Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Thiepval Memorial


Wesley Wright

Recommended Posts

Have been in contact with Cwgc, re 2 men they added to database in early July 2008.

Relatives are planning to visit Thiepval Memorial on 1st July 2010 as they expected their names would be added after almost 2 years.

Cwgc state that due to lack of space on MEMORIAL the names have not yet been added.

Has anyone else had a similar problem with recent additions to Memorials.

Wesley Wright

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be many years before a name is added to some memorials. It all depends on the space available and work schedules. I believe new panels are planned at Thiepval and so the delay will be fairly long.

Mind you, I did have one name added to Tyne Cot after only three months but that was an exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the man whose names you are interested in is one of quite a few waiting to be added. I was at the memorial in March and saw that the Addenda Panels facing the Anglo-French Cemetery have room for a few more names, but who is to say that all those waiting could be accommodated in this way?

I imagine that the addition of a name to the regimental panels needs some considerable planning to keep the order of things correct.

Cheers,

Nigel

:poppy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brookwood 1914-18 Memorial doesn't have a vast amount of space left on it either, although some of the existing entries - not that I begrudge them it - do use up rather a lot of space.

NigelS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine that the addition of a name to the regimental panels needs some considerable planning to keep the order of things correct.

And do not forget the removal of names...

Regards,

Marco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a look at the In From the Cold Project site, from the 723 non-coms they have bought in, 106 will have their names added to the Thiepval Memorial.

These come from a vast range of Regiments as well. It could be why it is taking so long, as they are finding quite a few.

Cheers Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brookwood (United Kingdom 1914-1918) Memorial is going to be rebuilt so no new names are being added at present. Also, a large number of its names have now had their burial site located so there will be a complete reshuffle of names there.

Addenda Panels are not always in regimental order so that issue does not affect matters. Thiepval is an example where the panels are in order of discovery rather than regiment. Delays are sometimes built up while sufficient names are gathered to make the work more economical. Also, such works have to be built into works schedules for both practical and financial purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably additions to Addenda panels already in place on a memorial are made in situ, which will inevitably be more difficult and time-consuming than working on a horizontal/inclined slab in the relative comfort of a workshop. If such additions are made using portable machinery, I expect CWGC has only so many such units and engravers to operate them. In the case of 106+ additions to be made at Thiepval, CWGC must have to weigh up the relative merits of adding them in situ, removing the panel and doing them in the workshop, or even, if the Addenda panel in use has comparatively few names on it, making a completely new panel in the workshop, including the names on the existing panel, and then exchanging the panels.

I share the general admiration for the sterling work done by Chris Harley and others in finding 'lost' graves, but suspect that they must be causing CWGC some headaches vis-a-vis the Brookwood (UK 1914-18) Memorial. Once the planned rebuild of the Memorial has been completed, I think it would be a good idea to observe a waiting period between acceptance and inscription of new names, and, when further graves are subsequently found, for the names to be left on the Memorial, with a symbol added alongside to indicate that the man's grave has since been found. Better for a pragmatic exception to be made to the principle of 'only one place of commemoration' than to be forever tinkering with inscriptions 'carved in stone'. And of course the official place of commemoration could still be changed to the location of the found grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>><< ... and, when further graves are subsequently found, for the names to be left on the Memorial, with a symbol added alongside to indicate that the man's grave has since been found. Better for a pragmatic exception to be made to the principle of 'only one place of commemoration' than to be forever tinkering with inscriptions 'carved in stone'. And of course the official place of commemoration could still be changed to the location of the found grave.

Mike,

I agree.

I have asked, without success, on another thread, where this rule about "only one place of commemoration" is documented? Is it "cast in stone" (i.e. in the Charter), or is it a matter of custom and practice?

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

The Charter requires each name to be commemorated but it is left to CWGC to decide how this is done. It has always been the case that there is only one official place of commemoration. It is illogical for there to be two such places. Hence the Debt of Honour is amended as soon as a change is confirmed. This stonework changes in due course - often after many years or even decades depending on circumstances.

