A A Gunner RGA - Unit help required please

[Medaler]

Whilst researching another local (Chesterfield area) casualty of the war, I have been fortunate to discover that his service papers have survived. Less fortunately, 133678, Gunner Charles Edward Askew of "O" Anti-Aircraft Battery (RGA) is going to give me lots of challenges that I can't resolve on my own, because I don't know where to look. In particular, I am very likely to launch another plea for help about his unit, but plan on doing that under the appropriate section at a later date.

The first issue I have relates to his conscription. Having read that he should probably have been exempted from military service on LLT, because of his status as a widower with four dependent children, I would like to gain some understanding of how this came about, and how common it was. 

As usual, any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Mike

[George Rayner]

Looking at his service file it is interesting to note this page

which refers to his widow!

George

[ss002d6252]

16 minutes ago, Medaler said:

 

The first issue I have relates to his conscription. Having read that he should probably have been exempted from military service on LLT, because of his status as a widower with four dependent children, I would like to gain some understanding of how this came about, and how common it was. 

Under the first Military Service Act 1916 s1(1)(a) exempted widowers from service if they had children who were dependant on them however Session 2 of the Military Service Act 1916 introduced a new version of s1 which no longer makes reference to widowers.

The legislation is not written as clearly as it is these days in respect of amendments and repeals but it looks like the specific exemption was removed and he would have had to apply for an exemption.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

9 minutes ago, George Rayner said:

Looking at his service file it is interesting to note this page

which refers to his widow!

George

The claim was raised by a guardian for the children. I suspect the MoP was at a loss for a specific form in this case so just used the widow one.


https://www.fold3.com/image/668187962?terms=133678

Craig

[Medaler]

15 minutes ago, George Rayner said:

Looking at his service file it is interesting to note this page

which refers to his widow!

George

Good morning gents, and many thanks for helping me out. Yes, that one somewhat adds insult to injury!

 

ss002d6252,

That card from fold 3 is particularly informative, because it confirms that a statement made in his obituary was incorrect, providing an answer to another question that I hadn't even mentioned yet! Your info about a change to the terms of the original Act is also most informative, as I don't think that particular aspect was mentioned on LLT.

Warmest regards,

Mike

[ss002d6252]

3 minutes ago, Medaler said:

Good morning gents, and many thanks for helping me out. Yes, that one somewhat adds insult to injury!

 

ss002d6252,

That card from fold 3 is particularly informative, because it confirms that a statement made in his obituary was incorrect, providing an answer to another question that I hadn't even mentioned yet! Your info about a change to the terms of the original Act is also most informative, as I don't think that particular aspect was mentioned on LLT.

Warmest regards,

Mike

Session 2 is linked to but, yes, it's not an aspect that it goes in to.

If you want to see the actual legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/104/pdfs/ukpga_19160104_en.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/15/pdfs/ukpga_19160015_en.pdf
 

Quote

providing an answer to another question that I hadn't even mentioned yet!

Years of this forum builds skills in mind reading

Craig

[ilkley remembers]

On the 26th May 1916 Harold Tennant as Under Secretary of State for war stated unequivocally that a widower would be treated as a married man as far as the 1916 Act was concerned. Thus he would be liable for military service and not have an exemption as defined in the principal legislation.  

 

Clearly a widow with dependent children below the age of 16 years could apply to Local Tribunal for an exemption using Section 2(b) claiming that military service would cause exceptional domestic hardship. However, it is unlikely that that this would be successful since appears that he had close female relatives who were in a position to care for his four children and who would also be eligible for any allowances allowed during his service. This is important as it meant that the family would not need to access support provided by local welfare agencies or charities.

 

Local Tribunals do not seem to have overly sympathetic to the claims of widowers with dependent children. An example from Alfreton dated March 1917 concerned a widower with children who applied for an exemption on the grounds of hardship (and who appears not to have been able to claim exemption on any other grounds). The chair of the tribunal would only allow a temporary exemption for 3 months stating that he could see no hardship in this case as the applicant’s sister in law was in a position to care for the children.

