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

Remembered Today:

War Widow's Pension for Soldiers KIA


londons

Recommended Posts

Retlaw,

I notice that your image is dated 1916, whereas the book I used in this thread is based on the 1918 Royal Warrant.

Do you think that it might be that you are correct in your assertion that there was no coherent policy until the 1918 Royal Warrant and that the examples you use illustrate this?

Cheers,

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retlaw,

I notice that your image is dated 1916, whereas the book I used in this thread is based on the 1918 Royal Warrant.

Do you think that it might be that you are correct in your assertion that there was no coherent policy until the 1918 Royal Warrant and that the examples you use illustrate this?

Cheers,

Nigel

The ones I quoted were from papers found in British Army Service Records, most are dated 1918-1919.

The only consistency is the childrens allowance which is 1/1d per child.

I could look them up as I've save all my finds.

Retlaw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retlaw,

I notice that your image is dated 1916, whereas the book I used in this thread is based on the 1918 Royal Warrant.

Do you think that it might be that you are correct in your assertion that there was no coherent policy until the 1918 Royal Warrant and that the examples you use illustrate this?

Cheers,

Nigel

Nigel.

I've looked up one or two.

ALLOT. less than 20% not likely to last 6 months (no pension granted)

ASHCROFT. 20% 5/6 for 39 weeks from 7 march 1919.

BALDWIN. less than 4% final gratuity, £48-15-0d.

BANNISTER. less than 1% £32-10d for 3 years service.

BILLINGTON. 2% 5/6d for 52 weeks final.

BIRTWELL. G.S.W. face. no grounds for an award .

BLAMIRE. less than 20% gratuity £27-10d (lost a finger right hand)

One I found yesterday.

PEEL. less than 20% 5/6d + bonus of 12d, allowance for wife 8/-, to 30-10-19 then 5/6d to be reviewed in 61 weeks.

Retlaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone estimate how generous these pensions were in 1919? Were the widows consigned to living in abject poverty, were they receiving enough to keep them, more of less, on a par with what their husband would have made had he survived or were the pensions more generous than that?

I know this would vary widely by individual but typically, how would a widow stand if she was receiving the basic pension of 13/9?

And how about a woman with two children, say, with a total pension of 22/11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrim

I have been carrying out some research into pensions over the last 5 months. I do have some way to go, but the following may be of interest given the postings above. As you will see, the pension situation could be complex. Widows could also have their pensions removed , which is an interesting subject in itself.

The following information leaflet was issued by the Ministry of Pensions in 1919:

“A widow who is eligible for a pension under article 11 of the Royal Warrant, and who was married to he husband before the War or before he joined the forces, if later, may be eligible for an Alternative Pension if she can show that the widow’s pension that she was entitled together with allowances in respect of of her children (if any) are less than two-thirds of the Alternative Pension which might have been granted to her if her husband had he survived and been unable to earn.

The Alternative Pension to a totally disabled man is based upon his average weekly earnings before the war which are counted in full if they did not exceed 50/- a week; if they exceeded 50/- , one half of the earnings between 50/- and 100/- a week are counted in addition.

The Widow’s Alternative Pension represents therefore two-thirds of her husband’s “pre-war earnings” up to 50/- a week, plus one-third of any pre-war earnings between 50/- and 100/- a week. For the widow to be eligible the pre-war earnings of the husband must have exceed the rate of pension for total disablement (i.e. 27/6 in the case of a private) plus children’s allowance.

Thus , if her husband earned 45/- a week on the average before the war, the Widow’s Alternative Pension would represent two-thirds of 45/-. ie 30/-; if he earned 55/- a week the Alternative Pension would be calculated as follows:-

Two-thirds of 50/- .... .... 33/4

One-third of 5/-.... .... .... 1/8

____

35 /-

____

The Widow would, in the above cases, receive an Alternative Pension of 30/- or 35/- a week respectively, if this is more than the flat rate widow’s pension and children’s allowances awarded.”

Basic pensions - 1919

Widow of WO (Class I ) - Weekly amount

21s 3d

1 child - 27s 6d

2 children - 32s 11d

3 children - 37s 1d

Widow of WO (Class II)

or NCO (Class I)

18 s 9d

1 child - 25 s 5d

2 children - 30s 5d

3 children - 34s 7d

Widow of NCO (Class III)

16s 3d

1 child - 22s 11d

2 children - 27s 11d

3 children - 32 s 1d

Widow of NCO (Class IV)

15s 0d

1 child - 21s 8d

2 children - 26s 8d

3 children - 30s 8d

Widow of Private (Class V)

13s 9d

1 child - 20 s 5d

2 children - 25s 5d

3children - 29s 7d

NB - additional for each child above three children: 4s 2d

At this time (June 1919) there was temporary 20 % bonus added to the Alternative Pension and the ordinary pension. I still have to seek out the reason for this.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is one I found today to compare with post #18.

Comparing soldiers pensions there doesn't seem to

be a standard for them, 40%, 11/1, & 1/1 for each child.