A good example of this is the Fromelles men where their place of commemoration has already been changed to the grave site but the names will obviously remain on the memorials until major renovation means the replacement of panels - probably many years hence.

There are two exceptions to this rule. There are two pairs of cemeteries in France which have duplicated commemorations. Here it is known that a group of men were buried some in each cemetery but it is not known which are in which cemetery. So all their names are recorded in both.

There is one other example of a man having two legitimate headstones in separate cemeteries in the UK - because his body was found in two parts at different times and each buried in different cemeteries. It was decided to leave the situation as it was when discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry

Thanks for your reply and the interesting examples.

>><<The Charter requires each name to be commemorated but it is left to CWGC to decide how this is done. It has always been the case that there is only one official place of commemoration. It is illogical for there to be two such places.>><<

So it would appear that it is custom and practice to remove names from the memorials when found, so Mike's suggestion of merely putting a symbol against a name to indicate that that person's remains have subsequently been found and identified is possible. The official place of commemoration would then move to the grave.

The memorials to the missing are now (in addition to other roles) historical artefacts commemorating that in the period after the war many many families had nowhere to mourn. What is illogical is to consider what would happen if the remains of all those commemorated on a memorial where to be found. Would you leave a blank memorial, or would you destroy it? I would prefer to see the names of those who were missing and to celebrate the fact that all their remains are now found, whilst still remembering, that in the 1920s and 1930s they were places where incomprehensible numbers were commemorated, mourned and remembered. To do that you need to see the ranks of names.

On a personal note (and declaring an interest), I know that I can go (and have gone) to the place where this photograph of my father was taken (by his mother who was widowed shortly before my father's birth)

post-22880-1270030139.jpg

If my Grandfather's remains were ever found and identified (very unlikely), whilst he and the family would gain a marked grave, we would under present practice (at additional expense to the CWGC) lose that quiet place in the right hand rotunda of the Tyne Cot wall.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's also some duplicaiton of names (possibly WWII rather than WWI) between memorials in Kenya and Tanzania?? and India and Pakistan (complicated by Pakistan's withdrawal from CWGC arrangements)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

'Custom and practice' is not quite the right term. CWGC is given the right under the Charter to make such decisions as it sees fit over a wide range of matters. Under this permission, they long ago drew up a set of guiding pronciples which govern there activities in all sorts of areas. These guiding principles govern all their activities.

Obviously they could change any of their guiding principles but it would be a very unlikely occurance and would certainly require the agreement of all member nations. I doubt very much if duplicated commemorations would ever become the norm if for no other reason than it would double the cost to the member nations as the countries pay according to the number of commemorations they have.

Your theoretical query about a redundant memorial is not quite so theoretical as there is at least one example in existence. The Brookwood (Russia) Memorial still stands though all its names have now been transferred back to their grave sites in Russia (plus a few to other memorials). It is now redundant and awaits demolition or re-use. As CWGC recycles everthing it can, it may even become the new memorial for those graves in the UK which cannot be marked due to the refusal of the NoK ('Relatives Refused' graves - about 60 of them). On the other hand its stonework may simply be re-used elsewhere.

Also, the Basra Memorial has been officially abandoned as being 'not fitting' any more and the names are now commemorated in a Roll of Honour book at Maidenhead (though they are still recorded as being on the memorial). CWGC is awaiting the outcome of events before deciding where to build a new Basra Memorial.

So the situation does arise occasionally.

No names were added to the Brookwood (United Kingdom 1914-18) Memorial for a long while prior to our execrscise of 'grave finding'. CWGC was waiting till about 300 new names were in the list to make it more economic to start expansion work. They work in a much longer time scale than most of us feel confortable with. It is our natural impatience that gets in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David U is correct in that there are two sets of commemorations at Delhi/Karachi and Bombay/Chittagong though these duplications are in books rather than on stonework.

The African memorials at Nairobi, Mombasa and Dar-es-Salaam bear no names so there is no duplication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a look at the In From the Cold Project site, from the 723 non-coms they have bought in, 106 will have their names added to the Thiepval Memorial.

Cheers Andy.

There are also I believe a number in the pipe-line which is a good reason for waiting.

