Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Sign in to follow this  
slick63

Kitty Trevelyan name to be removed from memorial

Recommended Posts

RaySearching

Just a small query

If Kitty died on the 27th Feb 1917 

Why is the date 11th Nov 1920 inscribed on the memorial above her name

 

Or is that the date the memorial was unveiled 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenf48

According to this research http://www.westdartmoor.church/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MEAVY-WAR-MEMORIAL.pdf

the memorial was unveiled in 1920.  It was probably this work which led to her name being added to the memorial.

 

It may be a minority view but I have reservations as to later additions to war memorials as discussed here on many occasions, but once it's been executed seems a bit irrational to remove it.

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
david murdoch

On the 1911 Census she's Kitty Trevelyan - so that's her correct using name from the time. CWGC have her full name as Amorel Kitty Trevelyan, and also Army Service Corps (Canteens) rather than VAD. Sounds petty indeed what is going on, seeing as she's buried in a foreign field in a CWG cemetery but retrospective adding of names can be a touchy subject.

On my home town war memorial they added some years ago the name of a local lad died Northern Ireland (Para killed at Warren Point) this caused major uproar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

I'm not sure that all the relevant facts are available here.

the article mentions that :

 

"Burrator Parish Council was asked by the National Park planning authority to seek retrospective planning permission on behalf of the charity (Wenches in Trencyhes)  for the addition of Miss Trevelyan's name to the war memorial - but this met opposition from the War Memorials Trust which has offered to advise the parties involved on how best to record Kitty's name appropriately.

A local resident has also made an objection along the lines that the name was unlawfully added to the memorial without proper consent and wants it removed."

 

This all seems a bit odd.

 

The addition of the name has allegedly been opposed by:

 

1) "A local resident has also made an objection along the lines that the name was unlawfully added to the memorial without proper consent and wants it removed."

     It is also suggested that the use of the family name 'Kitty' is inappropriate and the full name Armorel Trevelyan should be used."

 

2) The War Memorials Trust.  The article gives some suggestions by this trust as to how best to remember her name, but doesn't actually say why they object to the name being      added.

 

3) Dartmoor National Park Authority. The parish council reportedly state "The Dartmoor National Park authority is insisting that the lettering should be removed as it is unauthorised." 

 

 

The War Memorials Trust. publication: http://www.warmemorials.org/uploads/publications/115.pdf

 gives helpful advice about how to go about adding a name to an established memorial. It doesn't seem as though they have a policy of opposing all name additions. They explain that  the War Memorials (Local Authorities’ Powers) Act of 1923 and subsequent amendments allow a local authority to add names (or conflicts) to a war memorial within its area whether it ‘owns’ it or not. Presumably Burrator Parish Council has this power, has excercised it, (without obtaining planning permission from the planning authority-the National Park) and finds that its request for retrospective planning permission to add the name has been refused.

 

Is this just a planning issue? Is there something wrong with the style or font of the inscription, or has it just been done badly?

 

Let's face it, the prima facie case is that her name deserves to be on the memorial, she's recorded as a CWGC casualty and is already commemorated by a CWGC headstone in Wimereux CWGC cemetery.

 

I suspect there's more to this story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voltaire60

    Meavy is in my home area and I know it well. I am disappointed that Burrator Parish Council has taken such a stance-the more so as the area was used by Spielberg for "War Horse" (OK, Broomfield- stop chocking and frothing at the mouth). The WMT reference to th 1923 Act should be sufficient to tell the park authority to take a running jump. The war memorial is close to the "Royal Oak" which used, by some fluke of history, to belong to the parish council- perhaps a few pints and a good chin-wag about this absurdity will reverse this stupidity.

     By the way, if those interested in necrology are in the area, it also has the graves of the 3 "White Rajahs" of Sarawak- James,Charles and Charles Viner Brooke- the fact that James Brooke left the steaming heat of Borneo for a home helping of cold,wind and drizzle should not be lost on the visitor -especially on a cold and blustery Autumn day. A walk round Burrator reservoir on a summer's day would cheer up if the most miserable of souls....perhaps even those on the parish council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Strawbridge

I was at the unveiling ceremony in February of the memorial to which Kitty's name had been added. Sue Robinson, of the Wenches in Trenches Group, was instrumental in the adding of Kitty's name and the whole ceremony was dignified and formally conducted by the local vicar. Kitty's relatives were there and I am sure that the local councillors would have been invited. The additional naming is in keeping with the other names on the memorial and that should be the end of the matter. The War Memorials Trust should look closely as to why it exist. The  memorial has not been damaged in any way and only enhanced by adding Kitty's name to it.

