Amending CWGC records

[AndrewHadden]

"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 intemperant, accusatory and unsupported language.

Would appear that my concerns are,sadly,far from unique.I am sure that CWGC employees do have a right of reply,and are allowed to join the forum like anyone else!A reply would in fact be welcome!Not sure what intemperant means though.Did you mean to say "intemperate"?

Failiure to get my own way is rather a bellittling remark-I was trying to get a relative,killed in action,correctly commemorated by an organisation paid to do precisely that-hardly an unreasonable request!All the records provided(e.g. census returns,marriage certificate details,MIC) were those asked for by the CWGC , whose employee ignored them.

[horatio2]

Thank you kindly pointing out my spelling error. I have corrected my OP to show the correct word, as intended.

[John_Hartley]

I am sure that CWGC employees do have a right of reply,and are allowed to join the forum like anyone else

I would doubt it. Employees of any organisation are required to follow their employers policies and practices and not engage in public debate about them. Even if an employee was to respond directly to you then it could only with one of two responses. Firstly along the lines of "I agree with you but I have to follow our rules" or, secondly, "I don't agree with you". Neither would be in the slightest assistance to you and the first response would be likely to see the employee facing disciplinary action.

CWGC has a well established complaints procedure within its Customer Charter, described on its website, available for any member fo the public who is dissatisfied with a decision.

[ss002d6252]

I would agree somewhat with John, i suspect the problem is a corporate one rather than the individual employee - I have a feeling they are, like most organisations, understaffed for the task required.

[grantowi]

You could alway create your own page for him on the "Find a Grave" site - http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gs&

You can list his full name, add a photo and a short biography - which you can update as and when you find out more about him

Grant

[KevinBattle]

Not sure what intemperant means though.Did you mean to say "intemperate"

Ammending CWGC records

Matthew 7 v 5???

rock fragments and glazed structures

[Simon Mills]

"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

Criticism of the CWGC, never mind an individual employee, is generally a bit tricky because I don't think that anyone on this forum would deny that they do such important work. Even so, this shouldn't mean that the organisation is above reproach.

I've had several tussles with their system over the years and as the old saying goes, "some you win and some you lose!" On a more positive note, so far I have succeeded in having the records of five or six servicemen updated or revised, including the positive identification of an unnamed grave after a two-year battle with officialdom to prove the case.

I don't think anyone denies that the CWGC have to handle each specific case as carefully as possible, but at the same time it can be incredibly frustrating when such clear-cut evidence from source documents can, if they so wish it, be discounted. Currently I am trying to have the dates of death of five servicemen revised, and my "evidence" is based on clear and precise details contained within several war diaries. In four cases a war diary (3rd Middlesex) specifically mentions the names, dates and circumstances of each of the officers' deaths, and in one case a RAMC Field Ambulance diary specifically details the death and burial of a RFA gunner, with name, rank and number. You would have thought that this would be enough for the CWGC to make the necessary modifications on their database but their current position is that although they will give careful consideration to the points raised, it may take some time as "...the issues extend beyond the details of this case into wider consideration of their established policies and procedures, and the relationship of CWGC records to other public records." Sounds impressive, but this was three months ago and since then I haven't heard anything further, which has now prompted me to send them a little reminder.

Don't get me wrong. I am very pro the work carried out by the CWGC, which is why I and many like me go out of our way to provide them with the information that we do, but at the same time there are times when I get the feeling that the organisation is being a bit inconsistent (or so it seems to me) in relation to the credence that they may or may not put on the importance of official source documentation.

They worry about anomalies on their database, but by it's very nature I would suggest that this kind of database will inevitably contain anomalies. My only concern is that if a name or date can be positively proved to be wrong, that those charged with the duty of maintaining the records should correct them rather than just bury it and say that they are worried about "anomalies!"

FWIW, I'll continue to send in any information as it arises, but at the same time I will do my utmost to make sure that changes are not just disregarded for purely bureaucratic reasons.

S.

[Simon Mills]

Just a quick follow-up on my post of five days ago...

I did get a response from the Director of Information Services at the CWGC re. my attempt to get some dates of death revised, and although there has seemingly been a lot of silence over the last three months, apparently the case isn't yet closed. It appears that they are still consulting with the Ministry of Defence re. my evidence, but that it is taking a bit longer than usual as their main contact at the Ministry has recently retired and has not yet been replaced.

