grantowi Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 Hi Chaps,Iv'e got a chap called William Frederick STRATFORD, born in Swindon in 1898.He was a Cpl, 28469, in the Somerset Light Infantry.He died in France 05/04/18 and is listed in the Army BDM'sBirth and Death BDM's refer to him as STRATFORD as does the cencus's and SDGWBit on CWGC he's listed as STRAFFORDWithout going to the expense of getting his certificates, how do I go about getting the CWGC entry changed ?CheersGrant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museumtom Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 Contact Terry Denham on this forum and explain. Cheers. Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 My experience was not good. Awhile back we had an RT man with a date of death incredibly early in the war. His MIC qualifying date for the 14/15 star showed him going to France/Belgium about a month after the alleged death, and that matched with the date when his battalion went overseas according to LLT. The case was rejected. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneecorps Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 Hi Chaps, Iv'e got a chap called William Frederick STRATFORD, born in Swindon in 1898. He was a Cpl, 28469, in the Somerset Light Infantry. He died in France 05/04/18 and is listed in the Army BDM's Birth and Death BDM's refer to him as STRATFORD as does the cencus's and SDGW Bit on CWGC he's listed as STRAFFORD Without going to the expense of getting his certificates, how do I go about getting the CWGC entry changed ? Cheers Grant Hi Grant I can see by your post, you do not mentioned, that you have tried contacting the CWGC, to see what they have to say on the matter. Regards. Gerwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 There's a good possibility that in this case, the mis-spelling is the result of a scanning error when the records were digitised. In other words, the man may be recorded as STRATFORD everywhere except for the on-line records we see when we do a CWGC search. It may well be that the CWGC aren't aware of this because no-one has noticed it it up until now. I think a quick email to the CWGC is all that would be needed to see if that's what has happened and if so, the CWGC would be able to correct the error quite quickly. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 I have a couple of cases with them for amendment - 1 in particular has the wrong initials and its clear they are wrong (MIC and SDGW etc) but the CWGC dont seem to want play along and seem to be of the view that their records are most likely to be correct without considering the information to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneecorps Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 Got to say, I've always found them to be very helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 Grant Suggest contacting Terry Denham, as upthread. Terry should be able to establish if it is a scanning error. If so, then it is easy peasy. If not, you are going to need the death certificate (or service file, if it still exists)as really the only acceptable evidence. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantowi Posted 15 February , 2012 Author Share Posted 15 February , 2012 Many thanks to all. I have contacted Terry and Emailed CWGC Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardess Posted 15 February , 2012 Share Posted 15 February , 2012 It may already be in the pipeline as I highlighted it on my IFCP return form in October 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshdoc Posted 16 February , 2012 Share Posted 16 February , 2012 Ive always found them helpful. I have had 3 or 4 simple transcription errors corrected takes about a month. Ive recently had a rejection for 25123 george henry Cristopher RFA in Warloy -Baillon Somme (I think spelt Christopher, Medal, MIC SDGW census) on the basis that unless I can prove to the contrary they are correct, cant argue with that. They would consider a change if I could provide a confirmed Birth certificate etc. Trouble is as they do not have other details such as fathers name , there is no way to prove one way or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 16 February , 2012 Share Posted 16 February , 2012 Welshdoc I agree that the Commission needs a high standard of proof to overturn their records of the time. The difficulty is being able to make the link between, say, the Joe Bloggs on the birth certificate and the Joe Bloggs in the casualty records. It can be very frustrating because you (the researcher) can be certain in your own mind that you have a satisfactory link but the Commission doesnt agree. I had such a case some years back. Everything pointed to the fact that the Commission had a wrong spelling but, at the time, it required a birth certificate. My man had not been born in the same area so, whilst I was able to get the certificate, I couldnt prove that it was "my" man. The matter was only resolved when the Overseas Deaths Certificates became available and I was able to send that off. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantowi Posted 16 February , 2012 Author Share Posted 16 February , 2012 Terry has been in contact and confirmed that it is a scanning error and the correction is in hand. Well done to Diane who spotted it Thanks to all for help Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantowi Posted 6 March , 2012 Author Share Posted 6 March , 2012 Got an Email from CWGC today confirming that it was a scanning error. They have now ammended their records but have yet to do the online record Many thanks to all who advised and helped Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHadden Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 Unfortunately,it's not just in correcting errors that the CWGC is so obstructive. I contacted the CWGC recently regarding my grandfathers uncle,12698 Albert Edward Hadden,killed in action with the 6th Inniskilling Dragoons on 25th April,1918.The CWGC record merely has him recorded relatively anonymously as AE Hadden. His full name is easy to find-amongst other copy records i supplied to the CWGC were a copy of his MIC (showed name as Albert E Hadden) and the SDGW record(Albert Edward Hadden).I also supplied a great deal of verified information as to his age,spouse/child details,even a marriage entry.All i received was a card from,i think, an "administrator" called xxxxxxxxxxx ,asking for -you've guessed it-a full birth certificate.Presumably this is their favoured work avoidance tactic-a birth certificate is both irrelevant and inconclusive,esp. when better evidence has been produced.. Whilst realising the need to satisfy a high standard of proof,surely the provision of 2 official and contemporary Army records should be enough for anyone? I also appreciate that the Commission does a very good job,is no doubt overworked,and that they are as likely to employ clerks who don't want to do any more work than they have to as any other organisation.However,isn't commemorating -correctly-the War Dead,what they are paid to do?Is a full name ,rather than a set of anonymous initials too much to ask for? Andy. Post edited to remove name of official Keith Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 They made it clear to me that the index was based on the information provided to them by the military after the war. I can understand their resistance to SDGW, but like you I have found evidence on a MIC to be insufficient to persuade them. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 Andy This is a difficult issue for the Commission. There are very many thousands of men commemorated by the commission only by their initials. I can only presume that, at the time, the army only passed on the initials, even though the full name under which they enlisted would have been known. I would agree that the birth certificate is not proof in this case - there is no link between the birth of an Albert Edward Hadden and the death of A E Hadden. I would suggest contacting the Commission, requesting that they review their suggestion, in the light of the MIC holding the information. The MIC is, of course, a War Office document and should be accepted as a prime document, IMO. Forget the reference in SDGW, which is secondary evidence, albeit supportive - SDGW is known to be packed with as many errors as the CWGC database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 (edited) "an "administrator" called xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" ... "Presumably this is their favoured work avoidance tactic" ... "they are as likely to employ clerks who don't want to do any more work than they have to..." Am I the only one to find such remarks unwarranted and a direct slur against a named individual employee of CWGC (indeed their clerks in general) who has no right of reply? Failure to get your own way with a CWGC submission is no excuse for such intemperate, accusatory and unsupported language. Edited to correct my spelling error, so graciously pointed out by streathamandy Edited 15 July , 2012 by horatio2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 The point above is well made. I am editing the post above and the one that it referred to, to remove the name. Keith Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon1357 Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 I have had mixed results in regards to having changes made. Both are WWII Commemorations but the same rules and giudelines apply. In the first case, the fellow who was commemorated was not who he claimed to be (He joined, fought and died under anothers name) I got this one sorted out by email. The one I have currently trying to get changed is AlLVIN Neil, commemorated as ALVEN. I cannot see a way to do this by email. Apperently I have to send in supporting documents by mail. I will likely have to do so. For me the only cost will be the postage, as I have photographed Alvin Neils service records, and only need tto print them out. The Canadian Virtual War Memorial (part of the Veterens Affairs Site) changed their commemoration upon reciept of the email I sent them. I asked if they could supply the CWGC with the information but have yet to get a reply. Going on 4 months now. Maybe I am just expecting things to happen to quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 Pylon I agree - you'd expect the Virtual War Memorial folk to chase things along with CWGC. By way of shortcutting your efforts, could you not email CWGC with the service documents attached as JPEGs, rather than post photocopies? JH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphjd Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 I tried to have a soldiers initial amended to a full christian name, even sent amongst other items, a copy of the page on which his birth was registered, but they turned it down saying they would only accept a copy birth certificate (which would be copied from this register anyway). So gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinBattle Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 My experience has always been that the CWGC are very receptive to errors being pointed out, as long as the information can be verified. Much of their database is linked to the Forms returned by the Family. Where no such return was made, they are loathe to add anything more than the basic data supplied from the military, who may or may not supply a full name or just initials. In no way is it a fair comment to say they are obstructive, they simply have to be certain. That means a certain level of proof has to be supplied and then they will change their record. If you can't meet that requirement, they cannot make the change no matter how "circumstantial" the details you provide. Take the emotion out and simply ask "Would I change the records on that level of proof, or not"? Yes, it is no doubt frustrating when what YOU think is right is not accepted, but that happens in all walks of life, so find the necessary level of proof or accept that they haven't sufficient to justify making the change(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 In no way is it a fair comment to say they are obstructive, they simply have to be certain. That means a certain level of proof has to be supplied and then they will change their record. They were far from helpful when I last contacted them over 2 separate queries - I got an initial reply asking for evidence and then got no response from then to the 2nd email. On the other query they refused to budge. Both queries were over mistakes on the service numbers shown (which appeared to have been down to errors in transcribing the original records) - they were supplied with the evidence but refused to change 1 record and didn't respond to the other. Hardly a welcoming response - even the email I did get was a bit of a brush off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphjd Posted 14 July , 2012 Share Posted 14 July , 2012 That's why I gave up. 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