Reservists in the Norfolk Regiment pre 1914

[FROGSMILE]

3 hours ago, armypal said:

Thankyou Frogsmile.

 

I didn't really understand the difference between the Special Reserve and the Territorials before I read your reply.

I had done a lot of research on local Territorials, who were as you say urban working class and middle class men. So I am now a lot clearer in my mind about about why men like Richard Napthen joined the Special Reserve.

 

I found a family connection to the Reservists by chance yesterday  while looking at my Grandfather's family history and found some documents I had saved many years ago.

 

A tenant farmers son, it  turned out that he had joined the 3rd Battalion of the Norfolk Special Reserves .Though this was in 1897.

 

He didn't stay very long and went to Canada. Although he volunteered for the Army on his return without telling my Granny. He was rejected as he had  lost part of one of his feet to 'frostbite' in Canada.

 

Thankyou again.

Helen.

I’m glad that you found it useful and interesting Helen.  Rural men had always found the Militia (pre-SR, but similar in most respects) a useful institution to join.  Beyond the annual training mentioned if there was a bad harvest the cash payments made for the training attended was apparently a useful stopgap to at least partially make up for some of the income lost.  It was reliable providing that they attended and not reliant on good weather.  That situation remained but it’s also true to say that the SR/Militia was not as popular as the VBs/TF, who met more frequently, networked professionally, and developed friendships that extended outside the auxiliary military sphere.

 

The length of initial (basic) training did evolve over the centuries. In 1852 it was between 21 and 56 days.  Then under the Regulation of the Forces Act 1871 Commanding Officers were authorised to extend the period of preliminary drill (as it was called) to six months ‘if required’.  This was further refined in 1875 under the Militia Voluntary Enlistment Act, which among several other things decreed that the preliminary drill ‘might be’ up to six months (presumably to give flexibility to COs) and the [annual] training period 21 to 28 days ‘once, or oftener in the year [again it’s interesting that there was no attempt to compel the length of time beyond the minimum period]. Interestingly in 1882, the year after regiments were given new names rather than numbers the Militia Regimental Preliminary Drill was abolished (this meant the unit was not to conduct its own basic training) and instead training was to be carried out by the staff of the new permanent regimental depots.  Finally, in 1890, by order, new Recruits after being trained at their depots were [henceforward] to complete a 14-day musketry course immediately before their first annual drill.  This is reflected on the record of Samson and would have been attended by your grandfather too.

Edited 9 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

4 hours ago, armypal said:

I know that Richard survived and William Sampson didn't , so now I want to follow up on the others who.landed with him.in France on the same day.

 

To get you started:-

3/6674 Robert Sands – survived, discharged 25th January 1919.

3/6852 Stephen Sissen – survived, discharged

3/6881 James William Littleproud – Died of Wounds 22nd September 1916.

3/8216 William Smith – Killed in Action 11th August 1917 while serving with the 8th Battalion. He is on a Casualty list that was printed in the Eastern Daily Press dated 4th October 1916. No Battalion is identified but for those men shown as killed and those shown as missing, it certainly appears to relate to the 1st Battalion. It would also date the wounding to the action at Falfremont Farm on the 4th September 1916.

 

Also with MiCs showing landed in France 11th January 1915.

3/6556 Frederick Gilbert survived, discharged 1st May 1919.

3/6679 Sydney Howard survived, discharged 3rd May 1916 SWB issued

3/6696 Russell H. Barker survived, discharged Class Z Reserve 25th February 1919.

3/6707 Henry Walker survived, discharged 3rd May 1919.

3/6716 Christopher Brunton, Killed in Action 27th July 1916.

3/6798 Luther G Beales survived, discharged Class Z 10th March 1919.

3/6815 Albert B Laskey survived, finished war as 20720 11th Bn Essex Regiment PoW 21st March 1918, discharged Class Z. https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/4879777/3/2/

3/6820 Walter W Norgate, declared a deserter 24th December 1915

3/6861 Frank Herbert John Matthews, Killed in Action 23rd April 1917.

