1st World War Soldier

[The Inspector]

On 14/04/2022 at 20:05, JMB1943 said:

Here is the photo of Hedley V. Garner [verified by "my husband's mother Olive Edwards (nee Chapman)"], provided by courtesy of Jacqueline Mould. Is he the same man as in the OP photo, or is anther brother/cousin?

Regards,

JMB

Hi JMB and all,

I would love to finalise this one........

As Jacqueline Mould tells us, via JMB, the identity of the soldier in the above photo is , Hedley Vickers Garner, verified by her "husband's mother Olive Edwards (nee Chapman)". Olive's mother was Ada Garner.

I think we need to be very  careful in taking this as totally accurate without further evidence. Olive Edwards,  who was married in 1947 in Whittlesey, was born in 1926.  Hedley Vickers Garner was born in 1898 and died in 1931 (Whittlesey 3b, 501) when Olive was 5 yrs old. It therefore follows that Olive must have been told by someone else who was in the above photo. and, with the greatest of  respect to the family, that is where mistakes occur. When and to whom was the ID verified?

I can not find any military records for Hedley Vickers Garner.

Jacqueline Mould's tree has Hedley as having been born in 1893, that is incorrect he was born in January 1898 (Whittlesey 3b,568) and is on the 1901 census as Hadley Vickers Garner, aged 3 yrs. with his parents and siblings in King's Dyke, Whittlesey. In 1911 Hedley Garner at 12 Windmill St., aged 11 yrs.

Additionally on Jacqueline Mould's tree Daniel (Sutton) Garner is shown as being born in 1890 and died in 1929, that is also incorrect. The 1901 census shows him as being 11 yrs. old.

Incorrect, the enumerator's check mark has been transcribed as a number 1, his birth was registered in the 1st qtr. of 1900 in Whittlesey, Cambridge, 3b,567. His burial records confirm his d. of b.  In 1911 he is at 12 Windmill St., aged 11 yrs.

With all of the above mistakes and the absence of military records I suggest that the photo. is Thomas( Nathan) Garner, Pte. 26801 of the Suffolk Regt. as previously posted.

His service record fits the bill and includes his mother's married name Richardson and the address 12 Windmill St., Whittlesey, Cambridge.

I don't mind being proved wrong but can anyone supply any more evidence either way?

Regards Barry

 

[JMB1943]

Barry,

That is a very well-reasoned argument, and I think that you are very likely correct.

It is a pity that the OP has not re-appeared here for a week to publicly review our findings.

Regards,

JMB

[Miranda Boughton]

Thanks again for everyone's efforts to identify my husband's ancestors.  I too am willing to believe that the man is the same person (or at least a brother) in both photos and with your analysis of the various findings it does seem that he might be Thomas Nathan Garner.   

[FROGSMILE]

19 minutes ago, Miranda Boughton said:

Thanks again for everyone's efforts to identify my husband's ancestors.  I too am willing to believe that the man is the same person (or at least a brother) in both photos and with your analysis of the various findings it does seem that he might be Thomas Nathan Garner.   

Seeing the photos side-by-side like that I’m absolutely positive that they’re the same man Miranda, the brows, setting of the eyes, nose, and a very strong jawline all match perfectly.  I concede to the genealogical detectives to confirm and reach a consensus on the man’s name. 

Edited 21 April , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Miranda Boughton]

28 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Seeing the photos side-by-side like that I’m absolutely positive that they’re the same man Miranda, the brows, setting of the eyes, nose, and a very strong jawline all match perfectly.  I concede to the genealogical detectives to confirm and reach a consensus on the man’s name. 

The mention of eyebrows has prompted me to just add one more thing to the pot!  My mother-in-law's brother John Harold Garner, died in Singapore on 12 Nov 1944 and is commemorated on the Whittlesey war memorial.  I believe this photo to be him, unless someone is going to tell me something different.   He has the Garner eyebrows don't you think?  

[FROGSMILE]

14 minutes ago, Miranda Boughton said:

The mention of eyebrows has prompted me to just add one more thing to the pot!  My mother-in-law's brother John Harold Garner, died in Singapore on 12 Nov 1944 and is commemorated on the Whittlesey war memorial.  I believe this photo to be him, unless someone is going to tell me something different.   He has the Garner eyebrows don't you think?  

Yes I would say that’s a family trait for sure, Miranda.

Edited 21 April , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

On 12/04/2022 at 17:14, Miranda Boughton said:

I have another picture of a soldier from the Suffolk Regiment.  I wonder if they are linked - again I don't know who he is at the moment.

Thank you.

 

 

I'm puzzled why this photo hasn't beeen discussed more and a potential identification possibly offered.

???

M

[FROGSMILE]

32 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I'm puzzled why this photo hasn't beeen discussed more and a potential identification possibly offered.

???

