Talk:Victoria Cross/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Precedence

The text states that the VC takes precedence over the GC (although so far nobody has both). However, the infobox states that the VC & GC are equivalent... Which is correct? 188.122.34.10 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Both!
Because they are referring to different things.
In terms of "order-of-wearing" and related matters, "VC takes precedence over the GC".
But in terms of '"Precedence" (which, by-the-way, I have yet to see an on-line definition of), "I am told" that they are the same.
If you want more information about "Precedence", ask user talk:Abraham, B.S. - he seems to have access to definitive information.
If you want more information about "order-of-wearing", I'd be happy to help.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Pfpdf. The text definitely states "...It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals." The infobox is headed "Precedence" and then disagrees with the above statement. I know this is picky, but I was hoping someone could either fix one of the above or add an explanation of the discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably we ought actually to change to wording of the infobox slightly, I don't think precedence is quite the word we are looking for there. As Pdfpdf precedence is used in a number of different sense, in the lead we are really talking about the fact that the VC is alway the first medal to be worn by someone who holds it, and the postnominals precede all others (except the indication of Bart or Bt for a baronet), this is defined by the order of wear. In strict usage, the order of precedence refers to a slightly different concept, see for example, Order of precedence in England and Wales. Several sources say that the George Cross is in many senses the equivalent of the VC, see talk:George Cross#Victoria Cross vs George Cross for discussion of this issue from the other side as it were. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither the warrants for the Victoria Cross or George Cross nor the order of wear support the claim that the VC and GC are joint highest awards for bravery. The reference quoted is a Ministry of Defence media release which does not supersede the warrants for either medal or the order of wear. I support the claim being dropped. Similarly, while the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand awards were inspired by the Victoria Cross each are separate and independent awards of their countries honours system with different rules, regulations, recommendation and presentation processes. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, would you say the DSC, MC, DFC and AFC are of equal status? David Underdown (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The DSC, MC and DFC would be more prestigious because they are operational gallantry awards whereas the AFC could and I think still is either a non operational gallantry award or a meritorious award. Unlike the VC and GC where no one has received both awards, many have two or possibly more of these four medals and they are worn according the order of wear. If someone is awarded the DFC and AFC they are awarded two medals not one medal and a clasp to represent the other unlike World War 2 when the you could only wear one star and one clasp for the Atlantic, Air Crew Europe and France and Germany Stars or the Burma and Pacific Stars. You see letters to the editors saying a GC recipient should have received a VC but you never see a someone saying a VC recipient should have been awarded the GC. Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I have yet to see an on-line definition of "Precedence".
Also, (with one exception which, of course, I can't locate at the moment), I have yet to see any supporting references in these "Precedence" sections in the info boxes which defines "Precedence" or the levels of precedence.
http://www.operations.mod.uk/honours/honours.htm is interesting reading. However, it says:
  • The Victoria Cross ranks with the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry.
  • The George Cross ranks with the Victoria Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry, and was instituted in 1940 to recognise actions of supreme gallantry in circumstances for which the Victoria Cross was not appropriate.
Is it just me, or does that seem somewhat contradictory?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Victoria Cross for Australia and Cross of Valour (Australia) say they are equivalent, and quote
  • Staunton, Anthony (2005). Victoria Cross: Australia's Finest and the Battles They Fought. Prahan, Victoria, Australia: Hardie Grant Books. ISBN 1-74066-288-1. p. 350
  • The Cross of Valour (Australia) is the highest civilian award for bravery and in the Australian Honours Order of Precedence Order of wear is subordinate to the Victoria Cross for Australia.
Anthony: What does it actually say on page 350?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Pdf, I don't see any contradiciton between the two statements,
Good. (Then it is just me.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
the VC has generally (apart from a brief period in the late 19th century) been awarded only for acts "in the face of the enemy", that's all that's being referred to by appropriate - acts by members of the armed forces which don't qualify as being "in the face of the enemy". As I've pointed out on the GC talk page, the Queen's webpages use similar wording to that on the MOD pages, see http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/MilitaryHonoursandAwards/MilitaryHonoursandAwards.aspx, and George VI's orignal radio announcment of the GC said that it was intended to rank "next to" the VC - in normal usage saying something is next to something else, doesn't imply one is better or more importnant than the other.
OK. Thanks for that. Useful to know.
(However, I'm really interested to learn what's on p.350 - I was too busy to get to the library today ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
(BTW: I did initially try to register as "Pdf", but WP wouldn't let me - hence Pdfpdf (talk))
(P.S. I hope you're not offended by me correcting your typos. If so, please drop me a line, and my humble apologies. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
Anthony, I believe the AFC is now only awarded in warlike situations (or so my retired Wing Commander and RAF historian father-in-law tells me), but again where an active combat situation is not involved. I think this changed following the 1993 review of British honours. But setting that aside, the general point is that you do seem to be prepared to view some honours as being equivalent, though of course there is still a defined order of wear. Yes people write letters, but it generally seems to be a lack of understanding as to the precedent that is applied to whether or not an action is considered to be "in the face of the enemy". Of the most recent GC awards Kim Hughes (GC) was apparently under fire while he defused bombs, but the precedent is that since he was not actively fighting back, he gets the GC. Similarly Matthew Croucher received a GC after throwing himself on a grenade released by a trip wire, had the grenade been thrown instead, to me there seems little doubt that it would have been the VC he received. Ultimately, in trying to make a distinction between the two, I'm generally reminded of Tenzing Norgay's words about whether he or Hillary was actually the first onto the summit of Everest, "If it is a shame to be the second man on Mount Everest, then I will have to live with this shame." - the VC and GC both being as distant to me as the likelihood of me ever standing atop Everest myself. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Whereas my question is broader. viz: "Where is 'Precedence' defined, and what does it mean?" --Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Winston Churchill a reliable source? http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1940/oct/08/gallantry-awards#S5CV0365P0_19401008_HOC_208 Winston Churchill October 1940:
  • The Prime Minister - Members will have learnt from His Majesty's broadcast speech on 23rd September, and subsequent announcements, that His Majesty has created the George Cross, which will rank next to the Victoria Cross. For this honour, men and women in all walks of civil life will be eligible. The George Medal, which has also been instituted, is a gallantry award for wider distribution.
  • Sir H. Morris-Jones - Will my right hon. Friend consider the whole question of these awards, in view of the completely altered standard of risk as between civilians and the Services in this war? Why should not civilians get the Victoria Cross for heroism in the face of the enemy, just as did soldiers in the Army in the last war? The whole standard ought to be changed.
  • The Prime Minister - There is no difference in merit between the Victoria Cross and the George Cross; the George Cross ranks equal with the Victoria Cross, and after it in priority only. The whole question has been most carefully reconsidered, and the very far-reaching scheme which has been announced and the new decorations are the fruits of that reconsideration.
Although this is from 1940 I am not sure that it would have changed. :::::MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as I've tried to indicate before, the problem is precedence means different things depending on context. The order of wear is in a sense an order of precedence, but when some speaks of "The" Order of Precedence, it would normally mean Order of precedence in England and Wales or equivalent (I would imagine there's one for the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole, and one for each State/Territory for example), which is to with how people walk in formal processions (State Opening of Parliament, State Funerals, Coronations, and other official functions) or are seated at official banquets and so on. No decoration affords any precedence in this sense (arguably excepting the DSO, which while normally treated as a decoration, is technically an Order). All of which is a bit of an irrelevance so far as this article is concerned.

