CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[laughton]

On 6/18/2016 at 14:23, charlesmessenger said:

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

 

I have gone through this a number of times now and I have some comments and questions. The COG-BR in discussion for Kipling/Law is that one shown at CWGC Cloud page 2045429.

1. The article was a great help as I did not know that "Hulluch 6" referred to St. Mary's ADS. That means there must be a list somewhere so we can find out what "Hulluch 18" means as well (i.e. cloud page 2045446)?
    
2. I would agree that the the numbers show that groups 22 and 23 were brought to this cemetery. Later the letter says "The significance of the two exhumation group numbers has been missed by the authors. It means two different sub-teams of the labour company were at work and both brought bodies they had exhumed to the cemetery on 23 September 1919." I don't see any indication on the page that tells which graves were exhumed by which group, as compared to where it is shown on page 2045419.
    
3. In the same paragraph referencing "Hulluch 6" it also states: "The numbers 176E and 177E show that the labour company had exhumed 154 groups before starting on the bodies to be buried in St. Mary's." I can see that the 154 is the difference between 176-22 and 177-23 but I can not find those numbers on the page. I can see numbers like that on other pages. There must be a page I do not see or have not located? For example I see a "Hulluch 6 / 197E" on page 204547.
    
4. I agree with the comment and analysis about the bordering numbers for the squares G.25.d and G.25.c, which is in part why I went back to learn about the introduction of the "Revised Squaring" approach to the trench maps (Get Squared! Use a Trench Map). As I had mentioned earlier, G.25.a and G.25.c did initially exist but were dropped in the revised squaring. It was for that reason I gave the example of the pub in Courcelette (post 167) to clarify that not everyone reads a trench map correctly. It is important to remember that from the McPherson information (see post 82 here and 88 here) that the reference to "G" sector was incorrect and it should have been "H" sector.
    
5. The last statement is the most important - and I agree that this error that was first "etched in stone" will be allowed to continue. Peer Review is needed. It continues to surprise me that the Editor has not made comment.

 

So there is no confusion, I agree with the letter from Peter Woodger, I just don't understand or see how the numbers relate to the page. Is there some way we can get clarification, as I do not know of the gentleman?

 

The rest of the points are those covered by the GWF team.

 

Richard

Edited 21 June , 2016 by laughton
fixed links

[Muerrisch]

QUOTE:  I can see that the 154 is the difference between 176-22 and 177-23 

 

I must have gone to the wrong school!

 

Pray educate me!

[laughton]

On 6/18/2016 at 14:23, charlesmessenger said:

 

 

For some reason when I try to answer (reply) it quotes the original message - MUST BE A BUG IN NEW SOFTWARE

 

176

- 22

154

 

177

- 23

154

 

But I have no idea where the 176 and 177 is shown on the documents??

[Michelle Young]

Visited Burwash yesterday and saw that John is listed on the village war memorial and a plaque in the church as Lieutenant,  

[charlesmessenger]

Michelle

 

That is perfectly correct in that it was the rank which was accorded to him, but after his death.

 

Charles M

[Michelle Young]

Beautiful memorial to him, and so many names on the village memorial 

[Muerrisch]

My completed article of criticism [and indeed rebuttal] of the Parker & Legg offering has been submitted to Stand To! for publication.

[SiegeGunner]

Earlier links to your draft article no longer seem to work, David.  Are you planning to post the final version here?

[Muerrisch]

The draft served its purpose, I think, so I binned it.

 

I think it would be unethical to publish my ST! version on the internet before the ST! is issued.

 

I hope all can agree with that stance.

[SiegeGunner]

Sorry, David, I did mean after it has been published in ST!

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

The draft served its purpose, I think, so I binned it.

 

I think it would be unethical to publish my ST! version on the internet before the ST! is issued.

 

I hope all can agree with that stance.

