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

It is worth pointing out as regards the ordinary OR's uniform, in the vast majority of cases (usually only with the exception of cap-badge and shoulder titles) the rest of the uniform is completely standard and identical to each other. There were also various practices during the war which saw such unit identification being removed deliberately, to make it more difficult for the enemy to gain information on who was opposite them (and thus data on troop movements, unit strengths, etc). Where possible it also seems to have been British practice to remove reusable items of kit from bodies prior to burial (including some items of clothing early on, though this was swiftly discontinued). On battlefield found examples today, even after 100 years such insignia, though badly corroded, is inevitably still legible enough to provide a positive unit identification.

In cases like that above, it is far more likely that things remaining like buttons where the standard General Service type, and that the regimentally identifying insignia was absent through loss or deliberate removal than the result of extensive corrosion or similar in such a relatively short time.

Andrew. Thank you. An interesting view. In your view did the Foot Guards ORs all had the same buttons (presumably GS) rather than regimental buttons in Sep 1915? Given Loos was the baptism of fire for many TF and New Army units I strongly suspect they were not this sophisticated. The Guards might have been different, but I am interested in seeing the hard evidence for this period. I have trawled every diary of the Guards Div from battalion up to DIv HQ and ADMS and have not seen any evidence for removal of insignia by ORs. I am open to the idea, but some evidence would be useful.

Given the number of exhumations whose regiment could be identified (around a third) might suggest removal of insignia before going into battle in Sep 1915 was not that widespread. If the regiment was only discovered from ID discs, it would still leave a number whose had no ID disc but whose regiment was established, so I am interested in understanding the breakdown of this. For reference the Killanan exhumation had only 54 of 98 positively identified and this was Sep 1914 fatalities where insignia was definitely worn. It certainly was not common practice in Gallipoli in 1915 and I wonder why it would be the case on the Western Front this early. Contemporary photos would suggest it was not widespread and I have not yet seen any diary evidence for this (Routine Orders etc). If there is hard evidence this was done in Sep 1915 Western Front I would be very interested to follow this as it might have implications for this discussion.

Separately I note the 'Other Officer' had no clothing or boots when exhumed. MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update... so far I have passed 100 Guards 2 Lts who in theory would have put up rank but were only recorded as 2 Lts in July-Nov 1915. I will stick my neck out on this one. There is overwhelming evidence that Guards 2 Lts in the role of Platoon Commander did not put up rank prior to Gazetting. I anticipate the number will be in excess of 150. The number of mentions in diaries is running into the 500 region. QED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... For anyone wanting to better understand the grisly details of exhuming hastily buried bodies, ... The story is nor for the faint-hearted but is worth reading in order to understand just how rapidly bodies, equipment and clothing decay. ...

A fascinating read and well explains what was involved in every aspect of exhumation. With burials and preservation, much depends on soil type, humidity, and even temperature and time of the year - forget the grave digger scene and comments in Hamlet! Alkaline or acidic will have their way, as will air and soil temperature. Looking at it very objectively, it seems flesh had gone in such a short time but other organic materials (clothing, boots, books, papers, etc.) were still pretty much intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statements and comments have been posted in this topic regarding recent publishing decision via WFA media and the uses made or not made of research , which distracted attention from the main subject of this thread, that is, whether the final resting place of one young soldier has been established beyond reasonable doubt.



Some statements were made, reflecting on individuals, which did nothing to help understand the main point of the discussion.



The GWF is about the history of The Great War, and we have decided that there is no place here to air debates regarding recent authorship responsibilities and publishing decisions. The best place for these matters to be addressed is surely between those concerned and not in a forum of this kind. We have therefore removed all mention of those issues which means that a number of posts have been removed and a few edited. That area of discussion is now closed and any attempt to reopen it will be removed without notice. Moderation of the GWF is retrospective so we urge members to use the REPORT button when they consider comment inappropriate.



The topic is now open.



