John Quaintrell/Quantrell - 228223 Royal Fusiliers (London Regiment) ex 23119 Rifle Brigade

[clk]

Hi Annie,

I don't think that it's been mentioned already, but the medal rolls (linked up thread) show the dates and units of his overseas service.

Image sourced from Ancestry

The gap of 7.7.1917 to 13.2.1918 would point towards a wounding that required a return to the UK for treatment and recuperation, 

Regards
Chris

[FROGSMILE]

5 hours ago, charlie962 said:

The Widows Pension form on FindmyPast here repeats much of what Matlock picked up in that Pension Card he posted earlier on. But it has an extra piece of info. He 'joined for duty 19/6/16' (PS that form also says he was evenually 1st london regt !!)

Charlie

Mention of 1st London Regiment is interesting, as it was yet another Territorial Force unit affiliated with and wearing the cap badge of the Royal Fusiliers.  He didn’t serve overseas with that unit though so it’s not mentioned on his medal roll as clk (Chris) has pointed out.  It also doesn’t make clear whether that was 1/1st (first line), 2/1st (second line) or 3/1st (third line).  I wonder if it’s just a clerical error, or if perhaps he did serve with the second, or third line units in Britain before going to France (i.e. after the Rifle Brigade).

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[AnnieTaylor]

5 hours ago, clk said:

Hi Annie,

I don't think that it's been mentioned already, but the medal rolls (linked up thread) show the dates and units of his overseas service.

Image sourced from Ancestry

The gap of 7.7.1917 to 13.2.1918 would point towards a wounding that required a return to the UK for treatment and recuperation, 

Regards
Chris

Thanks Chris x 

[RussT]

I'm still trying to get to the bottom of his final unit/number.

The number 228223 is within the block of 6-digit numbers allotted to the 1st Battalion of the London Regiment TF - but this Battalion does not appear on his Medal Roll.

And he seemingly is allotted this number upon him joining the 26th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers.

The answer, it seems, lies in the surviving records of men who were in the same draft.

The Medal Rolls shows that there are circa 66 (possibly 68) men who followed the same East Surrey Regiment (ESR) and Royal Fusiliers (RF) route going from 228168 Albert William Tester to 228233 Thomas Williams - (besides Tester they are all in surname alphabetical order over this range of numbers).

Some records survive - here is a page from 228216 Jack Neal - it shows he arrived in France and was posted to the 13th ESR but was then transferred to the 1st (Reserve) Battalion, The London Regiment (R.F.) on 13/05/1917 which accounts for the 228xxx number for these men. He was posted (note: not transferred) the same day to the 26th Battalion Royal Fusiliers - clearly keeping his TF number.

It seems evident however that Quantrell was eventually posted to the 4th (1st/4th I would think) Battalion of London Regiment.

Some of his records (e.g. CWGC) maintain the 1st Battalion as his final unit whereas others have him as 4th (1/4th Battalion), which I would regard as being his actual final unit.

Regards

Russ

 

 

[RussT]

And here is a snip with the further formal mention of the 1st (Reserve Battalion), The London Regiment (R.F.) in the record of 228322 Alfred Pack.

Can't find any records for this unit - but note he and the others were transferred in France to this "unit" but I would suspect for book-keeping purposes only.

Russ

[RussT]

Perhaps some, if not all, of the confusion lies in the fact that he has 2 Graves Registration Report Forms, one of which states that it cancels all previous reports.

That one has his 1/4th London added to in red handwriting with "1st (City of London) Battalion Roy. Fus." which might even be thought as the 1st Bn of the Regular RF Regiment, adding furher confusion (or is it just me !)

Regards

Russ

 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, RussT said:

And here is a snip with the further formal mention of the 1st (Reserve Battalion), The London Regiment (R.F.) in the record of 228322 Alfred Pack.

Can't find any records for this unit - but note he and the other were transferred in France to this "unit" but I would suspect for book-keeping purposes only.

Russ

Brilliant work Russ!  You’ve solved the misleading 1st Battalion reference (the absence of the “Reserve” aspect naturally skewed the whole perception).

The 1st and 2nd Reserve battalions of the London Regiment - City of London - Royal Fusiliers, were formed from the 4/1st, 4/2nd, 4/3rd and 4/4th Battalions London Regiment (etc. etc.) on 8th April 1916.  They took on responsibility for providing battle casualty replacements for the 1st to 4th London’s units that had deployed into the field, including those of the second and third lines.  Initially at Hurdcott, in November 1916 they moved to Torquay, and thence to Blackdown, Aldershot, in April 1917, where they remained until the end of the war feeding the deployed units with men.

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[AnnieTaylor]

Thank you!  I’m getting slightly confused myself as I don’t really understand anything about battalions etc 
 

Annie x 

[RussT]

3 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

The 1st and 2nd Reserve battalions of the London Regiment - City of London - Royal Fusiliers, were formed from the 4/1st, 4/2nd, 4/3rd and 4/4th Battalions London Regiment (etc. etc.) on 8th April 1916.

