Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Could somebody please help with biographical info on these two British soldiers buried in Chivy-lès-Étouvelles please?


GreyC
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe that what happened with his birth  was

1. Matthew Arthur S Lisle was born Jan/Mar 1889 and was illegitimate when registered. This ties to the 1891 census as being the 2 year old son of Peter and Annie Storey

2. Annie Lisle married Peter Storey in Jul/Sep 1889

3 They re-registered the child as Matthew Arthur STOREY in Oct/Dec 1889

It is not as convoluted as it sounds, I found a similar set of re-registrations when researching my own family.

I doubt that anyone will be buying both birth certs, but that is what would have to be done to prove or disprove this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, corisande said:

They re-registered the child as Matthew Arthur STOREY in Oct/Dec 1889

Have you found an entry in the civil birth records for this - I've tried numerous variations for the period 1889-1891 and unless it's a really odd spelling of Matthew\Mathew and Storey \ Story, (even without Arthur). I'm not coming across it. Ditto Matthew's and Storey's registered in the Tynemouth District during that period.

I suspect it just became common usage at that point - he wouldn't have been old enough to have any memories of being called anything different and very few families would have gone to the bother and expense of either updating the original entry, (if they even could), or the bother and risk \ criminal penalty involved in falsifying information as to date of birth.

I had hoped that both parents were still alive on the 1911 Census of England & Wales just to see if they claimed to have been married longer in order to "legitimise" the oldest child - certainly come across that before now.

However errors occur in official record and of course there is always one more place to search :)

Cheers,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/07/2021 at 09:39, Matlock1418 said:
On 27/07/2021 at 08:37, corisande said:

Strange things one can find out. You did ask for biographical details

Matthew Arthur Storey was born Jan 1889, but not with that name. He was in fact born Jan 1889 as Matthew Arthur S Lisle (I assme that the S is for Storey) to an unmarried Annie Lisle. She later that year Jul/Sep1889  married Peter Arthur Storey. And presumably your soldier at that point he became Matthew Arthur Storey

Hmm ... ?  Not the same birth that I thought I had picked up.  Puzzled by that [But genealogy is not my forte]

???  Meantime - Hope someone with better skills than me can perhaps review his early life.

3 hours ago, PRC said:

Here’s my attempt to consolidate what has already been posted and hopefully then flesh it out.

Thank you for looking at this and for another of your very fine comprehensive summaries for so many of the key players, including after MAS's death.

I am still very puzzled by the birth dates offered for MAS - One apparently c.1885 [CWGC] and one apparently c.1889 [1911 Census I think] and thence the respective 1891 and 1901 Census trails = ???  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am.  :-/

The marriage in 1909 and after seems pretty much covered.  Stormy times though.  An interesting RSE and its payments to Mrs Susannah King [anyone identified her yet? - A relative or his 'other'?].  Not to mention the glowing "In loving memory ..." newspaper entry [Genuine? Or keeping up appearances for a pension? - since separation was certainly a problem/impediment for some claimants when trying to make a claim - most normally if a separation was formally known to the Army/MoP - otherwise likely more difficult/protracted when informal]

You had a bit of a follow-up after Matthew Arthur Storey's death on what does appear potentially to be his widow.

3 hours ago, PRC said:

It may be a co-incidence but the only other record in England & Wales of a birth registered with the surname Storey, mothers’ maiden name Small, was also registered with the civil authorities in the Tynemouth District  - but in the July to September quarter, (Q3), of 1916. This was a William T. Storey.  If Georgina was the mother then legally that would be quite true – her surname then still appears to be Storey and her maiden name was Small. It gives no guarantee as to who the biological father was. However if the Pension authorities found out about it they would take a very dim view, possibly even cancelling her widows pensions, (although @Matlock1418,would they have then paid her a Guardians Allowance for looking after her two children with Matthew? I won’t even mention “Noted for Novel” on the Pension Card!)

