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

Remembered Today:

Help Decipher from Pension Card


keithfazzani

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, keithfazzani said:

Good morning can anyone decipher the last word?

 

image.png.14112206fe56611baea0a4e2937fbfdf.png

 

1 minute ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Is it a mangled 'gratuity'?


I'd agree with Dai.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks could well be. Does anyone know why she was not entitled, I know little about pensions. Might it be that she remarried? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, keithfazzani said:

Thanks could well be. Does anyone know why she was not entitled, I know little about pensions. Might it be that she remarried? 

Can you link to the full card please.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, keithfazzani said:

can anyone decipher the last word?

I actually thought it was "Pamt" as a a shorthand for payment.

12 minutes ago, keithfazzani said:

Does anyone know why she was not entitled, I know little about pensions. Might it be that she remarried? 

There are a number of reasons why a/various types of payment(s) might not occur.

Re-marriage typically created a re-marriage gratuity but we can't see exactly the context of this small abstract so we will find it hard to explain why any non-payment might be appropriate.

If you can share the soldier's / widow's details / the record then I am pretty sure more info may flow.

:-) M

 

P.S. Craig you beat me!

Edited by Matlock1418
ps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh.

It's 'grant' !

I thought I was seeing a dotted 'i' but I think the dot is either a blot or artefact. 

Edited by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

'grant'

Yes, I think you are right "Widow not eligible for grant" works for me

Now we have to decide if it was a grant, allowance, pension or gratuity for which she was not eligible - and perhaps why not eligible.

The fixed sum gratuity [which I have seen called a grant] paid on death seems a possibility, but there are a few other options too I think.

= Looking forward to seeing the pension card or having more soldier's details to go on.

:-) M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I am simple person, I have  dowloaded the card from The WFA, what is the link? This whole copyright thing confuses me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your own research Keith you should I think be in order to post the record card. Treating the card in the same way as a MIC. Just quoting the source.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2020 at 21:35, keithfazzani said:

this is from Ancestry via The WFA

 

image.png.75712831d09c3d134d9bef14e756cb40.png

Keith,

Thanks for card.  OK - this helps a bit I think.  So here goes from the card:

 

1) The first thing I note is the recorded date of death in blue ink "26.10.16" - like the "Widow not eligible for grant" originally queried.

With the similarly blue coloured  "Presumed Dead" at the top of the card - so at some stage there is a bit of uncertainty about his death.

 

= 10.1916 would suggest that a death gratuity/grant was not payable - See 'Pensions and War Allowances' - Hogge & Garside p.148/9

1725006420_Widows-GratuityondeathHoggeGarsidep148-9.png.b64364148d6580f0171ef944d9e8f11f.png

Note the qualifying date - 'on or prior to 1 July 1916'

No death expenses gratuity/grant of is recorded.

Seems at first glance to be straightforward enough.

 

2) However, also note the recorded 26.10.16 date of death conflicts with the Notification of death "10.12.15" originally ["12.6.16" fainter/later underneath] and Date of Receipt form received was "1.4.16

 

3) And perhaps more importantly - this 26.10.1916 date of death is also not that which is recorded as date of death on CWGC = 13 October 1915 [His MIC and 'Soldiers Died in the Great War' also use this 1915 date]  Cause of death is not recorded [though SDGW, which I always consider with caution, suggests KiA]

 

I have no information on The Buffs/East Kent Regiment 1915/16 or Asplin's Service Record to hand [or Soldier's Effects] so can't say how this might fit in with their actions / his service and alternatively fixing a date of death

[the trouble I often fear is that many 'military' records, especially later ones, are rather 'incestuous' and several and alternative sources are to be highly valued for consideration -  Might be worth checking the contemporary newspapers for a report of his death.  In a quick search of Red Cross PoW records I couldn't see a card/widow's enquiry if he was 'missing' for a while, but ?] - I note he is commemorated by CWGC on the Loos Memorial which might perhaps suggest for a well known reason starting the month before, but is not definitive, that 1915 is the correct year.

 

= 10.1915 would however thus seem to suggest a death gratuity/grant was probably payable I believe

 

Note: all pensions and allowances were not an absolute right and could be terminated or suspended by the MoP - See 'Pensions and War Allowances' - Hogge & Garside p.147

511393563_WidowsDependants-terminateorsuspendpensionHogeGarsidep147.png.32c9b225c4edc403b65eaa7d55210732.png

"unworthy of favour" is a pretty broad, and potentially 'colourful', reason for an alternative outcome - or 'complication(s)'!

["Unworthy Wife" is, fortunately rather uncommonly, seen on some pension cards! - but not seen here and is certainly not being implied by me]

 

4) Also it is noted that the Card is marked "Noted for Novel" [and yet not in blue - so probably earlier, or perhaps later, entry] - this annotation is believed to indicate that the pension calculation is to be treated in a more unusual way/special way, typically due to some 'complicating' factor(s) [calculation not visible on the card though]

 

5) The DoB for his widow Ada Elizabeth seems to be given as "12.11.78" suggesting she is c.37/38 at the date of his death - Widows got a review [uplift] of pension payable about this age [at/from 35] I believe.  [From other records - They seem to have married in 1898 - so this date/age seems about right and would be reasonable given they seem to have had children fairly shortly thereafter]  She is not recorded as being "impaired" [as some others' cards indicate to varying degrees] so beyond a small 'tweak' by MoP would seem otherwise straightforward for her.