Keith Roberts


GWF Team


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha! No more mention of recent publications, publishers or authors. Can we refer to the original text and authors?

My current analysis of this case:

  1. If the 18th Labour Company erred in entering "U.B.S. Officer Lieut. Irish Guards" instead of "U.B.S. Officer 2nd Lieut. Irish Guards" the we have three (3) candidates. If the 18th Labour Company did not make an error then this case / investigation is over.
  2. On October 25, 2015 I submitted a report to the CWGC, which they have accepted, that proved the 18th Labour Company erred in reporting the exhumation at Sector "G" ( 44a.G.25.c.6.8 ) when the file of Pte. McPherson (Canadian) showed the correct reference as Sector "H" ( 44a.H.25.c.45.13 ). Map 44a is the same as Map 36c.
  3. If we continue with the presumption of the additional error in the rank then I understand that the only candidates were the three (3) 2nd Lieutenants (Clifford, Law and Kipling)
  4. 2nd Lt. Clifford is eliminated from the list as he has a known burial, as confirmed by the documents I posted from the International Committee of the Red Cross (here and here).
  5. I have proposed a "possible" location for the remains of 2nd. Lt. Law in Plot 8 Row A Grave 1 of the Loos British Cemetery (GRRF) on the basis of an exhumation at 44a.H.25.c.5.4 (COG-BR) as exhumed (SPECEXH). Those remains were in the location where 2nd. Lt. Law was last seen but I have no idea if other British units were in the area, if other officers are missing, etc. I have asked the GWF for assistance on answering those questions.
  6. I have no input to the matter of the question of rank as that is beyond my knowledge base and area of expertise.

I trust that I have not posted anything above that is out of line.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Laid to Rest Yet.

The 12 page Kipling article in Stand To! Number 105 was greeted with much enthusiasm by various media

.

The authors concluded “....... on the balance of probabilities the Irish Guards lieutenant found on 23 September 1919 must be Lieutenant John Kipling”. I believe it might be, but the case made remains very weak as I shall attempt to describe.

Regarding the map reference confusion, there is no sustainable reason to disagree with the conclusions of the article: the body is more or less where one might expect Kipling to be found if he had not been moved after the last witnessed sighting.

The argument seems to stand on five principle legs:

1. that the body recovered at Chalk Pit Wood was that of an Irish Guards lieutenant,

2. that Kipling had been promoted to that rank in the few days since he wrote home asking for an ID ranking as 2Lt,

3. that he was being paid as a lieutenant,

4. that eyewitness accounts have him wounded near to where the body was found,

5. and that Private Martin referred to him as Lieutenant Kipling.

First, the work of the Graves Registration unit is error-strewn: not only the wrong map reference, but other mistakes have been described elsewhere. The original daily reports were manuscript, and transcribed into typescript at least once. The exhumation report is not in the public domain, so we do not know on what evidence the regiment and rank assessment was based. Having seen other exhumation reports made in the same year, regimental buttons neatly in unique fours might seem unlikely, rank stars rather more feasible. Either way, clerical error could easily confront posterity with a lieutenant when a second-lieutenant was exhumed. The regimental War Diary (WD) was confident that no lieutenant was killed or missing, which should ring alarm bells.

Secondly neither Kipling a few days before his death, nor the WD several days after his death, thought that he had been promoted. When father Rudyard wrote the battalion history, he recorded John as a second-lieutenant, even with the benefit of hindsight. We are asked to believe that the battalion broke with the Guards custom and pre-empted the London Gazette (LG) announcement which was, in fact, posthumous. Only one case of an Irish Guards officer being permitted to anticipate the Gazette is cited, that of Hargreaves pending his temporary promotion to captain. This is fully understandable in that, whereas second-lieutenants and lieutenants were fully interchangeable as platoon officers (excepting an adjutant’s appointment, possibly Bombing officer, and extra-regimental appointments to staff which required full rank), company commanders and their seconds-in-command were major’s or captain’s appointments.

