THE BAND - 110 YEARS AGO

[UserRemovedAccount]

Newgate Street band circa 1890 - the only give-away to the date is the bandmaster's uniform, otherwise it could almost have been yesterday! And before some smartass makes a comment, I am NOT in this picture!

[elf337]

I think we've still got that same bass drum...

[englishangel]

Are coats not slightly longer today, and pupils wear their own shoes so not quite the conformity here.

[AKAP]

I think we got a new coat each year.
This meant that if a boy grew a lot that year the coat could end up looking short.
Having children yourself you will know about a teeagers ability to suddenly grow 2 inches apparently overnight.
100 years ago they may have had to make the coat last even longer hence the appearance.

[Katharine]

I think we got a new coat each year.
This meant that if a boy grew a lot that year the coat could end up looking short.
Having children yourself you will know about a teeagers ability to suddenly grow 2 inches apparently overnight.
100 years ago they may have had to make the coat last even longer hence the appearance.

But I thought this was one of the advantages of the CH uniform system, clothes could be changed at any time of the year, whenever the growth spurt came. It certainly worked for us!

[michael scuffil]

pupils wear their own shoes so not quite the conformity here.

Since when?

[cj]

The boy playing the snare drum (?) standing to the left of the bass drummer is the spitting image (imho) of our own jt. I wonder what became of those boys. Fascinating!

[sejintenej]

The boy playing the snare drum (?) standing to the left of the bass drummer is the spitting image (imho) of our own jt. Fascinating!

The flute player immediately behind him seems to be missing a leg/foot.

At the other end of the front row the horn (?>) player is way out of line and also is not standing to attention; I suspect that nowadays the photographer would have a better position so that the ranks would be straight.

I suspect that many if not all of those boys would have fought in the First World War

[michael scuffil]

I suspect that many if not all of those boys would have fought in the First World War

This thought arises with all pictures of young men taken between c. 1890 and 1918.

It should also be possible to estimate how many of them did not survive it. One would need to know the total number of OBs killed in the FWW, and the total number in the appropriate age-group, and transfer the quotient to the band in 1890, which is presumably a fairly representative sample. I don't know either of the two figures in question, but I imagine they are matters of record.

[Foureyes]

The CH "Record of Service" (all those known to have served in any of the armed forces) lists 2,058 names. The CH "Roll of Honour" (those who died) lists 371. Howver, the authors of both lists admitted that their records were incomplete and depended very much on individuals, relatives or friends passing information to the school. A rough estimate, made at the time, was that somehwhere in the region of 3,000-3,500 Old Blues must have served between 1914 and 1919. By the same reckoning deaths were probably of the order of 400-420.

I have absolutely no idea how many Old Blues were alive in the period 1914 to 1918, so it is not possible to estimate what proportion of those served. However, and again based on very rough numbers, it would appear that of those who did serve approximately 12-13 percent (say, between 10 and 15 percent) died.

[michael scuffil]

The figure of 2058 for those who served is quite high. Eligible for service (by age) would have been those admitted to the school between ca. 1885 and 1912. Assuming an intake of 120 per year, that makes ca, 3250 OBs eligible for service. (Given the number turned down nationally on grounds of health, it suggests that young OBs were quite healthy.) If 371 were killed, that makes, as you say, about 12%. Transferred to this photograph, of about 40 boys, it means about 5 would have been killed. But that is a statistical average, and with such a small sample, it doesn't mean much. However, of all the boys at the London school at that date (about 700), we can say with some statistical confidence that about 85 were killed.

If we take the higher number of total casualties -- 420 -- then the figures for those killed (from the whole school in 1890) would be more like 100.

[Ajarn Philip]

A fascinating and very old photograph of the CH band has become a dissertation on how many of them died in the First World War. It all seems a bit... well... mathematical. I realise that's completely unintentional, and normally I wouldn't even comment on it, but just a few days ago I was at one of the grave sites for the 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' victims (of many nationalities) in Kanchanaburi, Thailand. There is also a museum of photographs and memorabilia of the men in Japanese prisoner of war camps in Thailand (set up by a Buddhist monk). That was an eye-opener. I was born 10 years after the 2nd World War, but I found the whole experience tremendously moving.

I think one of the saddest things I saw was a plaque for four Sikh soldiers whose bodies were 'unable to be moved to this cemetery and remain buried elsewhere in Thailand'.

Hugely off topic, I know, but relevant so close to Remembrance Day. Consider this my poppy.

[Mid A 15]

Every would be politician should be compelled to visit the battlefields of Ypres or The Somme. The Menin Gate alone has more than 54,000 soldiers listed who are in unknown graves. My late Great Uncle is one of them. As well as that the cemeteries stretch as far as the eye can see.

I defy any normal human being to declare war for spurious reasons after witnessing that.

[michael scuffil]

Unfortunately the reasons for going to war in 1914 were not spurious (at the time).

And Neville Chamberlain, a decent and honorable man, drew his conclusions from the Menin Gate and the war cemeteries and thought that anything would be preferable to a repeat of that. He has been vilified ever since.

[Mid A 15]

Unfortunately the reasons for going to war in 1914 were not spurious (at the time).

And Neville Chamberlain, a decent and honorable man, drew his conclusions from the Menin Gate and the war cemeteries and thought that anything would be preferable to a repeat of that. He has been vilified ever since.

I take your points about World Wars One and Two being considered necessary at the time.

I was really referring to recent conflicts where we have been the aggressor rather than responding defensively to an act of direct aggression.