Devonshire Expertise Needed

[kevinrowlinson]

Steve,

Quote," The only question I have, and perhaps Kevin is best suited to answer this, is whether the RGA would have re-issued him with his OLD number?"

Yes. I have seen many records where men were given their old number back again. Have a look at the records of 39291 Jenkins, Albert H., or 41326 Burredge Ernest John. It happened to fellow forum member Rockdoc's grandfather. I am sure I could find you some more if you want.

Kevin

EDIT; not a stumbling block to me

[Muerrisch]

Steve,

Quote," The only question I have, and perhaps Kevin is best suited to answer this, is whether the RGA would have re-issued him with his OLD number?"

Yes. I have seen many records where men were given their old number back again.

Kevrow:

'back again' after what?

I am content with 'back again' after going on to the Army First Class Reserve Sections A, B, or D. This would be because the number stayed with a soldier whilst on the Reserve.

If a soldier, for example, bought himself out pre-war he was allocated a new [higher] number if he rejoined his regiment.

Numbers were specifically not for re-use.

[kevinrowlinson]

Quote,"'back again' after what?"

After transferring to another regiment.

Quote,"Numbers were specifically not for re-use."

Even to the same man? I can understand that it should not be used for someone completely different, but cannot see why the same man shouldn't use it, and did.

For those people who could have any interest in such a thing, one would only need to take two or three minutes to read the two records I have already posted. I am suggesting a man enlisted into the RGA, was transferred to another Regt. for a time, and was then transferred back again to the RGA where he got his first number again. John Wilson's numbers would go;

1151168 RGA

?????? Devon Regt. Lab. Coy

103660 Labour Corp

115168 RGA

Kevin

[Muerrisch]

Quote,"'back again' after what?"

After transferring to another regiment.

Quote,"Numbers were specifically not for re-use."

Even to the same man? I can understand that it should not be used for someone completely different, but cannot see why the same man shouldn't use it, and did.

For those people who could have any interest in such a thing, one would only need to take two or three minutes to read the two records I have already posted. I am suggesting a man enlisted into the RGA, was transferred to another Regt. for a time, and was then transferred back again to the RGA where he got his first number again. John Wilson's numbers would go;

1151168 RGA

?????? Devon Regt. Lab. Coy

103660 Labour Corp

115168 RGA

Kevin

I am not saying it did not happen, only that it should not have happened.

a few definitions, from memory, file is in my study, I am at laptop by fire.

drafted/ posted = from one unit of a regiment/corps to another unit of that corps

detached/ attached = with the intnetion of being returned

transferred = from one regiment/corps to another regiment/corps intended to be permanent.

I will try to draw the attention of some experts to this matter.