Thirdly the authors rely on the financial settlement after the war, quote the Gratuity Admissions figure of 186 days at lieutenant’s pay rate (8/6- as opposed to 7/6- per day for a second-lieutenant), and end up with an unexplained “ ......39 days ...... for carrying out the duties of a lieutenant” even before his LG date. This leg of the argument collapses twice over. As explained above, there were no “duties of a lieutenant” that were different from a second lieutenant, and in any case “acting lieutenants” were so rare in the British army as to have none recorded by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and temporary lieutenants were unusual in the Guards. An insurmountable problem is that the Pay Warrant of 1914 explains precisely how 186 days at 8/6- were derived: the War Gratuity for Special Reserve officers was paid at the highest rank achieved, and calculated at 124 days for the first year of service, and 62 days for each subsequent year or part year.

Fourthly, given that there is absolutely no evidence that Kipling died with lieutenant’s rank, is there any other candidate for the body at Chalk Pit Wood? Yes there is: Second-Lieutenant Thomas Packenham Law. The evidence of his wounding, death and burial are so confused as to merit deeper investigation. He was variously described as “died in hospital”, “died from wounds received in action and was buried”, “at Chalk Pit Wood between Lone Tree and Chalk Pit Wood”, “buried in a garden at Loos”, none of which are convincing. But here is a witness, Sergeant Kinsella, wounded in the wood and on the way back using a stick “I came on Mr Law who was dead”. “Then I came on Mr Kipling myself, I am sure he was dead”. This places Kipling west of Law, and towards the back edge. We know that Kipling’s body was said to have been moved a short distance after wounding, but we do not know if before or after Kinsella’s sighting. Either way, we have another stricken Irish Guards officer in the vicinity of the exhumation, fate thereafter uncertain.

Finally, Private Martin’s use of “lieutenant” is surely trumped by the War Diary “ ..... and Second- Lieutenant Kipling was wounded”. In any case, just as a soldier would refer to “The Colonel” when speaking to an officer, so probably would he refer to any grade of lieutenant as “Lieutenant”. Other accounts use the more customary “Mr”, be it noted. Unfortunately most of the “last sightings” described (but not quoted verbatim) in the article refer to “John” or “John Kipling”.

My tentative conclusion is that the exhumed body is likely to be either Kipling or Law but, if the exhumation was either performed or recorded less than conscientiously, simply a British Soldier of the Great War.

May he Rest in Peace.

A Footnote on the various types of commissions.

Officers in the Great War had five principal types: Regular, ex-Regular members of the General Reserve of Officers, Special Reserve of Officers, Territorial Force, and Temporary War Time. Socially, and indeed officially until reform, the ranking was Regulars, Special Reserve, Territiorial Force and Temporary.

The Foot Guards appear to have employed only Regular, General Reserve and Special Reserve officers up to the time of Loos. Special Reserve officers were always initially commissioned as second-lieutenants “on probation” and were in due course confirmed as second-lieutenants by a LG announcement either before, or simultaneously with, promotion to lieutenant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kipling's Loos End and some Rank Thoughts.

 

A central argument in the theory that the Irish Guards Lieutenant’s body at Loos is Kipling is that he would have ‘put up rank’. This neatly solves an otherwise large sticking point. The alternate view that the GRU simply made a mistake has not been offered. Instead, we are encouraged to believe ‘putting up rank’ was common practice. No evidence to support this conjecture has been offered.

 

Starting Point. The London Gazette of 11th Nov 1915 announced the promotion of fourteen Irish Guards 2nd Lieutenants (including Kipling) to substantive Lieutenant antedated to either 7th June 1915 or 15th July 1915 (seven named against each date). We all agree on this at least. From this point onward, views bifurcate;

 

Putting Up Rank. There are further arguments that “A commanding officer in a theatre of war would have ordered the rank to be put up instead of waiting to hear whether it had gone to print in London”. Again no hard evidence is offered for this general statement. Implicit in this claim is that the other thirteen Irish Guards subalterns would also have put up rank. By extension it would also imply that every subaltern in the Guards Division waiting for the London Gazette announcement would do the same. Similarly if this was common practice it would imply every 2nd Lt waiting for the London Gazette would simply put up rank; Thousands of subalterns jumping the London Gazette gun. It is a wonder there were any 2nd Lts in the field.

