Not a Cap Badge but an I.D.

[Piorun]

How are you fitting this into a service number of 41166 and the fact that 2nd Battalion is not 2/5th Battalion? One should assume that Dr. H. Bishop would have the correct service number and battalion engraved on his I.D. disc, especially if paying for a personal commission. Cheers, Antony

[Blackblue]

Its pretty simple really.

Newspaper article mentions the men serving in the same Battalion (5th) at the same time. As father and son are 1 number apart and both appear to have seen war service with the 1/5th it stands to reason that the brother/uncle would have a number very close. Medal rolls should hopefully confirm same battalion I reckon.

If this ID bracelet belongs to the same Herbert we know he did serve with the 5th Battalion (as is outlined in the newspaper article). He wouldn't have been issued 41166 so early on and would almost certainly have had a 4 digit TF number if he joined the 5th (first or second line version) in 1914.

If the ID bracelet belongs to the same man I think he must have re-enlisted, been assigned a new number and assigned from depot/home service Battalion to 2nd Battalion for OS service...but then didn't depart.

If he was a member of the West Yorks I don't believe he would have referred to the 2/5th Battalion as the 2nd Battalion. It was 2nd line 5th Battalion...two very different things.

[Piorun]

With respect, they didn't serve in the 5th West Yorks (there wasn't one), they apparently served in the 1/5th and 2/5th - different battalions altogether. I also have a fairly cynical attitude as to the accuracy of newspaper reports without corroborating evidence. And the incontrovertible evidence is that Dr. H. Bishop's name is on a bracelet showing 2 West Yorks as a regiment (not 5th or 2/5th) and 41166 as a service number. That evidence forces one to a logical conclusion that, no matter when or where else he was enlisted, at the time he ordered the bracelet Dr. H. Bishop was in 2 West Yorks (or thought he was), was a member of the Church of England, and had the Service Number 41166. In order to learn more about Dr. H. Bishop, researchers have to find evidence that corroborates those known details or else refutes them entirely and replace them with other irrefutable facts. So far, we're nowehere near an explanation. Discussion about almost certainties as to his enlistment and service or whether he enlisted simultaneously with his brothers or whether he was the only one of the three who joined on the same day who, for some odd reason, chose to come out and re-enlist . . . . . . there's far too much conjecture. Antony

[Pavster1980]

Its pretty simple really.

Newspaper article mentions two brothers and a son serving in the same Battalion (5th) at the same time. As father and son are 1 number apart it stands to reason that the brother/uncle would have a number very close. Medal rolls should hopefully confirm same battalion I reckon.

If this ID bracelet belongs to the same Herbert we know he did serve with the 5th Battalion (as is outlined in the newspaper article). He wouldn't have been issued 41166 so early on and would almost certainly have had a 4 digit TF number if he joined the 5th in 1914.

If the ID bracelet belongs to the same man he must have re-enlisted, been assigned a new number and assigned from depot to 2nd Battalion for OS service...but then didn't depart.

If he was a member of the West Yorks I don't believe he would have referred to the 2/5th Battalion as the 2nd Battalion. It was 2nd line 5th Battalion...two very different things.

Will post what Records I have, and will try and look at the medal rolls

Rich

[Blackblue]

With respect, they didn't serve in the 5th West Yorks (there wasn't one), they apparently served in the 1/5th and 2/5th - different battalions altogether. I also have a fairly cynical attitude as to the accuracy of newspaper reports without corroborating evidence. And the incontrovertible evidence is that Dr. H. Bishop's name is on a bracelet showing 2 West Yorks as a regiment (not 5th or 2/5th) and 41166 as a service number. That evidence forces one to a logical conclusion that, no matter when or where else he was enlisted, at the time he ordered the bracelet Dr. H. Bishop was in 2 West Yorks (or thought he was), was a member of the Church of England, and had the Service Number 41166. In order to learn more about Dr. H. Bishop, researchers have to find evidence that corroborates those known details or else refutes them entirely and replace them with other irrefutable facts. So far, we're nowehere near an explanation. Discussion about almost certainties as to his enlistment and service or whether he enlisted simultaneously with his brothers or whether he was the only one of the three who joined on the same day who, for some odd reason, chose to come out and re-enlist . . . . . . there's far too much conjecture. Antony

I don't recall using the term 'almost certainty'. Just suggesting likely explanations, based on experience and comparable cases, as we often do in this field due to the lack of records.

