The HARRY LUND investigation by 'Team Harry'

[headgardener]

Well, it almost certainly has to be. The way of proving it is to check the CWGC register for the Pembroke Dock cemetery to see what burials were carried out that day, and one day either side just to be certain. The chances of there being 2 RAMC men has to be very slim indeed.

But it leaves the question of how Harry was ID'd. His grave has a headstone, so there must be some reason why someone at some stage believed it to be Harry Lund and not one of the other men lost on the GC.

Actually, that's quite an intriguing question.

Sorry, maybe I missed something along the way, but are there no other DC's relating to Harry? (local certificates, service deaths, marine deaths, etc)

[Verrico2009]

I've tried the service deaths via Genes but come up blank. All I can think is some proof must have been produced when the probate was granted.

As to the ID, perhaps Harry's old injury had left identifiable scarring?

I think there's been mention previously that all the other casualties of the Glenart Castle had a date of death matching that of the sinking and that Harry was the only one buried at Pembroke Military Docks.

[Phil Evans]

Well done Louise for sticking your neck out and getting the DC.

I can only think that the CWGC registration may hold the key. Possibly a dusty old file somewhere.

There are no other burials at the cemetery remotely near that date and it's significant that the DC notes release for burial specifically at that cemetery.

Phil

[headgardener]

Yes, well done!

I think there's been mention previously that all the other casualties of the Glenart Castle had a date of death matching that of the sinking and that Harry was the only one buried at Pembroke Military Docks.

It doesn't explain why this unknown man was subsequently ID'd as Harry Lund. Identifiable features are a strong likelihood (even something like a signet ring would be enough).

The DC was written out at, or very shortly after, the time of death, and therefore long before any process of 'post-mortem' identification was undertaken. I wonder if CWGC might be able to help. Does anyone have any experience of asking them for this sort of info? I'll try dropping them an e-mail tomorrow.

It certainly seems extremely likely that this was the unconscious man recovered from the sea, although we can't be absolutely certain about that unless the other survivors on the American ship were identified (I can't remember whether they were or not...?)

[Verrico2009]

Thanks to you and Ady in the first place, Phil - I wouldn't have known where to look.

I think that answers your point about whether there's any other burials that could be from the Glenart Castle, headardener, and brings us back round to Harry: but I agree, the question is still how he was identified. I am not sure whether we got the names of the other survivors on the Parker (poor Jessie White was accidentally killed by the rescuers of course and I think only the delirious and then unconscious man was mentioned): I believe you accounted for everybody on the Faon.

[Old Owl]

Hi,

Well done Louise, this certainly would seem to be Harry, as I'm pretty sure that he was the only RAMC man buried around that date in the cemetery? The only thing that makes me a little unsure is his rank on the DC, 'Corporal, RAMC'? I understood that his rank was private?

Did he borrow a jacket in the confusion aboard ship--or just grab the nearest in the darkness? and it happened to have Cpl's stripes on? I wonder where his 'dog tags' were?

I think that it must be him, but you have to admit it's not watertight!!--not quite!!

Robert

[headgardener]

......but you have to admit it's not watertight!!

Metaphorically speaking........!

[Old Owl]

Metaphorically speaking........!

Indeed!!

[Andy Wade]

Fantastic!

I've just checked the CWGC cemetery reports for Pembroke Dock Military Cemetery and out of a total of 76 war graves, there's just one other RAMC man buried in there.

In 1941.

So I think we can safely say the man on the DC is Harry.

Well done Louise.

[sutton-in-craven]

The only thing that makes me a little unsure is his rank on the DC, 'Corporal, RAMC'? I understood that his rank was private? Did he borrow a jacket in the confusion aboard ship--or just grab the nearest in the darkness? and it happened to have Cpl's stripes on? I wonder where his 'dog tags' were?

Robert, good point and I too was wondering where his dog tags were. I checked the term 'hypothermia' in Wiki' to see if it could shed any more light on this point – the following is a quote:

" Paradoxical undressing - Twenty to fifty percent of hypothermia deaths are associated with paradoxical undressing. This typically occurs during moderate to severe hypothermia, as the person becomes disoriented, confused, and combative. They may begin discarding their clothing, which, in turn, increases the rate of heat loss. Rescuers who are trained in mountain survival techniques are taught to expect this; however, some may assume incorrectly that urban victims of hypothermia have been subjected to a sexual assault"

So because it was a freezing February night outside, perhaps Harry did grab the nearest jacket in all the confusion which happened to be a Corporals coat (let's remember this 'safe' hospital ship had just been torpedoed so there would have been mass panic all around as people scrambled to the deck to escape fire/smoke etc)……..or did Harry discard his own jacket whilst in the water as described above with the paradoxical undressing and was covered with a corporals RAMC trench coat in an attempt to rewarm him, after he was eventually rescued in an unconscious state.