The main issue seems to be that the CWGC is not prepared to change the date of death in its records, etc. if it contradicts the official record as shown on the death certificate, although there have been occasions in the past where the Ministry of Defence has been able to instigate a change to the official record on the basis of new evidence submitted. I may have opened a can of worms here, but apparently the intention is now to discuss with the Ministry how this might be done in the future, and what evidence would be required, although I am still hoping that the war diary excerpts that have been provided will, in this case, be sufficient. That said, apparently war diaries are not considered by the CWGC to be a reliable source of evidence in all cases, although in this case I think the fact that I have names, dates, locations, circumstances of death and even a service number really ought to do the trick.

If I read it right then Mr. McGee does seem to be broadly sympathetic to the case so for the time being I am going to give the CWGC a bit more time, but having been through the mill of MoD bureaucracy once before, the best advice I can give anyone determined to have an entry changed is to just stick with it. If the bureaucracy fails then you can even write to the Minister responsible. That's what I had to do back in 2008; it didn't make an overnight difference but it did provide the necessary incentive for the JCCC/MoD to re-examine the evidence and finally concede that the case had been proven.

Good luck,

S.

[keithmroberts]

In the case that I referred to, I have the problem that while there is good evidence that the date of death is incorrect, there is no trace of a death certificate on FMP, and nothing in the war diary or the only known published work that helps to provide one. Therefore a manifestly incorrect date remains on the record, but there is little prospect of finding evidence of the correct date.

Keith

[ss002d6252]

If I read it right then Mr. McGee does seem to be broadly sympathetic to the case so for the time being I am going to give the CWGC a bit more time, but having been through the mill of MoD bureaucracy once before, the best advice I can give anyone determined to have an entry changed is to just stick with it. If the bureaucracy fails then you can even write to the Minister responsible. That's what I had to do back in 2008; it didn't make an overnight difference but it did provide the necessary incentive for the JCCC/MoD to re-examine the evidence and finally concede that the case had been proven.

The slow speed of the CWGC seems to be a problem in itself, once its coupled with the slow bureaucracy of the MOD then I can imagine it grinds to a halt very quickly, delays in cases like this are understandable but it wouldn't be too much for them to keep people informed of what's happening.

The main problem with CWGC seems not to be the cases where its obviously a major change that requires a good deal of evidence (like changing a date of death) but in looking at cases where its clear that the a typographical error has occurred or a scanning error has occurred and a quick check of the original records would generally suffice. There seems to be a distinct lack of willingness to double check records before dismissing queries (or not even bothering to respond).

Three of the points i raised are here

2395 J Letby is actually 2395 Arthur H Letby

2341 Norman Featherstone is actually 2391 (2341 is Pvt William Eddy)

2053 Henry Harrison is actually 2553 (2053 is Pvt Harry Firth)

The 1st one is an odd one, I'll give the CWGC that one, as it appears not to just be scanning error but the 2nd and 3rd ones very likely are and could probably be sorted easily (I even supplied copies of the MIC etc to demonstrate the error) but I got an outright refusal with no willingness indicated for them to even check the record. I appreciate that minor error corrections aren't high on the list of priorities but I would have expected that they would have been taken onboard to be looked at at some point.

EDIT:

I've just checked and they have actually updated the record for Norman Featherstone but not Harry Harrison - I've never had reply to state they were updating it and I was told that my evidence was insufficient to warrant a change even though the same evidence was provided for both...

[Turner]

I too failed to gain assistance from the CWGC after emailing them to advise that my great uncles grave was not in the CWGC area in Brecon cemetery as their site indicates, but stood way over on the other side of the cemetery where it had been raised by his mother. It took me over a year to discover this (Brecon is quite a large cemetery) - I even sent photos of the actual monument itself (which is totally different to the standard CWGC headstone) but to no avail.

Not that my GU was anyone of major significance, but he was one of the first members of the RFC and after three years service in France as an engineer/observer, died while flying his first solo at Rendcomb areodrome in Glos. His gravestone also carries a beautifully executed marble carving of the RFC crest, probably very rare on a non-CWGC grave. I'm probably over-pedantic, but a database is supposed to be a database......

