cwgc headstone doesn't make sense

[davidbohl]

Pte Frederick Parr #22798 KLR CWGC

His headstone is inscribed Pte Frederic E. Parr (no 'k')

Have they got in a mess with the existing records of casualty Frederick Edwin Parr #22500, also 20/KLR, also b.1892 ?

from cwgc photographic project https://www.twgpp.org/photograph/view/2757436

Service records exist and state at the time of death he was A/Lance Cpl

SDGW have him Frank G. Parr born Bootle, also nonsense

thanks

Dave

 

 

[RussT]

Look to me like a straightforward mistake on the headstone schedule which was used to make up the headstone itself.

Worth asking CWGC to check their documents

Russ

 

[davidbohl]

20 minutes ago, RussT said:

Look to me like a straightforward mistake

What worries me is Pte Frederick Edwin Parr 22500 matches the enlistment page of  22798 where he states b.Bootle and a grocer

from Anc 1911

 

 

Edited 22 December , 2021 by davidbohl

[squirrel]

Acting Lance Corporal was an appointment not a rank, his rank was Private.

[davidbohl]

Based on the Attestation document #22798 is Pte Frederick Edwin Parr, born Bootle, a grocer. Son of Frederick and Madeline Parr

PARR, FREDERICK  EDWIN	PACKWOOD
GRO Reference: 1892  D Quarter in WEST DERBY  Volume 08B  Page 402

 

 

The Son of James and Frances K. Parr

PARR, FREDERICK	SHERLOCK
GRO Reference:1892  M Quarter in WIRRAL  Volume 08A  Page 452

married 1887

SHERLOCK

Frances K

PARR

James

1887

Hoylake, Holy Trinity

Wirral

 

From SDGW 

Name:Frederick Parr

Birth Place: Hoylake, Cheshire

Residence: Liverpool

Death Date:12 May 1916

Death Place: France and Flanders

Enlistment Place: Liverpool

Rank:Private

Regiment:The King's (Liverpool) Regiment

Battalion:20th Battalion

Regimental Number: 22500

Type of Casualty:Died of wounds

 

 

[ss002d6252]

There was a dependant claim made against 22500


https://www.fold3.com/image/691217290?terms=parr,22500

Craig

 

[ss002d6252]

22798 parr's effects
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60506/images/42511_6117463_0068-00225?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=a77045285f63c5ab1818c70999979fd8&usePUB=true&_phsrc=NBE259&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=366404

Craig

[davidbohl]

Note the service no. top left 22798

From anc

 

 

[ss002d6252]

22500 parr's effects
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60506/images/42511_6117463_0068-00225?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=a77045285f63c5ab1818c70999979fd8&usePUB=true&_phsrc=NBE259&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=366404 

Craig

[ss002d6252]

They're both Fredrick E Parr in the effects register.

Craig

[RussT]

 

 

[RussT]

56 minutes ago, davidbohl said:

Based on the Attestation document #22798 is Pte Frederick Edwin Parr, born Bootle, a grocer. Son of Frederick and Madeline Parr

Where did you see that 22798 Parr is the son of Frederick & Madeline Parr? I only see them as being the Father & Mother of 22500 Parr (as per CWGC).

I do note that CWGC has 22798 Parr as being the son of James & Frances K Parr - whereas his records seem to indicate that he also had a Father called Fred - but this is crossed out and replaced by his Brother Charles Joseph.

It sorts of gets a bit confusing because it seems 22500 Parr was born in Hoylake but resided in Liverpool (Sefton) whereas 22798 Parr was born in Liverpool (Bootle) but had connections in Hoylake (the address of his Brother Charles).

Though they both seem to have a "k" in their name Frederick !!

Russ

[davidbohl]

2 minutes ago, RussT said:

Where did you see that 22798 Parr is the son of Frederick & Madeline Parr

From the earliest existing documents. On the 1911 census above see Frederick Edwin, the son of Frederick and Madeline, is a grocer, born in Bootle. On the front page of the attestation for 22798 dated 6th Nov 1914 and signed Frederick E. Parr, he is born Bootle, a grocer  

[RussT]

The authorities do seem to have been confused at some time.

