Michael Posted 14 August , 2004 Share Posted 14 August , 2004 The following boys died in 1921 and are buried in the UK. They were both 16 and have post WW1 umbers. Why are they commemorated on CWGC ? PETTMAN Boy JOHN FREDERICK 6278775 1st Bn The Buffs (East Kent Regiment) Accidentally killed 15th February 1921 Age 16 DEGVILLE Boy HAROLD ANGUS 6279225 The Buffs (East Kent Regiment) Drowned 20th July 1921 Age 16 Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Coulson Posted 14 August , 2004 Share Posted 14 August , 2004 Mick, The cut off date used by CWGC for the Great War was August 31st 1921. Bob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted 14 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 14 August , 2004 Thanks Bob, but there is no way these boys could have taken any part in the war and it seems wrong that they are remembered with a 'Debt of Honour' Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 14 August , 2004 Share Posted 14 August , 2004 Michael Your assumption is wrong. WW1 was only declared to be over by the UK Parliament on 31.08.21. Until that date the war was technically still on. 11.11.18 was only an armistice and fighting could have broken out again at any time. Many men fought on - in Russia, India, Ireland, Iraq etc. Therefore any serving member of a Commonwealth armed force who died of any reason whatsoever qualifies for war grave treatment up to that date. Cause of death or location of death was never a factor in considering eligibility for war grave status. Many men were dying long after 11.11.18 and all servicemen where deemed to be equal - no matter where they served or how they died. This applied right to the end of the war which was 31.08.21. These lads were in the armed forces and died during the war and therefore they qualify. They played their part like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted 14 August , 2004 Share Posted 14 August , 2004 Guys Sorry, this one's for Terry as it is not WW1. I shall try to attach a photo I took at Kempston Beds. A wargrave from 1944 but MOD pattern. Any ideas Terry? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 Chris The photo does not seem to have worked. Try making it smaller first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 Michael, I cannot believe you put a comment like that about two fallen soldier's 'it seem's wrong that they are remembered with a debt of honour' Why, I find it unfortunate that the government does not have a similar database to CWGC that records all service personnel killed in peace time & other campaigns suez, palestine, ireland etc. I see no difference in two lads being commemorated on the CWGC who may have missed the war to the many soldiers who died during the war but died in training, car accidents, natural death, suicide's, murder etc without ever having fought an enemy. IMO these lads died in the service of their country, whatever the circumstance and deserve to be remembered with honour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted 15 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 15 August , 2004 It wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I can't believe that anyone was fighting in the Great War in 1921 and even if they were, these two wouldn't have been able to go anyway. Compare this to Thomas Rye who got a terrible head wound in 1917 which gave him severe epilepsy. He also developed and subsequently died of pulmonary TB and tubercular testis which spread to his bladder and rectum directly as a result of his service in the trenches. Because he died in 1922, he doesn't get remembered with honour. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 Michael I accept that you were not meaning to be disrespectful but I still can't agree with your stance that these men do not deserve recognition. Surely, your arguement should be the other way around - that Rye (and others) ALSO deserve recognition even though they died after 31.08.21 - a perfectly valid point. Objecting to those who have got recognition seems a little harsh. In fact, the New Zealand government agrees with you and accepts all war related deaths after the cut-off date as valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lesley Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 IMO these lads died in the service of their country, whatever the circumstance and deserve to be remembered with honour! This is not an easy one! I can see Michael's point of view, but a line had to be drawn some where, and if they come in under the criteria they are entitled to their commemoration regardless of how they died. They may not have taken part in the War, but there must be hundreds of similar commemorations for soldiers who died at home as a result of accidents having never seen active service. Should they have their commemorations removed? No maybe the answer is a register of all soldiers who either died whilst on service or as a result of their service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted 15 August , 2004 Author Share Posted 15 August , 2004 Yes Terry, I agree now. Perhaps the boys should be remembered and so should those that died as a result of their service (although this would be difficult to administer), but the way it stands, the hero isn't remembered. mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lesley Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 but the way it stands, the hero isn't remembered. Michael, Officially he is not but whilst people like ourselves strive to keep interest in the Great war alive soldiers such as Thomas Rye will not be forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 Michael Yes, sad as it is, there is no official commemoration for him - like so many others including from the non-world war conflicts (talking of UK troops here and not those from the Dominions). Lesley is right. It is down to us to see that such people are not forgotten. I hope your man is on a local memorial somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnie Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 