[pylon1357]

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.

Just a quick update in regards to my experiances with the CWGC, I sent a message to them using the link on their site. I attached a couple of photos of the supporting documents, and they accepted and changed the entry to reflect Alvin. So a positive result for me on this one.

Just 1 more to go and I will be a very happy researcher.

[Tom Lang]

Just my 2p worth...

I have contacted the CWGC by email re their entry for my grandfather which shows his age as 'blank'.

I attached copies of

1) his birth record;

2) his marriage record;

3) his MIC;

4) a copy of a hand-written letter from his Company Commader to my grandmother, describing the circumstances of his death;

5) my transcription of the text of this letter as it is very feeble and smudged on the back page.

His Company Commander was captured about 6 months later, and died of his wounds as a POW (He too is listed on the CWGC site).

This letter was found in my grandmother's belongings after she died.

The CWGC replied that they cannot accept this as evidence as there is no tie to the letter (which shows his army serial no) with an envelope (which is missing).

At least the 'evidence' I sent is now in their file, albeit that it is not accepted as such.

[my edit - my grandfather was 23 years old when he was killed in action]

Kindest Regards.

[John_Hartley]

Tom

I'm a little unsure what you're trying to persuade CWGC/MoD to add to the records - and am therefore a little unsure why they would require an envelope (something almost never retained by anyone) to connect to a letter (something often retained). I'm guessing from your opening sentence that you are trying to persuade them to add his age?

The difficulty with ages is that there's often never a evidence based link between a birth certificate and a death to confirm that it's the same man. The only document which you appear to be missing is his death certicate. it may well include his age and this will, almost certainly, by accpeted by CWGC.

Good luck

John

[Tom Lang]

John,

You're right - I wasn't very clear.

I wanted to provide proof of his age at the time of his death, so that they would update the 'blank' age on their website.

The CWGC replied to me with a request to provide the envelope which would've come with the letter, but there was no envelope with the letter in grandmother's belongings.

I assume that they would/could use the address on the envelope to confirm any 'home' or 'Next of Kin' address held in their records.

As all/most of the WW1 Scottish Regimental Records were destroyed in the WW2 blitz in London, I cannot provide any other documents.

I am not aware of any death certificate for my grandfather. I assumed that 'Service Returns' on ScotlandsPeople was just a list from the War Office, but only to record the fact of death.

I must now follow up on this, so thanks for triggering my thoughts.

And just to provide the Forum with the details of the letter, it is as follows:

France

11

^th

May 1917

Dear Mrs. Lang,

I expect that you will have

received from the War Office news of your

husband’s death in action on the 24^th

April last [No 37091 Pte Lang R.]

Please accept our very sincere sympathy

in your bereavement. I feel very

sorry that I have not been able to let

you know before now but have been

waiting for news confirming his death.

Your husband was

one of six orderlies who were asked

for from my company to act as

Brigade runners the night before the

attack took place & so far as I can

discover your husband he was killed

outright by a shell first before our

first wave went forward.

Your husband was one of the last draft

which came to my company & always

did his work well. Unfortunately there

have been many changes in the Company

among the officers recently what with

(End of front page)

(Back page)

some going off altogether, others going

on courses, so that your husband’s

platoon Commander has hardly had

time to make the acquaintance of the

new men.

This is a cruel War and daily all

the noblest and best are laying

down their lives in the cause of

freedom so there is consolation

to know that your husband died

a hero’s death at his post

doing his duty nobly to the last.

Should I have any

further word of your husband’s

place of burial which unfortunately

is unknown to us at present,

I shall let you know urgently,

Believe me.

Yours sincerely,

W.G Stevenson

Captain B coy 14th HLI

I have now found much of the information and history of Capt Stevenson, and am in email contact with a niece and a gt nephew of his.

If I find my grandfather's death certificate, I'll sure let you know and I will reply to the CWGC.

Kindest Regards.

P.S. I should have added to the above list the Army Form B 104-82 received by my grandmother notifying her of my grandfather's death.

And also the Scroll and Plaque showing his name and Battalion.

[John_Hartley]

I am not aware of any death certificate for my grandfather.

