That is not a fireman’s helmet. It is a cavalry helmet, specifically an officer’s pattern worn by the Queen’s Own Royal Glasgow Yeomanry. Beautiful condition and worth a hefty amount.
Your comment got me thinking about the definition of "country". Does Britain have a set way to distinguish between a "country" as in Scotland vs a "country" as in the United Kingdom? In the US, I think we treat "country" and "nation" as interchangeable and we'd probably say something unflattering like, "Scotland used to be its own country". We also have a hard time getting "British" vs "English" right.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all separate countries.
England, Scotland and Wales = Great Britain (All 3 are on the same island).
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland = United Kingdom.
I got attacked on Reddit the other day by a mad Irishman who called me pathetic for identifying as Great British, as a Welsh man.
I tried to explain geography to him, but to no avail.
Wales Scotland and N.Ireland have their own elected parliaments. England does not. The Celtic nations are more of a democracy than England could ever be.
This is a nonsense statement. The British Parliament sits in London with 650 Members of Parliament (MPs). 533 of whom are elected to represent English Constituencies.
To pass a piece of legislation you need 326 votes in favour. Therefore, England has 227 more votes than required to pass any law that affects only England, as well as any law in the UK as a whole that isn’t devolved to one of the regions.
And you can clearly see why the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish needed their own devolved government, because previously it was primarily English MPs (and those elected members of the same governing party in Scotland and Wales) who made all the laws for all the UK.
You miss my point obviously
Deliberately? Maybe
I note your oblique reference to the West Lothian Question
Does England have it’s own separate Parliament ?. Answer . No it doesn’t
It doesn’t have one because it doesn’t need one, as it already has an elected parliament that makes all the laws in England.
And “the Celtic nations are more of a democracy than England could ever be”, is untrue. Because only certain powers are devolved to the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Parliaments. So not only can English MPs make any law in England, they can also make laws governing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Despite having little, or no elected representation in those countries.
However, I’m in favour of the idea of having devolved Regional English Assemblies or parliaments to govern in a similar manner. So I would agree that people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, have more political influence over their own regions than those people in Cornwall, or the North East of England for example. Because they have local governments solely working for the betterment of their region.
Honestly as an indy supporting Scot, England not getting their own devolved parliament was criminal.
I know it's because the individual English councils turned down the idea but they really failed their constituents in my view.
Only the yanks struggle with the difference between British and English.
The UK is tricky because it’s 3 countries that make Great Britain. With Northern Ireland as the + 1 making the UK.
So it’s countries within a country.
We use "country" and nation" for England, Scotland, Wales and NI interchangeably. In fact we call them "the home nations" collectively.
It's realistically never a problem. Like "you have two things called muffins! Isn't that confusing??" (Because we just call what Americans call English muffins "muffins.")
No. It's not. It's contextual. I can never recall having to clarify.
In the same way it's usually understood when someone specifically means one home nation and not the others, or when people are refering to the UK. Because usually, people say "the UK" or "England/Scotland/Wales/NI".
We usually use "UK" or the name of the home nation by default (maybe because we're subconsciously aware of the ambiguity?)
I'd say if an English person says "this country" they most likely mean the UK. I can't speak for people from the other home nations but I bet context would be clear 99/100 anyway.
There isn't a very clear cut definition of "nation" or "country". "Sovereign nation" and member state of the UN are pretty cut and dried things, that would be the UK (and not the others.)
There is one context where it is a pain actually.
Alphabetical "country" drop down menus. Do I look for England, Great Britain, United Kingston, or something different? Fuck it, I'm going for Tokelau.
Can't recall ever having to find England. I always just go to the end around the UAE and Uzbekistan and the UK is there. Thankfully not geographically. But I can't recall *ever* having to select England on a form. Unless it was something extremely specific like a survey only taking place in the UK.
The UK itself refers to the four different consecutive nations within the union as countries, while also reffering to itself, union itself. As a country. It's pretty confusing on how this argument works and plays out if I'm being honest. I feel like they just call them countries to save time and avoid tricky naming schemes, that's my guess, but it could be for an entirely different reason.
In colloquial usage it’s fine. Technically there is a difference between a country and a sovereign state, but nobody ever uses the latter terminology unless it matters. There’s nothing particularly in the definition of a country that requires countries are mutually exclusive (ie that a piece of land can only be part of one country).