The main problem is how we treat the "precedence" field in the infobox (and as I've said here, or on teh GC talk page, perhaps we ought to see about changing the wording, but I don't know what the simple alternative is). If we were to slavishly follow the Order of Wear in filling in the precedence section of the infobox, the VC would obviously be followed by the GC, but when we look at the GC, that would be followed by Knight of the Garter, and we would meander our way through the various orders until we finally reached the CGC (I'm using the British Order of Wear here for convenience) and then the rest of the military decorations. To me, this seems to be unlikely to help most readers, who are more likely to be looking for an answer to the question, if someone doesn't get the VC for an act of gallantry, what's the alternative for non-combat gallantry, and or the next medal "down", so here on teh VC page we'd list the GC, and also things like the CGC, the DSO in its pre-1993 guise as the second-level award for officers' gallantry, the CGC, the DCM and so on - all of which is well-defined by the "levels" listed by the MOD.

Another analogy occurs to me, a Lieutenant (RN), Captain (British Army or RM), and Flight Lieutenant (RAF) are all equivalent ranks, but conventionally RN ranks are given precedence over ranks in other services, as the RN is the "Senior Service". Similarly the VC is senior to the GC, and the DSC to the MC to the DFC.

Can't help you with page 350 though! David Underdown (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The "precedence" field in the infobox should in the words of David Underdown “slavishly follow the Order of Wear”. Not that David was suggesting that but he asked the right question and any answer should consult the rules and ordinances of the individual award. In the case of the Victoria Cross, both the original warrant of 29 January 1856 and the most recent version dated 30 September 1961 are silent on the question of precedence and order of wear. The preface to the order of wear states “This list in no way affects the precedence conferred by the Statutes of certain Orders upon the Members thereof.” Following the list of the orders of knighthood is a note: “When the miniature or riband of a higher grade of a junior order is worn with that of a lower grade of a senior order, the higher grade miniature or riband should come first, eg, the miniature or riband of a K.B.E. will come before a C.B. and a G.C.M.G. will come before a K.C.B.”
Both the preface and the note refer to “Statutes of certain Orders” and since the Victoria Cross and George Cross are decorations it is reasonable to follow the authority of the order of wear. It is recommended that in the case of all decorations that the "precedence" field in the infobox should in renamed “Order of Wear” and the current “Order of Wear” be followed.
I always though “order of precedence” meant “order of wear”. Indeed until at least 1991, Australia published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette an “order of precedence” and it is only since that date has it been amended to “order of wear”. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Netley VC

I notice that it has been reinserted that it was the first VC that was placed as a foundation stone. I read through the QARANC reference and though it states at the beginning that it was the first VC it sort of contradicts itself further down: "There was also a Victoria Cross medal which is thought to have been a prototype given to the Queen before the VC was founded in 1857." As such, it isn't known whether this was the "first" VC or not. How do we define what is the first? The prototype, the first minted, the first awarded etc. Also, the reliablity of the source has to be questioned given that it states the VC was founded in 1857. Woody (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit dubious about it when the change was first made, and only read through so far as the first bit where the claim was first - being the prototype would make sense, and is certainly a valid usage of first. I reverted since you didn't initially give any indication that you had reviewed the source, but I think it's an issue we need to thrash out here. We probably ought to examine the QARANC site for reliability in general, and potentially replace it with something better (one of the VC books must cover this surely?) David Underdown (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree about discussing it here, that is why I didn't revert you because it is all a bit grey at the moment. If I find another source for prototype, that would be great! I will have a flick through my books to see if I can find it. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Crook page 34 states "No time was lost by the WO in ordering the manufacture of the new crosses, Mr Hancock being instructed on 4 Mar to prepare 106 specimens. The Queen herself acknowledged the receipt of one of these from Panmure on 5 May of that year; this seems more likely to have been the specimen which was to be placed under the foundation stone of Netley Hospital when she laid this on 19 May, [recovered when that building was demolished in 1966] than the one requested for her own collection." So rather than a prototype, Crook is suggesting that it is from the first batch of the production version. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
On a slight sidetrack, as a result of working on the John Simpson Knox article, I've read teh contemporary account in The Times of the first presentation, the journalist was scathing about the humble appearance of the VC - is this initial reaction worth mentioning? David Underdown (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Even the Times has a bad day, that comment is remembered with amusement. As to the first VC! There are seven or eight VCs for Alma so saying Knox was one of the first Army VCs awarded would have been correct. As for being “handed” to him he appeared in the first gazette and at the first investiture. Although his gallantry was as a sergeant with the Scots Fusilier Guards by 1857 he was an officer with the Rifle Brigade and the gazette and presentation which were in regimental order saw him lining up with the Rifle Brigade so he was one of the last listed in the first gazette and one of the last presented at the first presentation. I like to think that Max Arthur’s book, where awards are listed in chronological order was consulted. In Max Arthur’s book Knox is listed fifth after three Royal Navy and Lt Col Bell of the 23rd. So being charitable you could interpret the claim the “first VC” to really mean the “first Army other rank alphabetically listed in a chronological list of recipients”. I think that headline lacks the impact of the “first VC”. Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

