Francis George Woodhouse

[EmmaDean]

2 minutes ago, johnboy said:

he undermentioned Lts. are placed on the h.p. list. 

 

\think it means placed on half pay list. Sure Frogsmile can explain more fully

Thanks @johnboy I thought that might be the case, but I have no idea what that means 😂🤣

[FROGSMILE]

On 31/05/2021 at 20:20, EmmaDean said:

@FROGSMILE Hi Frogsmile, please could you explain what these announcements mean? 🙏🏻

The first means Half Pay and was an Army (and Navy) euphemism for an officer reaching a stage of either, opting for retirement whilst still of military age, or going into (being placed in) a fallow category because there was no job for him.  In either case his whereabouts remained known via a list (Half Pay List) so that the Army had a ready made reserve should the Army need to increase in size very quickly.  Officers could move relatively seamlessly from the Half Pay List (where they received a half salary even though unemployed) to the Active List, and visa versa.

The second entry relates to former officers for whom there is no job (often because of their age combined with limited experience and thus limited employability) but who wish to reenter military service in any lower capacity that they can (such as Home Guard (aka Dad’s Army)).  In such circumstances for legal reasons they had first to relinquish their commissions before being re-enlisted as soldiers.  It was in effect a reversal of the process by which they were commissioned in the first place.  This happened a lot at the beginning of WW2 when soldiers who had been commissioned in WW1 wanted to reenter the service to do their bit again, but there was no place for them in an officer capacity.  Some joined the Home Guard and became NCOs again, and others (usually the youngest) were eventually commissioned once again, but with Home Guard (auxiliary) commissions rather than regular commissions.

I hope that makes sense.

 

Edited 9 January , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[EmmaDean]

45 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

The first means Half Pay and was an Army (and Navy) euphemism for an officer reaching a stage of either, opting for retirement whilst still of military age, or going into (being placed in) a fallow category because there was no job for him.  In either case his whereabouts remained known via a list (Half Pay List) so that the Army had a ready made reserve should the Army need to increase in size very quickly.  Officers could move very quickly from the Half Pay List (where they received a half salary even though unemployed) to the Active List, and visa versa.

The second entry relates to former officers for whom there is no job (often because of their age combined with limited experience and thus limited employability) but who wish to reenter military service in any lower capacity that they can (such as Home Guard (aka Dad’s Army).  In such circumstances for legal reasons they had first to relinquish their commissions before being re-enlisted as soldiers.  It was in effect a reversal of the process by which they were commissioned in the first place.  This happened a lot at the beginning of WW2 when soldiers who had been commissioned in WW1 wanted to reenter the service to do their bit again, but there was no place for them in an officer capacity.  Some joined the Home Guard and became NCOs again and others (usually the youngest) were eventually commissioned once again, but with Home Guard (auxiliary) commissions rather than regular commissions.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Thanks, as always, Frogsmile. Very helpful. So the second entry could be my Francis Woodhouse - he could have re-entered at a lower capacity?

[clk]

1 hour ago, EmmaDean said:

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for coming back to me. Something quite funny is that I had not even noticed that there were dates of birth included on the typed record 🙄😂

 

Okay, so, this is interesting. The date of birth is stated as being the 21st April 1875. On the England and Wales 1939 register, the date of birth is stated as being 21st April 1877. This must be the same person??! Would there be a reason for ‘massaging the truth’ in terms of his date of birth? Or could it just be a simple error? The burial record I have states that he died in 1947 and he was 72. That would correlate with him having been born in 1875 🤷🏼‍♀️🤔

 

Hi Emma,

 

To be honest without seeing the service record, I just don't know. There do appear to be some co-incidences, but I cant be 100% sure, so that's where the gamble lies. If it were to be him, then I guess that there might be something such as Thomas being shown as a NoK with an address in any original surviving paperwork which might help you to springboard your research on him.

 

Regards

Chris

[EmmaDean]

3 minutes ago, clk said:

 

Hi Emma,

 

To be honest without seeing the service record, I just don't know. There do appear to be some co-incidences, but I cant be 100% sure, so that's where the gamble lies. If it were to be him, then I guess that there might be something such as Thomas being shown as a NoK with an address in any original surviving paperwork which might help you to springboard your research on him.

 

Regards

Chris

Thanks Chris. I think I’m going to get an application off...and probably wait until this time next year to get anything from it 😂🤣 As you say, there are coincidences...

[FROGSMILE]

37 minutes ago, EmmaDean said:

Thanks, as always, Frogsmile. Very helpful. So the second entry could be my Francis Woodhouse - he could have re-entered at a lower capacity?