 

Grumpy, have you considered sending a copy to CWGC? If they knew it was going to be published they might have some comment. It might be diplomatic to offer the CWGC the opportunity to respond given they are the ultimate arbiters of where Kipling lies. Just a thought. MG

[laughton]

One question and one comment:

1. Has STAND TO! already agreed to publish the rebuttal? If so do you know in what issue?
    
2. If you wanted a CWGC "type" response, obviously Norm Christie would want the opportunity to reply as he is the CWGC Records Officer that made the change to the headstone and he is upset that nobody has contacted him about the challenge. This is from Norm's web site:

   Quote

   1992 JACK KIPLING IDENTIFICATION

   The Jack Kipling identification has been getting a lot of coverage lately. It appears that after only 24 years, the doubters have conceded that the original report from 1992 was, in fact, correct. For those who don’t know, I wrote that report when Record Officer of the CWGC in Maidenhead, England. For YOUR EYES ONLY the report is in this email. It’s odd but I am not mentioned in any of these articles, and no one bothered to contact me (very odd). My feelings are very hurt. If you have any questions please contact me.

   If I read this correctly, Norm is suggesting that the Parker-Legg article proves him correct. If the new rebuttal challenges Parker-Legg it also challenges Norm Christie. I would at least offer him a chance to respond to a draft of the article before it is published. He may not respond but at least you can then say "I asked"!

[Muerrisch]

13 hours ago, laughton said:

One question and one comment:

1. Has STAND TO! already agreed to publish the rebuttal? If so do you know in what issue?
    
2. If you wanted a CWGC "type" response, obviously Norm Christie would want the opportunity to reply as he is the CWGC Records Officer that made the change to the headstone and he is upset that nobody has contacted him about the challenge. This is from Norm's web site:

   If I read this correctly, Norm is suggesting that the Parker-Legg article proves him correct. If the new rebuttal challenges Parker-Legg it also challenges Norm Christie. I would at least offer him a chance to respond to a draft of the article before it is published. He may not respond but at least you can then say "I asked"!

 

Answers.

 

1. No, the editor has agreed to consider it. That is absolutely normal and proper. Articles often take a year [three issues of ST!] to appear.

 

2. Christie is far removed from the matter now. If I allow CWGC sight of the article it would be up to them to engage the attention of Christie. 

[John_Hartley]

Letting CWGC have sight seems a "good thing".

 

I'd agree that, if a CWGC response would be welcomed, then it's a response from CWGC that'd be welcomed, not a response from a long past employee.

[CdrSAN]

Since my post of 20/2/16 about Kipling vs Jacob (my father's friend) I've visited Jack Kipling's grave. This triggered a thought that might well lead to a settlement of this long running debate. I gave my father's 1914-15 era London Irish pips and buttons to a museum after he died 50 years ago. They all were black, as befits a rifleman. The buttons bore the crowned harp and the pips were of the standard infantry design. Arthur Jacob's pips and buttons would have been identical to my father's ones. The Irish Guards equivalents would not have been black as they are not a rifle regiment. Additionally, their pips are of a design unique to the regiment, as are those of the other Foot Guards. Are there photographs or other records of the actual pips and buttons found in the Kipling grave? I believe that physical evidence would be far more useful than endless speculation on promotion policies in Guards regiments.

[squirrel]

Excellent post.

[Muerrisch]

1 hour ago, CdrSAN said:

I believe that physical evidence would be far more useful than endless speculation on promotion policies in Guards regiments

 

There is no longer speculation. The combined efforts of many Forum members, orchestrated and analysed by Martin G., have resolved the matter beyond any reasonable doubt to the nth degree.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, CdrSAN said:

Since my post of 20/2/16 about Kipling vs Jacob (my father's friend) I've visited Jack Kipling's grave. This triggered a thought that might well lead to a settlement of this long running debate. I gave my father's 1914-15 era London Irish pips and buttons to a museum after he died 50 years ago. They all were black, as befits a rifleman. The buttons bore the crowned harp and the pips were of the standard infantry design. Arthur Jacob's pips and buttons would have been identical to my father's ones. The Irish Guards equivalents would not have been black as they are not a rifle regiment. Additionally, their pips are of a design unique to the regiment, as are those of the other Foot Guards. Are there photographs or other records of the actual pips and buttons found in the Kipling grave? I believe that physical evidence would be far more useful than endless speculation on promotion policies in Guards regiments.