CWGC Although the CWGC will only take respocibility for head stones for soldiers who died after to designated cutoff dates. It is still possible to to have the official Head stone for soldiers who die in service after those cut off points. It is however subject to strict conditions. For instance if a family elect to have their loveed ones brought home at their own expence they will get a head stone free. If the loved one comes home at public cost the head stone is available at a nominal fee. This arrangement is being reviewed and may have already have changed. Arnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 15 August , 2004 Share Posted 15 August , 2004 The headstone to which Arnie refers is not an official war grave headstone but a Non-World War Grave headstone. He is, of course, also referring to modern casualties being brought home. It has a slightly different design to show the difference in status and is not supplied or maintained by CWGC. See here.... http://1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?showt...l=non-world+war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted 16 August , 2004 Share Posted 16 August , 2004 Hi Terry Still having problems with the jpeg. The details as I can recall them are for a Gunner Gilbert Royal Artillery 12th May 1944 on a MOD pattern stone. Why would a War death have an MOD stone? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 16 August , 2004 Share Posted 16 August , 2004 These are a common cause of error. This means that the person concerned was no longer serving at his death - either discharged or retired. In such cases relatives often want to record their military service (particularly so in 1944) and therefore they elect to have a Non-World War headstone to do this. CWGC classify GIBSON as a 'Non-World War Grave in CWGC Care'. Below is his entry from the NWW section of their database... GILBERT, Gunner, CYRIL WILLIAM, 14288211. Civilian formerly Royal Artillery. 12th May 1944. Block J Grave 54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted 16 August , 2004 Share Posted 16 August , 2004 Thanks for that Terry. All clear now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corisande Posted 15 November , 2011 Share Posted 15 November , 2011 I can't believe that anyone was fighting in the Great War in 1921 and even if they were, these two wouldn't have been able to go anyway. I came across this thread while researching British War dead in Ireland during the War of Independence. Whilst you can argue against British War dead in Ireland appearing on English WW1 War Memorials, I would point out that Boy Degville was serving in Ireland within the cut off dates for CWGC recognition. He did die accidentally, but he was serving in a war zone. I concede that had he drowned accidentally in England he would also have had CWGC recognition. Those are the rules. Equally well men who served in the para-military ADRIC in Ireland are not entitled to CWGC recognition, those are the rules, which also upset many. I could probably find you 100 British soldiers killed in Ireland during the War of Independence who were too young to have served in Great War, but lie in CWGC graves. For example 2nd Lt Breeze - click for details of his death - who was just out of Sandhurst when he was murdered within a few weeks of Boy Degvilles death, and Lt Breeze has CWGC recognition too. A stack of men died in North Russia among the 10,000 British troops sent there in 1919. They too have CWGC recognition None of us on this forum will get the rules changed on CWGC recognition. Personally the thing that concerns me more is the large number of unmarked and unrecognized British soldiers' graves in Ireland from that time, that the British have made no effort to find and recover the bodies from the bogs in which they lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 15 November , 2011 Share Posted 15 November , 2011 Surely this is only about CWGC cut off dates, there are many many CWGC stones above servicemen and women who have died in service of injuries or illness not related to official declared wars or confict who will be listed on the unreleased CWGC database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museumtom Posted 25 August , 2022 Share Posted 25 August , 2022 On 14/08/2004 at 19:48, Michael said: The following boys died in 1921 and are buried in the UK. They were both 16 and have post WW1 umbers. Why are they commemorated on CWGC ? PETTMAN Boy JOHN FREDERICK 6278775 1st Bn The Buffs (East Kent Regiment) Accidentally killed 15th February 1921 Age 16 DEGVILLE Boy HAROLD ANGUS 6279225 The Buffs (East Kent Regiment) Drowned 20th July 1921 Age 16 Mick Death registered in Cork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Strawbridge Posted 25 August , 2022 Share Posted 25 August , 2022 (edited) The death certificate shows Harold Degville as a boy sailor whereas the CWGC has him as The Buffs and having drowned. I wonder which is right. This website shows that he died whilst bathing. https://www.cairogang.com/soldiers-killed/digswell/degville.html Edited 25 August , 2022 by Jim Strawbridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 25 August , 2022 Share Posted 25 August , 2022 11 minutes ago, Jim Strawbridge said: The death certificate shows Harold Degville as a boy sailor whereas the CWGC has him as The Buffs and having drowned. I wonder which is right. This website shows that he died whilst bathing. https://www.cairogang.com/soldiers-killed/digswell/degville.html That's Corisande's website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museumtom Posted 25 August , 2022 Share Posted 25 August , 2022 Jim old budy, I read it boy tailor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Strawbridge Posted 25 August , 2022 Share Posted 25 August , 2022 4 minutes ago, museumtom said: Jim old budy, I read it boy tailor? Ah. That makes sense. I know that there were boy sailors who were taken on from the age of 12 so my thought was valid. 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