CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[laughton]

I was intrigued by the reversal of the locations and the fact that Chalk Pit Wood "had moved" on the maps, so I checked. Not only did Chalk Pit Wood move, the whole City of Loos moved south. I have shown below the IWM trench map extracts for September 1915 and then March 1917.

If we can take the Holt's information to be factual, I then went back to look at what O.C. Lt. Col. Lesley Butler is reported in his notes to have said, as the part in the post above about Lone Tree does not seem to fit into that reported in the book. They are arriving from the north west from Auchy-lez-la-Basse (if I have the names correct), which is in sector 44a.A.22 which is directly above 44a.G.4. Thereafter it says that No. 2 Coy was to advance on the left of No. 3 Coy straight at the centre of the wood, right up to and including Chalk Pit (noted as "War Diary"). It is then reported that Nos. 2 and 3 Coys reached the far side of Chalk Pit Wood "with small loss", then soon after 2nd Lt. Pakenham-Law was wounded in the head and died later in hospital. Lt. Col. Butler is then reported to have issued orders to take the pit itself (these words should be checked against the original documents - not available in Canada). 2nd Lt. Clifford is reported to fall after 2nd Lt. Law but before 2nd Lt. Kipling. Next it is reported that Lt. Col. Butler wrote a statement that confirmed that 2nd Lt. Kipling had reached just beyond PUITS 14, and shortly thereafter he is reported hobbling back to the buildings of PUITS 14 apparently shot in the leg.

After we confirmed from the files of Pte. McPherson that the correct map coordinates were in the H.25 sector and not G.25 for the first set of remains though to be Mr. Kipling (44a.H.25.c.6.8) we also found what could have been the second set of remains, which I proposed might be Mr. Law (44a.H25.c.5.4).

Upon further review of the differences in the maps and the Holt's text on the reports from the O.C. and the war diary (please check) I would be the first to say that I reverse the original trench map that I marked up and now put 2nd. Lt. Law in the location that was thought to be 2nd. Lt. Kipling. If I understand the two posts above, that is now what is being proposed? Here are the two sets of coordinates shown on a larger scale extract of the 44a map from 1917. That is then followed by the 1915 and 1917 maps that show the movement (BLUE ARROWS) of Chalk Pit Wood and the City of Loos.

That puts 2nd Lt. Law at the intersection of the green coordinates on the north side of the woods and 2nd Lt. Kipling at the purple coordinates on the south side of the woods at PUITS 14. My original "reversed placement" had been based on the assumption that everyone to that time was correct about Kipling's location and that it was reported Law was buried between Chalk Pit Wood and Loos. If the second set of remains are one of the 2nd Lt. Irish Guards, the the reversed placement has greater validity.

Would it be possible to have someone report as to whether there were other British units in that area that lost an Officer matching the second set of remains?

LOCATION OF THE 2 SETS OF REMAINS RECOVERED

1915 TRENCH MAP EXTRACT

1917 TRENCH MAP EXTRACT - Locations have moved south

[brummell]

By the sounds of it, the best course of action CWGC could take would be to reverse the identification of the 'Kipling' grave and commemorate both men with 'Believed to be buried in this cemetery' stones. One might go so far as to say 'Known to be buried', but there are some leaps of faith in that which some may still not wish to take. Otherwise I agree with Grumpy, the current CWGC / MOD position on this matter is surely untenable.

- brummell

[Guest]

The Battalion War Diary is quite difficult to read, however the following is very clear (diary entries in italics):

1. "While digging in of further side of the [Chalk Pit] Wood 2 Lieut Packenham Law was wounded in the head and subsequently died from the effects in hospital".

Note at this stage the 2nd Bn Irish Guards had lines the far edge of the wood and were digging in along this line. This was the furthest point it had reached at this stage. Subsequently, the Battalion was ordered to advance and it reached the Chalk Pits along with the Scots Guards

2. "1 Scots Guards had come up partly round and partly through the right flank of the 2 Irish Guards and had captured Puits 14 BIS. 2 Lieuts Clifford & Kipling and some few Irish guardsmen had also gone forward with this party and had reached a line just beyond the Puits buildings. While there according to the evidence of No. 6846 Cpl ROSSITER (No. 2 coy) and No. 5824 Pte POWER 2 Lieut Clifford was shot and wounded or killed. Also while there according to evidence of No. 5838 Pte GREEN (No. 2 Coy) 2 Lieut Kipling was wounded. These 2 officers were subsequently missing for shortly before 5 pm the men in and beyond the PUITS commenced to retire and fell back onto and through the CHALK PIT WOOD in some confusion".

