Errors on War Memorials

[Phil Wood]

I have been researching the Newbury war memorial, which contains 339 WW1 names from a town of 12,000 or so.  More names than many, but not so huge.

 

As I near the end of my research I find I have a number of unidentifed names in terms of matching a name on the CWGC database with a name with Newbury associations.  I have come to the conclusion that a number of these are because those gathering names to put on the memorial did not do a particulary great job.  So I have:

 

C T Taylor and T L Taylor - who I believe to be Cecil Thomas Lake Taylor

F Westall and F Westall - I can only find one.

W E Giles and E Giles - the same chap I suspect.

A T Parsons and A Parsons - ditto

A R Rushent and A Rosier - I suspect these are Alan Rosier Rushent

C H Slade and S H Slade - the same chap?

 

Six errors in 339?  Is this credible? 

 

I assume that errors like this are far less likely in smaller communities, but wonder if other researchers of similar sized memorials found errors like this?

[John(txic)]

Very credible, Phil - standard error ratio, I'd suggest.

 

Of Dudley's 720 names, two are on there twice and 12 have eluded identification over a 5-year search.  And one consists of a surname only...

[gmac101]

I have researched 600 odd names on the Galashiels war memorial and “errors” are not uncommon.  Men often joined up under variations of their actual name. This may represent what they were actually called day to day or throw estranged wives off their trail.  A man may have been known by one variation of his name at work and another at home, families sometimes left town after the death of a son or husband and only his work mates remained in the town to put the name forward.  The various memorial committees had a quite a tricky job without access to the many registers we have available now. 

[Phil Wood]

10 minutes ago, John(txic) said:

Very credible, Phil - standard error ratio, I'd suggest.

 

Of Dudley's 720 names, two are on there twice and 12 have eluded identification over a 5-year search.  And one consists of a surname only...

 

The devil in me hopes the surname is Smith . . .

 

Thanks for the input!

[Phil Wood]

3 minutes ago, gmac101 said:

I have researched 600 odd names on the Galashiels war memorial and “errors” are not uncommon.  Men often joined up under variations of their actual name. This may represent what they were actually called day to day or throw estranged wives off their trail.  A man may have been known by one variation of his name at work and another at home, families sometimes left town after the death of a son or husband and only his work mates remained in the town to put the name forward.  The various memorial committees had a quite a tricky job without access to the many registers we have available now. 

 

I have no records of  the workings of the Newbury War Memorial Committee - but, reading between the lines, I get the feeling that checking qualification for the memorial was not high on the agenda.

[Phil Evans]

Perhaps not typical, but Lewisham Military Hospital Memorial has 9 mis-spelt surnames out of just under 120 entries.

There is one name that totally eludes me, despite the fact that I shouldn't need to look further than the GRO entries for Lewisham R.D. One I found was not on CWGC (he is now) and three still need working on.

 

Phil

[Andy Wade]

Similar rate for us in Keighley on errors. At least one man doesn't appear in any records we can find, and may be a duplicate entry..

 

Missing men is a wholly different matter though, as our research has almost doubled the original 904 names, using what we think are the same criteria, that is born, living or working in the town. We plan to create an accompanying roll of honour for these missing men after our submissions have been subject to peer review.

[MKC]

I've been looking at only 123 1st AIF on a memorial (initials and surname) in a small community where you would think everyone knew everyone else well enough that mistakes were avoided, but have noted:

(1) wrong surname spelling

(2) wrong first name initials

(3) wrong order of first name initials

(4) the use of the second first name as the initial: he was born John William, but everyone knew him as Will, hence 'W' instead of 'JW'. 

(5) several enlistees from that community, including the brother of one included on the memorial, who were not included for some unknown reason.

 

So I'm not surprised by the number of errors you have encountered in 339 names: six is a small number when working from people's memories even a year or two after the event.

 

Mike

 

 

[Phil Wood]

3 minutes ago, Phil Evans said:

Perhaps not typical, but Lewisham Military Hospital Memorial has 9 mis-spelt surnames out of just under 120 entries.

There is one name that totally eludes me, despite the fact that I shouldn't need to look further than the GRO entries for Lewisham R.D. One I found was not on CWGC (he is now) and three still need working on.

