Help support TMP


"95th rifles Belgic shako " Topic


43 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board



1,319 hits since 9 Apr 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Stevelordc Inactive Member09 Apr 2017 10:07 a.m. PST

I was on the internet the other day and was looking up details of the 95th. During my research I found a website for a reinactment group who are supposed to be 95th rifles BUT they are wearing 95th rifles. I didn't think the got Belgic shakos?

Camcleod09 Apr 2017 11:58 a.m. PST

link

I was under the impression that they wore the Peninsular style cylindrical caps at Waterloo and were re-equipped with Belgic style after in Paris.
The above site shows reenactors in both and the paintings show an odd shaped Belgic shako. The text seems to indicate that some companies received new Shakos in 1814, I assume the Belgic style.

42flanker09 Apr 2017 12:16 p.m. PST

Great link. Thanks for posting. Sites like these are a credit to their members.

42flanker09 Apr 2017 12:47 p.m. PST

P.S. I noticed footnote reference to the name used at the time for the so-called 'Belgic' ('Waterloo' etc).

"I have had caps enough in store to help the appearance of the 1st Batt. as it used to be but the 2nd and 3rd sport bang ups as the soldiers of the 52nd who were the first in the Division that put them on have christened them.."

(Barnard to Alexander Cameron,April 1, 1813)

I wish 'bang-up' could be adopted again.

Not long ago I came on another reference to contemporary names for the range of infantry caps worn during the war-

"This year the cocked hat worn since 1797 was superseded by the chaco similar in size and shape to the one commonly adopted in the army. So strange an alteration— from the sage-like cocked hat to its trim substitute— obtained for the new head-gear the cimmerian appelation of the "smoke-jack." [1800] The white heckle feather worn with the cocked hat was retained.. … As time wound up, this description of chaco lost its upright lines for one which, approaching a cone in shape, was called the "sugar-loaf cap."[1806] The latter again. was superseded by another in 1813, which, from its peculiar form was familiarly styled the "bang-up."

('History of the Royal Sappers and Miners…to 1856'T.W.J. Connolly)

Camcleod09 Apr 2017 6:10 p.m. PST

" …but the 2nd and 3rd sport bang ups as the soldiers of the 52nd who were the first in the Division that put them on have christened them.."

Interesting – it says the 52nd also wore the Belgic shako in 1813 !

4th Cuirassier10 Apr 2017 3:59 a.m. PST

If they'd worn Belgic shakoes in 1815, it would have made converting the Airfix plastics so much easier in 1977.

summerfield10 Apr 2017 6:09 a.m. PST

Dear All
There is no description as to what the bang-ups refer to. I have no evidence of the 52nd wearing the Belgic Shako. The 3rd/95th certainly did not get a new issue of uniforms or equipment when they left Shorncliffe in December 1813 for Holland. They finally recieved replacement uniforms in July 1815.

Remember that this was written by a person who makes shakos. Many of the illustrations are KGL Light and not 95th.

In 1816 the Rifle Brigade got a completely new uniform and a bell topped shako.

The Colonels of the Rifle Division were known to be very stingy in using "their" money for uniforms. Most being Scottish.

The evidence is not proven and the essay is very selective.

This is a re-enactment group and have been very agressive in their manner. Unwilling to properly share their evidence and their referencing is very very poor.
Stephen

42flanker10 Apr 2017 8:58 a.m. PST

Stepehn, I am not in a position to comment on your experience of this re-enactment group(2/95th); nor, indeed, of the stinginess of my fellow Scotsmen. Many Regimental Colonels, however, regardless of their origin, could be reluctant to incurr what they saw as unnecessary costs.

As I understand it, you are saying that the essay on caps worn by the 95th (et al) is written by the man who, presumably, makes caps for the '2/95th' group. I am not sure why that should disqualify him from writing on the subject, as such. It obviously would explain his interest and detailed examination of the subject.

Are you saying the quoted excerpt from Bsrnard's letter to Cameron re 'bang-up' caps is not authentic? Has, for instance, the date been misquoted, or is the reference to the 52nd a contemporary error?

Taking a wider view of the matter, Captain Connolly, the author of the 'Miners and Sappers' history, in making his reference to 'bang up' as the nickname coined for the frontlet cap ('Belgic' 'Waterloo' etc), surely has no axe to grind.

