CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[CdrSAN]

That last point is fundamentally important, as every item of uniform & equipment worn by any Guards officer would have been recognisably different from those of an NCO or Guardsman of the same regiment.

[Muerrisch]

"recognisably"?

 

Only to those with the ability to recognise, and we have ample instances where the GRU teams, operating in appalling circumstances, made mistakes. These are the known mistakes, and there must have been unknown mistakes without number.

 

We shall never know about the body lying under Kipling's headstone, but what we do know is that the CWGC and Parker & Legg case is fundamentally [perhaps fatally] flawed on many counts.

 

[Andrew Upton]

On 06/09/2016 at 22:52, Muerrisch said:

"recognisably"?

 

Only to those with the ability to recognise, and we have ample instances where the GRU teams, operating in appalling circumstances, made mistakes. These are the known mistakes, and there must have been unknown mistakes without number.

 

We shall never know about the body lying under Kipling's headstone, but what we do know is that the CWGC and Parker & Legg case is fundamentally [perhaps fatally] flawed on many counts.

 

 

Here here! This is the point I have been making all along. We simply do not know what evidence was present when they made that identification as Lieutenant, Irish Guards. It might have verged anywhere from the ideal (a well preserved intact body, buried soon after death, possessions and insignia interred with it) to the worst case scenario (partial remains, those heavily decomposed, possibly even partially stripped of possessions or insignia). Even if the body is Kipling, given the known circumstances of his going missing in 1915 and not being recovered until 1919 my gut feeling would strongly favour the latter.

 

"If if the body was an Irish Guards OR, I am trying to understand how this could be confused with that of an Irish Guards Officer."

 

That comes straight back to the original suggestion. If what was found was nothing but the complete or partial skeletal remains of an OR with some insignia that looks a bit like a brass officers star over the letters IG on the shoulders and perhaps a few Irish Guards buttons scattered throughout then I still maintain that it is entirely possible that someone not well versed in the subtleties of the uniform of the IG might have mistaken him as an officer. As we have already seen, the single "star" being present Vs the being recorded as Lieut can be explained with other records that show that use of the latter could cover both full Lieutenants AND 2nd Lieutenants.

 

And I may have just seen another example of the latter on the GWF - Laughton has just recently posted about his efforts to have identities put to the burials of two unknown RAF officers. Details can be seen at:

 

If he is correct (and the evidence certainly favours it) then the original Graves Registration Report  recorded both as "UNKNOWN BRITISH LIEUT" of the "RAF" - despite both only being 2nd Lieutenant at the time of death, with this rank being inscribed on the Arras Flying Services Memorial where they are currently commemorated.

Also interesting though to note in the same report the entry for Richard Campbell Scobey. Recorded as 6th Bn DCLI (though his CWGC entry gives the 5th BN), but with his rank clearly written in this case as "2/LT." This might be a clear example showing the standards used to record entries might vary even within the same document, let alone between different documents:

http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/464551/SCOBEY, RICHARD CAMPBELL

Rank: Second Lieutenant

Date of Death: 23/08/1917

Age: 20

Regiment/Service: Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, 5th Bn.

Grave Reference: LIX. D. 48.

Cemetery: TYNE COT CEMETERY

Additional Information: Son of Richard Rogers Scobey and Eliza Scobey, of 41, Morral Rd., Penzance, Cornwall.

[Andrew Upton]

And additionally I've received a reply from the Guards Museum to an email query I sent them that would appear to contradict some of the received wisdom of this forum (and I very much include myself in that category). I will hopefully post further details in due course when I can establish a bit more of a provenance for the source...

[squirrel]

On 04/09/2016 at 14:41, Muerrisch said:

I think those rank stars are of the reign of Queen Victoria. The crown design suggests that.

Possibly the crown of King George IIII in whose reign the order of St Patrick was founded? The crowns are the same as those on the insignia on an Irish Guards Duty Plate which I obtained from a very reputable source.

Edited 7 September , 2016 by squirrel
Wrong Regnal number

[Guest]

1 hour ago, squirrel said:

Possibly the crown of King George III in whose reign the order of St Patrick was founded? The crowns are the same as those on the insignia on an Irish Guards Duty Plate which I obtained from a very reputable source.

