Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Lieutenant, The Queen's (Royal West Surrey Regiment)


laughton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thank you for responding so quickly. The map I am interested in is the 2nd one in comment #5, the yellow map which has the blue boxes on it and the word remain. 

 

I googled UKNA and all it came up with was UK Narcotics Anonymous!

 

Also thank you for the pointer to the 124 Brigade war diaries. I have downloaded them and they are very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

 

@Kev R

First phase of success!

Quote

Dear Mr Laughton,

 

I’m very pleased to be able to tell you that we have completed the CWGC review of your Identification Case 365 for Lieutenant Alfred Eaves. We believe your submission has merit and have sent it to the Service Authorities for further investigation. Subject to that assessment they will then go to the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Center for final adjudication.

 

It has taken a considerable time for us to complete the initial review for this case but I hope you are pleased with the positive news. I would like to thank you for your continued patience as we deal with the impact of the very significant increase in our case work over the past few years. We are increasing the number of staff in the Commemorations team which I hope will result in a reduction in the time it takes for cases to be resolved.

 

Thank you for your support of the work of the CWGC and for your dedicated efforts to ensure that every casualty is correctly commemorated.

 

With kind regards

 

Mel

Mel Donnelly

Commemorations Policy Manager

Commemorations
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
2 Marlow Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 7DX United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1628 634221   Website: www.cwgc.org
 
This e-mail and any attachments to it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed in it are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail you must not take any action based on its content nor copy or show it to anyone. Instead please contact the sender if you believe you have received this e-mail in error.

 

Edited by laughton
#Kev R added nope @ Kev R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Richard and all involved in these posts in the matter at hand. 

 

I hope to submit my second case, in the next couple of weeks.  

 

One thing, I’m not happy about that the CWGC call the National Army Museum, a ‘Service Authorities’ 

 

just a little moan but again well done to all

 

jamie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Sorry Mark, no additional details at this time.

 

On Pluto, where the Review Agencies are stationed, the "speed of light" is much slower than here on earth.

 

They are working on the cases as Captain Clay was recently approved. As for my Canadian cases, they were sent to the bottom of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to hear they are working on things. Gravity is an issue up there too!

 

Sorry to hear about the Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

A response has been received from the MoD, regarding this search, unfortunately the wished-for outcome has not occurred. Their research indicates the possibility of 'a further 12 candidates for this grave in addition to Lieutenant Eaves.'

 

The response letter is attached.

 

MOD - Eaves.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  A curious response.

 

2 points- one for, one anti:

 

1)  There is nothing at all for the Eaves candidate to say that he was identified as QRWS Lt by  officer kit or badges/buttons-  only that there was a cross.  I cannot see that noting similarities of badge between various London regiments does anything than distract from the issue that this man was partly identified from grave marker.

    Similarity of badges between different regiments seems to be a red herring.  There is also nothing at all to suggest the other unknown officer candidate was from a group of London regiments, rather than from a whole galaxy of regiments that were slaughtered at much the same place.

 

2) A case against it being Eaves is what happened to other burials of the 10 QRWS at that time.  There are burials for 3 men between 3-10 October and all are now at the A.I.F. cemetery at Flers. One is before the 7th,one after.  Why should not Eaves have been buried with these men?  The newspaper report attached by Richard Laughton (God rest) is quite specific :

 

image.png.05d6e41e693793fbb165939468f32fa0.png

 

Does this mean that IF (and it is only IF)  the grave marker put up by whoever buried this man got the wrong regiment?  If the marker was from the burial described, then would the regiment have been wrong?  Unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 21/12/2020 at 15:08, voltaire60 said:

  A curious response.

 

2 points- one for, one anti:

 

1)  There is nothing at all for the Eaves candidate to say that he was identified as QRWS Lt by  officer kit or badges/buttons-  only that there was a cross.  I cannot see that noting similarities of badge between various London regiments does anything than distract from the issue that this man was partly identified from grave marker.