The answer to your question is: Certainly the MoP could potentially remove a widow's pension, as an 'unworthy wife' based on subsequent behaviour, and yet still pay a child(ren)'s allowance(s) to her - but we can't see any of this.

As for your implied question/observation: Though the pension index card, helpfully provided above, is stamped Noted for Novel [i.e. believed to be for special treatment] there is no further information on the card as to what might have been done -  we just don't know as all we can see is a standard widows pension plus two children's allowances [10/0 + 5/0 + 3/6 pw] - with the claim becoming DEAD in c.1929, probably after their daughter reached 16.

If Georgina Storey had earlier remarried then she would have lost her pension anyway, in favour of a re-marriage gratuity, and if not then could easily have continued to claim beyond 1929 - but we can't see any of this [It's certainly a strong possibility that she would remarry and the findings and 1939 Register do rather suggest the marriage route offered above - but if she remarried, especially quite soon after the death of MAS, and still claimed for her children I might have expected to see another card with her new married name - but not yet found such a card if there was one/one still exists ???]

- and of course the main pension file is long lost/almost certainly destroyed after its use was ended.

The other pension index card found so far, attached below, adds absolutely nothing on this subject - just gives her address, as I provided earlier [the "14 " is just a claim case reference as also seen on the other PIC].

991360240_STOREYMA_8757.png.650beef574076439c95eb10e80bedb89.png

Image courtesy of WFA/Fold3

2 hours ago, corisande said:

I doubt that anyone will be buying both birth certs, but that is what would have to be done to prove or disprove this

Likewise thanks for your further thoughts. Certainly I don't think anyone currently in this thread will be rushing to get them, but perhaps by another person with a more specific/personal reason in the future??

One other certificate that I think could be of particularly great value would be the Marriage Certificate for Matthew Arthur Story/Georgina Small - should give ages, occupations, addresses and names of fathers too.  Again, probably for the future.

1 hour ago, PRC said:

and of course there is always one more place to search :)

And just where is that?  ;-/

I suspect, for his family after his death, that the 1921 Census might be a good place to look in the future!  But for MAS ???

 

Before leaving I must thank @GreyC for posting the photo.  It appears to be a rare record of Storey's original place of burial, and of Popham's - now  both 'lost' it seems. 

Makes me wonder if other members skilled in such matters could possibly find any other record of him/them, or perhaps a record of UBS exhumed & re-buried, from the description of/from the photo ???  A real challenge I would think.  Anyone up for it?

:-) M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PRC said:

Our two candidates in the birth & census records both appears to have been born Cullercoats. The first is:-

  • Matthew Arthur Storey, birth registered Tynemouth District in the July to September quarter, (Q3), of 1885. His mothers’ maiden name was Arthur. Turns up on the 1891 Census of England & Wales, (aged 5), 1901 Census of England & Wales, (aged 15 \ apprentice bricklayer) and 1911 Census of England & Wales, (aged 25, unmarried Dock Labourer), as the son of James & Mary, (1891), son of the widower James, (1901 & 1911). On the three Censuses Matthew has a sister Sarah, (1891 aged 9, 1901 aged 19, and 1911 as a widow, aged 29 – but oddly enough her married name is Lisle !). The birth records have a Sarah Elizabeth Storey, mothers’ maiden name “Auther” registered in the Tynemouth District in Q2 1881. There is a marriage of a Matthew Arthur Storey, aged 34 at Cullercoats on the 25th May 1920. His father was James Storey. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLL6-PG4V
  • The burial of a Matthew Arthur Storey, aged 43, took place at Cullercoats on the 5th December 1928. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLGQ-GTJK
  • Could all be co-incidences, but for now he would have to go on the backburner as a candidate.

1885 MAS

Puzzling to have a sister with a Lisle surname. [Small town, close families??]

I can probably now understand why you might put him on a backburner.