3/6895 Leonard Louis Smith, Killed in Action 22nd October 1917 while serving with the 8th Battalion.

3/6896 Charles William Partridge, Killed in Action 5th May 1915.

3/6905 Edmund Dennis Whittleton, Died on or since 27th July 1916.

3/6906 Arthur Galey, then 29779 Suffolk Regiment, then 272917 Labour Corps. Discharged 5th April 1917. SWB issued.

3/8209 Arthur A. Denny, survived, discharged Class Z 26th November 1919

 

I've not checked to see if there are surviving records or if any of them are commemorated by the CWGC as post-discharge deaths.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

 

[armypal]

15 hours ago, PRC said:

 

To get you started:-

3/6674 Robert Sands – survived, discharged 25th January 1919.

3/6852 Stephen Sissen – survived, discharged

3/6881 James William Littleproud – Died of Wounds 22nd September 1916.

3/8216 William Smith – Killed in Action 11th August 1917 while serving with the 8th Battalion. He is on a Casualty list that was printed in the Eastern Daily Press dated 4th October 1916. No Battalion is identified but for those men shown as killed and those shown as missing, it certainly appears to relate to the 1st Battalion. It would also date the wounding to the action at Falfremont Farm on the 4th September 1916.

 

Also with MiCs showing landed in France 11th January 1915.

3/6556 Frederick Gilbert survived, discharged 1st May 1919.

3/6679 Sydney Howard survived, discharged 3rd May 1916 SWB issued

3/6696 Russell H. Barker survived, discharged Class Z Reserve 25th February 1919.

3/6707 Henry Walker survived, discharged 3rd May 1919.

3/6716 Christopher Brunton, Killed in Action 27th July 1916.

3/6798 Luther G Beales survived, discharged Class Z 10th March 1919.

3/6815 Albert B Laskey survived, finished war as 20720 11th Bn Essex Regiment PoW 21st March 1918, discharged Class Z. https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/4879777/3/2/

3/6820 Walter W Norgate, declared a deserter 24th December 1915

3/6861 Frank Herbert John Matthews, Killed in Action 23rd April 1917.

3/6895 Leonard Louis Smith, Killed in Action 22nd October 1917 while serving with the 8th Battalion.

3/6896 Charles William Partridge, Killed in Action 5th May 1915.

3/6905 Edmund Dennis Whittleton, Died on or since 27th July 1916.

3/6906 Arthur Galey, then 29779 Suffolk Regiment, then 272917 Labour Corps. Discharged 5th April 1917. SWB issued.

3/8209 Arthur A. Denny, survived, discharged Class Z 26th November 1919

 

I've not checked to see if there are surviving records or if any of them are commemorated by the CWGC as post-discharge deaths.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

 

Hello Peter.

I can't begin to thank you enough for gathering together and sending me all the information that you've sent me regarding the men who landed in France with Richard Napthen. You certainly have done some sterling research work.

Its opened up a whole new aspect of history for me and I'll follow up further on trying to find Service Records and CWGC records.

I had done some work on local men who served and will look again at their service numbers to see how many were from the local Militia.

I too  have used the 'Grande Guerre' site and found it so helpful.

Thankyou again.

18 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

PM me and I will send it to your email address. It is centred on the Royal Welch Fusilier but the generalities applied to all line infantry including 

 

[Muerrisch]

One reason why the Militia was discarded in favour of the SR [decision 1907, action April 1908] was that the Militia could not be compelled to serve overseas in war, a major problem in the Boer War, such that the Volunteer Force were asked to provide Volunteer Companies to supplement the badly stretched regular army. Both the Militia and the Volunteer Force were superseded by the SR and the Territorial Force for good reason, and just as well as events turned out.This is an over-simplification but should give a flavour as to why the SR recruit had a great deal of training ab initio. and was clothed to virtually full scale.

