Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

What happened between Attestation & Mobilisation ?


Recommended Posts

  • Admin
12 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Yes it is a bit of a tangent - but worthy of consideration when thinking of splashing your hard-earned cash

FMP / Ancestry - a bit of swings and roundabouts / apples and pears at times when it comes to their offerings.

One thing to be sure is that they seem to both have better copies than TNA - take MIC as another example... Ancestry in clear colour, TNA scruffy B/W

Maybe that is down to the money available and the age of their respective technologies ???

Hey ho!  So much easier researching than years ago.  :-)

 

Edit: At the risk of seeming to hang on others' coat-tails.  Attest/go home/mobilise - happened in my family too.

For the MICs Ancestry scanned them all from scratch. The cards are held by the WFA.

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

For the MICs Ancestry scanned them all from scratch. The cards are held by the WFA.

And now the WFA / Ancestry (Fold 3) combo has given us the wonderful lovely clear Pension Ledgers & Cards in colour too

:-)

Edited by Matlock1418
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, travers61 said:

 

THANKS, had a quick read through, however the charts throw up another "problem", but I will save that for later, need to study FMP's version of the SR, to see what other misconceptions I have been labouring under for 10 years, thanks to Ancestry's dodgy quality :angry: (see post #10)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good read is "The serjeant major - the biography of RSM Brittain". Not always a Coldstreamer but he was for many years (rom around 1918/19 i think) . Served WW1 (at home) and well after ww2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
59 minutes ago, MERLINV12 said:

however the charts throw up another "problem", but I will save that for later

Feel free to ask - -there's almost certainly someone who knows the answer.


Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Coldstreamer said:

A good read is "The serjeant major - the biography of RSM Brittain". Not always a Coldstreamer but he was for many years (rom around 1918/19 i think) . Served WW1 (at home) and well after ww2

 

Thanks Ian, will try and find a copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

Feel free to ask - -there's almost certainly someone who knows the answer.


Craig

 

Chaps & Chapesses,

 

Now I have perused GF's SR on FMP rather than Ancestry, and learnt more about him, and how much of your time I wasted asking "what do you think this says" type questions, when it was clearly visible all along on FMP.

 

Now to the promised "problem". GF was born in 1897, the Derby Scheme charts on TLLT, give the following info. DOB 1897 & Single = Group 1, Group 1 Mobilisation Date is given as 28/3/16. however his SR states his mobilisation date was 23/10/1916, 7 months later. Any suggestions as to why please.

 

As an aside, was being Derby man, looked upon negatively, as being "forced" to sign-up, rather than volunteer earlier ??

 

TIA.

 

Edited by MERLINV12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlin,

There are various reasons why his call-up might be deferred.  These include medical issues, but primarily it was because men could and did appeal against it on a variety of grounds (eg. being the sole prop and support of ailing parents; running a business that would fail if he left; being already engaged in important war work etc.).  One of the selling-points of Derby was the promise that appeals against call-up could be lodged after attestation.  Such appeals were placed before the local Tribunal where he was resident (usually organised by borough, Urban or Rural District Council area etc.).  It became a trap, actually, since if an appeal was rejected the man was already a soldier and could be called up from Army Reserve Class "B" immediately. 

 

If he did appeal for a deferral it might be recorded in the local newspapers.  It was local news after all, and in places some of the verbatim arguments used during the hearings for and against were reported in the same way as the repartee during civil/criminal court cases.  Elsewhere, editors recorded the results but "anonymised" the identity of the appellant.  In a few county archives the actual books etc. of the local tribunals have been preserved. 

 

It might be worth your while looking into the relevant record office, and the local newspapers, in case something turns up to explain the gap between his due call-up and the actual date.  

 

Clive    

Edited by clive_hughes
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MERLINV12 said:

As an aside, was being Derby man, looked upon negatively, as being "forced" to sign-up, rather than volunteer earlier ??

 

I recall reading somewhere that Derby men did not get the kudos of being a volunteer, nor did they get the sympathy of being a conscript. [Can I recall where? Can I 'eck!] .

 

How negative this was - what other manifestation, implication and/or any reception they might get from soldiers and/or the public I don't know.  Would be interested to learn more.

 

I might suspect that appeals would get a local public reception based on an known individual's circumstances and/or the local situation of the public's experience of war, what had happened to their relatives and the like. Basically on how sympathetically, or not, their appeal case was viewed by local others/the wider population and not withstanding a Tribunal finding.

 

Local and/or national newspapers do seem the way to go to see if any specific or general situation/attitude is forthcoming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Clive & Matlock for their detailed and informative replies.

 

I have found "Group 1" hand written on Attestation Form & Active Service pages of his SR, so no doubt he was a Derby Man.

 

Obviously I would like to think GF was not a "shirker" or would not have have appealed his call-up, I base this on knowing him (for far a too shorter time) and the fact that having been severely wounded twice and spending 2 months in RC Hospital, Saffron Waldon, and walking with a limp for the rest of his life, he did not claim a disability pension.

 

As for the reason for the deferment of his mobilisation, I have found a "code" ?? preceeding his mob date, maybe it might explain if anyone knows what it means, being one of the burnt series, it is not complete, see image below.

 

527440307_Mobdate.jpg.dc372b6382f929ab40f0bcb22a0e7246.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MERLINV12 said:

Obviously I would like to think GF was not a "shirker" or would not have have appealed his call-up,

Please, just because the subject of the Derby Scheme and a delay in mobilisation has been raised, don't think GWF are suggesting your GF was necessarily a shirker - I certainly don't.

Nor necessarily any stigma even if he did appeal - there were many legitimate cases I feel sure.