Connolly states that he started researching his history in 1836, when he was about 21. It seems he was born in Paris in 1815. His father was in the 95th and presumably was part of the Army of Occupation. If so, Connolly may have been writing with some degree of authority with regard to the 'bang-up' caps.

link {Grange Road Cemetery,Monument No. 6}

Stevelordc Inactive Member10 Apr 2017 11:44 a.m. PST

How interesting I thought the light infantry units didn't get them until after Waterloo.

I must admit I prefer the look of the stove pipe on the light infantry.

summerfield11 Apr 2017 3:03 a.m. PST

Dear 42flanker
I have looked at the headwear of the light infantry and I cannot find an illustration of the 43rd, 52nd, 71st, or 90th in Belgic Shako. There are some standard woodcuts that were painted up and labelled.

Bank ups just mean new pattern whatever that is. It is the context that as ever is the issue. There are Riflemen in belgic shakos shown in Paris after Waterloo but these are Kings German Legion. The French and German artists referred to them as English.

The histories of uniforms for the 43rd and 52nd do not mention the Belgic Shako.

It is a complex and confusing area. Going simply on a name referred to that is not specific and ignoring all the drawings made at the time.

My comment would be a verdict of not proven. I do not know. This research has not been published in a pear reviewed journal and the manner of the unit to even inquire over their research has resulted in threats and trolling.
Stephen

42flanker11 Apr 2017 6:19 a.m. PST

"Complex and confusing" indeed, and not an area of which I have made any detailed study, so I should tread carefully.

Your reference, Stephen, to 'bang up' simply meaning 'new pattern' intrigued me. I hadn't got as far as investigating what the term actually might mean. It occurred to me consult Gross's "Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue" of 1811 (always time well spent).

For BANG UP he lists:
"BANG UP (WHIP.) Quite the thing, hellish fine. Well done. Compleat. Dashing. In a handsome stile. A bang up cove; a dashing fellow who spends his money freely.. To bang up prime: to bring your horses up in a dashing or fine style: as the swell's rattler and prads are bang up prime; the gentleman sports an elegant carriage and fine horses."

So there we are.

I suppose the key detail would be whether this term was only ever used to refer to the last pattern cap worn in the war, or whether it was also used in reference to earlier caps. Given the date of Barnard's letter, could he be referring to any other model of cap ( even his mention of the 52nd is erroneous)?

Perhaps the latest pattern shako was thought of as 'bang-up' in comparison to the battered caps worn in one form or another for the previous five years or more, regardless of whether one agrees that it was essentially a smarter, more showy piece of headgear.

One person evidently did not.

By the time the troops got to Paris, the horse gunner Cavalie Mercer was moved to observe:
"their cap is perhaps the meanest, ugliest thing ever invented."

summerfield11 Apr 2017 8:27 a.m. PST

Dear 42flanker
There are no extent Belgic Shako caps of the Light Infantry Regiments or 95th Rifles that have survived. Note I am not referring to light companies of Line Regiments.

There are a couple of contemporary illustrations showing what appears to be a Belgic Shako but these are later than Waterloo and are not from life in the style. These are dated post July 1815 and 1816. Also the couple that are well drawn are probably KGL Light Infantry or Hanoverian Jager that did receive the Belgic Shako. These were referred to by the French and German artists as English. Remember that Hanover was the personal fiefdom of the King of Great Britain.

All the other drawings show the Light Infantry Regiments and 95th Rifles in stovepipe shako.

None of the foreign regiments (Prussian, Portuguese or Spanish) that received British 95th Rifle Uniform recieved the Belgic Shako. I have not seen a Militia Rifleman with a Belgic Shako and extent shakos exist. The Militia and Yomanry were always the forefront of the changes in fashion.

The 2/95th and 3/95th did not recieve new uniforms until after Waterloo. This was about August 1815 much to the disgust of General Clinton. I am unclear about the 1/95th.

It is a complex area.
Stephen

Ben Townsend11 May 2017 1:58 a.m. PST

Since the article, the text of which is reproduced on the 2/95th forum mentioned above, was published, further research has moved the discussion on, as tends to happen with ongoing studies. There are several threads dealing with the matter, which can be a bit annoying, but all sorts of interesting new material is posted there. Anyone interested in the discussion would be well advised to follow it further at the 2/95th forum,

link

Even Stephen would be welcome there, though I am a loss as to how he can describe his experience of the forum in the manner he has, when they are a friendly bunch, and to the best of my knowledge he has never participated in any discussion there. I confess my personal communications from him have been characterised by rancour and bluster, which has rendered them uniquely unproductive in terms of historical enquiry. Be that as it may, all are welcome. The standard of proof is higher than on many internet forums, so come equipped.

