Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

King's Liverpool Regt Casualty - Pte Mark Baggott


davidbohl

Recommended Posts

I'm having a look on "A Street Near You" for the immediate streets by me in Liverpool.

Private Baggott
The King's (Liverpool Regiment)
Date of death: 05/07/1917 (aged 35)
Cemetery: ST. VALERY-SUR-SOMME COMMUNAL CEMETERY, France
Son of Mark and Ellen Baggott, of Liverpool; husband of Elizabeth Ellen Baggott, of 25, Norris Green Rd., West Derby, Liverpool.

Location source: CWGC 2913699 

 

Pte Mark Baggott is #66858 KLR but I can't find him on the Devereux database and wondering if he qualifies to be on the panels of the Liverpool Town Hall of Remembrance ?

His MIC just mentions #46615 Cheshire Regt and #217467 Labour Corps.

 

Thanks

Dave

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His Pension Card via WesternFrontAssoc says widow Elizabeth, 17 Willoughby St, Edge Hill.  There are 4 children listed.

Cause of death- accidentally drowned on active service.

 

He has a surviving service record on Findmypast

This suggests that although attesting KLR Dec 1915  He was mobilised July 1916 with Cheshires and went overseas 23/7/16 with Cheshires before trf to Labour Corps with whom he died

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Charlie, does the CWGC have any rule of thumb as to which Regt/Service No. the entry is filed under ? In this case any 1 from 3.

Dave

 

PS I found him on the Town Hall Roll of Honour listed under the Cheshire Regt here

Edited by davidbohl
Town Hall Roll of Honour link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/01/2020 at 17:31, davidbohl said:

does the CWGC have any rule of thumb as to which Regt/Service No. the entry is filed under

I too would like to know this = I'm commonly looking for IWGC/CWGC guidance on how they did/do things - very little found/forthcoming

From experience of looking at hundreds of CWGC records it certainly seems that Labour Corps is the least likely to be used for many multi-unit casualties and seems often avoided if it can be. 

Tough if they had only been in the LC!

Think there may have been a bit of a stigma with LC and relatives if involved in choosing - ??? from Next of Kin Notifications ??? - often seem to use an earlier 'more prestigious' unit - infantry/cavalry/artillery etc. before LC

Sometimes seems dependant upon length of service - seen quite a few where pre-war / early-war units usually with longer service get used in preference to shorter [or even long] LC even though died with LC

Sometimes "XR and LC" or "LC, formerly XR" - seeming to try and soften the situation

Think some units sort of fought over how 'their lad' would be commemorated - as an example the RAF certainly seemed particularly keen to get a RAF badge on stones in preference to home unit e.g when an officer is attached to the RFC or RAF [most RFC were originally badged RAF regardless of date of death - this is being changed as stones for RFC are replaced] - i think this was policy to 'big-up' the fledgling new air service.

I suspect many other units tried similarly as a matter of honour and reflection of how much sacrifice their unit had made in the war.

As units often seemed to have had a say in how commemorated I suspect this is where the unit rivalry crept in - and also the prestige of a "Royal" prefix often came to the fore - No AOC, always RAOC regardless of date of death I think. C/w ASC & RASC and AVC & RAVC

Always pleased to be educated, to have my thoughts confirmed and/or corrected by access to original official documents etc. - old and/or new.

Having posted this I am sure I will learn more by following this thread.

:-) M

 

Edit: As mentioned in a number of other threads.  I think now for the commemoration of the 'missing and now found' the identification of remains and the unit under whose headstone they are laid to rest is at the door of the JCCC and CWGC follow their steer when there is a reinterment and headstone.  Of course this may well reflect the unit under which they were originally commemorated as 'missing'  However, this is still not at all transparent to me and I would be pleased to learn in detail exactly what the current process is [as well as the historic one(s) too].

Edited by Matlock1418
Addition
Link to comment
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...