Yep, got that now, thanks

Russ

[RussT]

1 minute ago, AnnieTaylor said:

Thank you!  I’m getting slightly confused myself as I don’t really understand anything about battalions etc

Yes, it can be quite confusing even for us sometimes given the incomplete records of so many who served - it does require a bit of detective work but there are no guarantees even then of it being actually correct.

It might not seem that important in the bigger scheme of things but the considerations here point to your man last serving with the 1/4th Battalion of the London Regiment not as "London Regiment (Royal Fusiliers) 1st Bn" as recorded by CWGC.

It is sort of important to know if you wanted to track his (final) movements/actions because to do that you need to consult the correct War Diary.

It's up to you really, but my advice would be to contact the CWGC with the evidence for them to consider amending his record.

If you like I could submit it for you.

Regards

Russ

[FROGSMILE]

36 minutes ago, AnnieTaylor said:

Thank you!  I’m getting slightly confused myself as I don’t really understand anything about battalions etc 
 

Annie x 

A battalion is the basic unit of infantry Annie and comprised four companies often lettered A, B, C, D, (although there were variations).  

Each infantry battalion was generally around 1,000 strong (although this gradually decreased during the war) and commanded by a lieutenant colonel, who was assisted by a small group of officers and senior non commissioned officers, known as the ‘Battalion staff’.  They were the ones who ran the administration.  
Each company was approximately 200 men strong and commanded by a senior captain, or sometimes a major.  The company was divided equally into four platoons each commanded by a lieutenant assisted by a sergeant.

As mentioned previously there were different types of infantry battalion according to their origins and role, including regular, special reserve, extra reserve, Territorial Force, and service (hostilities only).  As just revealed by Russ, the Territorial Force had their own reserve battalions to feed them with replacements just as the special reserve fed the regular battalions in exactly the same way.  In effect men were consumed by the violence of war and so had to be routinely replaced in order for the battalions to retain their strength and military effectiveness.

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[AnnieTaylor]

Thank you!!  xx

[FROGSMILE]

7 minutes ago, AnnieTaylor said:

Thank you!!  xx

Did you see that Russ offered to correct your great uncle’s details with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission so that there wouldn’t be this confusion over his units in the future?

[AnnieTaylor]

I have found these on Ancestry. We're 95% sure its our John. His sister Mary Ann, is where my descendant line starts (she's my dad's, nan). 

Here he is on the 1901 Census, listed as '15' and is already in the Royal Fusiliers. Would he of faked his age? or could you join at 15? Sorry if it seems like you're talking to an idiot. War/ Military isn't my strong suit! 

 

He is then listed in a 1911 Census with his wife and oldest son

 

12 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Did you see that Russ offered to correct your great uncle’s details with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission so that there wouldn’t be this confusion over his units in the future?

I did, that would be amazing, but I couldn't ask him to do that for me! He and everyone else on this thread has done beyond what I could of imagined!

Edit: Just to add, we found that his oldest son, John Earnest, died serving in WW2 in 1945. 

Annie x 

Edited 15 October , 2021 by AnnieTaylor

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, AnnieTaylor said:

I have found these on Ancestry. We're 95% sure its our John. His sister Mary Ann, is where my descendant line starts (she's my dad's, nan). 

Here he is on the 1901 Census, listed as '15' and is already in the Royal Fusiliers. Would he of faked his age? or could you join at 15? Sorry if it seems like you're talking to an idiot. War/ Military isn't my strong suit! 

 

He is then listed in a 1911 Census with his wife and oldest son

 

I did, that would be amazing, but I couldn't ask him to do that for me! He and everyone else on this thread has done beyond what I could of imagined!

 

Annie x 

Yes he could have been a boy soldier.  Each regular infantry battalion was permitted to recruit a contingent of boy entrants providing that they had left school, were not indentured apprentices (as these were legal contracts) and had the written permission of their parents.  Until after WW1 the statutory school leaving age was 12.  Boys who joined (enlisted) were divided into two groups, artisans and musicians.  The former learnt either shoemaking or tailoring in their battalion workshops and the latter were in either the band or the corps of drums.  Each regular battalion could recruit around a dozen or so boys (from memory) and Territorial Force (part-time) units were permitted some boy musicians too.

 I’m sure that @RussT wouldn’t mind correcting matters with the CWGC or else he wouldn’t have offered.

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

35 minutes ago, AnnieTaylor said:

Here he is on the 1901 Census, listed as '15' and is already in the Royal Fusiliers.

35 minutes ago, AnnieTaylor said:

He is then listed in a 1911 Census with his wife and oldest son

If I am reading 1911 right - the problem I can envisage is that in 1911 he is down as 30 years old i.e. he seems to have aged 15 years in 10 years.

