The HARRY LUND investigation by 'Team Harry'

[sutton-in-craven]

You know, I've often wondered, as have others including Mona, why Samuel was always known as Harry. Now that this new image of Harry has emerged showing him around 8 years of age and already being referred to as Harry Lund on the rear of the photo, I have a theory!

For the life of me I cannot envisage young Samuel Lund aged 8 or less coming home one day and saying "Hi mum, I've been thinking about t'birth name you chose for me. I'm not happy with it so would appreciate it if you could call me Harry from now on"…….and his mother saying "Eee bye gum that's a lovely idea poppet, of course me and ya dad don't mind calling ya Harry from now on, glad you mentioned it".

I mean COME ON, this scenario wouldn't even happen these days, let alone in the late 1890s. Therefore it was t'old lass Sarah Ann who was so bitter and enraged toward her estranged husband Samuel Senior up on t'moor that she couldn't stand to live in the same house with another Samuel Lund, or any reference to the name Samuel and TOLD her son he was now called Harry - subject closed and non-negotiable.

Can anyone think of an alternative explanation? It can only ever be speculation of course and just a bit of fun, but I reckon I'm not far off the money!

[dfaulder]

You know, I've often wondered, as have others including Mona, why Samuel was always known as Harry. >><<

Can anyone think of an alternative explanation? It can only ever be speculation of course and just a bit of fun, >><<

If there were originally two Samuels in the house, it could of caused confusion when someone called out "Samuel!". I have met households when a child had the same name as one of the parents, but was always known by a nick-name. (This could cause confusion at School, if the child was registered under his official name - I have even heard of a teacher reporting a child as deaf to his mother - until the mother called him over by his nick-name.)

So how might he have acquired the Harry nick-name? Was there someone else in the family with that name, or was there a famous Harry when Samuel/Harry was young?

David

[Old Owl]

Hi All,

Great photo and I'm sure that Andy has picked the right chap--what are the chances of finding a card with the names noted on the reverse!! and Harry included!! An excellent find!!

I notice that there is a Lillian Petty on the photo who is probably related to Nelson Petty(whose memorial plaque I have)as his family lived at 36?Gordon Street. Nelson Petty was killed in action at Gallipoli on 28/6/15 whilst serving as a Second Lieutenant with the 1st Bn Lancashire Fusiliers. He is on Sutton memorial as N.W.Petty(Nelson Widdup Petty)

but the card index shows him as Nelson Petty and this is a unique name on the CWGC data base. He had served for several years prior to the Great War and had attained the rank of Sgt prior to being commissioned and sent out to Gallipoli as a replacement for the casualties sustained by the 1st Bn on the landings on 25/4/15--" '6' V.C.'s Before Breakfast."

Nelson Petty was killed leading the leading wave of 'C' Company in the attack on Gully Ravine--this action cost the battalion 166 killed and 25 wounded.

The photo of the War Memorial is really wonderful with all the flowers--the fields in the background must be where all the houses now stand to the right of the park as one looks towards Sutton village.

All good stuff!!

Robert

[Old Owl]

You know, I've often wondered, as have others including Mona, why Samuel was always known as Harry. Now that this new image of Harry has emerged showing him around 8 years of age and already being referred to as Harry Lund on the rear of the photo, I have a theory!

For the life of me I cannot envisage young Samuel Lund aged 8 or less coming home one day and saying "Hi mum, I've been thinking about t'birth name you chose for me. I'm not happy with it so would appreciate it if you could call me Harry from now on"…….and his mother saying "Eee bye gum that's a lovely idea poppet, of course me and ya dad don't mind calling ya Harry from now on, glad you mentioned it".

I mean COME ON, this scenario wouldn't even happen these days, let alone in the late 1890s. Therefore it was t'old lass Sarah Ann who was so bitter and enraged toward her estranged husband Samuel Senior up on t'moor that she couldn't stand to live in the same house with another Samuel Lund, or any reference to the name Samuel and TOLD her son he was now called Harry - subject closed and non-negotiable.

Can anyone think of an alternative explanation? It can only ever be speculation of course and just a bit of fun, but I reckon I'm not far off the money!