Wiki' also talks about 'rewarming collapse' which I have heard of before during the WW2 Battle of Britain with airmen on both sides ditching into the English Channel and experiencing the same fate.

"Rewarming collapse - Rewarming collapse (or rewarming shock) is a sudden drop in blood pressure in combination with a low cardiac output which may occur during active treatment of a severely hypothermic person. There is theoretical concern that external rewarming rather than internal rewarming may increase the risk"

This may well explain the cause of death as 'heart failure' on the DC as opposed to hypothermia, if his body had already started to warm up as the result of an external rewarming resuscitation procedure.

Ady found the information that Harry died in Pembroke Hospital as part of the probate search and Andy has established that only one RAMC man was buried at the Pembroke Dock Military Cemetery during WW1, which confirms it must have been Harry - excellent work lads.

So this leaves Headgardener's point about how Harry was finally identified. Perhaps as Louise says, the bicycle accident up Sutton Clough may have left a scar of some sort which would have been documented on his army enlisting papers……..or was it possible that Harry's next of kin mentioned on his attestation papers was eventually contacted by the Dep't of Defense and asked to travel to Bristol to help identify an unknown body, believed to be possibly their relative?

It must have been an agonising death for poor Harry, submerged in that freezing water as hypothermia slowly sapped his life away. According to Wiki':

"Heat is lost more quickly in water than on land…….A water temperature of 10 °C (50 °F) often leads to death in one hour, and water temperatures hovering at freezing can lead to death in as little as 15 minutes"

Very well done Louise on obtaining Harry's DC, another piece of the jig-saw has been put together – just when I thought all further lines of investigation into Harry had been exhausted! Is there still more to come? More light to be shed on the Harry saga – quite unbelievable actually, well done again to all.

[Verrico2009]

Good news that we can say this is Harry's DC. As with many things about Harry, it presents us with yet another puzzle!

I will go back through the papers from Kew to see if the other survivors can be pieced together, but I'm personally satisfied that Harry is the unknown man on the Parker: already delirious and then unconscious, he would appear to have been in the grip of advanced hypothermia. The implication is that no-one else was in such a state and everyone could either account for himself or be accounted for. It's quite astounding anyone survived those waters.

I can quite imagine grabbing whatever was to hand in the scramble onto deck in the pitch darkness so the wrong tunic is certainly a possibility. If the trenchcoats are anything like the Canadian RAF greatcoat I inherited, it'd weigh a ton in the water - raising the possibility that if it was a dry one to warm him up later the owner was on a lifeboat.

I know about paradoxical undressing - it featured on CSI!

[headgardener]

I think we're pretty much there. Virtually every avenue seems to have been exhausted. But then again.......?

I thought I'd post a short note asking whether anyone can think of any stones that might have been left unturned. Any thoughts?

The only things that I can think of are;

When was the Glenart Castle re-commissioned following the incident in 1917? (might give us some clues about Harry's service) I wonder whether Kate Beaufoy's diary gives any indication?

What criteria were used to identify the unknown man? The detail about him being a corporal in the RAMC could be explained in a number of ways, but what ultimately led him to be ID'd as Harry Lund? Scars, signet ring, tattoos? CWGC should be able to tell us; I'll e-mail them tonight and report back.

What do the RHS case books say about the incident? I'll get to the LMA sometime this week......

Are there any further service records available for the GC men (I'm thinking, in particular, of the earlier enlistments - the men with 4 or 5 figure serial numbers )? Are the ones that Andy posted the only surviving records?

[Andy Wade]

Funnily enough I was just speaking to Louise about the other records of RAMC 5 figure service numbers this evening, I'll have to have a look into that. I am currently doing a display for Keighley's Local History Day which is this Saturday, so I'm a bit short of time this week. Bit of a rush to get it all together actually. I'm focussing on one man... You've guessed it, Harry Lund.

The only avenue that I can think of that hasn't been covered is the details of any meeting minutes for the Sutton in Craven War Memorial Committee which I have learned will be part of the archives for Sutton in Craven Parish Council. Apparently they're in storage at Northallerton but I am not likely to be able to go there any time soon to check it out. Anyone live near there? They might hold the key to why they put Att RND on the war memorial because we still don't know why they did this.