To be reviewed in 52 weeks

40% 12/6, and 1/1 for each child. To be reviewed in 26 weeks.

Depends where the man lived and which medical board

decided on his allotment, if there is supposed to be a standard

it wasn't adhered to.

Retlaw.

Well thats something different entirely ,so much for a standard

MC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medical Boards could not decide arbitrarily on the rate of pension, only by the prevailing tables they were issued with. Equally, I have seen nothing in the records relating to pensions that refers to geographical location as a determinant for the rate, indeed it would would make absolutely no sense to do so. It is quite true that the degree of disability counted in large part towards the payout, but, as quoted, that degree was reviewed periodically and therefore changed according to circumstance.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medical Boards could not decide arbitrarily on the rate of pension, only by the prevailing tables they were issued with. Equally, I have seen nothing in the records relating to pensions that refers to geographical location as a determinant for the rate, indeed it would would make absolutely no sense to do so. It is quite true that the degree of disability counted in large part towards the payout, but, as quoted, that degree was reviewed periodically and therefore changed according to circumstance.

TR

A question for you, most papers I've seen list a mans previous occupation along with his medical review.

Also mentioned is % of earning capacity, so if a man was a labourer in a foundry, and loses a leg is awarded 20% for loss of earnings, how does that compare to a man who loses his a leg, but was formerly a clerk in an office, his earning capacity is largely unaffected.

I still think a lot had to do with which medical board reviewed your case, and some of them acted as if they were paying out of their own pockets.

I met a lot of these old soldiers when I was growing up and started work, there were a lot of bitter men around in the 1940/50's. One old soldier who lived across the road, never spoke in the 10 years I knew him, he only ever left the house supported by his son in law and daughter (shell shock).

The management of the firm where I served my apprenticeship would find a job for an old soldier, which is more than a lot of the other factory's in the area would do.

Retlaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi TR,

Thank you very much for the additional information. They seem to be the rules that were applied in my Grandfather's case.

The Widow of a Private (Class V) with 3 children - 29s 7d exactly matches one pension estimate on the form below.

It may also point to an answer to my question about the other figures, ie., where did they get 26/8 on the widow line, 23/6 on the children line and the other pension estimate of 50/2?

These appear to have been used in computing an alternate pension based on my Grandfather's civilian earnings. The only thing arguing against this theory is that in your post the alternative computation seems to be made without regard to any children.

In the 45s example, am I correct in reading it to mean that the computed amount of 30s exceeds the basic pension for a widow with three children, so the family would receive 30s per week rather than 29s7d. There doesn't seem to be a provision for another computation to be made on behalf of the children.

In my grandfather's case, using the 26/8 on the widow's line to be the result of such a calculation, my grandfather's civilian wages would have been 40s per week. A pension of 50/2 weekly for someone who earned 40s doesn't seem like something that would fly.

If we assume that the 50/2 was computed based on his civilian wage, there would be no need for the other two figures which, when added together, equal it. There's logic to all this but I don't see it.

Is there anything else in the documentation that might show how these figures were derived?

Thanks again!

Tyrim

post-46023-1275194281.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medical Boards could not decide arbitrarily on the rate of pension, only by the prevailing tables they were issued with. Equally, I have seen nothing in the records relating to pensions that refers to geographical location as a determinant for the rate, indeed it would would make absolutely no sense to do so. It is quite true that the degree of disability counted in large part towards the payout, but, as quoted, that degree was reviewed periodically and therefore changed according to circumstance.

TR

Two more for comparison, both men at 30%.

One mans gets 12/- the other gets 8/3d.

Retlaw.

post-47020-1275253759.jpg

post-47020-1275254351.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retlaw (is that Walter?)

It is complex for sure. I think that the examples you refer to are those men who may have been entitled to the Alternative Pension (AP) which is in line with Tyrim's posts above.You will see , I hope, why the differential occured.

When a disabled soldier (or sailor) had been granted a disablement pension, (including any allowances for children where appropriate) he may have been entitled to an AP if it was more to his advantage.

The AP was not an addition to the basic disablement pension, but a separate pension, calculated on a different basis which could be granted instead of the disablement pension and allowances. The serviceman's disablement pension was granted first on discharge and then an application could be made for a AP, if he qualified.

The AP for a disabled man was based on i) his pre-war earnings, and ii) on his earning capacity at the time his percentage disablement capacity had been fixed.

"Pre-war earnings" meant the average weekly earnings in the 12 months before the 4th August 1914. If a man was working for an employer, this was generally calculated in the same manner as for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. I do not have the figures for that Act as yet.

A self-employed business man's earnings were based on his average profits of his business for the three years prior to the outbreak of war. There were also separate calculations for apprentices and students and articled pupils. All these were incorporated into the 1918 Pay Warrant.

