CWGC NoK details

[Northern Soul]

In my experience of researching names on local memorials I have found that there seems to be quite a few instances where an unmarried soldier will have personal details listed by the CWGC (age, family etc.).............but an unmarried brother doesn't (i.e. in both cases their legal next of kin were their parents). I can find no apparent reason why this should be the case; logically they should either both have NoK details or both have no NoK details, because the information would have been solicited from the same source for both men.

Its difficult to ascribe "historic administrative error" as an explanation because it seems to occur fairly regularly. Any ideas?

[Terry Denham]

The n-o-k details were supplied by the n-o-k.

A Final Verification Form would have been sent out for both brothers (using your example). No n-o-k details for one brother means that either no form was returned (who knows why) or it was returned with no n-o-k details.

Of these two options in the case of brothers, the former is more likely. Perhaps the Form was never received or the nok had moved/died. Only the details supplied by the n-o-k are recorded - in their own words wherever possible.

Even though the information should have been solicited from the same source (assuming both brothers listed their parents as n-o-k), it would have been done so at different times and on separate Forms. Anything could have happened in any intervening period.

[Kevin Stillyards]

Terry,

When did Final Verification Forms start going out to n-o-k? Was it soon after the soldiers death or after the war?

On my village memorial there are two men who never lived in our village. So what criteria was used to determine which men should be remembered on a memorial.

One more thing, if someone from my village died but his next of kin were living in another town / village would that man be more likely to be recorded on the memorial in his n-o-k's home town?

Any thoughts?

Kev

[Terry Denham]

Kev

These two subjects are separate as local war memorials have no connection with CWGC.

The Final Verification Forms were sent out by CWGC (or IWGC as it was then) from 1918 onwards - well into the early 1920s (IWGC was not formed until 1917). The Form was not, therefore, sent out immediately after the soldier's death. The first register of deaths produced by IWGC following return of the Forms was published in 1920.

The same process was used after WW2 but those forms still survive whereas those for WW1 do not. It was on these FVFs that the nok confirmed all personal details, added what info they wanted to appear in the registers and ordered any Personal Inscription for the headstone.

You will find several threads if you search concerning the selection of names for local war memorials.

Basically, there was no set system for selection - hence the many discrepancies. Local committees were usually set up consisting of local 'worthies', religious figures, parish councils etc. They decided how names should be collected and undertook the task. Often names were simply 'invited' and criteria for inclusion differed.

The nok usually entered the name for the memorial where they lived but examples are known of the same name on multiple memorials, missing names, incorrect names and names with no apparent connection to the location. It was not an exact process.

A parent living in a village would usually have their son's name inscribed in that village even if the offspring did not live in that village - especially if they had suffered multiple losses.

However, there are no rigid rules and you should always expect the unusual, the odd and the incorrect! (even possible names of people who did not die!).

[BottsGreys]

Terry D:

Any idea what, if any, credence the CWGC would give to an apparent error if the information pointing to the error was provided by the deceased soldier himself?

Please see the father's name on the CWGC listing below and then see the soldier's attestation paper following, in which the soldier wrote a different name.

Have you seen anything like this before? I'm curious as to your opinion.

Thanks,

Chris

Name: NEILSON, WILLIAM ALEXANDER

Initials: W A

Nationality: Canadian

Rank: Private

Regiment: Canadian Infantry (Alberta Regt.)

Unit Text: 31st Bn.

Age: 30

Date of Death: 29/03/1917

Service No: 696985

Additional information: Son of Alexander T. and Annie A. Neilson, of Fredericton, York Co., New Brunswick.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: IV. J. 20.

Cemetery: ECOIVRES MILITARY CEMETERY, MONT-ST. ELOI

[Terry Denham]

Chris

This data does not necessarily point to an error - only that the two pieces of information are different!

CWGC would not pay any great attention to this type of discrepancy as there is no proof which version is correct bearing in mind that their info was supplied by the next-of-kin themselves - very likely the father!

If it could be proven which was correct in some way (the casualty's birth certificate possibly), they would change it but it is not a high priority item. Remember that the n-o-k info was meant to be reproduced as near as possible 'in their own words'. If they wanted the name to appear thus..... so be it.

Remember that the father could always have been called by a name other than his birth name and his son would probably use the name by which he was best known.

[BottsGreys]

Terry:

Thanks. I guess I could have found a better word than error. I was simply curious that the soldier listed one name as his father while the CWGC record had a completely different one.

However, on another note, and this is, I think, worth pursuing--a possible misspelling of a soldier's first name which gives the name a totally different slant. Please see the CWGC record below:

Name: GEORGESON, IAN HORACE

Initials: I H

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Captain

Regiment: Seaforth Highlanders

Unit Text: 8th Bn.

Age: 24

Date of Death: 09/03/1918

Additional information: Son of D. W. and Anna Georgeson, of Milton House, Wick.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: VII. A. 33.

Cemetery: FAUBOURG D'AMIENS CEMETERY, ARRAS

I don't have it in hand yet, but I recently purchased a very detailed printed "Thank you for your expression of sympathy" card sent out by this officer's family which gives his name as Dan Horace Georgeson, not Ian. SDGW also gives his name as Dan Horace Georgeson, and a newspaper photo obit clipping which accompanies the card gives his iname as D.H. Georgeson. I am hoping it is merely a case of a clerical transcription error since there is only one letter difference between Ian and Dan. Could I impose upon you to possibly check the original 1926 CWGC register to see if it could be a transcription error with the first name?

Thanks so much,

Chris

[Terry Denham]

Chris

The original register has DAN and so it is likely a transcription error.

I have asked for a correction and I'll let you know when it is done.

[BottsGreys]

Terry:

Super--I greatly appreciate your efforts. It is great that you care so much about this sort of thing.

Chris

[Kevin Stillyards]

Terry

Thanks for the post. Your info has cleared up a few things . Its great to have people willing to pass on their knowledge to those new to this kind of reasearch.

[Terry Denham]

Chris

CWGC have now amended the database to read DAN HORACE GEORGESON.

The amendment will show up on the internet site at the next update.

[BottsGreys]

Thanks Terry.

Chris