CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Muerrisch]

Martin, I follow that reasoning.

Note, however, that Monthly AL "August" 1914 was dated 31st July 1914. What does your May 1915 say about publication date please?

Note also that "deaths" did not always result in rapid omissions from the list, at least as far as RWF were concerned.

[Guest]

Martin, I follow that reasoning.

Note, however, that Monthly AL "August" 1914 was dated 31st July 1914. What does your May 1915 say about publication date please?

Note also that "deaths" did not always result in rapid omissions from the list, at least as far as RWF were concerned.

My copy starts on page iii and the frontispiece is AWOL. No date other than May. 1915 Looking at the commissioning dates among the thousands of men serving in the Service Battalions, the latest date I can find is 30th Apr 1915 (2nd Lt E R D Hoare Gren Gds (on prob)) which suggests a cut-off date at the end of April; many hundreds of examples from April 1915.

Edit. The plethora of 2nd Lts with no date against their names suggest to me they were on probation but not yet gazetted. Thousands.

Page xxxvi states " ..communication regarding alterations, errors, or omissions should be addressed direct as follows: The Secretary of the War Office, War Office, Army List, London SW. ...No Army List except this and the Quarterly is authorised by the War Office."

My point is that even if there is a lag the May 1915 list might indicate it is a short lag given the number of April 1915 commissions/promotions.... the Monthly lists eventually catch up. The critical point is whether the Army List records any promotions prior to LG announcement dates. As mentioned previously, there are Officers whose promotions were antedated by a full year and as we have seen men who were gazetted in April were appearing in the May list. If we can find examples of Officers whose promotion is listed prior to the LG date, it means the Army List was using some other authority as its guide. So far I have failed to find a single example.

If my theory is right, it would mean that the Official Army List took the LG announcement date as the trigger. Parker Legg tell us the Mil Sec Dept was informing Regiments and battalions. If is the case why would the Official List compiled by the War Office not be informed for anything up to a year?

I would be delighted to be proven wrong. 126 Officers would not be that difficult to check. As mentioned the 20% sample we can check against the May lists show no front-running the LG announcement. MG

[Muerrisch]

I am googling like a madman trying to unearth on-line monthlies.

Thinks: I wonder if a certain bookseller might have a complete run?

I am also contacting a regimental source.

[Guest]

I am googling like a madman trying to unearth on-line monthlies.

Thinks: I wonder if a certain bookseller might have a complete run?

I am also contacting a regimental source.

The Sep or Dec editions would be the most useful. MG

[Muerrisch]

a certain bookseller has what might be worth a look:one of the years is clearly wrong

Supplement to the Monthly Army List. Sept. 1915. Promotions, Appointments Etc. Gazetted & Deaths of Officers Reported between 1st & 31st August 1916.

[MartH]

the Prince Consort Library used to have a large amount of this stuff upstairs, including Indian Army Reports. You would have to check it's a while since i have been there.

[David Filsell]

I'm told that like the MOD museum, the PCL may have been pretty well looted. I'd love to wrong

[laughton]

I cropped and enhanced that document if it helps.

I had not seen this thread before before that seems to show his signature on a will signed 2/Lt 3/8/1915 Click

Mike

[Muerrisch]

That document is nice collateral but of course his later request for a 2Lt's dog-tag carries even more weight, does it not?

[Guest]

That document is nice collateral but of course his later request for a 2Lt's dog-tag carries even more weight, does it not?

Indeed. Post #129

Mike

[MartH]

I'm told that like the MOD museum, the PCL may have been pretty well looted. I'd love to wrong

Oh Dear, that would be awful.

[johnboy]

Would there have been an Army Order or Kings Reg covering promotions?

[stiletto_33853]

Actually pulled his officers file at Kew today, out of interest. Noted that all correspondence after his Gazette date mention Lieut. Kipling, especially his fathers. However all the witness reports and correspondence before his gazette date is all addressed 2nd Lt.

Martin, Grumpy if you would like a copy of his officers papers let me know as I photographed the file.