military/civil decorations

The Victoria Cross is usually awarded to military personal but can and has been awarded to civilians. The George Cross was created to recognise civilian bravery but is often awarded to military personnel. Both awards go to military and civilian personnel so the introductions to both awards should be re-examined.

Instead of The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest military decoration ... It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals perhaps “The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest decoration ... It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals..

Similarly, The George Cross (GC) is the highest civil decoration of the United Kingdom ... perhaps The George Cross (GC) is the second highest decoration of the United Kingdom. It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals with the exception of the Victoria Cross. --Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to think about this with an example of someone who has been awarded the VC for an act of valour in the face of the enemy while a civilian (as opposed to someone who was a civilian by the time he received the award.) Mirokado (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Thomas Henry Kavanagh, Assistant Commissioner in Oude. On 9 November, 1857. Mr. Kavanagh, then serving under the orders of Lieutenant-General Sir James Outram, in Lucknow, volunteered on the dangerous duty of proceeding through the City to the Camp of the Commander-in-Chief, for the purpose of guiding the relieving Force to the beleaguered Garrison in the Residency,—a task which he performed with chivalrous gallantry and devotion. see Thomas Henry Kavanagh --Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I beleive it's the case that civilians can only receive the VC when under military command - and the recommendation process can only be initiated through the military chain of command, so I think it's fair enough to call it a military award. The GC is more complicated, it is the highest award for purely ciivilian gallantry, i.e. for anyone not uner miiltary orders, but has always been awarded to the military "hen purely military awards would not be appropriate". And though we've been round and round the houses on this one, it's not clear whether it's actually correct to describe the GC as being second two the VC, the Queen's website says:

The Victoria Cross

The first British medal to be created for bravery, the Victoria Cross ranks alongside the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry.

It is awarded only in exceptional circumstances: "for most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy."

The George Cross
Instituted in 1940 by The Queen’s father King George VI, the George Cross ranks with the Victoria Cross as the nation’s highest award for gallantry. It recognises actions of supreme gallantry in circumstances for which the Victoria Cross was not appropriate.

It may be awarded to civilians, as well as members of the Armed Forces for acts of gallantry not in the presence of the enemy, including, for example, military explosive ordnance disposal personnel.

It is awarded for "for acts of the greatest heroism or of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger."

— http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/MilitaryHonoursandAwards/MilitaryHonoursandAwards.aspx
Though interestingly I note the page is called "Military Honours and Awards". David Underdown (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
With respect to calling the VC a military award, I concur with David's thinking although I think it would be worth while explaining this on the main page when talking about the civilians who have received the award. The GC is more problematic. I think it still needs to be referred to as a civil award as this is how it is defined, but it should quickly be clarified that it is equally available to be awarded for military valour not in the presence of the enemy. Consequently the lead might read The George Cross (GC) is the highest civil decoration in the United Kingdom, second only to the Victoria Cross... I think that most usefully the VC and GC can be regarded as belonging to the same award 'band', but with the GC ranking after the VC within the band, primarily by virtue of the fact that it was established most recently (and to a lesser extent because valour in the presence of the enemy has traditionally, in some quarters at least, been regarded as more worthy than valour not in the face of the enemy). This reflects the same approach to precedence (not to be confused with the Order of Precedence with a capital P) that is implicit in the positioning of most other Imperial decorations, particularly in the 20th century; as always there are exceptions, but these mostly relate to awards for the colonies (and to indigenous people in particular). In the Australian context, the Cross of Valour also belongs to the same band but ranks after the VC and GC by virute of being created most recently. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
We do already say in the lead "It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and civilians under military command." David Underdown (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - better wording

I commend Knowzilla for suggesting some better wording for the introduction. Some points that might be considered: a. The Victoria Cross is not a military decoration but a decoration awarded for gallantry in the face of the enemy. The phrase military decoration is a contrived wiki phrase. b. The Victoria Cross is the highest award of the Imperial Honours system. (Elsewhere it can be explained that some countries that have left the Commonwealth and other countries that that have stayed in the Commonwealth no longer participate in the Imperial Honours System and have created their own honours systems.) c. While the majority of awards since 1857 have been presented by the monarch, governor generals have presented just 41 of nearly 300 awards presented by civil and military authorities. d. The last two sentences “It is the joint highest award for bravery in the United Kingdom with the George Cross, which is the equivalent honour for valour not in the face of the enemy.[2] However, the VC is higher in the order of wear and would be worn first by an individual who had been awarded both decorations (which has not so far occurred).[3]” find no support in either the warrants for either the Victoria Cross or the George Cross or from the order of wear. It is more a British media release thing.

