CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[laughton]

Excellent graphic!

Do we know how many of the red and blue dots were alive on the announcement date?

Could that mean there are two lines of data above the central line - one for those close to the line that were still alive and needed to take effect quicker than those that were dead thus a delay was not as important?

Any idea about the blue outliers?

[Guest]

Excellent graphic!

Do we know how many of the red and blue dots were alive on the announcement date?

Could that mean there are two lines of data above the central line - one for those close to the line that were still alive and needed to take effect quicker than those that were dead thus a delay was not as important?

Any idea about the blue outliers?

1. Only 5 KIA and 6 MIA out of the 224 on the original list. If a n Officer died after the effective date of his promotion (as Kipling did) he would still be promoted. This is why after 11th Nov 1915 he would correctly be referred to as Lt J Kipling. Interestingly a fair proportion of the documents in his file written in the years after his death refer to him variously as Lt or 2 Lt. Most relates to the search for him Kipling's father even points this out to one correspondent.

The data includes men who were missing and later assumed dead. The transition from MIA to 'assumed killed' or 'assumed dead' took many months and in some cases years. The announcements were all before end 1916 and the majority before end 1915. Men were often promoted in small groups and the casualties had no impact on the 'delay'. Kipling was still MIA when his promotion was announced in the same LG announcement as 13 other Irish Guards subalterns.

2. Blue out-liers; No detailed research done yet. There are ten Scots Guards 2 Lts promoted to substantive Lt on the same day - 8th Feb 1916 (antedated to 16th June 1915 i.e only a day before Kipling and 11 weeks before the nominal roll date). The Scots Guards subalterns in this case are represented by a single dot (two grid squares immediately above Kipling's green dot) as the ten dots simply overlay on the graphic. As the 'effective' date preceded the nominal roll, the 'Lt Kipling Theory' would have these as Lieutenants. Of course we known this was not the case as they are all in the roll as 2nd Lts.

One of them is mentioned in the 2nd Bn Scots Guards war diary on 30th Aug: "2 Lt Purvis rejoined the battalion from Base..."

Two are mentioned twice each in casualty reports dated late Sep 1915 as 2 Lt E W Ellis and 2 Lt D H Brand

....which provides five further pieces of evidence corroboration that at least three of them did not 'put up rank'. If that is not enough, all ten are mentioned in the History of the Scots Guards as 2nd Lt during the Battle of Loos, some months after allegedly putting up rank. This includes one awarded the VC.

The graphic simply shows that despite the antedates of many officers' promotions to Lt, none put up rank if the Guards Div nominal roll is any indication.

[Guest]

More evidence. This time a Scots Guards 2nd Lt G A Boyd Rochfort VC

Boyd-Rochfort was awarded the VC for an action on 3rd August 1915. He was subsequently promoted to Lt on 2nd Feb 1916 with the effective date antedated to 16th June 1915 ( a week after Kipling's). The observant will notice that the effective date for his promotion to Substantive Lt was 48 days before his VC action, yet he is recorded as a 2nd Lt in all documentation, including his VC citation. in the London Gazette on 1st Sep 1915 some 77 days after the effective date.

MG

Edit VC Citation in the Edinburgh Gazette is also included. This was quoted in Routine Orders nearly two weeks later... MG

[Guest]

And to demonstrate the time lag between LG announcements and the same appearing in Div Routine Orders, here is the same dates 14th Sep 1915

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Very good work.

Any chance of changing the graphic for the benefit of us 7% who are red-green colour blind?

[Guest]

Very good work.

Any chance of changing the graphic for the benefit of us 7% who are red-green colour blind?

Lts in Orange squares, Kipling in pink. 2 Lts in blue triangles

[Muerrisch]

I am green-blue blind ..................

[Guest]

I am green-blue blind ..................

Some are Lt / 2nd Lt blind

[trajan]

Thanks Martin, it does make it clearer!

[Guest]

More evidence.

Why promote someone to Temp Lieutenant if they were already a Lieutenant?

2 Lt P K Stevenson Grenadier Guards was promoted to Lt on 8th Dec 1915, antedated to an effective date of 15th July 1915. On 13th September, some 60 days after the 'effective' promotion to Lieutenant, he was gazetted as a Temp Lieutenant. Even more compelling is that the 'effective date' of that promotion was 8 days into the promotion to Lieutenant.

