CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Muerrisch]

Readers may also like to look at

 

which doubts if the Irish Guards wore shoulder "numerals" as the Loos battlefield exhumations state.

[Guest]

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

Thanks. Noted. I am on the road with limited coms. Editing with an iPad is fraught with danger. I shall sort it out on my return. MG

[Guest]

Count Gleichen (a Grenadier Guard) was commanding the 15th Infantry Brigade in 1915 when he heard of his promotion in the London Gazette.

As regards myself, however, my days of connection with the Brigade were numbered. I had heard, with mixed but pleasant feelings, that I had been promoted Major-General "for distinguished service" on the 18th February (Weatherby got a brevet majority in the same 'Gazette'), and I was now ordered to go home and report myself in London. My successor was to be Northey, of the 60th Rifles, from Givenchy way, and he turned up on the 2nd March at our Headquarters, which were then at 28 Rue de Lille. I at once recognised that he would carry on excellently well, and had no compunction in leaving the command in his hands. All that was left for me to do was to take a tender farewell of the officers of the Brigade and of my staff, and to publish a final farewell order to the old Brigade. I was very sad at leaving, and had I known what an awful time they were going to have at St Éloi and Hill 60, I should have been sadder still. [28] Of all the regimental officers and men who had left Ireland with me on the 14th August 1914, six and a half months previously, I could count on my ten fingers the number of officers left:— Norfolks—Done [29] and Bruce (both ill in hospital from strenuous overwork), Megaw (killed later), Paterson. Dorsets—Ransome, Partridge. Bedfords—Griffith[29] (trustiest of C.O.'s, who had been under heavier fire than almost any one in the Brigade, yet never touched), Allason (thrice wounded), Gledstanes (killed later). Cheshires—Frost (killed later). I do not think there was another officer except the quartermasters—Smith (Norfolks), Sproule (Cheshires), and Pearce (Bedfords) [30]; and as for the men, there may have been ten or so per battalion, but I really do not think there were more. I took the evening train at Bailleul and spent an agreeable evening with Ker Seymer, the train officer. I got to Boulogne and on board the boat at midnight, and next day, the 3rd March, saw me arrive at 8.30 A.M. in London.

Gleichen, Edward, Lord (2012-05-11). The Doings of the Fifteenth Infantry Brigade August 1914 to March 1915 (Kindle Locations 2410-2427). . Kindle Edition.

[charlesmessenger]

Martin

More grist to the mill.

Charles M

[johnboy]

Grumpy

Your locked post seems to be empty now.

Did you mention the WD info given by Stebbie?

Stebie9173

General

• 
• Old Sweats
• 13,452 posts

• Gender:Male
• Location:Peterborough, Cambs.
• Interests:Northamptonshire Regiment (mainly 6th Bn.), 12th Div Signals R.E., 9th Black Watch, Royal Engineers.

Posted 26 September 2015 - 12:20 pm

Incidentally the War Diarist refers to Kipling on the 27th as a Second Lieutenant - three times. Twice in the narrative of the 27th and in the list of Second Lieutenant casualties at the end of the month.

Steve.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you. I have asked Mods to scrap that "puzzle" thread and, when it vanishes I will replace it.

[johnboy]

Wanted to go back to it to check if the WD mentioned.

[Muerrisch]

I have posted my draft article for Stand To! at:

[Broken link removed]

Please feel free to comment/ criticise, either publicly here, or by PM.

[Stebie9173]

I have only had a chance for a quick read through and I cannot see anything that I would disagree with. One thought: In proposition 4, might it be worth reproducing the eye-witness statement for Law showing him being referred to as Lieutenant/Second Lieutenant and Mister in the same statement as a comparative?

Steve.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you I will note and have a further look.

[trajan]

This is after a second and slower reading... What follows is respectfully submitted for consideration...

I would suggest that instead of (henceforward referred to as “Parker”) that you make it "Parker and Legg" as otherwise your article would seem to be addressed to his views alone. Which they may be, but it is a jointly authored piece of work and so both share the responsibility.

