Medical Help Please - For a Seaforth Hr

[IPT]

Hi. Yes, FMP.

Just had another skim through. I've just taken these dates from the bottom sections of the attestation form, but haven't checked further.

S/12373 Peter Pritchard attested 30/11/1915, joined 24/1/1916

S/12376 Percy S Smith attested 18/11/1915, joined 26/1/1916.

S/12377 James Haldane attested 5/12/1915, joined 26/1/1916.

S/12385 Simon Graham enlistment date 11/12/1915 (from SWB)

[seaforths]

Many thanks - I'll check FMP! I shouldn't have assumed Ancestry so serves me right!

I also discovered that the plague map is indeed correct and the 1912 map is the one with the problem.

Trajan, sorry I haven't answered your question more fully yet on the action. I'm on lates today (again) so will try and address that soon.

[ss002d6252]

I think there's still something odd over the service period:

The first 12 months of the war gratuity worked in calender months.12 months service from 11 Sep 14 would take him 11 Feb 15 for 5 months.

The next 7 months of service would be part of the 12 calender months. After that the gratuity accrues in 'full or part months'. It's difficult to exactly work out the finer points of split periods but my calculations with 12 months would end 11 Jul 1916 if he had continuous service again from Jan 16.

A further 2 months service would be required to give him the 14 months that his gratuity was paid out for.

If his seaforth number was allocated late Jan 16 and he died Feb 17 then he had a maximum of 15 months service in his 2nd period of service where his gratuity was paid for only 9 months worth of this period of 2nd enlistment. This leave a shortfall of 6 months during the period of Jab 16 to Feb 17 that he didn't accrue any entitlement to a gratuity.

Craig

[IPT]

Could he have been sent back to the reserve with his poor eyesight, but then called up again after the losses in 1916?

[ss002d6252]

Could he have been sent back to the reserve with his poor eyesight, but then called up again after the losses in 1916?

Any time in a reserve period would not count as qualifying service so it would in principal be an answer to the shortfall.

Craig

[seaforths]

Thank you. I thought same thing regarding transfer. On work break but will look again tonight to see if I can spot any other relevant info.

[seaforths]

I think there's still something odd over the service period:

The first 12 months of the war gratuity worked in calender months.12 months service from 11 Sep 14 would take him 11 Feb 15 for 5 months.

The next 7 months of service would be part of the 12 calender months. After that the gratuity accrues in 'full or part months'. It's difficult to exactly work out the finer points of split periods but my calculations with 12 months would end 11 Jul 1916 if he had continuous service again from Jan 16.

A further 2 months service would be required to give him the 14 months that his gratuity was paid out for.

If his seaforth number was allocated late Jan 16 and he died Feb 17 then he had a maximum of 15 months service in his 2nd period of service where his gratuity was paid for only 9 months worth of this period of 2nd enlistment. This leave a shortfall of 6 months during the period of Jab 16 to Feb 17 that he didn't accrue any entitlement to a gratuity.

Craig

Hi Craig,

His first period of service was calculated at 155 days (from 11/9/14 to 12/2/15) as 'home' service.

The entry is under 'Total service towards engagement' and there is nothing entered below for 'Total service towards pension'.

He signed his will on 29th June 1916. The only other information on the will, other than him recording his wishes, is that there are various annotations of enclosure numbers relating to WO files. His date of death is entered as 22/2/1917 and it is signed off by someone at the WO on 6/2/18.

[ss002d6252]

I'm still trying to get my head fully around the gratuities for 'split' periods - if only they'd left the instruction manual !.

So, we're pretty much as certain as we can be on the first period of service and, for the second period, the minimum he served was 29 June 16 to 22 Feb 17.

As earlier, the gratuity gives us the 14 or 15 months to fit within the periods of service*- of which roughly 5 months is taken up in the first period, leaving us 9/10 months to fill.

June 16 to Feb 17 gives us 9 months qualifying service which would fit with the period of service so I'd say his second period began in June 16 at the latest (possibly could be pushed back to May 16).

One thing that I was thinking about is the Jan 16 date from the surrounding numbers - this would be before the MSA kicked in so they would have to be volunteers (most likely Derby men based on the earlier post). The Jan 16 date would be within a few days of the date his group would have been called, if he was a Derby Man then, if I remember correctly, he could apply for an exemption only once he had received notice of call-up. Perhaps he applied for an exemption and was granted it for a few months from Jan 16 - Jun 16?. Having had some previous experience he was probably shifted on quite quickly once he actually re-joined.

Does the will give any idea where he was when he filled it in ?

Craig

* due to quirk of the the way the calculated the gratuity it may be stretched in to the 15th month of service - always a maximum of +1 month (never less) than the amount calculated from the gratuity amount.