If 1911 is right [and it rather does seem likely it could be - the 1911 Census took place on 2 April so his son would have been very nearly, not quite, 3 months old] then he would have been 20 in 1901 and the 1901 Census provided would be unusual to say the least in taking off 5 years from his age!

???

:-) M

Edited 15 October , 2021 by Matlock1418
clarify

[FROGSMILE]

22 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

If I am reading 1911 right - the problem I can envisage is that in 1911 he is down as 30 years old i.e. he seems to have aged 15 years in 10 years.

If 1911 is right [and it rather does seem like it is] then he would have been 20 in 1901 and the 1901 Census provided would be unusual to say the least in taking off 5 years from his age!

???

:-) M

My guess is that he added on 5-years for the 1911 census (perhaps embarrassed to be younger than his wife).  A check of his declared age on re-enlistment subsequently might bear that out. 

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, FROGSMILE said:

My guess is that he added on 5-years for the 1911 census.  A check of his declared age on re-enlistment subsequently might bear that out. 

I could be if his wife to be / wife was older than him and he had earlier over-aged himself to her before marriage.

:-) M

[AnnieTaylor]

37 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes he could have been a boy soldier.  Each infantry battalion was permitted to recruit a contingent of boy entrants providing that they had left school, were not indentured apprentices (as these were legal contracts) and had the written permission of their parents.  Until after WW1 the statutory school leaving age was 12.  Boys who joined (enlisted) were divided into two groups, artisans and musicians.  The former learnt either shoemaking or tailoring in their battalion workshops and the latter were in either the band or the corps of drums.  Each regular battalion could recruit around a dozen or so boys (from memory) and Territorial Force (part-time) units were permitted some boy musicians too.

 I’m sure that @RussT wouldn’t mind correcting matters with the CWGC or else he wouldn’t have offered.

Thank you 😊 xx

[FROGSMILE]

Just now, Matlock1418 said:

I could be if his wife to be / wife was older than him and he had earlier over-aged himself to her before marriage.

:-) M

There could be any one of a number of personal reasons. He wouldn’t have been the first to falsify his age.  Many births weren’t registered on time and as a result a lot of folk didn’t know their true age.  They were different times and too often people look at the past through the prism and prejudices of today.

[AnnieTaylor]

Can the sites that you guys have used, (besides Ancestry) also be used to find people who served in WW2? Or are they exclusive to WW1? 
 

Annie  x

[Matlock1418]

5 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

There could be any one of a number of personal reasons. He wouldn’t have been the first to falsify his age.  Many births weren’t registered on time and as a result a lot of folk didn’t know their true age.  They were different times and too often people look at the past through the prism and prejudices of today.

6 years married in 1911 married in 1905 would have made him 19 and her 23 - both above the legal age for marriage I think so the above reason does perhaps seem potentially likely. 

Or, as you hypothesise - a lack of knowledge over his true birth date - does seem a bit off.  5 years - one would have thought he would have known a bit closer. :-/

Just makes it harder now to be sure when we [GWF] don't have the depth of genealogical knowledge that the OP and her father have - and they are only 95% sure about the 1901 Census.

:-) M

[FROGSMILE]

17 minutes ago, AnnieTaylor said:

Thank you 😊 xx

His being a former boy entrant meant he would have been a regular reservist with an obligation for recall to the colours in the event of war.  It depends on exactly when he first enlisted (i.e. as a boy) as to whether his period with a reserve obligation had expired by 1914 (the most common split then was 7-years service followed by 5-years as a reservist on call).  My assumption is that it had expired, else he would have been called up immediately on the outbreak of war, whereas we know that his first point back in the service was in the second half of 1916.

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

4 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

6 years married in 1911 married in 1905 would have made him 19 and her 23 - both above the legal age for marriage I think so the above reason does perhaps seem potentially likely. 

Or, as you hypothesise - a lack of knowledge over his true birth date - does seem a bit off.  5 years - one would have thought he would have known a bit closer. :-/

Just makes it harder now to be sure when we [GWF] don't have the depth of genealogical knowledge that the OP and her father have - and they are only 95% sure about the 1901 Census.

:-) M

I wasn’t suggesting he didn’t know his true date of birth, just pointing out that the times were different.  I think the more likely reason is that he was embarrassed that he was younger than his wife and so declared on the contrary.  Whether or not she knew is pure speculation and I’ve no idea, it’s all a bit academic anyway really, as it seems clear that it’s the same person in each census.

Edited 15 October , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, AnnieTaylor said:

Can the sites that you guys have used, (besides Ancestry) also be used to find people who served in WW2? Or are they exclusive to WW1? 

Whilst we can't go too much into WW2 here [GWF rules] - most post-WW1 service records are still kept with the MoD [there are some restrictions on what can be accessed]

You can sometimes apply to the MoD - search fee(s) and a long wait(s) I fear.

Check this site out: https://www.gov.uk/get-copy-military-service-records/apply-for-someone-elses-records

:-)M