Talk:Princess Mary Christmas gift box

Followers?

@Geni: in this edit you added a references to "Followers" pipelinked to Followers (British Indian Army). Since it's currently a redlink could you add an explanation of what this word is referring to - it's not obvious (to me at least) and I don't have access to the source you cited fpr it. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree a red link is no good. 'Followers' in the British Indian Army referred to people like civilian cooks and cleaners who moved with the actual troops. Sbishop (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Source doesn't really expand on the term. The full name it gives them is "authorised 'camp followers'" and for for official purposes they were classified as Bhistis however they clearly don't literally mean Bhishti. That the reason I went with a redlink was because poking around there appears to be a significant part of how the British Indian army worked that we've completely missed. There were a lot of these people. On the western front they made up around 10% of any given british indian army unit while in other cases they seem to have come close to 50% of the entire force. User:Sbishop covers a couple of things they may have done but things like non christian religious figures would also fall under the classification. I'm less clear if personnel like Stretcher bearers would be included since they may have been part of the Indian Hospital Corps.©Geni (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There’s a risk of straying into WP:SYNTH if we start defining what Followers are outside of that source. If it literally only describes them as “camp followers” of the Indian Army, then it would be better to use that phraseology (lower case f)and link it to camp follower. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No. It explicitly limits them to authorised camp followers and the term clearly doesn't mean what is commonly meant in English by Camp follower. These were not an informal group but were instead reasonably organised. Indeed public followers were paid from central funds and things like the Followers Miscellaneous Corps existed (although those may have been formed later in the war so wouldn't have got the gift. Its not SYNTH because the source (and I suspect the documentation the source is relying on) is using terms of art that don't line up with standard English. The imperial war museum has a limited list of such people here.©Geni (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We can put authorised in front if it and still link to the same article. I think there is a definite risk of SYNTH of using another source to define it if that other source doesn’t discuss who got the boxes. Clearly, the redlink alone doesn’t work. DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't just link to the camp follower article because they clearly aren't the group of people the Camp follower article talks about. First sentence "Camp followers are civilians who follow armies." their status as civilians is questionable at best. "There are two common types of camp followers; first, the wives and children of soldiers, who follow their spouse or parent's army from place to place; " definitely not. Followers appear to have been adult men. "the second type of camp followers have historically been informal army service providers" again no because followers in the Indian army (particularly those brought to Europe) were formal service providers. The same sentence appears here Ctrl-F Bhistis. So our options are:

• No link at all and use the terms of art either Authorised camp followers or Bhistis without further explantion.
• An aside into the ranks of the British Indian army during WW1 (which could take some time)
• A redlink that indicates the term is more complicated than it first appears and we hope someone who knows the situation better writes the article down the line

©Geni (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm against the last option as I think it just leaves the reader (currently) with a big question mark. What about using the phrase "authorised camp follower" (with no link) and then have a footnote against it saying: "Non-combatant personnel, referred to as "followers", served on the Western Front with the British Army of India and performed administrative or other service functions." - cited to this (p.36, The Indian Army on the Western Front, 2014, by Georg Morton-Jack). DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If we add the footnote that clears up the confusion and allows the redlink to serve its typical purpose of indicating we would like an article about the subject.©Geni (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok - I've added it accordingly. My reading of p.36 of Morton-Jack (and what I put in the footnote) was that the followers attached to the Army of India i.e both the British Indian Army and the British Army in India. However, the redlink you made was to Followers (British Indian Army). Should it be Followers (British Army of India)? DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably although that leaves open the question of if they abolished in 1948 (I can't find any references to them in the indian indian army).©Geni (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

silver for officers

The article claims these existed. I can't access the source but it isn't WW1 focused and nothing else suggests these silver boxes existed. There were a lot of officers and at least some of the boxes should have survived. Instead the only surviving silver box I can find is this one where its stated that the "box has been silver plated by owner". Diana Condell does mention a single silver gilt gift box but that one seems to have been a one off given by the committee to Princess Mary.©Geni (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I can access the source (and I probably added it when I created the article). It says “And on Christmas Day they were delivered: silver for officers and brass for everyone else”. But now that I look at it again I’m worried it was published by self-pub/vanity press. I’m on my phone at the moment so it’s a little to hard to check - but will do so properly a little later. DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I think I know what is going on. This is a similar box floating around in some numbers where the Princess Mary portrait has been replaced with the year 1914. At least some of these are Electro Plated Nickel Silver. Martin N Barry on page 217 of his PhD thesis mentions that some have claimed they are an Officer’s Tin (the idea being that they are a rare variant to increase their value). No such thing exists but I can see how someone would get confused.©Geni (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible source

A Phd thesis:

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/355223376/_A_Box_of_Conflict_Memories_.pdf

While it mostly focuses on what happened to the boxes after they were received it does do a reasonable survey as to what is in them.©Geni (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Sugar candy"

"Most Indian troops received the box itself, cigarettes, a tin box of spices, a packet of sugar candy...". Is "sugar candy" in the source? Is Condell American? It sounds like an Americanism but it may be a British WW1 term (like "acid tablets"). I don't have access to the source to check. DeCausa (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

same sugar candy text can be found on the IWM website . Martin N Barry in his PhD uses the same term and doesn't expand on it. The indian gifts beyond a basic description are poorly documented. You won't find a photo of the spice box for example so its quite possible that no one living knows what is meant by sugar candy. The nurse's chocolate is equally poorly documented.©Geni (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest it may have been something like the product mishri shown at:

https://greenoranges.co.uk/shop/indus-sugar-candy-mishri-300g/

Sbishop (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes. Probably something from the Raj. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)