I hope that this helps to shed some light on the differentials.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrim

The calculation you have posted confuses me somewhat as well. It appears to include two different calculations; one for a Private Class V and another for a NCO Class IV. As I said previously, I have still someway to go on this, but if I can find an explanation I will let you know. By the way, my reply to Retlaw's post above may help.

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retlaw (is that Walter?)

It is complex for sure. I think that the examples you refer to are those men who may have been entitled to the Alternative Pension (AP) which is in line with Tyrim's posts above.You will see , I hope, why the differential occured.

When a disabled soldier (or sailor) had been granted a disablement pension, (including any allowances for children where appropriate) he may have been entitled to an AP if it was more to his advantage.

The AP was not an addition to the basic disablement pension, but a separate pension, calculated on a different basis which could be granted instead of the disablement pension and allowances. The serviceman's disablement pension was granted first on discharge and then an application could be made for a AP, if he qualified.

The AP for a disabled man was based on i) his pre-war earnings, and ii) on his earning capacity at the time his percentage disablement capacity had been fixed.

Pre-war earnings meant the average weekly earnings in the 12 months before the 4th August 1914. If a man was working for an employer, this was generally calculated in the same manner as for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. I do not have the figures for that act as yet.

A self-employed business man's earnings were were based on his average profits of his business for the three years prior to the outbreak of war. There were also separate calculations for apprentices and students and articled pupils. All these were incorporated into the 1918 Pay Warrant.

I hope that this helps to shed some light on the differentials.

TR

Hi Terry.

Yes it is Walter.

I've attached three more I found to day, hope they are readable. There may well have been different calculations, but to my mind these men still had to eat, children to feed etc.

Still think some of those medical boards were tight barstewards, in those days it was take it or lose the lot, and touch you forelock on the way out. I grew up on the 1930's and its a wonder there wasn't a revolution the way people were treated.

I you wish I can send them in their original size by email.

Retlaw

post-47020-1275342397.jpg

post-47020-1275342407.jpg

post-47020-1275342416.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter - please stop using terms like "barstewards" - there really is no need for language like that

Thank you

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter - please stop using terms like "barstewards" - there really is no need for language like that

Thank you

Alan

I've been called worse than that hundreds of times.

Found some thing else that may interest you.

Retlaw

post-47020-1275401114.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TR

Thank you very much for your patient help. You've brought a lot of light to a confusing question. It's much appreciated and if I find any more information I'll let you know.

Thanks again!

Tyrim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Retlaw: Thanks for posting this apparently early (?) 1921 English newspaper article. Section "D recruits" were obviously an attempt by the government to both contain, constrain and ultimatley control the large number of ex-soldiers who were underemployed and especially unemployed by "pushing" some of these men into what could readily be turned into a police auxiliary in emergencies such as aid to civil power situations (with continuing labour unrest due to the post-war recession, etc...). The Scotland Yard is a give away in this case I think.

John

Toronto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a wife whose husband was missing continue to receive her separation allowance + a proportion of her husband's pay until he was declared dead? This process seems often to have taken 9 or 10 months. The WO committee declaring missing as dead would normally give date of death. Would the pension be backdated to that date, minus what the widow had already received (assuming the pension was more)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Was the age of a soldier on marriage of any significance? Our relative married just after his 21st birthday and it has been suggested that it ensured his possible widow would receive a pension. I think it more likely that they married without parental consent and when he has completed an apprenticeship in civilain life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I see there is news that the pension records of WW1 solidiers have been saved from destruction and will in time be digitalised and available to us. Apparently this is a full set of records unlike the service records that were destroyed in WW2 so they will be of interest to genealogists and historians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 29/05/2010 at 03:48, Tyrim said:

Can anyone estimate how generous these pensions were in 1919? Were the widows consigned to living in abject poverty, were they receiving enough to keep them, more of less, on a par with what their husband would have made had he survived or were the pensions more generous than that?

I know this would vary widely by individual but typically, how would a widow stand if she was receiving the basic pension of 13/9?

And how about a woman with two children, say, with a total pension of 22/11?

 

Mind it will be interesting to find how many widows of ordinary soldiers and their children ended up in the workhouse

The 1921 census might reveal that (how shameful that would be)

But it looks like that is not very forthcoming:

Accessing the 1921 Census .... when will the 1921 Census be released?

The ruling by the Information Commissioner that resulted in the 1911 Census for England and Wales being opened early does not apply to the 1921 Census because, unlike the 1911 Census, the 1921 Census was conducted under the 1920 Census Act, which is still in force and which contains a statutory prohibition on disclosure.

The stated government position from the ONS is "its intention to release the entirety of the 1921 Census returns in 2022, in accordance with the non-statutory '100 year rule' which was adopted to reflect this undertaking of confidentiality".

Despite numerous protestations and challenges, the Government seems to be firmly sticking to the 100 year rule. One reason could of course be that if a census does go ahead in 2021 then there would have to be strong promises of confidentiality and that would not sit easily alongside the government suddenly releasing the 1921 census early when the promise was made at the time that the information on individuals would never be made public.

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...