a soldier who used to have a grave

[Guest geoff501]

I'm sure someone may know the answer to this. If it is assumed that row A* are memorials recovered from the surrounding area, is it certain that the final memorial inscriptions (if the burials don't exist or are not found) would be on Ypres Menin Gate (like Gardiner and Cobbold) or is there another place where they could end up?

[Guest geoff501]

Charles Putnam : I had thought of him too. Possible. My problem : so one name on the right arm, 2 on the central shield ?

Aurel,

Yes could be a problem. Why a name on one arm only. Could be the last word on the right arm is 'Peace'.

I think perhaps so much detail has been lost between the photo and the postcard printing process, that even the forensics won't get anything. It's not always like it is on the TV programs.

[Aurel Sercu]

Geoff,

Your posting # 441.

"..... would be on Ypres Menin Gate ?"

I suppose so ?

"...... or is there another place where they could end up ?"

I suppose not. Like what place ?

Oh, you mean Tyne Cot Memorial ? Men with unknown graves have their name there too indeed, but only if fallen post 15 Aug 1917. (But there are exceptions.)

Anyway, Gardiner and Cobbold are on the Menin Gate Memorial (fallen before 15 Aug 1917)

But I think I'm not sure I understand your question ...

What are you trying to suggest ?

***

Your posting # 442

Yes, why a name on one arm only... And also : 2 more on a shield.... ?

I have already asked the question in a previous posting (and did not get an answer, for the obvious reason I guess that no one knew the answer) : what about that shield ? When was it used ? Maybe by a limited number of regiments ? And was it something attached to the cross right away, or only later ? Or simply : what do crosses with such shield have in common ?

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Aurel,

If some 'groundwork' had already been started when this old pic had been taken, would that not also have involved tidying up the grave markers, and making them neater/in line, etc? I am sure it would have, if the ground around was already levelled to this extent.

Ian

Ian, it seems more and more there postings that make me think : "Yes, but ...." And then I don't know what to say, or don't know how to put it in words. Symptom of tiredness ? Or a feeling that we are running around in circles ?

Yes, you make a point. Maybe one can say that in Sabine's photo the gravemarkers in Row A* have not been tidied up, not made neater in line, and that they should have if groundwork had already started. Yet, are they really "untidy" ? And Gardiner's marker indeed is not in line, but the difference is less than 1 foot I think.

And in Alan's picture (taken approx. 1 (?) year later), groundwork near A* apparently has been done I think? Level raised and / or vegetation... And with a path between the 3 x 10 (or less)... So ... ?

In my opinion, in Alan's photo Row A* really seems to have been treated like graves. If the lay-out men and 'gardeners' had known that these were only markers, and no graves, then they would not have taken the trouble to give that row that neat appearence I think. But maybe that's the problem : maybe these men did NOT know that these were "gravemarkers, not graves" ? Well, if that is true, then it certainly was not written on that sign near A* 1.

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Mick (Siege Gunner) in posting # 435 asked to pay respect, on our behalf, to the man in "Remembering Today". Pte James Glennon, 7/Leinster Regt, 7/8/17, Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery, Plot I.

Which being nearby I did not hesitate to do.

And to the other 4 men fallen today 89 years ago.

Aurel

[sabine72]

hello,

maybe a silly question but did the cwgc keep records of all the markers found at the battlefieds of missing soldiers?

if they did then in the reccord it would mention were they found them and were they put them before the names of the missing soldiers were put on the menin gate? ( I know I would do that but I'm only a blonde )

I guess maybe we need to look from a diferent angel, but don't ask how, no idea yet.

If only cwgc would answer the questions I asked. It drives me mad

I'll be grey by the end of the year.

sabine

[Aurel Sercu]

Sabine,

"Records of markers found on battlefields of missing soldiers" ? You mean markers that had become unreadable, too damaged ? I would doubt if there were any. Besides, that would have been done by the Army I think, not C(I)WGC.

"Grey by the end of the year" ? Well, nobody will call you "een d*m bl*ndje" then. (Sorry, couldn't resist. And I have a right to make jokes on that, because my wife too is .... )

Aurel

[Guest geoff501]

"...... or is there another place where they could end up ?"

I suppose not. Like what place ?

This answers the question; there is (probably) no other place.

But I think I'm not sure I understand your question ...

What are you trying to suggest ?

I can believe 16th RIR and (C.) V. Jones (more so), but you have to stretch your imagination to get the other name(s) to fit. Maybe the image is just too poor to see the correct fit, But if there is another group of men who fit, what possible memorials will they have. The above answers this.

Yes, why a name on one arm only... And also : 2 more on a shield.... ?

Only thing I can guess is if there is one name on the arm then perhaps the shield was added later (days or weeks) Otherwise the right arm may not be a name and the shield is an original feature.

[Aurel Sercu]

Only thing I can guess is if there is one name on the arm then perhaps the shield was added later (days or weeks) Otherwise the right arm may not be a name and the shield is an original feature.