As noted, the  NoK for 22798 Parr was written as Father Fred with an address at Holly Bank Road, which has been crossed out at replaced by brother Charles Joseph residing in Hoylake (as per image attached). Nevertheless a telegram dated 8th March 1917 (a day after the death of 22798 Parr) was sent to this Holly Bank Road address only for it to be returned (as per image).

The Holly Bank Road address is however the correct one for Frederick the father of 22500 Parr - as shown on his Military History Sheet (as per image).

So I agree, there does appear to be some mix up in the administration of these two men - especially for 22798 Parr - at the top of his Attestation Form it even looks like Frank G Parr as recorded in SDGW !

Regards

Russ

 

 

[davidbohl]

22 hours ago, RussT said:

The authorities do seem to have been confused at some time

Thanks for looking Ken, trying to understand a probate record has made me knock up a comparison of the 2 soldiers

 

 

 

Edited 23 December , 2021 by davidbohl
updated sheet

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Laying it out like that makes it far easier to understand the problem.
i.e. Both stones are wrong.

It should be clear cut enough for the CWGC to accept the evidence and correct both errors.

[RussT]

A bit of background on both:

F E Parr - Liverpool Echo 29/05/1916

Fred Parr - Birkenhead News 17/03/1917

 

[RussT]

Arrived at any conclusion yet on the apparent anomalies between these two men/records?

My conclusion is simply the wrong number has been entered on the front page Attestation Forms for each man.

If you just reverse the numbers, then I think everything becomes self-consistent. It seems clear that the numbers have been added at a different time to all the personal information on those front sheets.

Even the date of Attestation then makes sense - i.e. 22500 becomes 6th Nov 1914 and 22798 becomes 9th Nov 1914 (rather than the other way round as implied by the Forms as filled out taken at face value).

It also explains that one (22520) was Frederick E Parr but the other (22798) was just plain Frederick Parr as evidenced by their own signatures on those Forms.

I think it would also then follow that SDGW would propagate the errors as they would get their basic information from those front Attestation sheets.

It's been an interesting challenge !

Regards

Russ

[davidbohl]

I've reformed the comparison of the 2 soldiers how the records should look

Next mission to tackle CWGC

thanks all

Dave

 

Pte's Parr - Modified.pdf

[RussT]

I think I now see how this mix up in the service numbering on their respective Attestation Forms had occurred.

In looking at available service records (and other records e.g. Medal Rolls, Silver War Badge Rolls), then it seems clear that these men, who formed the original cohorts during the raising of the 4th City Battalion of the KLR (20th Battalion, KLR), were grouped into blocks of about 300 men according to attestation date and in surname alphabetical order and then later numbered to the 20th Battalion.

Men who ended up with the service numbers between 20/22300 to 20/22599 had attested between 5th and 7th November 1914.

Men who ended up with the service numbers between 20/22600 to 20/22899 had attested on the 9th or 10th November 1914.

The 8th of November 1914 was a Sunday (closed for business !!).

A sample surname/number list for these two cohorts, taken from the surviving service records on FMP, are shown below with the two Parr men indicated in red. Missing names/numbers can be gleaned from other records (medal rolls etc).

Armstrong 20/22310
Bennett 20/22314
Bolton 20/22315
Bellingham 20/22324
Bentzien 20/22327
Dorning 20/22364
Forrester 20/22376
Fox 20/22377
Fraser20/22378
Fryer 20/22381
Hatch 20/22397
Hewitson 20/22404
Hill 20/22407
Hodgers 20/22411
Hodgson 20/22412
Holding 20/22413
Houlgrave 20/22418
Johnson 20/22429
Jones 20/22430
Jones 20/22437
Killip 20/22439
Kirk 20/22442
Lines 20/22457
Lowe 20/22462
March 20/22466
McArdle 20/22470
Moody 20/22484
Mortimer 20/22488
O'Neil 20/22497
Parr 20/22500
Padfield 20/22507
Postlewaite 20/22509
Qualters 20/22511
Scaife 20/22521
Simmons 20/22532
Swift 20/22547
Thomas 20/22551
Watson 20/22574
Worstall 20/22585
Young 20/22588