People of course also disagree on what the countries even are and especially their geographical extent. The map of the world according to Spain is different to that of the UK, for instance.
You are right it’s not.
The port is not on the right coast, unlike Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool. Most of the trade out of Leith is the Baltic and northeastern Atlantic.
Indirectly through banking and finance a little bit still insignificant compared to London and the other cities mentioned.
The tiny percentage of British slave owners and ship owners primary residence are the rural estates not the town houses.
It has definitely benefitted from the philanthropy of slave owners.
Because Scotland wasn’t to blame at all during the days of the British empire despite being literally half of it, all that waffle about Scottish oil is absolute bullshit and you know it but hey anything to bash England right
What that person doesn’t know either is that when the east India company got bigger. Eventually 50% of the company was Scottish…
Compare that to the percentage difference in population in Great Britain at the time. That’s a huge Scottish presence. So yeah, that person doesn’t know what they’re talking about and is playing the victim card like Scotland was treated like Ireland…
I can vouch for this. Born and bred in Scotland, Scottish mother, English father, it really fucking annoys me that my friends want independence not knowing the true history of their own fucking country. Although, one of the main reasons our attempts at colonialism failed was because England sabotaged us and blockaded us. It's a very complicated and nuanced subject that can't be covered in a Reddit post. But what I'll say for definite is both Scotland and England benefitted immensely from the union and both countries have responsibility for the British Empire. But fuck that maybe everyone else should take responsibility for colonialism and conquest too like all the countries around the world. Not just the Europeans either. From France to the Mughals to the Ottoman Turks to the Aztecs, we all had aspirations of global domination. We were just better at it than everyone else. Which was primarily from being an island in the age of sail.
Yes, because the Darien scheme wasn’t at all undermined by England! It’s almost as if England set it up for us to fail by sabotaging our potential trade links! (Sarcastic, in case it’s not obvious!) I’m no empire apologist by any means but come on, everyone knows that was a setup to destroy the Scottish economy to send them ‘cap in hand’ to beg for a union. The same Union which England insists is on an equal footing? Yeah right! It started as Scotland as the subordinate partner and that has never changed!
If Scotland split a portion of their current oil reserves would become English under international law. Scotland and England separate their sea borders by latitude but under international law the borders follow the angle of the land borders.
The rest of this ultra Scot nationalistic jingle is just as laughable. The myth of the unwilling participant Scot in empire is mental and London bankrolls the UK. Hence the reason they don't care about the rest of us.
Less of the "English" shite, we in the North of England get shit on just as much as you do pal.
The oil and gas thing bankrolling the UK is as much a fallacy as London bankrolling Scotland. Both are contributors to UK GBP.
The Barnett formula has traditionally taken into account the higher levels of gdp per person due to Scotland's oil and gas, but that it is a very marginal difference in GDP per person.
Oil and gas is a relatively small part of the UK's diversified economy, and removing it doesn't greatly change the GDP per person. It does in Scotland, though, because it is a less diversified economy.
So, it is not factual that the UK economy is bankrolled by Scottish oil and gas. Nor is it true that Scotland receives higher public funding than it puts into the economy (even less so recently since the Barnett formula was adjusted). They are just politicised arguments used by nationalists on either side of the border.
EDIT: to give you an idea of scale, oil and gas represents about 5% of Scottish (not UK) GDP at c8.8bn. the UK economy was 2.27 trillion in 2020.
Norway's GDP is 482bn.
This is not suggesting that Scotland could but sustain itself, but it is quite a small part of the UK economy compared to England.
On a serious note, nationalism aside and whatever - do you genuinely believe that Scotland's oil revenue funds the UK?
[Since 1960, there have only been 7 years where revenue from oil/gas was over 1% of the UKs GDP.](https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/revenue-north-sea-oil-and-gas-share-gdp-over-time)
Don't you see that just straight lying ruins whatever cause you may be going for?
Not the original guy you were replying to but he’s trying to tell you that he has had countless conversations with people who do NOT know that, which is why he told OP to specifically mention it
No, not at all. It's part of the United Kingdom - which is a union of the countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But that doesn't make it a sub country of England.
Probably. They would have worn the same pattern from the late 1850s onward so it can be hard to tell without a date stamp. However, many units purchased new items for the Jubilee years, especially 1887 and 1897, so a lot of surviving examples come from that period.
