Talk:Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

message: Over what period of time is this referring to, purely of those regiments which served in Iraq in the current conflict presumably?  David Underdown 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most highly decorated serving regiment? 

message: Sorry, I still don't see this.  The closest I can find on the Surrey ACF website is this page: http://www.surreyarmycadets.com/regimental_affiliation.asp - but nowhere does that describe the cadets as being the 4th battalion.  Indeed, this apge, http://www.surreyarmycadets.com/the_ACF.asp specifically states the the Army Cadet Force is not actually part of the Army, so I find it hard to see how they can be in any meaningful sense be described as a battalion.  In any case, the cadets are presumably not a deployable unit, so I don't think it really makes sense to list the strength of the Regiment as 4 battalions.  If you can find a specifc reference on the website, please post it here, and I'll reconsider.  David Underdown 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, still seems strange that neither the regimental website, nor the overall Surrey ACF website specifically mention it.  I take the part about the TA, consider it reworded to say, "even individual members are presumably not deployable".  David Underdown 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, checking the London Gazette (which I should have thought of earlier), I can find no evidence for the designation either.  Surrey ACF is always referred to as just that, whereas other Cadet Force units are referred to as cadt battalions.  See .  I'm going to remove the reference to four battalions from the infobox again as well.  David Underdown 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been added back, but I've reverted again.  We really do need a source ebfore we can add this to the article.  The regiment's article on the army website only refers to three battalions and of cadets says merely, "there are PWRR army cadet and CCF detachments all across the southern Home Counties."  It does not describe these as being the fourth battalion. there are PWRR army cadet and CCF detachments all across the southern Home Counties. http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3479.aspx David Underdown (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrey ACF = 4th Battalion? 

message: I quote the wike "The current regiment was named in honour of The Princess of Wales" and then gives a link to Princess Diana - are you SURE that the regiment was named after her personally? I seriously doubt this 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diana 

message: In her speech at their homecoming in Portsmouth today the mayor said the regiment grew out of a company of troops mustered in London in 1572. True? And what campaign were they sent on - something in Ireland?--Shtove (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be surprised, the Honourable Artillery Company can trace its history to the London trained bands and earlier, but most regiments date to the Restoration at the earliest, the PWRR antecedent regiment The Tangier Regiment is generally stated to have been formed in 1661, even the regiemtnal association only cliams this date (http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/), we'd need very good evidence for the earlier date.  David Underdown (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, actually I see The Buffs, another of the antecedent regimetns do claim origin in the trained bands.  David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. Thank you.--Shtove (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formed in 1572? 

message: I am sorry to join in the jeremiad about claims made in the article but  what is the point of stating that PWRR "holds the earliest battle honour in the British Army" and that "through its ancestry via the Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey) (2nd Regiment of Foot), the PWRR is the most senior English line infantry regiment"?
The honour 'Tangier' may be the earliest campaign for which an honour has been awarded but does that somehow indicate a specific quality that other regiments do  not possess; that their merit was such that they were granted a battle honour before any other regiment?  Given that the honour was not granted till 1909, this is a fairly empty assertion. 
The same goes for the  claim to be the "most senior" English line infantry regiment. Apart from, presumably, granting the regiment some precedence when only English line regimentsa are on parade, a fairly arcane credential at the best of times, what does this tell us? That the Queen's Regt became the 2nd of Foot was merely a question of timing in the formation of the Old Corps.' 
While not wishing for a second to cast aspersions on the records of the numerous component regiments of the PWRR and the men who served in them, surely we should have grown out of this kind of Victorian regimental puffery.
JF42 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do these claims actually mean? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160814181412/http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/aff/latest_news_information/cregulararmybasingannouncementgridunclas.pdf to http://www.aff.org.uk/linkedfiles/aff/latest_news_information/cregulararmybasingannouncementgridunclas.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224154346/http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/default.aspx to http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230215550/http://www.queensassociation.org/ to http://queensassociation.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is she C. In C.? It seems kind of random. 213.205.198.114 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous Danish kings had been C-in-C of the Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) since 1906, presumably as a nod towards Queen Alexandra whose brother became King Frederik VIII that year. KDLarsen (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen of Denmark

message: The Princess of Wales Royal Regiment had a number of battalions that have since been disbanded or changed, they include:
* 1st Battalion (still active)
* 2nd Battalion (still active)
* 3rd Battalion (still active as reserve)
* 5th Battalion (disbanded in 1999)
* 6th/7th Battalion (disbanded in 1999)
In any case, why the need for italics?
Sammartinlai (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before 2020 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is Victor McLaglen listed under See also? His page doesn't list anything of particular significance as far as this page's subject is concerned. I've taken the liberty of removing it for now. KDLarsen (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor McLaglen