Yes it seems likely given the date of the entry that he was reentering service in the British Army in some capacity at the beginning of WW2 and to do so as an “other rank” (the official term for those below officer) had to relinquish his commission, as explained.  It was a standard policy.  If he was reengaging still as an officer (as some did) then he would not have had to undergo that process.

Edited 31 May , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Madmeg]

11 hours ago, EmmaDean said:

Thanks Madmeg. Sorry for appearing a bit clueless, but how would a DNA test help? I know what side of the family Francis was on - it was my mother’s side?

So the DNA test can be very helpful.

I am strongly suspecting that his name at birth may not have been his name in the records everyone has found- why? because there is no trace of him in the birth reg or census. Either that or he was born elsewhere but even then he can't be found before 1901. There are a couple of family trees on ancestry which include him but it looks like those people haven't made any progress either-  incorrect details would explain why numerous researchers can't find him.

 

What would a DNA test do? it would allow you to potentially connect with relatives who link in further back in the tree and could give you a lead on his origins.

So for example- your DNA test shows a link to a cousin of some sort (Person A) who also has Francis in their tree. THIS person has a shared match with you and another cousin (Person B)- who does NOT have Francis in their tree but has Person X in their tree. You also find Person X inanother cousin (Person C) tree who is also a DNA link to you - this means that Person X is connected to you somehow and the likelihood is that they are connected to Francis. Now you have a name to work with (it could be a sibling, or cousin of Francis). The more people who share DNA matches with you and Person A (or B or C etc) the more family connections you can build.

 

Of course it is rarely that easy  :-D- but I hope you get the idea. I have been able to positively confirm a number of ancestral relatives who I thought were mine but wasn't absolutely sure due to positive DNA links with their descendants and have worked out the real name of another WW1 soldier who appears for the first time in his CEF attestation documents- because the name he signed up with was NOT the name he was born with! 

The DNA test cannot lie :-) and may be able to help you find further back generations.

[Matthew B.]

Hi,

 

There are a couple more entries in the London Gazette for him:

 

London Gazette 26 September 1921

Lt. F. G. Woodhouse, h.p. list, late R.G.A., retires on ret. pay. 7th Apr. 1921. (Substituted for the notification in the Gazette of 5th Apr. 1921.)

 

London Gazette 3 May 1927

ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY.

The undermentioned having attained the age limit of liability to recall, cease to belong to the Res. of Off. 30th Apr. 1927 : —

Capt. S. Turner.

Lt. F. G. Woodhouse.

 

With all this I checked the 1939 Register on FMP and this must be him (though he promoted himself Captain it seems!)

 

140 Monk's Road, Exeter, Devon, England

First name(s)      Last name(s)       DOB                      Sex         Occupation                        Marital status   

Francis G             Woodhouse        21 Apr 1877        Male      Retired Capt R A               Married

Ellen M                Woodhouse        21 Mar 1875       Female  Unpaid Domestic Duties Married

Roderick T           Woodhouse        03 Sep 1907        Male      Baker & Confectioner    

 

 

When I read the below:

 

The undermentioned  2nd Lts. relinquish their rank on enlistment into the ranks of the Army:-  F.G. Woodhouse (late R.G.A). 1st Jan 1940.

 

I took a chance an checked the Royal Artillery Enlistment books on FMP, and there he is:

 

926389 Wodehouse, Francis George with the note next to his name:

22/2/41 Para 390 (XVIII)A K. R.

 

This note refers to Paragraph 390 (xviii)A of the Kings Regulations 1940

Paragraph 390 of King's Regulations 1940 listed the various causes of discharge for Other Ranks in the Army. Discharges under sub-para (xviii) were "For the benefit of the public service", and sub-subparas specified the reason more explicitly.

In his case it was “His services being no longer required for the duties for which he enlisted.”

 

I hope that helps.

 

Matthew

[FROGSMILE]

That’s very useful Matthew and finishes off his military journey nicely.

A couple of clarifications for Emma:

Retired Pay is the Army euphemism for Pension.  It meant he started receiving a military pension for his services up to that date.

With regards to his rank he hadn’t promoted himself.  There were several categories for promotion during the war.  His substantive (pension earning) rank never went beyond 2nd Lieutenant.  He was then made an Acting Lieutenant and (later) Temporary (for duration of war) Captain.  Once an officer retires he is permitted to title himself by the highest paid rank that he achieved in service.  Ergo Captain was entirely correct.

Edited 9 January , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Madmeg]

Hi Emma,

A little snippet that might be of interest-

In 1942/3 a west country paper posted an article that a Mrs FG woodhouse of (street name and number given) had received a cutting from Australia regarding her brother WJ Britton, who at 80 years old was the oldest munitions worker in Australia. He had emigrated 62 years previously and never been back to England since.

