Epitaphs and Inscriptions

[chris basey]

Does anyone know of a published collection of epitaphs, inscriptions from CWGC gravestones?

[Greenwoodman]

John Laffin wrote a book of ANZAC epitaphs on CWGC headstones called "We Will Remember Them". Published in 1992, it was being remaindered in Australia when I was out there in 2001, hence my ownership of a copy.

[Guest Pete Wood]

I have been dropping subtle hints, for the last six years, about making all the epitaphs available - along with the other details on the CWGC database.

I understand that at present the CWGC don't feel that the epitaphs should be made public. Perhaps, in time, this will change.

I'm not afraid to admit that I have, on many occassions, found some lines very moving.

[Bob Coulson]

RT,

Must agree, highlight of any visit to F&F is for me reading the inscriptions along the bottom of the headstones.

Bob.

[Paul Reed]

Someone is doing a PhD on these and will publih the results in due course; I doubt if it will list them all, but certainly the interesting and unusual ones.

I have been dropping subtle hints, for the last six years, about making all the epitaphs available - along with the other details on the CWGC database.

I understand the final verification forms (the surviving ones from the Great War and all those from WW2) will be placed on line in the next few years; these were used to gather the details for the inscriptions.

[Terry Denham]

Don't get too excited about the WW1 FVFs as the vast majority were destroyed in the early 1970s when CWGC moved to Maidenhead. The WW2 versions do still exist though.

[Paul Reed]

Don't get too excited about the WW1 FVFs as the vast majority were destroyed in the early 1970s when CWGC moved to Maidenhead. The WW2 versions do still exist though.

Thanks for that Terry - I read an article recently that seemed to imply that there were still quite a few surviving, including Wilfred Owen's for example?

[Clive Maier]

... I understand that at present the CWGC don't feel that the epitaphs should be made public. Perhaps, in time, this will change. ...

Don't understand that Pete. The epitaphs are already public, patently and demonstrably so.

[Terry Denham]

Paul

I read the same article and it was a little confusing as it lumped both wars together. A few WW1 FVFs no doubt do exist along with other correspondence in separate files but the majority were dumped to save space.

However, the article did talk about other correspondence being made available but it will not be for some time yet.

[Guest Pete Wood]

... I understand that at present the CWGC don't feel that the epitaphs should be made public. Perhaps, in time, this will change. ...

Don't understand that Pete. The epitaphs are already public, patently and demonstrably so.

That's what I said, too..... but I was told that the CWGC don't want the epitaphs to be linked to the database.

[Andrew P]

The Anzac Officers Gallipoli website has a list of all Anzac epitaphs at Gallipoli

http://www.anzacs.org

[Nick Cooper]

... I understand that at present the CWGC don't feel that the epitaphs should be made public. Perhaps, in time, this will change. ...

Don't understand that Pete. The epitaphs are already public, patently and demonstrably so.

That's what I said, too..... but I was told that the CWGC don't want the epitaphs to be linked to the database.

Will it would be interesting to have the epitaphs, I say that the "cause of death" field (available briefly some years ago) is more of a priority.

[Terry Denham]

Nick

I think you will be largely disappointed when the 'Cause of Death' field is available on the internet (it is already available in CWGC print-outs).

The vast majority of records have no entry at all (none for WW2) and the information in those that have an entry is limited - usually 'Killed in Action', 'Died of wounds', 'Died of Illness' etc. Admittedly there are some with a little more detail such as an actual named illness or details of a ship loss (already available elsewhere) but they are in the minority.

In addition, these entries have not been verified as accurate. You are better off getting a copy of the death certificate if you want more detailed causes.

[Kath]

I've emailed the CWGC about the article re. WW1 Final Verification Papers, but had no answer yet.

Kath.

[Nick Cooper]

Nick

I think you will be largely disappointed when the 'Cause of Death' field is available on the internet (it is already available in CWGC print-outs).

The vast majority of records have no entry at all (none for WW2) and the information in those that have an entry is limited - usually 'Killed in Action', 'Died of wounds', 'Died of Illness' etc. Admittedly there are some with a little more detail such as an actual named illness or details of a ship loss (already available elsewhere) but they are in the minority.