For the record, I am not, nor have ever been, 'a maker of shakos'. I have no idea where that idea comes from. My sole interest in the matter of material culture study is to get closer to the truth. I have however, written fairly extensively on the subject. Two of my works on the 95th may be of interest, and are available here,

link

link

Those interested in the study of the uniforms of the British army may also appreciate my forthcoming 'Fashioning regulation, Regulating Fashion', a study of the uniforms of the British army containing all of the original clothing warrants and orders reproduced with a mass of corresponding official material, available from Helion books later this year.

Lord Hill11 May 2017 4:16 a.m. PST

There are on-the-spot first hand sketches of British infantry AFTER Waterloo (in occupied France) which show normal line infantry in Belgic shako and rifles and lights in stovepipe shakos.

Rallynow Supporting Member of TMP11 May 2017 7:21 a.m. PST

I thought all the light infantry during the Hundred Days had straight shakos.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP11 May 2017 9:06 a.m. PST

Rallynow, that might not be as daft as it sounds.

We all know…"know"…. that Light Infantry Regts had something other than the "Belgic" cap (apparently we should not call it a shako for British, until after our era).

(NB we are not talking about Light Companies of any Line Regt either)

But did they have the straight headgear you described, as worn by the British etc in the Peninsula? That was "straight" in that it was a perfect cylinder (when issued anyway).

But hang on. We always see the 95th, 52nd, 51st, 71st (OK they may be different, I admit) in something more conical. Narrower at the top. Was the Light Infantry "shako" the same as the obsolete "straight one" that the 28th may have still been wearing?

dibble11 May 2017 12:51 p.m. PST

Ben Townsend

Since the article, the text of which is reproduced on the 2/95th forum mentioned above, was published, further research has moved the discussion on, as tends to happen with ongoing studies. There are several threads dealing with the matter, which can be a bit annoying, but all sorts of interesting new material is posted there. Anyone interested in the discussion would be well advised to follow it further at the 2/95th forum,

link

Even Stephen would be welcome there, though I am a loss as to how he can describe his experience of the forum in the manner he has, when they are a friendly bunch, and to the best of my knowledge he has never participated in any discussion there. I confess my personal communications from him have been characterised by rancour and bluster, which has rendered them uniquely unproductive in terms of historical enquiry. Be that as it may, all are welcome. The standard of proof is higher than on many internet forums, so come equipped.

For the record, I am not, nor have ever been, 'a maker of shakos'. I have no idea where that idea comes from. My sole interest in the matter of material culture study is to get closer to the truth. I have however, written fairly extensively on the subject. Two of my works on the 95th may be of interest, and are available here,

link

link

Those interested in the study of the uniforms of the British army may also appreciate my forthcoming 'Fashioning regulation, Regulating Fashion', a study of the uniforms of the British army containing all of the original clothing warrants and orders reproduced with a mass of corresponding official material, available from Helion books later this year.

Summerfield

This is a re-enactment group and have been very agressive in their manner. Unwilling to properly share their evidence and their referencing is very very poor.
Stephen

So Ben! Are you going to prove Stephen wrong and tell us what you know about the Stovepipe – Belgic question? Or have you really only posted to flag up your site, books and your issues with the person above.

From what I have read, the 2nd/95th have had issues over uniform and badges in the past with the 3rd/95th; has this been resolved? Do you now share your sources?

Paul :)

4th Cuirassier11 May 2017 1:04 p.m. PST

Surely "bang up" could simply mean a newly made example of the existing hat pattern? Need it connote a new style?

dibble11 May 2017 2:03 p.m. PST

How I see it is go with either. For as long as we have no exacting evidence of what battalion of the 95th, wore what after 1813 (and not clear about before that date either) we should leave it at that.