Geoff,

And if the shield was added later, with extra names, then this gravemarker does not mark a grave.

And this would make it another argument for the "gravemarkers but no graves" theory.

If only we knew what the sign near A*1 (on Alan's photo) said.

Or if we found similar signs on other cemeteries knowing what these said.

I think that would answer our main problem.

Aurel

[Andrew Hesketh]

Some strange thoughts now. Please humour me.

1. Were battlefield memorials to missing men usually erected near the place they were last seen? If 'Yes' read on. If 'No' go to 5.

2. If (as seems likely) the crosses under discussion (Gardiner etc.) are memorials salvaged from the battlefields, rather than actual grave markers, when would they have most likely been gathered at Potijze? Would it have been part of the post war battlefield clearances and done by the same teams that were looking for bodies? If 'Yes', go to 2. If 'No' go to 5.

3. Trench map references were taken for recovered bodies. Were they also taken for memorial markers on the assumption that 'although a body could not be found it must be around here somewhere'? If 'Yes' go to 4. If 'No' go to 5.

4. Does CWGC have these details? If 'yes', your mission is accomplished. If 'No' go to 5.

5. Hesketh, you are an idiot. Shut up.

Thank you for listening.

(P.S. I've been meaning to ask this for ages now - exactly how do you pronounce Potijze?)

[Alan_J]

Andrew,

Not sure anyone can answer definitively but my thoughts:-

1. Were battlefield memorials to missing men usually erected near the place they were last seen? If 'Yes' read on. If 'No' go to 5.

Probably when they could be, but often the positions might have been so near the front line (or beyond it) it would be impossible.

2. If (as seems likely) the crosses under discussion (Gardiner etc.) are memorials salvaged from the battlefields, rather than actual grave markers, when would they have most likely been gathered at Potijze? Would it have been part of the post war battlefield clearances and done by the same teams that were looking for bodies? If 'Yes', go to 2. If 'No' go to 5.

I would not argue Torrome's and Cobbold's markers were memorials - I think their wording suggests they were grave markers, but that the graves they marked were lost either over time or as the result of shell-fire - but the crosses were recovered. If Plot 2 was made after the Armistice (as per CWGC website), then recovery of memorials/crosses would probably have been post-Armistice, yes.

3. Trench map references were taken for recovered bodies. Were they also taken for memorial markers on the assumption that 'although a body could not be found it must be around here somewhere'? If 'Yes' go to 4. If 'No' go to 5.

I would guess not. The Army was very good at paperwork, the paperwork asked for the place of burial (and often in service records it states "not known"), rather than anything else.

4. Does CWGC have these details? If 'yes', your mission is accomplished. If 'No' go to 5.

One for Terry (he has been very silent on this thread!)

5. Hesketh, you are an idiot. Shut up.

No you are not - we all have our theories, the big problem is lack of hard facts, so most of what we all say is speculation!

(P.S. I've been meaning to ask this for ages now - exactly how do you pronounce Potijze?)

I think I'll let one of the Belgian Pals answer that! I've seen it spelt several different ways too - in fact one of the four "Potijze" cemeteries has a different spelling on the gate to the other three!

Alan

[SiegeGunner]

Mick (Siege Gunner) in posting # 435 asked to pay respect, on our behalf, to the man in "Remembering Today". Pte James Glennon, 7/Leinster Regt, 7/8/17, Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery, Plot I.

Which being nearby I did not hesitate to do.

And to the other 4 men fallen today 89 years ago.

Aurel

Aurel, you're a wonderful fellow, and the Forum is fortunate to have you as a Pal.

[stephenh]

Would the symbol of a shamrock be visible at the top of the cross?. It could tie in with 16th R. I. Rifles.

Stephen

[ianw]

Interesting point , Stephen.

[ian turner]

Aurel, you're a wonderful fellow, and the Forum is fortunate to have you as a Pal.

Here, here!

Ian

[Aurel Sercu]

Mick,

I was passing the cemetery on my way from Ypres to Tyne Cot Cemetery Zonnebeke. So why would I not gladly do what you asked me to ?

Stephen, and all.

Strange, one can study the lettering for half an hour and see nothing, or only things that you hardly believe yourself, and then, someone (Stephen) posts the double cross photo again, and then suddenly... Maybe it was you mentioning the shamrock. But ... is it possible that left and right arm say :

16(th) ROYAL IRISH [on the left arm, and then on the right arm] RIFLES PIONEERS ?

I know, one would not expect so much space (and a shield) between Irish and Rifles, yet, it's not that unusual I think. And as I have always believed from the very start (using a magnifying glass on the original) that the last word was PIONEERS

Alan pointing out that all letters are uppercase, with the first letter of the word in a larger font (in this case : R and I and R and P), and that there was no need to look for tall letters in what comes after these first letter, helped me too.

