CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[tullybrone]

It would be helpful if Joseph told us who NS&EKSHBAS were, or did I miss that?

Mike

Hi,

In one of his 214 previous posts he mentions socialising in Surrey so the first part of the lengthy acronym may be

North Surrey & East Kent?

Steve Y

[Joseph Kerr1]

if you think Kipling is under the gravestone with his name on it. MG

Martin.

Sorry about the delayed reply but I have been on the road. Also have a longish trip coming up so have limited time available. So short answer-

I think we are inclined to believe that Kipling is in that grave but that it cant be proved absolutely.

Ditto we believe that there are people who believe that it isn't Kipling but they cant prove that either.

At some stage it then becomes an argument for the sake of an argument.

Do I know of any people who know more about anything than I do? Probably.

Have we decided its all run out of steam? Probably.

" Bit like the tone of your post Jo-ker?

can you imagine what its like for a kid at primary school when other kids figure out they can make funny names out of their name?

a boy named SUE was famous though.

z victor one to b d and over and out from the north surrey & east kent surrey hills brewery appreciation society(east kent branch)

Joseph

[Guest]

Martin.

Sorry about the delayed reply but I have been on the road. Also have a longish trip coming up so have limited time available. So short answer-

I think we are inclined to believe that Kipling is in that grave but that it cant be proved absolutely.

Ditto we believe that there are people who believe that it isn't Kipling but they cant prove that either.

At some stage it then becomes an argument for the sake of an argument.

Do I know of any people who know more about anything than I do? Probably.

Have we decided its all run out of steam? Probably.

Joseph

Joseph Thanks for your response.

I still don't know what you think...you allude to 'we' and meetings of un-named people (prev posts and this post). It is unclear whether you are representing someone else with the collective 'we'? I am really interested in your view simply because you allude to knowing what meetings happened at CWGC... and I see that you were also researching the very same question that Parker & Legg were (Guards Subalterns Pay) at exactly the same time.... So it seems you have an 'inside line' with CWGC and a remarkably similar interest in Guards Officers pay.... so I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you were 'informed'. So I am genuinely interested in your view rather than the collective views of the NS&EKSHBAC ... unless of course its membership is one.

Can I assume you know the authors?

MG

[Guest]

can you imagine what its like for a kid at primary school when other kids figure out they can make funny names out of their name?

a boy named SUE was famous though.

I suppose you could have used any name, like I did. It's just Joe-Kerr might reinforce any thoughts that you might not be serious, that's all. Some great research on this thread and it certainly casts doubt on the seeming certainty of the CWGC?

Mike

[Guest]

Joe. Put us out of our misery. What is NS&EKSHBAS?

Mike

[keithmroberts]

OK

That is enough. Please can we stick to the main subject. I have left an assortment of posts above which add little or nothing to our comprehension of the issue in the topic. But no more trivia , it detracts from a serious question.

Keith Roberts

[Guest]

If I could try and steer this back on course;

One thing that occurred to me is that if 2nd Lieutenants were putting up rank ahead of the London Gazette announcements, there would be no requirements for gazetting Temp Lieutenants. The data clearly demonstrates hundreds of 2nd Lts on the Western Front in the Guards Div and a number being promoted to Temp Lt within the back-dated period to their later announced substantive promotion. If these 2nd Lts were jumping the London Gazette announcement, the whole process of making some Temp Lts would seem to be superfluous. Why make someone a Temp Lt if he was already wearing the rank of Lt? MG

[laughton]

Keith:

With all due respect to the Administrators at the GWF, these posts are in fact reality and not trivia. The "Kipling" case came to be because of unfounded claims by the CWGC in 1992 that the grave site was that of 2nd Lieutenant John Kipling. This was then supported, albeit incorrectly, by the British Ministry of Defence.

Tonie and Valmai Holt brought this topic to light when they published their book in 1998 but they did not have the final proof that the grave site coordinates were incorrect. No matter what the NS&EKSHBAS say, the proof of this came in October 2015 with the research in Canada and the release of the report to the CWGC. That is just plain fact. Anything prior to that was supposition. What unfolded in the months that followed was a "rush to publication" of an article that was seriously flawed and we now face the possibility that the findings in STAND TO! will leave this matter etched in stone for another 10 years. The authors made three serious flaws in the publication and I stand my ground that this is not trivia but is very important to the Kipling case:

1. Their understanding of the "Revised Squaring" process in the trench maps was flawed and their claims incorrect.
   
2. The authors acknowledged access to the Canadian report that explained the trench map error and instead of graciously reporting that and giving credit, they continued with a less than quality approach to dealing with the issue at hand.
   