Paul :)

Ben Townsend11 May 2017 11:22 p.m. PST

All of the evidence is available on the forum. I suggest using the search function with the criteria, cap' shako, Belgic etc, to bring all the various threads up. The public forum is open to all, and always have been. The 2/95th are keen on sharing their research, and this is appreciated by all of the rifle re-eenactment groups. My personal contacts with the 3/95th have always been courteous and practical. They have adopted various items researched and pioneered by the 2/95th- the regimental button, the square cap peaks post 1809.
There is a link to my article on the Belgic (in French), here, link

An updated version in English is due to be published in a journal.
I would much rather people read the evidence and made their own minds up, than get involved in a dragged out forum question and answer session. My motive in posting here is to make the sources of information available to those who are interested, and correct some misinformation regarding myself and the 2/95th.

Having said that, I will point out that the descriptions of the pattern articles for 1812 are very clear, and that the description of the light infantry cap is exactly the same as that of the line cap, with the exception of the cap plate. Both are 'high-fronted caps'. Where the interesting question lies for me is when the caps were issued to the various battalions and to the 95th.

Bang up is a colloquial phrase, used by the RA to refer to their 1812 pattern caps. Barnard uses the same phrase to refer to the new caps in 1813. There is no other change in the caps of the infantry before 1814 when the cap plate of the lights changes again.

Regarding images, yes, there are images of the lights and rifles in the 1806 cap that were completed in 1815. But I believe my article demonstrates that the majority of the occupation prints show them in the 1812 cap.

The pattern cap changed again in 1815, 1816 and 1817, which dates most of the occupation prints to 1815, which concords with the French publishers information (all prints had to be registered), so claiming that these pictures are later is a bit of a red herring.

There is quite a lot of information on the clothing issues, (Caps were issued along with clothing), although frustratingly is has to be gleaned here and there from memoirs and side comments. Be aware, however, that all exemptions from regulation changes, had to be kicked up the command chain to the CinC, The Duke of York, and these records exist. Again, my article contains details of when these applied to the 95th and when not. Even an exemption owing to loss of the clothing at sea, such as happened to the 28th, had to be applied for, AND granted. So when regiments are wearing something other than they ought to be, we generally find the reason why in the WO papers.

Hope that helps.

dibble12 May 2017 2:54 a.m. PST

Ah yes! one of those post Waterloo sketches from the Royal Collection which shows a 'supposedly' 95th officer in greatcoat. I'm wondering why he's wearing a yellow sash?

I'll post more with illustrations when I have time tomorrow.

Ben Townsend12 May 2017 3:40 a.m. PST

That print is available in at least three versions, all coloured differently. If you are going to pick on the Hannoverian version in yellow sash, you have to acknowledge the existence of the other versions with crimson sash!

summerfield12 May 2017 4:16 a.m. PST

So now we are uncertain as to the design of headwear when for 200 years we have been certain.

Bang up just mean new and whether it means new pattern. Yes it has been used by the Royal Artillery but unclear exactly what it refers to. As I have previously explained New Pattern could mean block trail or the newer pattern Butler carriage which was a bracket carriage.

If you read the Sir Henry Clifton Papers, then it is clear the poor state of clothing of the 3/95th and part of the 2/95th that did not get new issue until July/August 1815. I edited these for Gareth Glover two volumes on the 1813-1817 Jounals.

Illustrations of Hanoverian Light Infantry (e.g. Luneberg) and KGL Light Infantry have often been identifued as 95th by English uniformologists. Now that I have a collection of over 100 prints.

The contracts for clothing were between the Colonel and the tailor/hatmaker. There were no set dress regulations during the Napoleonic Wars. There were various outlines. We do not even know the pattern of standards. The best record of which is in the College of Arms.

The WO papers are a money trail where the Colonels are chasing for money to purchase replacement. It is unlikely that they would have details being that I have been through many of the papers for the Board of Ordnance.

Stephen

summerfield12 May 2017 4:19 a.m. PST

I think I know the one you refer to. This is probably a woodcut that has been variously coloured to represent different regiments. When it says Englische at the bottom remember this could also mean KGL or Hanoverian. Remember Hanover was a personal fiefdom of the King of England.
Stephen

Marc at work12 May 2017 5:36 a.m. PST

"So now we are uncertain as to the design of headwear when for 200 years we have been certain."

That's how change happens – sometimes things change, sometimes new evidence emerges, sometimes new ideas are proven rubbish. But we shouldn't ever rely on "it has been right for so long it must be".

After all, I grew up thinking the Belgium brigade was deployed on the forward slope and ran away when shot at. Latest research suggest otherwise.