Aurel

[Andrew Hesketh]

2. If (as seems likely) the crosses under discussion (Gardiner etc.) are memorials salvaged from the battlefields, rather than actual grave markers, when would they have most likely been gathered at Potijze? Would it have been part of the post war battlefield clearances and done by the same teams that were looking for bodies?

I would not argue Torrome's and Cobbold's markers were memorials - I think their wording suggests they were grave markers, but that the graves they marked were lost either over time or as the result of shell-fire - but the crosses were recovered. If Plot 2 was made after the Armistice (as per CWGC website), then recovery of memorials/crosses would probably have been post-Armistice, yes.

[/color]

Alan - I didn't make myself very clear - I was referring to the ones under discussion as memorials though they may well initially have been grave markers. Thankfully you've seen through this!

Anyway,if they were originally grave markers then, as you say, the body obviously was not recovered (except for Torrome at some point) at the time that the marker was relocated to Potijze. However the body would have been near to where the crosses were located. So I was wondering, if they were removed to Potijze after the armistice by the battlefield clearance teams who were looking for bodies, did they record trench map references in case a body should be recovered at a later date?

I'm not making myself as clear as I could am I? Do you see where I'm trying to go?

(P.S. I too would like to join the Aurel Fan Club. Can we have Magpie Badges?)

[ian turner]

Re James Pekin.

Being an Australian, we can of course view his army service record online.

Here is an extract regarding his commemoration, which might be of interest to us.

Ian

[Andrew Hesketh]

Patrick - at least we can rule him out of the equation then. It feels strange to say something so definite on this thread!

[Aurel Sercu]

. It feels strange to say something so definite on this thread!

Andrew,

Just in case you overlooked my posting # 456 of this morning... But I really am inclined to see my reading the letters on the double cross (with the shield) as :

16(th) ROYAL IRISH RIFLES PIONEERS as definite too.

Well, at least for 99%. Until someone turns up with a better version. But I doubt that.

(An answer to your question with regard to the pronunciation of POTIJZE will come later. And should you be interested in the meaning of the word...)

Aurel

[Andrew Hesketh]

Well, at least for 99%. Until someone turns up with a better version.

Definite!!??

I still don't read 'Pioneers'.

But then I put forward the name of Roberts earlier!

[ian turner]

Patrick - at least we can rule him out of the equation then. It feels strange to say something so definite on this thread!

Andrew,

Were you commenting on my previous post about James Pekin?

If so, I would not necessarily rule him out. This reference would be about where his MEMORIAL cross

was ORIGINALLY located.

Looking at the enlarged double cross in the recent post, the last word on the right-hand bar reads like Perkin

or Pekin to me. Though I cannot equate the writing on the left-hand bar to his service details, excepting a number '6', which was indeed part of Pekin's service number.

Ian

[Aurel Sercu]

I still don't read 'Pioneers'.

Well, I did. But it was on the original, and with a magnifying glass.

And what about the word before it ? That definitely is RIFLES.

And if it is RIFLES, then the following word being PIONEERS makes sense, doesn't it ?

Aurel

[Alan_J]

So I was wondering, if they were removed to Potijze after the armistice by the battlefield clearance teams who were looking for bodies, did they record trench map references in case a body should be recovered at a later date?

I'm not making myself as clear as I could am I?

Andrew,

Yes I'm with you now - unfortunately the answer is.....I don't know! There seems to be very little documentary evidence on the work of these teams, I've looked for and failed to find any War Diaries relating to this, or records of these groups activities at the NA. And these would be Army records, not IWGC; they took over later. I'm sure records of some sort must have been made, but maybe they no longer exist.

The IWGC would have been given paperwork, presumably (as Terry has confrimed previously in this thread) the layout of the graves and information on those buried there. Would they have been given information on how they came to be there (if it was a post-armistice concentration cemetery) ...... I'd be surprised.

Alan

[Guest geoff501]

If so, I would not necessarily rule him out. This reference would be about where his MEMORIAL cross

was ORIGINALLY located.

Looking at the enlarged double cross in the recent post, the last word on the right-hand bar reads like Perkin

or Pekin to me. Though I cannot equate the writing on the left-hand bar to his service details, excepting a number '6', which was indeed part of Pekin's service number.

Looking at the original location of Pekin's memorial cross, we can only rule him in. But why would a marker be moved from one cemetery to another? Would it not stay in the original cemetery until the commemoration issue was resolved?

I agree it looks like Pekin - it is even more convincing when viewed with photoshop as the processing sliders are moved. What we may be seeing is letters merged together, due to the low resolution. I originally thought PIONEER was too many letters to fit, but now with Aurel's latest comments I'm starting to change my mind. Viewing the original with a magnifying glass may be a distinct advantage for him. Does look like Pekin though to me.

The clearest writing still seems to be (C.) V. Jones and this fits with the 16th RIR. Aurel has also offered an explanation for PIONEER, previously Royal Pioneer was rejected but Royal Irish Rifle Pioneers seems plausible.