 

On 27/07/2021 at 08:37, corisande said:

Matthew Arthur Storey was born Jan 1889, but not with that name. He was in fact born Jan 1889 as Matthew Arthur S Lisle (I assme that the S is for Storey) to an unmarried Annie Lisle. She later that year Jul/Sep1889  married Peter Arthur Storey. And presumably your soldier at that point he became Matthew Arthur Storey

 

6 hours ago, PRC said:

There is no candidate for a Matthew Arthur Storey, birth registered in Northumberland in the 1889 +/- 2 year period. Turning to the candidate suggested by @corisande  the birth of a Matthew Arthur S. Lisle was registered with the civil authorities in the Tynemouth District in the January to March quarter, (Q1), of 1889. Unfortunately the sources I have couldn’t help with a mothers’ maiden name. There is no obvious subsequent census, marriage or death record for that individual in England & Wales. I was also drawing a blank on the available baptismal registers.

1889 MAS

The GRO does not help with the maiden name of his mother but does resolve what the " S " stood for [as rather expected = Storey].

Name:                                                                               Mother's Maiden Surname: 

LISLE, MATTHEW  AUTHUR STOREY                                  -  

GRO Reference: 1889  M Quarter in TYNEMOUTH  Volume 10B  Page 207

Still puzzled by the CWGC giving MAS age at death in 1914 as 29 [Birth c.1885] - surely this would have been available and from from Army records ??  And as RSE give enlistment in 1907 surely he need not have massaged his age/birth by 3-4 years as he would be c.18 [Certainly would not expect to back before his mother's marriage to Storey] Perhaps he didn't know exactly and just pitched in with something on enlistment - older being better than younger ??

The lack of later search hits for this MAS of 1889 DoB, rather than the 1885 one, does suggest something extreme had happened to this later MAS.

As before ... Those MAS Birth(s) and Marriage Certificates would likely help ... 

:-) M

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PRC said:

Have you found an entry in the civil birth records for this - I've tried numerous variations for the period 1889-1891 and unless it's a really odd spelling of Matthew\Mathew and Storey \ Story, (even without Arthur). I'm not coming across it. Ditto Matthew's and Storey's registered in the Tynemouth District during that period.

birth.jpg.55973d1fdd717bc167a7a1e926e0181b.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, corisande said:

birth.jpg.55973d1fdd717bc167a7a1e926e0181b.jpg

 

 

Mothers' maiden name is Softley.

As always in Genealogy there is a risk of co-incidence, but on the 1891 Census of England & Wales there is a 2 year old Matthew Storey, born Swalwell, County Durham, who was recorded in a dwelling at Hexham Road, Whicklam, Swalwell - an address stated by the enumerator to fall within the Gateshead Civil Registration District.

Parents are Matthew, aged 27 and an Iron Forgeman born Swalwell, and Jane, aged 27, born Newburn, Northumberland. On the 1911 Census of England & Wales the most likely match is for Matthew, (47, Steel Forgeman) and Jane Bell Storey (48), living with their 21 year old son Matthew, born Swalwell, a single man, at South Benwell, Newcastle upon Tyne. The couple state they have been married 27 years and have had 4 children, all then still alive. The marriage of a Matthew Story to a Jane Bell Softley was recorded in the Newcastle upon Tyne District in the April to June quarter, (Q2) of 1883.

The couple have a six year old daughter Gertrude on the 1891 Census, also stated to have been born Swalwell. The birth of a Gertrude Storey, mothers' maiden name Softley, was registered with the civil authorities in the Gateshead District.

Without getting a birth certificate for this Matthew he can't be entirely ruled out, but so far looking to be a very small possibility that that the registration in the Gateshead District in Q3 1889 was a re-registration of a birth that had occurred earlier in the year.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While looking to see if I could further strength the case to eliminate the Matthew Storey identified above, I tried a search to see if he had his own service records. What I found instead was the Militia enlistment dating from 1906 for a "Mathew" Arthur Storey which I believe relates to the soldier who died in 1914.

