CWGC & Private War Graves

[Seadog]

Clarification from the CWGC regarding the many requests on their web site for the families of the listed graves to contact them e.g.

http://www.cwgc.org/news-events/news/2015/4/appeal-for-relatives.aspx

I accept that the Commission have a brief to ensure that all the war dead are commemorated but I am a little surprised that in the event of no relatives coming forward then they will with the agreement of the local authority erect a headstone. The example below can no doubt be repeated many times over although in this case the grave is in a cemetery administered by a trust; it will be interesting to see what if anything happens here.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glosters/5745577711

It is the task of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to ensure that the Commonwealth servicemen and women who fell in either world war are commemorated in perpetuity. If a private memorial is in a state of disrepair and the casualty is no longer adequately commemorated, we would look the replace the headstone. If we have the details of the next of kin, we would ordinarily write to the family to obtain consent to erect a standard war pattern headstone.

If we do not have their details, we place a public website appeal in an attempt to make contact with any living relatives. If we are unable to obtain consent due to the family no longer living at the address we have recorded, or we do not receive a response from our website appeal, we would still erect a commission headstone with the consent obtained by the relevant local authority.

This would be under the agreement that if any relatives do come forward and do not wish to have the commission headstone on the grave, that we would revert headstone and grave back to its original condition. If this is the case or if the family are not willing to consent to the installation of a commission headstone we would ask that they restore the commemoration of the casualty themselves so we can deem it adequate. If the family are still not willing to do this, we would then look to alternately commemorate the casualty within another location.

Norman

[Phil Wood]

The CWGC approach seems appropriate to me - though I've seen a few cases where they could be a little more sympathetic to the original grave when they add their headstone. An approach I've seen recently is the addition of Gallipoli markers rather than a full headstone.

[Seadog]

This does seem a reasonable approach by the CWGC who specifically state that a standard war pattern headstone will be erected if permission is granted. However I am a little surprised that if no response from any relative is forthcoming then the CWGC will still erect a headstone anyway given that it would seem very likely that such a stone was refused initially. I would have thought that is these cases of which I guess there will be many a far better solution would be to record such names on a form of plaque within the cemetery/burial ground for otherwise what was the original purpose of offering the relatives a choice of whether an official headstone was erected or indeed not.

[Peter Bennett]

Damned if they do and damned if they don't !

[Seadog]

No Peter if they erect war stones on a private grave without permission then the CWGC are going completely against the wishes of the families who at the time declined such a stone which was their right. The best answer in my view to these cases is as I have already suggested a simple plaque recording the fact that the names listed are buried in the cemetery, the CWGC will then be keeping faith with the original wishes of the families and fulfilling their brief that the war dead must be commemorated plus I guess this solution would in fact be cheaper.

Norman

[Peter Bennett]

Norman

I was expressing a personal view.

Having read your comments on these and similar subjects I would not wish to enter into a dialogue or debate with you, as you have demonstrated over the years that your views are sacrosanct.

Peter

[Phil Wood]

No Peter if they erect war stones on a private grave without permission then the CWGC are going completely against the wishes of the families who at the time declined such a stone which was their right.

Families declined a stone because they wished to put up their own memorial - I find it hard to believe that many families would object to a CWGC stone if the memorial they erected was no longer legible. This is always providing that the CWGC stone is appropriate to the grave, which quite often contains the remains of other members of the deceased serviceman's family. This is the area where the CWGC could improve - the willingness to use Gallipoli markers being a step in the right direction.

[BereniceUK]

Not every grave in a cemetery has a headstone; there's no legal requirement for there to be one and some families/individuals choose to have an unmarked grave. Should the CWGC have the power to ignore a family decision?

There's an unmarked family grave near where I live which holds three bodies, one of which is a WW1 CWGC-recorded internment. The grave has never had a headstone, according to the cemetery office's records. What gives the CWGC the right to put one there now?

[Phil Wood]

The assumption being that the family didn't want a headstone as opposed to the far more common situation - that they couldn't afford one (or didn't want to pay for one).

Of course the family can still be consulted, I believe the CWGC do try to contact the family - I doubt they would put up a stone against a family's wishes.

I have recently been involved in such a consultation where current family members, who are pleased that their great or great-great-uncle will be remembered, have been able to record the presence of his parents in the same grave on the CWGC stone.

There is an issue with family graves containing multiple interments - the non-military interments should perhaps be recorded on the CWGC stone as a matter of course.

