Cap badge Regiment identification

[Knotty]

8 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

had occurred to me that the man in the photo might well not have been among the casualties

There is also the possibility that he maybe related to someone who took part in the in the action, one of the casualties or a crew member.

[Bob Davies]

16 hours ago, wulsten said:

however nothing is written on the embroidery covering and the family photos and naval scene appear non accessible sown in

There is a possibility that if the photos are 'sewn in', then his left hand shoulder title may be unreadable due to stitch holes also any studio name that may help. Is the lady wearing a sweet heart brooch of some kind? Last resort in my mind would be to cut the wood backing off inside the stitching surround to try and reveal any writing on the back of the postcard/picture. Unless they are glued on to the wooden backing! Without seeing it in in my hand I would not know the best attack.

Edited 16 July , 2021 by Bob Davies

[FROGSMILE]

5 hours ago, Knotty said:

There is also the possibility that he maybe related to someone who took part in the in the action, one of the casualties or a crew member.

I think that’s a bit less likely Knotty, else it rather smacks of a vicarious motive, and it’s a lot of effort just to celebrate the momentous activity of someone else.

[Knotty]

“There’s nowt so queer as folk” as they say.
But point taken.

[wulsten]

i looked through the 1914 weekly sentinel photographs without luck, though this chap Lewis is similar but no naval connection

Edited 16 July , 2021 by wulsten

[Bob Davies]

@FROGSMILEand @Gunner Hallet al, on fold 3 it seems as if Samuel Kelly had 2 widows. Ancestry shows his will going to Kate Emma Kelly, £172 and 7pence (d). Who the other widow is, I have no idea. Looking at all the other RMLI casualties from HMS Kent in that action, nothing is giving me any clues, other than Walter James Kind From Leicester who is the nearest to Stoke, geographically, which means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The wife of Arthur Titheridge remarried, Her name would seem to be Bertha Attwood. Orf ta bed now, best wshes, Bob.

[wulsten]

On 17/07/2021 at 01:01, Bob Davies said:

@FROGSMILEand @Gunner Hallet al, on fold 3 it seems as if Samuel Kelly had 2 widows. Ancestry shows his will going to Kate Emma Kelly, £172 and 7pence (d). Who the other widow is, I have no idea. Looking at all the other RMLI casualties from HMS Kent in that action, nothing is giving me any clues, other than Walter James Kind From Leicester who is the nearest to Stoke, geographically, which means nothing in the grand scheme of things. The wife of Arthur Titheridge remarried, Her name would seem to be Bertha Attwood. Orf ta bed now, best wshes, Bob.

Cheers Bob

[Bob Davies]

1 hour ago, wulsten said:

Cheers Bob

Happy to help, some one took the time to make this a lot of years ago and these men/families need to be remembered. It is also very interesting. I have just been having another look. Samuel Kelly was 46 years old when he was killed. He is on a  family tree on Ancestry (picture of HMS Kent as his picture) but no children on the tree and not any reliable information on there. From my own searching I find that Samuel is on the 1891 census listed as a soldier, living in district Royal Marine barracks Alverstoke, Hampshire. Single at this time of his life. In 1900 he is in a hut in the district of Fareham, civil parish of Crofton. The hut is called B_____down huts. He is listed as private RM. One of his room mates is called Albert Calwell pte RM, age 32, born Staffordshire, Uttoxeter. The previous building listed is called B_____range hut inhabited by the range warden and his family. A question here is. Does the soldier in your picture look to be aged 46 or so? Also does the picture of the children show one male and two females, or is one of the females actually male? In these times very young boys were dressed in what we now call girls clothes.

[FROGSMILE]

It’s pretty clear that the photo of the children shows two girls and a boy, Bob.

[Bob Davies]

Thanks Frogsmile, I am trying to narrow things down a little. I have not found any children for Samuel Kelly as yet, however ArthurTitheridge has a few. One daughter,  Gertrude, survived past standing age and possibly two sons, Arthur and Albert. How old do you think the unknown soldier is in the picture?