 

Phil

 

Mis-spelling is another issue - it didn't help that the Newbury memorial was refurbished in 1950, when the WWII names were added.  The original memorial had the names on stone tablets that had become badly weathered - leading to a number being mis-read and hence altered on the current bronze tablets.  In general these are clear - because copies of the 1922 unveiling order of service contained the names on the stone tablets.

 

As for men not in the CWGC data - I was contemplating another thread on that issue - I have 12 who are not commemorated, plus 3 I have had added to the CWGC database.  I have enough info to get one more accepted by the CWGC.  Of the remaining 11, two do not qualify (one working for an unrecognised organisation - Serbian Relief Fund, and the other died after the qualifying date).  The other 9 died after discharge in a manner that their relatives evidently was down to their service - proving this to the CWGC without their service records is a problem - perhaps the WFA pension records will help once available.

 

Finding 15 of 339 uncommemorated does seem a lot - and the names I have been unable to trace to date may well include more.

[Phil Wood]

3 minutes ago, MKC said:

I've been looking at only 123 1st AIF on a memorial (initials and surname) in a small community where you would think everyone knew everyone else well enough that mistakes were avoided, but have noted:

(1) wrong surname spelling

(2) wrong first name initials

(3) wrong order of first name initials

(4) the use of the second first name as the initial: he was born John William, but everyone knew him as Will, hence 'W' instead of 'JW'. 

(5) several enlistees from that community, including the brother of one included on the memorial, who were not included for some unknown reason.

 

So I'm not surprised by the number of errors you have encountered in 339 names: six is a small number when working from people's memories even a year or two after the event.

 

Mike

 

 

There are many more than six errors - the six possible double entries are the ones that are of most concern, but there are many more along the lines you suggest. Variable spelling and choice of initials are minor issues in comparison with the name being there twice.

 

I do have a C Fisher who may well be Edward Fisher - the problem here being that, like Andy, I have a list of men who appear to qualify for inclusion, but are, for unknown reasons, not on the memorial - Edward Fisher may be one of these while there is a Charles out there that I haven't found yet.

[thetrenchrat22]

The original Ellesmere Port and Whitby war memorial was made of sandstone and over the years the names had become faded. 

 

In the 70’s the local RBL wanted their own memorial to fit in the new civic centre shopping centre area being built at that time.

 

so the names on the new memorial is now 220 and on the original memorial was only 202 and they put metal panels over the names on the original memorial.  

 

Perry is now Terry and Nixon is now Nickson

[thetrenchrat22]

The memorial inside my village church appears the following.  

 

F H Cadwallader Ches Regt

 

A Colclough Ches Regt

 

F H Cadwallader Ches Regt in fact should be C H Cadwallader Royal Welsh Fusiliers 

 

A Colclough should read S Colclough 

[John_Hartley]

2 hours ago, Phil Wood said:

those gathering names to put on the memorial did not do a particulary great job

I think this is fair comment. Stockport's is a much larger memorial and there were significant numbers that I simply could not identify at the time (and have not subsequently looked for them). I am unsure exactly what the process was that was followed to collect names but, certainly, someone went back through the editions of the local newspaper to get names of those who died. It certainly led to naming errors - for example a man might have been commemorated on the "village" memorial where he lived under his full name or, more usually, initials  but was then also commemorated on the main town memorial, probably by workmates, under the name he was generally known by. I'd suggest that the most usual example is a man whose first name is that of his father but, because the father is still laive, the son is known by his middle name. So, for example, J M Hartley being commemorated on the village memorial and M Hartley on the town one. With common names, it leaves you with the uncertainty of knowing if you have one or two men comemorated.

 

The newspaper trawl certainly led to one name being included on the town memorial of a man who did not exist (the obituary was in an entirely wrong surname  and a second obituary was published a fortnight later)

[Phil Wood]

50 minutes ago, Andy Wade said:

Similar rate for us in Keighley on errors. At least one man doesn't appear in any records we can find, and may be a duplicate entry..

 

Missing men is a wholly different matter though, as our research has almost doubled the original 904 names, using what we think are the same criteria, that is born, living or working in the town. We plan to create an accompanying roll of honour for these missing men after our submissions have been subject to peer review.