Likewise with respect Antony...his 'regiment' was the West Yorkshire Regiment. Battalions were subordinate formations of just over 1000 men who served within that regiment.

As I have stated, whilst different formations the 1/5th and 2/5th were first and second line formations of the same original parent battalion. As far as I am aware the 2/5th Battalion (a TF formation) would not have been referred to as the 2nd Battalion (a regular formation), particularly by a man serving within the regiment. From what I have seen this early in the war (October 1914) the battalions of the same TF parent battalion did not have their own numbering and used the one number series.

We have seen that Maurice (and very likely Charles) initially enlisted and served with the 1/5th. Then in the newspaper article it states Maurice and Herbert were serving at home with the 2/5th, whilst Charles had been killed overseas with the 1/5th. It appears given Maurice's service papers that in 1915 2/5th men were reinforcing the 1/5th on OS service.

We can be fairly sure that H.Bishop on the bracelet did not serve OS with the 2nd Battalion. In the event he did then he must have been OS at the very start of the war (this is where the battalion was) and thus had a different, much earlier number in the West Yorks (Regular and Service Battalions) series. He could not have served at home with the 2nd Battalion...they were not at home after his enlistment. If he did serve with them later in the war under 41166 then he should have 41166 on his Medal Index Card.

If this disc does belong to Herbert he may have been told he was being posted OS to the 2nd Battalion, had the disc made, but never made it as you suggest. The only other feasible explanation is that his Medal Index Card is missing or these details were missed from it.

I don't know why you are cynical about this particular newspaper report as the facts detailed are completely corroborated regards Charles and Maurice! If this tag belongs to Herbert it is very likely a re-enlistment.

Its interesting that Maurice was posted home the day after Charles was killed. I wonder of there is any link between the two occurrences?

[Pavster1980]

The Medal Card I found for Herbert Bishop.

If you can't read the Rolls it was O/2/104 B19 Page 2349 and O/2/1B page 62

[susanhemmings]

It's very sad if this is Herbert. Date he went to France - 3 months to the day that Charles died.

I sill wonder if the disc was a commemmorative one?

Susan

[Pavster1980]

Now compare it with my Great Grandfather Thomas Ralph Kitson's card

Thomas has two Numbers here 2410 and 200703 but it shows that his rank hasn't changed. But on the MM I have for him with 200703 in the rim, it says he is L/cpl. when you look at the card for Herbert above then you can see under his Corps, Rank and Number Ditto marks as if it is the same. Could this not be the case and they just didn't write it in as with my Great Grandfathers Rank?

Rich

[Piorun]

Blackblue: see your post #52. I'm very well aware of what a battalion is and your apparent attempt to score a debating point by criticising my use of "regiment" to describe the engraving appears somewhat petty and entirely irrelevant to an examination of the evidence from a forensic point of view - which is all that I'm interested in. "2nd W. Yorks" means "2nd Battalion West Yorks Regiment". I left out battalion. Mea culpa.

Although Rich seems to have found Herbert Bishop's MIC, it doesn't corroborate the newspaper account beyond doubt. Therefore, further research is needed as to the meaning of the engraved, personally-commissioned ID. According to the MIC, Herbert was disembodied with a full medal entitlement and, I believe, lived to age fifty or so. If he was in 2/5th OS, I can't see that he would have had much time or reason to re-enlist - unless he chose to do so post-War. Did he go to RAMC as a private soldier and then become a doctor and officer with 2 West Yorks? I'm dredging the barrel here for explanations of the info on the ID. The presence of that MIC, to me, makes re-enlistment during the War, especially into a home-based unit unlikely; but I'm only trying to offer avenues of research. I'll leave you to it, Rich. Good luck. Antony

[Pavster1980]

Blackblue: see your post #52. I'm very well aware of what a battalion is and your apparent attempt to score a debating point by criticising my use of "regiment" to describe the engraving appears somewhat petty and entirely irrelevant to an examination of the evidence from a forensic point of view - which is all that I'm interested in. "2nd W. Yorks" means "2nd Battalion West Yorks Regiment". I left out battalion. Mea culpa.

