Are they having a laugh?

[MelPack]

This is a copy of the questionnaire forwarded to the relatives of the Fromelles missing.

How many absurdities can you spot?

Mel

[MelPack]

[MelPack]

[MelPack]

[chrisharley9]

Most of the questions seem to be very relevant - so what is the problem

Chris

[squirrel]

I agree with Chris - the more information they have, however obscure and unlikely it may be to find, the more chance they have of eventually making an identification.

[chrisharley9]

The hair locks question - I have seen quite a few lockets in which human hair has been placed

[Dolphin]

How many absurdities can you spot?

Mel

None?

Gareth

[bruce]

How many of us would know how many fillings our great-grandfather had???

Bruce

[John_Hartley]

Most of the questions seem to be very relevant

I suspect I agree with you, Chris.

I imagine some of the possibly obscure questions might help to support information that shows up in forensic examination.

John

[Heid the Ba]

The only odd one I saw was the question about beards. Other than that it all could be relevant.

[ian turner]

I guess if the man had had the childhood diseases mentioned he might not have made front line service?

[horatio2]

I give up but I expect Mel will list the "absurdities" for our edification.

[Jim Clay]

How many of us would know how many fillings our great-grandfather had???

Bruce

As you say, Bruce. All relevant questions for sure, as others have said. But it's virtually certain that practically no one alive will have even met the men whose remains the project is trying to identify, let alone be able to answer first hand any of the observational (as opposed to documentary/genealogical) questions.

Is this the absurdity you observe, Mel?

Jim

[stu]

I guess if the man had had the childhood diseases mentioned he might not have made front line service?

I believe that many of those diseases can actually be identified from traces/marks left on the bones, anything that helps to narrow the search I would think is relevent.

Remember that many recruits lied on enlistment, and some may not have been too keen to disclose anything that would keep them away from the front.

[bruce]

One of the questions asks about a beard. I was under the impression that a beard wasn't allowed, if only to safeguard a good connection for a gas mask.

What is more, if someone leaves home clean-shaven, has a photo taken in Amiens or wherever, still clean-shaven, but between that and his death decides to grow a moustache, who would know?

Getting as much information as possible is understandable, but I'm not sure anyone alive today would be able to answer some of them.

Bruce

[ian turner]

Stu - well understood, the reasons for asking are clear. But the effects of such diseases woud render a man less than A1 fit and perhaps obviosuly so at the recruiting medical?

Anyway, the more you know the better informed you are, so no harm in asking any questions, however much a long shot they may prove to be.

[inishowen]

I don't see any of the questions as 'absurd' per se. In any investigation the tiniest detail can often be a deciding factor so while for the majority of recipients these questions won't be able to shed any light whatsoever, the existence of an old photo showing your relation with a pen in his left hand rather than his right might just be the key to distinguishing his remains from those of another man of similar build, haircolour, rank, etc.

[stu]

Stu - well understood, the reasons for asking are clear. But the effects of such diseases woud render a man less than A1 fit and perhaps obviosuly so at the recruiting medical?

Anyway, the more you know the better informed you are, so no harm in asking any questions, however much a long shot they may prove to be.

I agree that the more info that can be taken from the relatives, regardless how trivial it appears, the better chance of remains being identified.

While many of those diseases may have left recruits less than A1, in the rush to enlist as many men as possible, in many personal accounts you read that the medical was often just a cursory look over before a man was passed.

Many years ago, I had a converstion with the forensic archaeologist Margaret Cox, she told me about some work that she had been carring out on the W.F. and she mentioned that many of the remains that she had studied had shown signs of serious disease and malnutrition from youth.

[chrisharley9]

Re beards - beards were only allowed in the British Bns for the Pioneer Sgt - so possibly relevant there

Say if I was answering these question for my great uncle I reckon I could answer quite a few

Chris

[Heid the Ba]

Re beards - beards were only allowed in the British Bns for the Pioneer Sgt - so possibly relevant there

I thought no-one was allowed a beard, but once again I learn something new here.

[MelPack]

I give up but I expect Mel will list the "absurdities" for our edification.

I suspect that you have given up all too easily. it is entirely a matter for yourself as to whether you consider my comments as "edification" or otherwise.

Let's start with Section 4 Service History. Bear in mind that this is not a generic questionnaire about any missing soldier but the British missing at Fromelles. Whoever settled this particular section clearly has no grasp of the British forces deployed at Fromelles.

A cursory glance at the Official History or even a reputable online source such as here:

http://www.1914-1918.net/61div.htm

would have established that the British forces so deployed were exclusively of the 61st (2nd South Midlands) Division. The said Division was a second line Territorial Force formation so:

a) Why ask? The answer is precisely in the type of Division that was involved which the compiler should have known.

b ) Why ask a question for which the answer is already known re: the so called 'Working List' & CWGC entry

c) The same as a) above

d) I have no idea of what the possible relevance of who a soldier joined up with is in this context but I do take issue with 'if he was a volunteer'. What other would he have been at this stage of the war? The only impact of the Military Service Act at this juncture would have been on only those Terriers that had not taken the Imperial Service Obligation.

e) A matter for proper research re: transfers in from other TF units which the relatives may or may not have undertaken but which the MoD/CWGC damn well should.

f) Same as e) above. The MoD/CWGC have not retrieved one set of service papers for a single missing soldier. Hence, the absurdity of inclusion within the Working List of soldiers from diverse regiments as the DCLI, Munsters, Scottish Rifles etc.

g) The compiler should have known that the forces deployed and those missing were infantrymen. Where gunners and tunnellers come into it is anybody's guess.

It is precisely the lack of background knowledge on the part of the compiler that leads to other ridiculous questions such as those concerning beards (perhaps the RND were involved?) or trench foot which would have been a truly remarkable achievement given that the Division only landed in France in the last week of May.

[IanA]

Men of the Royal Naval Division sometimes sported face fungus.

[MelPack]

Chris

I may be wrong but I think you will find that Pioneer Sergeants were entitled to sport mutton chops rather than a beard.

My point here is that particular question was not asked because the compiler thought there might be an off chance that a Pioneer Sergeant is missing (there isn't); it is the fact that their knowledge of matters military is so slender that they asked the question in the first place.

Mel

[Steven Broomfield]

Is it possible the questions are asked because many of those who hope to find grandad DON'T know the answers? If, say, my next-door-neighbour thought their great uncle was buried at fromelles because they'd read all about it in the papers and knew he was missing in action somewhere, and were approaching fromelles as a possibility, asking these questions might easily eliminate their great uncle as a possibility.

So, I suspect it might be possible these questions are so worded to eliminate what are, effectively, time-wasters.