I await with interest how this develops (except the inevitable name calling). At this stage I remain to be convinced, but I hope this thread will not degenerate too quickly.

Marc

42flanker12 May 2017 10:52 a.m. PST

Bang up just mean new and whether it means new pattern. Yes it has been used by the Royal Artillery but unclear exactly what it refers to.

The phrase 'Bang up' may have included 'new' among its various meanings but it is interesting that in Gross's 'Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue' of 1811, cited earlier, he does not cite that meaning, while the emphasis he gives is clearly more on presenting an elegant, stylish or fashionable appearance, with no expense spared, although the implication would obviously be that clothing, carriages and horses referred to are, if not brand new, in the finest condition.

Quite the thing, hellish fine. Well done. Compleat. Dashing. In a handsome stile. 'A bang up cove'; a dashing fellow who spends his money freely. 'To bang up prime': to bring your horses up in a dashing or fine style: as the swell's 'rattler and prads are bang up prime'; the gentleman sports an elegant carriage and fine horses."-

As far as Barnard's contemporary reference to 'bang-ups' from 1813 and Connolly's later reference (also cited above) are concerned, it seems to me that both were clearly referring to the name which which a new style of cap, of 'peculiar form,' was 'christened' or 'styled'by troops, not simply a replacement cap freshly issued from stores.

It is also possible, given Cavalie Mercer's expression of disgust at 'the meanest and ugliest thing ever invented' that the term 'bang up' was being used sarcastically.

dibble13 May 2017 4:52 p.m. PST

Ben Townsend

That print is available in at least three versions, all coloured differently. If you are going to pick on the Hannoverian version in yellow sash, you have to acknowledge the existence of the other versions with crimson sash!

Are you saying that those pictures are accurate for 1814-15 dress/headdress and the units they depict? Even though what we see is a generic picture tinted to depict other units? And if so; should they 'not' be taken as supporting evidence?

spontoon14 May 2017 9:31 a.m. PST

Remember, the artists showing the army of occupation in Paris after Waterloo were French! Their knowledge of uniforms was probably not good on the Allied troops; better for French. So, Hanoverians could easily be mistaken for British. Look at some of the abominations they made of Highland dress in these prints!!

Also regarding the famous picture of a "musician of the 95th.", in a Belgic cap. Well, musicians as opposed to field music were a bit of a fantasy paid for by the regiment. Indeed musicians/bands often represented more than one regiment! Taking non-combatant troops abroad would be expensive, so regiments would lend them to regiments at home. Drummers and Fifers( and Pipers!) were considered combatants and were on the Crown payroll rather than the regiment's.

light infantry caps vs. stovepipe caps. My opinion is that they were the same, but Light troops wore smaller sizes to give a tighter fit. This prevented the cap from falling off in action and gave the oval shape of a human head. This would make the cap appear to taper towards the top. At least that's what I observed from wearing one for many re-enactment seasons!

42flanker14 May 2017 12:35 p.m. PST

A couple of observationss,spontoon.

Drummers and Fifers( and Pipers!) were considered combatants and were on the Crown payroll rather than the regiment's.

On occasion, I believe, Colonels might get away with listing pipers on the rolls as drummers, but more generally, as experienced skilled musicians, my understanding is that they were engaged and paid for by the officers of a regiment.

light infantry caps vs. stovepipe caps. My opinion is that they were the same

It is also worth bearing in mind that it was the earliest model of cap ordered in 1800, which was dubbed 'stove pipe' or 'stove jack' and which had a rigid, laquered exterior.

When finally in 1806 this cap was acknowledged "from experience to be attended with much inconvenience and prejudice to the troops.." the second model of cap was approved, and sealed in 1807.

This softer cap, apparently referred to on occasion as the 'sugar loaf cap,' was also found to be 'objectionable as to its form, which renders it unsteady on the head, and of little use in defending the head from the weather- much less from sword wounds" and condemned in 1811 [JSAHR XV Winter 1936 No. 60].

This was the cap that was retained by the Light troops when the false fronted model was adopted by the Line infantry.