Edited by Jim Strawbridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ss002d6252
27 minutes ago, Jim Strawbridge said:

I was at the unveiling ceremony in February of the memorial to which Kitty's name had been added. Sue Robinson, of the Wenches in Trenches Group, was instrumental in the adding of Kitty's name and the whole ceremony was dignified and formally conducted by the local vicar. Kitty's relatives were there and I am sure that the local councillors would have been invited. The additional naming is in keeping with the other names on the memorial and that should be the end of the matter. The War Memorials Trust should look closely as to why it exist. The  memorial has not been damaged in any way and only enhanced by adding Kitty's name to it.

Got to agree - what harm has been done ?  Adding names to existing memorials is far from unknown so have other additions elsewhere been protested over ?

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slick63

There`s an article in the Telegraph today. It seems that the two complaints from local residents amounted to....

1/ The name is a fictional one from the Crimson Field series, she was never called 'Kitty'. This is odd as the 1911 census lists her as 'Kitty' as David stated.

2/ The placing of the name is too close to the 1920 date already on the memorial. This does look like the date and name are together, they could have positioned the name differently. And apparently the name is in a different 'style' which presumably means font/case etc.

It does seem like the parish council gave the go ahead and charged for the service, without actually consulting the WMT or the national park. If so then I have sympathy for the ladies whose initial idea this was, it seems the parish council are the ones who should be remedying the situation, and at least one local resident should get their facts correct.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/debacle-addition-war-memorial-gets-villagers-twist/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaySearching
21 minutes ago, slick63 said:

There`s an article in the Telegraph today. It seems that the two complaints from local residents amounted to....

1/ The name is a fictional one from the Crimson Field series, she was never called 'Kitty'. This is odd as the 1911 census lists her as 'Kitty' as David stated.

2/ . This does look like the date and name are together, they could have positioned the name differently. And apparently the name is in a different 'style' which presumably means font/case etc.

 

(1)  There can be no dispute of the name Kitty, its inscribed on her headstone

 

suzanna_-5.jpg

 

(2) The placing of the name is too close to the 1920 date already on the memorial'

I agree could have been been better placed

Edited by RaySearching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
1 hour ago, RaySearching said:

 

(1)  There can be no dispute of the name Kitty, its inscribed on her headstone

 

(2) The placing of the name is too close to the 1920 date already on the memorial'

I agree could have been been better placed

 

1) Yep.
2) Yep. Actually a bit of a mess isn't it? Not very well done at all.

 

I think all parties need to get together and agree that her name deserves and qualifies to be on the memorial, but needs taking off and re-doing ...properly.

The cost isn't really the issue, but if the monumental mason inscribed the name in the style and place requested of him, then whoever signed off the work as satisfactory should have the first chance of paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven Broomfield

I'd also query the CWGC headstone which has "RASC" when the "R" bit wasn't added until 1919.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
voltaire60
19 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

I'd also query the CWGC headstone which has "RASC" when the "R" bit wasn't added until 1919.

 

    Steven- I feel sure there is a "vesting" date for  unit names of the Great War-  several units changed names during and just after the war- I think the vesting date may be the names of units as at the "official" end date for the war in 1921???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wenchesintrenches

It is 3 years today since Kitty's name was added to the memorial stone in Meavy village paid for by myself and others in our little band of women. I know the whole truth it it is thus.. all permissions were obtained and notices placed in the village and local newspapers for the required 30 days. Burator council gave written permission and it all went ahead. The day of the unveiling a very unpleasant woman approached me and said that she would be complaining as we hadnt consulted her. It appears that she was a solicitor who lives opposite the memorial. The other villagers told us that she objects to everything that happens in Meavy. As it happened she was right the Parish council had not obtained permission from Dartmoor national park for it to take place as the piece of granite is their property. All petty nasty in fighting so we walked away from it all in the comfortable knowledge that the young girl whose name was forgotten for 100 years was now in the minds of many many people. Her name is still there and as far as Im concerned its Job done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

Thank you wenchesintrenches.

Just a reminder of what the headstone looked like in 2017:

TELEMMGLPICT000135309064_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqNE839hEJA37f0f6ZmXi9ZFTLXgaEKEYcMxoxpjH2OWQ.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisonmallen62

The effort was made to remember with thanks her selfless effort in war.  How many would volunteer nowadays and in such dire conditions?  It seems to me that to complain about sticking to procedure basically is petty but demonstrates the privilege of freedom to sit and safely criticise others.  A freedom fought for in both world wars and Kitty was part of that.   Out of interest were solicitors all male back then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisonmallen62

Yes thought so thank you and of course to those who fought for change for females to practise whether through war or other means. 

Edited by Alisonmallen62

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...