Andy

[laughton]

I believe what we have here is what we call in Canada a "Preponderance of Evidence" and since we are UK based I assume it is the same. Each piece, added together, provides the foundation of the claim that the conclusions were seriously flawed.

I may have quoted this before, but now that you have "pen to paper" this is the criteria set for the Canadian cases which I presume is a CWGC Standard:

• Procedure: All new identification cases need to be assessed in the first instance by the Canadian Agency (CA) and submissions should go to their office directly. After an initial assessment, if the Agency feels that the case is compelling, they will then pass all the documentation to the Commemorations Team at the Commission's Head Office. Head Office will then review the case and inform the CA of their findings. The Canadian authorities will then decide whether or not any changes to the arrangements for commemoration are required and inform the Commission accordingly.
  
• Guideline Criteria for Submission: Cases need to present clear and convincing evidence to prove the identity of a casualty and must not be based on assumption or speculation. The Commission's Commemoration Team will also consider whether the findings of a better informed contemporary investigation are being revisited and if there is any new evidence to consider. By way of example, it is unlikely that the Commission would support a revision of the arrangements for the commemoration where it is apparent that no new evidence is being presented and, a better informed previous decision is being revisited some 100 years later.

That document is nice collateral but of course his later request for a 2Lt's dog-tag carries even more weight, does it not?

[charlesmessenger]

David (Grumpy)

A suggestion. If you want to disguise the fact that your article is purely an attack on the Parker/Legg thesis, why look in more general terms at how Regular and Special Reserve promotions worked during the war? Certainly a lot of people would find this helpful. These promotions were based on battalion/regimental establishments, which, of course, changed during the war. An officer could only be given substantive promotion if a vacancy existed. This often took time for the Military Secretary's branch to establish. Hence the delay in gazetting promotions. You have your detailed RWF knowledge and the Kipling case can be used to illustrate how the London Gazette entries can be misunderstood.

However, I'm not sure where the regulations for all this are to be found. They don't appear to be in King's Regulations, but may be reflected in ACIs or Army Orders. You may well know. If not, perhaps someone like Ron Clifton?

This does not, of course, cover the question of KIpling's wartime burial.

Shall not be offended of you have other ideas.

Charles M

[Guest]

A suggestion. If you want to disguise the fact that your article is purely an attack on the Parker/Legg thesis,

Charles - I think it is simply an alternative theory not necessarily an 'attack' on another thesis. The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly (I'm going to wear this word out) in favour of the alternative' view. The facts should speak for themselves and at least significantly reduce the speculation. If Grumpy is the architect I have little doubt the arguments will stand up. MG

[Muerrisch]

Actually pulled his officers file at Kew today, out of interest. Noted that all correspondence after his Gazette date mention Lieut. Kipling, especially his fathers. However all the witness reports and correspondence before his gazette date is all addressed 2nd Lt.

Martin, Grumpy if you would like a copy of his officers papers let me know as I photographed the file.

Andy

YES PLEASE

[Guest]

Actually pulled his officers file at Kew today, out of interest. Noted that all correspondence after his Gazette date mention Lieut. Kipling, especially his fathers. However all the witness reports and correspondence before his gazette date is all addressed 2nd Lt.

Martin, Grumpy if you would like a copy of his officers papers let me know as I photographed the file.

Andy

Oooh. Yes please. MG

[Muerrisch]

David (Grumpy)

A suggestion. If you want to disguise the fact that your article is purely an attack on the Parker/Legg thesis, why look in more general terms at how Regular and Special Reserve promotions worked during the war? Certainly a lot of people would find this helpful. These promotions were based on battalion/regimental establishments, which, of course, changed during the war. An officer could only be given substantive promotion if a vacancy existed. This often took time for the Military Secretary's branch to establish. Hence the delay in gazetting promotions. You have your detailed RWF knowledge and the Kipling case can be used to illustrate how the London Gazette entries can be misunderstood.

However, I'm not sure where the regulations for all this are to be found. They don't appear to be in King's Regulations, but may be reflected in ACIs or Army Orders. You may well know. If not, perhaps someone like Ron Clifton?