Hi Andrew,

I think that there may be some truth in what you say, infact I think that I suggested this earlier, however, it could be that Sarah Ann always wanted to call him Harry and that Samuel Snr insisted he be christened Samuel, so when the family broke up Sarah felt herself able at long last to have her own way and told him that from now on he was to be kown as Harry. In so doing she got her own way in the end and also disassociated herself even further from Samuel Snr.?

Having said all that and having seen the photos of Sarah Ann, I think that Samuel Snr would have been a very brave or extremely foolish man to stand up to her!!?

How's the memorial site coming on?

Best wishes, Robert

[ianw]

Thanks to all the team for a most enjoyable thread. Has it been reported for classic status? Certainly deserved.

Good to see this thread deservedly elevated. Thrilled to see another picture of Harry found and the recent wreath laying. Remembrance in action. The "concentrated essence" of this Forum.

[Verrico2009]

Without going into too much detail, it seems the "two Samuels" never did share a house. Perhaps Sarah Ann just didn't want to be reminded of her husband! As for where the "Harry" came from, if Mona doesn't know (and she's a keen family researcher) I'm not sure we're ever going to crack it.

However, we're a long way from this post of yours on Barbara's thread, Andrew (RAMC) just over three long months ago!

[sutton-in-craven]

I notice that there is a Lillian Petty on the photo who is probably related to Nelson Petty(whose memorial plaque I have)as his family lived at 36?Gordon Street.

Hi Robert, the only Lillian Petty I can find living in Sutton on the 1911 census is spelled Lilian Petty aged 21 who lived at 16, North Street, a couple of streets away from Gordon St

Without going into too much detail, it seems the "two Samuels" never did share a house.......However, we're a long way from this post of yours on Barbara's thread, Andrew (RAMC) just over three long months ago!

Crikey, how the hecky thump did you manage to find my post hidden in amongst Barbara's long RAMC thread from the 22nd Aug! Yes it sure has come a long way over the past 3 months

So the 2 Samuel's never did share the same house, hmmm, wonder what was going on there

p.s. Haven't seen headgardener for quite a while now. HELLoooooooo Neil (echo, echo) are you still there, there, there

[Old Owl]

Hi Robert, the only Lillian Petty I can find living in Sutton on the 1911 census is spelled Lilian Petty aged 21 who lived at 16, North Street, a couple of streets away from Gordon St

Hi Andrew,

I wonder if she was related to Sylvester Petty? who was born in Sutton and was killed on 7th October, 1916, but who isn't included on the Sutton memorial--or perhaps there were just a lot of Petty's living in Sutton at that time?

Are you including him on the site?

Speak to you soon,

Robert

[Verrico2009]

Hi Robert, the only Lillian Petty I can find living in Sutton on the 1911 census is spelled Lilian Petty aged 21 who lived at 16, North Street, a couple of streets away from Gordon St

Daughter of Joseph and Hannah, also living at that address in the 1901 census.

Crikey, how the hecky thump did you manage to find my post hidden in amongst Barbara's long RAMC thread from the 22nd Aug! Yes it sure has come a long way over the past 3 months

So the 2 Samuel's never did share the same house, hmmm, wonder what was going on there

Easy, go into the most recent post using VNC and it's sitting at the top of that page - too good to resist!

You'll recall the 1891 census, where Sarah Ann and her two children were living at Berrys Yard with her two brothers while Samuel Snr was tending his sheep.

[Verrico2009]

I wonder if she was related to Sylvester Petty? who was born in Sutton and was killed on 7th October, 1916, but who isn't included on the Sutton memorial--or perhaps there were just a lot of Petty's living in Sutton at that time?

You may know that in 1911 Sylvester was living at 170 Spencer Street, Keighley with his sister Edith Ann, Robert.

[dfaulder]

Without going into too much detail, it seems the "two Samuels" never did share a house.>><<

Apart from the Census records for 1901/1911 which showed father "married", but not with his wife on census night, do we have any other evidence?

