CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Chris_Baker said:

It adds no more to the identification of the man buried, but you may be interested to see what the Red Cross enquiry service had on this.

 

Source: http://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Search/#/3/2/107/59459/British and Commonwealth/Military/kipling

 

Chris, Thanks. I think some one posted a link 500 posts ago which is lost in the ether, so it is a welcome timely reminder that the enquiries via the Red Cross, and correspondence with the family still refer to him as "2nd Lieutenant" on all four documents. Interesting to see the American Red Cross involvement given his mother was also American. 

[laughton]

4 hours ago, QGE said:

particularly when the Germans still occupied Hill 70 (later taken by the British). 

 

http://cefresearch.ca/matrix/Nicholson/Transcription/Chapter9.pdf

 

page 297:

 

Yet the capture of Hill 70 and the subsidiary attacks on Lens, costly as they were, had achieved the desired results, even though much of the town was still in the wrong hands. The fighting in the period 15-25 August had cost the Canadians 9198 casualties. But the Canadian effort had contributed towards wearing down the enemy: General Currie’s forces had badly mauled five German divisions.120 The Canadian success confronted Crown Prince Rupprecht with serious reinforcement problems. The possibility of a new battle breaking out at some other point on his Army Group’s front jeopardized the scheme for exchanging fresh divisions with battle-worn formations in Flanders.

 

A discerning German military historian has thus summed up the situation:

 

Even though we soon succeeded in sealing off the local penetration at Lens, the Canadians had attained their ends. The fighting at Lens had cost us a considerable number of troops which had to be replaced. The entire preconceived plan for relieving the troops in Flanders had been upset. One had to reckon with a continuation of the attack by the Canadian divisions. Crown Prince Rupprecht therefore refrained from attempting immediately to recapture the lost ground at Lens, which would have required strong new forces and promoted the very intentions of the opponent.121

 

Topographically Hill 70 was no Vimy Ridge, yet it did not again change hands during the war. The tactical advantage that its possession gave to the Allies may well have brought it immunity from attack in the German offensive of 1918.

 

*********************************************************************************************

Yes they did find British Officers in the area in 1920 and the same time they found what we believe is Lt. Wylie of the 15th Battalion Canadians. In the precise area where the remains of Kipling may have been:

 

The British Officer: http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2023602.JPG

 

The Canadian Officer: http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc2023600.JPG

 

We could find no evidence of the British being in the Canadian zone in the Capture of Hill 70 so we are confident those are remains that date back to 1915.

Edited 10 September , 2016 by laughton
truncated text?

[Guest]

Promotions and the London Gazette. By way of providing broader evidence within the British Army that substantive promotions were not made before the LG announcements, here is the war diary of the 9th Bn East Surrey Regt for Sep 1915 confirming the promotion of two Lieutenants to Captain. They are both Temp Lt to Temp captain as their Commissions were Temporary Commissions for Kitchener's Army.

 

The diary is dated 6th Sep 1915 and confirms the promotion of Lt Arthur A Collinson and Lt Charles E Barnett with effective dates of 9th May 1915 and 19th July 1915. The LG announcement was 25th Aug 1915, nearly two weeks before the entry in the war diary. This suggests that the information flow from publication in the LG could on occasion take some time to get to the battalion in the front line.

 

 

 

[Guest]

Maybe this is not the correct topic to post this (please forgive me, i'm a new member) but i came across a picture of John Kipling i wanted to share. It looks like i'm seeing gorget patches, is he wearing the uniform of a staff officer here? 

 

The picture came with the following description: "Elsie Kipling, Mrs George Bambridge (1896 – 1976), John Kipling (1897 – 1915), Caroline Starr Balestier, Mrs Rudyard Kipling (1862-1939) and Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) at Bateman's, East Sussex: 1915."

 

Source: nationaltrustcollections.org.uk

[Muerrisch]

Interesting but I believe not: JK was noticeable short, parted his hair on the left, and was, as far as I can ascertain, never appointed to any staff. Additionally he usually wore glasses unless for formal portraits.

 

I think the caption is not correct.

[Gareth Davies]

Is the fact that the name of an Irish Guards 2Lt (the rank has not been removed, just the name) has been removed from their panel on the Le Touret memorial relevant?

Edited 10 October , 2016 by Gareth Davies

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

Is the fact that the name of an Irish Guards 2Lt (the rank has not been removed, just the name) has been removed from their panel on the Le Touret memorial relevant?

 

I don't know Gareth, but, I'd be interested in other views.

 

Mike

[Guest]

The Monthly Army Lists and the Monthly Supplements to the Army Lists are available online via the National Library of Scotland. It is possible to track Kipling's rank as recorded in Official documents on a monthly basis. It will be no surprise that he is listed as a 2nd Lt (on prob) right through to Dec 1915 when the November gazetting of his substantive promotion to 2 Lt and further promotion to Lt was recorded in the same announcement.