I admit I know very little on the subject except what I have followed here. But if it really is a "long-running and controversial saga of John Kipling’s grave" then I would expect a reference here to that matter - e.g. "XX indicated as early as YYYY that ***".

Logically, the first paragraph should end with something about the conclusions of the 1992 Commonwealth War Graves Commission report by Records Officer N. Christie. Then the second paragraph should start with the Parker Legg hypothesis: that is to say "Stand To! No. 105 of January 2016 contained..." After all, they are responding to Christie...

The section on Casualties ("The 2nd Battalion Irish Guards War Diary (WD) summarised the casualties of the Battle of Loos... ") also belongs to the first paragraph after "The Irish Guards only fought there in September/October 1915" as it leads into the discovery of the body.

"Regulations" to my mind belongs in your reply to Parker-Legg roposition 1. Where it is at present just jars in the narrative.

Hope you don't mind these comments - but as one who has to read essays, theses, and academic articles on an all-to frequent basis, my own opinion is that if re-arranged as above, then it will make for better reading - and a better understanding of the matter!

Julian

EDIT: some spelling!

[Muerrisch]

All grist to the mill, thank you.

[redbarchetta]

IMHO, the opening section is a little disjointed.

The 'Casualties' section adds nothing (pertinent facts are repeated later) and could be removed.

The 'Regulations' section should be moved down to be the first section under 'Proposition 1'.

That way, after your opening scene, you go straight to a list of the Parker & Legg Propositions and then into a one by one decimation of them.

Your arguments against each of these are clear, well put, comprehensive and engaging.

Great stuff, David.

James

[Guest]

The Casualties part might have greater impact if it was simply an image of the original war diary page. It would be crystal clear that his own battalion recorded him (and Sassoon) as a 2nd Lt on the date he was 'wounded and missing'... MG

[Muerrisch]

Thanks both.

will work on this advice of course

[David Filsell]

Grumpy

Bold (and I think wise) to put your article up. Some sensible comment from forumistas too. Well done. I'm delighted that it will appear in ST.

Regards

David

[laughton]

In this final statement here:

There is no more than an even chance that the body under John Kipling’s headstone is his, and there is an even chance that it is that of Second-Lieutenant Thomas Packenham Law. Short of more compelling evidence, we shall never know.

I would suggest that the evidence shows that there is a better than 60/40 chance that the 2nd Lt. Kipling is in the Loos British Cemetery and 2nd Lt. Law is in the St. Mary's ADS cemetery. The location of the remains is compelling.

That information is provided here:

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

Richard

[laughton]

Thanks for the reference to the work at the CEFSG, for which you provided a link.

If possible, could you change that link to the actual posting about the error with the grid references rather than the generic web link.

This would be the preferred link:

http://cefresearch.ca/is-this-really-the-grave-of-rudyard-kiplings-only-son/

Thanks!

[Muerrisch]

Yes, will do at the next iteration.

[trajan]

There is a doubling here: "Lt. Col. Parker & Legg and Mrs. Legg (henceforward referred to as “Parker & Legg”)".

Also, Parker has a forename, Legg also - and there is no need for the Lt.Col. and the Mrs: it is simply not usual to put peoples' titles in an academic work - which this (and a damn good one too!). Thus, I would respectfully suggest: "XYZ.Parker & ABC.Legg (henceforward referred to as “Parker & Legg”)"

[Muerrisch]

Trajan, thank you.

I went back to the original and found that the authors [or the editor] had styled themselves thus:

Lieutenant Colonel Graham Parker (Retd) and Joanna Legg.

I have respected their apparent wishes in my latest iteration.

[charlesmessenger]

Excellent letter from Peter Woodger, in the latest Stand To, which concentrates mainly on Parker & Legg's misinterpretation of the burial records. It complements, rather  than pre-empts Grumpy's forthcoming article.

 

Charles M

[Muerrisch]

Yes Charles,thank you,  I read it over tea and biscuits this afternoon.

 

I expect to send my article off during next week.

[laughton]

Any chance someone can post or PM the contents of the letter, as it will be some time before we see it in Canada?

[charlesmessenger]

Laughton

 

PM me your email and I will send you a scan.

 

Charles M