Aged 17 years and a "Cartman", he enlisted in the 5th Battalion, Northumberland Fusiliers, on the 2nd March 1906. He gave his birthplace as Tynemouth, North Shields. While he completed the form as "Mathew" (and that is how it is indexed on FindMyPast and Genes Reunited - both owned by BrightSolid), he signed it as both "Mathew" and "Matthew". His statement of services page also shows him as "Matthew".

548897831_MatthewStoryMilitiarecordsourcedGenesReunitedpage1namecrop.jpg.76f0a0a1876145d90e14ed211b1b8306.jpg

(Image courtesy Genes Reunited).

His home address is given as 18 Low Lights, North Shields. He attested for six years and received the service number 7305. Having been found physically fit for the Militia at Newcastle on the 3rd March, he was accepted on the 5th.

He is described as 5 feet 3 and a half inches tall, and weighed 100lbs. He had a fresh complexion with blue eyes and brown hair. He had a scar over his right eye. His religious denomination is recorded as Church of England.

His next of kin is shown as his father, Peter Arthur Storey Storey, of 18 Low Lights, North Shields, and his brothers George and Robert, both at the same address. (The absence of a reference to mother Annie may potentially be further confirmation that she is the woman who passed away in 1902.)

He did his 49 days drill on enlistment, and then was marked present for both his normal training and musketry in 1906.

His service was terminated as a result of enlisting in the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, dated 10th January 1907

Hopefully that nails for once and for all which of the two births ended up being the soldier who died in 1914. The fly in the ointment would appear to be the age on the CWGC database, but it wouldn't be the first time such an error has occurred.

Cheers,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PRC said:

Hopefully that nails for once and for all which of the two births ended up being the soldier who died in 1914. The fly in the ointment would appear to be the age on the CWGC database, but it wouldn't be the first time such an error has occurred.

Yes, I think we can agree on that :thumbsup:

 

There is an equivocal death notice for Annie - the FmP scan misses the vital bit with the husbands name & I suspect the press have mangled the "Lisle" as "Lizzie"

death.jpg.26ef90414e1b097892befb4bc6ec7f58.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

The answer to your question is: Certainly the MoP could potentially remove a widow's pension, as an 'unworthy wife' based on subsequent behaviour, and yet still pay a child(ren)'s allowance(s) to her - but we can't see any of this.

My question was more along the lines that if the widows pension was ceased, as there were two children who still needed to be cared for, would a Guardians Allowance  have been claimable?

If it was then withdrawing the Widows Pension would be mainly a symbolic gesture, and other than an interruption of the receipt of payment, long term have no financial impact.

If Widows Pension was withdrawn and Georgina couldn't claim a Guardians Allowance then that ran the risk that the children would become even more destitute and \ or force the mother into illegal means to support herself.

And if the Guardians Allowance could be claimed by someone else even if Georgina was still alive and capable of looking after the children, then as a punishment it again could become merely symbolic to withdraw her widows allowance. Alternatively the kids could end up in care and the mother dependant on help from the parish - so still a drain on the public purse.

Yes I know it becomes academic when Georgina remarried, but I wouldn't have thought the rules could automatically assume that the Ministry of Pensions would always get such a "get out of jail free" card.

What prompted my thoughts was I seem to remember there was a similar moral dilemma with widows and single parents that still raises it head even now when it comes to taking their benefits away.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, PRC said:

My question was more along the lines that if the widows pension was ceased, as there were two children who still needed to be cared for, would a Guardians Allowance  have been claimable?

If it was then withdrawing the Widows Pension would be mainly a symbolic gesture, and other than an interruption of the receipt of payment, long term have no financial impact.

If Widows Pension was withdrawn and Georgina couldn't claim a Guardians Allowance then that ran the risk that the children would become even more destitute and \ or force the mother into illegal means to support herself.

And if the Guardians Allowance could be claimed by someone else even if Georgina was still alive and capable of looking after the children, then as a punishment it again could become merely symbolic to withdraw her widows allowance. Alternatively the kids could end up in care and the mother dependant on help from the parish - so still a drain on the public purse.

