I guess you should plan a trip to Laval IOT teach the 4R22eR their own history... you can even put a "The" RCR twist in there for all I care...  ;D

Take care dude... 8)


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2009)

If we are going to claim anyone in regimental linage then how about the Vikings  

Going all out; which unit wants to claim the assault on the walls of Troy as a battle honour?


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (1 Nov 2009)

The Royal Scots claim a lineage at least back to 33 AD


----------



## Red Hackle (1 Nov 2009)

uptheglens... I have a video copy of the original 8mm tape, the quality is not very good. The video was given to my father-in-law Col. Scotty Morrison C.O. of the 1st Battalion, he was the commanding officer on parade that day. 

Cheers, Ken


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Nov 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we are going to claim anyone in regimental linage then how about the Vikings
> 
> Going all out; which unit wants to claim the assault on the walls of Troy as a battle honour?



I'm sure us engineers have it somewhere........

 ;D


----------



## Jungle (1 Nov 2009)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> The Royal Scots claim a lineage at least back to 33 AD



not a bad idea... I'm a descendant of the Gaul, at least back to 50 BC; I can probably claim lineage to some Gaul tribe in the Asterix era...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Of course not, because it supports your flawed thesis.
> 
> But what about the First Nations? Aren't they part of your local military history?  After all, you say it doesn't matter which way the bullets (arrows?) were flying with respect to any Anglo-British heritage in Canadian origins.  Shouldn't your reborn northern Alberta militia unit, if it ever comes to be, also claim that heritage by your reasoning?
> 
> Map of Treaty Areas in Alberta



Funny you should mention that.  The St. Albert Mounted Rifles of 1885 were largely a Metis unit that relieved Lac la Biche.  Of course the 19th Ds, if they awaken, should perpetuate it, just as the Fort Garry Horse perpetuate Boulton's Mounted and the South Alberta Light Horse perpetuate the Rocky Mountain Rangers of 1885 although there was no continuity and only a regional affinity.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Nov 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we are going to claim anyone in regimental linage then how about the Vikings
> 
> Going all out; which unit wants to claim the assault on the walls of Troy as a battle honour?



The 197th (Vikings of Canada) Battalion, CEF is already Canadian and I'm sure a Manitoba regiment showing interest could perpetuate it.

http://www.cefresearch.com/matrix/Army%20Corps/Divisions/Reorganized%20Units/Absorbed%20by%20Reserves/197th%20Battalion.htm

To say the Hastings militia of 1865 is related to the 49th Hastings Rifles of 1866 is hardly akin to perpetuating the seige of Troy.  

Also back in 33 AD the Scots were hardly civilized, probably eating innards out of a sheep's gut.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Nov 2009)

Then again, there's always the official guidance on perpetuation.



> THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES
> A-AD-200-000/AG-000
> 1999-01-04
> Ch/Mod 2 – 2001-08-17
> ...



But I'm sure that can also be ignored if your desire is to simply make up history to claim lineage from tenuous connections.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then again, there's always the official guidance on perpetuation.
> 
> But I'm sure that can also be ignored if your desire is to simply make up history to claim lineage from tenuous connections.



I mentioned a few.  The 197th Vikings, I believe, were disbanded in Canada and only numbered 300 so probably would have never earned a battle honour, not even "The Great War" 

The Hastings County militia example might have been poorer than some as Hastings County came from Victoria District which came from Midland District and although I can find endless county militias on my notes as participating in endless battles from 1812 to 1815, I can't be sure of Hastings County without more research than I care to do.  Regardless no county militias have been perpetuated by current units.  The Royal Newfoundland Fencibles fought in 16 battles.

I mentioned the St. Albert Mounted Rifles.  They were closer to battle than half the regiments granted the battle honour "Northwest Canada, 1885"  I believe only the Fort Garry Horse (from Manitoba Horse from Bouton's Mounted Infantry), The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, and the Royal Regiment of Canada (from the 10th Royal Grenadiers) were actually honoured for specific battles.  There were a few more battles not giving rise to battle honours.

Laws in which I don't believe are created all the time.  Maybe it's time for one in which I believe.  Enough.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Laws in which I don't believe are created all the time.  Maybe it's time for one in which I believe.  Enough.



Just because you don't personally believe in the regulations is no basis to try and convince others to ignore the official regulations for perpetuation.  To do so only muddies the waters and does a disservice to anyone actually trying to learn the factual basis of our regimental lineages.

I agree it's "enough", enough of your misleading suggestions and proposals.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (2 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I agree it's "enough", enough of your misleading suggestions and proposals.



I just kept repeating myself in greater detail - a good time to quit.


----------