The SR were perceived to be socially superior to the VF by the officer classes: Lord Reith [subsequently of BBC fame] was dissuaded by his father from seeking a commission in the SR as they were above his perceived station. Rank for rank the SR were officially senior to the TF until the exigencies of war forced equallity.

[FROGSMILE]

On 10/07/2020 at 14:52, Muerrisch said:

One reason why the Militia was discarded in favour of the SR [decision 1907, action April 1908] was that the Militia could not be compelled to serve overseas in war, a major problem in the Boer War, such that the Volunteer Force were asked to provide Volunteer Companies to supplement the badly stretched regular army. Both the Militia and the Volunteer Force were superseded by the SR and the Territorial Force for good reason, and just as well as events turned out.This is an over-simplification but should give a flavour as to why the SR recruit had a great deal of training ab initio. and was clothed to virtually full scale.

The SR were perceived to be socially superior to the VF by the officer classes: Lord Reith [subsequently of BBC fame] was dissuaded by his father from seeking a commission in the SR as they were above his perceived station. Rank for rank the SR were officially senior to the TF until the exigencies of war forced equallity.

 

The whole issue of auxiliary forces (Militia, VF and Yeomanry) was I agree vexed, but in fact entire units of Militia were embodied and voluntarily went overseas and, unlike the VF, formed full battalions under their own officers.  Some served in the Mediterranean and others in South Africa itself.  Unlike the VF the Militia came under the rule of Military Law.  The Haldane reforms were really an attempt to achieve a greater standardisation of terms and conditions of service for auxiliary forces and bring ALL of them under Military Law.

Edited 15 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Muerrisch]

I doubt if Haldane's ghost would agree that his reforms were really an attempt to achieve a greater standardisation of terms and conditions of service for auxiliary forces and bring ALL of them under Military Law.

 

He gathered consensus on what the army was for, and persuaded Parliament to  sanction and fund the Expeditionary Force to achieve that purpose.

 

Mr Richard (later Viscount) Haldane, Secretary of State for War:  

... The Government should have ready this force of six divisions and four cavalry brigades and keep it alive through regular machinery for six months, and after that the nation should be prepared to do its part. That aid should come, through channels which should be provided for it beforehand, to the support and the expansion of the professional Army of the country. ...   ... After six months, drafts are found by the ordinary machinery of war.  ... with the wastage of war one feels that at the end of six months the resources of the War Office may be at an end with that amount of men, and then an appeal must be made to the nation itself. (Hansard 25^th February 1907).

 

We digress however.

 

[FROGSMILE]

18 minutes ago, Muerrisch said:

I doubt if Haldane's ghost would agree that his reforms were really an attempt to achieve a greater standardisation of terms and conditions of service for auxiliary forces and bring ALL of them under Military Law.

 

He gathered consensus on what the army was for, and persuaded Parliament to  sanction and fund the Expeditionary Force to achieve that purpose.

 

Mr Richard (later Viscount) Haldane, Secretary of State for War:  

... The Government should have ready this force of six divisions and four cavalry brigades and keep it alive through regular machinery for six months, and after that the nation should be prepared to do its part. That aid should come, through channels which should be provided for it beforehand, to the support and the expansion of the professional Army of the country. ...   ... After six months, drafts are found by the ordinary machinery of war.  ... with the wastage of war one feels that at the end of six months the resources of the War Office may be at an end with that amount of men, and then an appeal must be made to the nation itself. (Hansard 25^th February 1907).

 

We digress however.

 

 

Yes I agree that there were loftier considerations, not least that the TF should fill the interim need for reinforcing the regular army until such time as the Nation could be mobilised.  Nevertheless, there were complaints at grass roots level about the myriad terms and conditions of service of the auxiliary forces (x3) and a genuine desire on senior officers parts to create a more homogenous, coherent force where all were under military law and singing off the same hymn sheet.  Of course it, the TF, was only partially successful in that regard.