Ellen Maud Brittons family were quite easy to find on a quick initial search of various sites but don;t forget WJ her brother :-)

 

You will find the English end of the newspaper trail at The British Newspaper Archive. here is a link to the original Australian newspaper complete with photo... https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128365266?searchTerm=Britton worker

Another snippet- which I haven;t followed up but found intriguing.

In 1933 the funeral of Murray Impey at Ottery St Mary was attended by various Impey family memberes including Mr and Mrs FG Woodhouse (son in law and daughter). Now the Francis George who was born in London married Eliza Impey- who was allegedly born in Deptford. Haven't checked it out as yet- if our man wasn't firmly in the army (and definitely in separate places at the same census time in 1901 and 1911 and 1939 I'd be starting to wonder if he was leading a complex double life!

Surrey death looks like the other Francis James as there is a probate for the same year with a Francis Eric named - Francis Eric was the son of Francis James of London (and Eliza Impey Woodhouse)

Edited 13 June , 2021 by Madmeg

[EmmaDean]

Hello!

I’m hoping that I can ‘resurrect’ this topic and people will take pity on me again 😂

I have received service files for Francis from the MOD. Quite frankly, it’s all just pretty much gobbledygook to me! I am attaching some photos of some of the pages in the hope that the experienced among us might be able to add a bit of commentary to what is in the records.

There are a couple of interesting things. On the marriage certificate for Francis and Ellen, Francis’ father is stated as being ‘Thomas Woodhouse’. On the first enlistment record, ‘Thos. Woodhouse’ of Dunsford, Nr. Exeter, Devon is stated as being Francis’ father.

One of the many things I don’t understand is how someone’s time in the army works. By that, I mean that Francis ‘ceased to belong to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, having attained the age limit of liability to recall’ on the 30th April 1927. There is then an attestation for the Territorial Army in 1940. Why would someone do that?

Also, on that later record, it states that Francis is a British Subject and the nationality of both his mother and father at their birth was England. I know that this could mean absolutely nothing but it’s the first mention of anything to do with Francis’ mother that I have seen.

Another thing that I don’t understand is to do with Francis’ date of birth. On the later attestation, he states that he is 52 having been born on the 21st April 1887. There is an asterisk in the margin, noting that the date of birth as shown on the first service attestation as being the 30th April 1877. I understand why he may have ‘lied’ about the year of birth because he made himself 10 years younger (if he was born in 1877), but I don’t understand the difference in the date. Given that Francis first enlisted in March 1899, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the earlier year of birth is more likely to be correct (unless he was 12 when he first enlisted).

Anyway, enough of my musings! Any thoughts, suggestions or guidance as to what I could try next would be very welcome as always!

[EmmaDean]

These are other photos that I couldn’t add to my last post 😊

I think this should be the last one 😊

[FROGSMILE]

I can answer your first question Emma.  He was too old to be recalled as an officer in the Regular Army (professional full-time) as he’d reached the maximum age for the Regular Reserve.  However the age requirements for the auxiliary forces like the Territorial Army were less stringent so he could join them instead.  It’s all to do with employment contracts, known in the Army as “terms and conditions of service”.  They were different for regulars and auxiliaries.

Edited 9 January , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[EmmaDean]

On 09/01/2022 at 00:24, FROGSMILE said:

I can answer your first question Emma.  He was too old to be recalled as an officer in the Regular Army (professional full-time) as he’d reached the maximum age for the Regular Reserve.  However the age requirements for the auxiliary forces like the Territorial Army were less stringent so he could join them instead.  It’s all to do with employment contracts, known in the Army as “terms and conditions of service”.  They were different for regulars and auxiliaries.

Ah, thanks Frogsmile! I thought it would be something like that. It’s just so frustrating that even with the MOD file and the new Census release, I don’t really have any new information that I can go on to try and follow this part of my family tree. Given that this is only as far back as Francis being my g-g-grandfather, it’s really disappointing 😔

[FROGSMILE]

37 minutes ago, EmmaDean said:

Ah, thanks Frogsmile! I thought it would be something like that. It’s just so frustrating that even with the MOD file and the new Census release, I don’t really have any new information that I can go on to try and follow this part of my family tree. Given that this is only as far back as Francis being my g-g-grandfather, it’s really disappointing 😔

There are some fantastic genealogical detectives here Emma and I’m sure that individuals like @PRC, @Matlock1418and @ss002d6252might be able to help you.

