|
Michael, the reason that *"the British didn't strip Pte. O'Hea of his V.C. for uncoupling a blazing boxcar filled with ammunition during the Fenian Raids (the only V.C. won on Canadian soil). *Likewise the several V.C.s awarded to the 2/24th during a small boat mishap " *because, at that time, the Warrant of the VC (the regulations governing its award) specifically provided for awards in such circumstances. *Mention of these specific awards provides an opportunity to mention some added facts.
(1) O'Hea's regiment, having secured his VC for the railway incident, tried that same year (1866) to obtain ANOTHER non-combat VC for one of its members (this time for heroism during a fire that devastated Quebec City). *They were turned down.
(2) The "non-combat" VCs (there were only about a dozen) were allowed at a time when the concept of the VC was still being developed, and many awards that might have been deemed appropriate (such as the DSO and Albert Medal) still had not been devised.
(3) Pretty well all gallantry awards have provision in their warrants for forfeiture. *I know of three certain cases of such forfeiture, all in the early 1920s *(one MC, one DFC, one AFC). *Going on memory of past readings, I do not believe a VC was ever forfeited, although there was some correspondence about what might have constituted grounds for such forfeiture. *In the end, either Edward VII or George V in effect stated that, "were a man to be hanged for murder, he should nevertheless be allowed to wear his VC to to scaffold." *There is an instance of a George Medal being awarded and then cancelled about 1952; sorry, but I do not have sufficient details to either describe or comment on this case at the present time.
Barrett - I am intrigued by the suggestion that Air Medals might be awarded for the standing air patrols off the East Coast. *Will you keep us posted on this ? *There is already one case of an American DFC having been awarded to the ground controller who successfully landed a pilotless recce aircraft after it had been damaged.
Andrew and Cam - I find it odd that consideration of the first "Australianized" VC be given to a man whose deeds took place in 1915. *The argument is "To set a standard" - but why not trust the current committees to award it to a suitable contemporary candidate when the opportunity arises ? *I do not know anything about the standards of Australian gallantry awards, but the Canadian bravery decorations, established in 1972, have an interesting history. The Medal of Bravery has been handed out far too often and there seems to be no attempt to increase the standard; the Star of Courage has also been awarded a bit too generously, and there may be some attempts to improve on this situation. *But the Cross of Valour has always been awarded for really breath-taking courage and an original standard of George Cross equivalency has been maintained.
When the Canadian bravery awards were being planned, the original idea was to call the highest one the Kootenay Cross, because even before the award was instituted it was obvious that the first two recipients would be two sailors aboard HMCS KOOTENAY who had died at their posts during a ship fire. *And they were the first recipients of the Cross of Valour.
Another example of the balancing acts that committees perform in granting awards - consider a lady who, some three years died defending her children from a cougar attack. *She was awarded a posthumous Star of Courage (not a Cross of Valour). *The reasons why one award rather than another are never stated, but in this case I can imagine the committee members looking at the facts and thinking, "If she had been defending strangers, or even friends, this might have been a Cross of Valour exploit. *But as she was looking out for her own children, and was thus likely driven by maternal motives as much as disinterested bravery, the Star of Courage is more appropriate."
|