Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave


Ronan McGreevy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, laughton said:

Note to GRUMPY on his post above - there is an existing process, it is called "SPECIAL MEMORIAL D" and it would say "Believed to be Second Lieutenant John Kipling". They just add the words "Believed to Be" along the top of the headstone. There are many examples.

 

 

Indeed, here is one at Redan Ridge No. 1 cemetery we happened to be researching:

 

DSC04549.thumb.JPG.7ae51432d9e177ace57e1c42138bbc69.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that they will argue that the Polish body was examined at the request of that government.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, keithmroberts said:

I suspect that they will argue that the Polish body was examined at the request of that government.

 

Keith

 

It apparently followed a request by the Polish Department of Cultural Heritage and Wartime Losses, experts from Pomeranian Medical University Click

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to read the report on this and the response of the CWGC from the Polish authorities.  

 

I may write to the Polish embassy to see what happened to start off this chain of events and the final outcome.  

 

I have a case, which I think the only way to settle it, will be by DNA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A researcher friend of mine who has been discussing this with the CWGC has been given the following definitive explanation on this matter m--

 

"With regard to your other question, the CWGC can confirm that the Polish Department of Cultural Heritage Abroad and Wartime Losses (Ministry of Culture and National Heritage) carried out the investigations into the identity of a casualty buried in France as an unknown Polish airman, including exhumation and DNA testing. The CWGC had provided a headstone and maintained the grave on behalf of the Polish government. However this care does not imply that the CWGC has the same level of jurisdiction for the grave as it does for the graves of Commonwealth war casualties.  The grave in question is not a Commonwealth war grave as defined by the Royal Charter that governs the work of the CWGC as the casualty was a member of a Foreign National service at the time of his death. Therefore the decision to exhume the remains and any subsequent DNA testing were matters for the Polish authorities. The CWGC respects the wishes of the non-Commonwealth national governments and worked in conjunction with the Polish authorities throughout the process to ensure the work was carried out with the utmost respect and dignity.  The CWGC does not permit the exhumation of Commonwealth war casualties for the purposes of identification."

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 09:42, Frajohn said:

A researcher friend of mine who has been discussing this with the CWGC has been given the following definitive explanation on this matter m--

 

"With regard to your other question, the CWGC can confirm that the Polish Department of Cultural Heritage Abroad and Wartime Losses (Ministry of Culture and National Heritage) carried out the investigations into the identity of a casualty buried in France as an unknown Polish airman, including exhumation and DNA testing. The CWGC had provided a headstone and maintained the grave on behalf of the Polish government. However this care does not imply that the CWGC has the same level of jurisdiction for the grave as it does for the graves of Commonwealth war casualties.  The grave in question is not a Commonwealth war grave as defined by the Royal Charter that governs the work of the CWGC as the casualty was a member of a Foreign National service at the time of his death. Therefore the decision to exhume the remains and any subsequent DNA testing were matters for the Polish authorities. The CWGC respects the wishes of the non-Commonwealth national governments and worked in conjunction with the Polish authorities throughout the process to ensure the work was carried out with the utmost respect and dignity.  The CWGC does not permit the exhumation of Commonwealth war casualties for the purposes of identification."

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

 

John,

 

Thank you for post this above, it make very interesting reading.

 

there is one piece of evidence that has never been talked about in all the things I have read about John Kipling.

 

Is there a Special Exhumation Report for the Unknown Lieutenant of the Irish Guards.  is there one and does the details in that match that of John Kipling or the other missing 2nd Lieutenant from the Irish Guards killed at Loos.

 

Jamie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did search for Special Exhumation Reports at St. Mary's ADS Haisnes and did not locate any. That is not positive proof they do not exist. The CWGC can confirm that either way.

If that helps,

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Apologies if these are not new.

 

I think these cards from the ICRC site might be new (they're new to me) Not certain if it adds any new information but worth adding here.

 

Click

 

(If link doesn't take direct, will add screenshots)

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skipman said:

Apologies if these are not new.

 

I think these cards from the ICRC site might be new (they're new to me) Not certain if it adds any new information but worth adding here.

 

Click

 

(If link doesn't take direct, will add screenshots)

 

Mike

 

I think they just show how many communications the Kipling family made to the Red Cross to find out if John Kipling was a prisoner. If I understand it correctly 'Communique familie' is self evident and 'negatif envoyée' means they didn't have any information and found no trace of him in PoW records.