I suggest something along the lines:

The Victoria Cross is a decoration awarded for gallantry in the face of the enemy. It is the highest award of the Imperial Honours system of the United Kingdom and a number of British Commonwealth countries. It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals. It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service. Although eligibility provisions allow civilians under military command to receive the award no award to a civilian has been granted since 1879. Awards are usually presented to the recipient or their next of kin by the British monarch. Queen Elizabeth II has presented 10 of the 12 awards during her reign with the other two awards, both posthumous, being presented by the Governor General of Australia. (This is not new information but is Victoria Cross Presentations and Locations by Dennis Pillinger and Anthony Staunton) Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, see the previous section wehre I set out various reasons why referring to it as a military decoration seems perfectly reasonable, and also support from various sources as tot he relevant status of the VC and GC. David Underdown (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The award to Mark Donaldson was by the Governor General of Australia and was not posthumous, although if one is distinguishing between the 'Imperial' Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia, then that may not be significant here. In line with David's points, I think that given the paucity of awards of the Victoria Cross to civilians, the fact that it has been awarded to civilians under military command does not merit reference in the lead, but ought to be noted in the main body of the article. In the case of the George Cross, awards to military personnel are much more frequent, so I think it would be appropriate to mention in the lead that whilst it is a civilian award, military personnel are eligible in appropriate circumstances. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
David. Apologies for ignoring the previous discussion on military decoration particularly since I started it. However, I stand by the statement that “military decoration is a contrived wiki phrase”. The Medal yearbook, published yearly by Token Publishing, does not use the phrase. Neither do other references such as British gallantry awards or the Australian reference Medals to Australians by R D Williams. The page you quoted, Military Honours and Awards is about decorations awarded to the military which include the George Cross. Describing the George Cross as a military decoration would be debated. Although some contrived phrases are useful the word decoration does not need to be qualified.
AusTerrapin. I was referring to the Victoria Cross and not the Victoria Cross for Australia of which Mark Donaldson is a very fine first recipient. It was good that you mentioned the award since it shows how Australia has created different traditions. Firstly the announcement of the award and the presentation of the award was one event unlike the Victoria Cross where awards are promulgated in the London Gazette and presented some time later. Secondly, since both the announcement and presentation was at the same event it was understandable that the Prime Minister was at the presentation. This was unlike the Vietnam War when the Australian Prime Minister announced the awards but did not attend the presentations held at later dates. Thirdly, when the Chief of the Defense Force, having been misinformed that that VC recipients receive a salute, saluted Donaldson he created a new Australian tradition. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
G'day Anthony, re the VC distinction, I thought as much. I would not jump to any conclusions just yet on some of the 'newly established' Australian traditions.
  • Then Trooper (now Lance Corporal) Donaldson is an SASR member with all that that entails for secrecy, personal security, etc; thus it is entirely possible that the simultaneous announcement and presentation were due to a variety of reasons specific to Donaldson's case and probably do not constitute a reliable precedent. It is also interesting to note that while signed on Friday 16 January 2009, the date of the presentation, the Gazette publication of his award was not until four days later on Tuesday 20 January 2009 - the timing was clearly designed to ensure the element of surprise for the public until the last possible moment.
  • Re attendance of the PM at the presentation, I rather suspect that this will continue, at least as long as VC presentations are a comparatively rare occurence. Over the last decade it has become de rigeur for the PM to attend the repatriation ceremonies of Australian soldiers killed on operations, this has never previously been the case. I rather suspect that if the rate of Australian operational deaths was as high as in the Vietnam War, or certainly that of the Two World Wars, the PM would cease to attend every repatriation ceremony - the time committment would become incompatible with effectively governing the country.
  • ACM Houston was not misinformed about VC recipients being saluted - whilst I am unaware of the precise origins and time-frame, the oral tradition that VC recipients are saluted has been spoken of in RAAF circles since at least the early 1990s, ususally with a degree of uncertainty as to the veracity of the requirement. ACM Houston consciously lent high-level official support to this whispered tradition which he acknowledged was not a statutory requirement (see his Order of the Day reproduced here). The unofficial tradition is also not exclusively Australian see here and here for UK examples - no official sanction, but much unofficial practice. That said, the Australian Army's 1997 Guide to Protocol: An Aide-memoire for RSMs. ADC and LOs explicitly states that unless serving commissioned officers, VC winners are not saluted; given the context the intent appears to be that VC winners salute and are saluted in the same circumstances as any other Army member of the same rank. It will be interesting to see whether this unofficial tradition does becomes official in Australia - ie whether it gets written down in the Service guides to customs and traditions.
On a side note, whilst Donaldson is certainly deserving of his VC, I was somewhat surprised that the 2006 award of the Star of Gallantry to a 4 RAR (Cdo) Sergeant was not a VC, certainly if you read his [citation], and those of some of the VC winners in the two World Wars, his appears to be on par; it appears that the award is becoming a victim of its own mystique - the more revered it becomes, the higher the bar to be awarded it - not that I am suggesting that it should be awarded lightly. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1356 vs 1353

The article says twice, that a total of 1,356 Victoria Crosses have been awarded to 1,353 men, while the cited reference [1] says, that "the Victoria Cross has been awarded 1356 times and 3 bars have been awarded". Doesn't it mean, that 1,356 crosses have been awarded to 1,356 men AND 3 bars were awarded to three of them? Pibwl ←« 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be correct 1356 medals have been awarded three of them to individuals who already had one, hence 1353 men. I dont think anybody has had more than two. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Update since the opening of the Ashcroft gallery

Hello all. Now that the IWM's Ashcroft Gallery is open, I'd like to propose to replace the relevant section of the lead with:

A number of public and private collections are devoted to the Victoria Cross. The private collection of Lord Ashcroft, amassed since 1986, contains over one-tenth of all VCs awarded. Following a 2008 donation to the Imperial War Museum, the Ashcroft collection went on public display alongside the museum's Victoria and George Cross collection in November 2010.[1]
  1. ^ "Press Release: The Lord Ashcroft Gallery, Extraordinary Heroes". Imperial War Museum. 9 November 2010. Retrieved 17 November 2010.

The section about private collections also needs updating, but the lead's visibility means it should probably be done first. --IxK85 (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the External Link to the IWM's previous VC & GC Gallery is now expired. Should that link be replaced with that of the Ashcroft Gallery?--IxK85 (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That lead text looks fine, go for it. I will have a go at the collections bit in a minute. Woody (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I have rewritten the collections section now to reflect the opening. Woody (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Remaining Material

According to our article the remaining cascabel weighs 10 kg and it is estimated that 80 or 85 more VCs could be created from it. This amounts to 118 grams of material per medal.