M

I thought that the identification had been discussed quite a bit, hasn’t it?  This is a 4-page thread. 

Edited 21 April , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I thought that the identification had been discussed quite a bit, hasn’t it?  This is a 4-page thread. 

Not the original 'Goatskin man', nor the '1st Second Suffolk' man - if you expand the quote you will see it is the photo of the  '2nd First Suffolk' man from page 3 of the thread [admittedly its a strange photo with much white before and after] - I'm not sure he has been discussed much/identified.

Here the photo is cropped and posted so all can see it more easily

Now who do we think he is?

M

Edit:

Apologies folks - to try and clarify - firstly a couple of strikethroughs/corrections regarding the numeric identifications and secondly oops, probably not my best means of identification :-/,= 'First Suffolk man' and 'Second Suffolk man' have absolutely no intended reference to battalions of the Suffolk Regiment - I am referring to their sequential first appearances in this thread.

Edited 21 April , 2022 by Matlock1418
Edit

[FROGSMILE]

37 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Not the original 'Goatskin man', nor the '1st Suffolk' man - if you expand the quote you will see it is the photo of the  '2nd Suffolk' man from page 3 of the thread [admittedly its a strange photo with much white before and after] - I'm not sure he has been discussed much/identified.

Here the photo is cropped and posted so all can see it more easily

Now who do we think he is?

M

I’ve probably lost track, I thought the subject of the thread was the goatskin chap.  One for the genealogists I guess.

[CorporalPunishment]

4 hours ago, Miranda Boughton said:

Thanks again for everyone's efforts to identify my husband's ancestors.  I too am willing to believe that the man is the same person (or at least a brother) in both photos and with your analysis of the various findings it does seem that he might be Thomas Nathan Garner.   

Brothers they might be but they are not the same man. No disrespect intended but "Goatskin Man" clearly has a cast left eye unlike the other man.     Pete.

[JMB1943]

59 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Brothers they might be but they are not the same man. No disrespect intended but "Goatskin Man" clearly has a cast left eye unlike the other man.     Pete.

Pete,

I would say that there is nothing clear about it!

Regards,

JMB

[Matlock1418]

Hopefully to assist - all three together 

'Goatskin man'                                                                            'First Suffolk man'                                                                   'Second Suffolk man'     

'First Suffolk man' and 'Second Suffolk man' have absolutely no intended reference to battalions of the Suffolk Regiment - I am referring to their sequential first appearances in this thread.

 Let the discussions and identifications recommence! 

M

Edit: Reorientated the photos to be side by side to aid visual scanning [I know that @CorporalPunishment has later commented based on the old orientation]

Edited 21 April , 2022 by Matlock1418
edit

[CorporalPunishment]

48 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Pete,

I would say that there is nothing clear about it!

Regards,

JMB

It's clear enough to me.   Pete.

[CorporalPunishment]

40 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Hopefully to assist - all three together

  'Goatskin man'  'First Suffolk Man'

  'Second Suffolk man'

Let the discussions and identifications recommence! 

M

Edit: 'First Suffolk man' and 'Second Suffolk man' have absolutely no intended reference to battalions of the Suffolk Regiment - I am referring to their sequential first appearances in this thread.

The first and second photos are of the same man, it's all in the eyes.     Pete.

[The Inspector]

Hi All,

11 hours ago, CorporalPunishment said:

The first and second photos are of the same man, it's all in the eyes.     Pete.

Perhaps this is the answer ! IMHO they are all  the same person. "Goatskin, on enlistment and prior to demob."

If we look at Thomas( Nathan) Garner's service records, 26801 Suffolk Regt. On the third page ,ie. Medical History, on enlistment 28th Feb.1916 "slight defects but not sufficient to cause rejection", "Inability to see with the left eye".

Regards Barry

[CorporalPunishment]

3 hours ago, The Inspector said:

Hi All,

Perhaps this is the answer ! IMHO they are all  the same person. "Goatskin, on enlistment and prior to demob."

If we look at Thomas( Nathan) Garner's service records, 26801 Suffolk Regt. On the third page ,ie. Medical History, on enlistment 28th Feb.1916 "slight defects but not sufficient to cause rejection", "Inability to see with the left eye".

Regards Barry

I think the man in the third photo is most likely the brother of the man in the other two. Too much difference in the eyes for it to be the same man.     Pete.

[The Inspector]

Hi Pete,

Having checked out the family I can't find any records for 3 of his brothers having served in any Regiment, the other 2, one in the Lincolnshire, one in the Scottish   ??Command  ???Labour Corps/RAMC.

However if someone can come up with the evidence I would love to check it out. 

Regards Barry

35 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

I think the man in the third photo is most likely the brother of the man in the other two. Too much difference in the eyes for it to be the same man.     Pete.