 

It is worth noting that the Monthly lists were all updated as of the last day of the prior month. In theory they would reflect all London Gazette announcements made up to that date including Temporary promotions. One could make a reasonable argument that the Army lists only lagged events on the ground by a month or so. All promotions - substantive and temporary - would be recorded, so there is a reliable paper trail regardless of any 'lag'. The point, if it is not already clear is that any Temporary promotion that Kipling might have had would be reflected in these documnets. their absence would indicate that he had no Temporary promotion. 

 

Of greater interest is the supplementary list. The Nov 1915 Supplementary List shows all the promotions and appointments made by the Irish Guards with dates and gazette dates.. It includes promotion from Lt to Temp Captain, promotion from 2nd  Lt to Temp Lt as well as promotions from 2nd Lt to Lt   'on augmentation of establishment'  - i.e. the creation of the 2nd Bn Irish Guards. - which includes seven subalterns making this step. Perhaps an indication of the attempt to maintain an initial balance between 2nd Lts and Lts. 

 

Importantly all the usual suspects (Wynter, Stevens, Christie, Law etc) who appear in the various documents (diaries, routine orders, casualty lists etc) who were promoted also appear in this list. More importantly Kipling doesn't. To my mind this is conclusive proof that Kipling never had a temporary promotion or was promoted as part of the augmentation of establishment and should eliminate any speculation in this respect. 

 

At the bottom of this list are Alexander and Christy who are both shown in the Sep Army List as Temp Lts (1st May 1915) and C Pease who was a Lt SR and transferred to the regulars as a 2nd Lt. All three appear as Lts in the nominal roll at the end of Aug 1915. The others (Law, Coxon, Straker, Walker) all appear as 2 Lts on the same rolls (gazetted in Oct and backdated to July 1915) which again provides hard evidence that substantive rank was not put up until the gazette announcement date. 

 

The link is here click, and a copy of the relevant page is below. Any mistakes are mine. MG

 

Supplement to the Monthly Army List - Nov 1915

Edited 11 October , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Promotions and appointments announced in the Oct and Dec 1915 Supplements. Note these are all backward looking and cover promotions and appointments as early as June 1915

 

An interesting aspect here is the differentiation between Regular Commissions and Special Reserve Commissions. Under the Irish Guards we see the transfer of Lt C Pease from the Special Reserve to the Regulars with a substantive rank of 2nd Lt...i.e he dropped a rank when transferring from the SR to the Regulars.  In the Sep Army List he is listed as a Lt and is a Lt in the nominal roll at the end of Aug 1915 with the 2nd Bn. Note his switch from SR to regulars was Gazetted 11th Sep and backdated to 15th Feb).

 

Also note 2 Lt A F L Gordon (SR) and 2nd Lt T R Dames-Longworth (Midd'x Regt) both transferring into the regular cadre of the Irish Guards as 2 Lts.

 

This is a subtlety that might create further confusion and misunderstanding in the promotion sequences and protocol. Sandhurst commissioned officers were treated differently to SR commissioned officers and promoted on different schedules. MG

 

..

Edited 11 October , 2016 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

CWGC IN DENIAL:

 

Dear Mr Langley,

 

Thank you for your email and we apologise for the delay in anyone responding to your previous email.

 

Having contacted our Archivist, he has read the article and feels there is no additional information mentioned within it that would affect the existing commemoration.  However, we would like to thank you for bringing the article to our attention.

 

With kind regards,

 

Jackie Withers (Mrs)

Enquiries Supervisor

[Guest]

Dear Mr Langley

 

The Earth is flat.

 

Mr D Nial. 

 

 

 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Just to clarify Grump   Muerrisch,

 

Did the email contain a copy of the article you submitted to 'Stand To' magazine?

I can't immediately find the link.

Could you oblige?

[Muerrisch]

6 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Just to clarify Grump   Muerrisch,

 

Did the email contain a copy of the article you submitted to 'Stand To' magazine?

I can't immediately find the link.

Could you oblige?

 

Sorry I was not clear. After consulting the editor of ST! I sent CWGC a full copy, which is not substantially different from that lying on the original thread. This article has been sitting gathering a little dust at CWGC for some time.
 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 minute ago, Muerrisch said:

 

Sorry I was not clear.
 

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear either.

I'm trying to find the original article you were going to submit.

It's on here somewhere... when was it... early September??

[Guest]

For us who do not subscribe to Stand To (I will one day) has your article actually been published yet, and if so, could you share any feedback here?

 

Mike

[Muerrisch]

Regarding "the article".

 

Reading back through the thread i first put a draft up for criticism [for which many thanks, as I implemented most of it], finished the job, and sent it to ST" for possible publication. Acting on advice, I then offered the same version to CWGC.

 

The matter now rests with ST!. I await publication or being binned!

 

In the meantime I consider it unethical to pre-publish the final version on the Forum and hope that readers will agree with this stance.

 

Be assured that any feedback will indeed be posted here.

 

For those deeply interested I suggest that queries could best be done off-piste via a PM, although there is little that I can add at the moment.

[Guest]

Thank you. " I await publication or being binned! "

 

Surely they will publish?

 

Mike

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

34 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

In the meantime I consider it unethical to pre-publish the final version on the Forum and hope that readers will agree with this stance.

 

Ah yes. I remember you said that at the time.