[seaforths]

No, sorry, nothing more to be gleaned from his will. Pure conjecture but thoughts it might have been completed when he was drafted overseas or on arrival overseas. The only thing I can think of that might have some bearing would be his eyesight. He could have attested and then delayed going into training while they got him fitted with spectacles of the correct prescription. This issue might have been raised by him at his second enlistment when asked about previous service. If he didn't have them, he would not have been able to complete his training. I doubt he would have been fast-tracked through training as the syllabus had changed from that of 1914. They were taking 10-12 weeks to train them at Cromarty if my memory serves me right. I think I have a break-down of the training undertaken at around that time - although it comes from a territorial battalion of Seaforth, they would be training to a common syllabus.

[ralphjd]

My Gt Uncle Charles Umbers Border Regt killed with two pals , buried side by side Tancrez Farm was so short sighted it was said he could not see the end of his rifle, he asked to serve in the Pay Corps but was told he was trying to dodge the column as he said to my Nan just before he was sent of to war. She always said that the Government killed Charlie not the Germans.

[seaforths]

It is possible given the timing and the change of service numbers for territorials, he could have attested earlier and allocated to another unit. If the issue with his eyes then arose then he could have had that addressed by which time he was transferred to 1st Seaforth and would be allocated another service number at around the time Pritchard, Smith, Haldane & Graham attested. That would be an attest of around September 1915 and a transfer around November 1915. A former service number from September would not appear on the MIC or roll because he would not have qualified for a medal under that service number.

Any thoughts??

[seaforths]

My Gt Uncle Charles Umbers Border Regt killed with two pals , buried side by side Tancrez Farm was so short sighted it was said he could not see the end of his rifle, he asked to serve in the Pay Corps but was told he was trying to dodge the column as he he said to my Nan just before he was sent of to war. She always said that the Government killed Charlie not the Germans.

The glasses they would have been given I suspect would leave much to be desired. For those severely short-sighted, they would have had lenses like jam jar bottoms. As my daughter has this problem, I know the lenses (if not using modern day thin/light variety) are very heavy and the glasses tend to slide down the nose when the individual is hot and bothered etc. Unless they fastened behind the ears with curly loops, the wearer would be constantly pushing them back into place to see. The likes of Charles and Andrew would probably have little chance of being able to see properly in the trenches.

[seaforths]

I'm still trying to get my head fully around the gratuities for 'split' periods - if only they'd left the instruction manual !.

So, we're pretty much as certain as we can be on the first period of service and, for the second period, the minimum he served was 29 June 16 to 22 Feb 17.

As earlier, the gratuity gives us the 14 or 15 months to fit within the periods of service*- of which roughly 5 months is taken up in the first period, leaving us 9/10 months to fill.

June 16 to Feb 17 gives us 9 months qualifying service which would fit with the period of service so I'd say his second period began in June 16 at the latest (possibly could be pushed back to May 16).

One thing that I was thinking about is the Jan 16 date from the surrounding numbers - this would be before the MSA kicked in so they would have to be volunteers (most likely Derby men based on the earlier post). The Jan 16 date would be within a few days of the date his group would have been called, if he was a Derby Man then, if I remember correctly, he could apply for an exemption only once he had received notice of call-up. Perhaps he applied for an exemption and was granted it for a few months from Jan 16 - Jun 16?. Having had some previous experience he was probably shifted on quite quickly once he actually re-joined.

Does the will give any idea where he was when he filled it in ?

Craig

* due to quirk of the the way the calculated the gratuity it may be stretched in to the 15th month of service - always a maximum of +1 month (never less) than the amount calculated from the gratuity amount.

Ignore my late night ramblings - can't add up for toffee thickie

I've now had chance to get onto FMP and go through the service records that IPT kindly posted earlier. The records of Peter Pritchard and James Haldane were not so fruitful as both went to France as 9th Seaforth. Peter Pritchard's training was significantly delayed due to appendicitis and he transferred to Army Pay Corps shortly after arriving in France. James Haldane was badly wounded in 1917 with GSW to face & scalp and the poor chap lost his right eye. Percy Smith however, was much more promising.

S/12376 PERCY SMITH.

Attest: 18th November 1915. St Pancras.

To Reserve: 19th November 1915.

Mobilised: 21st January 1916.

Posted Training: 29th January 1916 to 1st Seaforth and undated entry states he passed classes of instruction for 'EF Persian Gulf'.

Posted: 1st July 1916.

Posted: Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force 31st July 1916.

According to Army Form B103 pt.1. His service was reckonable from mobilisation date (21st January 1915).

His movements after training (the entries have not been made chronologically on his record but I have put them into some semblance of order by the dates entered:

Embarked Devonport 30th June 1916

Disembarked Bombay 23rd July 1916

Embarked Basrah 9th September 191

Disembarked Basrah 16th September 1916

Joined the 1st Bn. in the field 2nd October 1916

Wounded in action: 19th November 1916.

