Alan24 Posted 22 July , 2016 Share Posted 22 July , 2016 Looking thro' some GRU records of Hampshire men who fell, came across this (image attached). Is this not clear that the unknown soldier is William Petty? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 22 July , 2016 Share Posted 22 July , 2016 The document implies if I am reading it correctly that the fork spoon and razor found were stamped with Petty's number. Having said that I was given a fork by a lady who said it was her Father's and he brought it back when wounded and discharged - only it wasn't his, but another member of the Battalion. Had he nicked it, borrowed it and failed to return it, had it by mistake, we will never know. On a single item used for identification it may be considered risky, but three items should be a safe bet. The panel above is incorrect as Cross Street is in Elmfield not Eastfield, no such district of Ryde. Also William's name will be read out during the September meeting of the IW Branch, Royal Hampshire Regiment Comrades Assoc. When I get back later I will have a look in our archive see if there is anything on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 22 July , 2016 Share Posted 22 July , 2016 All I have found was that he worked for St Helen's District Council (I.W.) leaving one child without a father. No published letters home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 22 July , 2016 Author Share Posted 22 July , 2016 Thanks T8, There are in fact 2 other 1st hants in Thiepval identified by their spoons. Look up the following on CWGC. 23498 Vinall & 14170 Morris - both KIA 23/10/1916 map ref 57c.T5.d. It seems odd that given the same evidence (on face value) Petty is not also indentified. The reason is was looking at this is that I have a relative KIA on 23/10/16 with 1st Hants at 57c.T5.d (Boritska Trench) and I have a hunch that many of the 82 killed that day lie amungst the 239 unidentified at Thiepval, possibly my relative too. Only 5 of that 82 have known graves and the area seems to have been cleared in 1931/2 with most going to Thiepval in 1932. Research still ongoing. I had always thought Thiepval was a huge cemetery but found this week it only contains 300 British soldiers, 239 of them unidentified and the cemetery was not created until 1932. Petty was found elsewhere and not one of those from 23/10/16 - he was 15th Btn anyway. Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Thompson Posted 22 July , 2016 Share Posted 22 July , 2016 Alan, I would say that there is no harm in drawing this to the attention of the CWGC Commemorations Team for their view. The map reference where the body was found correlates with him being a 15 September 1916 fatality when 15th Hants took part in the attack on Flers. I believe that the headstone is currently identified as A Soldier of the Great War Hampshire Regiment. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 12 August , 2016 Share Posted 12 August , 2016 There are three (3) other "known" from the Hampshire Regiment buried in that cemetery, all KIA on 23 October 1916 so can you say that the Regiment was in the same area a month earlier? These men were concentrated from: Thomas Morris 14170 @ 57c.T.5.d.05.85 William Henry Boyes 20324 @ 57c.T.5.d.07.79 Douglas Stewart Vinall 23498 @ 57c.T.5.d.05.90 Your man was at 57c.S.12.a.7.7 so did the Regiment move 5,000 yards east from 15 September 1916 to 23 October 1916. CWGC likes you to place him in the correct location at the time he was killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 13 August , 2016 Author Share Posted 13 August , 2016 Laughton, WJ Petty was 15th Battalion, not 1st, so the projected move you ask is not really going to have happened. The 3 men you show were all 1st Battalion killed 23/10/16 in the attack on Boritska Trench. 2 of them only idenified by spoons/forks presumably kept in their putties. This is why I'm surprised that this man was not also identified by his personal equipment. We know he's 'Unknown Hampshire' that's for sure in the docs and Marc has confirmed the headstone. 1st Battalion were not to return to the Somme until 16th/17th Sept. having been in Ypres area following their decimation on 1st July on the Somme. Haven't downloaded the 15th Btn WD but believe they were in the Somme area on 15/09/16. Currently drafting out a letter to CWGC, but you're right, I should get a map ref for the 15th and include that. Thanks for the tip. Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 13 August , 2016 Share Posted 13 August , 2016 Good point and why Canadian's should not dabble with British Regiments! Our regiments remained in the Militia and did not serve. My apologies for not spending more time to sort out the battalions in the regiments - I am learning the British way. But that answers the question as a random pick for Serjeant Over at Guards Cemetery Lesboeufs was at 57c.S.6.d.3.2 on 15 September 1916, so they were in the immediate area. That answers that question. I hope I got it correct this time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Evans Posted 13 August , 2016 Share Posted 13 August , 2016 Alan, For some narrative, it is also worth looking at the 11th Royal West Kent history, as they followed in the second wave, directly behind the 15th Hants on the 15th September. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 5 September , 2016 Author Share Posted 5 September , 2016 On 8/12/2016 at 21:10, laughton said: Your man was at 57c.S.12.a.7.7 ... CWGC likes you to place him in the correct location at the time he was killed. I have now looked at the diaries for 15th Hants and 122 IB. The 122 IB diary includes an excellent map showing the map ref above is bang on for the assembly area for 15th Hants (green shaded) for their attack on the first objective (green line) which is basically Switch Trench/Switch Line. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 5 September , 2016 Share Posted 5 September , 2016 Looks like you have your man! Here is a map showing the trenches and the location of the 2 men mentioned in the posts above. Your map and the second man's location should convince the CWGC of your find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Evans Posted 5 September , 2016 Share Posted 5 September , 2016 If I remember correctly, the 11th RWK suffered heavy bombardment whilst at the assembly point. (see my post #9) Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 5 September , 2016 Author Share Posted 5 September , 2016 Thanks Phil, that's interesting. The 122 IB diary has a quite good account of the day's action which I'll get through reading in the next couple of days. what we'll never know is if Petty was killed before he even left the assembly area or was recovered and buried by his comrades, although given that he still had a number of personal effects on him I would lean towards the former. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaySearching Posted 5 September , 2016 Share Posted 5 September , 2016 Bio and family stone HERE Regards Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 13 March , 2017 Author Share Posted 13 March , 2017 The goods news is that having written to CWGC, they have now given this item a case number. The bad news is that they want the information formatted in a more formal way. Hopefully this is just a presentation issue. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Thompson Posted 13 April , 2017 Share Posted 13 April , 2017 Alan, This sounds encouraging news in so far as the CWGC Commemorations Team will look at the evidence presented. Don't be surprised if this case takes 6 months or more to reach a conclusion as the Commemorations Team no doubt have a high volume of applications for new commemoration and amendments that they are processing. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrenchrat22 Posted 15 April , 2017 Share Posted 15 April , 2017 Came across this morning when looking at Serre Road Cemetery No2. That Pte Thomas Earlam was identified by his Fork and spoon. When the other man found in the same area, was not identified by his fork but he is Soldier from the Cheshire Regiment as CH = Cheshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 8 June , 2017 Author Share Posted 8 June , 2017 Looks like we've come to the end of the road on this one. Response from CWGC today. I am writing further to our correspondence regarding the commemoration of Private William James Petty, 18030, of The Hampshire Regiment and your research behind the identification of grave I.B.9. within Thiepval Anglo-French Cemetery, France. Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided and the Commission’s own records, it will not be possible to change the current arrangements of commemoration in this instance. Consulting the Commission’s concentration documents, in particular the Burial Return, there is a clear indication of a subsequent investigation by the Graves Registration Units referenced: ‘EF/X/27017’. As a result of this investigation, the grave was registered as that of an Unknown British Solider of The Hampshire Regiment. No association to any soldier with the number 18030 was therefore determined for the burial. These investigations, in conjunction with exhumation and concentration of the remains, resulted in Private Petty being allocated to the Thiepval Memorial and importantly the remains within I.B.9. were recorded as an unidentified British Soldier. Unfortunately these investigative files no longer survive within the Commission’s archive and so cannot be fully consulted for reference purposes. As such, we would not wish to second guess the findings of those who made these original arrangements for commemoration. They would have had a far greater understanding of the circumstances and so will have made an informed decision at this stage. I can, of course, appreciate that this email may come as a disappointment to you but please be assured that the Commission will continue to commemorate Private Petty upon the Thiepval Memorial in perpetuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrenchrat22 Posted 9 June , 2017 Share Posted 9 June , 2017 Alan im sorry that it wasn't the reply you were hoping for you. I would ask for the case to be reviewed by a fresh set of eyes as I believe that you can do that. A case I sent to the CWGC in 2014 was rejected and basically they used the same wording in the their reply to me. Richard who has replied in posts 6 8 and 11 has a research group looking at unknown Canadians and looking through the COB forms on their website, I have noticed a couple of cases where a soldier was buired in a groundsheet with just a number and some initials; a damaged disc with a number and Regt on it; a Sgt with a number in his boots, all are unknowns but some basic research has come up with one name that matches the details in question. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 9 June , 2017 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2017 Alan Looks like a standard reply as I had the same email earlier in the week on a different case which you can read on this thread. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 10 June , 2017 Share Posted 10 June , 2017 On 6/8/2017 at 15:39, Alan24 said: They would have had a far greater understanding of the circumstances and so will have made an informed decision at this stage. Unfortunate that they have come to that decision, particularly the point noted above. They could apply that same clause to a great number of reports that are before them from our group. What we do know from the COG-BR when consulting the CWGC Glossary was that he was buried in a coffin ("FF") and that there was a file reference with the starting code "EF/X", which clearly means that the "Effects" were examined and catalogued. If you look at the rest of the COG-BR page you will see that all those that had any effects have and EF/X file number. Note at the top of that column it clearly says "Were any effects forwarded to Base?". No where does it say that an investigation was completed and a report was completed. In the case of Tullett, the number was close (11263) versus the correct number (11265), which was also on a spoon. It was your man that had the "Watch & Chain" as well. In the case of the UNKNOWN Officer at the bottom of the page, there was a SPECIAL EXHUMATION REPORT that is much different than sending in effects. NOte also they accepted Hughes on the basis of the #4936 stamped on a piece of a boot. I would challenge this decision. The IWGC clearly missed something simple and now the CWGC is missing it again. Can you share your report? In essence this is like British Case Law and that will be applied to all cases, in the UK and here in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 10 June , 2017 Author Share Posted 10 June , 2017 8 hours ago, laughton said: I would challenge this decision. The IWGC clearly missed something simple and now the CWGC is missing it again. Can you share your report? I don't like to be critical of the CWGC but I am thinking the same. Something was overlooked in 1931 and an opportunity has been missed again. With so many documents online these days and groups like the GWF connections can be made that were less obvious years ago. I think the term is 'crowd searching' or something similar. If you PM me I'll send you the full submission. It's about 5mb in pdf format. regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrenchrat22 Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 Alan, what was the date of your submission to CWGC in this case and the actual date of their reply. The reason I'm asking is that I submitted a case on the 27th January 2017 and thier reply acknowledging the submission was dated 1st February 2017. i'm still waiting for a reply to this letter and also a submission I made in August 2016. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan24 Posted 11 June , 2017 Author Share Posted 11 June , 2017 3 hours ago, thetrenchrat22 said: Alan, what was the date of your submission to CWGC in this case and the actual date of their reply. The reason I'm asking is that I submitted a case on the 27th January 2017 and thier reply acknowledging the submission was dated 1st February 2017. i'm still waiting for a reply to this letter and also a submission I made in August 2016. Alan Alan, It was quite a quick turnaround. I had previously sent them a letter last October but they required it to be a more formal submission in line with a guidance document which they sent me. The re-submission was emailed 4th May and you receive an automated email to acknowledge. I had an email on 11th May saying it had been allocated a case number. The final response, posted above, came on 8th June. The other submission I made regarding Pte. Parkins of the Queen's Regiment didn't get any response initially but having had my letter for Petty rejected I decided to resubmit that too as per the guidance document. That was issued by email on 24th May and I had no response until I received their judgement on 6th June, which was word for word the same as for the Petty case. Regards Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughton Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 Who sent the CWGC response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now