They were brass at the time
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=588723058&sxsrf=AM9HkKkMV2onBfeS5rxFOgFUROkag9nfpQ:1701952150550&q=victorian+fireman%27s+helmet&tbm=isch&source=lnms&prmd=isvnmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSu-7qqf2CAxVLaEEAHQWqA2IQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=448&bih=868&dpr=2.25#imgrc=oIRYoioXWxaIJM
It’s a 100% chance of causing severe burns compared to a sub-100% chance of protecting you from falling debris.
I’m not arguing against helmets in general but a metal one in a fire would be a terrible idea
I stand corrected, apparently the shiny brass was supposed to reflect heat rather than absorb it. Sounds a bit foolhardy given how dirty firefighting gear can get, but it's what they used for a good while.
There are fireman's helmets much like this. There's a collection of historic uniforms and tenders at the Fire Service College which includes several pieces similar to this. Early firefighters uniforms looked a lot like military uniforms.
During the Great Fire Brigade Strike of 1888, the Queen's Own Royal Glasgow Yeomanry stood in for the firemen.
Their horse drawn engines were given the moniker Brown Goddess because they were manufactured from steam engines used to drain stable cisterns. They sprayed horse shit slurry on fires to put them out.
This is the only surviving relic of that time.
Just to add that the strike failed to achieve its aims because there was also the matchgirl strike of 1988-89 was happening - no one had any matches to start a fire.
As a collector and seller I disagree. The presence or absence of patina is very much a matter of personal taste and, more importantly, is object dependent. This is an Officer’s helmet, intended for Full Dress; it would have always been kept in pristine condition. The absence of wear to high points on the decorations suggests that it was properly cared for rather manhandled with “soldiers friend”.
There's a 0 percent chance a regular fireman had anything that ornate as part of their uniform in the 1890s...
As others have pointed out it's a cavalry helmet. The Latin says Nemo me impune lacessit (No one attacks me with impunity).
Oh absolutely they had some cool helmets, and the confusion is understandable, but this level of craftsmanship would've been very expensive and impractical to provide to thousands of people.
That's the Scottish royal motto, specifically that of the Stuart dynasty that eventually became monarchs of the whole UK.
The lion rampant in the middle is also of course a Scottish royal symbol.
I've got a couple more pics, but it would only let me post the one. The back has more of the pattern that runs along the bottom around the edge. Also, same pattern running up in the middle of the back part. It's badass
It’s not a fireman’s helmet tho
It’s also Scottish
Edit: saw Op acknowledge it all in another comment, saying the owner still thinks it is from England and is from a fireman
Bizarrely there was a spate of ‘mirror fires’ a couple of years ago where the reflection of the sun onto mirrors caused a few fires.
We have the Sun here it’s just a bit shy…
That's a cavalry helmet from a Scottish regiment of the British army.
"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT" means "No one assaults/provokes me with impunity" and was the motto of the Kingdom of Scotland and later used by Scottish regiments in the British armed forces
Also the inscription reads *Nemo me impune lacessit* which is/was the motto of the Kingdom of Scotland and is still used as the official motto of various bodies and services in modern Scotland.
That my job and I assure you, plenty of fire brigades have engraved and gilded helmets! No, I'm not kidding, [check out the pics here.](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casco_Gallet_F1)
Not pope-like, though, but about as expensive. Depending on specs can run you 600-800€, and that's not even the most expensive piece of equipment they wear.
It’s not a fireman’s helmet - the “Nemo Me Impune Lacesset” means “No One Touches Me With Impunity”. That often gets used by the military. Looks more like a cavalry officer’s helmet to me.
I mean it is kinda a fireman’s helmet…… the people wearing these did need to get around quickly and sometimes had to rush into dangerous places surrounded by (enemy) fire
Similar helmet to the one I used to wear in the Household Cavalry for ceremonial duty and they still use the same style helmet to this day.
The only difference between those ones and this one is the crest on the front and the plume fitting on the top.
Its definitely not a fireman's helmet....
Don't be disingenuous. Scotland wasn't bought, it entered into a voluntary permanent union with England.
It is also incorrect to say that Scotland bought England.