Within the 224 subalterns in the Guards Div nominal roll there are seven Lieutenants whose promotion to Temp Lieutenant happened after the effective date of their promotion to Lieutenant. The 'overlap' varied from as little as 17 days to as much as 157 days (five months). Clearly this did not happen and is further evidence that the LG announcement date was the critical date for putting up substantive rank.

And another thing zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Muerrisch]

That is some find Martin.

[Guest]

That is some find Martin.

There's more... another 6 who are on the 1915 Star rolls but who did not feature on the battalion rolls that date. Too many to be mistakes I think.

Separately we need to address the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Brigade Machine Gun Companies formed on 19th Sep 1915 less than 2 weeks before the Battle of Loos. That would have created more movement (and possible influ and promotion?). I need to hunt the original subalterns down and fit them to the nominal roll. edit. 2n Brigade MG Coy names OC as a Lt (Temp Capt) and four named 2nd Lts. None ever appear to have had Temp Lt promotions. All incidentally recorded as 2nd Lts despite having passed the effective date of their promotion to Lt... 4 more sharps of evidence.

Any idea of an MG Coy War Establishment Sep 1915?

MG

[Muerrisch]

No, but I know a man who should!

Ron Clifton springs to mind.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Lts in Orange, Kipling in pink. 2 Lts in blue

I'll take your word for it Martin !

[Guest]

I'll take your word for it Martin !

OK, I'll change the shape! Squares and triangles?

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

OK, I'll change the shape! Squares and triangles?

The yellow is fine.

The circles are fine,

But Red, Pinks, purples and Greens are not good for me.

A Monochrome Circle, square, triangle, either empty or filled in , or a cross would be good to mark Kipling.

(I'm just putting myself in the place of your deuteranopic editor for when you come to get this published )

[Muerrisch]

MG will probably charge for customising, so beware!

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

MG will probably charge for customising, so beware!

Think of this as free proof reading.

[Guest]

2 Lt W B Stevens, Irish Guards, was promoted to substantive Lt on the same day as Kipling. Both were gazetted on 11th Nov 1915 with the promotion antedated to 7th June 1915.

Interestingly, 2 Lt W B Stevens had previously been promoted to Temp Lt on 15th October antedated to 2nd Sep 1915. This is alos recorded in the diary on 2nd Sep 1915. Adherents to the 'Lt Kipling Theory' believe that because W B Stevens put up temporary rank, Kipling would have put up substantive rank. As explained earlier, temporary promotions and substantive promotions were treated very differently, and this provides a very nice example of why the 'Lt Kipling Theory' holds no water.

The dates overlap. The antedated substantive promotion to Lt starts on 7th June. If Stevens was 'promoted' to Lieutanant on that date, there would be absolutely no reason to promote him again to Temp Lt on 2nd Sep 1915, some three months after he had allegedly been made a substantive Lt. The expression "Lieutenant, promoted to Temporary Lieutenant" is a non sequitur.

The only explanation is that Stevens (and other officers) did not put up substantive rank simply because they had no knowledge in Sep 1915 of a promotion that had not yet been announced and would not be announced for another 2 months. Here is the paper trail (see below). Within the Guards Division there are at least six more examples of overlapping 'promotions'. MG

.

[stiletto_33853]

Not sure if this is of any use, the only time I have come across it but noted in the War Diary.

Andy

[Guest]

Not sure if this is of any use, the only time I have come across it but noted in the War Diary.

Andy

Do you have the details? If it was a promotion to Temp Maj, this was the norm. Curious to see if this was a Temp or a substantive promotion and the time lag.

[stiletto_33853]

Martin,

11th Rifle Brigade, February 1918, not looked up any confirmation as yet.

Andy

[Guest]

A summary of my latest thoughts based on a meticulous analysis of every subaltern's promotion to Lt in the Guards Division in 1915 has been posted on another thread. Click.

[redbarchetta]

Excellent summary of a very detailed study, well done Martin.

Shouldn't this be turned into a Stand To! article - with your graphs etc above that would make for a very good two-page spread...

N.B. the text repeats itself twice for some reason - you just need to edit this!

James

[Muerrisch]

Excellent summary of a very detailed study, well done Martin.

Shouldn't this be turned into a Stand To! article - with your graphs etc above that would make for a very good two-page spread...

N.B. the text repeats itself twice for some reason - you just need to edit this!

James

Relax. Article in hand I assure you.