 

I too have a list of unmemorialised casualties - not to the same extent, around 25% of the number on the memorial.  I find myself struggling to decide myself what qualifying criteria I would apply in assessing them for any additional memorialisation.  For instance a chap could be born in Newbury in 1885, leave it before 1886 - was he really a part of the community? There are certainly a couple on the memorial who never lived in the town, may never have been here - but their wives settled here and had them added to the memorial.

[Andy Wade]

Some of ours who weren't included are definitely because their parents had moved away before they started asking people to submit names. Some families seem to have died out altogether as he was their only son. Very sad to read... The Burgess rolls and 1911 Census have helped pin these down of course, along with SDGW's residence and enlistment details.

 

[rolt968]

I agree with everything said so far:

 

I have come across a number of mis-spellings: In one case the surname is mis-spelled although it appears correctly on the family gravestone in the same churchyard as the memorial.

(In another case the entry on a family gravestone very close to the war memorial has a different date and theatre of war. The family gravestone is wrong.)

 

I have a couple of cases of men who arrived in the area in 1913/1914 and had no relatives left in the area  by 1919 who do not appear on the memorial.

 

Memorial committees obviously had different rules of qualification. Two brothers who lived in kind of border area of two parishes appear on one war memorial, but only one on the other.

 

In some cases memorials put up very soon missed late deaths. I know of one man on the CWGC register buried in the local churchyard, but who does not appear on the war memorial.

 

RM

 

Edit: Initials are nightmare! I am not sure that any of the memorials I am working on are consistent about which initials appear. I also have a man who was Fred, so the committee seems to have assumed that he was Frederick and put "F". He was actually Alfred.

Edited 20 December , 2017 by rolt968

[GraemeClarke]

Hi,

 

When I started researching the Walsall War Memorial I kept a note of all the errors but gave up when the list got too long and time consuming.

 

The usual catalogue of misspellings, duplications (using own and step-fathers name etc.) and even a couple who were not killed !!!

 

I found nearly 300 men with a decent Walsall connection, ie born, enlisted and resided in, who are not on the memorial.

 

I still have a rather large list of names I just cannot identify, even after nearly 30 years and all the new indexes appearing.

 

Regards

 

Graeme

[fwwjournal]

In a Roll of Honour in a cathedral that I have researched I have found what I believe to be about 35 errors in 176 names.  One of the most common is 'spelling' errors in the soldier's initials - what should be the letter 'J' has quite often been engraved as 'F'.

 

David

[Andy Wade]

3 hours ago, Phil Wood said:

 

I too have a list of unmemorialised casualties - not to the same extent, around 25% of the number on the memorial.  I find myself struggling to decide myself what qualifying criteria I would apply in assessing them for any additional memorialisation.  For instance a chap could be born in Newbury in 1885, leave it before 1886 - was he really a part of the community? There are certainly a couple on the memorial who never lived in the town, may never have been here - but their wives settled here and had them added to the memorial.

 

Agreed, hence the peer review before we progress further with it.

We have men already on the original memorial who seem to have been born here but lived over 10 miles away for most of their lives. We also have men born far away and lived here for a similar time before enlisting. They were both accepted on the original list so it seems fair to apply the same criteria 100 years later. We've had more success simply because we have access to far more records than they did originally. Similar to your experience, we also look to have a couple of war widows who've managed to get their husband's name added to their main village memorial even though he had nothing to do with the village. But then who could refuse a war widow a request like that?
I've seen one set of war memorial committee notes from a local council but it didn't give their criteria for inclusion, but we've come to our conclusion on original criteria through detailed research and a degree of supposition. Once brought forward with these criteria it's going to be quite hard to remove a man's name, although if he is proven to be already commemorated elsewhere in a main town/village war memorial (not a church, school or company memorial) then we might be persuaded to remove him from our 'new memorial' list if it's deemed too tenuous. But he will still remain in our main database to show the evidence and decision making process. Tricky. But at least we're not contemplating altering a memorial, just producing a new book to sit alongside the original book. Not re-writing history, just complementing it. I think we can do no better than that and for those we fail with, at least we gave it our best shot.

