CWGC datbase entries

[Northern Soul]

Terry,

I have often wondered why, in the CWGC registers/database, some soldiers (or sailors/airmen) have their Christian names listed in full and others have just initials. Surely this information was readily available from the contemporary military records – it certainly is now?

For example.

HADDINGBROOKE, Pte. I., 1871. 1st Bn. King’s Own Royal Lancaster Regt. 18th Nov., 1914.

compared to;

BALSHAW, Pte. Richard, 41662. 1st/5th Bn. North Staffordshire Regt. 17th April, 1918.

This also regularly occurs where there is next-of-kin information too, which is even more mysterious since you would have thought that if they had gone to the effort of providing details then Christian names would have been given too.

Any ideas?

Andy.

[Terry Denham]

Andy

You have to understand the basis upon which CWGC records information.

They only record information which they were given at the time by the authorities or by the n-o-k. They do NOT research or 'fill in' gaps. They are a repository of original data and not a research organisation. Essentially, you have to take it or leave it. Further research is up to you.

In military terms, first names are of no real consequence and names were supplied to CWGC with initials only in most (not all) WW1 cases (not so for WW2). When Final Verification Forms were returned by n-o-k, full names were sometimes added and were so recorded by CWGC.

The Commission is NOT a research organisation as said above and has no legal remit to improve, augment or change information (other than to correct errors). Its duty is to record the data with which it was originally supplied. They are under no obligation to supply you, me or anyone else with research material or data.

Full names are undoubtedly better than initials but the Commission does not necessarily agree as full names would assist their task of commemoration to nil degree - surname, initial, rank, number, unit and burial/commemoration location meet all their requirements and obligations under their Royal Charter.

I am not saying that I would not, personally, prefer more details to be available (because, like you, I think names are better than initials) but you have to understand the nature of the beast!

You have to understand what CWGC is rather than what most of us would like it to be (or what we erroneously assume it to be!).

[Northern Soul]

Terry,

I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post.

I am not suggesting that the names be 'backfitted' or implying that the CWGC aren't bothered about correcting the defficiency - I'm not actually bothered. I was simply querying the anomaly which I have observed on many occasions. From your reply the answer would apear to be that the information was never given to them in the first place which suggests another question...................any ideas why the supply of detail by the Army (Navey/Air Force) was arbitrary - if anyone had access to the information, they did.

Andy.

[Terry Denham]

Apologies if I did misunderstand although I did not construe any particular intent from your post other than one of satisfying curiosity.

The answer is that the information was arbitrary at times due to various organisations being involved - and of various nationalities.

However, I believe the situation was worsened by n-o-k sometimes adding names where originally the majority of entries had only initials. As I said above, the custom in the military was to use initials and I have had it explained to me before now by people concerned that this has always been deemed satisfactory.

There are even anomalies within the sources you originally mentioned. The registers/database often have full names but the headstones only initials. Different departments again involved over the years.