sutton-in-craven Posted 5 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2011 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!!? Best wishes, Robert Well Robert here's another snap of Harry's mother Sarah Ann and his sister Elizabeth Ann. As Louise mentioned in an earlier post, perhaps it was Samuel who sent his wife down t' valley! Photo courtesy of Mona Townson EDIT: Elizabeth Ann was born April 21st 1884 and died October 3rd 1968 Sarah Ann was born March 1856 and died May 1914 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 5 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2011 Harry Lund's mother Sarah Ann Berry Photo courtesy of Mona Townson (Harry's great niece) EDIT: Sarah Ann Berry was born March 1856 and died May 1914 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 5 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2011 THE LUND FAMILY left - right: Harry's brother John Thomas Lund, born August 29th 1882 and died January 17th 1946 Harry's grandmother Mary Ann Berry (wife of Thomas Berry warp sizer), born August 1819 and died Sept 1887 Harry's mother Sarah Ann Lund, born March 1856 and died May 1914 Harry's sister Elizabeth Ann Lund sat on her mother's knee, born April 21st 1884 and died October 3rd 1968 N.B. Harry Lund was born 1892 and died 1918 Photo and information courtsey of Mona Townson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verrico2009 Posted 5 January , 2011 Share Posted 5 January , 2011 Fantastic collection of photos, most of which I hadn't seen. Many thanks for posting them, Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 6 January , 2011 Share Posted 6 January , 2011 Hi Andrew, I have just seen the excellent photos. You may have to create an extra page for Harry on your Sutton site-- that is assuming that you are including these photos? I'm still keeping my eyes open for Monkhouse medals--I'll find something one day!! Regards, Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 7 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 7 January , 2011 Hi Andrew, I have just seen the excellent photos. You may have to create an extra page for Harry on your Sutton site-- that is assuming that you are including these photos? I'm still keeping my eyes open for Monkhouse medals--I'll find something one day!! Regards, Robert Thanks Robert, last year in 2010 I managed to locate and buy 5 Monkhouse medals - 2 groups, 2 singles and a commemorative Victorian 1897 Jubilee medal to Mayor John Monkhouse Esq who was mayor of Kirkby near Kendal in that year, so was very happy with that. Hopefully 2011 will reel in even more! Yes excellent photos of Harry's family members before he was born, all thanks to Mona. Harry continues to refuse to lie down it seems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 15 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 15 January , 2011 This question may seem somewhat extraneous, but I need the answer for my research on Sutton's 40 Fallen. I'm wondering how Harry's death would be officially classified by the War Office. For example, for other WW1 servicemen I've seen recorded the following: Killed in Action Died of Wounds Died of Disease Died from Injuries Missing in Action It is assumed that Harry jumped into the water, became hypothermic, lost consciousness and died the next day in hospital from heart failure. My guess for Harry therefore would be Died from Injuries or Died of Wounds. But then was he 'wounded' or 'injured' if he abandoned ship, jumped into the water, became hypothermic, unconscious and died the next day? Again I realize this question may seem rather beside the point, but there must be a definitive answer to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 This question may seem somewhat extraneous, but I need the answer for my research on Sutton's 40 Fallen. I'm wondering how Harry's death would be officially classified by the War Office. For example, for other WW1 servicemen I've seen recorded the following: Killed in Action Died of Wounds Died of Disease Died from Injuries Missing in Action It is assumed that Harry jumped into the water, became hypothermic, lost consciousness and died the next day in hospital from heart failure. My guess for Harry therefore would be Died from Injuries or Died of Wounds. But then was he 'wounded' or 'injured' if he abandoned ship, jumped into the water, became hypothermic, unconscious and died the next day? Again I realize this question may seem rather beside the point, but there must be a definitive answer to it. Hi Andrew, 'Died as a result of enemy action' would seem to be a fair compromise, although just 'Died' would probably be the official, short, if rather incorrect answer? Regards, Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinBattle Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Killed on Active Service? The proximate cause of his death was enemy action, whatever injuries or wounds he received were a direct result of the ship being attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Killed on Active Service? The proximate cause of his death was enemy action, whatever injuries or wounds he received were a direct result of the ship being attacked. This would probably fit the facts, although strictly speaking he 'died' rather than was 'killed'--but I suppose that the end result is the same!! This is a very grey area, but hopefully others will add to the mix before too long. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 15 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Actually I think that's probably the best description Kevin & Robert "Died on Active Service" is probably as near as we'll get to an accurate 'official' cause of death Thanks for your imput fella's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Wade Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Jesse White who was caught in the propellors would be 'died of wounds', but Harry might just be recorded as 'died' which is on the SDGW record. Harry's DC had 'heart failure' as the cause of death which would have been caused by exposure so he wasn't wounded as such. On balance I'd also go with 'died on active service'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headgardener Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 I turn my back for a minute and suddenly you've got 25 pages in 'classic threads'.......!!!! Well, well...... Having been coaxed back into action by Andrew's e-mail I have to say that the SDGW classification ('Died') is the correct official designation. Following on from Andrew's earlier post, there are a fair number of official designations that can be found in SDGW but I don't ever recall seeing an 'on active service' because they were all on active service (it's already presumed by the fact that an individual was a serving soldier). Apologies for absence, I'll drop in again very soon....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 15 January , 2011 Share Posted 15 January , 2011 Actually I think that's probably the best description Kevin & Robert "Died on Active Service" is probably as near as we'll get to an accurate 'official' cause of death Thanks for your imput fella's Has any one applied for the death certificate? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutton-in-craven Posted 15 January , 2011 Author Share Posted 15 January , 2011 I turn my back for a minute and suddenly you've got 25 pages in 'classic threads'.......!!!! Well, well......Having been coaxed back into action by Andrew's e-mail I have to say that the SDGW classification ('Died') is the correct official designation. Following on from Andrew's earlier post, there are a fair number of official designations that can be found in SDGW but I don't ever recall seeing an 'on active service' because they were all on active service (it's already presumed by the fact that an individual was a serving soldier) Ah, a BIG welcome back Neil, as one of the key players of Team Harry you have been conspicuous by your recent absence (I'm sure you had your reasons). Glad my email was able to lull you back to GWF! Yes I take your point that 'died' as a single word is in all likelihood the official terminology for Harry's demise. For my Sutton-in-Craven research purpose however, I think I'll stick to the earlier suggested phrase 'died on active service', even though as you say, this is technically incorrect from a official standpoint. It just looks better for what I need. EDIT: on reflection Neil, I've decided to adopt your assertion that 'died' is the correct phrase. I've amended Harry profile stating that he 'died 27th Feb 1918' and it looks fine. KNEW there was a reason I copied you into my email! Has any one applied for the death certificate? David Hi David, Harry's Death Certificate has been located by Verrico, despite the name on it referring to "an unknown man"! Cause of death was heart failure. Efforts were made by Verrico to have the General Register Office amend this death certificate to include his full name in view of the fact there is overwhelming and unequivocal evidence proving this death certificate belongs to Harry Lund. However, they refused to amend the certificate on the grounds of lack of proof that it belongs to Harry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 16 January , 2011 Share Posted 16 January , 2011 >><< Hi David, Harry's Death Certificate has been located by Verrico, despite the name on it referring to "an unknown man"! Cause of death was heart failure. Efforts were made by Verrico to have the General Register Office amend this death certificate to include his full name in view of the fact there is overwhelming and unequivocal evidence proving this death certificate belongs to Harry Lund. However, they refused to amend the certificate on the grounds of lack of proof that it belongs to Harry! This would tend to point towards a "died" classification, as I believe (others will correct me if I am wrong), that if it was a a result of injuries / enemy action etc. it would have been mentioned - e.g. "Heart Failure following ....". Presumably deemed not sufficiently "consequential" on the torpedoing to be other than "died". David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 16 January , 2011 Share Posted 16 January , 2011 I don't think that there can be any doubt that he 'died as a result of enemy action'--after all that 'enemy action' was the reason that he was in the sea and which caused his premature death. However, I agree that the simple 'Died' would be the 'official', if slightly incorrect version. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Evans Posted 23 January , 2011 Share Posted 23 January , 2011 For those who subscribe to this thread, but never scroll to the bottom of the GWF Home Page: Glenart Castle Memorial Service Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Owl Posted 24 January , 2011 Share Posted 24 January , 2011 For those who subscribe to this thread, but never scroll to the bottom of the GWF Home Page: Glenart Castle Memorial Service Phil Hi Phil, Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure that others involved with this thread are aware of this? I wonder if Mona or anyone else is interested in joining the service this year? Many thanks once again, Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verrico2009 Posted 26 February , 2011 Share Posted 26 February , 2011 Well, here we are - 26 February: the anniversary of the sinking of the Glenart Castle. Sadly I decided I couldn't make it down for the ceremony as I'm in London without my car and from here it would be a minimum of a two-night stay. I've got some family get-togethers to attend. I've got to shoot off and won't be online much today, but does anyone want to start a thread in the "Remembering Them" section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claire_h Posted 7 May , 2011 Share Posted 7 May , 2011 123911 Blench, William was my 2nd great grand-uncle. I'm guessing that because there was a time lapse they never recovered his body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now