Yes I know it becomes academic when Georgina remarried, but I wouldn't have thought the rules could automatically assume that the Ministry of Pensions would always get such a "get out of jail free" card.

What prompted my thoughts was I seem to remember there was a similar moral dilemma with widows and single parents that still raises it head even now when it comes to taking their benefits away.

As it stands, with my level of knowledge, I don't think a guardian's allowance per se was available [e.g. to a grandmother, aunt or older sister - sorry about the gender bias, but think that it was typical back then] - I don't think a guardian would necessarily get a pension/allowance for themselves, unless they had demonstrated dependency - but believe the child(ren)'s allowance(s) would continue.

Think we need the advanced skill/knowledge of @ss002d6252 for a more definitive evaluation.

:-) M

Edited by Matlock1418
addit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Where the father was deceased and the mother dead or out of the equation then Article 18 kicked in and it 'shall be administered subject to such conditions as the Minister of Pensions may determine' (RW 1917). The pension would therefore still be due in respect of the children and this would usually have been paid to whoever was looking after them until age 16.

A dependence allowance on the soldier's earnings would be applied in the normal way by any adult who thought they were eligible.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PRC said:

I wouldn't have thought the rules could automatically assume that the Ministry of Pensions would always get such a "get out of jail free" card.

Although we just don't know about Georgina = such an option was certainly on the cards - the termination or suspension of a widow's pension

From Hogge & Garside's "War Pensions and Allowances, 1918" - following the 1917 Royal Warrant:

The earlier position [p.20] - though this relates more to servicemen, I think it seems to have potential applicability to another claimant such as a widow:

998491216_UnworthyHGp_20.png.b21581246cdd6e547d2d912601b3ffc4.png

Certainly - the later position [p.123] and most definitely relating to a widow:

1313797542_UnworthyConductHGp_123.png.ba18f715fa3b39b676689267996025eb.png

and [p.147]

9488390_UnworthyHGp147.png.898f8fbe7b279b9c026e4ffa2223514d.png

Images courtesy of www.archive.org

"Unworthy" could have a wide definition - not necessarily just sexual misconduct [or even just a suggestion of it], abuse of alcohol and poor financial behaviour etc. could also be applied - and have very serious consequences.

The annotation "Unworthy wife" is seen on a number of pension index cards [not seen on Georgina's - but who knows what might have been on the main pension file??]

And the option to challenge seems to have been very limited and/or likely hard to undertake - Despite the wider potential consequences.

Children's allowances seem less often to have been subject to such draconian measures, I believe they generally seem to have been paid, but their mother could be so sanctioned [or have other sanctions applied, presumably so she could not get at and/or or abuse such children's allowances - even if they were not in others' care - sometimes children's allowances were managed by Trustees, or possibly placed in interest-earning War Savings Certificates as a likely means of controlling her access to them]  WSC also could apply on re-marriage to stop a a new husbands getting such access [not seen on Georgina's cards].  What impact this had on the children is open to speculation - often a nice scenario doesn't seem to spring readily to mind.

A widow/mother's behaviour was certainly under potential scrutiny and they could be so reported upon by members of the public leading to such possible outcomes. A challenging time for many.

But we really just can't see this for Georgina and her family = so the above is just a general description only.  One could perhaps speculate but I really don't think that would be at all helpful at this time.

:-) M

Edited by Matlock1418
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the other man in the OP and putting together what we know about him

  • Alfred John Popham
  • 2nd Welsh Reg
  • born Barnstaple (SDGW)
  • Miss Florence Emily Ledner was his sole legatee

 

There seem to be only 3 Alfred John Popham born Devon

3-pohams.jpg.f065a997b749969f50ec9a33fae7683b.jpg

Given that our man was killed in 1914, he must be born Apr/Jun 1883

1891 Census in Barnstaple Workhouse aged 7 (if you look at it closely it is a "7"). Indoor Pauper . I do not see any possible relations, but it is a long list in people in workhouse