 

 

There is the small matter of the position of the rank stars in 1915 on the Service Dress. The Irish Guards would have metal stars on the shoulder strap. Line infantry had their embroidered rank stars on the cuff of the sleeve on their Service Dress*. Confusing the two would be a big error. 

 

My assumption is that there was something very specific about the uniform and insignia that indicated Irish Guards; unique stars (on shoulders) and unique button design and unique button groupings (fours). It is more likely in my view that the GRU or later transcribers mis-recorded 2Lt as Lt than mistook Irish Guards insignia for that of the Royal Irish Rifles. My speculation. 

 

Martin G

 

* there are a number of photo portraits of Officers in the Royal Irish Rifles in Bond of Sacrifice vols I and II showing shoulder straps with no rank stars on their Service Dress. The photos are of Officers who died in early 1915' a few months before the Battle of Loos. I am not aware that the Royal Irish Rifles dress regulations changed during the intervening period. Rank appears to have been worn on the shoulders in other forms of dress, but not Service Dress if the photos are any indication. Happy to be corrected. MG

Edited 1 September , 2016 by Guest

[Andrew Upton]

 

It's a point that's been raised before elsewhere - during the war OR's in the Irish Guards seem to have worn shoulder insignia of the sort used in other Guards regiments, IE the initials of the regiments name topped with a regimentally specific badge. In this case, like:

 

 

 

Now I can see the possibility of that badge being mistaken for an indicator of rank (2nd Lieutenant) instead of regiment by a GRU worker who was not perhaps fully versed in the subtleties of regimental badging... that of course would not then explain the problem of  why it was recorded as Lieutenant, but it's something else to think on.

[Peter Woodger]

I have only just seen the quote from Norm Christie’s website where he is upset that no one has contacted him.

In my case it is that my respect for his work has fallen to a new low. I have long since binned my copy of his book on the Canadians on the Somme so cannot quote chapter and verse but as records officer of the CWGC he had access to the burial returns that are now on line but did not use them in the section of his book on clearance of the battlefield post war.

He claims that the Australians cleared the battlefield around Courcelette which is quite wrong as they cleared and concentrated into Crucifix Corner, Villers Bretonneux, Adelaide and Heath. It was a Canadian team that cleared and concentrated into Pozieres, Courcelette, Regina Trench and part of Adanac. This appeared to me to be a gross error by someone who chooses to mention clearance when writing a book on the Canadian role on the Somme and gets it so wrong when he has the records available should he consider facts to be important.

I fear that the same degree of diligence was applied to the Kipling case.

Peter Woodger

[Peter Woodger]

There are 2 burial returns for the bodies in 7 D one is 2045429 and the other is 2045531. The differences appear in the last col. 5429 says Hulluch 6/22 23. and 5531 says Hulluch 18/176E.177E. 

I suggest that the number after Hulluch in 5429 was printed very badly and is most likely 18.

5531 stating 176E 177E shows the report number of the 18th Labour Coy and was the 176 and 177 that they had made. 5429 deals with the reburials in St Marys and shows that these were the 22nd and 23rd groups buried here hence 154 groups had been taken elsewhere by 18th Coy. As for the rest of the content there is no difference.

 

Peter Woodger

[squirrel]

CdrSan is referring to the London Irish Rifles not the Royal Irish Rifles who were not involved in the attack on Loos village and the surrounding areas in September 1915.