I feel this thread has been a bit of a dance, we have been all over the ballroom floor and done everything from the bump to the black bottom to find out so much about this one man. But not the answer to one of the first questions raised in the thread (for me at least).

Thread title: R.A.M.C. (ATT.R.N.D.) What does this mean?

Indeed, what does it mean?

[Myrtle]

Have you contacted the Royal Naval Museum to find out if they know?

Also have you read Barbara's last post?

[headgardener]

"Att. R.N.D"? Literally? It can only mean "Attached Royal Naval Division". There's no other way of interpreting the 'RND' reference. We may be struggling to make sense of it in relation to what we know about Harry, but that may be because it doesn't fit the facts.

Has to be a mistake, imo. It's too much of a coincidence that he died on a ship and the memorial records him as being with the RND.

But the memorial committee records might tell us more. And so might details like the point at which the GC was re-commissioned, plus details of the other GC men (whether they all came to the GC through the same route), together with the approximate date of Harry's enlistment.

Edit; "Att." could possibly be an abbreviation of the naval rank of 'Attendant', but that wouldn't really make sense in this particular situation.

Re-edit; my experience of war memorial records is that they generally involve a lot of discussions about the form that the memorial will take, plus the finished lists of names, but not the actual submissions for inclusion (which would have been sent in by the relatives of the man or woman in question). I will admit that my experience is limited. And we'll never know unless we look.......

[BJanman]

"Att. R.N.D"? Literally? It can only mean "Attached Royal Naval Division". There's no other way of interpreting the 'RND' reference. We may be struggling to make sense of it in relation to what we know about Harry, but that may be because it doesn't fit the facts.

Has to be a mistake, imo. It's too much of a coincidence that he died on a ship and the memorial records him as being with the RND.

Well it’s only speculation but it makes perfect sense to me.

In the Keighley News on 2nd March 1918 Harry is noted as being a ‘Dispensary clerk’, however when I spoke to men who had served in the RAMC they indicated that a ‘dispensary clerk’ is not a recognised trade in the RAMC. It is unlikely then that Harry would have been a dispensary clerk serving in a medical unit of the RAMC.

In 1917, the RAMC took over officership of the Royal Naval Division. I spoke to someone who served in the Navy who said from his research experience he does not think it unreasonable that Harry may have been given this title because of the anomalies that may have occurred between the RAMC serving with the Royal Naval Division, which were Royal Marine units. He has come across many anomalies in his own research but in any event Harry would have been serving in an administrative role.

This coincides with what I stated in post 128 - “I have usually found that any reference to RAMC being attached to a specific division, rather than a medical unit, means they were working in a clerical capacity.”

The Keighley News also reported that Harry wrote a letter home saying he had been TRANSFERRED to serve on the hospital ship ‘Glenart Castle’. I think it makes sense that Harry, being attached to the RND, might have been transferred to serve on a hospital ship, especially as it was probably in an administrative role.

So I think it does fit the facts that Harry could have been serving with the RAMC, attached to the Royal Naval Division, in an administrative role, dealing with paperwork, forms etc. and was then transferred to serve on the Glenart Castle.

But it is only speculation, so there you go.........

[headgardener]

In the Keighley News on 2nd March 1918 Harry is noted as being a 'Dispensary clerk', however when I spoke to men who had served in the RAMC they indicated that a 'dispensary clerk' is not a recognised trade in the RAMC. It is unlikely then that Harry would have been a dispensary clerk serving in a medical unit of the RAMC.

In 1917, the RAMC took over officership of the Royal Naval Division. I spoke to someone who served in the Navy who said from his research experience he does not think it unreasonable that Harry may have been given this title because of the anomalies that may have occurred between the RAMC serving with the Royal Naval Division, which were Royal Marine units. He has come across many anomalies in his own research but in any event Harry would have been serving in an administrative role.

This coincides with what I stated in post 128 - "I have usually found that any reference to RAMC being attached to a specific division, rather than a medical unit, means they were working in a clerical capacity."

The Keighley News also reported that Harry wrote a letter home saying he had been TRANSFERRED to serve on the hospital ship 'Glenart Castle'. I think it makes sense that Harry, being attached to the RND, might have been transferred to serve on a hospital ship, especially as it was probably in an administrative role.

So I think it does fit the facts that Harry could have been serving with the RAMC, attached to the Royal Naval Division, in an administrative role, dealing with paperwork, forms etc. and was then transferred to serve on the Glenart Castle.

