SDGW - 'enlisted' definition?

[PGL]

I've noticed some 'strange' enlistments on SDGW for soldiers who are more than likely Reserves being called back to the Colours in August 1914. For instance, a man might be born in Dublin and living in Belfast but his enlistment location for 2 Royal Irish Rifles might be given as Cork.

I don't see the point of a man travelling to Cork to be sent back to the Depot at Vicky Barracks in Belfast. I suspect that, in the case of the Reserves, the man's original (pre-August 1914) enlistment location is given instead of his assembly location for the Reserve.

So, a couple of questions present themselves:

How is "enlisted" defined for SDGW? In the case of the Reserves, is it the man's original enlistment location or is it the assembly point he reported to in August 1914? Can anybody shed any light?

[jim_davies]

While I can't answer your question, I think it is very valid to explore this further.

Unearthed numerous examples where the "residence" field actually refers to the residence of the next of kin and not the soldier...

Jim

[Hillyer]

Do you mean, Jim, cases where you know the man was definitely residing at a different address to the next of kin - even if his address wasn't known to SDGW?

Might not a single man - or even a man and his wife - still be living with his parents at their address so it's the same residence for both?

If a single (or indeed married) man leaves the family home and doesn't return for leave would the situation be that he could be living somewhere else unknown to the authorities, or would post to him directly be necessary? If the residence gives his nok address, could a man in fact be totally off the radar (apart from a census?)

What is the SDGW criteria for "residence" anyway? Is this his address when he enlisted or was it updated and when?

I'm not nit-picking; this is a category that is important in establishing a "local connection" with an unknown man; "born" is pretty clear cut but "residence" - unless you know what is meant by it - is misleading and time-wasting.

[jim_davies]

You ask some good questions, and I'll answer as best as I can.

It is my believe that the residence field in SDGW does not actually relate to the soldier's residence at enlistment, as appears to be the widespread view, and actually refers to the residence of the next of kin.

Obviously for many (perhaps the vast majority of men) their residence, whether town or village would be the same as their next of kin, espeically parents or wives.

I have a certain number of examples, (at one stage having 400 men who I considered to be good examples, before computer issues led to that particular database going AWOL).

For example; Pte Richard Major Robinson, 2493, 4th Lincs. SDGW records his residence as Patrington. His service papers, are of a type (TF-4 years service in the UK) which show his residence at the time of enlistment. This is recorded as 1 Bentley St, Stamford, Lincs. This is also listed as his address in a Dec 1914 "roll of honour" for Stamford, and in newspaper reports of his death in 1915. The only reference to Patrington is (both in his service papers and newspaper accounts) that of his father, his next of kin.

or Sgt William Beale, 30074, 1st S Lancs. Per service papers enlists at Karachi and was residing at Karachi (somewhat difficultly to read but appears to say "British lines" at) at the time of his enlistment. SDGW records his residence to be "Stamford". The town was actually his home town prior to leaving in the late 1890s. His next of kin on the service record, unsurprisingly enough live in Stamford. His obituary refers to him leaving the army several years prior to the war, taking up a "trading position" in India, and joining up in India, not having been in England since approximately a decade before his death.

or George Boyall, 9226, 1st Lincs. SDGW records his residence as Essendine. George's service papers do not actually offer anywhere for a man to record his residence. (Regular enlistment prewar). No where in George's family history is Essendine in any way connected with his family. What is of interest, that when George married in 1917, his wife, (my great-great aunt) was actually from Essendine, and after he was regarded as dead (KIA) corresponded with the military changing her address to Essendine.

Plenty of other examples.

Other that the above. if we review The Times casualty lists from 1917 we find a significant point of interest. In 1917 the lists, now no longer recorded battalion or service number for each man, but now recorded a place name instead. At the start of each list is written "All are privates, except where otherwise shown. The town shown by each soldier's name, is the home of his next of kin, except when followed by the abbreviation "Enlt", when it is his place of enlistment". Thus the military were using the next of kin address, and not the soldiers.

As the military did not have ready access to many soldiers' place of residence (per the lack of a field in many forms of the enlistment/service papers), the combined with that every form of enlistment paper/service record (that I have seen) had a space for the next of kin's address, and that there are the 100s of examples supporting my POV I think its fairly evident what "residence" actually refers to.

While researching the war dead of Stamford, Lincs I found many men reporting as "residing" in Stamford, per SDGW, yet

I could find zero connection with the town (not in censuses, newspapers or on memorials). For a number of these men, I discovered that in their next of kin (in some cases not close family) were residing in the town, although they had no connection. Same goes for men with a "strong" connection to the town with a "residence" elsewhere. Prime example is Alfred Marks, 2486, 4th Lincs. SDGW records "Wolverhampton". We know from his service number and various 1914/1915 newspaper articles that he enlisted with the other Stamford "Luton lads" into D (Stamford) Company at Luton on 28 Aug 1914. His obituary records his pre-war occupation, membership of civic groups and indeed residence in Stamford immediately prior to his enlistment. It also records his sister as his next of kin...living in Wolverhampton. Yet to find Alfred's service papers, but unless he commuted to Stamford from Wolverhampton each day for work, on weekends and holidays for masonic and other civic events, i think it is safe to believe he was residing in Stamford and not at Wolverhampton at the time of his enlistment. Again other examples available.