Edited 10 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[armypal]

35 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Yes I agree that there were loftier considerations, not least that the TF should fill the interim need for reinforcing the regular army until such time as the Nation could be mobilised.  Nevertheless, there were complaints at grass roots level about the myriad terms and conditions of service of the auxiliary forces (x3) and a genuine desire on senior officers parts to create a more homogenous, coherent force where all were under military law and singing off the same hymn sheet.  Of course it, the TF, was only partially successful in that regard.

 

36 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Yes I agree that there were loftier considerations, not least that the TF should fill the interim need for reinforcing the regular army until such time as the Nation could be mobilised.  Nevertheless, there were complaints at grass roots level about the myriad terms and conditions of service of the auxiliary forces (x3) and a genuine desire on senior officers parts to create a more homogenous, coherent force where all were under military law and singing off the same hymn sheet.  Of course it, the TF, was only partially successful in that regard.

Hello Frogsmile.

It begs the question; did those men who signed up  fully understand what the nature of future conflicts that they might be involved in would be. The recent experience of war for some of them would be hearing about  the 'Boer 'War or the 'Afghan' War or the 'Crimean' War.

 

Or was it 'patriotism' that encouraged them; at school (all girls convent) in the 1950's we were  signing from a standard song book , patriotic  songs such as 'Hearts of Oak' and a song called 'King James' men, (shall understand what Cornish lads can do).My husband was singing these same songs from the same publication at his Yorkshire boy's grammar school in the mis 1930's!!

 

Or were there other motives for signing on to the Militia and TF like being in a social group with your friends, as you explained to me?  

 

Oops I think philosophy at the poly' in the 80's is influencing me ..sorry.

[armypal]

2 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

One reason why the Militia was discarded in favour of the SR [decision 1907, action April 1908] was that the Militia could not be compelled to serve overseas in war, a major problem in the Boer War, such that the Volunteer Force were asked to provide Volunteer Companies to supplement the badly stretched regular army. Both the Militia and the Volunteer Force were superseded by the SR and the Territorial Force for good reason, and just as well as events turned out.This is an over-simplification but should give a flavour as to why the SR recruit had a great deal of training ab initio. and was clothed to virtually full scale.

The SR were perceived to be socially superior to the VF by the officer classes: Lord Reith [subsequently of BBC fame] was dissuaded by his father from seeking a commission in the SR as they were above his perceived station. Rank for rank the SR were officially senior to the TF until the exigencies of war forced equallity.

I know it's digressing but I have an interest in mining in West Yorkshire through family connections in WWI via marriage to Methley and Lundhill/Rawmarsh.

Edited 10 July , 2020 by armypal
missing words

[FROGSMILE]

15 minutes ago, armypal said:

 

Hello Frogsmile.

It begs the question; did those men who signed up  fully understand what the nature of future conflicts that they might be involved in would be. The recent experience of war for some of them would be hearing about  the 'Boer 'War or the 'Afghan' War or the 'Crimean' War.

 

Or was it 'patriotism' that encouraged them; at school (all girls convent) in the 1950's we were  signing from a standard song book , patriotic  songs such as 'Hearts of Oak' and a song called 'King James' men, (shall understand what Cornish lads can do).My husband was singing these same songs from the same publication at his Yorkshire boy's grammar school in the mis 1930's!!

 

Or were there other motives for signing on to the Militia and TF like being in a social group with your friends, as you explained to me?  

 

Oops I think philosophy at the poly' in the 80's is influencing me ..sorry.

 

I'm quite sure that for most young men the 2nd Boer War was in living memory, even if many were boys at the time.  The image of Christopher Robin (I think it was him) in paper bicorne hat fashioned from a newspaper and a wooden sword related to that war.  For those older they would remember the Jingoism, the music hall turns and the arguments played out in the press about the incompetence of the regular generals (plus ca change there) the problems with the auxiliary forces, and most significant of all the very poor physical specimens of British manhood, who through malnutrition were unfit to pass the Army medical and take to the field.  As a result of this latter there was a Royal Commission to examine the health of the nation that began initial stirrings that many decades later would feed in to the creation of the NHS.  As a result of all this military service was writ quite large in the public consciousness.