The article also specifies the weight of the decoration, suspension bar and link as 27 grams.

I am no expert on the casting of medals but using 118 grams of bronze to make a 27 gram medal seems a profligate use of this historic material. Is there something wrong with our information about weights?

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert either but I'm sure there is some wastage in the production process and not all of the cascabel could be used. Nevertheless, we go with what the sources say. If you have a differing source then feel free to add it. Woody (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't see a source mentioned either for the weight of the remaining cascabel or for the estimate of 80 or 85 more crosses. I'm looking for one. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


I am not current as to the internal working of the Base Ordnance Depot, but as a stores officer of the depot I inspected the VC metal in some detail, it was in my lap for about 20 minutes. At the time the VC metal was held in its own safe in the office of OC B55, within B55, the largest armoury in the UK, which had it's own police guard. The was no vault at the barracks, which I was responsible for. I had first had experience from 1989-93 Major Mark Le Sueur 12:55 30/1/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.181.168 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Myth of gunmetal VC

Davies, Catronia (28 December 2005). "Author explodes myth of the gunmetal VC": the author's name should be: Davies, Catriona. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it with this diff. This is a wiki though, in future you can fix it yourself, be bold. ;) Woody (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Whitaker's Almanack an acceptable source?

Yes, I could trawl through wiki-screeds to find the answer, but I don't have time. The 1950 shorter edition (p298) says that the 1920 Royal Warrant extended VC eligibility to "Matrons, Sisters and Nurses, and the Staff of the Nursing Services and other services pertaining to Hospitals and Nursing, and to Civilians of either sex regularly or temporarily under the orders, direction or supervision of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Crown." Comments anyone? Moriori (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be if a better source was not online. The 1920 warrant appears in the London Gazette of 18 June 1920 at pages 6702 and 6703. However, the 1961 warrant was not published in the London Gazette but as a Special Army Order. Since Special Army Orders are not as readily available as Whitaker's Almanack I would find that to be a very acceptable source if it included the 1961 warrant. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Milton Gregg's cross

There is an inconsistency here concerning Milton Gregg's VC. This article presently states that his medal was stolen from a museum and has been missing since. However, the article on Milton Gregg states that although the medal was indeed stolen from the museum in 1980, it is currently on display at the Halifax Citadel in the Army Museum. Could anyone knowledgeable correct this? Sophos II (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's general agreement that it was never recovered, and the sites for the Citadel Museum make no mention of holding it in their collections. But interestingly there are discrepancies over when it was originally stolen. Some say Christmas Eve 1978 ([2], [3], [4]), others say 1 July 1980 (Canada Day) ([5], [6]). Benea (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Another mention of a VC?

There are a number of modern rest areas on the Australian Federal Highway, the main road into the nation's capitol. These rest areas are named after VC recipients. Would it be appropriate to include this info, under "Other"? Old_Wombat (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

US Medal of Honour recipients

This person is a Medal of Honor recipient

Their people, at least in the case of John Basilone, are receiving a lovely little medal at the top of the page.
Shouldn't our guys receive the same consideration?
Varlaam (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC) (at large in the Commonwealth)

One could also argue that this is entirely non-standard, irregular and redundant. Varlaam (talk)
That really, really, really should not be there. Adding the medal image in the infobox next to the photograph is a bit over the top in the first place, but a header image? Dear goodness. Shimgray | talk |
Someone has now zapped the tiny image. I concur.
I believe I have seen the big image in the infobox elsewhere.
Sometimes I think the Americans are good at self-promotion, and we should do the same.
But then, we wouldn't be us anymore.
Varlaam (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Where in the Commonwealth?

The article makes numerous mentions of the VC being the highest honour for soldiers in "the Commonwealth" and even says "most Commonwealth countries". But where is the list of countries where this is case? Just as a test, I checked out the pages on honours in Nigeria, Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago and found no mention of the Victoria Cross. In fact, it doesn't show up in any of our lists of national medals, awards and decorations in any Commonwealth country (though we don't have them all and many are just stubs) except the UK and the three realms who adopted their own crosses. And the lead of the article on the NZ Cross claims that only those three Realms maintain the VC, though it's not sourced. Either the article is wrong or those articles are wrong, I really can't discern which. If it's a case of the VC being available only to those in Commonwealth realms, it's an easy enough fix. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Victoria Cross is the highest award of the Imperial Honours System that includes the United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. It was the highest award of many British Commonwealth countries until each created their own honours system. I presume that Fiji's participation has been suspended which is ironic since a Fijian soldier was awarded the VC in the Second World War. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thanks... do you think we should add that list to the article? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that those countries with citizens that have been awarded the "Imperial" VC: allow their citizens to wear the "Imperial" VC; rank the "Imperial" VC equally with their highest military award for valour. It seems we then have several classes:
1) Those Commonwealth countries still "using" the "Imperial" VC
2) Those Commonwealth countries with their own medal named VC
3) Those Commonwealth countries with their own medal named something else
4) Those ex-Commonwealth countries with their own medal named VC
5) Those ex-Commonwealth countries with their own medal named something else
I'm not sure if all 5 of these classes are populated - I guess it depends how you define "Commonwealth" and "ex-Commonwealth".
e.g. I'm not sure whether India and Pakistan fall into class 3 or class 5
In any case, it's my opinion that all relevant countries should be mentioned in a list. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Australian Honours System now regards British or Imperial awards as foreign awards. So an Australian attached to a British unit who is given a British award will wear it at the end of his medal group with any other foreign awards. I have seen a photo of an Indian Army Victoria Cross recipient serving post Independence wearing his Victoria Cross in the middle of his medal group following the post Independence ‘order of wear’. I would suggest the first question should be broader as ‘Commonwealth countries still "using" the Imperial Honours System’ with a possible note that Fiji is presently suspended. Perhaps it could be added to either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_honours_system or a new article ‘History of the British Honours System’. The other questions should be answered in separate articles on individual honours systems. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