 

Interestingly, divorced men were treated as unmarried and I think the same applied to men who had children with women to whom they were not married.

 

The Local Tribunals were the subject of intense criticism throughout the war because of their largely middle class composition and often high handed approach. Their vituperative attitude towards conscientious objectors is well known but even those seeking exemption on other grounds could be the target of the chairs ire.

 

IR

[helpjpl]

1.  Derbyshire Courier 08 February 1919 (findmypast):

 

2.  The children's grandparents, John James Askew (a photographer) and his wife Eliza, lived at 173 Derby Rd, Birdholme, Chesterfield.

 

3.  This photo is from a family tree on ancestry:

JP 

[Medaler]

Thanks for the extra input gents.

That obit from the Derbyshire Courier matches another I have from the Derbyshire Times in stating that he died at Nottingham. His service papers, however, tell a different story, showing that he actually died at that Derby Road address on the southern edge of Chesterfield. That picture from Ancestry, however, is completely new to me. He had two brothers that also served, one who I believe was George Frederick Askew. He was originally with the Notts & Derby under the number 74361, but later transferred to the 1st/6th North Staffords as 64922. The chap in the photo with him, however, looks likely to have been the other brother John, who served in the RFA. I think I had several hits for that name with the RFA, so have not been able to discover his full military identity. Given their father's occupation, I guess he was behind the camera, and that it was taken in a studio "somewhere in Chesterfield".

I wish I understood Gunners better than I do. I have just been trying to unscramble Charles' service record. As a consequence, I am now trying to think of the right wording for another post on here - destined for the soldiers and their units section.

Thanks also for the added info on the appeals process. The tribunals were frequently, though perhaps not universally, covered in the local newspapers. As it stands, I have no evidence that Charles ever tried to appeal against his conscription.

Many thanks gents,

Mike

[Matlock1418]

6 minutes ago, Medaler said:

I wish I understood Gunners better than I do. I have just been trying to unscramble Charles' service record. As a consequence, I am now trying to think of the right wording for another post on here - destined for the soldiers and their units section.

If it is going to be about Charles then it's usually best to keep in a single thread - perhaps change the thread title a bit if you think it would help [hover pointer over title it to get that option - potentially use 'tags' too]

:-) M

Edited 6 November , 2021 by Matlock1418

[Medaler]

1 minute ago, Matlock1418 said:

If it is going to be about Charles then it's usually best to keep in a single thread - perhaps change the thread title a bit if you think it would help [hover pointer over title it to get that option - potentially use 'tags' too]

:-) M

Thanks for that too, I will follow that advice when I get my head around the right words to use. 

Regards,

Mike

[Medaler]

After an amount of deliberation, I think I have eventually arrived at a list of questions I would like some assistance in answering. They all hinge around this document, on which some of the entries are a little indistinct. In particular, it is his involvement with the RGA that I need most help with, but the first 4 entries have also raised a question too, so I will start with them. So, starting from the top..

"Called up for service 13.12.16" – Whilst not mentioned explicitly, I assume that this was with the Sherwood Foresters, because the third entry, which relates to that regiment, contains the word “Re-joined”. After that Charles seems to have been passed from pillar to post, though I am unsure if he did all this travelling or just his paperwork?

Eventually, with the fifth entry, he seems to have found a unit that wanted him. Posted to the RGA on 29.12.16, he became associated with their “No 4 Depot”, and I am a little confused about that. The problem here is that I have seen two units described this way, one at Great Yarmouth, and the other at Ripon. My hunch is that this relates to Ripon, but am I right?

This document goes on to show that he spent several weeks at this “No 4 Depot” before being transferred to “47 Coy” on 06.02.17. I think I have that nailed as being a coastal defence unit at Tynemouth.