 

The inscription on the circlet includes MDCCLXXXIII and QUIS SEPARABIT..... at risk of stating the obvious MDCCLXXXIII being 1783.... the year the order was created by George IIII.

 

Edited with correct Roman numerals...

Edited 6 September , 2016 by Guest
typo MDCCLXXXIII for MDCCLXXIII

[johnboy]

 

 

at risk of stating the obvious MDCCLXXIII being 1783.... the year the order was created by George IIII.

 

When I add up the numerals I get 1773,  Maybe not so obvious?

If there was a George IIII it would be shown as George IV? 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, johnboy said:

 

 

at risk of stating the obvious MDCCLXXIII being 1783.... the year the order was created by George IIII.

 

When I add up the numerals I get 1773,  Maybe not so obvious?

If there was a George IIII it would be shown as George IV? 

My typo...there is another X in there Should read MDCCLXXXIII will amend...

[Guest]

On 9/26/2015 at 18:40, Skipman said:

If it makes any difference, Arthur Jacob was a second lieutenant Click

Mike

 

This is interesting .....Arthur L Jacob was made Temp Lt (with five other London Irish Rifles subalterns) in the London Gazette of 3rd July 1915 (effective date 17th May 1915). I cant find anything that reversed this. Given the heavy casualty rates, promotion to Temp Lt was rarely reversed during this period.

 

Edited 6 September , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Changing tack.... For those who are with the Holts and believe the body is Lt A L H Jacob, 18th Bn London Regt (London Irish Rifles) her is the map trace of the area occupied by the Battalion on 1st Oct a few days after their attack. One can get a sense of the 'overlay' of the area of operations of the 2nd Bn Irish Guards and the London Irish Rifles. MG

[CdrSAN]

Jacob is listed as a Lieutenant on the LIR Roll of Honour (on the LIR Association website). He, Laurie Dircks and my father Philip Bateman were all full Lieutenants and good friends well before Loos.

[Steven Broomfield]

Out of interest, and this may have been mentioned before (and might be totally irrelevant), I was pondering the whether Kipling wore o.r. uniform or not, and the fact that the GRU would be able to identify an officer's tunic from a Tommy's jacket - as the clearance was post-war, it is possible that the GRU would have no idea what an officer in 1915 was wearing, or that the body was of 1915 vintage. As it had become common for officers to wear Tommy's jackets, a post-war battlefield clearance team probably wouldn't spend too much time pondering whether it was an officer's uniform - if they found something which they thought was an officer's pip, would they then spend time in a metaphysical discussion about the date of the body, the likelihood of a Guards officer wearing other ranks uniform, the number of buttons, etc. etc?

As I say, possibly irrelevant, but I thought I'd throw it in.

[squirrel]

14 hours ago, QGE said:

 

The inscription on the circlet includes MDCCLXXXIII and QUIS SEPARABIT..... at risk of stating the obvious MDCCLXXXIII being 1783.... the year the order was created by George IIII.

 

Edited with correct Roman numerals...

Edited -

[squirrel]

Post #587: " For those who are with the Holts and believe the body is Lt A L H Jacob, 18th Bn London Regt (London Irish Rifles) her is the map trace of the area occupied by the Battalion on 1st Oct a few days after their attack. One can get a sense of the 'overlay' of the area of operations of the 2nd Bn Irish Guards and the London Irish Rifles. MG"

 

According to the War Diary of the 18th London Regt. London Irish Rifles they were at Hesdigneul on 1st October 1915:

 

"At 10 am the Battn. paraded as strong as possible 14 Officers and 559 other ranks and were inspected by Brigadier General Thwaites Comdg 141st Infantry Brigade. The General complmented them on the spirit and dash during the recent operations and the splendid discipline which carried this battalion through a very trying period - at his word of this three cheers were given for the General. - Remainder of day was spent in reorganising battalion. 2nd Lt. J A O Mason reported and taken on the strength of the Battn."

 

The battalion did not move in to the front line trenches North of Loos until 15th October.

