Commonwealth VCs

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Sir_Sidney_Ruff_Diamond, Jul 19, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Following the award of a VC to Cpl Willy Apiata of the NZSAS I was curious why it was constantly referred to as the VC of New Zealand. After all there is only one VC right? Wrong.

    Apparently as well as the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Canada all have their own VC with slightly different designs and award criteria which I had no idea about.

    For example the Canadian VC has Pro Valore instead of For Valour on it.

    Bearing this in mind and purely as an academic exercise this raises an interesting question.

    If like Noel Chavasse or Charles Upham you were awarded a second UK VC it would become VC and bar.

    However, if you were awarded a UK VC then a Australian VC for example could you wear both as they are technically separate awards with different criteria?
  2. I wouldn't have thought the criteria would have been changed - a VC is a VC, whoever the recipient is serving with. Does HM still award them to Commonwealth winners? I hope so.

    The chances of winning one are remote, the chances of two are even less, and as for two while serving with two different Commonwealth forces, I'd imagine you've got more chance of being struck by a meteorite whilst potholing.

    But as to your question, I've got no idea.
  3. I am well aware of how improbable it all is.

    What is interesting is that as far as I can see they are different awards with different criteria, so it is technically possible.
  4. I dont know for sure but I have to agree they are different awards earnt from different armed forces so surely should be worn side by side,

    I imagine as its never happened and highly unlikey to happen there is no such doctrine to refer to,

    However as usual im probably wrong!!! ;-)
  5. I wasn't taking the mickey, Sid.

    I just re-read your statement above, and it looks like you are saying that the award criteria HAVE changed. I'm surprised at that. You mention "slightly different award criteria". In what way have they changed? (genuine question).