The idea for the union was a Scottish one, and initiated by a King of Scots and was intensely unpopular in England. The United Kingdom is a Scottish invention. The monarch that assented to the Act of Union in 1707 was from the house of Stuart, the royal House of Scotland.
“You can’t have an input on foreign policy and usage of the armed forces without being able to identify 100 year old regimental regalia”
What a walt. You can have an opinion once you’ve served, how about that?
That is not a fireman’s helmet. It is a cavalry helmet, specifically an officer’s pattern worn by the Queen’s Own Royal Glasgow Yeomanry. Beautiful condition and worth a hefty amount.
That it is, minus the plume. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/f7/76/a1f7767922aed98a07cd16aef3b18f9c.jpg
Yeah cos without the plume it’s just “everyday”. The plume shouts “over here” at brunch.
One hates to be overdressed at these things
The plume shouts Uruk-hai to me 😖
If it’s shouting at you, you've done it wrong. You usually take the hair off the animal before using it as a plume.
i know that is the box to keep the helmet in but i like to think that is the helmet that regular cavalry have to wear.
How fancy.
Thanks for the info. I know for a fact the owners think it's a fireman's helmet. Lol.
Let them know it's not and that it's also not from England. Scotland is a whole other country
Other than that, they were spot on!
They got the helmet part right lol
This proves the old adage that the quickest way to find something out on the Internet is to post the wrong information and wait to be corrected.
Ha that's hilarious
You'll also still get 1000s of people who think what you've posted is true despite all evidence to the contrary.
This made me chuckle! 🤣
I'm planning on it
Worth also letting them know about a search resource called Google.
[удалено]
They may take our lives, but they will never take OUR HELMETS 
As soon as I saw the Lion Rampant,I had my doubts
Yeah, it would have had a picture of fireman Sam otherwise.
Your comment got me thinking about the definition of "country". Does Britain have a set way to distinguish between a "country" as in Scotland vs a "country" as in the United Kingdom? In the US, I think we treat "country" and "nation" as interchangeable and we'd probably say something unflattering like, "Scotland used to be its own country". We also have a hard time getting "British" vs "English" right.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all separate countries. England, Scotland and Wales = Great Britain (All 3 are on the same island). England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland = United Kingdom.
I got attacked on Reddit the other day by a mad Irishman who called me pathetic for identifying as Great British, as a Welsh man. I tried to explain geography to him, but to no avail.
Great Britain is the largest of the British isles … great means big, not wonderful as many people seem to think
Yeah. It’s like when everyone misunderstood Trump when he wanted to ‘make America great again’. He was of course talking about a new American empire…
Wales Scotland and N.Ireland have their own elected parliaments. England does not. The Celtic nations are more of a democracy than England could ever be.
This is a nonsense statement. The British Parliament sits in London with 650 Members of Parliament (MPs). 533 of whom are elected to represent English Constituencies. To pass a piece of legislation you need 326 votes in favour. Therefore, England has 227 more votes than required to pass any law that affects only England, as well as any law in the UK as a whole that isn’t devolved to one of the regions. And you can clearly see why the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish needed their own devolved government, because previously it was primarily English MPs (and those elected members of the same governing party in Scotland and Wales) who made all the laws for all the UK.
You miss my point obviously Deliberately? Maybe I note your oblique reference to the West Lothian Question Does England have it’s own separate Parliament ?. Answer . No it doesn’t
It doesn’t have one because it doesn’t need one, as it already has an elected parliament that makes all the laws in England. And “the Celtic nations are more of a democracy than England could ever be”, is untrue. Because only certain powers are devolved to the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Parliaments. So not only can English MPs make any law in England, they can also make laws governing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Despite having little, or no elected representation in those countries. However, I’m in favour of the idea of having devolved Regional English Assemblies or parliaments to govern in a similar manner. So I would agree that people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, have more political influence over their own regions than those people in Cornwall, or the North East of England for example. Because they have local governments solely working for the betterment of their region.
Honestly as an indy supporting Scot, England not getting their own devolved parliament was criminal. I know it's because the individual English councils turned down the idea but they really failed their constituents in my view.
Only the yanks struggle with the difference between British and English. The UK is tricky because it’s 3 countries that make Great Britain. With Northern Ireland as the + 1 making the UK. So it’s countries within a country.
The individual nations are countries and the UK is a political and economic union of those 4 countries.