Although Rich seems to have found Herbert Bishop's MIC, it doesn't corroborate the newspaper account beyond doubt. Therefore, further research is needed as to the meaning of the engraved, personally-commissioned ID. According to the MIC, Herbert was disembodied with a full medal entitlement and, I believe, lived to age fifty or so. If he was in 2/5th OS, I can't see that he would have had much time or reason to re-enlist - unless he chose to do so post-War. Did he go to RAMC as a private soldier and then become a doctor and officer with 2 West Yorks? I'm dredging the barrel here for explanations of the info on the ID. The presence of that MIC, to me, makes re-enlistment during the War, especially into a home-based unit unlikely; but I'm only trying to offer avenues of research. I'll leave you to it, Rich. Good luck. Antony

Cheers Antony, if I work it out I will let you know

[Blackblue]

Blackblue: see your post #52. I'm very well aware of what a battalion is and your apparent attempt to score a debating point by criticising my use of "regiment" to describe the engraving appears somewhat petty and entirely irrelevant to an examination of the evidence from a forensic point of view - which is all that I'm interested in. "2nd W. Yorks" means "2nd Battalion West Yorks Regiment". I left out battalion. Mea culpa.

Although Rich seems to have found Herbert Bishop's MIC, it doesn't corroborate the newspaper account beyond doubt. Therefore, further research is needed as to the meaning of the engraved, personally-commissioned ID. According to the MIC, Herbert was disembodied with a full medal entitlement and, I believe, lived to age fifty or so. If he was in 2/5th OS, I can't see that he would have had much time or reason to re-enlist - unless he chose to do so post-War. Did he go to RAMC as a private soldier and then become a doctor and officer with 2 West Yorks? I'm dredging the barrel here for explanations of the info on the ID. The presence of that MIC, to me, makes re-enlistment during the War, especially into a home-based unit unlikely; but I'm only trying to offer avenues of research. I'll leave you to it, Rich. Good luck. Antony

Your starting to give me a headache Anthony...if he joined the 1/5th or 2/5th in 1914/1915 as the newspaper report advises then yes...he would have 'almost certainly' have been issued a 4 digit TF number as he was a member of the 5th (either the first or second line version of it). I was referring specifically to numbering...nothing else.

If Herbert of the ID bracelet did go out to the 1/5th Battalion in October 1915 then he could very easily have been invalided, discharged and later re-enlisted with the number 41166. According to Kevin's information he would have had nearly a full 11 months to do so if he was invalided early on. Why not?

We can be pretty confident 2589 Herbert Bishop was not serving in his original unit (if a TF Battalion as the number suggests) by early 1917, as he was never renumbered with a new 6 digit TF number. Perhaps, as Kevin has suggested, he was not fit for war service and remained on home service after reenlistment (41166)....which would not have made it onto his Medal Index Card. Kevin suggests late 1916 enlistment for this series.

As far as regiment goes I was simply demonstrating that I can also split hairs. Researchers very often also deal in plausible explanation given the available evidence....not incontrovertible proof. Unfortunately given the missing records for British Army soldiers we sometimes don't get to this standard.

The RAMC/Doctor explanation is a long bow to draw. There are a number of reasons for this. It appears he was serving in the ranks in 1915 (although this is not expressly stated). If not a MD before the war he would have had to get through medical training (which should have taken many years) in an inordinately short period, used an enlisted man's number on his ID bracelet even though he would almost certainly been a CAPT and there is no indication of him being in the medical profession after the war. Perhaps Rich can check this with family? If Rich is able to find out he was an MD....I will eat my words.

As suggested I would be having the medal rolls checked for the 3 x men including 2589. I think we will find all of them first served OS with the 1/5th Battalion, as well as his Great Grandfather 2410 LCPL T R Kitson (they were all from the Harrogate area and the 1/5th and/or 2/5th appear to have been the local unit).