Robert Lang's death certificate is recorded in the list of overseas military deaths. A copy of the certificate can be obtained from the GRO. The reference you'll need is:

Year - 1917

Volume - I.12

Page - 07

[Tom Lang]

Hello John,

Thanks for this information. I'm not sure what you mean by "GRO" (General Records Office maybe? Is that in England?).

He is recorded on the 'Service Returns' on the ScotlandsPeople website. I have requested a copy from there.

But thanks again for your suggestion.

Kindest Regards.

[grantowi]

GRO = General Registers Office

Link to online ordering - https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/default.asp - costs £9.25 per certificate

Are the numbers for GRO the same as for Scotlands people ?

Grant

[John_Hartley]

He is recorded on the 'Service Returns' on the ScotlandsPeople website. I have requested a copy from there.

I'm afraid I've no idea what records Scotlands People may hold. Certainly the General Register Office for England & Wales issues full death certificates for overseas military deaths and, as far as I know, does not exclude deaths of Scottish men or men from anywhere serving with Scottish regiments.

[Tom Lang]

Thanks for your reply Grantowi.

The numbers are NOT the same.

The information that John gave is the index details to the actual record.

Year - 1917

Volume - I.12

Page - 07

But you cannot download a copy of the actual record. You have to order a copy as your link shows.

On the ScotlandsPeople website, the record entry is GROS 120/AF 0334.

I have downloaded a copy from ScotlandsPeople and I've ordered an 'offical' extract of the record, so I'm sure the CWGC will accept this (with the other documents I've submitted) as proof of his age (stated as 23) at the time of his death.

I'll keep you posted on my progress, and I would like to thank all of you for your advice and assistance.

Kindest Regards.

[Tom Lang]

I'm afraid I've no idea what records Scotlands People may hold. Certainly the General Register Office for England & Wales issues full death certificates for overseas military deaths and, as far as I know, does not exclude deaths of Scottish men or men from anywhere serving with Scottish regiments.

Thanks John.

I think they are the same, it's just a different way to get an 'official' copy.

I have contacted the Scottish General Registrar's Office (in Edinburgh) and they have explained this to me.

Using your index reference you gave earlier, I can download a copy of the index page only.

But using ScotlandsPeople (being a Scottish Regiment (14 HLI), and grandfather being born in Scotland) allows me to get an immediate download which is a copy of the page sent by The War Office to the Scottish Registrar's Office.

This page is number 334 and is a list of 15 names of KIA all from the 14 Bn HLI.

It is kinda blurry but the staff at ScotlandsPeople have offered to have the page re-scanned.

The page is Army Form W [blur] and is titled:

"RETURN of WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS and MEN

of the 14th Battn. Highland Light Infantry KILLED in Action

or who have DIED whilst on Service Abroad in the WAR of 1914 to [blank]"

(A very fitting army form title.)

I have ordered an 'official' extract and will receive that in the post over the next couple of weeks. It is this Extract of Death that I will submit to the CWGC.

Thanks for everyone's help.

Kindest Regards.

[John_Hartley]

Tom

Yes - CWGC will usually accept the official extract as they would for the England/Wales death certificate. The In From the Cold Project has used these as evidence of death for uncommemorated men and there's never been rpobelm with acceptance.

John

[Tom Lang]

Thanks John,

That is good to hear.

Kindest Regards.

[Tom Lang]

But using ScotlandsPeople (being a Scottish Regiment (14 HLI), and grandfather being born in Scotland) allows me to get an immediate download which is a copy of the page sent by The War Office to the Scottish Registrar's Office.

This page is number 334 and is a list of 15 names of KIA all from the 14 Bn HLI.

It is kinda blurry but the staff at ScotlandsPeople have offered to have the page re-scanned.

The page is Army Form W [blur] and is titled:

"RETURN of WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS and MEN

of the 14th Battn. Highland Light Infantry KILLED in Action

or who have DIED whilst on Service Abroad in the WAR of 1914 to [blank]"

(A very fitting army form title.)

I have now received a clear copy of the Service Return record from the staff at the ScotlandPeople website.

It's Army Form W 3231.

I can't upload it ('coz I don't know how - I'm off to find out) but I thought I'd at least let you know the Form Number.

Kindest Regards.

[grantowi]

Good luck with the submission, Tom

Grant