The Village, BBC1 9pm Easter Sunday

[Guest exuser1]

Was this because officers paid for their kit and so it was their own and not the army's?

I believe this to be correct .

[CGM]

Thank you, Hesmond.

CGM

[KGB]

Ah! We are agreed that a 1914-15 Star could not have been worn by a grieving Mum in 1916 then! As for kit some of my distant cousins effects were returned to Galway after he was killed in action in 1915.

[MichaelBully]

Roland Leighton's parents Marie and Robert Leighton received his kit including the uniform ,following Roland's death from wounds incurred on the 'Front, at their house at Keymer. Vera was visiting them at the time and wrote a moving account of the experience which has been quoted quite frequently.

Regards

Michael Bully

Didn't Vera Brittain eventually receive Roland's kit including uniform?

[Andrew Upton]

I was wondering about that as I thought the medal wasn't issued until 1918.

It was pretty miserable, wasn't it? I must admit I am close to switch off. Call me shallow but do I really need this much gloom in my life when Monday morning is only a few hours away! The medal wasn't issued until 1917/1918 but I'll put this down, like Kim, to poetic licence. What about the uniform though? Surely the uniform of a casualty wasn't returned to the family for them to look for bullet holes and bloodstains. This was a nonsense and was introduced only to support the following scenes where the mother attempted to find out the truth behind her son's death which Joe MUST have had to tell someone. All a bit flimsy, I thought. I know that personal effects were returned but, for my interest, would this have ever included items of kit? Paul

Regarding the 1914-15 Star, this wasn't even authorized, let alone manufactured, until very late 1918, with the first issue of ribband to those entitled from January 1919:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=193038

Wednesday, Nov 20, 1918; pg. 9; Issue 41952; col F; Article CS152898420 The 1914-1915 Star. ENTITLED TO "1914-1915 STAR.".

Category: Letters to the Editor

To the Editor of the Times

Sir , - Mr. Macpherson announced in the House of Commons a few days ago that it was intended to give a star, to be called the "1914-1915 Star" to all officers and men who served in a theatre of war up to December 31, 1915....

Tuesday, Dec 24, 1918; pg. 8; Issue 41981; col C; Article CS135072664

1914-15 Star. Award To The Navy And Army.

Category: Official Appointments and Notices

1914-15 STAR

AWARD TO THE NAVY AND ARMY

The award of the 1914-15 Star to both the Navy and the Army is announced to-day

(The Army order & Admiralty Regulations relating to its issue are then given)

Monday, Jan 13, 1919; pg. 10; Issue 41996; col E; Article CS168234029

The "1914-15 Star" Riband.

Category: News

THE "1914-15 STAR" RIBAND.

It is notified in an Army Council Instruction that the riband of the "1914-15 STAR" may now be worn by officers and soldiers who are entitled to the award of the Star. The "1914-15 STAR" is a war medal and is to be worn as such in accordance with paragraph 54, Dress Regulations, and A.C.I. 1230 of 1918. The riband will be worn with the red edge to the right, i.e., with the red edge farthest from the left shoulder.

A preliminary issue of 3in. of the riband will be made in the case of each serving individual who is entitled to the star, but indents for riband are not to be submitted until after notification is given that stocks are available. Individual applications for riband are not to be submitted direct to the War Office.

[Andrew Upton]

As to the jacket being returned to the family, this would have been extremely unlikely. Unless it was a spare he'd somehow acquired (which at least would explain its pristine appearance), if it was actually the jacket he was killed whilst wearing he would most likely either have been buried in it (especially if bloodied/damaged/etc), or if in decent condition it would have been recycled into the army clothing system (or such parts as could be saved, eg buttons, shoulder titles). It's much more likely that a soldier gathering personal effects together to be sent to the NOK might save the buttons or titles for them than a whole jacket.

The example with Vera Britain and Rolands soft kit is something of an exception, given he was badly wounded whilst wearing it, but was received into the medical system before subsequently dying. Hence much of it was removed from him whilst he was still alive, and being his own property sent back to his family after his death. Had he been killed outright, chances are it would simply have been left on his body and buried with him. In spite of this, I am still suprised a great deal more tact was not exercised in what was returned.

[Steven Broomfield]

You know what? I'm enjoying it as a drama and even my inner pedant is willing to overlook the anachronisms. Compared to over-blown tosh like any Spielberg epic set on horseback in the Great War, I can accept this as a moving tribute to our grandparents and great grandparents.

[spconnolly007]

I am beginning to struggle a bit with it now. I also mentioned the 'Star' incident to Mrs. Shiny (she wasn't remotely interested) and the uniform (same reaction). I will continue with it though as the acting has remained first class by all, especially the little fella who's name escapes me right now.

[better ole]

With about 5 miullion viewers watching this series, how many would notice or care about the errors and inaccuracies we pick up on this forum?

I'm watching for the acting, scenery and developing storylines.