Subsequent to this the line was held on the Loos-Hulluch road and advanced and reestablished on the far edge of the wood. An hour later the line advanced again and re-established itself in the Chalk Pits. The battle ebbed and flowed, but it is clear Packenham Law was wounded on the edge of the wood prior to this advance and that Kipling (and Clifford) were both wounded in the Chalk Pits after the advance. We all seem to agree Clifford is not a contender due to his capture and burial by the Germans. Kipling was last seen during the first advance. Interestingly there are two separate accounts of his wounds: jaw and leg which adds to the confusion. If he had suffered both, one might expect the observer to have noticed both.

What we don't know is the extent of the wounds and whether either Law or Kipling could walk or whether they were assisted to a First Aid Post and subsequently to a Field ambulance. We know only one of the three Field Ambulances kept a record of the names of the Officers that passed through its hands (No. 4 Field Ambulance which was the dedicated FA for 2nd Guards Brigade... However we know that Officers from other Brigades and other Divisions passed through its hands (as well as 2 Lt Sassoon, Irish Guards and some 2/ Scots Guards on the Irish Guards immediate right) reflecting the chaotic conditions. So it is possible that they may have passed through the casualty evacuation chain, but there is no hard evidence. That Packenham Law was described as subsequently dying in 'hospital' suggests he at least passed down the chain. 'Hospital' my be a loose term in this context. The Field Ambulances were some distance back and the Casualty Clearing Station further back near Vermelles. To get to a 'Hospital' would mean having been evacuated miles to the West. If the diarist meant Field Ambulance or Casualty Clearing Station rather than 'Hospital' it would still require Packenham Law to have been evacuated Westwards.

Counter to all this is the report that Packenham Law was buried in the vicinity of Chalk Pit Wood. This makes sense if he died of wounds within a short period as evacuating dead bodies was far from a priority. It is also consistent with the Irish Guards holding the woods and the Chalk Pits to the East. It is difficult, arguably impossible, to resolve the idea that Packenham Law made it to a 'Hospital' yet was buried near the woods. One might expect a Hospital to have recorded this. The ADMS and Field Ambulance ADS were no-where near the woods. I think it is possible that the 'hospital' is a red herring and that it was simply the Battalion first aid post. Dying soon after being wounded would be consistent with the body being buried nearby.

It might be worth exploring the Field Ambulance diaries of the other Divisions. Trying to piece this together is tricky. It is worth remembering that the Guards Div was the third phase to have gone through the area, and the situation was extremely chaotic if the Field Ambulance diaries are any indication. It is also worth noting that the 2 Irish Guards war diary recorded that;

'the majority of the 101 'missing' [Other Ranks] were eventually found to have been admitted to some Field Ambulance wounded"

..which strongly indicates most of the wounded were being evacuated through the normal channels. Given the Field Ambulances ADS were much further West and Law was recorded as being buried near the woods might suggest he never made it into the RAMC evacuation chain. My speculation.

This keeps coming back to the simple fact that there were two missing Irish Guards subalterns and one rediscovered Irish Guards subaltern's body. There is insufficient hard evidence to be sure of who was where, and when, as the chain of evidence is very fragmented. Without hard evidence it remains speculation and speculation is not 'proof'. Not even on the 'balance of probabilities'. MG

[charlie2]

I might be on my own here but I do not really understand why 2/Lt Clifford has been discounted.

2 Lieuts Clifford & Kipling and some few Irish guardsmen had also gone forward with this party and had reached a line just beyond the Puits buildings. While there according to the evidence of No. 6846 Cpl ROSSITER (No. 2 coy) and No. 5824 Pte POWER 2 Lieut Clifford was shot and wounded or killed. Also while there according to evidence of No. 5838 Pte GREEN (No. 2 Coy) 2 Lieut Kipling was wounded

2/Lt Clifford was found dead by the Germans, there is no suggestion on their part in the ICRC records that he was ever taken prisoner, all that is recorded is that he was buried near St Auguste. The Puits buildings are near St Auguste, there isn't really much else there to give an indication as to the approximate whereabouts of his grave. They were both seemingly wounded or killed close to each other and I cannot imagine the Germans would have moved 2/Lt Clifford's body very far in order to bury him.