[Guest]

On 9/7/2016 at 07:44, Steven Broomfield said:

Out of interest, and this may have been mentioned before (and might be totally irrelevant), I was pondering the whether Kipling wore o.r. uniform or not, and the fact that the GRU would be able to identify an officer's tunic from a Tommy's jacket - as the clearance was post-war, it is possible that the GRU would have no idea what an officer in 1915 was wearing, or that the body was of 1915 vintage. As it had become common for officers to wear Tommy's jackets, a post-war battlefield clearance team probably wouldn't spend too much time pondering whether it was an officer's uniform - if they found something which they thought was an officer's pip, would they then spend time in a metaphysical discussion about the date of the body, the likelihood of a Guards officer wearing other ranks uniform, the number of buttons, etc. etc?

As I say, possibly irrelevant, but I thought I'd throw it in.

 

While anything is possible, we need to look at the known facts and separate them from speculation: 

 

Known Facts. There is no evidence in the contemporary documents that the Irish Guards (or any other Foot Guards) Officers wore OR's tunics in 1915. The Guards Division history explicitly states that Officers wore ORs tunics from late 1917 onward. There is a 2nd Bn Grenadier Guards document stating that the Officers were dressed as the men for the first time at the end of July 1917. This was signed by de Crespigny who had been with the Scots Guards since 1914. There are also undated accounts of Guards Officers wearing Officers uniforms but OR's webbing. There is an undated photo of Harold Macmillan dressed in an Officers SD and wearing webbing. Other evidence may come to light. Orders stipulating Officers' dress usually came from Brigade level or higher which make searching the other battalion and Brigade orders worthwhile. I have tried and failed to find any evidence of Guards Officers wearing ORs uniforms in 1915. 

 

Officers v ORs SD. What being 'dressed as ORs' means, is open to interpretation. An Officer simply abandoning his Sam Browne and wearing webbing (as Macmillan clearly did) would look rather different to one who wore an OR's tunic. How far did the metamorphosis from Officer's dress to OR's dress go? Trousers? Boots? Cap? etc? Just about every aspect of an Irish Guards uniform was different to that of an Irish Guards OR's uniform. Between complete transformation and simply wearing webbing and carrying a rifle, there are a number of permutations and combinations of Officers/ORs uniform. Without photographic evidence it will always be a subjective view. 

 

Edit. The recently published history of the Scots Guards (Till the Trumpet Sounds again) has a number of interesting photos dated to 1914 and 1915 showing Scots Guards Officers in the trenches. None show any officer wearing an OR's tunic, however there are a number of photos showing some (but not all) wearing webbing over their Officers' SD. The earliest shows Lt Alan Swinton in the trenches on Christmas Day 1914 dressed as an Officer but with webbing (no ammo pouches). His revolver holster and Binoculars are attached to his webbing, but he still wears a shirt and tie and plus fours. Lt Beckwith Smith is shown similarly attired in Spring 1915, Lt Arthur Mervyn Jones in May 1915 (ditto) and again during the battle of Aubers. Capt Monty Hill is dressed the same in 'late 1915' near Neuve Chapelle. Capt Jimmy Lumsden and Lt David Chapman are shown in a water-logged forward shell hole with shirts and ties and Officers SD in 'early 1916'. 

 

The photos seem to indicate that the furthest attempts to resemble ORs was to wear webbing. All other items of uniform remained the same. 

 

Officers dressed as ORs at Loos. The 141 Inf Bde Op Order for the Battle of Loos explicitly states that the Officers will dress exactly as the men. This included the 18th (County of London) Bn London Regt (London Irish Rifles) whose Lt Jacob has been proposed as an alternative candidate by the Holts.

 

On the available evidence, I think it unlikely that the Irish Guards Officers were wearing ORs' tunics at Loos in 1915. If other evidence comes to light I would gladly change my view. 

 

GRU Data. As you point out, a GRU exhuming a body would have no idea when the individual died. Given we know that most Officers wore OR's tunics later in the war, it is possible that the GRUs were attuned to this fact; the GRUs would be looking for other evidence to establish if the body was that of an Officer. Looking at the very long list of bodies in the Concentration Reports for exhumations in the Loos area, over 90% were simply UBS meaning no residual form of regimental identification remained. This might suggest that identifying bodies from insignia was extremely difficult; either because it was mostly missing, or corroded beyond recognition or both. If these are mostly reburials, this might be explained by the fact that insignia was removed during the initial burial. 