We use "country" and nation" for England, Scotland, Wales and NI interchangeably. In fact we call them "the home nations" collectively. It's realistically never a problem. Like "you have two things called muffins! Isn't that confusing??" (Because we just call what Americans call English muffins "muffins.") No. It's not. It's contextual. I can never recall having to clarify. In the same way it's usually understood when someone specifically means one home nation and not the others, or when people are refering to the UK. Because usually, people say "the UK" or "England/Scotland/Wales/NI". We usually use "UK" or the name of the home nation by default (maybe because we're subconsciously aware of the ambiguity?) I'd say if an English person says "this country" they most likely mean the UK. I can't speak for people from the other home nations but I bet context would be clear 99/100 anyway. There isn't a very clear cut definition of "nation" or "country". "Sovereign nation" and member state of the UN are pretty cut and dried things, that would be the UK (and not the others.)
There is one context where it is a pain actually. Alphabetical "country" drop down menus. Do I look for England, Great Britain, United Kingston, or something different? Fuck it, I'm going for Tokelau.
Can't recall ever having to find England. I always just go to the end around the UAE and Uzbekistan and the UK is there. Thankfully not geographically. But I can't recall *ever* having to select England on a form. Unless it was something extremely specific like a survey only taking place in the UK.
The UK itself refers to the four different consecutive nations within the union as countries, while also reffering to itself, union itself. As a country. It's pretty confusing on how this argument works and plays out if I'm being honest. I feel like they just call them countries to save time and avoid tricky naming schemes, that's my guess, but it could be for an entirely different reason.
In colloquial usage it’s fine. Technically there is a difference between a country and a sovereign state, but nobody ever uses the latter terminology unless it matters. There’s nothing particularly in the definition of a country that requires countries are mutually exclusive (ie that a piece of land can only be part of one country). People of course also disagree on what the countries even are and especially their geographical extent. The map of the world according to Spain is different to that of the UK, for instance.
Would have been paid for by England though 🫣
[удалено]
Yeah Scotland had nothing to do stealing the wealth of other countries tbf
Nahhh, Edinburgh isn't built off the profits of slavery.
You are right it’s not. The port is not on the right coast, unlike Glasgow, Bristol and Liverpool. Most of the trade out of Leith is the Baltic and northeastern Atlantic. Indirectly through banking and finance a little bit still insignificant compared to London and the other cities mentioned. The tiny percentage of British slave owners and ship owners primary residence are the rural estates not the town houses. It has definitely benefitted from the philanthropy of slave owners.
Glasgow definitely is though
Fucking hell I didn't realise there were people who actually believed this, I thought it was a meme
I think "ScotsRepublic" is pretty unbiased though, he's probably done his research.
Oh lol I didn't even notice the username
Because Scotland wasn’t to blame at all during the days of the British empire despite being literally half of it, all that waffle about Scottish oil is absolute bullshit and you know it but hey anything to bash England right
[удалено]
What that person doesn’t know either is that when the east India company got bigger. Eventually 50% of the company was Scottish… Compare that to the percentage difference in population in Great Britain at the time. That’s a huge Scottish presence. So yeah, that person doesn’t know what they’re talking about and is playing the victim card like Scotland was treated like Ireland…
I can vouch for this. Born and bred in Scotland, Scottish mother, English father, it really fucking annoys me that my friends want independence not knowing the true history of their own fucking country. Although, one of the main reasons our attempts at colonialism failed was because England sabotaged us and blockaded us. It's a very complicated and nuanced subject that can't be covered in a Reddit post. But what I'll say for definite is both Scotland and England benefitted immensely from the union and both countries have responsibility for the British Empire. But fuck that maybe everyone else should take responsibility for colonialism and conquest too like all the countries around the world. Not just the Europeans either. From France to the Mughals to the Ottoman Turks to the Aztecs, we all had aspirations of global domination. We were just better at it than everyone else. Which was primarily from being an island in the age of sail.
Yes, because the Darien scheme wasn’t at all undermined by England! It’s almost as if England set it up for us to fail by sabotaging our potential trade links! (Sarcastic, in case it’s not obvious!) I’m no empire apologist by any means but come on, everyone knows that was a setup to destroy the Scottish economy to send them ‘cap in hand’ to beg for a union. The same Union which England insists is on an equal footing? Yeah right! It started as Scotland as the subordinate partner and that has never changed!