Charlie

[laughton]

Very interesting to this case as I have never seen that evidence presented. Can you please post that report - have to assume it is in German, so a translation will assist. This could be a turning point in the evidence, as to date I believe all believe that he is not a candidate.

2/Lt Clifford was found dead by the Germans

[Guest]

Very interesting to this case as I have never seen that evidence presented. Can you please post that report - have to assume it is in German, so a translation will assist. This could be a turning point in the evidence, as to date I believe all believe that he is not a candidate.

Clifford or no Clifford, there are already two candidates. Introducing a third candidate simply reduces the probabilities from 50% to 33% but doesn't change the fact that no-one knows for sure it is Kipling;

Grid refs, rank, pay, promotions etc while interesting are simply secondary factors that have no real bearing on the debate as long as there are at least two candidates. MG

[hazelclark]

Well, it does muddy the waters even further, and from the evidence presented, (at least on this Forum) there is absolutely no positive identification possible without digging the man up and finding a DNA match to a relative. If no Kipling relative could be found, maybe the other contenders' relatives could be, but none of that is likely to happen any time soon.

Hazel C

[charlie2]

Very interesting to this case as I have never seen that evidence presented. Can you please post that report - have to assume it is in German, so a translation will assist. This could be a turning point in the evidence, as to date I believe all believe that he is not a candidate.

It was presented in post 192, I have just reiterated my comment in post 193. For clarity the relevant part of the ICRC document is attached. As far as I am aware this is the only evidence as to the whereabouts of 2/Lt Clifford's burial which reads:

Clifford WF Lieut.? Irish Guards Regt, KiA, buried near St Auguste.

There is absolutely no indication that he was taken prisoner. Unless "near" can be quantified in units of measurement how far from, or near to, St Auguste he was buried he cannot, in my opinion, be removed from the equation.

Charlie

[Guest]

The OH and various Divisional and Battalion histories would put the front line through the Chalk Pits by end 28th Sep 1915. Clifford was last noted in the Irish Guards war diary in the Chalk Pits between 16:00 and 16:45 having advanced with Kipling on the coat tails of the 2nd Bn Scots Guards. It recorded he had been shot. Just before 17:00 the line pulled back from the Chalk Pit to the Chalk Pit Wood, but was re-established again in the Chalk Pit by the Irish Guards an hour later.

Importantly the diary records that it was not known if he was wounded or killed, which clearly leaves the possibility that he was captured and died soon after. Given the fact that the Germans buried him means it would be nigh impossible for him to have been buried near the Chalk Pit Wood For the Germans to have buried him near Chalk Pit Woods they would have had to bury him in the window between 16:45 ish and 18:00. Thereafter the area remained behind the British line. St Auguste was in German hands. The only time in this period the British reached St Auguste was on the 25th when the 15th Scottish Div over-extended, only to be driven back.

I think we can be fairly confident that of the three, Clifford was buried the furthest East and definitely not north or south of the Chalk Pit woods where the Lieutenant Irish Guards' body was allegedly discovered.

I can't see how the Germans could have buried Clifford close to the grid ref of the Lieutenant Irish Guards body for the simple fact this area was in British hands with the exception of a very small one hour window when the battle was surging back and forth between the wood and the pit. MG

[laughton]

I misunderstood the Clifford comment as I thought it was reference to a new piece of evidence.

There are four volunteers to assist with resolving the Clifford issue:

• Breakwell #19975 27-09-1915
• Clarke #7114 30-09-1915
• Millsopp #6572 30-09-1915
• McNamee #6613 30-09-1915

I was hoping they might have a McPherson type clue but they are Loos Memorial lads so no burial coordinates. I will need to scour the COG-BR to find a group of Irish Guards recovered in the battlefield clearances, which would give us a potential lead on where the German burial site was located. We should be able to accomplish that by looking for St. Auguste coordinates (36c/44a in H33, H34, N3, N4).

I checked all the trench maps from September 1915 through until December 1917 and the farthest the line moved was during the Canadian capture of Hill 70 in August of 1917. Even then, we were not into the St. August sector in depth. The area was examined in detail after the armistice and it was here we located Lts. McDonald and Wylie of the 15th Canadian Battalion. I will go further east and see what I can find.

