L/Cpl Ernest Greenwood King's Liverpool - Burnley schoolteacher's age of 17 on CWGC doesn't look right

[davidbohl]

L/Cpl Ernest Greenwood is given as age 17 on CWGC

This goes through a thread of webpages such as http://www.burnleyinthegreatwar.info/burnleyrollofhonourmeng/greenwoodernest51744.htm

I have him as born Sep Qtr 1890:-

 

1901 Census

John Wm Greenwood    Head    Male    40    Burnley, Lancashire
Susannah Greenwood    Wife    Female    34    Burnley, Lancashire
Jessie Greenwood    Daughter    Female    17    Burnley, Lancashire
Annie M Greenwood    Daughter    Female    15    Burnley, Lancashire
John Wm Greenwood    Son    Male    14    Burnley, Lancashire
Robert Greenwood    Son    Male    12    Burnley, Lancashire
Ernest Greenwood    Son    Male    10    Burnley, Lancashire
Albert Greenwood    Son    Male    8    Burnley, Lancashire
Elizabeth E Greenwood    Daughter    Female    5    Burnley, Lancashire
Edna Greenwood    Daughter    Female    1    Burnley, Lancashire

 

Can anybody confirm my thoughts please ?

Dave

Edited 10 February , 2019 by davidbohl

[ss002d6252]

It looks like somewhere along the line the CWGC record has been wrongly transcribed as 17 instead of 27.

 

(The effects records also show date of death as the 4th Nov.)

 

Craig

[davidbohl]

BNA newspapers say date of death 3rd Nov 1917.

Dave

 

 

GREENWOOD.— Killed action Nov. 3rd, Laoce-Crpl. Ernest Greenwood (51744), Liverpool Refit. third son of Mr, and ..

... GREENWOOD.— Killed action Nov. 3rd, Laoce-Crpl. Ernest Greenwood (51744), Liverpool Refit. third son of Mr, and Mrs. Greenwood, 23, Reynolds-st., Burnley, aged 27 years. SHORT.—Killed in action on October 6th, 1917, Gunner George Bhort, R.F.A., Burnley ...

Published: Saturday 10 November 1917 
Newspaper: Burnley Express 

 

BURNLEY TEACHER

... Teachers and amateur theatricals in Burnley will learn with regret, of the death in action last Saturday Lce.-Oarpl. Ernest Greenwood (27), 51744, Liverpool Regiment, third son of Mr. and Mia. Greenwood, 28, Reynolds-street, Burnley. joined February, ...

Published: Saturday 10 November 1917 
Newspaper: Burnley Express 

[The Inspector]

Hi Dave

You may already have this :- his brother Albert was killed .3.11.14. 5103 Dragoon Gds (Royal Irish)http://www.burnleyinthegreatwar.info/burnleyrollofhonourmeng/greenwoodalbert5103.htm with photo.

Regards Barry

 

[travers61]

I believe CWGC now  only take requests for amendments to ages on their data base from relations only.  Others on this forum I'm sure will confirm this or correct me & maybe advise the best way to do this.

[Matlock1418]

20 minutes ago, travers61 said:

I believe CWGC now  only take requests for amendments to ages on their data base from relations only.

Think they will take from others but want a Birth Certificate so if not already to hand then then it often means 'splashing some cash' at the General Register Office.  

https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/Login.asp 

On 30/10/2019 at 21:49, Cathy B said:

This was my fathers uncle I can confirm he was 27yrs old when he died

Relatives seem more likely to be able or keen on this than unrelated persons [such as GWF pals with so many irons in the fire and pockets of only limited depth]

Cathy - have you, or an accessible family member, got his BC?

[NigelS]

2 hours ago, travers61 said:

I believe CWGC now  only take requests for amendments to ages on their data base from relations only.  Others on this forum I'm sure will confirm this or correct me & maybe advise the best way to do this.

 

On 10/02/2019 at 19:07, ss002d6252 said:

It looks like somewhere along the line the CWGC record has been wrongly transcribed as 17 instead of 27.

 

The CWGC must have had his age correctly  as 27 at some stage as that's what's given on the Grave Registration record https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/837604/greenwood,-ernest/#&gid=null&pid=1.  I suspect if the CWGC is made aware of the discrepancy, which  on the face of it does appear to be down to them,  any costs  in  confirming the correct age (assuming they can't satisfy themselves from their own records) would be borne by them.  

 

NigelS

[ss002d6252]

21 minutes ago, NigelS said:

 

 

The CWGC must have had his age correctly  as 27 at some stage as that's what's given on the Grave Registration record https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/837604/greenwood,-ernest/#&gid=null&pid=1.  I suspect if the CWGC is made aware of the discrepancy, which  on the face of it does appear to be down to them,  any costs  in  confirming the correct age (assuming they can't satisfy themselves from their own records) would be borne by them.  

 

NigelS

If they're asked to check their records they're usually very good at correcting errors without a fuss if it's just down to a digitisation error. If it involves further action I suspect they'll not change it without proof.

 

Craig

[travers61]

Thank you all for confirming CWGC procedures etc.  A lot of errors must have crept in during digitisation however careful they were.

[stevem49]

Definitely. The In from the cold project have found many whilst checking SER.  In fact I found one ten minutes ago