 

In addition there was the great patriotic movement begun under Victoria, but carried on enthusiastically by Edward VII (and his government), just as you have alluded to.

 

Finally, at the level of the Middle Classes and the Working men both rurally and in urban areas, the auxiliary forces provided a really important focal point where men could be men (as they saw it) and practise 'manly activities' like shooting and playing organised sport in a way that they could never have afforded were it not encouraged and sponsored by the 'County Associations' that provided the infrastructure for these activities to take place.  Even then though they had to pay a subscription fee for the privilege.  The canny men among the middle class used to give a large part of their annual cash bounty to their wives in the sense that it might pay for family outings as a precursor to the summer holidays of today.

Edited 10 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[armypal]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

Yes I agree that there were loftier considerations, not least that the TF should fill the interim need for reinforcing the regular army until such time as the Nation could be mobilised.  Nevertheless, there were complaints at grass roots level about the myriad terms and conditions of service of the auxiliary forces (x3) and a genuine desire on senior officers parts to create a more homogenous, coherent force where all were under military law and singing off the same hymn sheet.  Of course it, the TF, was only partially successful in that regard.

It begs the question; Were those who signed up  for the Militia /T F who went to War, influenced by talk of previous conflicts, such as the 'Boer' War as to what they would encounter or fight for, or were there deeper considerations of 'patriotism' instilled by the widespread teaching in schools about our 'glorious' military past. At school in the fifties, we were signing  patriotic songs such as 'Hearts of Oak' and 'King James's Men', ( shall understand what Cornish lads can do,' amongst other songs. My husband said he had sung the same songs from the same publication in the mid 1930's!!!

Another consideration to be considered of course is did they join up to be part of a local group with their friends, Militia local lads from the villages/TF urban and middleclass men, as kindly explained to me in earlier posts, which I hadn't understood before.

 

12 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

 

I'm quite sure that for most young men the 2nd Boer War was in living memory, even if many were boys at the time.  The image of Christopher Robin (I think it was him) in paper bicorne hat fashioned from a newspaper and a wooden sword related to that war.  For those older they would remember the Jingoism, the music hall turns and the arguments played out in the press about the incompetence of the regular generals (plus ca change there) the problems with the auxiliary forces, and most significant of all the very poor physical specimens of British manhood, who through malnutrition were unfit to pass the Army medical and take to the field.  As a result of this latter there was a Royal Commission to examine the health of the nation that began initial stirrings that many decades later would feed in to the creation of the NHS.  As a result of all this military service was writ quite large in the public consciousness.

 

In addition there was the great patriotic movement begun under Victoria, but carried on enthusiastically by Edward VII (and his government), just as you have alluded to.

 

Finally, at the level of the Middle Classes and the Working men both rurally and in urban areas, the auxiliary forces provided a really important focal point where men could be men (as they saw it) and practise 'manly activities' like shooting and playing organised sport in a way that they could never have afforded were it not encouraged and sponsored by the 'County Associations' that provided the infrastructure for these activities to take place.  Even then though they had to pay a subscription fee for the privilege.  The canny men among the middle class used to give a large part of their annual cash bounty to their wives in the sense that it might pay for family outings as a precursor to the summer holidays of today.

Thankyou Frogsmile.

Your reply has certainly given me 'food for thought'. I am going to look at my 'recruits and 'serving men',  from WWI in a different light entirely now.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, armypal said:

It begs the question; Were those who signed up  for the Militia /T F who went to War, influenced by talk of previous conflicts, such as the 'Boer' War as to what they would encounter or fight for, or were there deeper considerations of 'patriotism' instilled by the widespread teaching in schools about our 'glorious' military past. At school in the fifties, we were signing  patriotic songs such as 'Hearts of Oak' and 'King James's Men', ( shall understand what Cornish lads can do,' amongst other songs. My husband said he had sung the same songs from the same publication in the mid 1930's!!!