 

Edit. Laughton provided the GRU reports on the reburials and Exhumations and reburials of 365 bodies in the St Mary's / Loos cemeteries.

 

Exhumations and reburials........365

Unit positively identified:..............75

Individual positively identified......22

 

Which means from this small sample, only 20% could be linked to any specific regiment and only 6% could be identified. Only 21 were identified by numerals (6%) and 7 by their Identity Discs (2%)

 

Potential for Confusion. It has been suggested that in a scenario where all the clothing has decayed beyond recognition and only some insignia remains, this might create the conditions for confusion between an Irish Guards OR and and Irish Guards Officer. The inference is that an IG OR's shoulder badge could be confused as an Officer's pip. This would of course have to assume the IG part of the shoulder title was missing. Given the backing plate that locked the two together, this seems less likely. It also does not explain why a single 'star' would be confused for two stars. It would require at least two errors by the GRU. Other suggestions for the candidate (Jacob) would also need the GRU to confuse LRB's blackened brass insignia with that of the Irish Guards 

 

Standards of Proof. There are too many 'what ifs';  and this comes back to standards of proof. When faced with a UBS the case for identification has to be built and proven beyond doubt (according to the CWGC). Most on this thread seem to be in agreement that the usually high standards of proof exercised by the CWGC are not as robust as the CWGC might like to believe in the Kipling case.

 

While it is relatively easy (but time consuming) to dismantle the current thesis and prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kipling went to his death as a 2nd Lt, it is extremely difficult to construct robust evidence to establish an alternative candidate for the body. Unless there is more evidence, I strongly believe the 'alternative' candidates will simply be based on well informed conjecture. While some of the arguments will be compelling, they lack the hard evidence necessary to 'prove' the case. We know there were at least two IG Officers in the area so it would be unsurprising if one had been found.

 

I still believe that a transcription error of Lt for 2nd Lt is the most likely explanation. There are hard examples of this kind of mistake in other GRU reports; UBS  Lieut overwritten in hand with 2nd Lt. That this happened in the Kipling's case can never be proved and like all the other theories, will remain speculation. I dont belive we will get beyond the fact that there is no more than a 50% chance it is Kipling. The introduction of alternatives such as Jacob or Irish Guards ORs simply further reduces the probability it is Kipling. 

 

Any mistakes are mine. MG

 

 

Edited 11 September , 2016 by Guest

[johnboy]

Was Kiplings body originally buried in one grave or in a grave with others??

[laughton]

From my experience, the GRU would normally note on the COG-BR if the remains were in a shared grave. In the case of Kipling, they did not. To me that means the three men in that group in H.25.c.6.8 (graves 7.D.2, 7.D.3, 7.D.4) were in separate battlefield graves but very close to each other. There is another group in the same location in 7.D.8, 7.D.9 and 7.D.10.

 

On the question of commemoration standards of the CWGC it is important to remember that the 1992 theory that it was the grave of Kipling was made by Norm Christie (a CWGC Records Officer), a Canadian, without any observance of the strict standards of proof that exist today. They were probably not even drafted back in 1992 as there were probably no outsiders submitting finds. If there were, I would be interested in who they were and what reports were filed - they may be wrong as well.

 

Here are the standards we now follow, as released to us by the CWGC:

 

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.

 

Evidence and Source Material:

 

Un-cited resources cannot be accepted as official evidence. Research conducted on the internet will only be accepted if supplied by a recognised authority such as the CWGC, National Archives etc. Any primary (contemporary) sources e.g. the National Archives, CWGC, and Genealogical website original documentation etc. must be copied and submitted with the case. The relevant pages of any secondary material e.g. published reference books and articles; website material etc. should also be copied and submitted. All sources must be correctly referenced as footnotes throughout the submission as well as cited in a complete bibliography of consulted sources Referencing is essential to any historical research and should contain some uniform elements.