If we don't:

Given that the father was a shepherd/sheep farmer and the census was taken towards the end of the lambing season how do we know that Samual senior did not work on a temporary basis in the Spring - helping out a farmer at lambing time, and then return to his family (and some other occupation) for the rest of the year?

David

[Verrico2009]

And the 1891 census. Yes, we know it wasn't a happy marriage. The evidence comes from Mona. If you look back through the thread, you'll see I thought the same: seasonal work, but sadly not.

[sutton-in-craven]

You'll recall the 1891 census, where Sarah Ann and her two children were living at Berrys Yard with her two brothers while Samuel Snr was tending his sheep

Maybe Samuel Senior had a particular fondness for sheep

You may know that in 1911 Sylvester was living at 170 Spencer Street, Keighley with his sister Edith Ann, Robert

Sounds like Slyvester Petty's name would have been put forward to be included on the Keighley memorial Robert, hence the absence of his name on the Sutton memorial despite him having previously lived in Sutton for a good period of time. Maybe his relatives assumed his name could only be put on the one cenataph, although from memory the Keighley cenataph is not donned with brass plates naming the Fallen whereas the Skipton memorial is.

[Andy Wade]

And the 1891 census. Yes, we know it wasn't a happy marriage. The evidence comes from Mona. If you look back through the thread, you'll see I thought the same: seasonal work, but sadly not.

Yes, on the 1901 census Sarah put herself down as head of the family (not that strange really if Samuel was indeed working away) but also as a 'widow' which is a really odd thing to do when your husband is actually still alive:

In the 1901 census Samuel was at 41, Laycock Lane, Laycock, and apparently retired at age 48. In the 1911 census he was living at 23, Laycock Lane and he died at 14, North Street, Haworth, aged about 70. (which I think would be somewhere around 1923).

[Andy Wade]

Maybe Samuel Senior had a particular fondness for sheep

Sounds like Slyvester Petty's name would have been put forward to be included on the Keighley memorial Robert, hence the absence of his name on the Sutton memorial despite him having previously lived in Sutton for a good period of time. Maybe his relatives assumed his name could only be put on the one cenataph, although from memory the Keighley cenataph is not donned with brass plates naming the Fallen whereas the Skipton memorial is.

Correct.

No names on the war memorial in the town hall square, but the Keighley WW1Roll of Honour is a beautiful leather bound copperplate book with all the names in it.

Kept in a glass case, upstairs in the library. And very nice it is too.

Not too sure about Sylvester Petty for Keighley though, I don't have him listed on the Men of Worth Project. But he's on CPGW for Sutton in Craven

[Verrico2009]

Correct.

I hope you're talking about the memorial, Andy! One photo with three or four sheep does not evidence make...

Mmmm - it is. Beautiful. Do you think they'd allow it to be photographed page by page?

Yes, 26 February 1923.

[sutton-in-craven]

As a matter of interest, the war memorial committee also deliberated in the setting up of land for local former soldiers to use for market gardening, which they would eventually own. About an acre each

Just going back to this initiative deliberated and implemented by the Sutton war memorial committee to allocated 1 acre blocks of land to returning soldiers from WW1, the following comment was posted on the Sutton website following my request for more information

"Hi everybody, it was interesting reading about the Acres as I spent a lot of time there as a child, my Father Hubert Ellison was one of the recipient as he lost his arm in WW1 when he was nineteen,his two brothers Tom and Reggie also had an allotment there, we kept rabbits and chickens and grew all our own vegitables and some fruits, there was a lot of picking and weeding to do, some years were really good and we were able to share with others,it was a lot of work and my Mother worked right along side of him, I don't think I appreciated it as a child but now I love gardening.I haven't been over there in a long time, I think people built houses up there now, am I right, I would like to see how it looks after all those years any pictures anybody?"

What a terrific gesture back then to give these returned Servicemen blocks of land in which to grow fruit & veg when times were hard & money was desperately short . Not sure it would happen these days

[Old Owl]

What a terrific gesture back then to give these returned Servicemen blocks of land in which to grow fruit & veg when times were hard & money was desperately short . Not sure it would happen these days

Does anyone know who gave the land for the 'Acres'--obviously one of the local 'bigwigs', who generally were great benefactors to the local community, having of course made their wealth through that community by employing them in the local mills--so I suppose that this would be another way of giving back something to the community and in particular to those who had fought for 'King and Country'.

