CWGC: Information errors more likely if soldier commemorated on a large memorial rather than gravestone

[rolt968]

Over the years I have begun to believe that if a soldier has no known grave and is commemorated on a memorial (rather than having a gravestone) there are more likely to be errors in the documented information. I mean the information which would have been displayed on a gravestone but is not displayed on a large memorial. 

 

Errors I have met include:

Wrong battalion number,

Wrong date of death,

Errors in serial number prefix - particularly 3s for Ss.

 

Firstly am I right in my theory? Secondly if so, was there an additional check before information was inscribed on a gravestone?

RM

[ss002d6252]

I'd imagine that a gravestone was more likely to have a personal inscription so there'd be more eyes on the paperwork before hand to spot any obvious errors.

Craig

[TullochArd]

Now you mention it RM I've noted similar and I agree with you.  All I could add is that families were invited to add a dedication (at cost) to gravestones on graves and maybe in the interaction that followed any anomalies were raised/investigated/actioned?  

[tharkin56]

Can't confirm that but can confirm men transferred from one battalion to another and records never caught up. The date of death varies between Medal Index Card and the national Archives files and SDGW. Also i wonder if dedications on headstones received further correspondence if the Graves Commission had  a query over spelling etc but send the details of the whole headstone inscription back to the family, so they asked for Fortiter Et Fideliter Grant Them O Lord Light And Peace and to make sure the Graves Commission replied ' 9th Bn., Devonshire Regiment Fortiter Et Fideliter Grant Them O Lord Light And Peace etc

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

20 hours ago, rolt968 said:

Errors I have met include:

 

 

 

Post WW1 GRU and IWGC identification work is a fascinating subject, - closely tied to the work which contributed to the compilation of the ODITGW & SDITGW databases. The CWGC now try to … well, the paragraph above is self-explanatory. I do realise that being straightforward (blunt, if you prefer) isn't popular in certain places, but facing up to something which is wrong is not "wrong".

Tom

 

[rolt968]

Thank you to everyone for their interesting contributions. It is a relief to know that other people agree, since I think I have actually been working with this assumption for quite a while.

 

Incidentally, again It's only from my experience, but I believe that there are considerably fewer details of relations/ next of kin on the CWGC database for men who are commemorated on the memorials.

 

RM

Edited 11 August , 2020 by rolt968

[headgardener]

2 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

 

 

Incdientally, again It's only from my experience, but I believe that there are considerably fewer details of relations/ next of kin on the CWGC database for men who are commemorated on the memorials.

 

Very much so. I find that details for men on CWGC memorials usually consist of little more than the very basics (name, rank, number, battalion & regiment, date of death). I always assumed that there was somehow less motivation on the part of their families to add further details and, of course, there was no possibility of a personal inscription.