Jim

[Hillyer]

Jim

And you give some good answers - thanks! Well, bang go many of the assumptions we have been making in our searches to prove a local connection, then. Time for a review and regroup I fear!

Because I hadn't read it before I used the CD I checked what Help said about criteria for different categories, but (ominously) residency isn't mentioned. There is much explanation about the possible inaccuracies/inconsistencies in names and regiments which I suppose is to be expected, and they do say that the data is based on original documents which obviously contained inaccuracies at the time. However, as they are the ones who compiled the search categories they should know what they mean by the term residence. Presumably they must be aware that these addresses (from whichever records they got them) may actually mean nok?

If - as you say - residency wasn't always known to the authorities on enlistment (and there was no monitoring/changing of a man's address whilst in service) it seems more than likely that that's exactly what they were. I wouldn't know if recording varied from service to service, but your examples seem pretty varied...so presumably the system was universal? I suppose as far as the authorities were concerned they needed the nok's details more than an individual soldier's, who was either with them fighting or could be contacted via his family if on leave? They would also need the nok obviously, in the case of a casualty. All of which is understandable for the original records because post-war searchers can see their own patterns and decide what actually means what from experience. If you're re-presenting that info though, then you - SDGW - should responsibly clarify the significance of each category you include - searching is hard enough without misinformation!

Sorry about your lost 400+ men's pc data - having backed up important stuff as a matter of routine, I became over-confident and didn't immediately put my painstakingly researched and comprehensive new database on disk. Murphy's Law - that's the week my pc collapsed and my hard drive is remaining tight-lipped.

[Muerrisch]

I've noticed some 'strange' enlistments on SDGW for soldiers who are more than likely Reserves being called back to the Colours in August 1914. For instance, a man might be born in Dublin and living in Belfast but his enlistment location for 2 Royal Irish Rifles might be given as Cork.

I don't see the point of a man travelling to Cork to be sent back to the Depot at Vicky Barracks in Belfast. I suspect that, in the case of the Reserves, the man's original (pre-August 1914) enlistment location is given instead of his assembly location for the Reserve.

So, a couple of questions present themselves:

How is "enlisted" defined for SDGW? In the case of the Reserves, is it the man's original enlistment location or is it the assembly point he reported to in August 1914? Can anybody shed any light?

'the Reserves' is a bit amorphous .... there was the First Class Army Reserve, comprising time-served regulars who were on half pay for an agreed number of years, and there was

the Special Reserve, men who did 6 months paid initial training and then returned unpaid to Civvy Street awaiting the bugle.

[Greyhound]

It is my believe that the residence field in SDGW does not actually relate to the soldier's residence at enlistment, as appears to be the widespread view, and actually refers to the residence of the next of kin.

I've got one that I can only explain this way.

The young man was an apprentice in a racing stable, unmarried. He enlisted at an army camp in the Berkshire Downs, a mile from the village where his name is on the war memorial. His residence is shown as Finsbury.

The only Finsbury I'm aware of is in London, and I doubt there were any racing stables there. It was not where his parents lived - they were in Leicestershire - but I couldn't find his elder brother in the 1911 census. So my theory is that it was he who was in Finsbury in 1914, and my chap gave him as NOK rather than the parents. (Perhaps he thought that if something happened to him, it would be better for his brother to break the news to his mother. Or maybe he'd fallen out with his parents!)

Either way, I can't see why someone would travel from Finsbury to enlist at a remote army camp in the back of beyond.

[squirrel]

There is a Finsbury in Berkshire - near Lambourne IIRC; a great centre for horse trainers and Ascot and Newbury racecourses are not that far away. Might his brother have been involved in horse racing too, perhaps with a different trainer's yard?

[Greyhound]

There is a Finsbury in Berkshire - near Lambourne

There is ??? I never heard of it, and am only a few miles from Lambourn. (No 'e' on Lambourn, btw). Maybe a tiny hamlet then, must investigate.

[squirrel]

Comes up on a search on the Berkshire County website but no other info and I have been unable to find it on a map - sorry if I have placed a red herring for you.

[jim_davies]

Hillyer,

Glad it is of interest to you. I must however, add that for whatever reason most folks on this forum disagree with my conclusions As ever I am more than happy to be corrected, but the I think it'll take a lot to change my opinion.

