BWM for UK service?

[Muerrisch]

I have searched high and low: Williamson's great tome, Dorling, Medals Year Book, the Duckers, even Wikipedia.

And, in desperation [!] the Army order and amendments, BUT

I still cannot answer a straightforward question:

"Was it possible, even if unlikely, that a soldier born in England could qualify for the BWM if he spent all his war in Barracks in Ireland?".

My opinion is NO, but I cannot find what the exceptions to the rule were.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello Grumpy

I can't give you a source but military aid to the civil power (after the Easter Rising) is a possibility, or, depending on the location of the barracks, perhaps operations in coastal defences.

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Ron, thank you very much, hadn't thought of "The Troubles"!

[Jim_Grundy]

No campaign medals were awarded for the Easter Rising, as it was part of the U.K. and not a 'theatre of war' (although I'm sure those who took part in it could be forgiven for thinking otherwise). I don't think anyone 'in barracks' in any part of the U.K. would've be awarded a British War Medal. Coastal defence and post-war mine clearance are the two possibilities that come to mind - well, my mind anyway.

[PhilB]

How about a Memorial Plaque if killed in the troubles?

[Ron Clifton]

Hello PhilB

I think a Memorial Plaque was awarded for everyone who died on active service during the war, wherever it was and whatever the cause, but I could be wrong.

Ron

[PhilB]

Ron, that would mean that a man`s full entitlement could be the plaque. Sounds odd but if those are rules....

[NigelS]

Is there any possibility that, although your man was born in England, he'd returned having previously emigrated to an Empire country? I believe that such a man might qualify for the BWM as it could be considered that they'd left their 'native shores'; this theory would depend on whether 'native shores' were taken as being those of birth or of more recent residence.

NigelS

[Jonathan Saunders]

There were a lot of R.M. Bandsmen that were awarded just a BWM. The norm for sea-going bandsmen were a pair or trio. So I assume the BWM was for coastal defence ie. they met some criteria by being in barracks at Chatham, Deal, Portsmouth etc.

In answer to another question - a death plaque and scroll was the sole entitlement to someone that died in service that had not been present in a war theatre.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[kenf48]

I don't know if you have looked at the Times Archive but Churchill in particular was adamant that:-

"the War Office policy is that the medal was to be given in the first instance to those who went to war, and there are millions of these. The issue of these medals will take two or three years and I cannot regard it as urgent at the present time to decide whether the war medal should be extended to about a million and a half other persons who did not go to war because they were unfair for active operations" Reply to question House of Commons he went on to say "I am entirely opposed to giving the same medal to the great mass of people who never left this country as is given to the people who fought".Times 21 April 1920. In the same debate it was noted there was a considerable divergence of policy between the War Office and the Admiralty (who did award the medal to the those on coastguard duty), however the numbers were tiny compared to those on Garrison duty.

There was a strong lobby for a Home/General Service medal but it came to naught.

On 28 July 1921 it was again emphasised that the War Medal should not be granted for Home Service with the exception that the British War Medal should be awarded to the personnel of Coast Defence batteries actually engaged with hostile vessels during the war. Sir Robert Sanders Under Secretary to the War Office. House of Commons Report

My italics, so I guess if your man was in a coastal battery in Ireland and fired on the enemy he would be entitled to the medal. (e.g. http://www.mariner.i...r/wwi-west-cork)

Of course if he was in Barracks the whole time he would not qualify, but it seems one action would suffice - guess you had to get a 'chit' from someone to say you were involved in such an action!

Sanders went on to say he could not speak for the Navy. (Incidentally the same day the Times reported the unveiling of the Dover Patrol memorial.)

Ken

[ianjonesncl]

On 26/10/2012 at 21:59, kenf48 said:

There was a strong lobby for a Home/General Service medal but it came to naught.

On 28 July 1921 it was again emphasised that the War Medal should not be granted for Home Service with the exception that the British War Medal should be awarded to the personnel of Coast Defence batteries actually engaged with hostile vessels during the war. Sir Robert Sanders Under Secretary to the War Office. My italics, so I guess if your man was in a coastal battery in Ireland and fired on the enemy he would be entitled to the medal. (e.g. http://www.mariner.i...r/wwi-west-cork)

Sanders went on to say he could not speak for the Navy. (Incidentally the same day the Times reported the unveiling of the Dover Patrol memorial.)

Ken

Ken

This topic from a while ago supports that statement. It details the awarding of the BWM to Durham RGA involved in the Bombardment of Hartlepool december 1914.

Ian

[kenf48]

Thank you Ian, very interesting they waited along time for recognition.

It seems it was a political decision but no doubt there was an Army Order around this time amending the original terms of the award.

Ken

[ForeignGong]

Just a thought, what about AA gunners, what would they be entitled to???

[Hywyn]

Is there any possibility that, although your man was born in England, he'd returned having previously emigrated to an Empire country? I believe that such a man might qualify for the BWM as it could be considered that they'd left their 'native shores'; this theory would depend on whether 'native shores' were taken as being those of birth or of more recent residence.

To add to Nigel's comment.

Whilst perusing RWF 'pair' medal rolls I made a note that in the 'BWM only' volume there was a batch of about 50 men showing as 'attested USA and proceeded to England'. They were in the number range 90591 to 92798.

<snip... material re 92077 Ezekiel Thomas, removed for review>

One that drew my eye as curious amongst this batch was 90913 Cecil George Sayer, who attested in France and proceeded to England. I'll add, in case it means anything that his entry is marked letter NW/4/1811

[Muerrisch]

Many thanks to all contributors for their collective wisdom and thoughts.

I think it pretty clear that the rules were interpreted literally but fairly.

It seems also very very unlikely that a professional long-serving British soldier unfit or too old for Active Service could remain [willingly or unwillingly] in Ireland for the duration and receive the BWM at the end of it.