This is the point where my major problems start. The next entry seems to refer to “A A T Depot” with his posting there dated to 12.05.1917. My assumption is that this is shorthand for “Anti-Aircraft Training Depot”, but I have drawn a complete blank with that. Am I right? Does anyone have any info on them? All I can add is that they seem to have been a unit based in the UK, as his service with the BEF began when he left them, on 11.07.17

I am also having issues with this next posting. Described (I think) as “225 A A Section”, which seems to have been in France. Again, however, I can find nothing on them. Charles seems to have been with them for around 4 months before being posted to “Q” A A battery on 17.11.17, “L” A A Battery on 06.01.18, and “O” A A Battery on 24.01.18. I am particularly keen to find out where these units were located during the periods that he was with them. There is reference to Charles having left Namur to come back to the UK for demobilisation, so my assumption is that “O” Battery were there in January 1919.

I recognise that this is a big list, but any and all help would be appreciated.

Regards,

Mike

[Medaler]

I will add bits as I find them, because they may be of some use to others.

Still found nothing so far on the mysterious "A A T Depot" that was based somewhere in the UK but...

Established via LLT and his service record that Charles was an original member of 225 AA Section when they were first deployed overseas. Again, thanks to LLT, I also now know that they were sent to Audruicq on 18/07/1917.

Also established that "O" Battery were indeed in the vicinity of Namur when he left them, as two other Gunners from the battery were buried in that area at Belgrade Cemetery in late Jan and early Feb 1919. Going backwards in time, it looks like they were close to Cambrai at the end of October 1918, as another of their gunners is buried at Awoingt British Cemetery. The burial of another gunner from the battery at Lebucquiere Communal Cemetery Extension would also seem to indicate that they were also in that same neck of the woods in early September 1918.

Edited 9 November , 2021 by Medaler

[Medaler]

Similar tactic used for his time with "L" Battery, between 6th-24th Jan 1918. A little less convincing, but 161169, Gunner Fred Howarth was KIA with them on 23/07/17, and 191258, Gunner Daniel Gledhill was KIA on 23/03/1918. The first buried at Neuville-Vitasse, the second at Faubourg D'Amiens. These burial sites are less than 6 miles apart, and quite close to Arras. It looks, therefore, like they were in that sector when Charles was with them.

 

A further repeat of this tactic to cover his time with "Q" Battery revealed that they had 1 officer and 5 men KIA on 23/04/1917, and that all but one of these was buried at Beaumetz-Les_Cambrai. A further death, of 191438, Gnr Frank Blakey, occurred on 15/02/1918. It is thought that he died of wounds at a CCS, but he is buried at Grevillers British Cemetery, which lies fewer than 9 miles away from Beaumetz-Les-Cambrai. The conclusion then, is that Charles spent all of his time with this battery (from 17/11/1917 - 06/01/1918) in the vicinity of Cambrai.

Interestingly, the 5 men KIA on 23/04/1917 include a Driver named George Edward Allen (60134) who has a surviving service record. The CWGC record for him shows him as RFA yet connects him to "Q" Battery which were a RGA unit. The service record backs this RFA background for him. Not pertinent to Askew, but interesting as the "vibe" I had picked up on LLT was that drivers for A A units were drawn from the ASC. Another driver, Thomas Clare (L/18686), who was also killed on 23/04/1917 is also described in the same way on CWGC, and he also has an MIC that only mentions RFA.

Still struggling with the location of Askew's UK based "A A T Depot", though the service record for George Edward Allen describes him as being posted to an A A establishment at Shoeburyness on 14/04/1916 which is neither described as a "Section" or a "Battery"

 

Edited 10 November , 2021 by Medaler

[charlie962]

On 09/11/2021 at 15:17, Medaler said:

the mysterious "A A T Depot"

Anti Aircraft Training Depot. here are a couple of 1917 postings from 56 Reserve Bty RFA, courtesy AMOT

[Medaler]

10 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Anti Aircraft Training Depot. here are a couple of 1917 postings from 56 Reserve Bty RFA, courtesy AMOT

Many thanks for this. Unless there was more than one A A T Depot - which I doubt, this must be a reference to Shoeburyness. I also suspect that these men would have retained their RFA identity as opposed to being transferred to the RGA. All technically part of the Royal Regiment of Artillery anyway, movements between one branch and another may not have resulted in renumbering, like it did from one infantry regiment to another. This, I am afraid, highlights my woeful lack of knowledge about gunners.

Edited 10 November , 2021 by Medaler