Edited by Andy Wade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. It's a while since I looked at this but am sure I posted cards on Kipling before, but there were only two of them, and I think they were different?

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I note there's a long list on the back of the first one as well. I think it shows how persistent Rudyard Kipling was in the search for his son, which is well documented because he wrote about it himself. But it's great to see evidence of his searches, even if it's just references to communications made with the Red Cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I could not find any reference to the question of the "Soldier's Effects" for Kipling in this topic (search results).

 

On an unrelated case yesterday it was noted that Kipling's file refers to him as a "Lieutenant".

UK, Army Registers of Soldiers' Effects, 1901-1929 for J Kipling

 

Is the reference to "Lieutenant" correct because this record was dated 12-8-19?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it be wrong?

 

Kipling’s promotion to substantive Lt was published in the LG on 11th November 1915, with an effective date of 7th June ( for seniority and pay purposes). He had been dead since 27th September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody said it was wrong? My question was whether this was because of the date. By implication,could there be another reason he was listed as Lieutenant? I am not a student of "Soldier's Effects" as are many on the GWF.

 

This is a parallel line of questioning to that of the rank used on CWGC headstones. Regardless of the rank of a man such as Kipling at the time of his death, it appears that in most cases the CWGC uses the highest rank of the individual prior to the "cutting of the stone".

 

If Kipling is in the grave at St. Mary's ADS, should the headstone read "Lieutenant" (his rank when the stone was cut) or "Second Lieutenant" (the rank at his time of death and what should correctly be on the GRRF and COG-BR).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilfred Owen springs to mind, the GRU reported 2nd/Lt on the battlefield cross 

 

today the CWGC has his rank as Lieutenant as he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant the day after his death.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 27/04/2018 at 11:49, laughton said:

I did search for Special Exhumation Reports at St. Mary's ADS Haisnes and did not locate any. That is not positive proof they do not exist. The CWGC can confirm that either way.

If that helps,

Richard

 

Correction on that as today while working on the McDonald-Wylie Appeal I noticed that I did have a Special Exhumation report filed in with the GRRF documents for the St. Mary.s ADS. It is for an "Unown Officer British Flying Corps": 

 

Having another thought, since this document is the one immediately prior to the start of the GRRF documents, I went back and looked for:

  • any documents prior to this number 2045060 and after 2045025, the next set of cemetery documents
  • any documents between the end of the GRRF numbers 2045191 and the start of the COG-BR 2045415

In both cases the results were negative, no documents.

 

doc2045060.JPG

Also while going through the COG-BR documents I noticed that there are more of the exhumation locations that are incorrect. I just happened to spot this one, as it was another case where there was a Canadian and an Irish Guard on the same page. You will note that it has them found in 36c.G.25.c, which again is one of the su-sectors on the left side of the trench map, where there is no square "a" or "c", only "b" and "d".

 

The Canadian in 8.D.4 was likely of the 15th Battalion, as they were on the left side of Bois Hugo on 15 August 1917. This is the same time and unit that were are dealing with for the McDonald-Wylie Appeal.

 

This suggests I should look through all of these again and see how extensive this error was at the time. Anything that is reported in ANY major sector that has a sub-sector of 1, 7, 13, 19, 25 or 31 and a reported square of "a" or "c" is incorrect.

 

doc2045452.JPG

 

They do get some of them correct. A few pages later COG-BR 2045456 they have a man of the 3rd Machine Gun Coy found at 36c.H.25.c.9.7, where he should have been with the 1st Division.

 

There are a number of exhumation locations that are incorrect, as we have the original burial locations from the Canadian Casualty Cards. The extend of this is detailed in the report on Lieutenant McDonald.

 

 

 

Here are some other ones that have the "a" or "c" squares that do not exist:

 

And not to forget the main one with McPherson and the Irish Guard Lieutenant:

COG-BR 2045508

 

COG-BR 2045531

Edited by laughton
update SPEC-EXH information correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 27/01/2016 at 15:20, Muerrisch said:

The testimony of Other Ranks

Parker/Legg note the statements of Privates Martin and Roger after the battle. They are said to have referred to Lieutenant Kipling.

I have never been a serving soldier or indeed an army officer, but surely a soldier would, when debriefing to an officer, refer to any subaltern as "Lieutenant"?

This is much as they would refer to their Lieutenant-Colonel as "Colonel"?

I have Rudyard Kiplings histories of the Irish Guards in the attic and will see what reference he makes to the events of the deadly battle.