 

The "Evidence". The fact that Lt L R Hargreaves was “permitted to wear the badges of rank of Captain, pending his temporary promotion to that rank being announced in the London Gazette” has been offered as supporting evidence. Similarly, that W B Stephens and R E Sassoon are both recorded as Lieutenants in the diary. Both of these last two Officers were in the same promotion cohort as Kipling and we are invited to believe that Kipling must have done the same.

No analysis of the promotion protocol is offered other than conjecture and the views of "a number of senior researchers and archivists, some of whom are ex-military". The words 'senior' and ex-military are clearly an attempt to add some authority to the conjecture. The suggestion is that ex-military people supposedly have a better understanding of military events 100 years ago. At this point alarm bells are ringing very loudly.

 

Counter-Arguments I: Irish Guards: There are some easy explanations for these examples and some other facts worth pondering;

 

  1. R L Hargreaves was acting as a Company Commander, an appointment that required a temporary higher rank. More importantly, the rank was temporary rank, and as we shall see later, promotions to temporary ranks were treated differently to promotions to substantive rank. Temporary promotions needed to be implemented immediately, not so substantive promotions.
  2. W B Stevens. At the time the 2nd Bn only had two Captains and three Lieutenants. [edited] There were fourteen 2nd Lts and three Lts, just enough for the 16 Platoons, however Coy Commanders and Company 2ICs had to be improvised from Officers posted in. W B Stevens and Lt C D Wynter were posted from the 1st Bn to the 2nd Bn in early September to help fix this problem. They were recorded as promoted to temporary Lt and temporary Capt respectively. We know Wynter acted as a Company Commander. By process of easy elimination Stevens would have been acting as a Company 2 IC. Both temporary promotions were gazetted on 15th Oct 1915. As in the case of R L Hargreaves, putting up temporary rank was allowed. This did not extend to the others
  3. R E Sassoon is mentioned four times in the diaries. Only once is he mentioned as a Lieutenant. The official returns all record him as a 2 Lt and the same diarist that recorded Lieutenant again records him as a 2 Lt only a few days later. The Battalion casualty return, both of the Div AQMG casualty returns as well as the 4th Field Ambulance casualty return all record 2 Lt. The one entry in the battalion diary is in all likelihood simply a mistake by an exhausted diarist.
  4. J Kipling. His name is recorded nine times in contemporary documents close to the time of his death, including two examples in his own hand. All official documents record him as a 2nd Lt.
  5. Other Eleven. The other eleven subalterns in Kipling’s cohort are recorded in the various diaries over fifty times. None are recorded as anything other than being 2 Lts except Hon H B O'Brien who, similar to Stevens has a Temp promotion dated 10th June 1915. Ten of the fourteen (including Kipling) are all recorded as 2nd Lts throughout. If it was common practice for subaltern platoon commanders to ‘put up’ rank, this seems to be a rather large body of evidence that contradicts this theory. If they all ‘put up’ rank where is the evidence?

 

Counter-Arguments II: Guards Division Promotion Protocol. We don’t need to speculate on what was normal practice within the Guards Division. We can substitute conjecture with some cold hard facts. There is a mass of evidence in the Divisional Diaries and contemporary documents. These are multilayered: Battalion, Brigade and Divisional diaries; ADMS diaries, and Field Ambulance records, Army Lists and of course the London Gazette. As a starting point the Division rather fortunately recorded nominal rolls of the 13 Battalions between the 26th-28th August 1915 as it assembled in France ahead of the Battle of Loos. The returns show that there were 216 subalterns at the end of August 1915. By trawling the diaries and returns made at the time and comparing these to the LG dates we can reassemble the shattered remains of this intricate puzzle. The breakdown was as follows:

