Talk:Reginald Earnshaw

British services
I am a little confused by this. Although the Merchant Navy was an integral part of the British war effort (my Dad served in it), is it correct to call it part of the "British services"? That name is a piped link to British military which is itself a redirect to British Armed Forces which does not include the merchant navy. Not trying to be difficult here, just striving for accuracy. Thanks. -ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'd ask my grandfather, who served in the MN all his life, unfortunately he died in 1953. My inclination would be to say that it would be incorrect to describe the MN as part of the British armed forces (pace the existence of armed merchantmen); this inclination is borne out by the British Merchant Navy article, which states


 * the Merchant Navy lays wreaths of remembrance alongside the armed forces during the annual Remembrance Day service


 * "Alongside" implying a separation. However I'd also say that describing the MN as part of the British services is correct, so the piped link between British services and British armed forces is over-simplistic. All OR and POV on my part, of course!


 * They're a bit of a special case, the Commonwealth War Grave Commission recognises them as "Commonwealth War Dead" (viz http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/2785911), as opposed to "Civilian War Dead" for those killed by German bombing, or civilians interned in Japanese camps and so, and they qualified for campaign medals, and some military decorations, for war service. David Underdown (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)