Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Welsh Horse & 25th RWF Man


TEW

Recommended Posts

I've been asked to find out what I can on George Albert Thomas Parker 1313 Welsh Horse Yeomanry and 355909 25th Royal Welsh Fusiliers. All that is known so far is he was supposed to have fought at Gallipoli and on the Somme. I have read through TLLT and various posts on this forum and have located service records for;-

1284 355891 Alfred Bayliss

1285 355892 Charles Hughes

1314 355910 David Layer

1342 355925 Frank Collins

But sadly, none for George Parker. Using the MIC's & service records I have put together a sort of database for men of the Welsh Horse & 25th RWF starting with 1241 / 355868 to 1413 / 355947. Parker's MIC is not particularly informative.

So far I can say that Parker must have Attested between 1st and 7th June 1915 and presumably went into the 1st/1st Welsh Horse. He must have ended up going to Gallipoli October 1915 until moving to Egypt in December. And Suez Canal defences later on.

Although the date for transfers to the 25th RWF is generally given as 4th March 1917 all the men on my list were technically transferred 16th December 1916.

I guess as he was in 74th Division through most of 1917 he would have been at the battles of Gaza and Jerusalem?

Also assuming he was involved in 2nd Battle of Somme?

If possible could someone look up Parker in Bryn Owen's 'Owen Roscomyl and the Welsh Horse'?

Any further info via diaries gratefully received.

Thanks

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His Medal Index Card has his entitlement as BWM/Victory only - not the 1914-15 Star he would have earned if he'd reached Gallipoli before the end of December 1915 (the main body of the 1/1st W.Horse landed 10 October 1915).

So he must have reached a Theatre of War after 1 January 1916, and before the end of December that year (if he'd arrived Jan 1917 or later only the 6-figure RWF number would have been on the MIC ).

I don't see why he couldn't have been posted to 2/1st Welsh Horse - at that date he might have signed on for Home Service only, or been classed medically unfit for overseas service, or any number of other reasons that would militate against his going abroad sooner than he did. Perhaps his 2/1st status might explain his absence from the roll in Bryn Owen's book as well?

LST_164

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the lookup and other info so far. I've looked at 1342 (Welsh Horse), (355925) 25th RWF Frank Collins' Service record and he Attested 14/6/15, embodied with 3/1st WH on same date and went to 1/1st WH on 14/2/16. So presumably he didn't go to Gallipoli and ended up going directly to Egypt a week before the Suez Canal Defences. Can't tell much from Collins' MIC as he was later commisioned and his card reads' on R& F Roll'.

1314 / 355910 David Layer (one number after Parker) Attested 7/6/15. Embodied into 3/1st same day. And posted 1/1st 9/1/16. No sign of Star on his MIC.

I'll check through to see if any men with this numbering sequence have Stars but it's looking unlikley. Why the familiy story about Gallipoli??

So I doubt Bryn Owen's book mentions any of the other 4 men in the original post?

Thanks

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Parker was born in 1898. This may have been the reason that he didn't go overseas.

I recall this post from michaeladr (2007)

I see that in 1917 the Welsh Horse were absorbed by Montgomeryshire Yeomanry

You might try their museum here for further info

see

http://www.armymuseums.org.uk/museums/0000...-Collection.htm

regards

Michael

Maybe they could tell you how the battalions were numbered. I researched a man with number 103, having enlisted on 19/8/1914 and he was definitely at Gallipoli but the number is probably not close enough to help you. He also ended up in the Royal welsh Fusiliers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryn Owen's book only mentions 1285 C.K.Hughes as far as I can see, and then only because he was a later fatality with 25th RWF.

The book doesn't include a nominal roll - just a list of officers and NCOs (without their regt. numbers) on formation in 1914; officers in 1915 and 1918; and a Roll of Honour.

LST_164

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that in 1917 the Welsh Horse were absorbed by Montgomeryshire Yeomanry

Tom,

I think that strictly speaking the Welsh Horse Yeomanry was amalgamated with the Montgomeryshire Yeomanry in March,1917 and this became the 25th Bn RWF.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help so far.

As it appears 1313 George Parker was born 3rd Quarter 1898 that would make him 18 and of enlisting age in Summer 1916.

But, 1285 enlisted 1/6/15 and 1314 enlisted 7/6/15 so on that basis it seems reasonable that Parker must have joined up between those dates??

So he must have lied about his age? Or he is joining up 1-3 months before his 18th birthday.

Presumably he shouldn’t have been sent overseas until Summer 1917, but if he’s adding a year then he could have been sent overseas Summer 1916. Or did the dates for overseas service change at some point?

Thanks

TEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe (please correct me, someone) that the TF pre-war/early war accepted recruits from age 17, and maybe that didn't alter until Conscription came in? However, the age for overseas service remained 19 until about the time of the March 1918 German offensive, when it was altered to 18 and a half PROVIDED the soldier had been training for at least 6 months.

Hence lots and lots of 1914-15 under-age volunteers fibbing about being exactly 19. No birth certificate was required by the Army till 1923 I think. In one company roll book I've seen for a Reserve RWF New Army unit, there are a couple of 18-year-olds, but 20 per cent of the remainder just happen to be 19; yet only about 5 per cent aged 20...

Forum member hywyn (very good on RWF numbering) might tell you that your guess as to date of joining is approximately right. However, the number was allocated by the Regt. Record Office not the recruiters on the spot, so the sequence actually reflects the order in which the papers were received & dealt with by that Office, not necessarily in order of date of attestation. If that makes sense.

LST_164

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...