1901 census A Servant in Ilfracombe. Aged 17

1908 This would appear to be him, already in Welsh Regt. It also shows he was stationed at Ash, which is where Florence Emily Ledner lived

1908.jpg.fabc820995741ecbb2195cf9b833b7a7.jpg

1911 census a Boots in a hotel in Monmouthshire. Single aged 27

1914 Aug 14 Landed in France with Welsh Regt

1914 Sep 10. Died in France KIA with 2nd Welsh Regt

There are not many candidates for Florence Emily Ledner. She seems born 1894 in Kent, 1911 census in Dover, 1918 electoral roll in Dorset, married 1919 - Ancestry tree with photo

 

Can anyone add anything to that?

 

Edited by corisande
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While looking at Popham's CWGC entry found this. (Storey is not here)

grave2.jpg.7159b6016318d095e20dec6f6c0626e5.jpg

The Kipling reference is to Kipling Memorials , special memorial headstones that the Commission used to commemorate casualties who had graves in cemeteries that were later
destroyed by battle or lost. They are called Kipling Memorials because they all carry an epitaph chosen by Rudyard Kipling from the Apocrypha Ecclesiasticus 44, verse 13 'Their Glory Shall Not Be Blotted Out"

I suspect that there may be other British graves in the OP, which are too fuzzy to read, eg the left hand grave below

grave1.jpg.73145f528c2e5cd81bf41264774ee7c5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

was away for acouple of days. Thank you very much for your perserverance and detective work. Great stuff!

GreyC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, corisande said:

Can anyone add anything to that?

Was that a challenge :)

“New” stuff in italics.

The birth of an Alfred John Popham, mothers maiden name not available via the General Registers Office published records, was registered with the Civil Authorities in the Barnstaple District in the April to June quarter, (Q2), of 1883. So roughly looking at a birth anywhere between the middle of February to the 30th June 1883.

If the ages given on the 1891, 1901 and 1911 census are accurate, (a big IF), then given the dates the censuses were taken that implies a birth on or after the 6th April 1883.

No obvious online baptism records at familysearch, freereg, or FindMyPast. It’s not conclusive as the records may simply have not been digitised or transcribed, but one possible explanation is that he wasn’t born in the workhouse. My experience of the records for Norfolk workhouses is that baptism seems to have been mandatory.

On the 1891 Census of England & Wales, (taken 5th April 1891), the 7 year old Alfred John Popham, born Barnstaple, Devon, was recorded as an indoor pauper at the Barnstaple Union Workhouse, at Alexandra Road, Barnstaple. (Only the Chapel now remains. It followed the standard layout in that there were separate areas for men, women, boys, and girls, so families were split up on admission. http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Barnstaple/ )

By the time of the 1901 Census of England & Wales, (taken on the 31st March 1901), the 17 year old Alfred Popham, an unmarried Porter, born Barnstaple, was recorded living in the household of his employer, a Swiss born Confectioner (Baker) Domenico Semadeni. It’s not entirely clear but looks like the address, 4, Promenade, Ilfracombe, Devon, may also have been Domenico's business premises.

According to this Italian family history site,  Domenico Semadeni-Fisler  emigrated as a pastry chef to Ilfracombe, England, where he then managed a restaurant with pastry shop together with his wife Alma Semadeni-Fisler.  https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https://new.istoria.ch/valposchiavo/personaggi/domenico-semadeni-fisler/&prev=search&pto=aue

Six months later, on the 3rd October 1901, Alfred would cross the River Severn to enlist in the Welsh Regiment at Cardiff. That would make him round about 18 and a half.

The most common split of the 12 year enlistment term at this time was 7 years in the colours and five in the reserves. Certainly that seems to be what men with nearby service numbers went for.

