slick63 Posted 19 July , 2017 Share Posted 19 July , 2017 I came across this earlier, the ladies name was only added earlier this year but now it seems that officialdom has ordered it removed. Seems extremely petty to me .... Heroine's name must be removed from war memorial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaySearching Posted 19 July , 2017 Share Posted 19 July , 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin kenf48 Posted 19 July , 2017 Admin Share Posted 19 July , 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david murdoch Posted 19 July , 2017 Share Posted 19 July , 2017 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 19 July , 2017 Share Posted 19 July , 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 19 July , 2017 Share Posted 19 July , 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Strawbridge Posted 20 July , 2017 Share Posted 20 July , 2017 (edited) 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 20 July , 2017 by Jim Strawbridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 20 July , 2017 Share Posted 20 July , 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick63 Posted 21 July , 2017 Author Share Posted 21 July , 2017 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/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaySearching Posted 21 July , 2017 Share Posted 21 July , 2017 On 22/07/2017 at 03:19, 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 (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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 21 July , 2017 Share Posted 21 July , 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 21 July , 2017 Share Posted 21 July , 2017 I'd also query the CWGC headstone which has "RASC" when the "R" bit wasn't added until 1919. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 21 July , 2017 Share Posted 21 July , 2017 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??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenchesintrenches Posted 26 February , 2020 Share Posted 26 February , 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 27 February , 2020 Share Posted 27 February , 2020 Thank you wenchesintrenches. Just a reminder of what the headstone looked like in 2017: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisonmallen62 Posted 28 February , 2020 Share Posted 28 February , 2020 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 28 February , 2020 Share Posted 28 February , 2020 9 minutes ago, Alisonmallen62 said: Out of interest were solicitors all male back then? Yes. Until 1920 apparantely. https://first100years.org.uk/digital-museum/timeline/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisonmallen62 Posted 28 February , 2020 Share Posted 28 February , 2020 (edited) 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 28 February , 2020 by Alisonmallen62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyne Posted 22 June , 2023 Share Posted 22 June , 2023 Good afternoon. Do we know the status of this discussion? The last developments seem to have taken place before the world was closed due to Covid... has the name been replaced and given a better place? Has it been changed. I'm going through the research on the women buried in Wimereux right now and was wondering where we stand. Thanks, M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 24 June , 2023 Share Posted 24 June , 2023 (edited) On 21/07/2017 at 20:36, Steven Broomfield said: I'd also query the CWGC headstone which has "RASC" when the "R" bit wasn't added until 1919. Late November 19i8 iirc. Her current online commemoration in 2023 is as Army Service Corps (Canteens). On 21/07/2017 at 20:56, Guest said: 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??? ??? I believe, though struggle to find my source, that the CWGC are intending in the future to change such unit designations to those that were pertinent at the date of death - so when many headstones are going/need to be replaced, thus many RASC will return to ASC, RAOC to AOC and RAVC to AVC - as will a number of RAF to RFC. The thread saga is a sad one - I will follow with interest - I hope it has been resolved so as to commemorate the service of a young woman of only 19 years at death. M Edited 2 July , 2023 by Matlock1418 typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airshipped Posted 25 June , 2023 Share Posted 25 June , 2023 Just on the 'Kitty' name, I suspect that the objector might have jumped to the wrong conclusions? I can certainly recall a George Bernard Shaw play of the 1890s in which the name 'Kitty' was synonymous with 'prostitute'. Perhaps the objector was just confused?, e.g. although Captain Walter Raleigh Trevelyan wouldn't necessarily have used 'Kitty' it is almost certain that whatever time the family briefly spent in Ireland it would have been a standard enough diminutive version of 'Catherine' and without negative connotations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyne Posted 1 July , 2023 Share Posted 1 July , 2023 On 25/06/2023 at 22:06, Airshipped said: e.g. although Captain Walter Raleigh Trevelyan wouldn't necessarily have used 'Kitty' it is almost certain that whatever time the family briefly spent in Ireland ... interesting fact; Kitty's father (I guess it's him... or am I completely a coté de la plaque??) died on 19/4/1916, aged 53, also in the A.S.C. and lies at Putney Vale Cemetery. Kitty then enlisted AFTER his death... one wonders if the one has to do something with the other ... M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyne Posted 1 July , 2023 Share Posted 1 July , 2023 On 22/06/2023 at 13:57, Marilyne said: has the name been replaced and given a better place? Has it been changed. I I guess I have my answer: This picture can be found on https://www.warmemorialsonline.org.uk/memorial/223639/ and was taken in 2022 !! M. 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