 

6)  There is no note on the card of re-marriage [re-marriage would commonly bring a re-marriage gratuity, possibly perhaps called a grant by some, but any children's allowances would normally be unaffected] - nor is there such a suggestion of re-marriage on the other/linked dependant's card [there's a second card for Asplin 2351] which also records "Ada Elizabeth Asplin" and the same address. So ... ?? = Keith - where did your re-marriage suggestion come from?? - just asking.

 

7) There are three children recorded - though these at first seem fairly straightforward as there is no indication of any having died and also none has yet reached the age of 16 [a situation when their pension allowance is normally stopped] and none are noted on the card as having impairment/special needs [Special educational (& potentially physical) needs - a further circumstance(s) which would/would be likely to alter the calculation]

 

However, I would observe that Separation Allowance for "4" is shown - and this usually seems to indicate the number of children for which SA is payable = ??

[Might there be some unseen reason for such counting? - like possibly the earlier death/absence of a child?? - The 1901 Census shows they have an 18mo son, William, and there is an 8 year gap between their daughters and other opportunities for more births and possibly deaths = ??  I've not checked further - but at 15/16 William might have left home/been living elsewhere and/or become ineligible for his mother receiving a pension allowance for him after death of his father = ??? -  This might easily have been a further reason for "Noted for Novel" especially if circumstances were changing along the way from initial claim]

 

8) The pension of "23/- pw is awarded 6.7.16 - from 10.7.16"  [I am not at all good at calculating pensions so am struggling to check the sums! - others may be able to help here] - There is no indication at an Alternative Widow's Pension {APW or AP] has been claimed/applied - so we might probably presume he did not have substantial pre-war earnings to take into account.

 

9) There is no other annotation(s) on the card [so far as I can see] that might further/better explain things.

 

The card seems riddled with anomalies & possible 'complications' and potential for "Noted for Novel" and now raises quite a few questions for us [not all of which seem solvable from the card evidence alone - well not by me at the moment]

 

Unfortunately I have not found a linked Pension Ledger card [which might perhaps have given a bit more useful - but of course Tilbury [Essex} is in Region 11/London & South East - so the ledger seems to be lost anyway] and of course the main and most useful record of all, the main Pension File, will likely have been officially destroyed by now [as most were many years ago].

 

However, as it currently stands = This to me all suggests that on the first card the date of death in blue, "26.10.16", and similar "Widow not entitled to grant" are probably later errors by another MoP clerk - possibly brought about by/alongside the blue coloured "Presumed Dead" at the top of the card - uncertainty about date of death is always a potentially complicating matter!

It may have been a muddle for the MoP to sort out but sadly we can't see exactly what they did here.

Pension cards are unfortunately not the ultimate 'be all and end all' record - though they are often very useful [I certainly find them so].

 

My positive-tending gut feeling is that she might quite possibly have got the grant in the end if he died in 1915 [I'm a positive sort of person! - but the Ministry of Pensions was a big beast to deal with and with that would come the usual fears of the little widow (and for us for her)!! - I rather hope she got it!!!] - and yet there really is no evidence presented here on the card to say for sure she did get a grant [actually it reads the opposite, but ... ???].

:-/ M

Edited by Matlock1418
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may all have looked already but here is Effects from Ancestry if it aids the thought processes

image.png.d4a50e499acb2afc1d2a1c62055376bf.png

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also suggest that she was still Ada Asplin in 1939 Register...

 

image.png.4b58a2f61ff36150bf149c095e0450b7.png

 

Source is Ancestry

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks George - I was catching a few hours sleep!

2 hours ago, George Rayner said:

You may all have looked already but here is Effects from Ancestry if it aids the thought processes

Another document with the 13 Oct. 1915 date of death - another 'military' document but really I think we should go with 1915 as I now feel more sure the MoP will have done - so in my opinion a death gratuity/grant probably should have been payable - but no sign so far.

 

1 hour ago, George Rayner said:

I would also suggest that she was still Ada Asplin in 1939 Register

Looks like she had living with her son William [William also found on the 1911 Census] - so looks like he was alive at the time of his father's death in 1915 and thus one of the "Noted for Novel" 'complications' for the MoP as not withstanding an earlier Separation Allowance for him - before the date of the claim application [he would respectively shortly after his father's death and yet before the claim was submitted have turned 16] - as previously hypothesised above,

 

Also look like there was her Charles, with a matching DoB, with her too

 

And a Leonard - a further son - his 1920 DoB does cause me to scratch my head.

Now he can't be EEVA's son = ???

Without wanting to cast aspersions and possibly put a cat amongst the pigeons but had she perhaps previously been living with another man after EEVA's death?

Could Leonard perhaps be born out of wedlock and so still be given her married/dead husband's surname?