    Similarity of badges between different regiments seems to be a red herring.  There is also nothing at all to suggest the other unknown officer candidate was from a group of London regiments, rather than from a whole galaxy of regiments that were slaughtered at much the same place.

 

2) A case against it being Eaves is what happened to other burials of the 10 QRWS at that time.  There are burials for 3 men between 3-10 October and all are now at the A.I.F. cemetery at Flers. One is before the 7th,one after.  Why should not Eaves have been buried with these men?  The newspaper report attached by Richard Laughton (God rest) is quite specific :

 

image.png.05d6e41e693793fbb165939468f32fa0.png

 

Does this mean that IF (and it is only IF)  the grave marker put up by whoever buried this man got the wrong regiment?  If the marker was from the burial described, then would the regiment have been wrong?  Unlikely. 

 

Taken on board and will be considered, I shall attempt to contact both the Surrey Infantry Museum (if I have the title correct) and the Surrey History Centre to determine if they have any information which will assist.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since my last update, a response was sent to CWGC requesting further information on the twelve further candidates who may be interred in the grave in question. There has been an excellent response from them providing further information and a list of these twelve candidates.

The response stated:

These are missing Officers of 22nd (County of London) Battalion (The Queens) and 24th (County of London) Battalion (The Queens), who wore the same cap badge as The Queen’s (Royal West Surrey Regiment), Officers of 21st (County of London) Battalion (First Surrey Rifles) and The East Surrey Regiment, as well as an Officer of 3rd Battalion, The Queen’s (Royal West Surrey Regiment) who was attached to another battalion.”

The list given consists of 2 x 21 21st (County of London) Battalion (First Surrey Rifles), 2 x 22nd (County of London) Battalion (The Queens), 3 x 24th (County of London) Battalion (The Queens) and 5 members of The East Surrey Regiment. The allocation of an Officer of 3rd Battalion, The Queen’s (Royal West Surrey Regiment) is incorrect, as this man was of the 3rd East Surrey Regiment, and would not have been wearing a cap badge, nor any other of similarity to the Paschal Lamb of The Queen’s (Royal West Surrey Regiment).

 

The list is:

Surname

Name

DoD

Rank

Btn.

Hotchkin

Lambert Annesley

8/10/1916

2/Lt

21st London

McCourt

Cyril Douglas

8/10/1916

2/Lt

21st London

Beaumont-Edmonds

William George

17/9/1916

2/Lt

22nd London

Blofeld MC

Dudley

8/10/1916

2/Lt

22nd London

Fuller

Leslie Thomas Easterbrook

18/9/1916

2/Lt

24th London

Wheater

Sidney

15/9/1916

Capt.

24th London

Livermore

Ernest Bernard

15/9/1916

2/Lt

24th London

Gibbons

Percy James

7/10/1916

2/Lt

3rd E Surrey att. 11th W Kent

Davis

Cyril York

15/9/1916

Capt.

12th E Surrey

Buckman

James Leslie

15/9/1916

Capt.

12th E Surrey

Chesters

John Richards

15/9/1916

Lt

12th E Surrey

Fox

Cecil Crocker

15/9/1916

Lt

12th E Surrey

 

The response goes on to further suggest that the CWGC believe that there are three definite candidates for the remains interred at the site we have been claiming to be the burial spot of Lieutenant Eaves: including Lieutenant Eaves they are “Second Lieutenants Blofeld and Gibbons remain strong candidates as they could both have been wearing the cap badge as The Queen’s (Royal West Surrey Regiment).”

As noted above, Gibbons was a member of the 3rd East Surreys, Casualty Details | CWGC.

 

So, now we are heading back to look at the records available to us to see if we can identify which of these candidates is the most likely and to see if we can supply sufficient information to the satisfaction of the CWGC, regardless of who that candidate is.

 

I hope this was not too much of a ramble.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...