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

It’s pretty clear that the photo of the children shows two girls and a boy, Bob.

 

[FROGSMILE]

7 hours ago, Bob Davies said:

Thanks Frogsmile, I am trying to narrow things down a little. I have not found any children for Samuel Kelly as yet, however ArthurTitheridge has a few. One daughter,  Gertrude, survived past standing age and possibly two sons, Arthur and Albert. How old do you think the unknown soldier is in the picture?

 

The soldier appears to me to be in his late 30s as best as can be ascertained from that single photo, Bob.  His wife perhaps similar.

Edited 19 July , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Bob Davies]

Thank you Frogsmile. @wulsten I am struggling to fit any of the RMLI who were on the HMS Kent, to the picture. I think we can rule out Snow, George, Private, RMLI as I cannot find any marriage for him, aged 19 when he died. Also  Day, Francis Thomas, Private, RMLI he has a Cheshire link which brings him closer to Stoke but his wife was too young, being born in 1918, that is if I am correct in my searches. A candidate is Sheridan, Alfred Brindsley, Private, RMLI. Born 1888 St Luke London. Died 1931 Islington. Wife is Patience Clarke, nee Gibson born 1872 Northamptonshire. She has four daughters and one son from her marriage to Charles Clarke, he died so Patience re married. Daughter Edith B 1896, son Charles B 1898 Daughter Florence B 1900,  I believe would fit the photo. In my mind the lady on the picture looks older than the Soldier. Any thoughts from anyone gratefully accepted.

 

Edited 19 July , 2021 by Bob Davies

[FROGSMILE]

2 minutes ago, Bob Davies said:

Thank you Frogsmile. @wulsten I am struggling to fit any of the RMLI who were on the HMS Kent, to the picture. I think we can rule out Snow, George, Private, RMLI as I cannot find any marriage for him, aged 19 when he died. Also  Day, Francis Thomas, Private, RMLI he has a Cheshire link which brings him closer to Stoke but his wife was too young, being born in 1918, that is if I am correct in my searches. A candidate is Sheridan, Alfred Brindsley, Private, RMLI. Born 1888 St Luke London. Died 1931 Islington. Wife is Patience Clarke, nee Gibson born 1872 Northamptonshire. She has four daughters and one son from her marriage to Charles Clarke, he died so Patience re married. Daughter Edith B 1896, son Charles B 1898 Daughter Florence B 1900,  I believe would fit the photo. In my mind the lady on the picture looks older than the Soldier. Any thoughts from anyone gratefully accepted.

 

That seems like an excellent interpretation based on the known family facts of the KENT casualties Bob, but of course it’s a long shot as to whether the man in the frame was actually a casualty, and not just a surviving crew member who made up a frame as a souvenir of service.  It would be easy to make this thread run and run on the basis of so much conjecture I think.

[Bob Davies]

15 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

That seems like an excellent interpretation based on the known family facts of the KENT casualties Bob, but of course it’s a long shot as to whether the man in the frame was actually a casualty, and not just a surviving crew member who made up a frame as a souvenir of service.  It would be easy to make this thread run and run on the basis of so much conjecture I think

Wise words from you Frogsmile and thanks! I will call it a day on this one for now, some definite evidence is needed and we have none, very interesting while it lasted mind you. A good insight to the early sea battles of the war. 

[FROGSMILE]

7 hours ago, Bob Davies said:

Wise words from you Frogsmile and thanks! I will call it a day on this one for now, some definite evidence is needed and we have none, very interesting while it lasted mind you. A good insight to the early sea battles of the war. 

Yes I agree Bob.  It’s a tantalising artefact and frustrating that we don’t know just that little bit more that would enable us to decipher its exact provenance and intimate story.  

[wulsten]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes I agree Bob.  It’s a tantalising artefact and frustrating that we don’t know just that little bit more that would enable us to decipher its exact provenance and intimate story.  

Thanks for the input, some very good leads, looking at getting it restored etc, so maybe more clues may emerge