kidneybean Posted 1 October , 2009 Share Posted 1 October , 2009 Any information regarding this Soldier and number would help. Also no medals recorded but forfeited and note from O/ic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 5 October , 2009 Share Posted 5 October , 2009 There are no references to a medal roll where more information might have been found. These cards are only an index system for the medal rolls, they are for the issuing of medal, the clerks compiling them had no interest in recording details of service. They also didn't need to, that was what the service record was for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjab612 Posted 6 October , 2009 Share Posted 6 October , 2009 I presume if the forfeiture was recorded some medals must have been issued Or maybe it is just a record that his right to the medals was forfeited Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 6 October , 2009 Share Posted 6 October , 2009 Thanks for replies to date. Could underage at enlistment have resulted in this action be taken at end of war? Not in my opinion. Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 9 October , 2009 Share Posted 9 October , 2009 Medals were for service rendered, not for an age limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 9 October , 2009 Share Posted 9 October , 2009 I follow your reasoning, Freeform, but I do believe that, if 392 vi was the reason for discharge, it would not result in forfeiture of medals awarded. I also acknowledge Per Ardua's comment that an MIC did not need to have service details recorded but I must admit that I am puzzled by any lack of information as to the reason for forfeiture or even for discharge. I understand that discharge and forfeiture for fraudulent enlistment would require a court martial : "Forfeiture and Restoration of Medals - 910 Every soldier who shall be found guilty on conviction by a Court Martial of the following offences; Desertion, Fraudulent Enlistment, Any offence under Section 17 or 18 Army Act 1881, and every soldier who may be sentenced by a Court Martial to penal servitude or be discharged with ignominy, shall forfeit all Medals and Decorations of which he may be in possession or to which he may be entitled together with any Annuity or Gratuity thereto appertaining. 911 Every soldier who a shall be liable to trial on confession of Desertion or Fraudulent Enlistment but whose trial shall have been dispensed with shall be discharged . . . . . shall similarly forfeit all Medals granted to him . . . . " However, I'm not convinced that mis-statement of age constituted fraudulent enlistment in the eyes of military authorities of the day. All would seem to depend on what stage of service had been reached when the forfeiture was imposed. That might be found in the noted records of RASC or in the man's Service Record - unfortunately, not yet available (if at all) on Ancestry. Sorry I can't provide more. Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 11 October , 2009 Share Posted 11 October , 2009 I am researching a soldier (name Herbert Wilson) with the ASC who could have been in this position, he wan't discharged but survived the war but medals are not around in his family. In other words you have no idea whether this is the man you are actually researching. There are 38 MICs to Herbert Wilsons in the ASC, let alone all those just to H Wilsons. As far as I can make out the only reason you have decided this is your man is that the medals for the man you are researching can't be found. That does not mean that they were never issued or forfeited. Neither of my grandfather's medals exist, that doesn't mean they were forfeited, just that they were cleared out years ago, when people didn't treat them with much reverence. As you appear to have such little information to go on any of the others could also be your man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 11 October , 2009 Share Posted 11 October , 2009 Btw quoting so much text eats up the band width; for most replies, using 'fast reply' is best. I recommend this thread: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...howtopic=134484 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 11 October , 2009 Share Posted 11 October , 2009 Geez, per, aren't you being a bit rough? Freeform admitted that he or she was "clutching at straws" but was researching a Herbert Wilson in ASC. Factually, the card posted could be his and one purpose of the Forum is to allow Pals to help each other winnow the wheat from the chaff. Point taken, tho', about quoting. As regards a replacement MIC; I think unlikely on a balance of probabilities. Regards, A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 12 October , 2009 Share Posted 12 October , 2009 (edited) Piorun, I am happy to help people winnow the wheat from the chaff and do so regularly. I may have expressed my view forcefully, but as I wrote I do not agree that one of the ways to winnow out a person is using the criteria that as his medals can't be found that must mean that they have been forfeited - especially as the card in this case only has the initial. It is a false assumption and could lead to other possible candidates being rejected. Ancestry has yet to list the complete range of service records yet, so there is a possibility the right Herbert Wilson might be found amongst the surviving records. Edited 12 October , 2009 by per ardua per mare per terram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 13 October , 2009 Share Posted 13 October , 2009 No faux pas, Freeform, just getting used to the Forum. The advice given you is sound - especially the fact that Ancestry hasn't got to the "W's" yet - and you don't need to let go the first straw, just make sure you keep looking for others to examine. Points taken and respected, per ardua. Just hoping to encourage and lead, not drive. We're on the same page Best regards, A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 16 October , 2009 Share Posted 16 October , 2009 Ok knuckles duly rapped! freeform, the frustration of WWI army researching is that loss of service records, don't give up - you may uneatrh another clue that will help you narrow the search. The exasperation I gave vent to, is partly from so many people trying to demand from a record that survives, more information that it was designed to give. It is interesting to see that in the thread below there is no comment that the medals were forfeited. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...=0#entry1285131 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 17 October , 2009 Share Posted 17 October , 2009 If he was in uniform with ribbons it could mean that he served after the cut off point for the release of the records, so they might still be with the MoD. The Ribbon of the 1914 Star was issued before the medal, but I think the other were issued with the medals. If he is pictured with medals I doubt even more that this card is his, this man wasn't even processed for medal roll references. The cards which had to be returned on receipt of the medals were the receipts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 17 October , 2009 Share Posted 17 October , 2009 Have you tried posting some of the photos to get members comments on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now