Embroidered panel

AHC-ED · 28 March 2012, 08:18 PM

The last thread I started appears to have disappeared so I'll start again, this time with the picture!

My question is (and was): what is the significance of the initials 'RAF'?

Was this an RNAS rank by any chance?

It seems odd that we have a single date of '1914', "Rnas' (rather than RNAS) and all the attached badges appear to be naval.

The panel itself is on display at the Omaka Aviation Heritage Centre.

wingandprop · 29 March 2012, 10:21 PM

I think it is a bit of trench art commemorating both the RNAS and the RAF into which the RNAS was amalgamated. The top hat badge is an enlisted naval hat badge and the bottom one is an enlisted RAF hat badge. 1914 likely just refers to the year the war started or to the year the RNAS was formed. This piece is not at all what I had envisioned the first time you described it, so I am glad you posted a picture of it. The "RnaS" is strange in not being all caps, but they may have just done it without thinking and then it was too much work to change it (somewhat borne out by its being mixed case in the first place). I think they pretty obviously meant RNAS. If it was done before the war ended, they wouldnt have known an end year to include (even if they were so inclined). This is not the sort of thing girls would have done as a sampler (it is far too crude for that).

AHC-ED · 2 April 2012, 12:13 PM

Have to disagree with you, wingandprop, about the bottom badge as, citing the IWM website (and I'm certainly not going to argue with THEM!), this is a cap badge for an RNAS rating. So it looks like the "R A F" may just be the rating's initial. If so, what a co-incidence!

wingandprop · 3 April 2012, 01:11 PM

Hey Eric. RAF as the maker's initials is certainly a chance, but before I throw in the towel I would make two comments. First, the IWM is housed in the infamous (former) insane asylum of Bedlam, made famous by Charles Dickens, among others, and from which the modern word "bedlam" is derived. Are the current occupants really wholly above suspicion? Secondly, I would submit this picture:

RAF Sergeant 2.jpg

What we have here is a Sergeant in the new RAF blue uniform with, as you can see, what looks like the badge on this embroidery. Immediately behind him is a naval nco with what looks like the top badge from the embroidery.

At this point I might want to beat my chest and stomp around like the king of the jungle, but if I were to do so, someone else would probably tell me "not so fast Kong, what about this other Naval NCO's hat badge??"

Naval hat badge.jpg

To which I would say "darn".

The problem is that when the RAF was formed out of the RFC and the RNAS they not only combined operations, they combined a lot of elements of the uniforms. The RAF adopted some of the RNAS eagle insignia forms and, apparently, the form of the NCO hat badge as well. Frankly, there may be a difference between the RNAS and RAF hat badges, but I don't know what it is. If it is an RAF badge (only, meaning they weren't used by both the RAF and the RNAS), then that would suggest the RAF on the embroidery refers to the organization, but if everything on this is RNAS (only), I would have to agree that we may just have an ironic coincidence. Maybe someone else out there can tell the difference between the RAF/RNAS badges, but it isn't me. The one thing I would note is the Navy's prediliction for orange. Almost all of the naval badges are in shades of orange...except the badge on the bottom. Is that because it is an RAF badge? (That is an honest question, not a rhetorical one).

Matt

AHC-ED · 3 April 2012, 05:27 PM

Well, Matt, those are interesting photos -are there any dates for them?

The other badges on the panel indicate Air Mechanic and Air Craftman.

Whilst the actual location of the IWM may be where Bedlam was first established that doesn't necessarily mean that the conditions were/are still infectious! Much as we might have similar thoughts about other places of 'authority'....

Anyway, I'm still inclined to think that the 'R A F' is a co-incidence -until someone can convince me otherwise. But your thoughts are appreciated, let me hasten to add.

wingandprop · 3 April 2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AHC-ED

Well, Matt, those are interesting photos -are there any dates for them?

February 1919, 21 Training Depot Station, Driffield, Yorkshire. I would agree with your view that the "RAF" were the maker's initials if they were less centrally located, say down in the corner. As it is, I don't know which was intended.

As to the IWM badge, if the hat badges for the RNAS and RAF NCO's were the same, the IWM identification would be correct, assuming the wearer of their badge was RNAS. Unfortunately, we don't know who wore the one on this embroidery. I am still hoping someone more knowledgable than we can confirm whether the badges were, in fact, the same or whether there was a difference. They sure look the same to me.

Matt

Jim · 4 April 2012, 06:33 AM

I just did the statistical calculations and the result is that the chance that RAF is the maker's initials is 17,575 to 1 or 0.0000568 percent while the chance that it stands for Royal Air Force is pretty close to 100 percent given that it is on an object with this particular theme and its prominence on it. Of course anything is possible including that this embroidery was done by aliens on the mothership, but that does not mean it is likely. Occam's Razor or the principle of lex parsimoniae basically says that when faced with competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Without strong evidence that the RAF actually does stand for something else it would be reaching to believe that it stands for something else.

wingandprop · 4 April 2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim

I just did the statistical calculations and the result is that the chance that RAF is the maker's initials is 17,575 to 1 or 0.0000568 percent while the chance that it stands for Royal Air Force is pretty close to 100 percent given that it is on an object with this particular theme and its prominence on it.

I agree with your basic view Jim, although I hope your statistics were intended to be tongue in cheek. After all, statistics are really only of use in examining trends based upon fairly large groups, not on individual events. More individualzed facts about what you are looking at can reverse your statistics outright. Example: if this was done on or before the first of January 1918, what would be the chance that RAF refers to the Royal Air Force vs. the maker's initials? Close to zero, as the RAF didn't yet exist. (It wouldn't truly be zero because lots of people knew something along that lines was coming even if they didn't yet know the official name.) And what would be the statistical likelihood of "RAF" standing for Royal Air Force assuming it was made in mid 1918, but the maker was RNAS fitter Roger Arthur Frombush? Individual facts trump statistics every time (even if in a given event they are consistent with them), and that is why you can see eight the hard way. It is also why you hear about lies, damned lies, and statistics all in the same breath.