3. The esteemed researchers here on the GWF have thoroughly researched the matter of the Lieutenant versus 2nd Lieutenant issue and this is no longer a question. Attempts to argue that everyone knew Kipling was a Lieutenant lacks credibility. It would be much simpler to just state that the 18th Labour Company erred, as they did here at St, Mary's ADS Cemetery and also at Loos British Cemetery. It was a long time ago and mistakes were made under horrific conditions. I see that Martin has just posted on this matter while I was typing.

The current research suggests that 2nd Lieutenant Kipling might well be in Loos British Cemetery and that 2nd Lt. Law is in St. Mary's ADS Cemetery.

​​Competent researchers will see that these issues render the STAND TO! article as nothing more than an ill-founded hypothesis that would not survive a peer review. I as a Canadian, involved in this project, openly release my name and affiliation. If others wish to challenge these findings and do so with internal knowledge of the matters should "come clean" - that is to identify themselves and state their interest (affiliation) with this matter. by not doing so and making inaccurate claims, they lend themselves to ridicule. The post that are deemed "trivia" are a polite way of asking the member to comply. Perhaps it is time that all members reveal their true identity so these issues are not cloaked in secrecy.

I for one was duped by the postings, as I incorrectly took the postings of the member to mean that he or she was a member of the GWF Administration team. I now know that was not correct. I asked for clarification from the "Admin Team" and I received a response that there was a meeting and a decision had been made. The author then went on to critique a number of other GWF researches with similar faulty claims. It can only lead one to believe that this person has insider knowledge.

You may opt to ZAP my comments but you cannot ZAP the truth. If you are going to make claims on this forum as to the research of yourself or others then you have to face the music. Don't hide behind a veil.

That is my opinion and mine alone.

My name is Richard Laughton and I am from Canada.

This was in Post #13:

http://1914-1918.inv...35738&p=2358131

From that I took that the author "Joseph Kerr1" was a member of the GWF Administration.

Posted 26 January 2016 - 12:20 pm
laughton, on 26 Jan 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:
Quote
................I believe we need some clarification.

Richard. This was discussed at length last night at a meeting in the debating chamber the pub and it was decided that the thing needing clarifying was is it being understood properly that you are principally objecting to your research and advice regarding the mapping which you notified to to the commonwealth war graves commission on October 28th 2015 being copied and used without your consent ?
thanks
J.

[AlanCurragh]

From that I took that the author "Joseph Kerr1" was a member of the GWF Administration.

I can assure you that he/she isn't

Edit - apologies - you confirm earlier in your post that you know this

Edited 29 February , 2016 by Alan Curragh

[Bernard_Lewis]

We are all very busy but I think it would be useful (though hard work) if one of our real experts put the alternative view to the Stand To people by way of an exposition of what has been shown here.

A fine thread.

Bernard

[Muerrisch]

Here is a nice thought.

in a day

a week

a year

10 years

Anyone interested in the John Kipling saga who Googles will find this thread which DEVASTATES the flimsy arguments for "Kipling lies bere"

[Ghazala]

the north surrey & east kent surrey hills brewery appreciation society(east kent branch)

Joseph

Thank goodness we have all been put out of our misery.

[SteveE]

This may have been mentioned previously but I can't find it if it has but, just out of interest and as I don't have access to the original Stand To article, would someone please be kind enough to share just what the evidence was, as per the WFA press release for the article concerned, whereby "the authors confirm documentary records that John was a lieutenant on the day of his death. As no other lieutenants in the Irish Guards were unaccounted for on the Loos battlefield, the discovered Irish Guards lieutenant indicates that John was wearing this rank in the battle."

Knowing the lengths that Martin went to to provide an in-depth analysis, based on available records, of the likelihood of a Guards officer 'putting up rank', i.e. zero likelihood, I just wondered what the original article used as its proof?

Steve

[corisande]

One aspect of this question that has not really been considered by this thread is

"How accurate were the records of 18th Labour Company over a period of say a month at the time of their exhumation of the Irish Guards Lts body"

In other words is any research available on their work and their recording of what they did. This whole house of cards rests on their recording the body as being an Irish Guards Lt. But what is the probability of that being correct, irrespective of whether the body is Kipling's or not

Exhumation cannot have been a pleasant job, and appears to have been ignored by research over the years

[micks]

Corisande

You introduce a very valid point.

If you google the subject you will find at least one interesting report on the exhumation process which highlights the varied ways that these field companies confronted this very unpleasant task.Unfortunately some men viewed the job as lets get them out and lets move on where as others saw it as an archaeological dig and then removed the soldier with due respect. However at the end of the day there were time frames attached to this work.

In the past year I have spent hours working through burial returns with the emphases on those men who are unidentified.During this period I have found no exception when it comes to errors. I have even come across cases where a man has been initially recorded as being a unidentified officer when in fact evidence introduced at a later date implies that he was a soldier from the ranks.

I have presented a number of cases to the CWGC with some success but I do now question if this door should have been left open.

Mick

[Guest]

This may have been mentioned previously but I can't find it if it has but, just out of interest and as I don't have access to the original Stand To article, would someone please be kind enough to share just what the evidence was, as per the WFA press release for the article concerned, whereby "the authors confirm documentary records that John was a lieutenant on the day of his death. As no other lieutenants in the Irish Guards were unaccounted for on the Loos battlefield, the discovered Irish Guards lieutenant indicates that John was wearing this rank in the battle."

I just wondered what the original article used as its proof?

Steve

The Stand To! article relies on the fact that the London Gazette of 11 Nov 1915 recorded the confirmation of substantive ranks of 2nd Lt to 14 Irish Guards Officers and on the same entry confirmed their promotion to Lt. The effective dates were ante-dated to 7th June 1915 for seven Officers (including Kipling) and 15th July for the other seven. The authors argue that Kipling was therefore a Lieutenant and they further argue that he and others would have put up rank ahead of the London Gazette announcement. The whole thesis hinges on whether Officers put up rank ahead of being gazetted. No 'proof' of this theory was offered.

To check this theory, we simply need to look at contemporary documents. If the Parker/Legg theory was to hold water, we would expect Kipling (and others) to have put up rank from June or July and for this to be reflected in the documents. These officers are all recorded in the Guards Div nominal rolls dated end Aug 1915 when the Division assembled. In addition the 14 Officers are recorded in the battalion diaries on 66 occasions. The casualties at Loos are also recorded in the diaries. They are nearly all recorded as 2 Lts in the 66 examples. The only exceptions are promotions to Temporary ranks where specific appointments require a higher rank such as Adjutant etc. The one exception - 2 Lt Sassoon is recorded as a Lt in one diary entry, but a few days later as a 2nd Lt. He is recorded as 2 Lt elsewhere throughout, including the 4th Field Ambulance diary whose recorder was presumably looking at his rank on his shoulder when dealing with the gunshot wound to his leg, so clearly the 'Lt' is an error. More importantly the Divisional (typed) records show all of them as 2 Lts for the period in question.

Expanding this simple methodology across the whole Guards Div for the period in question (three months) identifies at least 108 2nd Lts who, in theory, could have put up rank ahead of the London Gazette announcement. They are recorded in various diaries and returns and, importantly in the Guards Div daily Routine Orders (600 plus pages). In total over 500 entries. 99% of the records show they all remained as 2nd Lts until being gazetted. There are five anomalies which I believe are simply errors by the diarist. Four of these are Welsh Guards where the diarist never differentiated between 2 Lts and Lts simply calling all 'Lieutenants'. This is repeated in their published history and conflicts with the mass of other returns on the Welsh Guards in the Div diaries. We also know one simply could never have been a Lt as he died soon after being commissioned. So we know the anomalies contain at least one confirmed error.

99% of the data of over 500 records does not support the theory. The exceptions can be easily explained as Temp promotions or errors by tired diarists. Importantly the Divisional returns and Routine Orders have no exceptions and the Routine Orders include dozens of examples recording promotions as announced in the London Gazette which perhaps confirms the importance of the LG announcements in the time line. Separately, I have lost count of the number of times the London Gazette is mentioned in diaries.

With regards to Kipling, there are eight documents recording his rank. Two are in his own hand. All the records are made after 7th June 1915 when the Parker Legg theory suggests he would have put up rank. All eight documents record him as a 2nd Lt. Kipling's father records him as a 2nd Lt. There are no documents between 7th June 1915 and 11th Nov 1915 (LG announcement) that record him as a Lieutenant. For the Parker Legg theory to hold water, the Divisional diarist and Battalion Diarist must have been mistaken. More than once. Importantly we would have to believe that J Kipling somehow forgets that he is a Lt when writing home asking for an ID disc over 2 months after the substantive date of 7th June.

The MOD/CWGC and Parker Legg need Kipling to be a Lieutenant to fit in with the GRU report. The idea that the report made an mistake on rank is rejected which rather limits the number of escape routes. The fact that there is not a single document that records him as a Lieutenant is buried under some rather imaginative and incorrect assumptions on promotion protocol in the Guards Div. If the GRU made a mistake and the body was that of a 2nd Lt Irish Guards, then another candidate needs to be considered: 2 Lt T P Law, and the whole celebrity identification story falls to pieces. More importantly standards of proof will come under scrutiny.

Their only hope is that Kipling was promoted to Temp Lt, but to date no supporting evidence has been found in the London Gazette.

If anyone is still awake, I don't think on the available evidence anyone can conclude it is Kipling. MG

[Andy Wade]

Still wide awake here Martin, and flabbergasted at the extent of your research from primary source information. Convincing stuff.

[Guest]

Still wide awake here Martin, and flabbergasted at the extent of your research from primary source information. Convincing stuff.

I stood on the shoulders of giants. Some GWF colleagues who provided their considerable expertise in the London Gazette to track down some rather elusive announcements.

Steve E

Harry Brook

Phil Evans

tullybrone

Corisande

PPCLI

Raysearcher

Skipman

helpjpl

Liz in Eastbourne

Credit where it is due. MG

[SteveE]

The Stand To! article relies on the fact that the London Gazette of 11 Nov 1915 recorded the substantive ranks of 2nd Lt to 14 Irish Guards Officers and on the same entry confirmed their promotion to Lt. The effective dates were ante-dated to 7th June 1915 for seven Officers (including Kipling) and 15th July for the other seven. The authors argue that Kipling was therefore a Lieutenant and they further argue that he and others would have put up rank ahead of the London Gazette announcement. The whole thesis hinges on whether Officers put up rank ahead of being gazetted. No 'proof' of this theory was offered.

Martin

Many thanks for the detailed explanation. I was, of course, aware of the extensive research that you undertook to support your case but was, until now, ignorant of the fact of just how little 'evidence' was used to support the argument put forward in the Stand To! article. To suggest that the article's case on this point is at best 'flimsy' is, in my opinion, something of an understatement.

Steve

[Seadog]

So what happens now, a perfectly reasonable question do you not think?

[laughton]

Martin:

That is a superb summary that you have prepared. Congratulations to you and your team, as the summary is often the hardest part to write.

That is exactly what I was looking for when I suggested that we combine what was done in Canada on the trench map error and what was done in the UK on the 2nd Lieutenant error. Combine that with the very good possibility that the newest evidence could support 2nd Lt. Kipling in the Loos British Cemetery and 2nd. Lt. Law in the St. Mary's ADS Cemetery and the STAND TO! article collapses into a pile of rubble.

If I had been in the place of the author's I would have gone on the basis that the 18th Labour Company merely made another one of their many well documented errors. If I understand the consensus here, we all agree that the remains are either those of 2nd Lt. Kipling or 2nd. Lt. Law but there is no absolute proof it is one or the other. If one was to "make an educated guess" it would probably favour 2nd Lt. Law, based on the location of the remains.

If you and your team have no objection, I would like to add your piece as a separate post on our CEFSG site where we have the posts about Kipling, Law, McDonald and now Wylie. I would just preface it with a paragraph about the GWF as a sister Forum to the CEFSG and how important your work was to the overall project. I can do that and post it here for your approval if you agree.

Richard

[Steven Broomfield]

I apologise if this has been answered (and I have not been a WFA member for some years), but has a rebuttal in the form of an article been submitted to 'Stand To!'?

