verdun Posted 3 February , 2018 Share Posted 3 February , 2018 I am indebted to GWF members who have helped unravel at least part of the story of Percy Northcote (aka Henry Northcott) who served, initially, as 7263 Pte. P. E. Northcote, 1st Bn. Lincs. Regt. However, two more queries have arisen... 1. On examination of the 1914 Star Medal Rolls on 'Ancestry', I note that there is an identical service number (7263) issued to Pte. A Scaife, (also 1/Lincs) whose MIC shows that he, too, was a deserter. Can anyone explain this to me, please? 2. In the far-right hand column, "to be left Blank for use in War office", it states: "submitted in error auth 7/1/69". This appears in all instances where men on this page have had their name/details struck out. Can anyone explain this, also, please? Many thanks again if you can help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 3 February , 2018 Share Posted 3 February , 2018 (edited) The battalion would seem to have used a separate numbering run for the special reserve enlistments - under that list #7263 would have been issued 1911/12. Usually the men are shown as '3/' but the prefix is often omitted.http://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/lincolnshire-regiment-3rd-special.html Albert Scaife deserted 6 July 1915. Craig Edited 3 February , 2018 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 3 February , 2018 Share Posted 3 February , 2018 The issue regarding the comments probably means that the men were on another list and were accidentally duplicated. They would be removed from one of the lists once the error was found. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verdun Posted 3 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2018 Many thanks, Craig - I understand your first reply, but would you mind explaining your second reply in words of one syllable. I am "a bear of very little brain"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 3 February , 2018 Share Posted 3 February , 2018 1 minute ago, verdun said: Many thanks, Craig - I understand your first reply, but would you mind explaining your second reply in words of one syllable. I am "a bear of very little brain"! Due to the clerical nature of the medal lists it wasn't uncommon for men to have been duplicated for medal purposes on more than one list or added to a list in error. It's common for errors on the medal rolls to be corrected once it was realised that this had happened. What they did once a error was discovered was to cross the name off the page either so that no medal was issued at all or so that there was only entry left in the rolls for future use. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verdun Posted 3 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2018 OK... but what does "7/1/69" mean? Surely not the date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 3 February , 2018 Share Posted 3 February , 2018 16 minutes ago, verdun said: OK... but what does "7/1/69" mean? Surely not the date? It's not unusual to see comments on medal records up in to the 1980's but I think in this case it's more likely a reference than a date. I don't think the context works for it being a date. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verdun Posted 4 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2018 Many thanks again for your help. 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