If they truly meant he was taken back and buried in St. Auguste then I say he is out of the equation but it is a worthy venture to prove that to be true.

Most advanced front lines as of May 1918 still on the western fringe of St. Auguste:

[trajan]

On 09/02/2016 at 18:10, charlie2 said:

It was presented in post 192, I have just reiterated my comment in post 193. ... Clifford WF Lieut.? Irish Guards Regt, KiA, buried near St Auguste.

I was intrigued by the way that this German document re: Law plus one other you show at

on post 192, both have "Leutn.?" and only the third that you show from IIRC shows him as "2nd Lieut". So, confusion abounded regarding his rank...

[Muerrisch]

On 10/02/2016 at 00:35, TRAJAN said:

I was intrigued by the way that this German document re: Law plus one other you show at

on post 192, both have "Leutn.?" and only the third that you show from IIRC shows him as "2nd Lieut". So, confusion abounded regarding his rank...

I am in no doubt that Clifford and Law were 2Lts at the time of death: why should there be confusion?

Even assuming that the Germans were not experten on reading British ranking, there is a huge body of evidence, hard evidence that neither Law, Kipling nor Clifford were other than 2Lts.

The wishful thinking of CWGC/ MoD and the ST! article have surely been seen for what it is in the above thread?

[AOK4]

A German Leutnant is the same as a British 2/Lt., while a British Lieutenant is a German Oberleutnant.

Jan

[Muerrisch]

Thank you. Good result!

[laughton]

I have done some checking of the COG-BR documents for each of Loos British Cemetery and the St, Mary's ADS Cemetery. What I said before that I would look for was:

We should be able to accomplish that by looking for St. Auguste coordinates (36c/44a in H33, H34, N3, N4).

I expanded on that to include H32 and N2 as well, While I was doing this I also looked for anyone that was in Sector G, Sub-sectors 1, 7, 13, 19, 25 in a or c (the off map squares).

I was surprised to find as many of those as I did, so let me list those first:

Loos British Cemetery

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302788.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302789.JPG (one is identified?)

St. Mary's ADS Cemetery

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045452.JPG (has an Irish Guard) 19 in total

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045526.JPG (15 casualties - includes and Irish Guard and a Canadian - duplicate of 452 above)

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045531.JPG (that is the one discussed here)

For the list of those that are in the grid sectors that may have been behind the German Lines near Cite St. Auguste we have the following:

Loos British Cemetery

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302670.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302695.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302698.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302699.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302700.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2307742.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302720.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302721.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302722.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302723.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302724.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302744.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302767.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302768.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302769.JPG

St. Mary's ADS Cemetery

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045503.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045509.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045540.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045534.JPG

For others that are of interest as they are in the Chalk Pit Wood sector

Loos British Cemetery

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302702.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302703.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302797.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2302797.JPG

St. Mary's ADS Cemetery

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045506.JPG (20 casualties)

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045527.JPG (See Irish Guard #7175 - check if found)

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045528.JPG

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2045533.JPG (Irish Guard)

[trajan]

I am in no doubt that Clifford and Law were 2Lts at the time of death: why should there be confusion?

No, what I was getting at was there seems to have been a difficulty on the German side in identifying his precise rank for one reason or another, as if the badges of rank were not there or not properly recorded. So, possible parallel to what happened with the case of the 'Kipling' body, that there was no obvious indication of rank for one or other reason. It's just an idea, and I am prepared to be found wrong...

A German Leutnant is the same as a British 2/Lt., while a British Lieutenant is a German Oberleutnant.

Jan

Ah, now I understand. Thanks Jan.

[Guest]

There is another mountain of evidence on promotion protocol in the Guards Division Routine Orders. WO 95/1197/2 has 650 typewritten pages of these Routine Orders with hundreds of mentions of Officers from every Regiment and Battalion. They are typically mentioned when being transferred, posted, going on leave, and indeed there are lots of entries of being gazetted (an example below including 2 Lts in the Irish Guards who had clearly not yet put up rank if the diaries are any indication. I would estimate at least 200 mentions of Officers are mentioned and in every case I checked against the diaries, none had put up rank prior to the gazetting of the substantive rank.

The only exceptions were promotion to Temporary Ranks, as per my earlier post. This at least doubles the body of evidence for promotion protocol in the Guards Division. At risk of stating the obvious, the hard evidence is in direct contradiction to the arguments laid out in the Stand To! article. MG

[charlesmessenger]

Martin

Thank you. A few days ago I went so far as emailing the Parker/Legg website, asking politely that they amend their entry on Kipling. I pointed out that we all make mistakes. Needless to say, I have had no response.

Charles M

[laughton]

Coincidentally today I wrote PART TWO of my Blog on the case of the Canadian Lieutenants and the British 2nd Lieutenants. If you have an interest you will find it here:

http://cefresearch.ca/lt-wylie-and-2nd-lt-kipling-loos-british-cemetery/

I know now I can not post it here but I see no issue with directing you to the source document. I would like the GWF comments before I send it in to CentenaryNews.com as they did say they would publish a rebuttal when written but they could not post our prior submission.

I have referred to the GWF work on the Lieutenant versus 2nd Lieutenant issue but I have not presented any details. If someone wishes to respond to what I have written and to include "your own words" then I will gladly attach that material - or perhaps you may want to make a separate submission. I put this in my post:

Additional claims by the British Authors as to the rank of 2nd Lieutenant Kipling being named as a full Lieutenant have been addressed by researchers of the Great War Forum (U.K.), as we at the CEFSG have no qualifications to comment on that issue.

My final statement in my post, which I think can be reproduced here without any issue as no names are mentioned is as follows:

In conclusion, what we know and don’t know can now be summarized as:

• Lieutenant Donald Wallace McDonald, 15th Battalion CEF was exhumed from 36c.H.25.B.6.8 and is buried in St. Mary’s ADS Cemetery in Plot 14 Row C Grave 11.
• Lieutenant James Archibald Wylie, 15th Battalion CEF was exhumed from 36c.H.26.c.1.9 and is buried in Loos British Cemetery in Plot 6 Row H Grave 2.
• There was an Unknown British Soldier, Officer Lieutenant Irish Guards exhumed from 36c.H.25.c.6.8 that was buried in Plot 7 Row D Grave 2 of St. Mary’s ADS Cemetery and it is likely that they are the remains of either 2nd Lieutenant Law or 2nd Lieutenant Kipling (both 2nd Battalion Irish Guards), but there is no way to positively identify which one.
• There was an Unknown British Officer that was exhumed from 36c.H25.c.5.4 that was buried in the Loos British Cemetery in Plot 8 Row A Grave 1 and it is possible that these remains are those of either 2nd Lieutenant Law or 2nd Lieutenant Kipling (both 2nd Battalion Irish Guards), but there is no proof at this time that it is one of those men or another Unknown British Officer from actions in 1915 or 1917.

[Guest]

Laughton,

1. Research. I would firstly say that the research that you and your team ave done is remarkable in its detail and I am in awe.

2. Grid Ref. Your interest in this debate seems to be entirely focused on who 'first' revealed that there were issues over Grid References. By extension your focus appears to be that your team 'discovered' this first and that this has not been subsequently acknowledged by other researchers. I have read the Holt's account and they appear to have raised the issue of false grid references over a decade ago. I may be completely misunderstanding this, (correct me if I am wrong) but in the interests of clarity can you tell us if the Holts were first? Semantics of the exact grid reference apart, are there any other areas of the Kipling debate that matter to the Canadian team you represent?

3. Rank. You say you and your team are not 'qualified' to make comment on the debate about rank and promotion. You do yourselves a dis-favour. No-one needs 'qualification'. If one can read English and has internet access and £3.50 that is all the qualification that is required. The Guards Div diaries run to thousands of pages and provide sufficient a mountain of hard evidence to dismantle the 'rank' arguments in the article. It is not rocket science. This is the rather puzzling part of the article; that the authors could have researched their claims about rank quite easily, but didn't. Instead they rely on conjecture. This is a simple fact. Separately, under UK copyright laws facts are facts and cannot be copyrighted, so you can quote any fact. I can assure you that the data is extremely robust, but acknowledgement is neither sought or required.

MG

[laughton]

Martin:

I can answer your questions or comments quite quickly:

1. Thank you for your comment. We all do our part and ours is no different than any other contribution. I do mine from my grandfathers that served.
   
2. I am in regular contact with the Holt's and I dispute nothing that they have said nor do I claim to detract from anything they have found. Our only claim was that the McPherson file was the ultimate proof. Each of the Holt's, the CWGC and Joanna Legg have acknowledged this in writing. The Holt's and CWGC said "thanks" the others .... I can not say that here. You will find a quote here in the old posts that clearly says "The Holt's were first, the Canadians second, and the others a distant third". I did try to look that up here with the SEARCH function but it was probably in the posts that were deleted. You will see in my latest blog I posted the response I received from the others.
   