 

  • 71 Lieutenants. The Lieutenants pose no queries. All gazetted prior to Loos.
  • 13 Temporary Lieutenants. The Temporary Lieutenants were Gazetted (on average) within 6 weeks. By contrast, the substantive promotions were Gazetted (on average) within 22 weeks. This huge disparity suggests promotion to Temporary Rank was prioritised and implemented immediately. Indeed most of the diaries record these promotions. The sample is small, however the data is very consistent. All were for specific appointments that required a higher rank. This fast-track treatment did not extend to the run-of-the-mill promotion cycle which had a massive backlog due to the huge expansion of the Army and the large casualty rates.
  • 132 Second Lieutenants. Of the 132 in this category, at least 108 were subsequently promoted to Lieutenant; Gazetted after the Battle of Loos, typically in Nov-Dec 1915 but antedated prior to the Battle of Loos. Some were killed, some stagnated at 2 Lt and the data is missing for a small handful.

 

If the theory was to hold true we would expect these 108 subalterns to have ‘put up rank’. The individuals are recorded 217 times across the various diaries. There are only 4 instances where a 2 Lt is recorded as a Lt that are not easily explained. One is a single mention of a Coldstream Guards Officer and context suggests it is almost certainly a diarist’s error. The other three are Welsh Guards Officers. All are shown as 2 Lts in the Divisional returns.

 

The case of the Welsh Guards may simply be a failure to distinguish between subalterns and using the generic term ‘Lieutenant’ to describe Lieutenants and 2nd lieutenants – something that the later History of the Welsh Guards (Dudley Ward) does when describing their embarkation in Aug 1914. Clearly it was extremely unlikely that a battalion would deploy without a single 2nd Lt. As the Div returns show eight of them (including our anomalies) this might suggest a problem with the diarist.

 

Within the Welsh Guards anomalies is one Officer ‘Lt’ Ralph Smith. There is no record that he was ever promoted to Lieutenant in the London Gazette for the simple reason he was killed only five months after being commissioned. The casualty returns, Divisional diary and ODGW record his rank as 2nd Lt. We can be quite certain the Welsh Guards diarist made a mistake in this case.

98.2% of the recorded examples clearly indicate that the subalterns of the Guards Division did not put up rank. The tiny exceptions were either promotions to Temporary rank in roles that the appointment required or likely errors by the diarist that are in every case outweighed by the other evidence.

 

Final Thoughts. In our attempts to explore the forensic evidence one might be mindful that errors were often made. As the data above shows, there are always very small anomalies, often a result of human error. In isolation they can take on disproportionate significance. If we happen to stumble on one of these anomalies without looking at the much larger body of evidence, there is a danger of drawing the wrong conclusion.

 

Conclusion.

  1. No evidence has been offered to show that Kipling put up rank.
  2. There are hundreds of records that strongly suggest subalterns and platoon commanders in the Guards Division did not put up rank ahead of a substantive promotion.
  3. The only exceptions were temporary promotions. There are no records that Kipling had a temporary promotion.

 

Thanks to a number of GWF colleagues who worked on the forensic dig. Any mistakes are mine. MG

Edited. 16 platoons, not 12... which clearly absorbed all but one of the subalterns. With only two spare Captains (both Coy Commanders) the other two Coy Commanders and four Coy 2ICs had to be improvised. It is notable that this was the Battalion's first action and some experience in the shape of Wynter and Stevens was required and the assocaited authority by way of temporary rank was required.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A masterly analysis Martin

It certainly convinces me.

I would be interested to know if we have a conclusion that is "Nem Con". Or whether someone can argue in favour of the currently "accepted position that Kipling did put up rank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know if we have a conclusion that is "Nem Con". Or whether someone can argue in favour of the currently "accepted position that Kipling did put up rank

There are over 500 reasons why I think he didn't put up rank.

