Talk:42nd Regiment of Foot

message: I understand the regiment was present during the unsuccesful British attack on San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1797. Is there any available info on that?
Thank You,
RAMPG (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Watch in Puerto Rico 

message: This article lists the 1715 uprising as reason for the watches formation, yet it dates it from 1661 98.206.155.53 (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  formation date 

message: "The Royal Highland Regiment never officially recognized the battle honours for their part in the American War of Independence, because it was decreed that Battle Honours should not be granted for a war with kith and kin." 
I have put a citation required label on this.
It is a piece of romantic puff coined in the 20th century by a Black Watch Regimental historian. There were no honours awarded to any regiment for the American War, despite a number of major, though not decisive, defeats inflicted on American armies in the field. Battle honours as we understand them did not yet exist as an institution in this period. 'Gibraltar 1779-83' was an early, rare example. Moreover it would have been not for a regiment to choose to accept or decline such an honour. If the King had seen fit to award a battle honour then it would of course have been accepted without demur. 
It may even be that the 42nd retained the red feather that was adopted as some form of formation badge during the American War as a memento of stout service in a lost cause; an unofficial award to themselves, which happened quite frequently in the second half of the C18th.  Although it was not officially recorded, it seems the red feather distinction, worn merely as a bonnet ornament, eventually received Royal approval in 1802 in recognition of the Regiment's service in Egypt for which they had received their first official battle honour: 'Egypt' and a Sphinx badge.  JF42 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle honours form the American War of Independance 

message: "Two days later at the Battle of Waterloo, the 42nd and also the 2nd/73rd Highlanders, which was later to become the new 2nd Battalion, Black Watch, were both in some of the most intense fighting in the battle and lost 289 men."
This yoking of the 42nd and 73rd together at Waterloo is spurious. Although the 73rd were formed from the 2nd Bn, 42nd in 1786 and became the 2nd Bn Black Watch in 1881, in 1815 the 73rd was a separate regiment, and while they suffered heavy casualties  at Waterloo the 42nd got off comparatively lightly- following their heavy losses two days before at Quatre Bras. This looks like poaching the  73rd's casualties to inflate the Black Watch contribution to Waterloo. If the 73rd need to be mentioned at all, this distinction should be made clear.
JF42 (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Battle of Waterloo- 42nd and also the 2nd/73rd Highlanders,   

message: "An Officer & Serjeant of a Highland Regiment". Illustration depicting soldiers of the 42nd (Highland) Regiment of Foot, c. 1790s."
This illustration dates from the 1740s. I shall adjust the caption
JF42 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption to C18th illustration 

message: Which images? I can't tell from looking at that category. Perhaps you could create a commons category that is specific for this topic? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that if you go to Wikimedia Commons and check all the pictures under that category there are several which in the captions say 42nd Regiment of Foot is enough. On top of that there are more which although captioned as "Black Watch" are from the time when the regiment was numbered the 42nd. I can pick out examples if really necessary but it is not hard to see them.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons category 

message: The page: Battle_of_Bussaco_order_of_battle states the 1st Bn of the 42nd Foot was present at the battle. This page states it was the 2nd Bn. I haven't the knowledge to resolve this. Gabhán Rua (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting pages 

message: It's not possible for a unit formed in 1739 to have date ranges of 1661–1718 and 1725–1881; I have no idea where these numbers have come from. Partly, it may be confusion with the Independent Highland Companies, but even then the dates don't make sense. The earliest IHCs started in 1603, then were later disbanded. They were re-raised in 1725–29 (so that may be where "1725" in the infobox came from). Regardless, this needs fixing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and adjusted. Dormskirk (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting dates