 

[The Inspector]

On 21/04/2022 at 21:27, Matlock1418 said:

Hopefully to assist - all three together 

'Goatskin man'                                                                            'First Suffolk man'                                                                   'Second Suffolk man'     

'First Suffolk man' and 'Second Suffolk man' have absolutely no intended reference to battalions of the Suffolk Regiment - I am referring to their sequential first appearances in this thread.

 Let the discussions and identifications recommence! 

M

Edit: Reorientated the photos to be side by side to aid visual scanning [I know that @CorporalPunishment has later commented based on the old orientation]

Hi All,

26801 Garner Suffolk Regt. also received a GSW to the head on 28.4.17 as well as his "inability to see with the left eye" as recorded on his attestation medical history.  Second Suffolk man's left pupil does not look normal to me and his eyebrow is an unusual shape. As far as I can ascertain there isn't another candidate having looked at all the documentation but if anyone finds anything to the contrary I will put my tin hat on!

Regards to all,

Barry

Edited 23 April , 2022 by The Inspector

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

I've numbered the men to avoid having to refer to goatskins or Suffolkshire...

Until Matlock posted the composite, I too thought that 1 and 3 were the same man.

I now agree with Corporal P., they're not.

1 & 2 look like being the same man, they both have a (convergent) squint in the left eye which would fit with blindness in that eye noted in the SR, which was a common complication of untreated/uncorrected squints until comparatively recent times. No.3 has no such squint, and has either undergone remarkeably successful squint correction surgery, or (as I suspect) is a different man altogether, although the eyebrows  and facial features do bear some resemblance.

 

Edited 23 April , 2022 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I've numbered the men to avoid having to refer to goatskins or Suffolkshire...

Until Matlock posted the composite, I too thought that 1 and 3 were the same man.

I now agree with Corporal P., they're not.

1 & 2 look like being the same man, they both have a (convergent) squint in the left eye which would fit with blindness in that eye noted in the SR, which was a common complication of untreated/uncorrected squints until comparatively recent times. No.3 has no such squint, and has either undergone remarkeably successful squint correction surgery, or (as I suspect) is a different man altogether, although the eyebrows  and facial features do bear some resemblance.

 

It’s been interesting to follow the ebb and flow of this and it seems that significant information has emerged regarding eye damage in the family.  Keeping in mind that all the images have come from the same family and the common cap badge is Suffolk Regiment, the facial likeness, albeit not identical, might suggest a first cousin if not a brother, given that the latter appears to have been ruled out.

Edited 23 April , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[The Inspector]

On 23/04/2022 at 10:01, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I've numbered the men to avoid having to refer to goatskins or Suffolkshire...

Until Matlock posted the composite, I too thought that 1 and 3 were the same man.

I now agree with Corporal P., they're not.

1 & 2 look like being the same man, they both have a (convergent) squint in the left eye which would fit with blindness in that eye noted in the SR, which was a common complication of untreated/uncorrected squints until comparatively recent times. No.3 has no such squint, and has either undergone remarkeably successful squint correction surgery, or (as I suspect) is a different man altogether, although the eyebrows  and facial features do bear some resemblance.

 

Hi All,

Is the consensus that 26801 Thomas (Nathan) Garner, Suffolk Regt. is 1 and 2 above.?

No.3, IMHO, is the same man who has added a few Lbs.  ???? photo taken after the war before he was Trans. to Class Z on the 25th Sept. 1919 to 12 Windmill St, WhittleSEA,  and before his service with the 52nd. Protection Co. of the Royal Defence Corps from 4.2.19 to 12.6.19....as per his service records. 

His left pupil looks dilated to me and the light shining from his left would appear to have had no constricting effect.

If the consensus is that 1 and 2 are the same man then please could someone explain what difference there is in the ears of 2 and 3. No.1's left ear is obscured by the goatskin collar.

No.3's left eyebrow is a different shape as it turns upwards, could that have been as a result of a GSW to his head on the 28th April, 1917.? This injury had healed within 3 weeks.

Regards Barry

EDIT, Miranda. It is evident that a number of your relations have information but do not share their research or do not know where to look. It's worth spending time looking through all the different trees on Ancestry. John Harold Garner for instance.

 

 

 

Edited 25 April , 2022 by The Inspector

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, The Inspector said:

please could someone explain what difference there is in the ears of 2 and 3

I'm certainly no expert [and some people have said I am dreadful at such!] - Primarily for me No 2 seem more rounded, whilst No 3 pinch in before decending to the lobes.

Of course a few degrees diffference in the angle the photo was taken and ???

M

[Miranda Boughton]

Thank you. I agree there will be someone out there who is related to this family who has the answer and they may have "Ancestry" trees. Unfortunately I have a different subscription and frankly I don't want to spend additional money on an another subscription.  When I've done more work on the existing tree I will look into those on FMP who have links which have popped up as matching.  It's all ongoing and I'm very grateful for everyone's interest and help on here.