Lance Corporal Alexander Peter #10726, Scots Guards

[laughton]

Looking for something else in Canadian Cemetery No. 2, Neuville St.Vaast and I see this Scots Guard marked as No. 10728 S. G. on Spoon. I probably would not have checked, but I see the fellow below was also a Scots Guard and he was also identified by his spoon (Private William Law #9875).

 

Private Alexander Peter #10726 Scots Guards, was killed the same day and his name is inscribed on the Le Touret Memorial. Both were with the 1st Battalion (LLT Link).

 

They are in Plot 12 Row E Graves 20 and 21.

 

 

The are 140 other Scots Guards on the Le Touret Memorial for the same date! Interestingly that four (4) of those have known graves in the Cabaret-Rouge British Cemetery. They were found in the same general area in July 1926. These two were identified by numbers on utensils or a boot: (Steele 31.E.11 and Loughrey 31.E.12)

 

 

Well, we might as well check the other two in the same cemetery. McLean #10070 was also identified by his spoon and Ironside #9889 by the number on his boot.

 

 

So how about the four (4) in the Arras Road Cemetery, Roclincourt?

• Craig #9651 - number on piece of boot
• Horn #5087 - number on boot
• Glidewell #9652 - number on boot
• McAllister #10266 - actually like this case, a change in number as they had #10296 on boot

 

To be certain, there were four (4) Scots Guards with the #1072* characteristic that were lost in France, one (1) each in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 (CWGC Link). Only one other of the Guards has an unknown grave and is remembered on the Thiepval Memorial.

 

This was just a casual observation while checking a completely unrelated issue. It makes one wonder just how many graves could be identified if a serious effort was made to prepare a computerized database of clues, locations and units.

 

In this case the IWGC certainly established that a number on a utensil or boot was sufficient evidence to name an UNKNOWN. Even Close, out one number, was acceptable.

 

 

 

[John Milner]

Private, 10728, James Best, 1st Bn Scots Guards service record is on Find My Past.

He was wounded on 7/7/1915 GSW Left Arm.

9/7/1915 admitted to No 3 General Hospital Le Treport.

18/7/1915 admitted to No 1 War Hospital Reading.

14/4/1916 Discharged no longer fit for war service.  Silver War Badge details and King's Certificate among records

 

Among his records on FMP is a query sent on 9/3/1931 from the IWGC to the Scots Guards Record Office asking "if James Best was not a casualty 25/1/1915, could they have his last known address", which was sent on 10/3/1931.

 

Could the10728 on the burial return been misread, the 6 mistaken for an 8, a typo or could someone else have had James Best's spoon, the burial return is dated 22 Jan 1931 and less than two months later the IWGC were asking if James Best was a casualty on the same day as Alexander Peter.

 

John

Edited 12 April , 2019 by John Milner

[laughton]

On 12/04/2019 at 11:46, John Milner said:

Could the 10728 on the burial return been misread, the 6 mistaken for an 8

 

This I believe is what happened. It is a quite frequent occurrence in the records. McAllister is the example above. Thus I say it was: Private Alexander Peter #10726 Scots Guards, 

 

It all depends on whether the CWGC says that is not new evidence, they could have come to that conclusion in 1931. Back then. they just did not have the tools to use a database that we have today and they had too many to check. Why they did it with McAllister and not Peter, I do not know.

[John Milner]

Hopefully the CWGC may accept the evidence this time, good luck.

 

John

[laughton]

John:

 

Can you send me the FMP documents?

 

Richard

[John Milner]

No probs, which ones would you like?  Besides the James Best enquiry form from the IWGC.

 

Among Alexander Peter's records on FMP there is correspondence between his father and the Scots Guards Record Office about his effects and "burial", would that be any good?

 

Send me a PM with your e-mail address please.

 

John

[John Milner]

OK!

 

John

[laughton]

Package received with thanks! I did not realize that there was a split between what files are on Ancestry versus Find My Past - an interesting lesson. And then there is Fold3, which has even more different records. You can spend all your money on subscriptions.

 

So in 1931 the IWGC must have thought that the spoon did belong to Private James Best #10728 (MIC). When they found that he was still alive they dropped the case, not looking at the obvious alternative of Peter #10726 (MIC). Strange, considering that three years earlier they did check the alternatives when they found out that  #10296 (MIC) was alive (Nicholas S. Roberts) but William McAllister was #10266 (MIC says it was McAlister -  one "L") deceased.

 

It raises the question as to where the 2019 CWGC would apply the same standards as the 1928 IWGC? If the answer is YES, then they would have to accept Peter the same way they accepted McAlister.

Edited 20 April , 2019 by laughton
missed the word "deceased"

[John Milner]

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 12:50, laughton said:

It raises the question as to where the 2019 CWGC would apply the same standards as the 1928 IWGC? If the answer is YES, then they would have to accept Peter the same way they accepted McAlister.

It certainly does, and there is only one way to find out.

 

Just a thought!  Would the CWGC still have the spoon?

 

John

[laughton]

7 minutes ago, John Milner said:

Just a thought!  Would the CWGC still have the spoon?

 

To  the best of my knowledge the "effects" were disposed of some time ago. I am not sure if any has every really looked into what happened to them all. Maybe someone on your side of the pond could enquire?

[John Milner]

I will phone them on Tuesday.

 

John

[laughton]

On 12/04/2019 at 11:46, John Milner said:

Could the 10728 on the burial return been misread, the 6 mistaken for an 8, a typo or could someone else have had James Best's spoon, the burial return is dated 22 Jan 1931 and less than two months later the IWGC were asking if James Best was a casualty on the same day as Alexander Peter.

 

And there lies the issue with this case! Perhaps I am getting too cautious about what the CWGC expects as "absolute proof", versus what they expected or did themselves as the IWGC or GRU during the body recovery process.

 

We could rely on the case of McAllister #10266 and say that he too had his number incorrectly recorded as #10296. There were 44 men with that number (MIC record list) and one of those was a Scots Guards (Nicholas S. Roberts). He was discharged. Of these men 21 with some form of #10296 (some were prefixed by a letter) were lost in Great War and 4 had no known grave, only one of which had no prefix letter. The two on the Le Touret Memorial were prefixed and the other two were on the Thiepval Memorial, thus excluded due to location. It is less likely someone would be wearing someone else's boot rather carrying his spoon. 

 

They did accept McLean #10070 based on the spoon and exact number (then crossed out on the COG-BR but referenced as a piece of spoon?). In his case the number is exact and the date is correct, so that is convincing evidence. They did not know he was a Scots Guard, as they did in the case of the unknown #10728. There are 21 dead in France with some form of that number and 9 of those have no known grave, with various nationalities.