GREATWAR-L Archives

Archiver > GREATWAR > 2006-05 > 1147172714


From: "Sue Light" <>
Subject: Re: [WW1] MC and MM
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 12:05:14 +0100
References: <003a01c672ec$7f1c0970$0a02a8c0@DellH598871>
In-Reply-To: <003a01c672ec$7f1c0970$0a02a8c0@DellH598871>


Peter

I can't imagine any reason for making a special case of 8 Canadians, merely
on account of their own Government's decision to make them officers. And
not awfully popular with the scores of women who had already gone before
them! :>)

There were a lot of conflicting ideas over the decision to award the MM to
women; some argued that there was already such an award exisiting in the
form of the Royal Red Cross, as the conditions for that included the
phrases:

'Who have shown exceptional devotion or competency in performance of nursing
duties.... or who has performed some exceptional act of bravery or devotion
to the post of duty.'

And during the South African War that had been quite sufficient to cover all
eventualities. But by 1916 there was enormous unrest growing within the
nursing profession about the hundreds of RRCs being issued to all and
sundry, reducing it to a 'mere trifle,' and trained nurses complained
bitterly about it's issue to untrained 'ladies' for dubious service, while
many deserving nurses in military hospitals both at home and abroad were
going unrecognised. There was no longer any way to recognise that
'exceptional act of bravery.'

So the decision to award the MM was welcomed by the nursing profession as a
true measure of exceptional acts. But it was awarded to women across the
board, and although one might argue that the nursing sisters, if not
commissioned, had officer status, even that was not true of the many other
groups of women who qualified for the award. To try and divide these women
even further would have been extremely difficult when the great majority
[including nurses] were, after all, civilians.

It was also seen by some [men; army; that sort of thing] as a 'different'
award when given to women, as in most cases it was given for acts that men
were carrying out day in, day out as part of their normal duties, i.e. a
man would probably not have got the MM for the same reasons as a woman.
And as much as I am passionate about the nursing services, I can see that
they might have had a point. A decision to award women the MC could have
prolonged the war! :>)

So Leonora Herrington 'only' got the MM because regardless of her status, as
a woman that was 'all' that was on offer - and I'm sure she was jolly
pleased to have it.

Regards
Sue

Sue Light
(Lancing, West Sussex)
www.unchangedbytime.co.uk



On 08/05/06, Peter Gower <> wrote:
>
> If, as was rightly pointed out, Nursing Sisters in the Canadian
> Expeditionary Force were treated as officers - and they certainly signed
> officers' attestation papers - then why was N. S. Lenora Herrington only
> awarded an MM for her personal example and courage which maintained
> discipline and efficiency at No. 1 Canadian General Hospital, Etaples on
> the night it was bombed in June 1918?
> Just wondering.
> Peter
>
>
> ==== GREATWAR Mailing List ====
> World War Two also has a list. To join send the word 'subscribe' to
> NOTE: when joining a list always read
> instructions carefully re sending messages and especially unsubscribing.
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>

This thread: