CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Guest]

Given his eyesight was so bad, I was just wondering, if Kipling wore his spectacles when he went in to action. If so, might they have been found with the body. Were any items sent home?

Mike

[hazelclark]

Given his eyesight was so bad, I was just wondering, if Kipling wore his spectacles when he went in to action. If so, might they have been found with the body. Were any items sent home?

Mike

It seems that there were no identifying articles found with the body. Hence the discussion, and I would have expected that preserving glasses would be the least of the concerns of those trying to grab and bury bodies in the aftermath of the bloodbath of Loos. I did always wonder about the content of his pockets though.

Hazel

[stevem49]

It has always been an 'interesting' thread and amazing that an 'unknown' could be identified after so many years

As mentioned earlier, I know how difficult it is to prove who or who is not in any grave.

For example - 12419 Joseph Blake is buried in France http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/326216/BLAKE,%20JOSEPH

Since 2006 I have been attempting to prove that this man actually died in SA 1901 and John Ryan (On Thiepval) is actually buried the grave under an incorrect headstone. Both men had identical death certs but only Ryan was proved as serving in 9th Sherwood Foresters. The rest of my info was discounted because as we know, death certs must be correct (or not)

Anyway to cut a long story short - Thank goodness for the SER - J Blake is listed as dying 1901 and John Ryan is listed as Alias Joseph Blake I expect it will be changed in due course and John Ryan will at last have the correct headstone. I look forward, as does the ex - mayor of the village and couple other interested parties in visiting once the headstone has been erected.

[laughton]

I refer to these two important post by others on the matter of the 2nd Lieutenant versus Lieutenant:

Grumpy Post #232

Martin G Post #233

The original 1992 report by Norm Christie, then "Records Officer" at the CWGC in Maidenhead has now been released.

The 1992 decision was based on the following:

• Lieutenant J. Kipling was promoted Lieutenant on 7 June 1915.
• He went to France in August 1915 and was presumed killed in action 27 September 1915 ...
• We know the casualty buried in 7.D.2 is a Lieutenant

The web publication now states that "the doubters have conceded that the original report from 1992 was in fact correct".

You can download this small report here: Norm Christie Kipling Report

If I was to have read that report without the knowledge presented in the two GWF posts referenced above, I would have taken the report to mean that Kipling knew he was a Lieutenant at the time he went to France and there was no question about his rank. My understanding is that the change was posthumous - am I correct?

[johnboy]

It says that 2x 2nd Lts were on 'probation'. Was it normal?

[Muerrisch]

Poor Norm ............. such a slender thread of logic to reach such a famous conclusion.

Then was then and now is now. Data-gathering is infinitely easier than in the 1990s: we can search high, low, back and forth.

We can [as a Forum] combine efforts such that the collective is so much greater than the sum of the considerable parts.

I do not say the conclusion is necessarily wrong, only that the case is flawed on many counts, such that an open-minded Jury, properly briefed, would not take a morning to decide "not proven".

As for the ST! article, it has been criticised enough. I am sure that the authors did their best.

It says that 2x 2nd Lts were on 'probation'. Was it normal?

Yes, for all Special Reserve 2Lts it was the usual entry status, as they had not been through Sandhurst or Woolwich.

[johnboy]

Thanks Grumpy

[Guest]

I refer to these two important post by others on the matter of the 2nd Lieutenant versus Lieutenant:

Grumpy Post #232

Martin G Post #233

The original 1992 report by Norm Christie, then "Records Officer" at the CWGC in Maidenhead has now been released.

The 1992 decision was based on the following:

• Lieutenant J. Kipling was promoted Lieutenant on 7 June 1915.
• He went to France in August 1915 and was presumed killed in action 27 September 1915 ...
• We know the casualty buried in 7.D.2 is a Lieutenant

The web publication now states that "the doubters have conceded that the original report from 1992 was in fact correct".

You can download this small report here: Norm Christie Kipling Report

If I was to have read that report without the knowledge presented in the two GWF posts referenced above, I would have taken the report to mean that Kipling knew he was a Lieutenant at the time he went to France and there was no question about his rank. My understanding is that the change was posthumous - am I correct?

Laughton

Who is the first paragraph of the attached pdf addressed to? It is undated with no salutation, but his reference to 'only after 24 years' is I assume 1992+24=2016 ?? i.e written recently. Can you confirm?

As discussed ad nauseam:

1. The report acknowledges the error in the Grid Ref (back in 1992 no less - something not mentioned by the Stand To! article?)

2. It doesn't consider the possibility of other errors made in the identification. i.e 2nd Lt rather than Lt.

3. The assumption that Kipling was promoted in July 1915 is incorrect. The announcement was not made until Nov 1915 (after his death) and antedated to July so it was posthumous. The report implicitly assumes Kipling putting up rank ahead of the London Gazette announcement, something that can be shown was not protocol in the Guards (or the Army) in 1915, or any other period for that matter. The exceptions were temporary rank and there is no evidence he was ever made Temp Lt.

If you are in correspondence with Norman Christie you might ask him why Kipling was asking for an Identity Disc with 2nd Lt on it in Sep 1915, some two months after he was allegedly promoted, and why none of the Division, Brigade or Battalion records show him as anything other than a 2nd Lt, including the nominal rolls and casualty reports. Had the whole of the Guards Division, including his own battalion, his father and Jack Kipling himself forgotten he had been promoted? Nine documents in total and no evidence at all he was a Lt.

I have zero expectation that the CWGC will change their minds, but I would be fascinated to see a response if you are in contact. MG

[charlesmessenger]

You might be interested to know that I raised our collective doubts over the Stand To article with Graham Parker on his and his daughter's website. He was good enough to reply and what became clear was that he had misunderstood the November 1915 London Gazette entry announcing Kipling's promotion to Lt. He thought that it meant that Kipling and his cohort were physically promoted in June 1915, but it had taken the Gazette time to catch up with this. In fact, of course, the Gazette date marked the moment when Kipling, if he had lived, would have put up his second pip, but the promotion was antedated for the purposes of seniority and pay to the June date. I did point this out to GP, but he has not responded.

Charles M

[laughton]

MG:

The paragraph at the front of the Christie report is the wording on his web site ( http://battlefields.ca) and you are correct that it was posted only this week. We all received an e-mail with a notice about the posting.

You will note that there is an "ASK NORM" page on the web site, so anyone can post any questions they wish to have answered.

The only submissions we are making to the CWGC are in the cases of Lt. McDonald (St. Mary's ADS) and Lt. Wylie (Loos British Cemetery). The references to the British 2nd Lieutenants are in the case but not as a submission for any change, only to support the evidence of the errors of the 18th Labour Company.

I only just noticed that I did not include the map image in the PDF so I have reloaded the corrected version.

Richard

[Guest]

MG:

The paragraph at the front of the Christie report is the wording on his web site ( http://battlefields.ca) and you are correct that it was posted only this week. We all received an e-mail with a notice about the posting.

I only just noticed that I did not include the map image in the PDF so I have reloaded the corrected version.

Richard

If you have contact you might ask if he has a view on why there are over 100 recorded examples of Guards 2nd Lts (all named) still being described as 2nd Lt between their antedated promotion to Lt and the LG announcement date. All covering the same period in question in 1915. 217 records in total over a three month period. J Kipling is of course included. MG

[Muerrisch]

This is what the "Great War" Parker website has to say on the matter. I make no comment, just place the matter on record.

The Unidentified Irish Guards Lieutenant at Loos

The grave of Lt. John Kipling at St. Mary's ADS Cemetery near Loos.

On 23 September 1919 the remains of a casualty were discovered by a British Army burial party searching the old Loos battlefield. The casualty was recorded as an “Unidentified British Soldier, Officer Lieut. Irish Guards”. ⁽¹⁾ The casualty discovered in 1919 was exhumed on the same day as 56 other men from a search recorded by the burial party as grid square G.25 on British military map sheet 44a. These 57 men were all reburied north of Loos-en-Gohelle village at one of the three British military concentration cemeteries for the Loos battlefield. The cemetery they were taken to was then called St. Mary’s Cemetery and is now called St. Mary’s ADS Cemetery. The unidentified Irish Guards officer was buried in Plot 7, Row D, Grave 2. St. Mary's ADS Cemetery is located about 1.5 miles (2.4kms) north of Loos village and about 2,500 yards (2286m) north-west of Chalk Pit Wood. Chalk Pit Wood is the location where the 2nd Battalion Irish Guards was in action on 27 September 1915.

In 1992 the Commonwealth War Graves Commission replaced the headstone at the grave of the unidentified Irish Guards lieutenant with a stone bearing the name of Lieutenant John Kipling. The identity of the man in this grave has, since then, been the subject of debate:

• Location of the casualty: The map reference of G.25.c.6.8 (British military map sheet 44a/36c) for the discovered remains implies they were found near Mazingarbe, some 3 miles (5kms) behind the British front line of 1915-1918. Mazingarbe was 3 miles west of where John Kipling was wounded and missing in action with the Irish Guards.
• Missing Irish Guards officers: Three Irish Guards officers died on 27 September 1915. After the war all three of their burial locations were lost.
• Rank: The public announcement of John Kipling’s promotion to lieutenant was not published in The London Gazette until after his death. For this reason it is claimed that he would not have been in a position to have been wearing the rank of a lieutenant when he died. Also, he had lost his identity disc and his letter to his father on 19 September 1915 requested a replacement stating his rank as 2/Lieutenant. ⁽²⁾

On 6 August 2015 the authors of this website, Lt. Col. (Retd) Graham Parker and his daughter Joanna Legg, presented new evidence to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) to prove that the typed map reference of G.25.c.6.8 on the Burial Return for this man was wrong. They confirmed that the reference of grid square G.25.c could not be correct and that the correct reference should have been recorded as H.25.c. Their research also confirmed that the battalions of the three identified casualties discovered at the same time as the Irish Guards lieutenant were in the front line location of grid square H.25 on the dates when they were killed in action in 1915, 1916 and 1917. The new evidence was welcomed by CWGC, confirming the corrected map reference as H.25 for the discovered Irish Guards lieutenant and all the men listed on the Burial Return at G.25.c. A media statement from CWGC in September 2015 confirmed that new evidence regarding the map reference of H.25 had been included in a review of all aspects of the John Kipling case.

Graham and Joanna's research focused on the following key points:

1. Their Discovery that Grid Reference G.25.c was Incorrect: H.25 was the Correct Grid Reference
   An examination of the documented grid reference of G.25.c for the discovery of the unidentified Irish Guards lieutenant in September 1919 produced unequivocal evidence that the grid reference letter of “G” is incorrect. Graham had discovered that the sub-square of G.25.c does not exist on Map Sheet 44. This was confirmed by a historian specialising in the study of WW1 British military maps. This could not be the location of the discovery of the remains of any of the men recorded at G.25.c on this or any other Burial Return. Graham and Joanna provided War Diary evidence for the battalion locations at H.25 near Chalk Pit Wood for each of the three identified casualties discovered at the same time as the Irish Guards lieutenant: Pte P Blaber of 15th Bn London Regiment, Pte P McGee of 6th Bn Royal Irish Regiment and Pte T McPherson of 2nd Bn Eastern Ontario Regiment. Each battalion had been located in the British front line A Sector in square H.25 on the dates of the three identified men's deaths in action. In August 2015 Graham and Joanna provided their compelling evidence to CWGC that the correct grid reference for the Irish Guards lieutenant should have been recorded on the Burial Return of 23 September 1919 as “H.25.c.6.8”.
2. The Resurveyed Location of Chalk Pit Wood
   Research into the resurveyed maps of the Loos battlefield showed that the discovered remains of the Irish Guards lieutenant at the corrected reference of H.25.c.6.8 were found at the left (west/north) edge of Chalk Pit Wood. This provided a crucial link to the Irish Guards officer's remains and a witness statement given in 1917 to Rudyard Kipling by Sergeant Farrell of the Irish Guards. Farrell told Rudyard Kipling that he had carried the seriously wounded John Kipling to the left edge of Chalk Pit Wood, had placed him in a shell hole there and left him as he believed him to be dead.
3. Lieutenant John Kipling on 27 September 1915
   The public announcement of John Kipling's promotion to the rank of lieutenant appeared after his death in the Third Supplement toThe London Gazette on 11 November 1915. The London Gazette provides the public announcement of the promotion. However, it is the Military Secretary's Branch, War Office, which is the authority providing the official notice of the promotion. The date of 7 June 1915 in The London Gazette announcement was the date of John Kipling's substantive promotion to lieutenant by the Military Secretary's Branch. ⁽³⁾ In addition, a document in his Officer's Service Record confirms John Kipling's pay at the rank of lieutenant (8/6d) for a period of 186 days. (This dates the lieutenant's pay back to 29 April 1915 and includes an overpayment of 34 days from 28 Sept-31 Oct 1915 after his death.) ⁽⁴⁾ On the date of the death of John Kipling, 27 September 1915, he was officially a lieutenant. Following the publication of the promotion in The London Gazette of 11 November 1915, Rudyard Kipling wrote a letter to his friend Colonel L C Dunsterville. In the letter he acknowledged that his son was officially a lieutenant at the time of the battle and his death, saying that John was at that rank at only 18 years and 6 weeks of age; John was in action 6 weeks after he had arrived in France on his 18th birthday. ⁽⁵⁾ Joanna discovered evidence that, unusually, a 1st Battalion Irish Guards officer was ordered to put up his rank in mid September 1915 before publication of the announcement in The London Gazette. This sets a precedent that John Kipling's commanding officer did receive the notice of his promotion before the battle and ordered John to put up the rank without waiting for it to appear in The London Gazette.

No other Irish Guards lieutenant was missing in the Loos battle sector on that date or at any time during the month while the Irish Guards were in the sector. The Irish Guards did not return to the Loos sector after 1915. Of the three Irish Guards officers who died on 27 September - Kipling, Clifford and Pakenham Law - the burial places of Clifford and Pakenham Law were known during the war. They were both Second Lieutenants. John Kipling was the only man of the three who was entitled to wear the rank of lieutenant on that date. 2/Lt Clifford was known to have been buried behind the German lines; the German Army had returned his identity disc. 2/Lt Pakenham Law was recorded in the Battalion War Diary as having been wounded while digging in on the south edge of Chalk Pit Wood, and that he died of a head wound “in hospital”. ⁽⁶⁾ The implication of this statement in the battalion War Diary is that that he was removed from the forward battle area at Chalk Pit Wood to be taken to a medical aid post. Law was officially recorded as being buried between Chalk Pit Wood and Lone Tree (Lone Tree was the location of a forward aid post on the day of the battle). ⁽⁷⁾

The 23 September 1919 Burial Return stated that the discovered casualty was a lieutenant in the Irish Guards. The Burial Return was signed off by an experienced soldier and engineer of good reputation, 2/Lieutenant A Domaille, who had served as a sergeant for two years during the war with the 6th Bn Royal Irish Regiment. Unless evidence can be found to dispute the Burial Return record that the discovery was an “Irish Guards Officer Lieutenant”, the conclusion must be that John did go into the battle wearing the rank of lieutenant. Based on Graham and Joanna's findings for the corrected map reference at H.25.c and their corrected location of the remains being found at the edge of Chalk Pit Wood, they consider that, on the balance of probabilities, the remains of the Irish Guards lieutenant discovered by the September 1919 burial party must be Lieutenant John Kipling.

Following the media statement by CWGC in September 2015 an article was published in The Irish Times (25 September 2015) regarding the reappraisal of the John Kipling case. The article confirmed that the Commission was satisfied it had made the right call in 1992 due to “clear and compelling” evidence, and that the body of John Kipling had been found in the place where he had fought when he disappeared i.e. the location of H.25. On 28 October 2015 the CEF Study Group announced the discovery of a burial document (Circumstance of Death Register) confirming that the Canadian casualty, Pte McPherson, had been buried in the front line sector at H.25. This significant find supports Graham and Joanna's findings regarding the corrected map reference as H.25 for all three of the identified casualties killed in action and the Irish Guards lieutenant on the Burial Return of 23 September 1919.

[Guest]

**Groan**

[trajan]

**Groan**

I don't envy you and others dealing with this matter... And here am I wondering and spending hours about why and exactly what a 15th century scribe clearly missed - gap in the text - when copying a 5th century list of Roman army units on the Eastern frontier... Oh, and yes, I see there is quite a lot to catch up on here in what is a fascinating debate!

[Guest]

I don't envy you and others dealing with this matter... And here am I wondering and spending hours about why and exactly what a 15th century scribe clearly missed - gap in the text - when copying a 5th century list of Roman army units on the Eastern frontier... Oh, and yes, I see there is quite a lot to catch up on here in what is a fascinating debate!

The web article is written as if they have broken new ground. To describe simple things such as reading a war diary that is in the public domain as a 'discovery' - as if they have found the Holy Grail - is particularly strange. They go on to 'discover' things seven more times..... "Their [the authors'] Discovery that Grid Ref..." etc seems to ignore the fact that Norman Christie had an identical view nearly a quarter of a century ago. . Rather than simply state they did some research that concurs with the CWGC, it is positioned as a major breakthrough. Remarkable on a number of levels. MG

[laughton]

Norm Christie clearly knew about the problem with the grid reference in 1992. The only difference in 2016 was that we had access to the Circumstance of Death file for McPherson that proved the case 100%. The real travesty was that Mr. Parker and Ms. Legg had that in October 2015 and instead of acknowledging Christie (1992) and Laughton (2015) she decided to concoct some other ridiculous scenario that was flawed. Even if she was to quote the works of the eminent Dr. Chasseaud she should have done the research and got it right.

Norm Christie was wrong in assuming the June 1915 Lieutenant promotion was in effect before Kipling went to France but perhaps in 1992 it was not possible to check those facts as easily as it is now, I do not know that answer. However, he did have access more than anyone to all the CWGC records and the conclusion that it is the grave of 2nd Lt. Kipling was wrong. It might be Law or it might be Kipling but there was no proof.

Today it appears more likely it is Law in St. Mary's and Kipling in Loos, but I am sure were will never know. I am also sure that the CWGC will never acknowledge their error and revert to the original stones. To be safe, a marker on each stone - perhaps just a brass plate - to tell the story. If left as is it will be "forever etched in stone"!

This I note was new to the Parker-Legg publications. What they fail to say was that they had no knowledge of McPherson prior to that date and they sent me that in writing. Do they believe that the media release the day after the CEFSG submission to Nic Andrews was coincidental?

On 28 October 2015 the CEF Study Group announced the discovery of a burial document (Circumstance of Death Register) confirming that the Canadian casualty, Pte McPherson, had been buried in the front line sector at H.25. This significant find supports Graham and Joanna's findings regarding the corrected map reference as H.25 for all three of the identified casualties killed in action and the Irish Guards lieutenant on the Burial Return of 23 September 1919.

[trajan]

... To describe simple things such as reading a war diary that is in the public domain as a 'discovery' - as if they have found the Holy Grail - is particularly strange. ...

Oh I do get the point... I see the same thing many times a year with reports on archaeology in less-than-below average-but-popular newspapers. So I share the 'groan' sensation!

Julian

[Guest]

On a pedantic note - Norman Christie's original CWGC report of 1992 provides an illustration of ranks as part of his argument. He shows an image of Officers' ranks on the cuffs of the sleeves - something that the Guards did not use. I realise he was simply making the point about 2nd Lt rank v Lt rank, but it perhaps illustrates the lack of attention to detail in the argument. MG

[squirrel]

Not pedantic at all - simply stating a fact IMHO.

[laughton]

In the text, there is the statement that leads one to believe that the information was used in the argument.

"The difference in rank insignia between a Lieutenant and a 2/Lieutenant is shown in Appendix 3"

.

[charlesmessenger]

Parker/Legge cite Rudyard Kipling's letter to Col C|. L. Dunsterville on their website and in the Stand To article, but don't give a date for it. One assumes that it was after the London Gazette announcement of Jack's promotion. Dunsterville himself had been at the Imperial Service College, Westward Ho! with Rudyard and the latter modelled Stalky in Stalky and Co on him.

Charles M

[TwoEssGee]

Joanna discovered evidence that, unusually, a 1st Battalion Irish Guards officer was ordered to put up his rank in mid September 1915 before publication of the announcement in The London Gazette. This sets a precedent that John Kipling's commanding officer did receive the notice of his promotion before the battle and ordered John to put up the rank without waiting for it to appear in The London Gazette.

This is a long and somewhat complicated (but very interesting) thread, so forgive me if this is a stupid question that has already been answered.

Who was this officer that was ordered to put up rank before the announcement in the LG?

This appears to be a key piece of information, and I am surprised that full details are not provided to back up the discovery of this evidence, particularly when it is claimed to have set a precedent followed by 2/Lt Kipling, when all the other evidence seems to point in a different direction.

[Guest]

Good question TwoEssGee. How should we best frame the question then we can ask them

enquiry@greatwar.co.uk

Mike

[Guest]

This is a long and somewhat complicated (but very interesting) thread, so forgive me if this is a stupid question that has already been answered.

Who was this officer that was ordered to put up rank before the announcement in the LG?

This appears to be a key piece of information, and I am surprised that full details are not provided to back up the discovery of this evidence, particularly when it is claimed to have set a precedent followed by 2/Lt Kipling, when all the other evidence seems to point in a different direction.

Lt L R Hargreaves. He was promoted to Temp Capt. As discussed on many previous posts, promotion to Temp rank was treated differently to promotion to substantive rank. Some appointments in the Army required a higher rank. Hargreaves (and others) promoted to Temp rank were for specific roles such as Adjutant or Company Commander etc. In this case Hargreaves was acting as a Company Commander. The role of platoon commander didn't require promotion to Temp rank.

Had Kipling been promoted to Temp Lt, it would have been for a specific appointment. As a platoon commander there was no necessity, and incidentally there is no evidence he was made Temp Lt. Similarly, and rather inconveniently for the CWGC/Christie/Parker Legg theory there is no evidence he put up rank ahead of his death. It is pure speculation and not supported in fact.

Temp ranks were gazetted much faster that substantive ranks (see previous posts) and the Officers were allowed to put up rank because they were carrying out a specific appointment at that time. The requirement was usually immediate. Often this only lasted a few weeks until sufficient Officers with the necessary rank could replace them.

There were at least 108 Officers at 2nd Lt in the Guards Div whose substantive promotion in the London Gazette was antedated during the three month window that including the battle of Loos (the period in question). They are collectively mentioned 217 times in various diaries, returns and nominal rolls. The Guards Division Routine Orders have hundreds more records of these Officers. This includes London Gazette announcements. The body of evidence is in excess of 500 records. One could increase this further if the Army List was included. If the Routine Orders are reporting LG announcements, one would naturally ask why, if the Officers in question had already put up rank.

If the Parker Legg theory of putting up rank held true we would have expected these 108 Officers (including J Kipling) to have been recorded as Lts rather than 2nd Lts. They are recorded as 2nd Lts up to their London Gazette announcements. Hundreds of mentions. This includes at least ten other Irish Guards Officers in the same promotion group as J Kipling.

The only exceptions are Temp Ranks and a tiny number of examples (5) that are clearly errors by the diarists; examples where individuals are mentioned only once as a Lt and then 2nd Lt a few days later. Similarly one example who died as a 2nd Lt who actually never reached Lt. One diarist recorded all Lts and 2nd Lts as Lieutenants for a brief period and we know for certain eight were 2nd Lts (Div diary nominal rolls, casualty rolls etc) . He was simply using a generic term of Lt for all subalterns. At risk of stating the obvious, it would be highly unlikely that an infantry battalion would deploy for war without a single 2nd Lt.

In such a large body of evidence one would naturally expect to see some errors. Names are occasionally misspelled for example in diaries, men with common surnames are sometimes confused (there are at least four Fittzgeralds in the Irish Guards for example). These anomalies can take on a disproportionate significance if they are not seen in the wider context. Put simply 99% of recorded examples show no inclination for Officers to put up rank unless it was a Temp Rank. The exceptions are a tiny number of diarist errors.

Similarly if an author has an imperfect knowledge of promotion protocol and does not understand the difference between the treatment of Temp Rank and substantive rank, the wrong conclusions could be drawn.

My main issue with the CWGC/Christie/Parker Legg theory is that they take one example of a Lt putting up rank to Temp Capt for the purposes of commanding a Company (as required by Field Service Regulations) and extrapolate this to apply to every promotion. It is pure speculation which is unnecessary; we have an extremely large body of evidence of promotions within the Irish Guards and the Guards Div which clearly demonstrates that putting up rank was not done unless it was Temp. QED.

The simplest question is to ask CWGC/Christie/Parker Legg why 108 Officers didn't put up rank, including at least ten from the same Cohort as J Kipling.

MG

Edit: If I might draw a parallel: Imagine an archaeological dig where the archaeologist finds a shard of blue pottery. She might conclude that all pottery in this area was blue. If the dig continued and 99 shards of red pottery appeared, one might reasonably conclude that most of the pottery was red. Had the dig stopped on day one, the wrong conclusion would have been made, simply because it focused on a small isolated piece of evidence. Relating this to the Kipling question, I think their dig for evidence stopped too soon. Had they dug into the diaries of the Guards Div and beyond they would have found important contextural evidence. It is not difficult. The diaries have been in the pulic domain since 1967 and have been available online for a number of years.

Edit 2. In Christie's defence they were not online in 1992.... however I would argue when making a positive identity one needs to do the necessary hard yards in reserach terms and at least match the standrads of proof that the CWGC asks of other people making submissions for inclusion or changes to the CWGC records.

It is worth repeating: This has little to do with Kipling and everything to do with standards of proof. MG

[TwoEssGee]

Thank you for clarifying this with a most comprehensive explanation Martin. Having read your previous posts, I thought this would most likely be the case.

I'm astonished that they could draw the conclusion they did, and claim a precedent had been set, on the basis of one example of an officer being ordered to put up rank.