[CGM]

Remember there are also unmarked graves where the family were not offered a CWGC headstone because the death was not recognised (realised to be) eligible for CWGC commemoration at the time. I suspect many of these families, unable to afford a stone to mark their loved ones' graves, would have welcomed the chance to have the grave marked - especially as it would mark war service.

[Magnumbellum]

It may be apposite to remark that the remains of Charles John Cobb, conscientious objector, who died in 1919 shortly after release from prison, lay in an unmarked grave in Croydon cemetery. In 1988 attempts to trace surviving relatives (he left a widow and young child) failed, and it was assumed that the family could not afford a headstone. One was accordingly purchased by public subscription and duly installed.

Charles Cobb is commemorated on the WW1 CO Memorial Plaque created in 1923, and more recently by a small housing development in Croydon named in his honour.

[Boreenatra]

It should also be remembered that CH's had only started to be used in the middle of the 1920's and in a lot of cases much later, so the families were not offered a headstone as we know them today. There was also a view at the time that deaths from war related causes for want of a better phrase, were not going to be commemorated in the UK until the public outcry forced the civilian IWGC to instigate a nation wide scheme much along the lines of the commemorations overseas. Bearing in mind the passage of time between the passing and the commemorations being offered, it does not take much imagination to figure that a wooden cross probably was not going to do it for many families especially those who could afford to create the memorials themselves or if the body was buried in a family grave, add the commemoration to an existing headstone or kerb. The creation of PM.s (Private Memorials) makes no difference where war graves are concerned and it should be remembered also that with the dispersal of families and remarriages, when the offers came, it is logical to assume that addresses that the military had in their records may not have been valid any more.

Cases of families not wanting commemorations are quite rare. These are called RR (Relatives Refused). A few years ago there were thought to be only about 50 and these are constantly under review where possible. We came across a case not long ago where a wife in the ATS who died in a military hospital in WW2 in the UK had been buried in a family grave when it was discovered she had been having an affair with her husband's brother. Both husband and wife are known to be buried in the same grave, (he died just before her) but the family didn't want any type of commemoration for her of any sort and she has no mention on the family grave at all. This creates a problem for CWGC as they are bound by the Royal Charter to adequately record and commemorate, which in this case they can't do. She appears on the CWGC database, as nothing can stop CWGC from discharging it's duty from recording her death as a member of the military. The problem is that they still have to commemorate her somewhere. We do know that out of consideration to the family, CWGC decided not to put up a Special Memorial or A/C (Alternative Commemoration) which you sometimes see as "buried in this cemetery" or "buried near this spot". We were told a couple of years ago that a new memorial for RR cases was going to be commissioned at Brookwood but I am sure someone will be able to say if this has or is going to happen. It is simply so CWGC can have the name adequately recorded somewhere and thereby not fall foul of the Charter.

As to the original point, it would seem as if CWGC in the UK are exploring all the possibilities. and as Peter quite rightly said about damned if they do and damned if they don't, Peter would know only too well that other governments, Australia and Canada in particular have had for many years a different more inclusive attitude to those who passed in conflict and finance, which might just be at the bottom of this is not an issue where commemoration is concerned. Although we might think that CWGC does have the finance it requires, it has limitations on the way finance can be raised and perhaps the time has come to change that particular part of the Charter.

Like most things to do with commemoration, it is never as simple as it appears, however from our point of view, if we don't raise these issues then nothing will be done. Just to add that if a new stone is needed in the UK then they should be proper Commission Headstones rather than the Gallipoli styled stones which are fine in Gallipoli but somehow in the UK seem to make a visual distinction with other CH's where they are used together

Kind regards

Steve

[SiegeGunner]

Just to add that if a new stone is needed in the UK then they should be proper Commission Headstones rather than the Gallipoli styled stones which are fine in Gallipoli but somehow in the UK seem to make a visual distinction with other CH's where they are used together.

A full-size standard CWGC headstone is fine for a completely unmarked grave, but I would beg to differ on the Gallipoli-style stone on a grave with substantial monumental masonry that has fallen into disrepair and become illegible. In the case of some dilapidated family graves that include someone entitled to CWGC commemoration, a standard stone planted within the kerb often gives the unfortunate (and I'm sure unintended) impression that the other occupants are of no account and that the remains of the original memorial erected by the family almost intrude on the CWGC commemoration. The smaller, lower Gallipoli style stone is every bit as informative/commemorative when seen close up, without dominating the remains of the family grave monuments. It is less conspicuous from a distance and therefore perhaps a little more difficult to find, but a bit of searching in a UK cemetery is seldom wasted time and often yields other interesting discoveries along the way.

