VC Hero Remains Found

[Seadog]

The Sunday Times has this article today:

http://www.thesunday...icle1202394.ece

The article in the newspaper adds the following, sources say that one of Douglas-Hamiltons possessions, possibly his officers whistle had been found with him. The Ministry of Defence said “it had no knowledge of the discovery of his remains”.

Lieutenant-Colonel Angus Douglas-Hamilton

http://en.wikipedia....ouglas-Hamilton

Have our French friends any further information?.

Norman

[paul swann]

The MOD are fast becoming a sick joke when if comes to WW1 fallen.

Paul

[keithmroberts]

If this is true it will be interesting to see how it develops. What surprises me is the total absence of any mention of the source of the article. It is brief, and provides no evidence or reference whatsoever. I hope it turns out to be correct, and that if so the remains are processed properly and without undue delay. I don't see how the MOD can be held to account at this stage as there is no suggestion that they have been notified of any discovery.

Keith

[Seadog]

IF the information is correct and the remains are the VC holder and IF the MOD are involved in the ratification of identity which is the normal practice and IF there a “fast track” route by which the remains can be buried by the CWGC in a named grave then all will be well, otherwise the VC holder will have to take his place in the queue of a possible 70 such sets of remains still awaiting action by the MOD which if past practice is anything to go by will take about four years or more. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this story.

Norman

[CULVERIN]

I feel the headlines here somewhat contradictory.

The Sunday Times piece after the headline then states,

who won a Victoria Cross may have been found

and further more

If battlefield remains are confirmed as his,

I am no military man, but when the time comes to examine this further,

why would a V.C. holder take priority.

Surely they are all of equal stature as individuals, irrespective of rank,

and consequently all remains should be treated in order of discovery.

[Seadog]

Confirmation of ID should be easy, just use DNA profiling provided that a suitable family donor can be found. It would appear that there is some form of evidence that the remains are of the Colonel so if this in itself is not sufficient then DNA will be the deciding factor.

Norman

[keithmroberts]

What I find surprising is that so far as I can tell this story has appeared nowhere else - I tried a few varied internet searches and could find no other reports. I hope that there is a good foundation for the story, and that it doesn't turn out to be a buried spitfire.

Keith

[Martin Bennitt]

I've PM'd Gilles at the Loos Museum to see if he has heard anything.

cheers Martin B

[pylon1357]

I wish I could have read the entire article, it requested that I either log in or subscribe. But from what I was able to gather both from the article and what has been written here.... There seems to be rather strong evidence that these may well be his remains. If this is the case, then I would expect it to be fairly straight forward to confirm this. Having said that, I would expect his remains to be identified on the fast track, only because of confirmation, not an exhaustive search. If the results are negative, then these remains should be set up inline with the others awaiting identification.

[Seadog]

You have not missed anything in the article, my quote in post 1 is from the newspaper and most of the report is about the VC action and not the finding of the remains.

Regards

Norman

[mandy hall]

Hopefully this is not breaking any rules. Sorry, had to cut the photo out to fit the scanner.

Mandy

[Seadog]

Nice one Mandy, I have mailed the CWGC to see if they are in possession of the remains and if so whether the MOD has been informed.

Norman

[keithmroberts]

Thanks for that. it's still remarkably uninformative isn't it. OK the approximate location can be worked out from the historical record, but there is no clue whatsoever as to who has unearthed these remains, by what means or who they have been in contact with apart from the one newspaper. No doubt some hard information will emerge eventually.

Keith

[auchonvillerssomme]

Identified by his whistle, how intriguing.

[Martin Bennitt]

As a journalist, I'm always suspicious of the phrase "sources said."

cheers Martin B

[JimSmithson]

We always believe your sources Martin!

Jim

[Terry_Reeves]

And never believe a newspaper that uses "Brigadier" Sir Hew Strachan for a quote. He is only that rank in the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland, not the British Army. This was a blatant attempt to try and give some authority to a story bereft of facts.

TR

[margaretdufay]

Hi

Have been scouring the French local newspapers, since first reading this article, and have found no mention whatsoever.

mags

[keithmroberts]

I do hope I'm wrong, but as time passes with no further information emerging this does seem more and more likely to be a "buried spitfire" tale.

Keith

[Seadog]

I do hope I'm wrong, but as time passes with no further information emerging this does seem more and more likely to be a "buried spitfire" tale.

Keith

Indeed it could be Keith but not finding any reports in the media is quite normal as evidenced by the fact that since 2008 there have been 77 sets of individual remains identified as being British found on various battlefields and with a few notable exceptions I cannot recall the vast majority of these receiving any publicity whatsoever. In fact even the finding of the 15 soldiers in Beaucamps-Ligny was only reported in the French press so the fact there are no press reports in these cases is not a reason to doubt the validity of the possible find that is until we have hard evidence one way or the other.

Norman

[keithmroberts]

I'm not sure that I agree entirely Norman. Yes, limited reporting, but often there have been specific and detailed initial reports before cases have vanished into the long slow processes that we all consider unreasonably extended. Sometimes and maybe predominantly, those reports have been in the Belgian and French local press, but there have been a number - you have indeed commented on several such over the years.

This report contains not a single item of hard info about the alleged find. There is a reference to a whistle and that is it. Our GWF friends in France are silent, internet searches are unproductive.... I do fear for the worst. Maybe Martin will get a reply soon from his contact at the Loos museum.

Keith

[Seadog]

I take it there has been no response (Post 8) as this would seem to be an excellent contact source for any further news. Failing that someone could contact the authors of the article whilst I await a reply from the CWGC who would normally be the custodians of such remains.

Norman

[keithmroberts]

Any follow up in today's paper? I have still seen nothing elsewhere.

Keith

[Seadog]

Nothing in the Times Keith and neither of my requests for info both to the CWGC and Sunday Times have been answered although in my experience in the case of the CWGC this is unfortunately normal when any questions regarding found human remains are concerned. It looks like a figment of the two reporters involved imaginations but even so I would have expected some reaction from either of the above. If the story is untrue then it is a monumental screw-up by all concerned.

Norman

[auchonvillerssomme]

It does seem a strange random subject for an article, it reminds me of our early trips to the Somme where someone would mention something, for example they had found a spoon and 2 months later someone else would tell you a spoon had been found with a number stamped on it, 6 months later you would be told that someone had found a spoon with the number of James Crozier. Yes that was a true example and it still happens.