The trouble with the RND reference is that the RND wasn't a unit as such; it was an infantry Division serving in France (officially titled '63rd Division'). It was made up of several smaller units drawn from the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and, in the very early days at least, the Royal Naval Reserve. A small number of army battalions also served in the 63rd Division. They were supplemented with some smaller logistical units from the army, such as the RAMC men who served with them 'in the field'. The Royal Naval Division did not exist outside France. The constituent parts did exist outside France (Royal Marines, RN, RNVR, etc), but not the Division itself. Harry could have served on attachment to the RND if he had previous service in France (and that's ultimately the point that you're making in your last post), which is why I think we should still try to find out what we can about the other Glenart Castle men, and the date on which the ship was re-commissioned. No-one on the Glenart Castle was serving with the RND when they were on the ship.

The trouble with war memorials is that they were generally compiled from information submitted by individual families rather than being drawn from 'official sources'. As a result there are many inaccuracies that creep into the details that are recorded on them. I'm researching a war memorial in a village in the north of Scotland, and out of the 21 names on the memorial about 5 have the 'wrong' regiment recorded next to their names (in some cases a regiment that they served for 2 or 3 years with in the UK, but not the same regiment that they served and died with in France). The point of my story being that war memorial inscriptions are notoriously inaccurate, and we have to consider that possibility when we speculate about the RND reference. I can't explain the reference other than it being a mistake. I just think it's too much of a coincidence that he died serving on a ship, and then there's a reference, almost certainly generated by the family, to him serving with a Naval 'unit'.

Nothing should be ruled in or out at this stage, and it would be great if we could get some more opinions about it. I'm sure that if we 'float' enough theories about the RND reference, and try to shoot holes in those theories, we'll find which one is most likely to be watertight. So, let's keep the speculation coming!

[Andy Wade]

"Att. R.N.D"? Literally?

No, not literally in that sense.

The abbreviation forms part of the first question posed in the thread title. I was referring to the fact that despite everything we've discovered about Harry, we still haven't answered the question of why it says Att RND on the war memorial.

And I expect we probably never will answer it. I think we'll end up with a supposition that it was a mistake by the relatives.

Unless... Wait a minute, what's this piece of paper here...?

Edited to add:

The idea that there might have been some confusion in terminology between the changeover from RND to RAMC is intriguing. I agree about posting up a few theories and shooting holes in them. You never know.

Edited 13 October , 2010 by Andy Wade

[Myrtle]

Have you contacted the Royal Naval Museum to find out if they know?

Also have you read Barbara's last post?

I have asked the question regarding the Royal Navy Museum simply to find out if this avenue has been checked. I am not questioning the meaning of RND, I am just interested to know if the research section of this museum would know about any cases similar to that of "Harry".

[Old Owl]

"RAMC att'd RND"

Hi All,

I rather sense that this thread is going round in circles? I personally feel that this is purely a misnomer, anomaly or whatever name you like to throw at it. It has already been mentioned that war memorials are inherently inaccurate, due to the way, and sources from which the information was compiled.

I really don't feel that there is any mileage whatsoever in chasing this any further and that we need to accept that this is what it is 'a mistake'--I agree that it would be nice to find out from whence this arose but the chances and reasons for this are extremely slight.

My own personal thoughts regarding this are that because Harry was serving with the RAMC and then was posted aboard ship--which in itself is not the norm--then the family or someone else assumed that he was attached to a 'Division of the Royal Navy' and that this was then translated into RND possibly because someone had heard of this and it was nice and easy to put on the war memorial rather than a Division of the Royal Navy.

I know that it would be nice to continue the pursuit and give it another good shaking--but I honestly feel that this 'division of the mystery' has run it's course and that we should accept this--the case of the 'body' and the identification theories are another matter and there may still be further work to be done on this?

Regards, Robert

'Go Team Harry'

[Old Owl]

Funnily enough I was just speaking to Louise about the other records of RAMC 5 figure service numbers this evening, I'll have to have a look into that. I am currently doing a display for Keighley's Local History Day which is this Saturday, so I'm a bit short of time this week. Bit of a rush to get it all together actually. I'm focussing on one man... You've guessed it, Harry Lund.

Hi Andy,

Unfortunately I won't be able to make it on Saturday as we will be on our way down to Camberley for the christening of two of our grand children. I would like to have seen the display but t'was not to be!! On the upside, the christening is in the Royal Military Chapel at RMA Sandhurst, so this will have a military flavour of it's own and I understand that if you are christened in the chapel it then affords you the option of being married there--quite something really!!