I was being conservative. If one was to take every written reference, including Army Lists, ODGW data, and every LG announcement on these young and gallant men, there would be well over 500 reference points. For the theory on putting up rank to hold up, these hundreds of records would all have to be mistakes. 'Impossible' is a word that should be used sparingly, but I believe that it is impossible to argue in favour of of the idea that Kipling put up rank.

I have looked at the 216 Guards Div subalterns who were standing on the eve of Loos. With the help of some rather wonderful colleagues in GWF we managed to cobble together hundreds of LG records. I simply filtered the 216 to find any whose promotion was announced after 30 Sep 1915 but antedated prior to 25th Sep 1915. Eliminating the killed, lame and lost, left 108 Officers. Every one should, if the theory held up, have put up rank. They didn't. I have been conservative by simply providing the mentions in the diaries.

The records clearly run for many months after. It would be fairly simple (but time consuming) to extend the research and look at promotion protocol in subsequent weeks/months years. If the Division can generate 200 diary references and 500 total references in just a three month window, I suspect in a 12 month time frame one could build a database of well over 2,000 reference points. Easily. That part is my 'informed opinion' having waded through the important part.

MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2016 at 03:51, Martin G said:

Andrew. Thank you. An interesting view. In your view did the Foot Guards ORs all had the same buttons (presumably GS) rather than regimental buttons in Sep 1915? Given Loos was the baptism of fire for many TF and New Army units I strongly suspect they were not this sophisticated. The Guards might have been different, but I am interested in seeing the hard evidence for this period. I have trawled every diary of the Guards Div from battalion up to DIv HQ and ADMS and have not seen any evidence for removal of insignia by ORs. I am open to the idea, but some evidence would be useful.

Given the number of exhumations whose regiment could be identified (around a third) might suggest removal of insignia before going into battle in Sep 1915 was not that widespread. If the regiment was only discovered from ID discs, it would still leave a number whose had no ID disc but whose regiment was established, so I am interested in understanding the breakdown of this. For reference the Killanan exhumation had only 54 of 98 positively identified and this was Sep 1914 fatalities where insignia was definitely worn. It certainly was not common practice in Gallipoli in 1915 and I wonder why it would be the case on the Western Front this early. Contemporary photos would suggest it was not widespread and I have not yet seen any diary evidence for this (Routine Orders etc). If there is hard evidence this was done in Sep 1915 Western Front I would be very interested to follow this as it might have implications for this discussion.

Separately I note the 'Other Officer' had no clothing or boots when exhumed. MG

I was writing this as the thread vanished, thankfully cut-and-paste for future use works!

As regards the buttons - tough question. In 1915 it certainly seems the Irish Guards were one of the regiments that were officially allowed to have regimental buttons on SD for OR's as well as Officers. How far that practice would have been enforced in the field is another question, though I imagine that, being a Guards regiment, they would have done their very best to enforce their inevitably higher standards:

 

 

 

With insignia removal, it was certainly very common in the latter part of the war, particularly on trench raids. A couple of links with examples below. Again, how far this would have been practiced in the earlier part of the war (if at all) is another question...

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without, I hope, accusations of sycophancy, I think the Moderators have done a decent job, and I am glad that the thread is back on all fours.

In retrospect, the decision of MoD and CWGC to accept that "Kipling lies here" seems to rest on less evidence than is customarily demanded, as those who have worked on "in from the cold" cases will recognise.

I doubt if anyone has the appetite to sail round the buoy again, but the GWF has placed a great deal of original analysis in the public view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one of our well informed contributors, with lots of spare time :w00t: , could send the WFA magazine editor a letter outlining the alternative viewpoint? A very worthy thread that already contains a lot of valuable research.

Bernard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the WO 339 file of Second Lieutenant Thomas Pakenham Law there are only two documents that refer to his burial. Both place his burial (and quote): "in the Chalk Pit Wood between Lone Tree and Chalk Pit Wood". That most certainly puts him in the frame to be the body on the NW face of Chalk Pit Wood - and if taken literally at face value actually makes him the prime candidate.

