Is a soldier’s age important?

[Alan24]

I recently bought the medals of a casualty who is recorded by CWGC as being 19 years old when killed in 1915 at Hill 60.

 

In fact he turned out to be 18 years and 4 months.

 

He joined pre war just after his 17th birthday, giving his age as 18, so in the eyes of the army he was always one year older than he really was. 

 

Because of the fact that he was under 19, I feel personally that this should be recorded correctly by CWGC.

 

I would be less concerned that an older man's age was out by one year.

 

Should I bring this to the attention of CWGC, and will they be interested anyway?

 

What do others think?

 

Regards

 

Alan.

[Guest]

Yes.  As I grind through my local casualties, I discover a few more that were underage when the facts are checked with the excellent online resources available to us nowadays. I also hope they are amenable to changing their records if a full name is provided for a casualty,rather than just the initials as it often is.

[Matlock1418]

On 16/12/2020 at 11:32, Alan24 said:

Should I bring this to the attention of CWGC, and will they be interested anyway?

I think that is likely to be = "maybe" and "maybe"

I also hope they are amenable to changing their records if a full name is provided for a casualty,rather than just the initials as it often is.

I think that is also likely to be = "maybe"

 

Not quite so sure about ages but CWGC do seem quite 'precious' about forenames & surnames - and CWGC sometimes seem especially reluctant to change and especially add a name in full [even if you can prove it] - commonly citing that previously the NoK had had the chance to name according to their wishes [back in the day].

 

However if you can find a number of sources they may correct their own internal errors - recently I identified a spelling error [typo] in the Graves Register which carried to the online register and that was resolved - I provided a steer to the GRO Birth reference, GRO Death reference, MIC, place of residence, Soldiers Effects, SDGW and that was just enough to remove an erroneous extra letter - Phew! [The good news, and possibly a deciding factor for CWGC, was that the details didn't have to be changed on a stone - so not costly for them!!] :-)

 

However having previously tried to get a full forename added to another soldier's online record [only - not on a stone] they insisted on a BC [as a minimum] and means of linking it to the casualty through military records - sadly there was only an MIC, and despite civil Census records linking to a close/but not exact address for the NoK address recorded at CWGC they wouldn't budge [seemed a shame as I thought the address was in fact the same, but just presented differently]  At least it wasn't/isn't incorrect but it would be nicer to commemorate with a fuller name. :-/

 

For DoB/ages and birth names a BC will be essential fodder for CWGC - and the linking other info, with plenty of it if you can.  Just hope you don't get a range of options or I think you will be stuck.  A GRO Reference(s) is not enough for them if a 'major' change/addition is required.  :-(

 

I know, it's very frustrating for you to have to pay for a BC and/or a DC for CWGC - I would have thought CWGC and/or the military would have an internal arrangement with the GRO, but apparently not! :-(

I think a PDF version of a certificate(s) will probably do but I'm still waiting for CWGC to confirm that [for an impending approach to CWGC] - I'm not going to spend £7 per certificate for a PDF only to find I should have spent £11 for a full one and thus ending up spending £18 for each!!!

 

Good luck.

:-) M

[Alan24]

Thanks I'll give it a go.

I have the BC and the mother's name and address matches the information already held by CWGC as Additional Information, so there shouldn't be any doubt.