The Queens Regiment - A home grown website!

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Queensman, Jul 23, 2008.

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. *NEW* - For an update on the Queen's Regimental Association, please see the posts on page 6. (Added 30 May 2013) The Website given on this post is now defunct. Qm.

    Mike Collins, ex-3 Queen's, has put together a cracking Regimental site for 'Us' , we unhappy few, who had the rug pulled from under our feet by the duplicitous actions of FM Inge and a few other self serving 'little regiment' wanchors as part of Options for Change.

    A Happy place to while away a few moments each day.....

    • Like Like x 2
  2. That's quite an impressive site.
  3. Very well put-together! Thanks for the link.
  4. Spread the news!
  5. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    I'm very glad the TA Bns are well covered, need more people to register and send in photo's, something I should do!
  6. A very good site indeed. Although I am not impressed about the comments regarding The Royal Hampshire Regiment (of course I am as biased as the owner of the site).

    The Royal Hampshire Regiment was very unimpressed an unhappy with the fact that they were to be merged with The Queen's Regiment. Within The Prince of Wales's Division it was not anticipated that there would be a need to merge regiments outside of the division. Two options based on geography were provided for up to two amalgamations if needed, based on the old Wessex Brigade:

    1. The Goucestershire Regiment to join with The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Royal Berkshire and Wiltshire).

    2. The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment to join with The Royal Hampshire Regiment.

    Also an interesting idea by Col Long (late R HAMPS) raised the possibilty of resurrecting a famous county name; to form a single regular battalion regiment. The regiment to be called The Royal Sussex and Hampshire Regiment. This was recognised at the time as being very unlikely.

    We all know what happend in the end and both QUEENS and R HAMPS were shocked when the Secretary of State for Defence (a full time job in those days) made the announcement in the House of Commons on 23 Jul 91.

    There is nothing anyone can do now except to support the The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment in all it does.
  7. I don't really wish to re-open all the old wounds about the injustices meted out to the Queen's Regiment during Options. The facts remain that we'd been promised that we be left alone having bitten the bullet back in the 60s and gone 'Large'. At the time of the amalgamation The Queen's Regiment had three reasonably well recruited Regular Battalions, two large and widely spread TA Battalions, the lions share of The London Regiment, formerly 8th Queen's Fusiliers, umpteen Cadet units, School CCFs - on the other hand The Hampshires had barely two companies of bayonets. We were ordered to amalgamate and told it was to be 'a marriage of equals'!! Unforgiveable. Criminal. Disgusting. Outrageous.

    However, all that is now in the past. Long live the PWRR!
  8. By the end of the 80's the recruiting difficiencies in the reg bn's of the Queens Regiment equated to a full battalion missing from the orbat.

    Source: The Regl Col of the day addressing the Sgts mess in order to soften them (us) up for the inevitable.
  9. Regimental Colonel? Who he?

    The recruiting 'problem' was no different to any other line regiment at the time. We had 'capping'. Retention was again much the same as everybody else.

    We all knew we'd lose a Battalion - or at least that's what we were expecting. It happened to our sister Regiments the Fusiliers and the Anglians: we were singled out for a special shafting by a dodgy committee of self serving cnuts, mostly from little regiments, oh, and a fcuking sapper, FFS! And we wern't told why. In fact we were told it was not in the Army's interest to have it explained. Poor General Mike Reynolds did his damnedest to get some truth out of Peter Inge, but not a hope. The shameless wanchor - I hope he rots in Hell.
  10. Queensman,

    1. The ROYAL Hampshire Regiment were no where near as under strength as you suggest.

    2. Just like your lot The Royal Hampshire Regiment was ordered to amalgamate with The Queen's Regiment. You make it sound as if they wanted to join up with your regiment and were begging to so do. Hardly the case at all.

    3. The Queen's Regiment may well feel cheated under Options for Change, but that is not the fault of The Royal Hampshire Regiment, take a look at who ordered it all to happen. The Royal Hampshire Regiment knew it was at risk, as did all the single battalion regiments. Thus the planning by The Prince of Wale's Division as discribed above. No one anticipated them being forced into an amalgamation with a regiment from another division. Look what happend to another four regiments from the same division.

    4. If you do not wish to open old wounds I suggest you review the style of your comments about The Royal Hampshire Regiment. You come across very bitter, but to direct your bitterness towards the The Royal Hampshire Regiment is wrong. If you want to rant about how unfair it all was- fine, but blame the government, not the other victim who was ordered against their will into this forced marriage.

    Having said all that, I do think it is one of the best sites of its type I have seen in a long time.
  11. Very well put together site, another good one is

    Another fine regiment that got shafted in Options for cash, sorry meant change. so much for keeping golden threads etc. :(
  12. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Wow - cracking site, but still a work in progress I see.

    Signed up, posted me hello's and I'll see if I can get a load of piccies up at some point too.
  13. Hindsight is a great thing. I jumped ship to avoid what was coming & arrived just in time to experience my new corps getting 'porked' in exactly the same manner a year after the F*ckup mentioned by the OP.
  14. Im glad to say that within theRegiment (PWRR) there was no real antagonism between the two forming Regiments, mainly because the Queens Regiment was in reality 3 different "Regiments" with their our own unique values and traditions. Having joined the Queens Regiment in 1972 and served in Sgt messes at the time I was gobsmacked by the antagonism between the various former Regiments, which Im glad to say didnt happen with this amalgamation. Happy to say that the new Regiment has gone from strength to strength and has a reputation second to none. Lets hope that we remain as a Regiment and dont become a big(ger) Regiment formed from Depot Queens Div!
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Nowhere in the above thread is there anything 'anti' the Hampshire Regiment! There is a comment about how small it was to highlight the injustice of the 'Marriage of Equals' dictat that was issued.

    And Yes, you are right, I'm extremely bloody bitter! Why shouldn't I be? I lost my Regiment. 331 years of loyal service was done away with at the stroke of Inge & Co's pen! But, don't be so bloody sensitive - nothing I've written above even slightly blames the Hampshires for what happened, or comes across as such.

    At the time we asked 'Why us?' and 'Why with them?' and 'Who the fcuk are they?' Joking aside, in my then ten years service, I don't recall ever having met anyone from the R Hamps. We also wanted to know why their own division were so pleased, ready and quick to get shot of them? And why was it that none of the other little regiments of that division wanted to have anything to do with them? And finally, what sort of perverse logic was used to bolt the remains of a small single battalion regiment onto us?

    There were those of us who, to preserve the name, would have happily let the Sussex element go and enable the Royal Sussex & Hampshire Regt to be born. But Mike Reynolds said 'No - we are a BIG regiment. We must stand and survive' Alas, we fell.

    My bile and loathing is directly squared at the Committee, whose composition is detailed on the site, along with Mike Reynolds letter together with its reply.