  • 6969 Richard Jones enlisted on a 7 and 5 split at Cardiff on the 27th September 1901. Then aged 20 years he was a Labourer from Newport, Monmouthshire. He was accepted at Cardiff on the 27th September 1901. After completing his initial training he was posted to “5 P.B.” on the 11th January 1902, then the 1st Battalion on the 22nd July 1902, going out to South Africa. On the 31st January 1903 he was posted to the 2nd Battalion which saw him go first to India and then from 1906 back in South Africa. In April 1904 he extended his period in the Colours to 8 years. There is a non-specific note dated 13th March 1909 which refers to Bloemfontein. On the 17th April 1909 he was posted to the 1st Battalion back in the UK. On the 11th June 1909 he was transferred to the Army Reserve. On the 26th September 1913 he was discharged on termination of his first period of enlistment.
  • 6971 Stephen Evans enlisted on a 7 and 5 split at Pontypool on the 30th September 1901. Then aged 18 years and 9 months he was a Labourer from near Pontypool, who was then serving in the Miltia. He was accepted at Cardiff on the 1st October 1901. He was discharged on the 22nd November 1901, having been found to have made a mis-statement as to his age. A birth certificate was supplied showing he was born in December 1884.
  • 6972 John Gray enlisted on a 7 and 5 split at Pontypool on the 30th September 1901. Then aged 19 years and 2 months, he was a Collier from Panteg, Pontypool who was then serving in the Militia. He was accepted at Cardiff on the 1st October 1901. He was discharged on the 27th November 1901, having been found to have made a mis-statement as to his age. A birth certificate was supplied showing he was born in July 1886.
  • 6976 Gwilym Thomas enlisted on a 7 and 5 split at Swansea on the 8th October 1901. Then aged 18 years and 4 months he was a Collier from near Swansea. He was accepted at Swansea on the 8th  October 1901. Posted to the Depot at Cardiff, he was discharged on the 9th November 1901 as not likely to become an efficient soldier.
  • 6977 William James Horn enlisted on a 7 and 5 split at Milford Haven on the 15th October 1901. Then aged 24 years and 8 months, he was a Fishpacker from St Mary’s, Pembroke. He was accepted on the 16th October 1901. He deserted on the 16th January 1902 and claimed the benefit of the Kings Pardon having confessed to desertion while an inmate at H.M. Prison, Worcester, 23rd May 1910.

Given the likelihood that Alfred enlisted on a 12 year term and even taking into account the information on the 1911 Census that he was back in civilian life it and so he could  effectively been on any of a 3 and 9, 7 and 5 or 9 and 3 split, there is still  a fundamental problem, as witnessed by 6969 Richard Jones. A 12 year enlistment that began in October 1901 would be over in October 1913. There would be no liability for Alfred to report to the barracks when the order to mobilise was issued on the 5th August 1914. If he enlisted again he would receive a new service number. It would also be much less likely that he would have gone out with the 2nd Battalion on its’ deployment overseas in 1914.

The most likely explanation is that as he neared the end of his 12 year term Alfred applied to extend his period in the Reserves by another four years, joining the Section D Army Reserve. Section D men were mobilised on the 5th August 1914 and would normally go back to their old units. Alfred would have reported to the Depot to collect his equipment before journeying to catch up with the 2nd Battalion who were still then at Bordon in Hampshire. He would have been selected from amongst the reporting reservists as one of the mobilised men to help bring the Battalion up to wartime strength. The Battalion then started moving to the Continent on the 13th August 1914 as part of the 3rd Brigade in the 1st Division. (Long, Long Trail): https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/regiments-and-corps/the-british-infantry-regiments-of-1914-1918/welsh-regiment/

We know from the July 1908 newspaper article that he had probably been at Bordon Camp with the 1st Battalion in May 1908 and was still most likely  in the UK in July 1908 as evidence from him was heard in connection with the trial of Private Jospeh Patrick Lackey.

Alfred John Pophams’ whereabouts on the 1911 Census of England & Wales, (taken 2nd April 1911) have already been covered by @Matlock1418 & @corisande

Hope that helps,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, corisande said:

Can anyone add anything to that?

Potential mother Grace Popham, died 1883 aged 20?