General Query

Hello, I have a general query for any/all of the gentleman covering this (Victoria Cross) article, which I need to cross check some information for another article Im working on. Could anyone please tell me if Major Wigram Battye 'of the Guides' who died leading that famous charge at the Battle of Fattehabad, during the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War, probably in April 1879 (?) was ever awarded a VC? I was told that he did, but I cant find him listed anywhere in the VC recepients for that War. Id be grateful for your help/guidance, thank you. Khani100 (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

According to http://www.britishbattles.com/second-afghan-war/futtehabad.htm and other sources it was Lieutenant Walter Hamilton (who took command after Battye was killed) that was awarded the VC. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

'First' VC

The article currently reads

The first ceremony was held on 26 June 1857 where Queen Victoria invested 62 of the 111 Crimean recipients in a ceremony in Hyde Park.[9] Charles Davis Lucas was the first recipient.

The Lucas bit is not cited, but happens to be problematic anyway. Currently it reads as if at the investiture ceremony mentioned in the preceding sentence, Lucas was the first to receive his award from the Queen. He wasn't, that was Henry James Raby, who held a higher rank than Lucas, and so took precedence in the line to receive them, Lucas being fourth in the line. So Raby is the first to physically receive the award. Though Lucas's actions was the earliest to subsequently result in the award, by the time it was announced, several years had passed and numerous other men had performed feats that would also result in the award. So the 'first' recipient could mean the first of these awards to be announced after the creation of the award, which would be Cecil William Buckley, gazetted on 24 February 1857. Given the meaning of the word 'first' in relation to the VC is problematic, this statement should be clearly contextualised, and at the very least sourced. Benea (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is in the wrong place and should be moved or deleted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Presentation by Governor General

I have deleted the following comment regarding presentation ‘In other countries where the Monarch of the Commonwealth realms is the head of state, the Governor-General usually fulfils the same function.’ Firstly it was not common for the Governor-Generals of Australia and New Zealand to present these awards and even less so for the Governor General of Canada who presented just nine awards; none to a living recipient. Secondly, only the Governor Generals of Australia, New Zealand and Canada has ever presented a Victoria Cross. These countries no longer award the Victoria Cross since they have their own honours systems. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The intro says "The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest military decoration awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the armed forces of various Commonwealth countries, and previous British Empire territories." It's a bit hair splitting to remove the info you removed. I'm all for being bold but I think the subject needs community input , so with respect, I am reverting you, and hopefully we can get further comments, maybe even a rfc. User talk:Moriori (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I consider your reversion of my removal of the claim that ‘In other countries where the Monarch of the Commonwealth realms is the head of state, the usually fulfils the same function.’ was done in good faith. However, for the following reasons I suggest my amendment should stand.
In the United Kingdom, the VC is usually presented to the recipient or to their next of kin by the British monarch at an investiture held at Buckingham Palace. The Monarch has presented 905 VC awards or more than two thirds of all awards. More than 70 percent of these awards have been presented at Buckingham Palace. However, Governor Generals have presented less than 20 per cent of awards to Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Forces and with the three countries having their own honours systems, Governor Generals of these countries will not present the Victoria Cross in the future. There was no similarly in the past and there will be no similarly in the future of the extent of presentation between the monarch and the monarch’s representatives so I deleted an incorrect inference.
The description to the revision stated that be the changes you have made ‘such info surely needs community input’. I would agree that including presentation information and analysis should require community input but in this case I was deleting a statement that was not correct in the past and would not occur in the future. I did include an example of just nine presentations, all posthumous, by the the Governor General of Canada which is found in a reference listed at the bottom of the article - Pillinger, Dennis; Staunton, Anthony (2000). Victoria Cross Presentations and Locations. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Woden. ISBN 0-646-39741-9. It can be understood why I did not trumpet this reference. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How many awarded since WW2?

The lead section mentions 13 VCs awarded since the Second World War, 9 to the British Army and 4 to Australia. This doesn't appear to take into account the war in Afghanistan where 3 have been awarded to Australians thus far. It also doesn't mention NZ who have awarded 1 since WW2. I don't know how this affects the stated number of 13 since WW2. So how many have been awarded since WW2? Is there an "official" list of recipients anywhere? I checked the UK MOD site with no luck. Even Australia's official honours and awards site (http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au) is not up to date. The wikipedia article for the Victoria Cross for NZ mentions 14 awarded since WW2. Terminalreach (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the British or Imperial award. The newer Australian and New Zealand VC is not included in the list as these are other awards then the "old" VC. Confusing due to the same name, I kw... The Banner talk 08:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Could I add to the above answer. Among the many differences between the Victoria Cross and the Australian and New Zealand awards is that the new awards are not gazetted in the London Gazette but in the Australian and New Zealand gazettes respectively. The Canadian award has many design features of the original Victoria Cross but the scroll is very different as is its metal composition. So in answer to your question of how many have been awarded since WW2 the answer is nine to the British Army and four to Australia. The British Army total includes the award to Bryan Budd for Afghanistan.
All Victoria Cross awards appear in the London Gazette with the exception of the award to the American Unknown Warrior in 1921. The most recent consolidated official list by the UK MOD was published in 1953 and included the first two of four awards for Korea. As to how many each country has been awarded depends on how nationality is defined. While Australian forces were awarded 91 awards, Canadian forces 79 (including one Newfoundland award) and New Zealand forces 22 awards each country counts recipients from other forces that have a strong connection. For instance in Australia it is generally agreed that 96 Australians were awarded the VC, including five serving with South African and British forces plus three Australians awarded the VCFA. That is a tongue full for a media release which likes to dumb things down so naturally it is now 99 Australians have been awarded the VC. Since 1975, Australia has had its own honours system with a similar but distinct name for our highest award, with different authorisation, regulations, and processes. The announcement and presentation is more like the US Medal of Honor than the Victoria Cross in that both occur at the same time and although the Prime Minister has been in attendance for all three VCFA awards it was the Governor General of Australia’s event. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, that makes sense now, thanks for the replies. Terminalreach (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

New VCs are part of the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand honours systems.