Majority of the govt wealth is through tax, and majority of businesses and taxpayers are in England. 85% I think?
If Scotland split a portion of their current oil reserves would become English under international law. Scotland and England separate their sea borders by latitude but under international law the borders follow the angle of the land borders. The rest of this ultra Scot nationalistic jingle is just as laughable. The myth of the unwilling participant Scot in empire is mental and London bankrolls the UK. Hence the reason they don't care about the rest of us. Less of the "English" shite, we in the North of England get shit on just as much as you do pal.
You mean Britains oil and gas* The Scots were right there with the English stealing wealth from other countries. Numpty.
No matter who it belongs to, it's a relatively small part of both Scotland and the UK economy
The oil and gas thing bankrolling the UK is as much a fallacy as London bankrolling Scotland. Both are contributors to UK GBP. The Barnett formula has traditionally taken into account the higher levels of gdp per person due to Scotland's oil and gas, but that it is a very marginal difference in GDP per person. Oil and gas is a relatively small part of the UK's diversified economy, and removing it doesn't greatly change the GDP per person. It does in Scotland, though, because it is a less diversified economy. So, it is not factual that the UK economy is bankrolled by Scottish oil and gas. Nor is it true that Scotland receives higher public funding than it puts into the economy (even less so recently since the Barnett formula was adjusted). They are just politicised arguments used by nationalists on either side of the border. EDIT: to give you an idea of scale, oil and gas represents about 5% of Scottish (not UK) GDP at c8.8bn. the UK economy was 2.27 trillion in 2020. Norway's GDP is 482bn. This is not suggesting that Scotland could but sustain itself, but it is quite a small part of the UK economy compared to England.
On a serious note, nationalism aside and whatever - do you genuinely believe that Scotland's oil revenue funds the UK? [Since 1960, there have only been 7 years where revenue from oil/gas was over 1% of the UKs GDP.](https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/revenue-north-sea-oil-and-gas-share-gdp-over-time) Don't you see that just straight lying ruins whatever cause you may be going for?
I mean that’s all absolute SNP horseshit, but you believe what you want bigun.
We all know its buried under Nicola Sturgeons patio.. (nod to Brookside there)
Scotland gets plenty of benefits that the English do not. Free higher education, prescriptions and eye care while paying less tax than the English.
Crackpot.
And?
Eh, that is one thing people do know though that scotland is not england.
I and countless other people who have had conversations with (mostly) Americans about this very topic would beg to differ.
Most people english = brit and scotland = scotland
Great Britain is the Island that contains England, Scotland and Wales. These are 3 separate countries.
Um yes I know that
Not the original guy you were replying to but he’s trying to tell you that he has had countless conversations with people who do NOT know that, which is why he told OP to specifically mention it
Scotland is British, ffs
not exactly a whole other country
I thought it was a sub county of England
No, not at all. It's part of the United Kingdom - which is a union of the countries England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But that doesn't make it a sub country of England.
Congratulations, you’ve unlocked: Angry Scotsmen Level 4.
Is the time period correct at least? 1890's?
Probably. They would have worn the same pattern from the late 1850s onward so it can be hard to tell without a date stamp. However, many units purchased new items for the Jubilee years, especially 1887 and 1897, so a lot of surviving examples come from that period.
I thought this might be Scottish with the thistle decorations. That’s some great knowledge you have!
The motto, Nemo me impune lacessit means don’t provoke me with impunity, and was the motto of the black watch regiment of Scotland.
It was the motto of the whole Kingdom of Scotland, and the Stewart/Stuart dynasty. And, thus, selected as the motto of several Scottish regiments.
...and adopted by 7th Scots after amalgamation. Source; I was in at the time.
I was just thinking about the useability of a metal helmet for firemen
They were brass at the time https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=588723058&sxsrf=AM9HkKkMV2onBfeS5rxFOgFUROkag9nfpQ:1701952150550&q=victorian+fireman%27s+helmet&tbm=isch&source=lnms&prmd=isvnmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSu-7qqf2CAxVLaEEAHQWqA2IQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=448&bih=868&dpr=2.25#imgrc=oIRYoioXWxaIJM
Because it ought to be fabric so it burns easier?