In addition, these entries have not been verified as accurate. You are better off getting a copy of the death certificate if you want more detailed causes.

"Disappointment," Terry, is of course relative. Obviously this only applies to a small fraction of the CWGC records as a whole, and while I can understand why it was decided not to make it immediately available (I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories that some parties have put forward), it's always been clear that in a number of cases this information could be very useful to realtives and researchers, particularly when it comes to deaths at sea. Even if it is available on CWGC print-outs, I don't think that's very helpful, because many people won't think of contacting the Commission to double-check once they've found the person they're lookign for on the database.

Similarly, while I can appreciate the point about the data being "unverified," one could just as easily say the same about everything in the "additional information" field, or even the ones for "service number" and "decorations" which I'm sure we can all agree are not 100% accurate, either.

Of course, I certainly recognise that inclusion of this information in the online database is not the Commission's No. 1 priority, and I certainly don't think it's something that merits make a huge fuss about, but by the same token it can be said to be potentially more useful than including the additional inscription details. Something else that is "relative."

[Terry Denham]

Nick

You are, of course, right about 'disappointment' etc.

The point about the 'Additional Info' & 'Cause of Death' fields is that the data was supplied unchecked by the n-o-k whereas the other fields were supplied by the military (This means that they should be correct but, as we all know, that is not always the case!).

I suspect that the 'Cause of Death' data for naval losses came from official sources and supplanted anything given by n-o-k as the data is identical for each entry pertaining to any specific ship. Data from relatives would have varied.

I have been informed that it is the intention to make this data available on-line in due course but with no timescale promised as yet.

Meanwhile, as I have indicated on another thread today, I am willing to check this 'Cause of Death' info in reasonable amounts for anyone who wishes to email me off-forum giving the casualty's name, number, regt and cemetery/memorial name.

[Guest Pete Wood]

....while I can understand why it was decided not to make it immediately available (I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories that some parties have put forward)....

.... Of course, I certainly recognise that inclusion of this information in the online database is not the Commission's No. 1 priority, and I certainly don't think it's something that merits make a huge fuss about, but by the same token it can be said to be potentially more useful than including the additional inscription details.  Something else that is "relative."

What "conspiracy theories", pray tell....??

I fail to understand how one set of details (epitaph, or cause of death etc) can be more important (or useful) than another. Are they not equal, and why should one (or more details) be hidden, while the other is on public display?

Also, to my way of thinking, it makes more sense (and will cost less money in the long term) to set the 'fields' and input the data once and for all.

I promise I'm not having a go at anyone, or any organisation, here. I obviously just don't understand (apart from the obvious financial constraints) how the system works......

[Muerrisch]

To edge back towards the original thread: I have a substantial number of inscriptions for RWF, and on my data base. Includes many in Welsh.

[Terry Denham]

It must not be forgotten that the provision of research information is not part of CWGC's remit. Therefore any expenditure on doing so is not easily justifiable.

They are required to maintain records to assist n-o-k locate their relatives and to maintain a full list of casualties from the two world wars. Any other information is a bonus for us.

They are not required to provide any other information even when they may, by chance, hold it. The fact that they do provide some extra data on certain occasions only helps the likes of us.

The incentive for any further data to be made available will be a reduction in cost brought about by an expected following reduction in manual enquiries for such information.

The 'Cause of Death' data, such as it is, is already in the database system but Personal Inscription data is not. In the case of the former, CWGC would not want thousands of people trying to 'fill in the blanks'!

[paul guthrie]

The 'Cause of Death' data, such as it is, is already in the database system but Personal Inscription data is not. In the case of the former, CWGC would not want thousands of people trying to 'fill in the blanks'!

True. Before I realized this in the course of researching Alexander McClintock & 87th Bn CEF I discovered cause of death of George Sinnnock Godsall & gave it to them. They were not thrilled, seemed to be unhappy but they put it in. He died of gastritis while a POW in Cambrai .

[Ali Hollington]

IS the cause of death info available from the CWGC similiar to that on the SDGW CD?

Ali.

[Terry Denham]

Ali

Where it exists it is similar but sometimes more detailed.