One of the men I found on the IFCP was 'one of my own' , a 9th bn Sherwood Foresters man. A kind forumite visited Thiepval for me and put his name in the visitors book with an explanation. I and his family may not see his name for a while but feel the actions are the next best thing. Saying that I can understand the frustrations of people who have to wait.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be many years before a name is added to some memorials. It all depends on the space available and work schedules. I believe new panels are planned at Thiepval and so the delay will be fairly long.

Mind you, I did have one name added to Tyne Cot after only three months but that was an exception.

Terry-thanks for reply. Another person whom you helped with, was added to Pozieres Memorial a couple of months ago. He ha been added to CWGC database on 20th June 2008. This was why I presumed the other 2 men would be added to Thiepval Memorial as they had been addeds to database only 3 weeks later.

Thanks again.

Wesley Wright

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brookwood (Russia) Memorial still stands though all its names have now been transferred back to their grave sites in Russia (plus a few to other memorials). It is now redundant and awaits demolition or re-use.

As it already exists, is in the UK, commemorates all the Russia casualties in one place and has been the Russia memorial for many years, it seems perverse to physically destroy this memorial. Could CWGC not simply 'decommission' it and give or sell it to be re-erected somewhere else - perhaps the National Memorial Arboretum ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siege

I did not make myself clear. It will be re-used and not simply turned into hard core.

Either the structure will remain and have new panels attached for some purpose or it will be dismantled properly and the stonework re-used. It is currently decommissioned awaiting a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And do not forget the removal of names...

Regards,

Marco

OK guilty as charged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the Brookwood 14-18 Memorial

With regard to a large number of the new entries there is no way the graves are going to be found as they died overseas or at sea. Yesterdays new entry of Edgar Pickett was not an IFCP case, but I have started a grave search in Newport (Mon) where he lived & died so hopefully there will be no need for his name to be engraved on the memorial when the replacement work commences. Indeed a large number of the grave finds from Brookwood have never yet appeared on the Memorial.

In a UK IFCP case Terry requests me to carry out a grave search so in most cases the name does not have to go onto the Brookwood Memorial.

There has been quite a number of finds from the Tower Hill Memorial; as these are bronze plaques it is going to be years before they are replaced so the names will remain there physically if not offically

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not make myself clear. It will be re-used and not simply turned into hard core.

Thanks, Terry. I did in fact understand you correctly, and meant 'destroy' in the sense of remove all trace of its former existence as the 'Russia' memorial. The point I was making is that the memorial has been at Brookwood for some years and has presumably acquired a significance of its own for descendants of those commemorated on it and others interested in the Russian campaign - few of whom are ever likely to be able to visit the new commemorations in Russia. It may now be redundant for CWGC's purposes, but I think it is arguably a heritage structure in its own right and could perhaps be preserved as an 'exhibit' - if necessary, outside the CWGC domain (as, for example, are a number of specimen CWGC headstones at the IWM).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Siege

Understood. In fact it is in a slightly remote location at Brookwood and is looking rather 'tired' at the moment awaiting its new life.

There are a number of 'specimen' headstones in various places as exhibits like the one at IWM - though none of them are real stones in the sense that they bear real names and once fulfilled the memorial function. CWGC does recycle headstones now although the the details are removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brookwood (United Kingdom 1914-1918) Memorial is going to be rebuilt ...

Terry - do you know whether this will this be in the same location, or elsewhere on the site (possibly in conjunction with the removal of the 'Russia' memorial) ? The existing location - against the boundary and not that prominent - is certainly not ideal, and I've wondered whether to a casual observer, not having knowledge of there being names on the fence side, might conclude that a stroll round the back by someone could be for reasons other than paying respect to those commemorated!

As an aside, work on refurbishing WWI headstones at Brookwood is currently in progress (part of the 28 year £15 million project I would guess Click ) at, apparently, the rate of four a day.

post-5512-1270070865.jpg

NigelS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel

I agree about the position but I believe the original plan was to add 'wings' to the sides of the existing memorial - so the site will be the same.

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
×
×
  • Create New...