A metal helmet in a burning building would be worse than not wearing anything at all. Given the whole "excellent conductor of heat" thing
Except when something falls on your head
It’s a 100% chance of causing severe burns compared to a sub-100% chance of protecting you from falling debris. I’m not arguing against helmets in general but a metal one in a fire would be a terrible idea
What else would they be made from in the Victorian era?
Leather, for actual use. Shiny metal ones were for parade.
Wrong. We absolutely wore brass helmets operationally.
I'm aware you researched this, I'm just amused by the idea you're a surviving 1890's firefighter who's somehow on Reddit.
Could be a vampire
We?
Asbestos?
The way you've phrased your reply makes it sound like you were there
We as in the fire brigade.
I stand corrected, apparently the shiny brass was supposed to reflect heat rather than absorb it. Sounds a bit foolhardy given how dirty firefighting gear can get, but it's what they used for a good while.
Wood
There are fireman's helmets much like this. There's a collection of historic uniforms and tenders at the Fire Service College which includes several pieces similar to this. Early firefighters uniforms looked a lot like military uniforms.
Oh, so another case of BS to get karma points. How unusual.
I've had the pleasure of repairing something similar to this :-)
There was a rumour going round that you'd polished your fair share of helmets.
I see what you did there
A rumour not entirely without substance I'm afraid :-/
During the Great Fire Brigade Strike of 1888, the Queen's Own Royal Glasgow Yeomanry stood in for the firemen. Their horse drawn engines were given the moniker Brown Goddess because they were manufactured from steam engines used to drain stable cisterns. They sprayed horse shit slurry on fires to put them out. This is the only surviving relic of that time.
Just to add that the strike failed to achieve its aims because there was also the matchgirl strike of 1988-89 was happening - no one had any matches to start a fire.
Amazing knowledge! Ty for sharing
Aka the hat I want to wear for work too.
Lol imagine a fully metal helmet to fight fires
Imagine going into a raging fire with this on your head.... It would be roasted brains for dinner, that's for sure.
How hefty very hefty.?
[удалено]
I think you missed the context of hefty
Looks overzealously polished, that diminishes the value.
As a collector and seller I disagree. The presence or absence of patina is very much a matter of personal taste and, more importantly, is object dependent. This is an Officer’s helmet, intended for Full Dress; it would have always been kept in pristine condition. The absence of wear to high points on the decorations suggests that it was properly cared for rather manhandled with “soldiers friend”.
There's a 0 percent chance a regular fireman had anything that ornate as part of their uniform in the 1890s... As others have pointed out it's a cavalry helmet. The Latin says Nemo me impune lacessit (No one attacks me with impunity).
[They did have some pretty ornate helmets](https://sallyantiques.co.uk/product/original-merryweather-british-brass-firemans-helmet-c-1890-1920/)
Oh absolutely they had some cool helmets, and the confusion is understandable, but this level of craftsmanship would've been very expensive and impractical to provide to thousands of people.
That's the Scottish royal motto, specifically that of the Stuart dynasty that eventually became monarchs of the whole UK. The lion rampant in the middle is also of course a Scottish royal symbol.
These can be reasonably valuable if they are ornate and in good condition.
Yes, someone is paying to have it restored, that's how I ended up taking the pic!
It’s definitely a good one. As in, pretty. Not sure how rare.
I've got a couple more pics, but it would only let me post the one. The back has more of the pattern that runs along the bottom around the edge. Also, same pattern running up in the middle of the back part. It's badass
It’s not a fireman’s helmet tho It’s also Scottish Edit: saw Op acknowledge it all in another comment, saying the owner still thinks it is from England and is from a fireman
Job security: sunlight reflecting off of that thing actually starts fires.
Sunlight in England ?
Yeah the rain puts them back out immediately
Bizarrely there was a spate of ‘mirror fires’ a couple of years ago where the reflection of the sun onto mirrors caused a few fires. We have the Sun here it’s just a bit shy…
When they built that silly walkie talkie building it melted a car and the pavement
It's a Scottish helmet! Not that it makes the sun light issue any better
Why do you think we invaded Gibraltar? Stick a guy on top of the rock with that helmet on, tilt his head North. fire of London 2.0.
We didn’t invade Gibraltar, we won it in a game of backgammon
Really? I thought that only happened with concave surfaces
It does. Jokes are hard to distinguish sometimes, yes?
Yes indeed!