Only about 20% of WW1 entries have any details in the 'field'. The common entries are..

Killed in Action

Died of Wounds

Died of Wounds (gas)

Died of Illness

Died of Sickness

Died in Accident

Sometimes an actual illness is given with pneumonia, influenza, phthisis being the most common but you will also get heart failure, appendicitis, malaria, dysentery etc etc.

Occassionally the KiAs and wounded will have a location mentioned such as 'Killed in action at Festubert' or 'Died of wounds sustained at Gallipoli'. No details appear about the nature of wounds.

Naval losses usually give the circumstances such as 'Killed when HMS xyz was torpedoed by submarine' etc.

You will get less common entries also such as 'Killed in air raid' or 'Died in explosion'.

None of them have any great detail but you can occasionally find a gem of information

[Kath]

The Pension Records give some details on cause of death.

Kath.

[Nick Cooper]

....while I can understand why it was decided not to make it immediately available (I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories that some parties have put forward)....

.... Of course, I certainly recognise that inclusion of this information in the online database is not the Commission's No. 1 priority, and I certainly don't think it's something that merits make a huge fuss about, but by the same token it can be said to be potentially more useful than including the additional inscription details.  Something else that is "relative."

What "conspiracy theories", pray tell....??

There have been ludicrous suggestions that it'sw down to "political correctness," and that somehow the CWGC is not being allowed to make available details like, "killed in German gas attack," or "ship sunk by Turkish submarine," for fear of offending Germany, Turkey, etc.

I fail to understand how one set of details (epitaph, or cause of death etc) can be more important (or useful) than another. Are they not equal, and why should one (or more details) be hidden, while the other is on public display?

Also, to my way of thinking, it makes more sense (and will cost less money in the long term) to set the 'fields' and input the data once and for all.

I promise I'm not having a go at anyone, or any organisation, here. I obviously just don't understand (apart from the obvious financial constraints) how the system works......

I can't claim to have any inside knowledge behind the CWGC's decision, but having spent the last decade of my working life in IT and information analysis, I can hazard an educated guess. The CWGC database went live on 09/11/98, and was immediately subject to massive demand:

Huge interest in war graves website

Gremlins hit war graves site

The InterNet has developed significantly in the last six years, but even now a lot of web-sites would have trouble coping with 700,000 hits a day! Back then, though, with bandwidth being more expensive, and most people using much slower connections, it would have made perfect sense to "trim" the available data as much as possible, even before it was put online. I suspect the Commission was taken by surprise to a certain degree by just how high the demand on the site would be, but I suspect that it was recognised in advance that it would be substantial enough to merit a degree of caution. It's notable that the CWGC precedent seems to have been largely ignored when it came to the 1901 Census project!

This also offers an explanation as to the relatively restricted nature of the search engine, even now. It does, for example, seem very "old school" that the search parameters are so restrictive, with the limited number of search fields, no specific date search, forename initials only, etc.

As Terry rightly says, it is not actually part of the CWGC's remit to provide information beyond enabling relatives to trace castualties. While in one sense this can be said now to be largely fulfilled by the web-site, it's essentially a bonus to us as WW1 researchers that we can freely access it for those purposes, as well as to equally trace our own relatives. I shudder to think where we would be without the database, even as it stands now!

[Terry Denham]

Nick

Following on from your points.....

Any conspiracy theory would not stand up anyway as no such details appear in CWGC's database nor have they ever. Whilst a 'Cause of Death' entry may read 'Killed when HMS xyz was sunk by submarine', they NEVER mention nationality - nor in any 'Killed in Action' entries for land deaths.

CWGC could not delete what was never there. This can be verified from study of the WW1 registers published largely in the 1920s/30s before PC blighted our lives.

Nick's assessment of the CWGC web site is correct. I asked them if anyone consulted them when the Census site went live and the answer was 'No'.

The database as used by CWGC is not at all restrictive. However, the database used on the web is only a partial copy of the real database and is used to fulfill their basic requirement of informing n-o-k of the whereabouts of loved ones.

On the positive side a new database system is about to be delivered to CWGC and, assuming after trials it works, we should see greater accessibility. So it is a case of watch this space - but don't hold your breath!