CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Guest]

Good spot, but, Kipling was still asking for an identification tag for a "second-lieutenant" not long (can't remember exactly how long at the moment)  before 27/9/1915

 

Mike

[Guest]

Treatment of Temporary promotions differed to treatment of Substantive promotions. Temp promotions were expedited and were required for immediate tactical command and control. This is all addressed in considerable detail in the thread and indeed the article that David Langley submitted to "Stand To!".

 

In short, if one compares the names, ranks and dates of Guards Officers recorded in the diaries with the names, ranks and dates in the London Gazette and the Monthly Army List, only Temp promotions were 'put up' ahead of the LG announcement. There are 324 named Officers on the Guards Div nominal rolls immediately prior to Loos who are mentioned by name and rank over 1,000 times across 20 diaries. These include 214 Subalterns of whom 132 were subsequently promoted from 2 Lt to Lt in 1915 (including Kipling's posthumous promotion) who are mentioned over 500 times. It is therefore possible to compare the timeline of these data points with the London Gazette and the Monthly Army List*. There are just 5 anomalies, all of which can be explained as diarists errors; 3 Welsh Guards subalterns where the diarist habitually did not differentiate between 2 Lts and Lts (and conflicts with the nominal rolls), one 2 Lt who was killed before he even qualified to be promoted (an obvious error) and one (Sassoon, Irish Guards) who is recorded as a Lt then 2 Lt within a few pages of the diary - another clear error. In short 99.5% of the data suggests substantive rank was not 'put up' and the 0.5% can be shown to be diarists' errors.

 

There are nine Subalterns who were promoted to Temp Lt in 1915**.  All were promoted after the effective dates of their substantive (backdated) promotion. This effectively proves that substantive ranks were not 'put up' as there would be no need to promote a Subaltern to "Temp Lt" if he had already put up rank. Nowhere in the London Gazette does one see "Lt Bloggs promoted Temp Lt" It is a non sequitur. If the Parker/Legg theory held true these promotion's wouldn't be unnecessary as the subalterns would already have put up rank. Their arguments are rather undermined by the fact that in their desperation to prove a preconceived idea, they have ignored some rather compelling counter evidence. The evidence has been subordinated to the conclusion. It should be the other way around. It is a clear case of Confirmation Bias. 

 

The London Gazette records all the Temporary and Substantive promotions. The Irish Guards also recorded all Temp promotions in 1915 on one particular page. Kipling's name is not on the list. Kipling was never recorded in the London Gazette as being promoted to Temp Lt (unlike some of his cohort) and therefore the argument that he might have been a Temp Lt can be eliminated based on the absence of any evidence in the London Gazette.

 

MG

 

* The Monthly Army List was updated on the last date of each month. The records therefore lag the London Gazette announcements by one month. I have the monthly data for the whole of the Guards Div on one spreadsheet and it is therefore possible to track how each Officer was recorded in Official documents. Unsurprisingly there are no anomalies in the Army List when compared to the London Gazette other than the occasional one month lag. See Post #668 for the Irish Guards data.

 

** Most were Supernumerary to Establishment ahead of the confirmation of Augmentation of Establsihment for the additional service Battalions that were formed to create the Guards Division. 

Edited 22 September , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Does anyone know if Stand To! has had any response to the Langley article. I no longer subscribe to Stand To! but I am mildly interested in the ongoing Kipling debate. I am particulalrly interested to know if Parker/Legg have ressponded with counter-counter-arguments. MG

 

Edit: The Parker article is 18 months old

Edited 24 June , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Can anyone locate the Kipling article on the parker/legg website? It appears to have disappeared.....

 

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/index.htm

 

Or I am missing some of my marbles... MG

[stiletto_33853]

Certainly seems to have vanished from their site

[Guest]

Might be worth contacting them for an update at webmaster@greatwar.co.uk

 

Mike

[laughton]

Just so members are aware, we are appealing the 1992 decision to mark this grave as that of Lt. Kipling. We need to do this to confirm the errors of the 18th Labour Company. Our submission will be that it could be either Law or Kipling.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, laughton said:

Just so members are aware, we are appealing the 1992 decision to mark this grave as that of Lt. Kipling. We need to do this to confirm the errors of the 18th Labour Company. Our submission will be that it could be either Law or Kipling.