Edited 7 September , 2016 by laughton

[Guest]

1 hour ago, squirrel said:

According to the War Diary of the 18th London Regt. London Irish Rifles they were at Hesdigneul on 1st October 1915:

 

"At 10 am the Battn. paraded as strong as possible 14 Officers and 559 other ranks and were inspected by Brigadier General Thwaites Comdg 141st Infantry Brigade. The General complmented them on the spirit and dash during the recent operations and the splendid discipline which carried this battalion through a very trying period - at his word of this three cheers were given for the General. - Remainder of day was spent in reorganising battalion. 2nd Lt. J A O Mason reported and taken on the strength of the Battn."

 

The battalion did not move in to the front line trenches North of Loos until 15th October.

 

Yes. my typo now amended. Interestingly Jacob died on 25th Sep when the London Irish was attacking the Loos Defences to the South of Loos. The features included the Cemetery WSW of Loos and Garden City and Chalk Pit Copse and Chalk Pit near the Stutzpunkt 69...but a different Chalk Pit to the one attacked by the Irish Guards two days later on 27th Sep. This might also be a source of potential confusion in the narratives. It puts the London Irish at least a mile away from the location of the Irish Guards (later) action...

 

As pointed out by Squirrel, the London Irish were not in the vicinity of the Chalk Pits attacked by the Irish Guards until after the 15th Oct (actually the 23rd Oct by time they were in these specific trenches) and nearly four weeks after Jacob had been killed over a mile away. To my mind this reduces the probability of the bodies being confused; it is difficult to imagine a body being taken from the SW of Loos to a position more than a mile and NW of Loos....particularly when the area was still in the front line. Am I missing something? MG

Edited 7 September , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

Martin, I quote:

 

I still believe that a transcription error of Lt for 2nd Lt is the most likely explanation. There are hard examples of this king of mistake in other GRU reports; UBS  Lieut overwritten in hand with 2nd Lt. That this happened in the Kipling's case can never be proved.

 

Not only transcription [and no officer signing off the typescript], but surely at least equally possible is the following:

 

We can now be certain that it was possible to write "Star" as a means of ID and derive "Lieut". rather than 2/Lieut. [Or Stars and Lieut].

 

I believe that this error, now in the open [Poelkappelle 25 Sep 1919 see above] is a death-blow to CWGC and Parker & Clegg. To put it another way, would either party have pursued the "it MUST be Kipling because we believe [wrongly] that he was a Lieut" argument  if they had known about the Poelkappelle case? It is of course highly likely that Poelkappelle was repeated many times. Without digitisation of CWGC exhumations the search would require a small army of unborable enthusiasts. 

 

The identification of Kipling's grave represents wishful thinking. The phrase used in ST!  "............must be John Kipling" is indicative of the approach.

 

Anyone Googling John Kipling will, of course, read our massive corrective, a superb piece of crowd-sourced authoratative and good-natured forensic digging.

[Guest]

One does not have to look far for errors in the GRU report. The man immediately two below Kipling in the initial GRU Report is given incorrectly a "2829 Glaber P. 15th Bn London Regt (Civil Service Rifles) KIA 11.10.15". His name is misspelled. He is in fact Percy Blaber and according to his MIC and Medal Roll he was KIA 9th Nov 1915. The history shows P Blaber too.The CWGC website shows the corrected date. To add to the confusion SDGW has 9/5/1915. It is all rather messy.

 

A separate GRU report for the St Mary's Cemetery reburial corrects his name and the date of his demise with handwriting over the original typewritten records. This should demonstrate that the information was handles at least four times: the original, the typewritten, the transcribed typewritten reburial and the handwritten amendment.

 

The Civil Service Rifles' diary for Nov 1915 is missing and the published history is devoid of sufficient detail for this period. The last diary entry for 31st Oct 1915 has them near the Chalk Pits. Other diaries in the Brigade indicate it was still in the Mazingarbe/Loss area in Nov 1915.

 

Separately: The GRU reports for exhumations and reburials of the 365 men in the Loos area show some interesting patterns: The 'means of identification' for a proportion of the 73 men whose regiments were identified is not provided. The paper trail is non existent.