Hope it all goes well on Saturday.

Best wishes, Robert

[Andy Wade]

"RAMC att'd RND"

Hi All,

I rather sense that this thread is going round in circles? I personally feel that this is purely a misnomer, anomaly or whatever name you like to throw at it. It has already been mentioned that war memorials are inherently inaccurate, due to the way, and sources from which the information was compiled.

I really don't feel that there is any mileage whatsoever in chasing this any further and that we need to accept that this is what it is 'a mistake'--I agree that it would be nice to find out from whence this arose but the chances and reasons for this are extremely slight.

My own personal thoughts regarding this are that because Harry was serving with the RAMC and then was posted aboard ship--which in itself is not the norm--then the family or someone else assumed that he was attached to a 'Division of the Royal Navy' and that this was then translated into RND possibly because someone had heard of this and it was nice and easy to put on the war memorial rather than a Division of the Royal Navy.

I know that it would be nice to continue the pursuit and give it another good shaking--but I honestly feel that this 'division of the mystery' has run it's course and that we should accept this--the case of the 'body' and the identification theories are another matter and there may still be further work to be done on this?

Regards, Robert

'Go Team Harry'

You could be right (I think so too) but it seems that in this research malarkey nothing can be taken for granted as things seem to have the habit of popping out of the woodwork to prove us wrong!

The Att RND part is just another rather frustrating loose end. Maybe one day (no idea when that's likely to be) I'll visit the Northallerton Archives and see for myself if there's anything that can be gleaned from the meeting minutes, but as HG has said, they're unlikely to contain anything more than design details for the memorial and lists of names for inclusion.

[Verrico2009]

The only avenue that I can think of that hasn't been covered is the details of any meeting minutes for the Sutton in Craven War Memorial Committee which I have learned will be part of the archives for Sutton in Craven Parish Council. Apparently they're in storage at Northallerton but I am not likely to be able to go there any time soon to check it out. Anyone live near there? They might hold the key to why they put Att RND on the war memorial because we still don't know why they did this.

Andy,

As discussed, sadly we''ll probably miss each other on Saturday. I was hoping Robert could keep me company in the Volunteers until my dinner date arrived, but apparently not!

I take it this is the North Yorkshire County Record Office? In which case unfortunately I can't get up there on a weekday but I note that they're open 9.30am - 4.15pm on the first Saturday of each month, so I can try to get there at the beginning of November: the car could use a decent run.

I spoke with a very nice lady at CWGC today, who told me their records indicate that the grave was identified as Harry's right from the outset (1920s?). So we're back to the window between his death and the grant of probate in early 1919 when the ID must have taken place.

I also spoke to the GRO where they confirmed they can amend the DC to incorporate Harry's name given the right amount of evidence, so I've set out the case in a letter (enclosing a copy of the probate available on Ancestry) which has gone out in tonight's post.

[Old Owl]

Hi Louise,

Sorry that I won't see you on Saturday and equally that I won't be able to join you at the Volunteers!! --unfortunately I have more a pressing engagement in Camberley, maybe next time? Still, you'll have plenty of time to view the old photos, I keep meaning to have a look myself. I'm sure that there will be another History Day before too long?

Speak to you soon.

Regards, Robert

[BJanman]

Nothing should be ruled in or out at this stage, and it would be great if we could get some more opinions about it.

I couldn’t agree more, but preferably opinions from people with in-depth knowledge in specific areas like the RAMC and the RND.

I have never researched a local memorial so accept what you say about inaccuracies creeping in. The problem for me is I am finding it difficult to reconcile that the family, or whoever else it was who put the wording forward for the memorial, would confuse someone serving on a hospital ship with being attached to an infantry division. It’s the fact they were specific about the division rather than putting he was attached to the navy that I have doubts. That’s not to say that they weren't confused but until I have absolute proof that there is no way Harry could have been attached to the RND it will always be an unanswered question to me, and one I will always seek an answer to, not just accept that it must be an error or a mistake and forget it. In fact I find it strange that any serious researcher would.

I think I’m done with this thread now, its been a great thread but as Robert says it does appear to be going round in circles. I will continue to ask ex-members and look out for references to anyone else serving as a Dispenser Clerk during the Great War whilst doing my own research. I will now also take special care of any information that might come my way about the Glenart Castle. I think Myrtle’s suggestion about contacting the Royal Naval Museum is a good one, no one else appears interested so I will contact them myself - Thank you Myrtle