I wonder who gained when the land was sold for building? Was it still owned by the landowner or was it actually given, rather than loaned to the returned soldiers and their families--puts a slightly different tilt on the benefactor angle!!? Was the land given or just lent?

I rather feel that Sylvester Petty should be included on the Sutton memorial as he clearly missed being on Keighley(either book or memorial). As he was born and bred in Sutton he really should be included as he qualifies rather more than some others who are included.

[KevinBattle]

Just following on from the latest Harry photo.

If, by the age of 7 or 8 he was already well known as "Harry" by the photographer or whoever inscribed the names on the reverse (very familiar with people of the village "and the Batley girl" presumably a domestic servant from the Batley family or town) then he would have been known to the general population as "Harry" and only a very few would know of his birth name (vicar etc).

If we accept that his Mum was the driving force behind his name change, then who would gainsay her to have him recorded formally on the Memorial as S Lund? It seems to my mind that the most likely person responsible for putting his name forward in that style would be his own father. And that maybe where the addition of the "Attd RND" came from as I doubt Samuel would have had much idea about military formations if he lived much of the time in a remote area tending his sheep. Harry could have visited with him prior to sailing on the Glenart Castle and mentioned something about being attached to the RND Hospital once he arrived in France. Sam may have only registered the unit... but as Sam died in early 1923, the War Memorial Names would have to have been started before his death, otherwise I'm sure his Mum would have changed it back if at all possible!!

Of course, I am only throwing an idea or two into the arena, most of you have spend considerable amounts of time researching every conceivable option (and some unconceivable ones, no doubt!!) so don't shoot me down in flames.....

[Verrico2009]

Sarah Ann died in 1914 and was therefore in no position to challenge the inscription.

It seems from what Mona said that Harry and Samuel were estranged - and Harry lived in Long Eaton with his fiancee immediately prior to joining up. So I would think it very unlikely he visited his father.

[sutton-in-craven]

If we accept that his Mum was the driving force behind his name change, then who would gainsay her to have him recorded formally on the Memorial as S Lund? It seems to my mind that the most likely person responsible for putting his name forward in that style would be his own father.

This is a very good question Kevin and nobody is going to shoot you down in flames!

What we do know is that Harry's mum died in 1914, so she had nothing to do with the inscription on the Sutton war memorial.

Question is: who did have him recorded on the memorial as S. Lund rather than H. Lund?

I'm inclined to think that his name would have been put forward by either his older brother or sister. Reason I say that is because Harry was living with his brother in a house in Wakefield at the time he was called up for war service. His brother (not his father) also ended up receiving the Effects from Harry's will totalling 643 pounds. Also his sister kept in touch with Harry's grieving fiancé Hilda after his death in February 1918. So the 3 siblings were clearly very close to one another.

Conversely, there is no evidence to suggest that Samuel (senior) ever came down off the moor above Laycock or was involved in the lives of his 3 children after he separated from Harry's mum years earlier.

I agree with you in that his mum is the most likely candidate to have been the driving force behind the name change to Harry when he was 8 or younger, because who else could it have been? Why was his name changed to Harry? This I suspect we are unlikely to ever find out.

However, my feeling is that once mum died in 1914 and then Harry died in 1918, the 2 surviving siblings would have been instrumental in deciding how Harry was to be remembered. Because they were both several years older than Harry they would have both remembered him being born, christened and referred to as Samuel when he was a small boy, before mum made the executive decision to have him called Harry when he was 8 or a bit younger.

My guess is that they decided he came into this world as Samuel Lund and therefore he should be formally remembered as Samuel Lund, rather than the nickname Harry.

[27thBN]

This is a very good question Kevin and nobody is going to shoot you down in flames!

What we do know is that Harry's mum died in 1914, so she had nothing to do with the inscription on the Sutton war memorial.

Question is: who did have him recorded on the memorial as S. Lund rather than H. Lund?