I think then ,as of now, private soldiers would refer to an officer under fleld rank as "Mr"  while  formally talking to another officer or anyone else for that matter.  "Sir" to the officers face,  Other epithets under different informal conditions of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gunner Hall said:

I think then ,as of now, private soldiers would refer to an officer under fleld rank as "Mr"  while  formally talking to another officer or anyone else for that matter.  "Sir" to the officers face,  Other epithets under different informal conditions of course.

 

Almost correct.  It was protocol to refer to ‘subalterns’ (the two grades of Lieutenant) as Mister when addressing them personally or when talking or writing of them.  However they would be referred to by rank when listing them formally.  Captains were not addressed  as Mister and yet were below field rank.  This was because Captains were generally in command of companies and considered experienced officers.  This status was further reinforced by regulations pertaining to financial matters, which decreed captain as the most junior rank authorised as a “responsible officer” with sufficient probity to sign for public funds, such as acquittance rolls and unit subsistence expenditure.

 

NB.  The once significant leap between subaltern and Captain has been much diminished since the mid 1920s when sub-unit command was standardised at Major for all arms, after over two hundred years whence infantry companies and cavalry troops were commanded by Captains.  Over time this led to a much closer age and concomitant relationship between those ranks.  As a result I can recall conversations with junior officers who were not aware that Captains were not subalterns.  I invariably found that I had to refer them to any Oxford or Collins English Dictionary to find an articulation of the long established definition of subaltern.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good morning,

 

here's a current panorama of the area of "Chalk Pit Wood" and "Fosse 14" :

 

1195923168_chalkpitwood(2).JPG.346f99207d189bdd884091dbd9ae72d5.JPG440145349_chalkpitwood(3).JPG.a862000b0497c37687f59796881692b1.JPG

 

photos taken from the 1st British line on "Hill 70"

 

:poppy:

 

michel

Edited by battle of loos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good morning,

 

here is a "Pipes" found not far from "Chalk Pit Wood"  (Irish Guard Sector):

 

862646386_terrain-LOOS-25sept1915.JPG.621e3163cad7afdab4a1473e35d7c7c0.JPG

 

regards

 

michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good morning,

 

here are 2 overlays of maps presented in this file about the area of "Chalk Pit Wood" :

 

110.jpg

 

211.jpg

 

:poppy:

 

michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Almost correct.  It was protocol to refer to ‘subalterns’ (the two grades of Lieutenant) as Mister when addressing them personally or when talking or writing of them.  However they would be referred to by rank when listing them formally.  Captains were not addressed  as Mister and yet were below field rank.  This was because Captains were generally in command of companies and considered experienced officers.  This status was further reinforced by regulations pertaining to financial matters, which decreed captain as the most junior rank authorised as a “responsible officer” with sufficient probity to sign for public funds, such as acquittance rolls and unit subsistence expenditure.

 

NB.  The once significant leap between subaltern and Captain has been much diminished since the mid 1920s when sub-unit command was standardised at Major for all arms, after over two hundred years whence infantry companies and cavalry troops were commanded by Captains.  Over time this led to a much closer age and concomitant relationship between those ranks.  As a result I can recall conversations with junior officers who were not aware that Captains were not subalterns.  I invariably found that I had to refer them to any Oxford or Collins English Dictionary to find an articulation of the long established definition of subaltern.

Thank you for the gentle correction Frogsmile.   Illustrates nicely the perils of judging history by ones own experience.  You must have belonged to a very learned regiment to have had easy access to an OED.  I'm afraid we made do with P1Os, Private Eye and Viz.  .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, battle of loos said:

good morning,

 

here are 2 overlays of maps presented in this file about the area of "Chalk Pit Wood" :

 

110.jpg

 

211.jpg

 

:poppy:

 

michel

Michel

 

Thanks for your posts regarding this subject.

 

TR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gunner Hall said:

Thank you for the gentle correction Frogsmile.   Illustrates nicely the perils of judging history by ones own experience.  You must have belonged to a very learned regiment to have had easy access to an OED.  I'm afraid we made do with P1Os, Private Eye and Viz.  .  

 

I’m a little surprised by what you say, as later on in my service I served 2+ happy years attached to an RA Regiment (16 AD - for a little while as a pro-tem BK) and found them very cultured, with great respect for tradition and the right form.  Nevertheless, your closing remarks did make me smile.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...