MartyG Posted 9 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 9 November , 2019 I think I’ve been on FMP too long today, it’s stopped working for me! I’ll try again in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phsvm Posted 9 November , 2019 Share Posted 9 November , 2019 You found the correct entry but the General Register Office is the official site - the list you found is an official printed list. https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/ go to Order Certificates on Line, then Search the GRO Online Index It's completely free (not just this weekend), although I think you may have to register. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 9 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 9 November , 2019 4 minutes ago, phsvm said: You found the correct entry but the General Register Office is the official site - the list you found is an official printed list. https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/ go to Order Certificates on Line, then Search the GRO Online Index It's completely free (not just this weekend), although I think you may have to register. Cheers, I shall give that a whirl. This is a great learning curve for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 9 November , 2019 Share Posted 9 November , 2019 Hmm. Quite right, he doesn't appear in the search of the GRO record. It could just be that his surname has been spelt wrongly, and as entering a surname is a mandatory field, it seems to snooker that avenue, And you can't browse for all births in Wantage for that quarter , only specifically for the surname. If you felt inclined, you could query it with the GRO, quoting his details and the Wantage 2c/286 reference that is printed and found on the FreeBMD searches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phsvm Posted 9 November , 2019 Share Posted 9 November , 2019 (edited) Or just simply order the birth certificate quoting the reference given on FMP, Ancestry and FreeBMD Edited 9 November , 2019 by phsvm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 9 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 9 November , 2019 Thank you both for the tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mancpal Posted 9 November , 2019 Share Posted 9 November , 2019 I have just found the number of the shop that is/was selling the skimmed trio . 01492 584413 I have no connection to the shop other than buying a BWM ribbon a couple of years ago for a quid. Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 9 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 9 November , 2019 (edited) Thanks for that Simon, appreciate your efforts. I’ll probably go down the road of trying to find his original medals, though, and, failing that, attempt to find a trio awarded to an RFA man as GWF suggested. Martin Edited 10 November , 2019 by MartyG Original answer was incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 12 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 November , 2019 On 08/11/2019 at 00:25, GWF1967 said: At the top of the page is a link to the "Long Long Trail", you should find details of R.F.A. brigades and also the duties of the Royal Engineers Waterways and Railways. I'm sure someone will be along to offer more info. Edit. I bit, Enlisted 5/10/1914 (Had previously served with the 3rd Royal Berks, he purchased his discharge.) and was posted as a Driver to the Brigade Ammunition Column. Served in France 21/12/1914 till embarking at Marseilles on 30/1/1916 and disembarking in Salonica on 7/2/1916. He was with 27th Divisional Ammunition Column, which was renamed as B section, 16th Corps Ammunition Column. On 14/10/1916 he was awarded 7 days Field Punishment No.2 for "Not complying with an order" Transferred to the 27th Wessex Divisional Signal Coy, Royal Engineers, on 29/8/1918. He was finally discharged on 19/3/1919. Me again, sorry. I found more of the records for great grandad over the weekend, undoubtedly the same ones that you found and kindly relayed to me. I was just having a look again today and noticed a bit of an anomaly between these two forms, although they both came up in my search for my great grandad. His Attestation gives him the number 810, yet the Agreement form to serve outside the U.K., copy also attached, indicates the number 794, not 810. I am sure the signature and handwriting are the same, or am I mistaken and the Agreement form is for another Joseph Curley? They are both, I think, forms for the 4th Home Counties Brigade, both from October 1914 so it seems unlikely that they are two different men, but I can’t get my head round the numbers 810 and 794. Surely the same man would have written “I 810...”? Also, am I correct in thinking from The Long, Long Trail that his number meant he was in 338 Brigade in 1917? Sorry for my ignorance on such matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 12 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 November , 2019 Scrolling through my screen shots I see his record was headed up with this card. Bears both 810 and 794, not that this helps my confusion! The card also bears the number 415412, when as far as I now know he was renumbered as 915412. All a bit bewildering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 12 November , 2019 Share Posted 12 November , 2019 1 hour ago, MartyG said: Scrolling through my screen shots I see his record was headed up with this card. Bears both 810 and 794, not that this helps my confusion! The card also bears the number 415412, when as far as I now know he was renumbered as 915412. All a bit bewildering. I have several service records where a No. appears to have been allotted, then changed shortly after; perhaps after enlistment officers compared paperwork. The 415412 is not repeated in his paperwork so best guess is a transcription mistake from one set of papers to another. I don't know if his paperwork is the same on Ancestry (oft' not), but there is a record showing he was a locomotive fireman with 204th Railway Operating Company, Royal Engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 12 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 November , 2019 13 minutes ago, GWF1967 said: I have several service records where a No. appears to have been allotted, then changed shortly after; perhaps after enlistment officers compared paperwork. The 415412 is not repeated in his paperwork so best guess is a transcription mistake from one set of papers to another. I don't know if his paperwork is the same on Ancestry (oft' not), but there is a record showing he was a locomotive fireman with 204th Railway Operating Company, Royal Engineers. Ah, thanks again for your help here. I had an inkling the 915412 discrepancy could be a simple mistake, but the 794/810 was such a difference that I feared I had mixed up the records I had been looking at. This I presume is the document to which you refer? I had seen that, it’s in my screenshot collection but hadn’t grasped it, had somehow even missed the Loco Fireman. It’s very obvious now, staring me in the face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 12 November , 2019 Share Posted 12 November , 2019 9 minutes ago, MartyG said: This I presume is the document to which you refer? That's the badger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 12 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 November , 2019 1 minute ago, GWF1967 said: That's the badger! I put it down to the shock of looking at so many different family records over the weekend, veritable word blindness. That or stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 12 November , 2019 Share Posted 12 November , 2019 In the first image in post #34, the number 794 is circled, clearly in a different pen or pencil to the original, implying it had been noted before by someone. I think it just appears on the Ancestry cover sheet because it appears somewhere in the record, right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyG Posted 12 November , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 November , 2019 Just now, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: In the first image in post #34, the number 794 is circled, clearly in a different pen or pencil to the original, implying it had been noted before by someone. I think it just appears on the Ancestry cover sheet because it appears somewhere in the record, right or wrong. Thank you very much. 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