Edited 10 January , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[ss002d6252]

The WFA Pension cards have a single entry that doesn't add much.

https://www.fold3.com/image/689540815?terms=francis,george,woodhouse


Craig

[FROGSMILE]

On 10/01/2022 at 14:28, ss002d6252 said:

The WFA Pension cards have a single entry that doesn't add much.

https://www.fold3.com/image/689540815?terms=francis,george,woodhouse


Craig

I’m not sure what extra it is that @EmmaDean is hoping for…

Edited 11 January , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

On 10/01/2022 at 13:45, EmmaDean said:

Given that this is only as far back as Francis being my g-g-grandfather, it’s really disappointing

There’s a lot of posts to wade through on this – but are we looking for something more than that Francis’ father is stated to be Thomas Woodhouse, living at Dunsford near Exeter at the time of Francis' enlistment in March 1899?

May be a co-incidence but on the 1901 Census of England & Wales there is a 60 year old Thomas Woodhouse, a married Civil Engineer born Market “Harbood”, Leicestershire, (wonder if that was meant to be Market Harborough), who was recorded as a Boarder at the Poplar Hotel, Northernhay Place, Exeter. The next boarder listed is a married woman, Fanny Woodhouse, aged 52 and born Hamilton, New Brunswick, Canada.

There is a possible match for the couple on the 1891 Census of England & Wales, this time boarding at the Carnarvon Arms Hotel, Dulverton, Dulverton, Somerset. Thomas Walter Woodhouse (51), a married Civil Engineer, born Market Harborough, Leicestershire and Fanny L. Woodhouse (44), shown as born “London” were listed on adjacent rows. There are no other Woodhouses listed at this address.

Apologies if this has already been investigated and discounted.

Peter

Edited 11 January , 2022 by PRC
Add ages from the 1891 Census

[Mark1959]

There is something more than a little strange that we cannot trace FGW's birth reg or early life and even any real trace of his father. I have started searching around for possible other surnames. A difficult one to prove but a possibility is that Woodhouse is an alias. 

A copy of FGW's marriage certificate may help with clues. It should give his father's profession. 

I note FGW gave evidence in court at the trial of the man accused of murdering FGW's son. 1929

[ss002d6252]

7 minutes ago, Mark1959 said:

There is something more than a little strange that we cannot trace FGW's birth reg or early life and even any real trace of his father. I have started searching around for possible other surnames. A difficult one to prove but a possibility is that Woodhouse is an alias. 

A copy of FGW's marriage certificate may help with clues. It should give his father's profession. 

I note FGW gave evidence in court at the trial of the man accused of murdering FGW's son. 1929

It's previously been said that

Quote

 

So, from the marriage certificate:

1. This is one of the things that is confusing me when comparing Francis’ age when he married to other records I’ve found. His age is stated as being 27.

2. Thomas is not shown as deceased.

3. This is something that I can’t work out as well (pretty useless aren’t I?! 🙄🙈) - Thomas is stated as being ‘Pensioner R. h’ - or it could be ‘R. an’? I did put this in to Google previously and it came up with a suggestion that it could been related to being a Chelsea Pensioner? Probably not, but that’s what sort of came up 🤷🏼‍♀️
4. The wedding took place at the Register Office in Portsmouth.

5. The witnesses are ‘F. P. Davies’ and ‘William Griffith’ - I have no idea who these people are 😂

 

Craig

[ss002d6252]

If Woodhouse was born around 1875 then, from the RH Chelsea records, the only person who could be his father is one of these 3 men.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/61068/?name=thomas_Woodhouse&count=50

Craig

[Mark1959]

Apologies must have missed that. Is it stated on the marriage certificate that Thomas was an army pensioner?

[ss002d6252]

20 minutes ago, Mark1959 said:

Apologies must have missed that. Is it stated on the marriage certificate that Thomas was an army pensioner?

We can't be 100% but it looks more likely by that he is army.

One of the posts above adds

Quote

There are a couple of interesting things. On the marriage certificate for Francis and Ellen, Francis’ father is stated as being ‘Thomas Woodhouse’. On the first enlistment record, ‘Thos. Woodhouse’ of Dunsford, Nr. Exeter, Devon is stated as being Francis’ father.

Craig

[Mark1959]

The first man in your list from Athlone has surviving records on FMP. 1862-1892 in 50th Foot - Royal West Kents. The docs are not very helpful recording family merely recording his NOK as wife Emma nee Thomas Married 13/9/1871 Aldershot. Apart from 6 years in New Zealand in the 1860s and a few weeks in Egypt in 1882 he served entirely at "Home".

[Mark1959]

Emma

It might be useful to post an image of the marriage certificate if you have it. Specifically what it says as to the father. There is no birth in the 1870s that I can find for a FGW in the Plymouth area or indeed anywhere else that can be shown to be relevant to this case.