I'm inclined to think that his name would have been put forward by either his older brother or sister. Reason I say that is because Harry was living with his brother in a house in Wakefield at the time he was called up for war service. His brother (not his father) also ended up receiving the Effects from Harry's will totalling 643 pounds. Also his sister kept in touch with Harry's grieving fiancé Hilda after his death in February 1918. So the 3 siblings were clearly very close to one another.

Conversely, there is no evidence to suggest that Samuel (senior) ever came down off the moor above Laycock or was involved in the lives of his 3 children after he separated from Harry's mum years earlier.

I agree with you in that his mum is the most likely candidate to have been the driving force behind the name change to Harry when he was 8 or younger, because who else could it have been? Why was his name changed to Harry? This I suspect we are unlikely to ever find out.

However, my feeling is that once mum died in 1914 and then Harry died in 1918, the 2 surviving siblings would have been instrumental in deciding how Harry was to be remembered. Because they were both several years older than Harry they would have both remembered him being born, christened and referred to as Samuel when he was a small boy, before mum made the executive decision to have him called Harry when he was 8 or a bit younger.

My guess is that they decided he came into this world as Samuel Lund and therefore he should be formally remembered as Samuel Lund, rather than the nickname Harry.

Its been an amazing journey this thread ,such a simple start to an all out classic

thread well done all ,

cheers Tony

[Old Owl]

What we do know is that Harry's mum died in 1914, so she had nothing to do with the inscription on the Sutton war memorial.

Question is: who did have him recorded on the memorial as S. Lund rather than H. Lund?

Surely he would be Samuel or Sam on his birth certificate? So if there was any doubt when his name was put forward, and this could quite easily have been done by the Berry family? (rather than his own brother or sister), then in the abscence of any immediate relative living close by, the w.m.committee would undoubtedly go for his correct name rather than his nickname? After all they could hardly put S.(alias Harry)Lund on the memorial!!

Things have to be done by the book!!

[Verrico2009]

... nobody is going to shoot you down in flames!

Yes, was just chipping in quickly while I grabbed lunch as there's no point speculating about Sarah Ann by the time the memorial was being designed.

As far as I can tell, Harry's sister remained in Sheffield for the remainder of her life and I'm not sure she would have had any local input. His brother had returned to the North but I'm not sure where he settled. I'm thinking the ubiquitous Mr Laurence Preston (off the top of my head) would have been the man to champion Harry. If only that elusive public list of names had been with the papers!

Surely he would be Samuel or Sam on his birth certificate? So if there was any doubt when his name was put forward, and this could quite easily have been done by the Berry family? (rather than his own brother or sister), then in the abscence of any immediate relative living close by, the w.m.committee would undoubtedly go for his correct name rather than his nickname? After all they could hardly put S.(alias Harry)Lund on the memorial!!

Things have to be done by the book!!

Not to mention they simply didn't stretch to anything more grandiose! I agree - it's a formal memorial and it would be birth names, no matter what they came to be known as.

[Andy Wade]

Does anyone know who gave the land for the 'Acres'--obviously one of the local 'bigwigs', who generally were great benefactors to the local community, having of course made their wealth through that community by employing them in the local mills--so I suppose that this would be another way of giving back something to the community and in particular to those who had fought for 'King and Country'.

I wonder who gained when the land was sold for building? Was it still owned by the landowner or was it actually given, rather than loaned to the returned soldiers and their families--puts a slightly different tilt on the benefactor angle!!? Was the land given or just lent?

I rather feel that Sylvester Petty should be included on the Sutton memorial as he clearly missed being on Keighley(either book or memorial). As he was born and bred in Sutton he really should be included as he qualifies rather more than some others who are included.

I've been reading through the minutes books for the parish council that Louise got.

They mention Yorkshire County Council being able to pay up to 3/4 of the money for land purchase and there's also a mention of Sutton Parish Council helping out, but there's no final mention of what actually happened. There is a reference somewhere to the men eventually owning the land and even building homes on it, so maybe it was a hire purchase type agreement with an option to create a home there.

Agreed about Sylvester Petty but it's possible that his family requested that he be left off the memorial, or that he's commemorated elsewhere that we haven't though of yet.