[Guest]

Martin:

That is a superb summary that you have prepared. Congratulations to you and your team, as the summary is often the hardest part to write.

That is exactly what I was looking for when I suggested that we combine what was done in Canada on the trench map error and what was done in the UK on the 2nd Lieutenant error. Combine that with the very good possibility that the newest evidence could support 2nd Lt. Kipling in the Loos British Cemetery and 2nd. Lt. Law in the St. Mary's ADS Cemetery and the STAND TO! article collapses into a pile of rubble.

If I had been in the place of the author's I would have gone on the basis that the 18th Labour Company merely made another one of their many well documented errors. If I understand the consensus here, we all agree that the remains are either those of 2nd Lt. Kipling or 2nd. Lt. Law but there is no absolute proof it is one or the other. If one was to "make an educated guess" it would probably favour 2nd Lt. Law, based on the location of the remains.

If you and your team have no objection, I would like to add your piece as a separate post on our CEFSG site where we have the posts about Kipling, Law, McDonald and now Wylie. I would just preface it with a paragraph about the GWF as a sister Forum to the CEFSG and how important your work was to the overall project. I can do that and post it here for your approval if you agree.

Richard

Richard

There is no 'Team', just a group of altruistic GWF members who helped a lot. I have absolutely no interest in getting involved in publishing anything, but do feel free to use the stats and anything I have written. As mentioned previously, no acknowledgement is sought or required. Re-write it if it suits. I would simply ask that you don't use my name (in fact I would ask that you redact my name please) and instead credit GWF. After all there have been dozens of contributions and without this platform no-one would hear our bootless cries. Also don't forget the other important aspects such as the arguments on pay by Grumpy and others.

I really don't care if it is Kipling. My interest in this thread is a deep fascination with the psychology in the construct of evidence-based arguments. It simply struck me as a classic case of Confirmation Bias where 'evidence' to support an argument is only considered and evidence that does not support the arguments is largely discarded. This goes further; in order to fill some inconvenient gaps in the supporting evidence, imaginative concepts on promotion protocol and pay have been conjured up and presented as evidence.

I would discourage you from entering into a 'they-are-wrong-we-are-right' argument... it is easier to separate facts from conjecture and let the facts speak for themselves. It is simply an alternative view, but one supported with a lot of hard evidence. The Parker Legg article does include some very valuable work and I think it is equally important to acknowledge that. My focus has simply been on one aspect which I feel was incorrect. If new information comes to light I may well change my view. Good luck with your research. I am sure you will ensure everyone knows it was the Holts who did much of the pioneering work. Hats off to them. It is also worth considering that the editor of Stand To! took the article in good faith and was probably not aware of the counter-arguments. I have had an article published in Stand To! and I know he is a very decent chap. That is a fact and not conjecture... MG

Edit. In the very remote chance that you have not done so already, I understand there are lots of GWF members with deep knowledge of the CWGC who have brought in many men from the cold. I feel that running your arguments past these informed people might be a worthwhile pursuit. They are easy to find on the forum as they appear to find dozens of men every month. Like you and your Canadian team they have some rather arcane skills. MG

[trajan]

... There is no 'Team', just a group of altruistic GWF members who helped a lot. ... I really don't care if it is Kipling. My interest in this thread is a deep fascination with the psychology in the construct of evidence-based arguments. It simply struck me as a classic case of Confirmation Bias where 'evidence' to support an argument is only considered and evidence that does not support the arguments is largely discarded. ...

As one who has followed the discussion from aside, for my primary interest is in other GW things, but my profession demands a similar approach as that taken here to a subject with even much less 'evidence' to play with, I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the forensic analysis MG and others have applied to this subject. Hat is off, gentlefolk!

[Muerrisch]

Looking back at my #232 I see that it stopped short of another,6th, weakness, such as graces this forum from time to time.

That is to project current or recent practice backwards 100 years to justify an opinion.

Thus whatever the army does now (or did recently) cannot be legitimately prayed in evidence. After all "the past is another country ........"

The other fatuity is to read across from "army" to the Foot Guards. The whole point of Guards is to be different.

Oh and the identity of Grumpy is David Langley. I too have appeared in print in ST thanks to the editor's forbearance.