3. As for the 2nd Lieutenants, we have too much to do to comment on a topic that is so well covered by experts in the UK. It would be the same as if your UK group tried to comment on why Canada abandoned the role of the 2nd Lieutenant in 1903 - who has the time when there are already experts that can address the situation? Not me - I defer to the experts. I would rather donate my £3.50 to the GWF.

​What I would really appreciate from the lads and lassies of the UK GWF is to tell me what other British units could have lost an Officer in the area of 36c.H.25/26 in 1915 to 1917. I have asked a number of times but never received an answer. We are colonials you know !

Best Regards,

Richard

[Guest]

Martin:

I can answer your questions or comments quite quickly:

​What I would really appreciate from the lads and lassies of the UK GWF is to tell me what other British units could have lost an Officer in the area of 36c.H.25/26 in 1915 to 1917. I have asked a number of times but never received an answer. We are colonials you know !

Best Regards,

Richard

Laughton. Thanks for the clarification on the Holt's earlier work.

Other candidates. Given the front line hardly moved in the subsequent two years, I suspect the numbers 'missing' would be largely confined to those MIA during the battle of Loos. The 15th (Scottish) Div certainly passed through the same area on 25th and another of the New Army divisions (I think). A trawl of the CWGC data for officers KIA during the Battle of Loos who are commemorated on the memorial would be a simple start. Edit there are 138 British Army Lieutenants commemorated on the Loos memorial who went missing within the dates of the Loos battle honour. Given the size of the battlefield I suspect those lost near the Chalk Pits would be very small in number.

This starting point would of course assume the unit was incorrectly identified, which takes one into an entirely different area of the debate. The MOD/CWGC stance is that the GRU was less likely to make a mistake on the identification of the regiment than any other factor such as rank or location. As you know, many were simply UBS, but in this case the GRU made 'positive' identification of the unit. John Keegan once commented that the one thing about British Army uniforms is that they are not 'uniform'. Given the huge variations in dress and insignia across British Army infantry Officers' uniforms, I would tend to agree with the MOD/CWGC viewpoint on this aspect. It would be extremely difficult to confuse an Irish Guards uniform with anything else.

While errors in many parts of the chain of evidence are possible, one might consider the probabilities. Mis-identifying the unit, while possible, seems improbable to me.

Has the CWGC ever reversed a decision on identification? MG

[squirrel]

This is a fascinating and absorbing thread - thanks to all those who have undertaken such detailed research and analysis to clarify the possibilities of who is buried in the grave marked as Lt Kipling.

[Seadog]

Yes interesting but ultimately pointless unless the CWGC can be convinced by the "new" research. So I guess the headstone will remain as is.

Norman

[laughton]

Martin:

For clarification, my quest of the other units is not related to the Irish Guard in the St. Mary's ADS Cemetery, rather to the Unknown British Officer in the Loos British Cemetery. That means I have to account for every form of Officer from Brigadier General Nickalls of the General Staff down to Second Lieutenant Evers of the Yorkshire Regiment. I was hoping, like with our Canadians, I could significantly restrict that list by only including regiments that had men in 36c.H.25 and 36c.H.26.

I have a spreadsheet of all the Officers on the Loos Memorial which you can download from here: All Officers Loos Memorial

In that list there are 1 Brigadier General, 1 Major General, 2 Colonels, 12 Lieutenant Colonels, 34 Majors, 171 Captains, 199 Lieutenants and 419 Second Lieutenants. There were no Generals or Lieutenant Generals. Did I miss any ranks? Remember I am Canadian and not military. For example, we did not have Second Lieutenants unless they were seconded to the RFC, RNAS or RAF.

I have two (2) tabs on the spreadsheet, one sorted by rank and the other by date. There were 634 lost in 1915, 79 in 1916, 46 in 1917 and 80 in 1918. Of those lost in 1918, fourteen (14) were in August and September, the same time our Canadian boys were at Loos and Lens to take Hill 70. I suspect that they were the British lads on the north flank of our 15th Battalion, so primary candidates to consider. As for the others, I do not have the knowledge at my fingertips so I am looking for someone who does?