New Block

Brown 20/22633
Clewley 20/22648
Connor 20/22656
Cottier 20/22660
Davies 20/22667
Dobson 20/22675
Duval 20/22678
France 20/22688
Good 20/22695
Gould 20/22696
Gyte 20/22701
Harper 20/22702
Healey 20/22714
Holland 20/22730
Hunt 20/22731
Jones 20/22740
Jones 20/22743
Jones 20/22746
Kirby  20/22751
Kelsey 20/22754
Langford 20/22757
Lehan 20/22758
Molyneux 20/22782
Morley 20/22784
Murphy 20/22787
Nichol 20/22792
Parr 20/22798
Palmer 20/22804
Pittman 20/22812
Simpson 20/22840
Smith 20/22845
Smith 20/22846
Stringer 20/22849
Sutton 20/22854
Turton 20/22868
Watson 20/22875
Wedgewood 20/22883
Winterbottom 20/22887
Williams 20/22896
 

I don't think all these men were numbered after each individual block of 300 men had attested. Rather, I think they were all numbered en masse at a later date. It then seems apparent that the two Parr attestation sheets got mixed up, and so they were numbered out of attestation date sequence, as I noted in my earlier post.

But now comes the bizarre bit. It seems that this mix up was never detected or, if it was, nothing was done about it. So these two men were given and they adopted "incorrect" numbers but they were not to know this and so they nevertheless continued to serve (and die) under those service numbers that were given to them.

It also seems evident that any subsequent service details and other information was added to with their original (but incorrect) attestation front sheet such that eventually the correct information such as their NoK, their postings, details about when they were a casualty and their date of death etc was added. There is evidence in their respective records that their NoK knew and accepted those service numbers that were given to these 2 men. But the front page of their attestation forms remained forever incorrect for them as individuals e.g. as to their place of birth, occupation, date of attestation etc.

Even so, this seems to have had little impact on their commemoration by CWGC as the "incorrect" information was not needed for that purpose. Given that their ages were the same on attestation (22 years old), this also, coincidentally, had no bearing on their commemoration.

But unknown errors were necessarily picked up when SDGW was compiled as part of that record set used place of birth.

So when you say "next mission to tackle CWGC", I'm not sure what you are going to tackle them with.

I would be interested to learn/discuss your conclusions and proposed next steps - because it has made my head spin a bit - so perhaps I'm missing something.

In respect to the original query regarding whether 22798 Parr spelt his forename as Frederick or Frederic, I now conclude the latter. He was definitely baptised as Frederick and he appears as such in the 1901 census. But by the time of the 1911 census and in his own Will he is now Frederic. But he had no middle initial of E. So I do agree that the commemoration certification for 22798 Parr is incorrect with respect to that detail for 22798 Parr. But his headstone is OK except for the fact it has an incorrect middle initial E.

Regards

Russ

[davidbohl]

1 hour ago, RussT said:

I would be interested to learn/discuss your conclusions and proposed next steps - because it has made my head spin a bit - so perhaps I'm missing something.

Good stuff Russ,

I think we should address this again after crimbo, it's hurting my head too.

all the best

Dave

[RussT]

1 hour ago, davidbohl said:

I think we should address this again after crimbo, it's hurting my head too.

Absolutely - have a good Christmas and let's pick it up later.

It's one of the most bizarre cases I've come across - but hats off to you in spotting the anomaly in the first place.

Russ

  

[davidbohl]

On 24/12/2021 at 19:24, RussT said:

let's pick it up later.

Russ, I've sent off a query to cwgc asking if they have corrected or plan to correct the middle name "E" on the headstone now showing Frederic E. Parr.

Perhaps a kind soul visiting Warlincourt could check on it for me, may be quicker than a reply from cwgc.

Dave

[RussT]

I will be interested in hearing their response in due course.

Regards

Russ