[Blackblue]

Now compare it with my Great Grandfather Thomas Ralph Kitson's card

Thomas has two Numbers here 2410 and 200703 but it shows that his rank hasn't changed. But on the MM I have for him with 200703 in the rim, it says he is L/cpl. when you look at the card for Herbert above then you can see under his Corps, Rank and Number Ditto marks as if it is the same. Could this not be the case and they just didn't write it in as with my Great Grandfathers Rank?

Rich

Rich,

I believe he probably would have deployed with the 1/5th Battalion (or at the very least the same Brigade) on the same day as Charles. He was definitely a TF man. They were originally issued a 4 digit number when enlisted and these later changed to a 6 digit number. He was probably renumbered whilst still a Private and was later appointed Lance Corporal and awarded the MM.

Rgds

Tim

[Piorun]

Your starting to give me a headache Anthony...if he joined the 1/5th or 2/5th in 1914/1915 as the newspaper report advises then yes...he would have 'almost certainly' have been issued a 4 digit TF number as he was a member of the 5th (either the first or second line version of it). I was referring specifically to numbering...nothing else.

If Herbert of the ID bracelet did go out to the 1/5th Battalion in October 1915 then he could very easily have been invalided, discharged and later re-enlisted with the number 41166. According to Kevin's information he would have had nearly a full 11 months to do so if he was invalided early on. Why not?

We can be pretty confident 2589 Herbert Bishop was not serving in his original unit (if a TF Battalion as the number suggests) by early 1917, as he was never renumbered with a new 6 digit TF number. Perhaps, as Kevin has suggested, he was not fit for war service and remained on home service after reenlistment (41166)....which would not have made it onto his Medal Index Card. Kevin suggests late 1916 enlistment for this series.

As far as regiment goes I was simply demonstrating that I can also split hairs. Researchers very often also deal in plausible explanation given the available evidence....not incontrovertible proof. Unfortunately given the missing records for British Army soldiers we sometimes don't get to this standard.

The RAMC/Doctor explanation is a long bow to draw.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning. However, there is no need for your nasty personal opening. For your information, "mea culpa" was an apology.

Differentiating between service in 1/5th and 2/5th is hardly "splitting hairs". They followed quite different paths. This might be relevant to our subject.

The doctor hypothesis was just that, not an explanation, and if supported, doesn't require anybody to eat anything. It would merely link "Dr." and an RAMC cap badge. I agree, quite unlikely - but we have no corroborating evidence either way. I was merely suggesting a line of enquiry.

[Blackblue]

Oh....mea culpa back at you then. I am sorry...I don't speak Swahili.

And here I was thinking you were being facetious!

[Pighills]

Can I just state, the article Rich reproduced from the newspaper was as transcribed by me, having transcribed hundreds of the damned things and knowing the accuracy of the editor at the time, nothing can be taken as read!

The only thing which is certain is the man's name - Herbert Bishop. The newsapaper article could be completely correct, or it could be way off, I've known instances off both and everything inbetween with this newspaper (and afterall, it was hardly surprising at the time considering how much information was coming in daily from many different sources!).

I should think the personal id tag he had made would have been more accurate than the newspaper report. Also, without being disrespectful, having knowledge of the family in the 1901 census, I would have said he was more likely to be a driver/drummer than a doctor.

Rich - don't try to compare the way the medal cards were written. There were so many different people filling them in, and each one had a different 'style' (although undoubtedly they had rules by which they had to abide too!).

Keep an open mind, explore all avenues, and only accept what you can prove - all else is just supposition!