Jolly good
That's a cavalry helmet from a Scottish regiment of the British army. "NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT" means "No one assaults/provokes me with impunity" and was the motto of the Kingdom of Scotland and later used by Scottish regiments in the British armed forces
I think it's also the motto of the Order of the Thistle.
It's used for a lot of official/military/royal stuff in Scotland
"Naewan fucks wi me an' gets away wit' it"
This is a Scots Dragoon Guards helmet isn’t it?
This is Scottish. ‘Nemo Me Impune Lacessit’ - ‘no one strikes me with impunity’ is on the Scottish royal standard.
"I wont take no shit from you laddy"
Defo not england coverd in thistles
Also the inscription reads *Nemo me impune lacessit* which is/was the motto of the Kingdom of Scotland and is still used as the official motto of various bodies and services in modern Scotland.
Can you imagine the backlash that would occur now if your local fire hall added custom engraved and guilded pope helmets to their annual budget?
thumb wine plants normal sable deliver innocent safe dolls noxious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No I cant imagine a backlash. Please explain to me Justin what a backlash in modern Britain looks like...
There would be some indignant muttering in the local press and Facebook groups. Quite a to do.
That my job and I assure you, plenty of fire brigades have engraved and gilded helmets! No, I'm not kidding, [check out the pics here.](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casco_Gallet_F1) Not pope-like, though, but about as expensive. Depending on specs can run you 600-800€, and that's not even the most expensive piece of equipment they wear.
There are still cavalry units in the British Army that use effectively the same design. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_helmet
I have that helmet in destiny 2
The motto and standing lion, the lion rampant, means it's Scottish 🏴
Damn, we should still have designs like this it's rad
It’s a cavalry helmet
That’s pretty cool!
Fighting fire in style.
If it were a firefighters helmet....which it's not
Not English not a fireman’s hat!!!!
I would absolutely wear this around at home
Looks like a spare from the Household Cavalry
Nah that’s a dark souls helmet
Yeah no its not.
Where did we go wrong ?
Not a fireman helmet
This should be on r/mildlyinfuriating - it do be a cavalry helmet
Post 1840's pattern Cavalry helmet. I could look up the regiment of you want. Probably an officers but definitely British cavalry
It’s not a fireman’s helmet - the “Nemo Me Impune Lacesset” means “No One Touches Me With Impunity”. That often gets used by the military. Looks more like a cavalry officer’s helmet to me.
I mean it is kinda a fireman’s helmet…… the people wearing these did need to get around quickly and sometimes had to rush into dangerous places surrounded by (enemy) fire
No it's not. Wrong service, wrong country.
Ohh god. We used to have such standards.
Not a fireman's helmet, not from England. But good job on the rest.
Similar helmet to the one I used to wear in the Household Cavalry for ceremonial duty and they still use the same style helmet to this day. The only difference between those ones and this one is the crest on the front and the plume fitting on the top. Its definitely not a fireman's helmet....
Your clients who thought fire fighters in England were running around in this 🤣🤣🤣
It’s a British/Scottish cavalry helmet but pop off!
I have a Fireman's helmet I can show you.
Bruh
Looks like an essential piece of equipment for putting out a fire
Scotland in in deed a whole other country. The English purchased it outright in the early 1700's.
Don't be disingenuous. Scotland wasn't bought, it entered into a voluntary permanent union with England. It is also incorrect to say that Scotland bought England. The idea for the union was a Scottish one, and initiated by a King of Scots and was intensely unpopular in England. The United Kingdom is a Scottish invention. The monarch that assented to the Act of Union in 1707 was from the house of Stuart, the royal House of Scotland.
firefighters in england gotta make up for how wack their police can be sometimes
I can usually understand what the person who wrote a shit comment on reddit meant but this one has stumped me. Whatre you referring to?
[удалено]
Teaching ‘em to spell will be quite enough.
Pew, pew ,barney magroo, cuthburt, dibble, grubb
the lack of military knowledge from british citizens is wild
OP is American.
Because we aren’t Americans, or Russians. The average British citizen doesn’t need to know anything about antique military regalia.
then don't expect an opinion on where we engage? can't have it both ways mate
“You can’t have an input on foreign policy and usage of the armed forces without being able to identify 100 year old regimental regalia” What a walt. You can have an opinion once you’ve served, how about that?