Another consideration to be considered of course is did they join up to be part of a local group with their friends, Militia local lads from the villages/TF urban and middleclass men, as kindly explained to me in earlier posts, which I hadn't understood before.

 

Thankyou Frogsmile.

Your reply has certainly given me 'food for thought'. I am going to look at my 'recruits and 'serving men',  from WWI in a different light entirely now.

 

Despite what I just wrote there, it's also undoubtedly true that the young men who flocked so enthusiastically to the colours did not know what they were letting themselves in for, just as you suggested.  I really covered just their motives in my answer.  The reality of industrialised slaughter could not have been known to them.  It was not truly known even by the generals, who after all were the men who still thought cavalry was an important part (arme blanche) of the army, and it was they that insisted that just two medium machine guns per infantry battalion were more than enough.  This latter placed our infantry at great disadvantage in 1914.  The Boer War had been very different, with only a limited use (in terms of scale) of modern weapons and it’s a very telling statistic that the majority of British and Empire troops in that war who lost their lives died from disease.  When the regular army BEF arrived in France in 1914, they too got a rude shock from the efficiency and scale of German artillery fire and machine gun support and the road to 1918 was, partly as a result, a long and hard one.

Edited 10 July , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

On 08/07/2020 at 00:25, PRC said:

The surviving Service records for another Special Reservist might provide a broadly comparable path. Private 3/6732 William Sampson enlisted as a Special Reservist on a 6 year term on the 9th March 1910 and joined the strength of the 3rd Battalion.

 

Quick update. Just adding the information to my own database, (early days, still quite basic), and noticed there are surviving discharge records for another Norfolk Regiment Special Reservist, 3/6696 Russell H. Barker. There is no attestation papers, but his "Casualty form-active Service" sheet is headed "Special Reservist" and he is shown has having engaged from the 14th January 1910 for six years.

 

He too was mobilised into the 3rd Battalion on the 8th August 1914 and was subsequently posted to the 1st Battalion. When he was time expired in 1917, (his period of engagement could be extended in time of National Emergency), he is shown as being retained under the Military Services Act of 1916.

 

And following on from Muerrischs' comment Russell Barker attended a Musketry course from the 21st April 1911 to the 14th May 1911.

 

Russell Barker and William Sampson bracket Richard Napthen quite closely, so starting to narrow down the likely date of Richard's enlistment and identifying a pattern. On the social side of things, both Russell and William were just over 17 when they enlisted so a smart uniform and a bit of extra cash to impress the girls may have been a factor. Like the Territorial Force, for young men under 18 it could also have been a taster for what joining the Regular Army might be like.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

 

 

 

 

[RNCVR]

1 hour ago, armypal said:

 

Or was it 'patriotism' that encouraged them; at school (all girls convent) in the 1950's we were  signing from a standard song book , patriotic  songs such as 'Hearts of Oak' 

 

   (singing)....HEART of Oak

 

Thanks,

Bryan

[PRC]

29 minutes ago, RNCVR said:

(singing)....HEART of Oak

 

Steady boy

[armypal]

36 minutes ago, RNCVR said:

 

   (singing)....HEART of Oak

 

Thanks,

Bryan

Oops typo...sorry 

[RNCVR]

Very common mistake, frequently pluralized.  I was an RCN musician for many years, played & conducted Heart of Oak many many times,

 

Apologies for intruding on an interesting topic........

 

Best... Bryan

[PRC]

On 08/07/2020 at 00:25, PRC said:

I see Richard Napthen landed in France on the 11th January 1915, hence why I think the timelines are comparable. Others that landed with Richard on that date that I'm aware of are 3/6674 Robert Sands, 3/6852 Stephen Sissen, 3/6881 James William Littleproud and 3/8216 William Smith, all bound for the 1st Battalion.

 

The 1st Battalion War Diary records the arrival of an officer and 45 men on the 13th January 1915 while they were in Billets at Dranoutre. Later the same day the Battalion relieved the 1st Cheshires in trenches near Wulvergem, so very likely the new arrivals got a very early baptism of fire.