[stiletto_33853]

Not sure about every memorial but the criteria locally was anyone that wanted a relation on the memorial so that they could remember them in the gardens was included. There are a few that never even stepped in the town but had a relation living here. One quite decorated, his parents moved here in 1915, is on the memorial, one Gordon Highlander similarly never been near the town but his sister had married a local and lived in the town.

 

Andy

[Phil Wood]

9 hours ago, Andy Wade said:

 

Agreed, hence the peer review before we progress further with it.

We have men already on the original memorial who seem to have been born here but lived over 10 miles away for most of their lives. We also have men born far away and lived here for a similar time before enlisting. They were both accepted on the original list so it seems fair to apply the same criteria 100 years later. We've had more success simply because we have access to far more records than they did originally. Similar to your experience, we also look to have a couple of war widows who've managed to get their husband's name added to their main village memorial even though he had nothing to do with the village. But then who could refuse a war widow a request like that?
I've seen one set of war memorial committee notes from a local council but it didn't give their criteria for inclusion, but we've come to our conclusion on original criteria through detailed research and a degree of supposition. Once brought forward with these criteria it's going to be quite hard to remove a man's name, although if he is proven to be already commemorated elsewhere in a main town/village war memorial (not a church, school or company memorial) then we might be persuaded to remove him from our 'new memorial' list if it's deemed too tenuous. But he will still remain in our main database to show the evidence and decision making process. Tricky. But at least we're not contemplating altering a memorial, just producing a new book to sit alongside the original book. Not re-writing history, just complementing it. I think we can do no better than that and for those we fail with, at least we gave it our best shot.

 

Peer review is a great idea - my touble is finding peers.  Numerous people are interested in what I am doing with my research, but there is a worrying tendency to defer to my opinion - exactly what I don't want.  I suspect I could get names added to the memorial if I pushed for it - with no checks.  It's great that people trust me to do a good job, but I don't I trust me to not make mistakes!

[Phil Wood]

9 hours ago, stiletto_33853 said:

Not sure about every memorial but the criteria locally was anyone that wanted a relation on the memorial so that they could remember them in the gardens was included. There are a few that never even stepped in the town but had a relation living here. One quite decorated, his parents moved here in 1915, is on the memorial, one Gordon Highlander similarly never been near the town but his sister had married a local and lived in the town.

 

Andy

 

At this distance in time we are detatched from a major use of local war memorials - to act as a local substitute for the grave so far away. In many ways they were more about the bereaved than the lost. I too have found those who moved to town in 1915 (fleeing the Zeppelin threat) and got relatives on to the memorial. Interestingly two of these, brothers, also had no relative in town when the memorial was erected in 1922 - but they had been included on a church memorial before their mother left the town (she had died by 1922). This convinced me that a first step in gathering names for the memorial was to collect those on the various church memorials that pre-dated it.  A single notice in the local paper listing these and asking for more and that was it as far as I can tell. Erecting the memorial also seems to have uncovered a few names - eight were added after this. 

 

I also have one family which moved to town before the war - by which time their sons were adults.  Two sons did not come with them - one did - all three died in the war, only the one who moved to Newbury is on the memorial.  The other two are every bit as qualified as others on the memorial.

[David_Underdown]

One man listed on the Surrey Association and Central Council of Church Bell Ringers' rolls of honour eluded definite ID for some time, his name being given as Mark, E W.  We soon suspected that he was actually Markey, W (E) (say it out loud) who was from the right village and was on CWGC, but couldn't be absolutely sure.  However eventually a report in the Ringing World of the Ringers' Memorial service in St Clement Danes in February 1919 was found to include Markey among the list of names read as a roll of honour during the service.  The Surrey roll certainly contains a few other errors, and the CCCBR roll has one duplicate (despite in that case very strong efforts to clear up such cases: there are men on the Surrey Roll who are listed under other associations on the CCCBR roll, and again the Ringing World carried several requests from the CCCBR Hon Sec (who had served as a chaplain) for confirmation as to whether two (or more) different entries that had been sent up from different places actually referred to the same person.

[johntanner]

Setting aside the four men on the original roll of St Andrew’s Enfield that I still haven’t been able to trace yet, one man on the original roll definitely survived.

[Phil Wood]

One of the chaps on the WWII section survived, but I haven't found one in the WW1 names yet - of course, it's possible that one of the few I haven't yet identified might have been alive when the memorial went up.