As regards the commemoration of other occupants on a CWGC stone, I believe there are a few, notably in churchyards, where a CWGC commemoration on a previously unmarked grave has come about through local interest and 'lobbying', and CWGC has been prevailed upon to include a brief inscription for another occupant, usually the man's wife who died later and was buried with him. If I remember correctly, there is even one instance where a CWGC stone commemorates a Great War casualty, his wife and also his wife's second husband, himself a soldier who died in service during WW2.

[John_Hartley]

I have no dispute with the Commission's practice except one of aesthetics. I have seen graves where a CWGC headstone has been erected, usually in front of the deteriorating family memorial. It looks crowded and incongrous. Perhaps better to newly commemorate the man on the cemetery's "screen wall" if there is one, or the "regional screen wall" if not.

[Seadog]

From the info supplied by the CWGC it is obvious that the headstone if erected will indeed be a standard stone as seen in all of the war cemeteries, see post 1. I totally agree with John in post 14 that where no relatives are forthcoming to agree or indeed disagree with the CWGC installing a headstone that the best alternative is to record the fallen on a screen wall or new similar memorial which will discharge their responsibility. The CWGC should accept that all private graves will in time deteriorate and to plonk a new stone just to the fallen is both incongruous and unbefitting to those others laid to rest in the grave.

Norman

[Phil Wood]

From the info supplied by the CWGC it is obvious that the headstone if erected will indeed be a standard stone as seen in all of the war cemeteries, see post 1.

This is far from clear - there are Gallipoli style markers in a cemetery close to me. Here is one:

[Seadog]

Thanks Phil, would I be correct in assuming that such a marker is used when as in your example it is not possible to erect a standard headstone. However would the installation of such a marker be more fitting in those cases where no relatives can be found to agree to a standard headstone being installed, it would be a lot less dominating on those private graves. If any members have a direct line to the CWGC it would be good to get their reaction.

Norman

[keithmroberts]

I suspect that the form of headstone added in these cases is a pragmatic decision, based on what exists already.

Keiht

[Phil Wood]

Thanks Phil, would I be correct in assuming that such a marker is used when as in your example it is not possible to erect a standard headstone. However would the installation of such a marker be more fitting in those cases where no relatives can be found to agree to a standard headstone being installed, it would be a lot less dominating on those private graves. If any members have a direct line to the CWGC it would be good to get their reaction.

Norman

I have no special knowledge of the circumstances but the CWGC came in and put a number (half a dozen perhaps) of these markers on graves in this cemetery - as far as I can tell they didn't put any new headstones in at the same visit. They are planning a headstone for another grave (an IFTC case) - but there is little remaining of the original grave (kerbs only) and the family are on board.

Personally I like the Gallipoli markers, they are far less intrusive on family plots than some of the headstones - eg:

[Phil Wood]

Thanks Phil, would I be correct in assuming that such a marker is used when as in your example it is not possible to erect a standard headstone.

I don't think it is anything to do with practicability - the example I chose (found first) was a bad one from that respect - the one below shows a Gallipoli marker on a grave style to which I have seen many CWGC headstones added. They could have chosen Gallipoli markers for a number of reasons - somehow I doubt it was related to an inability to contact the family (I may see if I can find any family members of any of those commemorated this way), nor do I think it was influenced by the cemetery management (I will ask them) - at the time I thought it was a new policy - with no sound basis for this theory. I'm guessing it was for aesthetic reasons or, dare I say it, financial - the Gallipoli markers much be significantly cheaper to produce and install. Or perhaps if was just a passing fad? I guess the only way to know for sure is to ask the CWGC.

[John_Hartley]

Phil's photo, at post #19, is a perfect example of how not to do it. Surely this is not the best way to commemorate a man - blocking out the dignity of the headstone which probably remembers other family members.

[Seadog]

The photo in Post 19 looks like an excellent example of how not to do it!!. I do hope that in their enthusiasm to commemorate the fallen the CWGC do not repeat this too often. This whole situation is fraught with problems from the silly example shown in the post through to the fact that according to the CWGC they may erect headstones if no relative responds to their request which given the time that has elapsed would appear to be very likely.

I do believe that in all these cases the best and least contentious approach would be to record all the fallen on an appropriate form of plaque to be installed in the cemetery / burial ground. One wonders whether the CWGC have really thought this through and whether some input from the public would have been advisable before they commenced work.