 

 

Laughton. 

 

Good luck. I think you will need it.

 

A blind man in a dark room can see the CWGC under Christie and Parker/Legg have made gigantic errors; all based on confirmation bias and availability bias. None have done the necessary hard yards in the related archive material on this case. That the CWGC has not seen fit to reassess this despite Grumpy's rather excellent article (aka Meurrisch) suggests that CWGC and its creepy 'pearl-casting' cronies that occasionally lurk in the shadows of GWF have no interest in addressing their past errors. The truth has been subordinated to the preservation of individual reputations within the CWGC. 

 

If you get them to reassess I will take my hat off to you. Bon chance. 

 

MG

Edited 22 September , 2017 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

Yes, I also wish the attempt the very best of luck. I did consider trying an attempt myself but the foothills of my approach were vertical.

 

CWGC, The irish Guards, MoD and The Kipling Society all have copies of our article ............. it was not mine, but a massive collaboration of many GWF members. Fortunately the existence of Google means that our counter-argument is available to anyone with interest.

[Muerrisch]

2 hours ago, laughton said:

Just so members are aware, we are appealing the 1992 decision to mark this grave as that of Lt. Kipling. We need to do this to confirm the errors of the 18th Labour Company. Our submission will be that it could be either Law or Kipling.

 

You may, of course, quote substantially from the article published under my name in the WF Journal Stand To!

Our conclusion was exactly the same as yours.

Edited 21 September , 2017 by Muerrisch

[Guest]

On 9/22/2017 at 04:47, thetrenchrat22 said:

Richard 

 

In the last couple of WFA somebody pointed out the IWM in their Bond of Sacrifice photo there is a photo of John Kipling.  Which shows his rank as 2nd Lt and was killed around Chalk Pit Wood.  The only people who could have given the IWM.  Was his parents, so did they give to them in late 1915 or after the armistice.  

 

 

The photo is irrelevant. It is a photo of him before he embarked for war and all parties agree that he was a 2nd Lt at this point. There is no photo of him as a Lt. The debate hinges on whether Kipling "put up rank" between writing to his father asking for an Identity Disc with '"2nd Lt" on 19th Sep 1915 and his death at Loos just eight days later on  27th Sep 1915. There are eight official documents relating to the events all describe him as 2 Lt, including the official nominal rolls and the casualty returns. His own father describes him as 2nd Lt Kipling in the History of the Irish Guards covering the Battle of Loos.

 

The Earth is flat.

 

The Kipling school argue that the Guards Division acted differently to the rest of the Army by 'putting up rank'  of substantial promotions ahead of announcements in the London Gazette. They provide absolutely no hard evidence to support their thesis, simply because there isn't any. In fact there are over 500 examples in 1914-15 to demonstrate that the Guards Division did the opposite and acted in accordance with regulations by waiting for the actual announcements. The only exceptions being Temporary promotions. Kipling was never a Temp Lt.

 

The Kipling school also theorise that the Irish Guards acted differently and 'put up rank' substantial promotions ahead of announcements in the London Gazette. They provide no evidence for this, simply because there isn't any.... and so on. It is speculation dressed up as 'research' and 'discoveries'. It is akin to believing that the earth is flat. 

 

There are other complex arguments about pay etc that also provide hard evidence that Kipling never put up rank before  he went his Gawd like a soldier...well, to be precise he went to his God like a 2nd Lt. The evidence is water-tight but despite this the CWGC  still clings to a pile of ill-informed conjecture and speculation., none of which are supported with any hard evidence. 

 

I am not sure I would use the IWM as a reference. They have material relating to an exhibition from 2008 titled  'My Boy Jack' - correspondence between Rudyard Kipling and  John Kipling'. It is ill-informed in that John Kipling was never known as 'Jack' Kipling by Rudyard or his contemporaries who referred to him as John, Johnny or Little Johnny due to his slight stature. 'My Boy Jack' is a poem about young sailors or 'Jack Tars' lost at sea, written in the aftermath of Jutland. It was a preface in the book "Sea Warfare" by Kipling, immediately before the essay titled "Destroyers at Jutland", published in 1916.  nearly a year after John Kipling went missing in action. The confusion between John/Jack is a very common error in the historiogrpahy of the Kipling saga, perpetuated by some authors and film-makers who have not done some very basic research. One might expect the IWM to have done slightly better. 