[maxi]

I'm watching it for Charlie Murphy - an actress I'll have you know!

What a cutie, er I mean, a fine actress.

Maxi

[KGB]

I'm watching it for Charlie Murphy - an actress I'll have you know!

What a cutie, er I mean, a fine actress.

Maxi

Cough cough Yes fine woman!

[Magnumbellum]

He wasn't actually awarded the death sentence. If you watched it properly, you would see they used it as an example of what could happen to him if he failed to follow an order, which is why he eventually chose to put on the uniform and march down the street.

The conscientious objector episode is probably the most widely inaccurate of the series so far. In the military service tribunal scene, the opportunity was missed to include the military representative in uniform with even more aggressive questioning than that of the tribunal members. The chairman's announcement of the decision as "objection denied" was more redolent of an American court than anything in Britain, let alone a MST in in WW1. The announcement would have more like "We do not find this man to be a conscientious objector. Exemption refused".

The next step would not have been two soldiers in alleged red caps turning up in the village, reading some nonsense about a death sentence. It would have been the local bobby calling at the house and arresting him. Then he could be shown being taken to the police station and put in a cell, before being taken before the magistrates' court (opportunity missed for an actual court scene), fined and handed over to a military escort (not wearing red caps) and taken away in whatever clothes he was wearing.

To summarise, the military had no power on their own to arrest and forcibly enlist a refusing conscript. Arrest was by a civilian constable (on notification by the Army that the man had not reported as required), and then the magistrates had to be satisfied that the arrested man was indeed liable for military service and had not complied with a lawful notice to report. He was then fined and "handed over" - to use the notorious term - to a waiting military escort, who took him to the barracks or camp.where he was supposed to have reported. There were instances of highly irregular threats of death and of forcible dressing of unwilling COs, but these all took place within military establishments. They could notionally have been incorporated into the village story either in letters or by someone reporting back to the village after visiting the CO in camp There are plenty of accounts on which a scenario could have been based.

The episode in question was highly misleading in presenting the apparent only CO in the story as one who, after initially failing to report simply gave in, whereas the overwhelming majority of such COs continued resistance within the camps and barracks, so ending up in prison.

[kevmc]

...... two soldiers in alleged red caps turning up in the village, reading some nonsense about a death sentence.

I think you misunderstood that scene. I took it that there was an element of "frightening" the objector - not quoting some formal sentence.

No doubt young recruits would have been silmilarly intimidated by aggressive sergeants who would say things not found in a manual. To rigidly apply procedures to a piece of fiction would remove a lot of the dramatic twists and turns that fictionalised stories contain. Reading through the various criticisms shows that a number of people need to relax and accept what they are watching is fiction or just stop over-reacting.

On the other hand the Forum would be lacking its "little battles" if there was a mute response to programmes like this!

Kevin

[dannyboy1807]

I'm watching it for Charlie Murphy - an actress I'll have you know!

What a cutie, er I mean, a fine actress.

Maxi

Cough cough Yes fine woman!

woooooooaaaaaaah I shotgunned her first she is mine!!!!

[KGB]

woooooooaaaaaaah I shotgunned her first she is mine!!!!

Will swap for Hayley Atwell, Vicky Binns, Claire Danes, Romola Garai or Mindy Kaling!

[dannyboy1807]

Hayley Atwell thats very tempting the other 4 none are a patch on Charlie.

ok deal on Hayley Atwell.

[Pighills]

I think you misunderstood that scene. I took it that there was an element of "frightening" the objector - not quoting some formal sentence.

Kevin

Totally agree. I'm amazed at how that scene has been misunderstood actually.

[Steven Broomfield]

The Tottygraph published a letter from someone (not me, I hasten to add) which indicated the writer had misunderstood the scene, too. I mean ... The Tottygraph ...

[Magnumbellum]

Totally agree. I'm amazed at how that scene has been misunderstood actually.

A careful reading of my post 212 above will show that:

1. It begins with a quote from your own post of 15 April above about the purported context of the scene;

2. It includes a direct answer to your "defence" -

"The military had no power to arrest and forcibly enlist a refusing conscript. Arrest was by a civilian constable (on notification by the Army that the man had not reported as required), and then the magistrates had to be satisfied that the man was indeed liable for military service and had not complied with a lawful notice to report. He was then fined and "handed over" - to use the notorious term - to a waiting military escort, who took him to the barracks or camp.where he was supposed to have reported. There were instances of highly irregular threats of death and of forcible dressing of unwilling COs, but these all took place within military establishments. They could notionally have been incorporated into the Village story, either in letters or by someone reporting back to the village after visiting the CO in camp There are plenty of accounts on which a scenario could have been based."