One of the documents associated with my 12 Good Conduct badges case suggested that L-Cpl 2293 Edward Dutchy Pearse was bereft of the BWM "because he did not apply for it, being miffed at not going to the front" . Not that he needed it, he was decorated like a Christmas tree anyway.

This claim is now seen to be dubious if not spurious.

For more background see:

 

 

[clive_hughes]

Hywyn,

Re. the details above for 92077 Ezekiel Thomas RWF. He was drowned in the sinking of the RMS Leinster on 10 October 1918.

Philip Lecane's book Torpedoed! on the tragedy also notes that he was aged 23, born at Llanrwst Denbighshire, and worked as a teamsman at Glyn Farm, Colwyn Bay prior to enlisting at Colwyn Bay on 17 June 1918. He was sent to 3rd Battalion at Limerick for training and was crossing the Irish Sea to attend his father's funeral when the ship was torpedoed. His body was recovered (as were many others) and buried at Grangegorman. Interestingly he also has a memorial stone at Glan Conwy Churchyard, amongst a number of such "individual" markers which line the pathway there.

So...he'd apparently never been to America, or "Overseas" in the accepted sense for a medal issue, though he was killed by enemy action in British waters. But normally that would qualify him for the Plaque and Scroll, and nothing else. A curiosity indeed!

Clive

[auchonvillerssomme]

This might be of interest.

HC Deb 22 March 1922 vol 152 cc567-620

Mr. T. THOMSON

I should like to refer to a much minor matter, but one in which considerable, interest is felt outside, namely, the policy of the Government in refusing to give those men who only saw home service any recognition whatsoever. I know this matter has been before the House and the Government before, but I submit there is an entirely new factor in the situation, inasmuch as the Government, by issuing to special constables a medal for war service, have created a sense of grievance and injury amongst those many men who, through no fault of their own, gave much greater service, and yet have received no recognition whatsoever. In answer to a question the other day the Minister for War said that the medal which had been given to the special constables was not an Army medal. That is perfectly true, but it is a medal for war service issued under Royal Warrant, and described in that Royal Warrant as being in recognition of devoted service rendered by members of the Special Constabulary during the War, and the medal has a clasp On which is inscribed "The Great War, 1914–18." I hold that if the special constables—who did excellent service, but under very different conditions from those who served at home, or the Territorials, or pre-War Army men who, over age, came up and spent many years and long days as drill instructors and drill sergeants licking our 592 new Army into shape—are to have these medals it is a serious reflection on those men that they should have no recognition. Do not give them necessarily the same medal as is given to men who served overseas, but do give them some recognition. Hon. Members must have seen many, many cases which have involved particular hardship. You have a Territorial Force which mobilised immediately that war was declared in 1914, and containing men who volunteered for overseas service, and who, through no fault of their own, were detained at home, some because of their excellence as drill or musketry instructors, men who were willing to go overseas but were not allowed to do so. These men, who have many years' service behind them, some over 4¼ years, have been denied any recognition whatsoever, because an unkind fate kept them here.

I am quite certain those of us who served overseas, and who get the medals for that service, would not in any way grudge the home service men having some recognition, and surely at a time when you are anxious to increase your Territorial Force and to make it attractive you are doing a bad turn to the officers who are raising the Territorials by giving this obvious slight to those who have done that service. I had a letter the other day from a Territorial who had put in 35 years for his country, and who was not able to go overseas through ill-health. He enlisted in 1914, and his division was not called for overseas till July, 1916. In the meantime he had been in Ireland in troublous times; when the Territorials were mobilised ho was an A1 man, but when he was called before the doctor for service overseas he was turned down on account of strained heart due to his service in the Territorials. He gets no recognition whatever. I have another case showing another anomalous position. A British subject in the Western States of America as soon as War was declared travelled the 5,000 miles to come here, enlisted, although he was over age, and, although he was unable to go overseas, served for 4½ years, and received no recognition whatsoever. The irony of the thing is that he goes back to America, and the United States authorities issue to him a medal for service with an Allied Army. 593 That is to say, the United States authorities give to a British subject that which the War Office here refuses to allow him to have. In this manner you can go through a large number of cases.

I have a case of an ex-Guardsman who has done great services. He was over age, volunteered, and spent the whole of the four years on the drill square licking into shape the raw recruits who came along. As a drill sergeant he had over 16,000 men through his hands. His younger son had gone abroad just before the Armistice, landed in France, and, being in the Signal Service of the Post Office, he was called home, and only saw a few months' service. He gets his medal, and then he says to his father, "What did you do in the Great War?" His father replies, "I did this," and the son answers, "Where are your medals?" This lad, a mere stripling, has his medals, but the father, an ex-Guardsman, four years on the drill square, training thousands of men, gets nothing. If you are to have medals at all, and if you are to have the same medals for men who were in the firing line as for those who were on some cushy job at the base, who never saw the end of a gun, you are not stretching the point considerably if you grant a medal to the men who saw home service. I do urge that the War Office and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that outside there is a very sore feeling on the question, and having given the medal—whether you call it an Army or a War medal—to the special constables, it does give a reason for the whole matter to be reopened and to be considered again in order that these men who did grand service, and especially the Territorials, shall not be deterred in the future by what so far appears to be unfair treatment at the hands of the Government.

[Muerrisch]

Thanks: a good case, and eloquently put.

[Hywyn]

Hywyn,

Re. the details above for 92077 Ezekiel Thomas RWF. He was drowned in the sinking of the RMS Leinster on 10 October 1918................

Clive

Thanks Clive. I need to review my notes re this man amongst the 'USA' ones. Meanwhile I'll ammend my post so as not to mislead anyone that may come across it.

Hywyn