 

MG

Edited 23 September , 2017 by Guest
typos

[Guest]

This entry illustrates exactly the pitfalls of Wikipedia. It gets the facts about Kipling wrong as well as perpetuating the 'Six Weeks' nonsense claiming "On average, a junior officer leading from the front survived six weeks before becoming a casualty - either killed or injured".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kipling

 

 

Edited 22 September , 2017 by Guest

[Muerrisch]

8 hours ago, thetrenchrat22 said:

Richard 

 

why the sudden change of heart in this case, I thought that through your case of an unknown Canadian officer in the St Mary's ADS that you were able to confirm that the Unknown Lt Was in fact John Kipling.  

 

Why the charge.  

 

In the last couple of WFA somebody pointed out the IWM in their Bond of Sacrifice photo there is a photo of John Kipling.  Which shows his rank as 2nd Lt and was killed around Chalk Pit Wood.  The only people who could have given the IWM.  Was his parents, so did they give to them in late 1915 or after the armistice.  

 

I sent a case to the CWGC last year in which I've pointed out to them that a soldier they have in a cemetery not far from St Mary's ADS could not be buired in the other cemetery as his service records shows that he was buried in another cemetery which was well behind the front lines 

 

I don't understand the question [and I don't know who Richard is either, not that this matters].

 

I cannot see a change of heart in recent posts.

[Steven Broomfield]

3 hours ago, QGE said:

This entry illustrates exactly the pitfalls of Wikipedia. It gets the facts about Kipling wrong as well as perpetuating the 'Six Weeks' nonsense claiming "On average, a junior officer leading from the front survived six weeks before becoming a casualty - either killed or injured".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kipling

 

 

 

And Roberts was Commander of the British Army, apparently.

[trajan]

9 hours ago, QGE said:

 

... The photo is irrelevant. It is a photo of him before he embarked for war and all parties agree that he was a 2nd Lt at this point. There is no photo of him as a Lt. The debate hinges on whether Kipling "put up rank" between writing to his father asking for an Identity Disc with '"2nd Lt" on 19th Sep 1915 and his death at Loos just eight days later on  27th Sep 1915. There are eight official documents relating to the events all describe him as 2 Lt, including the official nominal rolls and the casualty returns. His own father describes him as 2nd Lt Kipling in the History of the Irish Guards covering the Battle of Loos.

 

The Earth is flat.

 

.... It is akin to believing that the earth is flat. 

 

 

Thanks you for an answer that brightened and brought a smile to my face on what has otherwise been a tedious and enervating day that ended an even more tedious and enervating week 

[laughton]

Our case was presented in the 2nd blog article we published here:

 

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

 

And the update in February 2016, as the case unfolded on the GWF and our research cintinued:

 

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

 

Our intent is to get those in approval positions to agree that the 18th Labour Coy made and error, as did the MOD.

 

There is no proof that the remains are Kipling as there is no additional evidence about Law. As such, there can be no final determination that it is Kipling.

 

Without that agreement our McDonald and Wylie cases will never pass muster.

Edited 22 September , 2017 by laughton
2nd article added

[Guest]

11 hours ago, laughton said:

Our case was presented in the 2nd blog article we published here:

 

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

 

And the update in February 2016, as the case unfolded on the GWF and our research cintinued:

 

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

 

Our intent is to get those in approval positions to agree that the 18th Labour Coy made and error, as did the MOD.

 

There is no proof that the remains are Kipling as there is no additional evidence about Law. As such, there can be no final determination that it is Kipling.

 

Without that agreement our McDonald and Wylie cases will never pass muster.

 

Laughton...your blog on the second link describes him as Jack Kiplling. He was never known as Jack. ...something you may wish to correct....

 

MG

[laughton]

The question of JOHN versus JACK is new to me this week. I do understand the JACK in the book or poem was a different person. It appears my early readings in the local paper here in Canada and then the Holt's book sent me off on the wrong track on the name. You are indeed correct that I should always refer to him as 2nd Lieutenant John Kipling.

 

My maternal grandfather who served in the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and then the Royal Irish Rifles was an odd JACK as his real name was Josiah Alexander Chancellor Kennedy. The fellow I bought my business from was John and everyone knew him as JACK, so the John-Jack thing follows me!