The former paragraph mentioned the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand VCs created in the 1990s but I have added the historical background that these awards are part of an evolution of national honours which started in Canada in 1967 and in Australia and New Zealand in 1975. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting ‘joint highest award ...with the George Cross’

I am giving notice that I will be deleting the sentence in the second paragraph ‘It is the joint highest award for bravery in the United Kingdom with the George Cross, which is the equivalent honour for valour not in the face of the enemy'. This issue was raise but not resolved in 2010, see the 2010- archives. I then wrote ‘Neither the warrants for the Victoria Cross or George Cross nor the Order of Wear support the claim that the VC and GC are joint highest awards for bravery. The reference quoted is a Ministry of Defence media release which does not supersede the warrants for either medal or the Order of Wear.’ I will amend the box for precedence by deleting ‘Equivalent’ and inserting George Cross for ‘Next (lower)’ which presently states Distinguished Service Order, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, George Medal. These medals were from a MOD website and not from the Order of Wear. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable. We shall just have to keep our eyes open for an updated Order of Wear, as the current one is nearly 10 years old. EricSerge (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the article to state that the VC is the highest ‘military decoration’. The VC has been the first award listed on every Order of Wear since the list was first published in the London Gazette in 1921 and in every published list since including the current list published in 2003. I have not changed highest ‘military decoration’ to highest award but decribing the VC a as ‘military decoration’ seems belittling. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

--Order of Wear is not the same thing as precedence. On the page for the Victoria Cross it has a sourced reference (reference no. 5) which says the George Cross has equal precedence to the Victoria Cross, but is awarded second because it is newer (ie, it is second in the Order of Wear). The Order of Wear does not really relate to how awards rank in relation to each other. It's the precedence that determines the rank of one award in relation to another. The George Cross was clearly intended to rank alongside the Victoria Cross (reference is on the George Cross page, reference no.5, said by King George VI). So it is an equivalent award to the VC. It doesn't rank lower, even though it is worn after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.157.98 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Order of Wear contains the note that the ‘list in no way affects the precedence conferred by the Statutes of certain Orders upon the Members thereof’. The VC and GC are decorations not orders but neither warrant states that they are equivalent awards. There needs to be greater authority than a MOD media release to override the warrants of both awards and the Order of Wear. I do not know who has knowledge of the subtlety of the statutes of certain orders to explain the meaning of the note in the Order of Wear. However, it is clearly indicated that the Victoria Cross would be worn before the George Cross. Perhaps an amendment to the template, from Order of Precedence to Order of Wear, could be considered? Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

I've seen one of these, but there was a stylized letter "C" above it. Anyone know what that means? --91.181.60.45 (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Posthumous awards

The text says that approximately 1/4 of WW I VCs were posthumous but it seems odd that no figure is given for total posthumous VCs. That information must be available, even if it had to be compiled separately from each of the branches of service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I calculate the number of VCs gazetted after the death of the recipient as 324. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate Commonwealth awards amendments

Some amendments to the first paragraph. Both references are untouched, the first relating to the VC for New Zealand which is kind of relevant and the second to the British Order of Wear which does not seem to be relevant to this paragraph. Corrected ‘several’ to ‘most but not all’ Commonwealth countries have introduced their own honours systems. Amended ‘began’ to ‘began soon after’ the Partition of India in 1947. Noted that most if not all ‘recipients of British honours’ were permitted to wear these awards under the rules of their new national honours systems. The only Commonwealth countries, that still can recommend the VC are the small nations, none of whose forces have ever been awarded the VC, that still participate in the British honours system. If Fiji re-joins the Commonwealth and again participates in the British honours system it would be the only Commonwealth country other than Britain to have had a member of its forces awarded the VC. I do not believe any of the above comments are controversial but please let me know if I am mistaken. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

VC and GC do not have equal precedence

Two years ago I raised the issue of the VC and GC not having equal precedence. The opening paragraph has been rewritten, Order of Precedence in the infobox has been renamed Order of Wear but the opening paragraph still claims the VC and the GC share ‘precedence’. I suppose this means they are of equal precedence but no such claim is made in the Order of Wear and no reference has ever been supplied listing an Order of Precedence which lists the VC and GC with equal precedence. An unsigned comment to the discussion two year ago stated that ‘Order of Wear is not the same thing as precedence’ again with no supporting documentation. Until about twenty years ago the Australian order of wear was named the Australian Order of Precedence until it was renamed the Australian Order of Wear. There were, and still are as far as I am aware, Orders of Precedence by Australian Government and State government departments that list holders of orders and decorations but usually near the end of the lists after governors, minsters, judges, departmental heads ete. If the VC and GC have equal precedence at 33rd on the list then both the rank and the list should be cited. Australia changed Order of Precedence to Order of Wear 20 years ago, Wikipedia has made the same change in the infobox in the last two years. The Victoria Cross is listed first on the Australian Order of Wear. There is (1) after the name which the notes explain ‘Refers to the Imperial Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia’. So while the British Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia have equal precedence there is no suggestion in either the British or Australian Orders of Wear that the VC and GC have equal precedence. So until there is some authoritative reference, I suggest that the word precedence in the opening paragraph should interpreted as meaning the condition of preceding others in importance, order or rank and not some unnamed Order of Precedence and that the phrase ‘except the George Cross, with which it shares precedence’ be deleted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and boldly removed it. Unreferenced assertions can be removed from Wikipedia articles. EricSerge (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

New award to be made

Seems that there's about to be new award of the VC made, possible announcement at midnight tonight according to eg https://twitter.com/DanJarvisMP/status/570695837870911488 from Dan Jarvis. Worth keeping an eye out I think. David Underdown (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Further details - apparent Telegraph front page suggest Joshua Leakey of Parachute Regiment https://twitter.com/Newbattleatwar/status/570705797166055425 Joshua Leakey?
Daily Mirror story - we generally don't hold redtops to be especially reliable sources, but it's unlikely that it's a hoax. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 23:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Telegraph, Times, Independent. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 00:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Guardian, Mail. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 00:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Investiture

Seeing as how our beloved encyclopedia is presently hosting an article upon the subject of Investiture, we should perhaps consider linking to it within this one--as the cross is typically rewarded through one.

