Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

MIC help please


joseph
 Share

Recommended Posts

Any help with this MIC appreciated.

Same number 11339 Pte Harry Hall EYR was KIA.

Would have entered theatre with the 6th Bn EYR.

Not sure why the emblems.

Regards Charles

post-7039-1237239011.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emblems means he was Mentioned in Despatches "Emb {or Emblems} refers to the issue of Ribbon Bar Size & Full Size Oak Leaf Sprays worn on the Ribbon of the Victory Medal to signify a MiD.

A quick check of LG doesnt show him nor is their an apparent MiC @ the NA for this MiD,possibly a mis~spelling {or error in his number}.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His MID:

London Gazette 21-2-1919

War Office,

21st February, 1919.

The Secretary of State for War has received the following despatch addressed to the Chief of the General Staff, India, by Lieut.-General W. R. Marshall, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., Commanding-in-Chief Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force: —

General Headquarters,

Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force,

11th November, 1918.

SIR, With reference to paragraph 29 of my despatch dated the 1st October, 1918, I have the honour to submit herewith a list of names of those officers, ladies, non-commissioned officers ard men serving, or who have served under my command, whose distinguished and gallant services and devotion to duty I consider deserving of special mention.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

W. B. MARSHALL,

Lieut.-General,

Commander-in-Chief,

Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force

COMMANDS AND STAFF.

Ratcliff, 38058 Pte. (A./Sjt.) G., 5th Bn., Worc. R.

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/311...upplements/2589

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but administered by the medal office responsible for the Worcestershire Regiment.*

(Which may explain why the number for the East Yorks COULD be wrong....)

Steve.

* EDIT: Having said that if a 1914 Star was issued before a man transferred then the old Regiment would have issued it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another note in point.... never discard a medal card purely on rank!

This one can't be Grandad George!! We know he was a Sergeant!! ;)

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve and Gerry,

Still remains a mystery, I'm of the opinion the number is wrong for the EYR and the Worc Regt number too late for Gallipoli (or is it!!). Heres hoping his Docs pop up on Ancestry.

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Charles,

I can add some points about the Worcesters numbering, make of them what you will.

The number 38058 is in an unusual sequence of numbers, out of the mainstream. I do not yet know why but 38058 went out probably in early 1916. The first man to die with a 38*** number, died 25.01.1917. I am in the process of data-basing the 14/15 Stars to the Worcesters. The highest Regimental Number I have so far as being involved in the Gallipoli Campaign is 25401.

All three points I made, indicate this man did not come to the Worcesters till 1916.

Regards Mike Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medal rolls should confirm if he went to Gallipoli with the East Yorks. He probably transferred later; if you're lucky the roll will tell you when.

It was possible for more than one man to have the same number in the same regiment, but be in different battalions! The army were behind the navy in getting unique numbers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

That un 'muddy's' the water somewhat, he must have gone overseas with the 6th Bn East Yorkshire Regiment.

Per mar,

The problem with this number is that it wasn't a duplicate number, only the regular numbering system had numbers this high so theoretically only one man could have it. You are right on the numbering system though I have several numbers were 8 men have the same number.

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number should be confirmed on the 1914/15 Star medal roll, along with his first entry in to theatre. The index cards are only the quick reference part of the system and the other original source, the rolls, tend to contain fewer errors.

Per Terram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Many thanks,

Still the waters are muddy, even more so as I have the Roll of the Draft's that Joined the 6th Bn EYR in Gallipoli on the 06/10/1915 & 10/10/1915 and he is not on them.

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joseph,

I really do like to help but in your case I only "Muddy" the waters. This next bit will only "Muddy" the waters further ! I thought about not posting but such a coincidence deserves airing.

I was asked to check on Pte. C. Ford 11338 Worcestershire Regiment. The enquirer can find no further trace of him other than a 1914 Star. So I put 11338 and Worcestershire Regiment into search box (MIC) Ancestry.

Up comes your man, George Ratcliffe. Is it a sign of a restless spirit or my computer up the blink?

Regards Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

You may be right, George may be a restless spirit and needs sorting. it is a mystery to me.

Would a man with the number 11338 Worcester Regt have entered 2b Balkans 26/10/1915?

Per Mare have we missed something?

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evening Charles,

Yes a Worcestershire Regiment soldier with the number 11338 could have been at Gallipoli. I did think for a short while we had found your man but alas, No.

Pte. C. Ford 11338 turned out to be Robert Ford 11338. Why he got the initial "C" on his 1914 Star is a mystery. He is definitely not your man. Pte. Robert Ford landed in France 12th August 1914. On the 17th October 1914 he was reported as seriously wounded and laying in the Hotel Majestic in Paris. He was discharged 11th June 1915 and subsequently got a Silver War Badge.

Why it is when I put Worcestershire Regiment and 11338 in the search box, up comes George Ratcliffe 11339, I DO NOT KNOW. Restless spirit who wants sorting sprin gs to mind.

Regards Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not willing to speculate about anything that results from Ancestry's search engine!

Ratcliff's first number is written as 11339 in the 3 original documents displayed.

The rolls were produced by the Worcestershire Regiment, so if he had both numbers with them, I would expect both numbers to correct and not record him as a man in a completely different regiment.On the basis that internal paperwork is generally more reliable than that taken over from some one else.

I have seen some regiments where they show the Kitchener's battalion as part of the number such as 11/339. Did the East Yorks ever use that system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only used source documents, and cannot find anything secondary or contemporary about George neither, which would help.

The East Yorkshire Regiment did have 11/339 which was the 11th Bn (pals) Pte Thomas Teece KIA 03/07/1917.

Looks to me like source is wrong, now anything will do that could help sort out George. Looks like the papers, Roh, street shrines and AVL next.

Many Thanks

Regards Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...