Martin Hornby Posted 28 March , 2004 Share Posted 28 March , 2004 Funeral for British soldier found during the making of BBC Ancestors The British soldier who was uncovered in October 2003 by the BBC2 'Ancestors' Wilfred Owen Programme was a member of the 1st Battalion King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment. He was killed in action on 1st July 1916. It has not been possible to identify him further. The soldier will be buried at Serre Number 2 Cemetery, Somme, France, on Wednesday 21st April 2004 at 2pm (Local time) with a military funeral provided by serving members of the 1st Battalion King's Own Royal Border Regiment. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 28 March , 2004 Share Posted 28 March , 2004 As he was found on the prog, will there be a postscript to it and a record made and possibly shown do you think? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 29 March , 2004 Share Posted 29 March , 2004 There may well be some news coverage, but I don't know of any follow up programme. Personally, I think it unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Soul Posted 29 March , 2004 Share Posted 29 March , 2004 Paul, Just out of interest, how did they know he was 1st K.O? 8th Bn. were at Serre in mid Nov 1916 too. Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 29 March , 2004 Share Posted 29 March , 2004 I also posed the same question Andy - there is an answer from someone in one of the threads about the programme itself. Personally, I think it unwise of CWGC to add a date to a headstone, based on what is circumstantial evidence, really. And what about in 1918; did any King's Own units return to this area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 29 March , 2004 Share Posted 29 March , 2004 Whoever he is, may he rest in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 29 March , 2004 Share Posted 29 March , 2004 Minor point, Paul. It would have been the MoD who decided on the date not CWGC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 Another Tommy laid to rest in the proper manner. Sleep well soldier.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 Will any PALS be there? Good to get photos for those who cant get there. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 I think we ought to have one or more official "Pals" representatives there to take some pics, write up a report and lay a wreath. I am sure someone will volunteer ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 Minor point, Paul. It would have been the MoD who decided on the date not CWGC. Quite correct, Terry. Apologies for any confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 I too think it would be inappropriate to place a date on this man's gravestone. It would seem unnecessarily presumptious and suggests that ascribing a "1st July" date somehow makes this a more important casualty and easier to "sell" to the press and TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 Does any member actually know what evidence MoD considered in order to ascribe a 1st July date? If not, nobody can say that the appearance of the date is either 'inappropriate' or 'appropriate'. In fact, until any such evidence is seen and known, no comment can be made one way or the other. Only assumptions without such knowledge would seem to be inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 Well, we can have opinions on it based on what we know, and what we think we know. Surely opinions are allowed? The problem is Terry none of this evidence is ever published in the public domain, so we have no idea from what sources these decisions are made. While I can understand this in respect of identified soldiers, there would be no harm in publishing research results in an academic journal on unknowns to show how this important part of the CWGCs current work actually operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 30 March , 2004 Share Posted 30 March , 2004 Paul, no problem with opinions. Valid opinions have to be based on knowledge - facts and personal experience. Opinions based on 'what we think we know' (but maybe don't) do not hold much validity in my book. This discussion has developed from assumptions and no evidence - or none that has been given in this thread. My question above was rhetorical as I know full well that MoD will not have made its 'evidence' public. This only encourages people to make assumptions - right or wrong. I agree with you that none of this evidence is published but the MoD suffers a passion for ludicrous secrecy - or possibly a failure to understand that their train of thought in these matters would actually be of interest to others. On the other hand, has anyone actually asked MoD how they came to this conclusion? In my mind the only comment that can be made about the ascribing of a specific date in this case is - 'How do they know that?' The rest is blank until an answer is given. Still we are wandering into areas of little interest to most folk. Let us be thankful that another poor soul is getting a decent burial at last. 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