The Preliminary Brigade Order for 141 Brigade, including the London Irish Rifles, states "Officers dress - exactly as for the men". This surely casts some doubt about what rank insignia, and where on the jacket, Officers of the London Irish Rifles would have worn for the attack on Loos. Cuff rank on OR's SD? I think not. Rank on shoulder straps perhaps? Or, possibly, no rank insignia was worn?

As for the confusion about an Irish Guards OR's shoulder insignia being confused for an Officer's star, were not the Irish Guards OR's wearing an embroidered cloth shoulder title at this time and not the gilding metal star and IG?

[Guest]

On 01/09/2016 at 19:37, squirrel said:

CdrSan is referring to the London Irish Rifles not the Royal Irish Rifles who were not involved in the attack on Loos village and the surrounding areas in September 1915.

The Preliminary Brigade Order for 141 Brigade, including the London Irish Rifles, states "Officers dress - exactly as for the men". This surely casts some doubt about what rank insignia, and where on the jacket, Officers of the London Irish Rifles would have worn for the attack on Loos. Cuff rank on OR's SD? I think not. Rank on shoulder straps perhaps? Or, possibly, no rank insignia was worn?

As for the confusion about an Irish Guards OR's shoulder insignia being confused for an Officer's star, were not the Irish Guards OR's wearing an embroidered cloth shoulder title at this time and not the gilding metal star and IG?

 

London Irish . Noted. Thank you for the corrective. Still with rank on the sleeve though. You raise more interesting points.

 

If the London Irish Officers were dressed in Soldiers' uniforms, it makes the possible confusion with the Irish Guards less likely because the Irish Guards Officers were wearing Officers SD at Loos... Somewhere I have a Guards Div Order from late 1917 that clearly shows the order for the Officers to dress as men and the additional comment that this was the first time this happened. I am confident that the Irish Guards Officers at Loos in Sep 1915 were not wearing soldiers' uniforms and went into action in SD, Sam Brownes and with revolvers. It is worth remembering that this was the 2nd Bn Irish Guards very first action and the first action for the Guards Div en masse. There is no mention in any order at any level in the Guards Div for Loos 1915 or indeed for the whole of 1915. Any contrary information would be well received

 

Separately, the definition of 'dress exactly as the men' might be open to interpretation. Somewhere on this thread I posted an undated  picture of Harold Macmillan (Grenadier Guards) wearing Officers SD and soldiers' webbing. Elsewhere there are plenty of references to Officers simply turning their collars up  and buttoning them to mimic the closed high collar of a soldier, rather than ditching their own uniform and carrying a rifle. The extent to which an officer would go to comply with the order is subjective. For the purposes of this thread I suspect a photo will be the only way of establishing certainty. 

 

If, as suggested, the body had a soldiers' tunic, I cant see how this could be confused with the Irish Guards. Possible, if the GRU had no knowledge of the IG Officers uniform and assumed IG Officers were dressed as soldiers (ditto is the CWGC make this same assumption), but the CWGC argued and continues to argue that the GRUs were experienced and would not make this kind of mistake. While possible, I still think it is far less probable than simply mis-transcribing Lt for 2 Lt on one of the occasions the information was transposed. 

 

That said it is always important to keep an open mind. I am mindful that the GRU notes do not explain how and why they concluded the body was that of an Irish Guards Lieutenant. 

 

Martin G

 

PS I will cross check the Guards Div history and each Foot Guards history to see if there is any mention of when Guards Officers started to wear Soldiers' SD. 

[Andrew Upton]

2 hours ago, squirrel said:

As for the confusion about an Irish Guards OR's shoulder insignia being confused for an Officer's star, were not the Irish Guards OR's wearing an embroidered cloth shoulder title at this time and not the gilding metal star and IG?

 

My understanding was the cloth titles relates to a different (earlier?) period. Certainly I can find various WW1 dated photos that show no cloth titles, and the brass shoulder insignia is just about visible, eg:

 

Edited 1 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton

[Andrew Upton]

 

 

Detail:

 

Edited 1 September , 2016 by Andrew Upton