Four documents follow (cropped by me - there is no addition information outside the crop apart from signature and date on the Field Service document, 26-10-1915 for the record). His effects documents are also on file which appear to be 1) personal effects from body (identity disc only) and 2) valise effects held behind the lines.

post-6536-0-64748800-1454793955_thumb.jp

post-6536-0-59477300-1454794156_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transcription of letter informing next of kin and death certificate.

It makes you wonder what name would be on that grave if this information was considered in isolation to be the "Lieutenant Irish Guards" at H25.c.6.8 (i.e. without another candidate, least of all the actual one)?

post-6536-0-01936300-1454794486_thumb.jp

post-6536-0-68762600-1454794501_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That changes things as I see Lone Tree at 44a.G.17.c.9.3 which is to the northwest of the area we were looking. All the previous reports had him between Chalk Pit Wood and Loos. I finally found that on at 1915 trench map and then confirmed there is a Lone Tree Trench in the on the 1918 map.same area. That is quite a separation distance they have recorded!

After that this document says he was buried in the woods but between the woods and Lone Tree more that 2,000 yards to the northwest? Perhaps there is another Lone Tree that I have not found?

I can post a trench map in the later if wished?

Odd thing .... the first report refers to him as Lt. Law and not 2nd Lt. Law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC from the "Stand To" article, a later trench map based on a more accurate British survey saw Chalk Pit Wood "move" SSE from where it was on the earlier maps. Grave References which would have been on its southern edge on earlier maps were then on its northern edge.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I believe the 1915 maps were quite inaccurate, certainly Lone Tree does move around depending on what maps from what date you look at

Michelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone back and read the letter obtained by Craig from post #82. The map in the letter shows a bracketed area between Lone Tree and Chalk Pit wood with a redacted (unnecessarily) name presumably of Sec. Lt. Law. The Other candidates paragraph states that Thomas Law was buried "between Loos and Chalk Pit Wood" in his records - that statement is in error as clearly shown in his records. I can see no reference in his file to the village of Loos regarding his burial.

Narrative (used earlier in this topic when determining the possible location of Second Lieutenant Law's burial):

post-6536-0-11864200-1454848128_thumb.jp

Map:

post-6536-0-06464400-1454848154_thumb.jp

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone back and read the letter obtained by Craig from post #82. The map in the letter shows a bracketed area between Lone Tree and Chalk Pit wood with a redacted (unnecessarily) name presumably of Lt Law. The Other candidates paragraph states that Thomas Law was buried "between Loos and Chalk Pit Wood" in his records - that statement is in error as clearly shown in his records. I can see no reference in his file to the village of Loos regarding his burial.

Narrative (used earlier in this topic when determining the possible location of Second Lieutenant Law's burial):

attachicon.gifCandidates narrative.jpg

Map:

attachicon.gifCandidates map.jpg

Steve.

The redaction irritated me - the fact that page of the file you posted allows you to easily work out the burial details anyway shows how silly the redaction is.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second image at #240 is very interesting for a matter other than location.

On a single document we have an official "Second-Lieutenant" and an OR's use of "Lieutenant" and also of "Mr".

Which serves further to damage any reliance on "Lieutenant Kipling" by the OR witness Pte Martin at # 232

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I thought so too. Proof that it is definitely Lieutenant Law's grave? :devilgrin: (Note smiley - tongue in cheek comment!)

Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we can ever say we have cracked the problem, as it appears from the marvellous work here on GWF that the body reburied as John Kipling has a 50/50 versus Law.

If the GRU were badly wrong either re. rank or regiment, then "a British soldier of the Great War".

What we have indeed done is to expose the CWGC/ MoD/ ST! confident stance as untenable.

Not that I expect any remedial action to be taken, as the position is entrenched into modern factoids.

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...