We are not in possession of all the facts, for or against any such a possibility/situation.

It does however give you an interesting new line of research to explore.

Good luck with your further enquiries.

:-) M

 

P.S. Can see what you see before "mobilised 23.10.16" but cannot interpret/explain - sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

don't think GWF are suggesting your GF was necessarily a shirker

 

No, I certainly don't, probably didn't phrase my reply correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RussT said:

It's just 2512 meaning B2512, the army form number used for derby scheme attestations.

 

Russ

Russ,

 

Thanks for the reply, another thing clarified :thumbsup:

 

Are there any major differences between B2512 & a pre- Derby form ?

 

Michael.

Edited by MERLINV12
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
50 minutes ago, MERLINV12 said:

 

Are there any major differences between B2512 & a pre- Derby form ?

 

 

Prior to the Derby scheme, Army Form B2505 was most commonly used for war-time volunteers on a short service duration of the war terms.

 

There are no major differences between Army Forms B2505 and B2512.

 

AF B2513 was introduced for called-up conscripts upon implementation of the Military Service Act.

 

Regard

 

Russ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ,

 

Thanks for the explanation and images, one more question, are there any lists of  "B", "ED", & "A" etc numbers, so you can know/find the source of info entered on SR ??

 

Best wishes,

 

Michael.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Admin
22 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

recall reading somewhere that Derby men did not get the kudos of being a volunteer, nor did they get the sympathy of being a conscript. [Can I recall where? Can I 'eck!] .

 

It was probably in the late Charles Messenger's 'Call to Arms' who cites a letter written by Rowland Fielding to his wife, how representative it was I don't know.  He was serving with the Guards Entrenching Battalion, he wrote,

"So we have conscription at last!  It is about time too.  The Conscripts have not of course reached us yet. but some Derby (commonly pronounced 'Durby') men have...It is funny how these latter are despised by the other men - more so than the conscripts, who are regarded as at least shown the. courage of their convictions.  To be called or even thought of as a Derby man is in fact, an insult."

 

Messenger also notes, in discussing the Scheme which was largely seen as a failure, that 750,000 men applied for exemption in the first six months of 1916.

 

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

Charles Messenger's 'Call to Arms'

Yes, that was it.

Thanks, one thing off my mind.

:-)  M

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kenf48 said:

"So we have conscription at last!  It is about time too.  The Conscripts have not of course reached us yet. but some Derby (commonly pronounced 'Durby') men have...It is funny how these latter are despised by the other men - more so than the conscripts, who are regarded as at least shown the. courage of their convictions.  To be called or even thought of as a Derby man is in fact, an insult."

 

Messenger also notes, in discussing the Scheme which was largely seen as a failure, that 750,000 men applied for exemption in the first six months of 1916.

 

Ken

Ken,

 

No reflection on you or the others who have contributed to this topic and my education, but I am starting to wish I hadn't started it, the concerns it raises are beginning to bother me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2019 at 06:46, MERLINV12 said:

Ken,

 

No reflection on you or the others who have contributed to this topic and my education, but I am starting to wish I hadn't started it, the concerns it raises are beginning to bother me.

 

Don't let it bother you, if he was granted a deferral it was for a reason that was acceptable to the Tribunal (and there were many good reasons possible, as noted above).

It is interesting to note that the letter quoted was before the arrival of conscripts in that unit, and therefore their opinions may have changed later, after all, the Derby Scheme men were there and an easy target for their misplaced contempt. How widespread that was I have no idea, and it may have been an anomaly.

Anyhow, to me the fact that he attested speaks volumes, when you consider that many who were suppose to sign up, and didn't. But don't get me wrong, I certainly don't "look down" on anyone, whether those who didn't attest, or those who were eventually conscripted, or for those who didn't serve. War and soldiering are not for everyone (and I would include myself in that!) and the circumstances for each individual varies greatly.

My grandfather was also a Derby Scheme man (attested the day after your grandfather). He was 25, married, and had one son not yet a year old. His brother-in-law was in the Cheshires, and one of his other brother-in-laws (along with his wife and two children, aged 3 months and 4 years old) had died on the Lusitania.

Your grandfather, from your signature, had a brother who had been killed two months before his attestation. From your brief history of him while he served, he certainly acquitted himself well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

May have found something that explains part of his delay before being called up.

On his attestation it states an age of 18 years and 6 months, therefore, I assume he was born in late May or early June 1897.

From: http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/the-1916-military-service-act/

"Class 1 was for those born in 1897. They were 18 years old. They were told they would not be called up until they were aged 19."

That would delay his call up until after his birthday (and believe they were given a one month's future mobilization date). So at least until sometime late June or July.

It is possible (sheer speculation, of course) that being a farm labourer he may have got a three month deferral to help bring the crops in, or his call up was delayed because of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said he work on a farm with horses.  Given millions were used and died someone had to look after them before they joined up  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Keith Brannen said:

May have found something that explains part of his delay before being called up.

On his attestation it states an age of 18 years and 6 months, therefore, I assume he was born in late May or early June 1897

 

 

11 hours ago, Coldstreamer said:

You said he work on a farm with horses.  Given millions were used and died someone had to look after them before they joined up  

 

Keith,

Great powers of observation (his brother), and thanks for putting some thought into this :thumbsup:,  I had rightly or wrongly discounted this, due to his DOB being 3rd May.

 

Keith & Ian,

I have been trawling through the BNL for Appeal Tribunal reports in the local papers, to see if he had been granted a deferment, but they do not have them all, so looks like it's a trip to the County Records Office.

Edited by MERLINV12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a very interesting post, which details a farm labourer in a similar position as your grandfather:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...