[Piorun]

Kim: your comment on accuracy triggered a thought. 2/5th West Yorks was disembodied (disbanded) in mid-August 1918, three months before the Armistice. Any men still in service would, one presumes, then have been given the option of re-enlisting or going home. If our Herbert Bishop chose to re-enlist, he would have have ended up with a new service number (as we all accept) and this could be the number on his ID. Perhaps there is no new MIC because, by the time he had gone home and re-enlisted, the War was nearly over and he never got posted back to his new battalion, 2nd West Yorks and, anyway, he had already qualified for medal entitlement. The problems with this line of thought is that I don't think it likely that he would have been re-enlisted as either a Drummer or a Driver (maybe I'm wrong) and one wonders why he would only have commissioned the ID on his second enlistment, not his first - unless the horrors he had witnessed made him more aware of his mortality. Anyway, it's just another line of thought for exploration. Cheers, Antony

[Pavster1980]

Thanks for all the help and Ideas people, don't go falling out on my account. I understand the newspaper articles are not as accurate as the could be sometimes and we have no corroborating evidence that this is the same Herbert Bishop. I am going to have a look at getting the medal rolls and see if I can get some ense out of them. WIll let you all know what I find out if I do indeed find anything out.

Rich

[kevin]

If he was disembodied in 1918 and been serving over seas he would have a six figure TF number, also the 41166 was issused Augst/September 1916. If he re enlisted in the West Yorks August 1918 he would be in the 7**** series of numbers.

My reading of the Herbert mic to the TF chap is that he was disembodied in 1916, pre 6 digit change over, and the the 41166 number may well have been issused to him. He never ever served in the 2nd Batt West Yorks, my very best guess would put him in the 2nd Garrison Battalion West Yorks or the 7th Res Battlion of the West Yorks.

The Medal rolls will only show when 2589 number, but will give a date of disembodiment, this may tie in with the 41166 number, but we need the medal role for 2589 to proceed further.

Regards Kevin

[Pavster1980]

Can I just state, the article Rich reproduced from the newspaper was as transcribed by me, having transcribed hundreds of the damned things and knowing the accuracy of the editor at the time, nothing can be taken as read!

The only thing which is certain is the man's name - Herbert Bishop. The newsapaper article could be completely correct, or it could be way off, I've known instances off both and everything inbetween with this newspaper (and afterall, it was hardly surprising at the time considering how much information was coming in daily from many different sources!).

I should think the personal id tag he had made would have been more accurate than the newspaper report. Also, without being disrespectful, having knowledge of the family in the 1901 census, I would have said he was more likely to be a driver/drummer than a doctor.

Rich - don't try to compare the way the medal cards were written. There were so many different people filling them in, and each one had a different 'style' (although undoubtedly they had rules by which they had to abide too!).

Keep an open mind, explore all avenues, and only accept what you can prove - all else is just supposition!

No disrespect taken, they were all farmers and labourers both before, during and after the war. and for a few more generations both directions I can tell you!!! Although I made it a bit higher up from labourer to builder!

Rich

[Pighills]

Oi, Rich, I need my cellar converting - how much??

[Pavster1980]

If he was disembodied in 1918 and been serving over seas he would have a six figure TF number, also the 41166 was issused Augst/September 1916. If he re enlisted in the West Yorks August 1918 he would be in the 7**** series of numbers.

My reading of the Herbert mic to the TF chap is that he was disembodied in 1916, pre 6 digit change over, and the the 41166 number may well have been issused to him. He never ever served in the 2nd Batt West Yorks, my very best guess would put him in the 2nd Garrison Battalion West Yorks or the 7th Res Battlion of the West Yorks.

The Medal rolls will only show when 2589 number, but will give a date of disembodiment, this may tie in with the 41166 number, but we need the medal role for 2589 to proceed further.

Regards Kevin

Which ones should I be looking at? O/2/104 for the Victory medal or O/2/1B for the 15 Star? or both?

Rich

[kevin]

Rich

Look at both, there may differing information, all worth ago.

Good luck.

Kevin

[Pavster1980]

Oi, Rich, I need my cellar converting - how much??

What a suprise there is always one!!!!

Rich

P.S. - Couldn't see a smiley for the huuuuuuuuuffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff through the teeth that's gonna cost ya sound!

[Pighills]

So, you don't want the job then!

[Pavster1980]

just been on the national archive to look for the records and for some reason I cannot find them. When I looked for my greatgrandfather Phillips they came straight up but that was a while ago. Anyone got any Ideas?

Rich

So, you don't want the job then!

ha ha ha. got a lot on re-modelling the woolpack pub in Otley at the moment. I don't work for myself so would have to pass you my boss's number if you are serious.

Rich