No wonder I couldn't find the actual article!

[squirrel]

CWGC have buried their heads in the sand then...

[Muerrisch]

"Don't confuse me with the facts ..................."

 

To be fair, there was never any expectation that the stance would change, and it matters little. Anybody with sufficient interest in the matter has Google and will sniff this thread out in due course. "The truth is out there!"

 

as at:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kipling+grave+son+cwgc

Edited 7 November , 2016 by Muerrisch
addendum

[Guest]

Grumpy

 

As mentioned hundreds of posts ago, the CWGC has painted itself into a corner. Twice. Actually three times now. It would take a person of great strength of character to acknowledge, on the CWGC's behalf, that they made a mistake; it would open a very large floodgate of queries. The poor analysis and decision making and subsequent years of denial has now made this interesting; not because of poor Kipling and his gallant cohort, but more to do with the psychology of decision making. Here we have a classic case of confirmation bias and complete denial. it is astonishing in its magnitude. 

 

I assume the name of the Archivist was not given. Could you ask the CWGC to provide his or her name (as a Govt funded entity it cant refuse).  Might I suggest you respond with three questions asking the anonymous Archivist's considered opinion on specific points and why Parker Legg were given an audience and your paper was discarded. I would suggest some questions:

 

1. Can you refer us to any document written before his death that he was a Lt?

2. Are we agreed that if Kipling did not put up rank, it can not be him under the CWGC gravestone? By extension; If he did put up rank, as assumed, why did 108 other Guards Officers not do the same

3. Are the 527 records of Officers who were promoted to Lt during the same period that still recorded the subjects as 2 Lts prior to their LG date a complete work of fiction?

 

I am about to let slip the Dogs of War.

 

MG

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

10 minutes ago, QGE said:

I am about to let slip the Dogs of War.

 

MG

 Don't forget to cry 'Havoc' first !

[charlesmessenger]

Martin & Grumpy (can't be bothered with the German version)

 

This is a ridiculous state of affairs. The CWGC prides itself on getting it right and never jumping to conclusions. Grumpy, you produce a very comprehensive and meticulously researched rebuttal of the Parker/Legge/CWGC position, with much thanks to Martin for his enormous contribution, and the CWGC come up with a totally bland reply. They really do need to be pinned down  on the precise grounds on which they reject your thesis.

 

Martin, I am 100% behind you and more than happy to provide concrete support, if required. In the meantime, best foot forward!

 

Charles M

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, charlesmessenger said:

Martin & Grumpy (can't be bothered with the German version)

 

This is a ridiculous state of affairs. The CWGC prides itself on getting it right and never jumping to conclusions. Grumpy, you produce a very comprehensive and meticulously researched rebuttal of the Parker/Legge/CWGC position, with much thanks to Martin for his enormous contribution, and the CWGC come up with a totally bland reply. They really do need to be pinned down  on the precise grounds on which they reject your thesis.

Martin, I am 100% behind you and more than happy to provide concrete support, if required. In the meantime, best foot forward!

 

Charles M

 

Charles

 

Please do not forget this has been a massive collaborative effort; the GWF at its best. There are more than a dozen GWF members who were pathfinders (and more who provided additional info offline) for data that I would never have traced in a hundred years. I do not exaggerate. It made the arguments absolutely water-tight.  Their dedication and rather arcane knowledge have been key to unravelling this Gordian Knot. I can only claim to have consolidated their rather supreme efforts. As I know you know, rather like the Army, this is not about individual recognition, it is about the team.  

 

Grumpy:

 

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you

But make allowance for their doubting too.......

 

MG

 

 

 

 

[laughton]

6 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

CWGC IN DENIAL:

 

Dear Mr Langley,

Thank you for your email and we apologise for the delay in anyone responding to your previous email.

Having contacted our Archivist, he has read the article and feels there is no additional information mentioned within it that would affect the existing commemoration.  However, we would like to thank you for bringing the article to our attention.

With kind regards,

Jackie Withers (Mrs.)

Enquiries Supervisor

 

I would not take that as a NO.

 

Jackie is usually most cooperative but she is a doorway to the back room. I am guessing that the Archivist they mention is Andrew Fetherston, unless there is a stable of them? He is the "Archivist".

 

In saying that, I must mention that if that is a correct assumption, Andrew has been most cooperative with our work but it is usually in "retrieving" archived documents and not in processing changes. To accomplish that you need a detailed report to David Avery and Nic Andrews. They are the "Commemoration Officers". I find them quite open to a challenge based on the facts if you follow their protocols, which they have given us in writing.

 

We know for a fact that the change was approved based on the work of Norm Christie and that the work was faulty. Norm has published his report - I believe it is posted here - so challenge that report. It certainly does not conform with today's standards, but then he was a Research Officer with the CWGC at the time it was presented and he probably walked it through the system. The same problem is now underway in the case of the CA40 site, so they all must be challenged.

 

Always ready to assist at any time for any case. It must be factual and peer reviewed.

 

Richard

 

Quote

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.
 

 

Edited 7 November , 2016 by laughton
shorten quote spacing, added CWGC text at end