 

And yes, I am Richard, not Dick.

 

I have added this to the top of each blog posting:

Quote

On September 23, 2017 this post was edited to change all references to "Jack Kipling" to his real name "John Kipling" and to change all his rank references to 2nd Lieutenant (or 2nd Lt.). Typos were also corrected at this time.

 

Edited 23 September , 2017 by laughton
Only 23rd not 30th

[Stoppage Drill]

On 22/09/2017 at 13:10, Steven Broomfield said:

 

And Roberts was Commander of the British Army, apparently.

The Wiki article describes Bobs as a "former Commander-in-Chief of the British Army", which he was prior to the post being abolished.

[Stoppage Drill]

1904.

[Steven Broomfield]

Hmmm ... either I missed the 'former' (in which case I apologise), or it's been altered since I looked (in which case i don't).

[Stoppage Drill]

2 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

Hmmm ... either I missed the 'former' (in which case I apologise), or it's been altered since I looked (in which case i don't).

 

That page has Kipling, J. as "Lieutenant" with a diagram showing cuff rank . . . of all things !

Edited 23 September , 2017 by Stoppage Drill

[Muerrisch]

My [now abandoned] attempts to have the matter re-examined have foundered not so much on facts as on the inherent difficulty of proving a negative.

 

Put simply [for my own benefit] I believe that the body in the named grave is not necessarily that of Kipling, as he is one of at least two candidates. We can scarcely ask for a caveat to be added to the headstone, such as "probably" or "possibly" or even "a 50/50 chance".

 

The Kipling saga as it now stands is a million miles from making the usual sort of CWGC case whereby an UNKNOWN can finally be named. The Commission is accustomed to naming UNKNOWNs, not un-naming KNOWNS.

Edited 23 September , 2017 by Muerrisch
addendum and corrigendum

[thetrenchrat22]

I know this has nothing to do with the Great War

But does it read the CWGC have exhumed a body of a Polish Airman and take DNA from the remains and made a successful identification

Sunday 11 March 

On the 75th anniversary of his death, a rededication service will be held at Le Crotoy Communal Cemetery, France, for Tadeusz Stabrowski, of 308 Squadron, Polish Air Force.

Tadeusz was brought down by anti-aircraft fire on 11 March 1943. He was last seen ditching his Spitfire in the Channel and although it was reported that he escaped his sinking aircraft, a rescue seaplane found no trace and it is presumed he died of hypothermia. His body washed ashore in April 1943 and was buried as an Unknown Polish Airman in Le Crotoy Communal Cemetery.

In September 2017, following a request by the Polish Department of Cultural Heritage and Wartime Losses, experts from Pomeranian Medical University carried out an investigation into the identity of the Unknown Polish Airman in Le Croy. Their investigation, which included DNA comparison, confirmed the identification of the previously unknown airman as Flying Officer Stabrowski.

The service has been organised by the Polish authorities and will be attended by his son and grandchildren. The CWGC will be providing a new headstone inscribed with his name.

 

why can’t they do it in the case of Fergus Bowes-Lyon and John Kipling 

[laughton]

Actually, this has a lot to do with the Great War as it represents a significant policy change at the CWGC.

 

I have it in writing that this is forbidden. I will be at the CWGC Canadian Agency in Ottawa tomorrow morning to give a presentation on the Canadian Unknowns of the Great War. I will look into this topic.

 

I did find a report in the paper, but it does not have details:

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/905495/world-war-2-pilot-battle-of-britain-ww2-raf-tadeusz-stabrowski

 

Perhaps this should be in a TOPIC about the CWGC POLICIES & GUIDELINES pertaining to UNKNOWNS. We could then add to that topic with the other existing information on the investigation and reporting criteria posted by the CWGC?

 

We have been looking at ways to do this type of work, without having to exhume the remains. Thinking along the lines of what they do for laparoscopic surgery. The question is whether or not ground penetrating radar technology would give a definitive enough layout of the remains to allow the insertion of the small instruments needed to extract the DNA.

 

Note to GRUMPY on his post above - there is an existing process, it is called "SPECIAL MEMORIAL D" and it would say "Believed to be Second Lieutenant John Kipling". They just add the words "Believed to Be" along the top of the headstone. There are many examples.