While kukri's are far from my fields of study, I had occasion to try to learn more on them many years back, and had several great communications for the late Byron Farwell ("The Gurkhas", 1984). Despite some great coaching from John Powell, I never got a foothold in them, but still recognize the fascination and regard for them as a weapon, as well as utmost respect for the Gurkhas.
I can see the consternation over this inscription, and it does seem if this was added in presentation, or commemoration, it would have had more wording and have been professionally done.
However, in the case of ownership, many weapons are inscribed with the owners name in less than professional manner, and tend to be simply the name without hyperbole. With regimental names of units, especially in the British army, often they were known colloquially by terms other than shown in official regimental records.
Naturally there is no way to prove such an inscription with the name of such a distinguished officer was not added spuriously.
However, I would suggest that is may have been added in a personal manner of ownership after he retired and perhaps wore this as a personal weapon.
It would be understandable that he would be extremely proud of his time with this distinguished regiment, and as this was post retirement, he would add his association as 'late' (ex). This is much in the manner that veterans in this country proudly wear regalia signifying their units and pride.
A very nice weapon, with intriguing historical possibilities. More research and forensics would surely reveal more, i.e. how long did he survive after he retired; was he involved in activities where he would have worn a weapon (many Gurkhas became involved in security work and associations).
|