He doesn't seem to regain his fitness to fight again from slight scalp wound and neurasthenia. He possibly is suffering more from the latter and he was transferred to RE/WR finally discharged in 1920. His service was calculated as follows:

Also interesting from the records of these men was that they seemed to have tightened up the medical examination which required more than just a signature from a doctor with height/chest measurements etc. as all that seemed to be apparent from Andrew's original records. There were separate medical sheets that recorded vision in both eyes. I am beginning to wonder whether Andrew declared his former service when he enlisted the second time...in his naivety, he might not have realised that it would have a financial impact later.

Edit: typo corrected.

[ss002d6252]

Ignore my late night ramblings - can't add up for toffee thickie

I've now had chance to get onto FMP and go through the service records that IPT kindly posted earlier. The records of Peter Pritchard and James Haldane were not so fruitful as both went to France as 9th Seaforth. Peter Pritchard's training was significantly delayed due to appendicitis and he transferred to Army Pay Corps shortly after arriving in France. James Haldane was badly wounded in 1917 with GSW to face & scalp and the poor chap lost his right eye. Percy Smith however, was much more promising.

S/12376 PERCY SMITH.

Attest: 18th November 1915. St Pancras.

To Reserve: 19th November 1915.

Mobilised: 21st January 1916.

Posted Training: 29th January 1916 to 1st Seaforth and undated entry states he passed classes of instruction for 'EF Persian Gulf'.

Posted: 1st July 1916.

Posted: Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force 31st July 1916.

According to Army Form B103 pt.1. His service was reckonable from mobilisation date (21st January 1915).

His movements after training (the entries have not been made chronologically on his record but I have put them into some semblance of order by the dates entered:

Embarked Devonport 30th June 1916

Disembarked Bombay 23rd July 1916

Embarked Basrah 9th September 191

Disembarked Basrah 16th September 1916

Joined the 1st Bn. in the field 2nd October 1916

Wounded in action: 19th November 1916.

He doesn't seem to regain his fitness to fight again from slight scalp wound and neurasthenia. He possibly is suffering more from the latter and he was transferred to RE/WR finally discharged in 1920. His service was calculated as follows:

Smith service.JPG

Also interesting from the records of these men was that they seemed to have tightened up the medical examination which required more than just a signature from a doctor with height/chest measurements etc. as all that seemed to be apparent from Andrew's original records. There were separate medical sheets that recorded vision in both eyes. I am beginning to wonder whether Andrew declared his former service when he enlisted the second time...in his naivety, he might not have realised that it would have a financial impact later.

Edit: typo corrected.

You may have hit the nail on the head. HIs gratuity would work out spot on if his first period of service had not been included (especially if he hadn't declared the service and they didn't link the two periods).

It's something I've thought about in the past but I've not yet seen it, for obvious reasons. This could well be the first example.

Craig

[seaforths]

You may have hit the nail on the head. HIs gratuity would work out spot on if his first period of service had not been included (especially if he hadn't declared the service and they didn't link the two periods).

It's something I've thought about in the past but I've not yet seen it, for obvious reasons. This could well be the first example.

Craig

I think you're right and examples would be difficult to find. That so many service records were lost makes the chances of these cases being found even slimmer. Also, if I had found a service record for him under S/12379, would I have looked for another record? Probably not. There is a touch of irony here too. I was browsing through looking for service records and in the right hand margin area, there are hyperlinks to other records you might be interested in and one of these was to an A Lorimer or Andrew Lorimer in pension records. I didn't bother initially because I knew he had been killed and would not be applying for a pension. In the absence of finding anything else, I went back over and found the hyperlink again and quickly downloaded 4 pages without looking closely at what I was doing. It wasn't until later that evening when I returned to the files, I found it was actually a few pages of a service record. The single page of soldiers' effects only gave his father's name as John and no address to match up with the service record. I looked for and found his will and pulled down the census records for 1911 and with those two, it clearly evidenced the home address as being the same as the service record.

As to why he would not have admitted previous service - we will never know. I guess if they saw the answer on his papers for the previous service question as being 'no' on the paperwork, they would accept it without checking or following it up. Perhaps he thought that if he admitted previous service, he would have to admit why he was discharged and didn't want to scupper his chances a second time. Maybe after being rejected, he did manage to get some spectacles to correct his vision. Sometimes, I've noticed this in other cases, it's almost like when you are looking for them, they want to be found - which sounds odd because I don't believe in ghosts/hauntings etc. so probably more relative to the choices you make when looking for them really

[trajan]

Seaforths,

Silly me forgot to click 'follow' for this thread and so thanks to work issues leaving no time to browse, I missed these more recent postings. Thanks! And I have posted a link to this thread over at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=52929&page=26, no:648.

Julian