Now those matters might perhaps make the MoP get a bit 'sniffy' about worthiness of a wife/widow!  - We seem unlikely to now find a smoking gun there though.

???

 

Keith - I think it is back over to you now ... Updates always welcomed - so we can check our musings!

:-/ M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

The DoB for his widow Ada Elizabeth seems to be given as "12.11.78" suggesting she is c.37/38 at the date of his death - Widows got a review [uplift] of pension payable about this age [at/from 35] I believe.  [From other records - They seem to have married in 1898

Yes, September quarter 1898:

Surname  First name(s)    District  Vol  Page 

Marriages Sep 1898   (>99%)
ASPLIN  Ernest Edward    W. Ham  4a 56  btnInfo.gif Scan available - click to view
Britland  Ada Elizabeth    W. Ham  4a 56  btnInfo.gif Scan available - click to viewAdditional information available - click to view
Brown  Adelaide    W. Ham  4a 56  btnInfo.gif Scan available - click to view
THORN  Joseph Edwin    W.Ham  4a 56  btnInfo.gif Scan available - click to view

 

Leonard's mother's maiden name is listed as Britland in the FreeBMD registration of Births.

Of course he could be an adopted son of a female relative of Ada?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all. Yes Edward Asplin did die on 13/10/15 having initially been reported missing. He was a member of D company 6th Buffs and on that day D company experienced heavy losses attacking the Quarries at Loos. My interest in him is as a member of "Cory's Unit", this is the nearest thing that Kent has to a Pals battalion, in fact a Pals Company - D Company., 6th Battalion.

 

Cory's based at Greenwich, at the time one of the biggest coal companies in the country owning coal mines, ships, barges etc encouraged their men to join the Buffs in September 1914. Some 200+ did, they were not all employees of Cory many being what we would call sub-contractors, coal porters, blacksmiths etc. Cory's promised to look after the families of any who were killed or incapacitated and they did to the tune of £12,000 about £3m in today's terms. Orphans were for example sent to boarding schools. 

 

Their losses at Loos were such that very few remained in D company after that. Many were discharged unfit but some joined Waterway Company, which is perhaps where they should have been in the first place.I stumbled on a picture of D company taken at Aldershot which had been taken shorty before their departure on June 1st 1916, it bears all the names, hence the research which has now been going on for some years. I have identified all but 7 of them and found out what happened to them, I am now delving into the pensions minefield. So thanks for all your help. 

 

Cory's still exists as Cory's Environmental and I am pleased to say that have an article on Cory's Unit in this month's "staff journal" to reflect Armistice Day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2020 at 12:26, keithfazzani said:

Cory's promised to look after the families of any who were killed or incapacitated and they did to the tune of £12,000 about £3m in today's terms

Interesting - never heard of Cory/Cory's before.

If they provided any aid to EEVA's widow, Ada, then that might have complicated things a bit and caused/contributed to "Noted for Novel" and perhaps no death gratuity/grant after all.

One might suspect the MoP might not have liked a 'double bubble' of benefits - or 'overlapping' as it may perhaps have been more officially called back then.

Hard to say at this time, so long after.

:-) M

 

Edit: Followed your hint and here, for others, is the link to the Cory article, complete with the photo. :-)   https://www.coryenergy.com/news/remembering-the-fallen-corys-unit

Edited by Matlock1418
edit and later addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the link to John Cory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cory

 

A big big name in coal in South Wales, in particular Cardiff and Barry areas.

The Cory Hall in Cardiff was named after him.

Big business interests in shipping, coal, haulage and travel agencies.

The business was taken over eventually by Powell Duffryn (PD ports etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Dai I followed some newspaper articles on the Welsh connection but didn't find any military connection. Matlock thanks for the link I forgot to put it in and yes I did wonder whether Cory's payments might affect things.

 

At the time of the war Cory's would fill their barges with London rubbish and deposit it on various marshlands in the Thames on the way to collect coal from larger vessels. The company that still exists is now an environmental company, collecting rubbish and burning it in a power station on the Thames. At the time of WW1 one of their colliers, coal carrying ship, was called the Buffs. The Buffs were a very popular regiment and not wanting to stray too much from the topic, Canterbury City Buses were painted in Buff's colours in living memory. I have today received a face mask in Buff's colours, too late for Remebrance sadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.75712831d09c3d134d9bef14e756cb40.png

 

 

The 4 parties for whom the Separation Allowance is paid is likely just a clerk putting the number of people on the claim (3 kids + mother) rather than mentioning 4 children - if the 4 children were included in the claim then they should have been noted on the card. It's a pity that the ledger does not survive to cross check but...

 

The 23s per week pension in July 1916 looks right for 3 kids - I don't have the full figures to hand but the April 1915 committee proposal was 20s 6d for a widow with 3 kids plus 2s 6d age allowance if she was between 35 and 45, which takes us to the 23s per week.


Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, keithfazzani said:

Thanks Craig. Opened up a whole new world of research for me.

Same here - I've written a good few pieces on pension now (most available on the WFA website, if it interests you).

Craig

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...