Since I seem to have been as much misunderstood as the scene itself was by others, I reiterate that the reason why I described the alleged "death sentence" as "nonsense" was because it was "nonsense" in its own terms - the perpetrators themselves did not believe it, but conveyed it as a frightener. My complaint is not about the concept of a contrived threat per se, but the scenario in which it was used, viz the purported arrival at the CO's home of two soldiers As I have attempted to set out in detail in my earlier post, such a scenario never occurred in the whole period of conscription, and if it had occurred, it would have been unlawful. Such "death threats" occurred from to time in military establishments, and when they did occur, they were, as it happens, made by a senior NCO or officer, never by an other rank soldier.

So far as I am concerned, this is not mere pedantry. There must be thousands of descendants of the several thousand WW1 COs, and many of these are trying to trace and understand the experiences of their forebears. Whereas there is plenty of documentary material to assist researchers into the experiences of WW1 soldiers, there is little regarding COs, and it is disappointing, to put it at its mildest, when a needless travesty of the CO experience is made in a high-profile, albeit fictional, account by a supposedly responsible organisation such as the BBC. Part of that travesty, as I have indicated, is that the one representative CO in the drama is made to succumb to overweening military pressure, when such a CO comprised barely one per cent of WW1 COs. It raises the question whether the BBC has elected to forego neutrality on the jingoistic-war resistance spectrum, so that a CO consistently resisting throughout the war is not portrayed. I hold this to be tendentiously misleading to viewers and dishonouring the memory of WW1 COs, 35 of whom were formally sentenced to death, but reprieved, and over 80 of whom died - ten in prison - as a result of the way they were treated.

I add, to demonstrate objectivity rather than bias, that the portrayal of a miraculously pristine uniform supposedly being "returned" - it was never his own property - to a dead soldier's family was also tendentiously misleading and dishonoured the memory of the soldiers who were killed in "a whole sweet countryside amuck with murder", as Edmund Blunden put it.

[Andrew Upton]

...that the portrayal of a miraculously pristine uniform supposedly being "returned" - it was never his own property - to a dead soldier's family...

Not correct I'm afraid - the Field Service Pocket Book 1914, page 181 gives the following:

"38. CLOTHING.

1. The arrangements for the clothing and equipment of an army in the field are controlled by the director of ordnance services,under the instructions of the I.G.C.

2. Clothing is divided into-

a) Personal.-Ankle boots and shoes, caps, drawers, canvas suits, service dress suits, puttees, sashes, cardigan waistcoats, trousers, tunics, leather gloves, foreign service helmets, gauntlets, cotton drawers.

These become the property of the soldier and may be sold by permission of the O.C. the squadron, battery, or company (in peace only)..."

As I said earlier, there are many reasons the jacket wouldn't have been sent home, but it still technically was his property.

[Magnumbellum]

Thanks for that interesting sidelight on Army protocol, but it is still does not explain why the uniform was miraculously pristine.

In the case of Roland Leighton, as has been mentioned, he was in bed in hospital, and therefore not wearing his uniform, when he died, and it was simply bundled up with the rest of his property as it was at the time.

It is difficult to imagine in the case of soldier actually dying in the field someone taking off his uniform and carefully packing it up for sending to his family, even if it was technically his personal property.

It would be interesting to know whether there is any recorded case of a man's uniform being sent to the family after he had been killed in the field. It was mentioned that one of the two WW1 men buried recently after being discovered in 2009 was identified because he not only had on his uniform, but his wallet was in a pocket.

[GRANVILLE]

I would suspect that the only time a uniform tunic is going to be removed from a fallen soldier for return to the family, would be in the case of an officer and where the uniform had not become heavily soiled?

David

[susan kitchen]

With about 5 miullion viewers watching this series, how many would notice or care about the errors and inaccuracies we pick up on this forum?

I'm watching for the acting, scenery and developing storylines.

I'm with you on this. I don't know why people feel they have to pull programmes to bits. I've watched a couple of interviews with some of the actors and read a couple of articles in i.e the Radio Times. On no occasion have i heard or read that the program is about the war. It's a program about the life of a VILLAGE. So why can't people sit, watch and enjoy it . It wouldn't even cross the minds of the majority of people to think if it's accurate or not. And if it did they wouldn't care. At least it makes a change from the violent programmes there are on T.V and the loads of cop programmes.

[KGB]

I'm with you on this. I don't know why people feel they have to pull programmes to bits. I've watched a couple of interviews with some of the actors and read a couple of articles in i.e the Radio Times. On no occasion have i heard or read that the program is about the war. It's a program about the life of a VILLAGE. So why can't people sit, watch and enjoy it . It wouldn't even cross the minds of the majority of people to think if it's accurate or not. And if it did they wouldn't care. At least it makes a change from the violent programmes there are on T.V and the loads of cop programmes.

I take your point however historical accuracy enters into it - would you have Julius Caesar smoking a cigar?

[susan kitchen]

I take your point however historical accuracy enters into it - would you have Julius Caesar smoking a cigar?

No. But that would be staring everyone in the face. Where as not everyone is interested in the War so thing's that we would notice would pass them by. And if they did notice anything a miss they probably wouldn't care. A lot of people are only interested in the story.