Dave

 

Event Type Death
Registration District Barnstaple
Name Grace Popham
Age 20
Death Date 1883
Death Place Barnstaple, Devon, England
Page 312
Volume 5B
Affiliate Line Number 289
Registration Quarter Apr-May-Jun
Registration Year 1883
Birth Year (Estimated) 1863
Edited by davidbohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, corisande said:

She seems born 1894 in Kent, 1911 census in Dover, 1918 electoral roll in Dorset,

Not sure about the electoral bit as the vote went to women over 30 and had a property qualification.. There are a couple of potential marriages for a male Ledner to a female with the forenames Florence Emily that occurred before 1918, both in the southern counties of England. But I suppose it is an Ancestry tree :)

The Florence Emily Ledner who received his pay, War Gratuity and was the sole legatee of his will does indeed only appear to have one candidate in the civil birth records for England & Wales. The birth was registered in the Eastry District of Kent in the July to September quarter, (Q3), of 1894. Mothers’ maiden name was Ansell.

And the only likely marriage of her parents recorded in England & Wales was that of a John Ledner to a Sarah Ann Ansell, recorded in the Eastry District in Q2 1877. However while I can find a likely match for John and Sarah in 1901, and the widow Sarah in 1911 they don’t have a daughter Florence or Emily and no daughter of approximately the right age – only sons.

There is a potential match for Florence E., aged 6, born Ash, Kent, living with parents John & Charlotte E, and Florence Emily, aged 16, a live in Domestic Servant born Ash, Kent on the 1901 and 1911 Censuses respectively. In 1911 she was at Dover. However on the two sources I use for basic census look ups:-

1901 Genes Reunited and familysearch has surname transcribed as Lidner
1911 Genes Reunited and familysearch has surname transcribed as Lednor
Viewing the documents those could be an equally valid interpretation on what has been written.

So not an easy family to try and research.

Regards,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

thank you for this avalanche of information. I hope I am not taking away too much of your time alloted for research! It seems to be quite challenging and I am amazed what a wonderful job you have done. I find it quite cruel, that families were separated on admission to the workhouse. I wonder if both of them thought that the army would be at leat a step up on the social ladder (which it probably was for them). A high price for them that they paid.

GreyC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GreyC said:

I wonder if both of them thought that the army would be at least a step up on the social ladder (which it probably was for them).

They were both pre-war  regulars. And both were (probably) born illegitimate, so the army would have been an obvious option to get a job tha provided accomodation and security

I don't recall seeing any figures on this (MG where art thou now?), but the composition of the British Army in 1914 would be a legitimate topic for research. There is clearly a difference between the backgrounds of pre-war regulars and later volunteers & conscripts

 

Edited by corisande
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have got as far as we will get with Storey and Popham, but can I get @GreyC to check the original photo

 

In an earlier post above I speculated that there may be other British graves in the photo. Can you check your photo to see if any other names can be read

grave1.jpg.73145f528c2e5cd81bf41264774ee

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonjour vous êtes certain pour Chivy Les Etouvelles ? Le village était en secteur allemand jusqu'à octobre 1918.

Par contre un Chivy existe bien au Chemin des Dames 

Près de Cerny en Laonnois

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, Laxonais said:

Bonjour vous êtes certain pour Chivy Les Etouvelles ? Le village était en secteur allemand jusqu'à octobre 1918.

Par contre un Chivy existe bien au Chemin des Dames 

Près de Cerny en Laonnois

Bonjour

Given that Popham is commemorated at Vendresse British Cemetery , I would say you are correct

https://www.ww1cemeteries.com/vendresse-british-cemetery.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi,

unfortunarely no other name is legible, the graves in the backrow have no visible names on them.

With regards to the place the only hint is that there were 350 inhabitants.

Maybe the knowledgable among you can decide based upon were the 2nd Btl of the Welsh and the LNL were active during the deaths of Story and Popham in Sept. of 914.

Best,

GreyC

Edited by GreyC
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...