 

Can’t say it applies to all the men who landed in France on the 11th January 1915 bound for the 1st Battalion, but the Casualty Form-Active Service in the surviving records for 3/6895 Leonard Louis Smith shows him joining up with the Battalion in the field on the 20th January 1915.

 

The Battalion War Diary shows them in Billets at Bailleul at the time. The diary entry for 21st January 1915 adds:-

“Lt Davis and 2/Lt Garvey(? - tbc) joined with 80 men.”

 

The April 1915 Monthly Army List shows the Officer establishment of the 1st Battalion included a 2nd Lieutenant F. Garvey with a seniority of the 4th November 1914, but no candidate for Lieutenant Davis.

 

The entry in the War Diary for February 14th vey pithily tells us why – it simply reads “Lt.Davis Killed”

Lieutenant DAVIS, HERBERT GOUGH

Died 14/02/1915

Aged 37

3rd Bn. Norfolk Regiment

Son of A. D. O. and H. R. Davis, of Blackheath, London. Served in the South African Campaign.

Buried at DRANOUTER CHURCHYARD

Location: West-Vlaanderen, Belgium

Cemetery/memorial reference: II. B. 1.

Source: https://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/453872/davis,-herbert-gough/

 

The Medal Index Card for Herbert shows he landed in France on the 11th January 1915.

 

The relevant Medal Index card shows that Francis Garvey was originally a Sergeant in the Suffolk Regiment, (service number 6536), he was commissioned on the 4th November 1914 in the 2/4th Norfolk Regiment and landed in France on the 2nd January 1915. By the end of the war he had made Captain.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

 

[armypal]

Hi Peter.

Once again thankyou for all the trounle you have gone to  to prepare this further insight into the men and the Battalion.  It really makes interesting reading and highlights the path of peoples lives during the war.

The mention of Lieutenant Davis is in the usual curt manner.At least he is mentioned by name, other ranks were hardly ever  named just a total given.

 

I'm going to look at the Battalion War diary and read more about the experiences of the men in 1915.

Kind regards,

Helen.

[armypal]

On 10/07/2020 at 18:12, PRC said:

 

Quick update. Just adding the information to my own database, (early days, still quite basic), and noticed there are surviving discharge records for another Norfolk Regiment Special Reservist, 3/6696 Russell H. Barker. There is no attestation papers, but his "Casualty form-active Service" sheet is headed "Special Reservist" and he is shown has having engaged from the 14th January 1910 for six years.

 

He too was mobilised into the 3rd Battalion on the 8th August 1914 and was subsequently posted to the 1st Battalion. When he was time expired in 1917, (his period of engagement could be extended in time of National Emergency), he is shown as being retained under the Military Services Act of 1916.

 

And following on from Muerrischs' comment Russell Barker attended a Musketry course from the 21st April 1911 to the 14th May 1911.

 

Russell Barker and William Sampson bracket Richard Napthen quite closely, so starting to narrow down the likely date of Richard's enlistment and identifying a pattern. On the social side of things, both Russell and William were just over 17 when they enlisted so a smart uniform and a bit of extra cash to impress the girls may have been a factor. Like the Territorial Force, for young men under 18 it could also have been a taster for what joining the Regular Army might be like.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

 

 

 

 

Thankyou once again for all your help Peter.

It is such an advance to have your insight into when Richard may have enlisted in the 'Reserves', as, as you have discovered  both Russell Barker and William Sampson enlisted at around the same time. It certainly has made me more aware of the choices facing young men at the time, in rural areas, who may have had 'Military' ambitions, as a possible route away from the declining opportunities on the land. I am feeling less inclined to believe that they enlisted out of a sense of 'patriotism ' between say 1905 -1912 and more as you say for the social side.

Your Database certainly sounds fascinating, I have concentrated on two local areas and those who served, but with now being interested in Richard am having to try to widen my scope and understanding.

Regards,

Helen