I suspect that initially it was accepted that "residence" referred to the nok's, as per the disclaimer in The Times casualty lists, but over time the more obvious and indeed likely explanation of the residence referring to that of the soldier "took" over...

I would encourage you to review the different styles of attestation forms, and different service papers found it soldiers' files from the Great War. (Try ancestry or at some point there was a thread on the forum showing examples). For example an individual form was created for the purpose of listing the address where a man would be while on leave.

Greyhound, Your lad defintely sounds like a "possible". I pulled up Lambourn on the OS website, and am unable to find a Finsbury anywhere close by.

Jim

[PGL]

The enlisted field (not residence, which is a different kettle of fish entirely) refers to the place a Reserve (or Special Reserve) soldier enlisted at originally in some cases I have looked at which I've also cross-referenced. I admit though that I've looked at only a small sample of men - ie those in the Batallion that most interest me. The sample I've taken is too small for a definite statement so - has anybody else noticed the same thing?

[Guest Lucy29]

You ask some good questions, and I'll answer as best as I can.

It is my believe that the residence field in SDGW does not actually relate to the soldier's residence at enlistment, as appears to be the widespread view, and actually refers to the residence of the next of kin.

Obviously for many (perhaps the vast majority of men) their residence, whether town or village would be the same as their next of kin, espeically parents or wives.

I have a certain number of examples, (at one stage having 400 men who I considered to be good examples, before computer issues led to that particular database going AWOL).

For example; Pte Richard Major Robinson, 2493, 4th Lincs. SDGW records his residence as Patrington. His service papers, are of a type (TF-4 years service in the UK) which show his residence at the time of enlistment. This is recorded as 1 Bentley St, Stamford, Lincs. This is also listed as his address in a Dec 1914 "roll of honour" for Stamford, and in newspaper reports of his death in 1915. The only reference to Patrington is (both in his service papers and newspaper accounts) that of his father, his next of kin.

or Sgt William Beale, 30074, 1st S Lancs. Per service papers enlists at Karachi and was residing at Karachi (somewhat difficultly to read but appears to say "British lines" at) at the time of his enlistment. SDGW records his residence to be "Stamford". The town was actually his home town prior to leaving in the late 1890s. His next of kin on the service record, unsurprisingly enough live in Stamford. His obituary refers to him leaving the army several years prior to the war, taking up a "trading position" in India, and joining up in India, not having been in England since approximately a decade before his death.

or George Boyall, 9226, 1st Lincs. SDGW records his residence as Essendine. George's service papers do not actually offer anywhere for a man to record his residence. (Regular enlistment prewar). No where in George's family history is Essendine in any way connected with his family. What is of interest, that when George married in 1917, his wife, (my great-great aunt) was actually from Essendine, and after he was regarded as dead (KIA) corresponded with the military changing her address to Essendine.

Plenty of other examples.

Other that the above. if we review The Times casualty lists from 1917 we find a significant point of interest. In 1917 the lists, now no longer recorded battalion or service number for each man, but now recorded a place name instead. At the start of each list is written "All are privates, except where otherwise shown. The town shown by each soldier's name, is the home of his next of kin, except when followed by the abbreviation "Enlt", when it is his place of enlistment". Thus the military were using the next of kin address, and not the soldiers.

As the military did not have ready access to many soldiers' place of residence (per the lack of a field in many forms of the enlistment/service papers), the combined with that every form of enlistment paper/service record (that I have seen) had a space for the next of kin's address, and that there are the 100s of examples supporting my POV I think its fairly evident what "residence" actually refers to.

While researching the war dead of Stamford, Lincs I found many men reporting as "residing" in Stamford, per SDGW, yet

I could find zero connection with the town (not in censuses, newspapers or on memorials). For a number of these men, I discovered that in their next of kin (in some cases not close family) were residing in the town, although they had no connection. Same goes for men with a "strong" connection to the town with a "residence" elsewhere. Prime example is Alfred Marks, 2486, 4th Lincs. SDGW records "Wolverhampton". We know from his service number and various 1914/1915 newspaper articles that he enlisted with the other Stamford "Luton lads" into D (Stamford) Company at Luton on 28 Aug 1914. His obituary records his pre-war occupation, membership of civic groups and indeed residence in Stamford immediately prior to his enlistment. It also records his sister as his next of kin...living in Wolverhampton. Yet to find Alfred's service papers, but unless he commuted to Stamford from Wolverhampton each day for work, on weekends and holidays for masonic and other civic events, i think it is safe to believe he was residing in Stamford and not at Wolverhampton at the time of his enlistment. Again other examples available.

Jim

In answer to your statement about Pte Richard Major Robinson 2493 he was my great grandfather! He was living in Stamford with his own grandparents when he enlisted and was living with them in 1911 when he was 13 but was buried in Patrington where his own parents lived and his father was the local chemist. I stumbled across this reference as I am trying to find out information on him and would love any information you have but hope it helps your research.