Latest CWGC request for relatives of war dead

[Seadog]

Members will recall that the CWGC had originally posted a similar request on their web site and then for some reason removed it. Members will also recall that the reason given for the request was vague mentioning only "maintenance work". The issue was discussed on the forum with no resolution therefore I am pleased that this time the request does state the reason as being a desire of the Commission to erect standard CWGC headstones on what I assume are private graves which contain the remains of those recorded on the Debt of Honour database but for reasons best known at the time the relatives declined the erection of a CWGC headstone or I suppose were not aware that such a facility existed. This could run and run if all UK cemeteries are included.

CWGC Request - Latest

http://www.cwgc.org/...-relatives.aspx

Regards

Norman

[David_Underdown]

Some these men were non-commemorated, or on memorials such as Brookwood as for whatever reason their burial details were not previously known to CWGC. In such cases families cannot be said to have declined the stone, they probably weren't even aware it was an option

[Seadog]

You say some, I presume that others were already recognized by the CWGC. Perhaps you have the details regarding this latest appeal. I have no problem with the CWGC erecting formal headstones in respect of non-comms providing of course that the relatives of the deceased agree. In the case of those private graves in-situ at the end of the war then I cannot see how any relative can now be aware of the circumstances surrounding the reason why a CWGC headstone was not erected and in these cases I can see no valid reason to as it were "rewrite history".

Regards

Norman

[David_Underdown]

I said some because I haven't been right through the list and cross-referenced it against IFCP or similar. It is a fact that they are men presently commemorated on Brookwood, Hollybrook and other memorials as having no known grave, for whatever reason some of these men fell through the net in some way at the time, either missed altogether or at least their burial place was not reported to CWGC at the time. In some cases where men were lost at sea the identity of the body may not even have been known at the time of the burial, but has been established since - the family may not even have known that a burial had occurred. In other cases there may have been a marker of some sort erected at the time but its condition has subsequently deteriorated to the point that it is no longer an adequate commemoration for CWGC. In any case, where the grave site is known, the CWGC would, I assume, prefer to commemorate as close as possible to the site, using a special commemoration if it is not feasible to mark the grave itself (for example if the relatives decline any headstone, or replacement of a deteriorated one)

[Seadog]

Fair point David but of course only an assumption as to what the CWGC reasons are for the appeal. On the subject of which you will have noticed that the "list" has been produced in MS Word and not as a PDF File, leading to the need to upload a "compatibility pack" if your version of WORD is older, why not as a PDF I have no idea.

Norman

[David_Underdown]

Docx has been about since 2007, so it's not that unreasonable a format, though csv would probably actually have been the best bet for this sort of data.