This does not, of course, cover the question of KIpling's wartime burial.

Shall not be offended of you have other ideas.

Charles M

Charles, the draft article comments on Parker-Legg but will not be an attack as that will be counter-productive of course.

Regarding promotion protocol, it could be included if space [and the editor[ permits. I am not sure if pre-war "competences" and length of service criteria were maintained in war, but I doubt it. Beyond that, substantive commissions were limited to regimental [not unit] total establishment, and differed from regular to SR to TF. This caused the well-known anomaly of Robt Graves, SR, outranking regular officers of his regiment when brought together in one unit. I know that you know all this.

As regards the regulations, I have not seen any ............... rather like "brevet promotion" and other arcane matters, it was understood by the practioners and victims.

[Guest]

There are 97 subalterns on the nominal rolls* of the Guards Division on 28th Aug 1915 whose subsequent promotion to Lieutenant was antedated to a date prior to 28th Aug 1915. This of course includes Kipling. The 'effective date' of their promotions were largely in May, June, July 1915. If these 97 subalterns knew about their promotion from the Military Secretary's Dept and 'put up' rank, we would expect them all to be recorded as substantive Lieutenants on the roll. Here is a summary of how the battalions of the Guards Div recorded them;

Lieutenants......................0

Temp Lieutenants...........10

2nd Lieutenants..............87

All ten promotions to Temporary Lieutenants were Gazetted before 28th Aug 1915.

* 13 battalions

MG

[Muerrisch]

Martin, sorry to be nuisance but do you have a theory for the ten Temp Lts?

How many battalions are they spread around please?

[Guest]

Martin, sorry to be nuisance but do you have a theory for the ten Temp Lts?

How many battalions are they spread around please?

Nine of the 10 are Coldstream Guards and all on the nominal rolls. Spread across three battalions but highly concentrated in 3rd Bn. Does need some explanation. Looking at the distribution and the number of Captains etc, I suspect it has something to do with being a Company 2IC. (yet to be proven)

Across these three battalions the rank count is as follows (excluding Adjutants)

Captain....8

T Capt.....6

Lt............7

T Lt.........9

2 Lt........27

In theory the 12 Companies require:

12 Company Commanders

12 Company 2ICs

36 Platoon commanders

with 14 (Capts+ T Capts) they still require 4 more Company 2ICs which might (I stress might) explain 4 of them. Two battalions dont have a named MGO which might explain 2 more. No Transport Officers named. I need to cross-check the CG history as they have lots of nominal rolls.

The Temp Lts were gazetted on

26 Jan 15 (2)

12 May 15 (5)

3 Aug 15 (2)

I.e 7 of them Gazetted months before the Nominal roll was made. The other factor is the 4th Bn which has no Temp Lts and only 3 Captains, zero Lts (one on his way from UK) and 14 2 Lts....meaning it needs another five Officers to fill one Company Commander role and four more to fill the company 2ICs

If one looks at all 4 Battalions the number of Captains + T Capts + Lts = 11 + 6 + 8 = 25 ... for the four battalions that would require 32 Officers in the role of Company OC and 2IC... i.e they are still 7 short. If 2 of the T Lts were made MGOs the numbers balance exactly. The fly in the ointment is that the Temp Lts are concentrated and not spread around, however this was when the Division was assembling and there was a fair bit of cross-posting. I will revert having perused the battalion diaries and history.

MG

[Muerrisch]

Thank you Martin: there was clearly "something going on" with the Coldstream.

You do need to take Majors into account of course: Company commander = major or captain.

[Guest]

Regarding the letter 2/Lt John Kipling to his father asking for the identity disc Click. The letter is dated 19 Sept 1914 seems a bit strange he got the year wrong? Anyway, is there any record of his father's reply. It would be interesting to know if it was addressed to Lt, or 2/Lt?

Mike

[johnboy]

The 19th September 1915 was a Sunday as stated on the letter. The mistake in the year is strange. Understandable if early January.