Granted, the article is currently of an estimably lower quality--which is something I plan upon rectifying in the near future--but it may nevertheless be pertinent to reference it in this manner. In fact, the lede utilizes the exact term 'investiture' in the ending sentence--although, seeing as how that very same sentence presently contains a link to the Buckingham Palace page, it may come across as somewhat redundant.

Your thoughts? Ghost Lourde (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Content queries

The third paragraph commencing ‘Owing to its rarity, the VC is highly prized … A number of public and private collections are devoted to the Victoria Cross’ has some issues. The VC is not rare with three times more awards than the George Cross, eleven times more awards than the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying) awards and 25 times more awards than the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. It also would be more accurate to say there are a number of public institutions that hold VC collections but there is really only one private collection which is in fact publicity displayed plus a number of private collectors. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Victoria Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

updating opening paragraph

I will replace the current opening paragraph with the following. 'The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest award of the United Kingdom honours system. It is awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces. It was previously awarded to Commonwealth countries, most of which have established their own honours systems and no longer recommend British honours. It may be awarded to a person of any military rank in any service and to civilians under military command although no civilian has received the award since 1879. Since the first awards were personally presented by Queen Victoria in 1856, two thirds of all awards have been personally presented by the British monarch. These investitures are usually held at Buckingham Palace.' Unlike the US where the phrase 'highest military decoration' is appropriate, Britain and most Commonwealth countries have both military and civilian awards in one order of wear. Both British military and civilians are eligible to receive the VC and other gallantry awards and the GC and other bravery awards although the last civilian to receive the VC was in 1879 and the last British civilian to receive the GC was in 1976. So I have suggest for 'highest award' for the VC would be more helpful. I would welcome any comments before I amend the article. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Anthony, you're the expert on this. I agree with your proposed wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The criteria from the UK Government here [[7]] specifically states "The premier award for gallantry, the Victoria Cross may be awarded to all ranks of the services and civilians for gallantry in the presence of the enemy. It may be awarded posthumously." It would therefore be advisable to mention "for gallantry" in the first sentence and mention civilian eligibility and posthumous awarding in the second sentence. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Both 'valour' and 'gallantry' are synonyms of 'bravery', the word used in the warrant. The word valour is more associated with the Victoria Cross whereas the word gallantry is more associated with the George Cross. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
But in Australia, the Cross of Valour is our equivalent to the George Cross in the new British system. Awards for "gallantry" always rank above their equivalent for "bravery". e.g. VC/CV, SG/SC, Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
In Australia it is the VCFA and the Australian Gallantry Awards unlike the VCFNZ which is included in the NZ Gallantry awards. However, both the VCFA/CV have 'For Valour' on the obverse of each medal but the CV actually has Valour in the title of the medal. With two votes for ‘gallantry’ over ‘Valour’ I am happy to go with the majority. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Will your new paragraph be mentioning civilians in the second sentence? It won't be accurate without it, and the same goes for mentioning posthumous awarding. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Civilians are mentioned in the opening paragraph but posthumous awards should also be mentioned. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the metal

I have edited a few paragraphs which said that the medals have never been made from guns used at Sebastopol, as that is not what the sources actually say. The Chinese guns replaced an earlier gun in 1914, and that earlier gun might well have been a Russian gun captured at Sebastopol. Richard75 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Forfeited VCs

The recent change that incorrectly added 'The power to cancel and restore awards was removed from the Victoria Cross warrant in 1920, and the names of the eight men were restored to the register' has been reversed. Unfortunately, the reference quoted was incorrect in this instance. The 1920 warrant was not only published prior to the King's comment on the forfeiture question but was actually finalised in March 1919. The wording of the 1920 warrant was identical to the wording of the 1856 warrant with the exception that from 1920 both expulsions and restorations were to be gazetted. There may be confusion between the 1920 and the 1953 War Office published lists and the Victoria Cross Register specified in the Victoria Cross warrants. Although both War Office publications include all eight names of those who forfeited their awards in the alphabetical lists of pre First World War awards, an appendix in each lists the names and date of forfeitures of all eight. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

signal act of valour

Under the "origin" section, the explanation of the original warrant for the medal says, "had performed some signal act of valour or devotion." I see that the reference does use "signal", but is that actually correct? "Single" seems to make more sense, but I know UK English has some different uses and spellings than US English, so I didn't want to make the change unless someone can confirm it. Obviously, UK English is the most appropriate for this article.24.0.59.26 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The correct word is 'signal' not 'single' with a third of Crimean War recipients having two or more different actions mentioned in their citations. Fifty years ago, Major Peter Badcoe of the Australian Army was awarded the Victoria Cross for three separate actions on 23 February, 7 March and 7 April 1967 when he was killed in action in Vietnam. Eligibility was reworded in 1881 to 'gallantry in the presence of the enemy'. More often than not, the new phrase is written as 'gallantry in the face of the enemy'. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"Signal" in this context means exceptional. Richard75 (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Separate Commonwealth awards

Does this section need anything other than the first paragraph? There is already links to the VCFA, Canadian VC and the VCFNZ but if the latter three paragraphs stay I wonder about the last sentence. The Canadian VC article does not state when in 2007 the batch of 20 medals were cast. Was the medal for Vimy one of the batch of 20 or was it a one off and did it have the fleur-de-lis on each end of the scroll? Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria Cross. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Victoria Cross. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Cross/Archive_3&oldid=945498666"