clive_hughes Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 This is interesting: but it would be good to know (in due course) whether they are naming genuine blank medals, or pulling them out of a box of original "returns". The former seems more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneca Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 This is an interesting thread as I have researched a man whose medals were returned. His rank had been corporal, reduced to private for some reason, and his parents were so incensed to find private engraved on his medals they returned them. His MIC states why they were returned but I can't decipher the reason. This man's nephew and closest relative is still alive and would be delighted to have his uncle's medals but I see in one of the previous posts that a death certificate is required. He was KIA with no known grave and his nephew does not have a death certificate. Could this prevent him from applying for his uncle's medals? Anne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tullybrone Posted 27 August , 2014 Author Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Anne, I'm sure the death certificate proviso is included for those soldiers who did not die in service. You can obtain a death certificate for a KIA but perhaps the relevant CWGC page would suffice for MOD purposes in these circumstances. Regards Steve Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 It says 'Reduced for misconduct in T of W. 28.10.15.' 'T of W' being 'Theatre of War'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Could this prevent him from applying for his uncle's medals? No. The form says that the death certificate is not required for deaths in service - although enclosing a print of the CWGC entry seems a good idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 I think the note anneca is talking about is higher up the card "BWM and VM Retd (992 K.R. 1923) 8362 illegible" Presumably 992 K.R. refers to Kings Regulations - but that is just a guess. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneca Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Yes Mike, I have taken 'Retd' to mean medals were returned but couldn't get the end part of this. Siege Gunner I was able to see the 'Reduced' and 'Theatre of War' but can now see misconduct, thank you both. Many thanks Steve and John, much appreciated. Anne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Isn't it going to be difficult to distinguish between those that were returned for adjustment, i.e. correcting of incorrect inscribed details, and those that were returned as not able to be delivered as no longer at the address etc. The first would seem to be ineligible. I wonder how many weeks/months it will be before MOD get overwhelmed with enquiries, not all of them legitimate, and backtrack? Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westkent78 Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 If they're issuing medals from old stock and naming them up to order to replace the "returned" medals, I wonder if they might also consider issue medals that were never claimed in the first place. My grandfather (officer) never claimed his, but there is a MIC for his SWB. Might be worth a try. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeatherC Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 (edited) This thread tends to imply that the medals on the card shown above were returned for adjustment rather than anything else. Edited 28 November , 2018 by spof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Underdown Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 My gt-gt-uncle's medals (in the care of a cousin of my dad's) were issued via this route (and I beleive I've mentioned it on the forum a couple of times before, but no-one seemed to pick up on it). Unfortunately I've not seen them, so I don't know exact details of striking etc. I've an idea I read somewhere that they are laser engraving them, as they would other modern issued medals, but whether they are still using original stocks, or if they've had new medals struck I don't know. I suspect the MoD would take the line that not claiming them was a deliberate act so wouldn't issue them now - on the other hand the only reason I can think of that my gt-gt-uncle's were returned is that his mother was too distraught to want them - family lived in the same house until the 60s so it wasn't that the next of kin had moved and the army was unable to find them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 How do they decide who now has entitlement to claim them if there are various family members equally close next of kin. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 I wonder if this might of come about because it's been realised that the MOD are actually obliged by the original terms of issue Great War medals, to issue to NoK of men that either never received them (through lack of correct address etc) or returned them for whatever reason. Similar could be argued for descendants of officers who never claimed & it would be interesting to know if this does happen in due course. MOD will still have access to MICs through TNA and these must surely be taken as the bottom line on proof. Could the MOD now backtrack on this, of course they could, but in some ways the genies out of the bottle and the argument will be well NoK of Pte xxxx got his, why can't I get those which my Gt granddad never received or claimed. I doubt whether the fact that medals must be available for issue will make any difference of NoK where there's proof of them having been issued (ie according to the MIC) either by the serviceman entitled or NoK where medals have subsequently been lost/stolen/sold as they have had their entitlement so won't get a second set. I wouldn't have thought that large stocks of blank or named un-issued medals have been lying around for years - may be wrong - but is there any knowledge of whether any of the original dies used to strike them were kept which would allow new production? NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 I suspect the MoD would take the line that not claiming them was a deliberate act so wouldn't issue them now - In theory isn't it only officers medals that weren't automatically issued ? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Underdown Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Yes, I was replying to a post talking about officers' medals, but that didn't come over particularly clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 In anneca's case doesn't the "BWM and VM Retd (992 K.R. 1923) 8362 Adt" mean Greer's medals were returned for adjustment ie a mis-spelling or perhaps in his case his rank was incorrect. His 14-15 Star was to Cpl. Greer but the BWM and VM to Private Greer. Borrowed from another post Medals that were however returned by Recipients for "Adjustment" on a number of occasions which usually meant for alterations to the wording and numbering, in which case they would be Amended & then returned to the recipient. This may mean Greer's medal were returned, adjusted and sent back out. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 In anneca's case doesn't the "BWM and VM Retd (992 K.R. 1923) 8362 Adt" mean Greer's medals were returned for adjustment ie a mis-spelling or perhaps in his case his rank was incorrect. His 14-15 Star was to Cpl. Greer but the BWM and VM to Private Greer. Borrowed from another post Medals that were however returned by Recipients for "Adjustment" on a number of occasions which usually meant for alterations to the wording and numbering, in which case they would be Amended & then returned to the recipient. This may mean Greer's medal were returned, adjusted and sent back out. TEW On the other hand, it might be that there wasn't anything to adjust, with the rank of private inscribed, having been reduced from being corporal, being correct as far as the army saw it; it's then possible that an impasse between the army & the family occurred, so they never did get returned. correspondence in a service record might prove this, but its likely that this no longer exists. NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westkent78 Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 My gt-gt-uncle's medals (in the care of a cousin of my dad's) were issued via this route (and I beleive I've mentioned it on the forum a couple of times before, but no-one seemed to pick up on it). Unfortunately I've not seen them, so I don't know exact details of striking etc. I've an idea I read somewhere that they are laser engraving them, as they would other modern issued medals, but whether they are still using original stocks, or if they've had new medals struck I don't know. I suspect the MoD would take the line that not claiming them was a deliberate act so wouldn't issue them now - on the other hand the only reason I can think of that my gt-gt-uncle's were returned is that his mother was too distraught to want them - family lived in the same house until the 60s so it wasn't that the next of kin had moved and the army was unable to find them. Thanks for the 'evidence', and your thoughts. It would be good to see a newly issued group. Not claiming in the first place might be a deliberate act, or might just be ignorance. Certainly my Father was inquiring into his father's service in the 80's as the MIC indicates a stamp at that time and he'd told me he did, but he was unaware that medals could still be claimed at that point. No one appears to have informed him that he could apply because the medals were never issued. He would have done so had he known. Sending medals back because they don't want them is just as deliberate an act by the recipient or their NoK as not claiming them in the first place I would submit- in fact it may be even more so as they actually had them in their possession. If they're now allowing those returned medals to be issued again under those circumstances I don't see how they should refuse a request for medals that were never claimed. How many Officers' medals went unclaimed I wonder? Really, I'd be willing to pay the MoD whatever it costs to get his officially issued pair with box of issue, etc. Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tullybrone Posted 27 August , 2014 Author Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Hi, Hopefully one or more of our members who are eligible to claim "returned" relatives medals will now do so and keep us up to date with how they get on. Good Luck to All. Regards Steve Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 27 August , 2014 Share Posted 27 August , 2014 Back to Greer for a sec if I may? My understanding is that the BWM and Vic should be inscribed with the highest rank that the recipient attained. Then again, for every one of the so called rules on naming there seems to be numerous surviving examples that tell a different story! I am not sure how that would work with a man losing rank and then transferring to another regiment and being given a new service number. I have certainly seen several examples where, despite a man moving to another regiment, his BWM and Vic were named to the first regiment he served with overseas, which I think should not have been the case. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneca Posted 28 August , 2014 Share Posted 28 August , 2014 Tew, yes, the mother of Wallace Greer may have returned the medals for either mis-spelling or incorrect rank or both. Although his MIC correctly states his name as Wallace, his mother had received communications incorrectly stating his name as William Greer, the scroll she received had the name William instead of Wallace and the CWGC has his name as William rather than Wallace at Thiepval. I can assume his name on the medals would have appeared simply as W Greer so this probably would not have been the reason for returning the medals. Wallace's sister clearly remembered anger in the family at that time when their mother returned the medals to be "corrected". Nigel, you are quite right in saying there may have been a impasse between the army and family. It seems that Mrs Greer enclosed a letter when returning the medals in which she vented her anger. The family said she had written that the medals were not to be returned to her unless they were correctly inscribed. Unfortunately there is no service record for this man so this correspondence is impossible to prove. I can imagine a mother's anger at her son losing stripes for some kind of misbehaviour etc. considering he was her youngest son. Anne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clive_hughes Posted 29 August , 2014 Share Posted 29 August , 2014 Matthew, I may be misunderstanding something here, but if your grandfather was an officer and has a MIC then surely the medals were claimed/issued whatever happened to them afterwards? There has been some correspondence on this point in another thread, but basically it boils down to: No claim = not on Medal Roll (of which the MICs are an indexing tool) = No MIC. Unlike earlier wars, except for Other Ranks it wasn't a case of the unit record office creating a medal entitlement list. Claims were checked and only then was the officer added to the Roll and (hopefully) medals issued. Mike, The Stars are always named with the number/rank/appointment/unit the serviceman held on first entering the qualifying theatre of war. ORs War and Victory are also always named with the number and unit relevant on first entering a qualifying theatre of war - the rank is the highest held during the war (with the proviso you mention that there may be rules in the case of demotions, which might alter that). The man may subsequently have had umpteen additional numbers and regiments - its only the first that appears, even when issued by his last unit off their rolls, as is shown on the MIC. I have to do a lot of checking of men who were in the RWF, and know from experience that if they changed to another unit they don't appear on the RWF Medal Roll even though their medals are so impressed. Clive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westkent78 Posted 29 August , 2014 Share Posted 29 August , 2014 Hello Clive, My understanding is that you also got a MIC generated if you had a SWB, which I presume you didn't apply for. His MIC is just for that, no medal reference and he's not on the regimental medal roll, but his papers show he was in F& F until wounding. O/Rs who didn't make it overseas and therefore didn't qualify for medals also have MICs generated for their SWBs if they were invalided out. Best regards, Matthew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 29 August , 2014 Share Posted 29 August , 2014 My understanding is that SWB's had to be applied for, and that the application had then to be approved before the award was made. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 29 August , 2014 Share Posted 29 August , 2014 SWB info from LLT http://www.1914-1918.net/soldiers/swbrecords.html 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