 

MG

Edited 7 September , 2016 by Guest

[Steven Broomfield]

7 hours ago, QGE said:

 

.

 

On the available evidence, I think it unlikely that the Irish Guards Officers were wearing ORs' tunics at Loos in 1915. If other evidence comes to light I would gladly change my view. 

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make, albeit clumsily, is that the GRU did not know what Irish Guards officers were wearing in 1915, and probably didn't know that the body they found dated to 1915. Their assessment of the remains would have been on the evidence in front of them (which they may well ave misinterpreted). Given that the men were probably not Guardsmen and very probably not 1915-men, they would have had, I suspect, no idea what an irish Guards officer of 1915 wore. To be fair, they probably didn't much care, either.

 

I'm not saying it is or it isn't - just that it's another factor to throw in to the mix.

[IanA]

8 hours ago, QGE said:

The earliest shows Lt Alan Swinton in the trenches on Christmas Day 1914 dressed as an Officer but with webbing (no ammo pouches). His revolver holster and Binoculars are attached to his webbing, but he still wears a shirt and tie and plus fours.

While I do not doubt your description, I have never beheld any officer wearing plus fours in action.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

The point I was trying to make, albeit clumsily, is that the GRU did not know what Irish Guards officers were wearing in 1915, and probably didn't know that the body they found dated to 1915. Their assessment of the remains would have been on the evidence in front of them (which they may well ave misinterpreted). Given that the men were probably not Guardsmen and very probably not 1915-men, they would have had, I suspect, no idea what an irish Guards officer of 1915 wore. To be fair, they probably didn't much care, either.

 

I'm not saying it is or it isn't - just that it's another factor to throw in to the mix.

 

Misinterpretation was of course possible. We already know this from other examples. We simply don't know how common it was. Given the lack of references in 'Kipling's' case for the unit identification, it of course raises questions. Without new evidence these questions will never go away. One either accepts it is an Irish Guards Officer or not. Even if one believes it is an Irish Guards Officer, one has to believe the GRU made at least two mistakes for it to  have a chance of being Kipling (grid and rank), and then he would still be one of two candidates, so no more than a 50% chance. 

 

In the other 364 exhumations and reburials in the same area, only 75 bodies could be linked to a regiment. Four in every five bodies had no means of identification that could link them a regiment. In 73 cases the 'method of identification' of the regiment was given; usually shoulder numerals (titles) or badges with the occasional oddity such as a boot stamp, spoon or oil sheet. No method of identification was given in three cases, meaning 'Kipling' was an out-lier even within this small data set. The 22 men who were positively identified were mostly due to their prior burial places being marked with a cross, with a few who had identity discs. In short the amount of 'detective work' by the GRU was very limited, with 'numerals' being the primary method of identifying the unit accounting for over half of the 75, or just over 10% of all the exhumations. 

 

MG

 

 

 

[TwoEssGee]

49 minutes ago, IanA said:

While I do not doubt your description, I have never beheld any officer wearing plus fours in action.

The description of Officers dress was previously mentioned in post #170, and came from the History of The Guards Division in the Great War 1915-1918 (Headlam, 1924)

 

"About this time (January 1915) dismounted officers began to adopt loose knickerbockers instead of the cord breeches worn in the early months of the war. These knickerbockers, familiarly known as “plus-fours” continued to be worn throughout (and after) the war."

 

I think the reference is to the style of trousers, rather than the material, so not made of tweed like the huntin', shootin', fishin' types wear,  and that most of us commonly think of when Plus Fours are mentioned. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanA said:

While I do not doubt your description, I have never beheld any officer wearing plus fours in action.

 

The Guards were wearing them in 1914. They are a distinctly different cut and look like plus fours or 'knickerbockers' and are occasionally referred to them as such. I don't know if that was the official term for them but there are lots of photos that confirm this and photographic evidence that they were worn in the trenches. 

 

The earliest photo I can find in the trenches is Lt Swinton Scots Guards on Christmas day 1914. Photo 31 in "Till the Trumpet Sounds Again: The Scots Guards 1914-1919 in their own Words" by Randall Nicol. 

 

An example on the right (proper left) in this group including our subject. click