Interestingly, in relation to the fit of the caps, there is a first hand account of the 71st doubling forward at Fuentes d'Onor, "advancing at double-quick time, our firelocks at the trail, our bonnets in our hands."
link

Now, that was the woollen bonnet which one might have expected to sit reasonably tight on the head, yet which had to be carried by soldiers when doubling rather than risk the cap falling off. I imagine successive models of the infantry cap suffered from a similar problem- as well as being "of little use in defending the head from the weather- much less from sword wounds."

dibble15 May 2017 9:54 a.m. PST

42flanker

It is also worth bearing in mind that it was the earliest model of cap ordered in 1800, which was dubbed 'stove pipe' or 'stove jack' and which had a rigid, laquered exterior.

You mean this?:

Paul :)

42flanker15 May 2017 11:44 a.m. PST

I would say, that's the very badger.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP15 May 2017 12:11 p.m. PST

The idea that the Lights wore tighter fit of the same cap is quite fascinating….and makes perfect sense!

janner20 May 2017 10:42 a.m. PST

I was very disappointed to read Stephen Summerfield's disparaging comments about members of the 2/95th reenactment group.

I've always found them to be very generous in sharing their research and quite open about their sources. I would encourage anyone to follow Ben's advice and see for yourselves. I must warn you that their enthusiasm can be quite infectious though. wink

In addition to their work on shakos, I would also strongly recommend looking at their efforts to recreate a British pack held in Stockholm. thumbs up

Regards,

summerfield21 May 2017 9:26 a.m. PST

I wish the 2/95th all the success they deserve. All I have done is attempt to share my interest and expertise.

And the personal attacks that I recieved from certain member of the 2/95th or associated do them no favours. The matter is closed.
Stephen

janner21 May 2017 10:06 a.m. PST

If the matter was closed, you'd hardly be casting aspirations about them on this forum, never mind be making unsupported allegations about 'a certain member'.

In my eyes, all you have achieved is to tarnish your own reputation, which is a shame.

summerfield21 May 2017 10:31 a.m. PST

Dear Janner
I wish the 2/95th all the success they deserve. All I have done is attempt to share my interest and expertise.

And the personal attacks that I recieved from certain member of the 2/95th or associated on my Facebook page when I gave different reasoned view.

It is interesting that this these are the same words from two abusive posts on my Facebook page.
"In my eyes, all you have achieved is to tarnish your own reputation, which is a shame."

The matter should now be closed. You have only opened it up again.

My reaction and inital statements came out from the manner that I had been treated. There are ways of having a discussion and I am sorry that my initial posting was badly worded in the use of the pronouns.
Stephen

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP21 May 2017 11:04 a.m. PST

I just hope that any one who wants to contribute to this forum is not deterred by negative responses…whether right or wrong.

Without authoritative feedback, what is the point?

Please keep TMP going. Take the Flak, do not take it personally and add to our knowledge.

You may be right…you may be wrong. Please argue your case and ignore the obvious alternative…."Heck, why should I bother?" You add to our knowledge.

janner21 May 2017 11:57 a.m. PST

It is interesting that this these are the same words from two abusive posts on my Facebook page.
"In my eyes, all you have achieved is to tarnish your own reputation, which is a shame."

I do not recall ever having visited your facebook page never mind posting on it!

Given that my name is listed under my profile, it would have been easy for you to check before making such a suggestive remark.

summerfield21 May 2017 12:24 p.m. PST

Dear Janner

I never said you did but you are using the same passive agressive language that others did. Please read precisely what I said. I would like to put a line under this Deleted by Moderator.

Stephen

janner21 May 2017 12:45 p.m. PST

DELETED

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP21 May 2017 12:51 p.m. PST

Like I said, you guys are the experts. We want to hear you argue and disagree. Seriously, it is an intellectual exercise, not a personally abusive thing.

This forum has lost too many really good contributors in the past……..

summerfield21 May 2017 1:01 p.m. PST

Dear Janner
Sorry you had used the same words and it triggered a reaction. The written word is poor in expressing emotion. Mother in hospital the last three weeks with a fractured T2 vertibrae and urinary infection combined with a sudden decline into dementure, has left me struggling with any sense of humour and strangely for me a very thin skin.

That is what I was clumsily attempting to explain.
Stephen

janner21 May 2017 9:22 p.m. PST

Dear Stephen,

My apology has been deleted, but thankfully you saw it first. I can well understand how family situations can leave one feeling washed out.

Kind regards,

Stephen

summerfield22 May 2017 3:47 a.m. PST

Dear Janner
I had not realised quite how sensitive I am at present. Thank you for your forbearance.
Stephen

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.