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

Remembered Today:

L. Cpl. Walter BAGSHAW, 6444, Royal Warwickshire Regiment


Matlock1418
 Share

Recommended Posts

Walter BAGSHAW, born in Matlock in 1881, was a pre-war RWR Regular and then Reservist recalled to the Colours with 2 RWR

1583969979_1915NewspaperandphotoWalterBagshaw001a.jpg.35aa01790fc97879fd496fcec65f6687.jpg 

KiA 18/19 Dec. 1914 near Armentieres/Le Maisnil and now commemorated on the Ploegsteert Memorial https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/874094/walter-bagshaw as his body has not been known to be recovered [reported originally buried in an old trench on the battlefield 19 Dec. during a recorded temporary period of truce]

55331996_1915NewspaperandphotoWalterBagshaw002.jpg.a6d8cb43f8efedb5520aa0a6e661ef5d.jpg

Images courtesy of R58235 at IWM LOTFWW

His earlier and later family details are pretty well known as well as bits and pieces of his service record and the aftermath of his death - IWM Lives of the First World War https://livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk/lifestory/122812 and pension cards at WFA/Fold3 etc.

Have got the relevant War Diaries for 2 RWR and adjacent units.

Have ground to a halt = Seeking details on his Service Record [haven't found a 'Burnt Record' or other] - Wondering when his 6444 number was assigned. And of course any leads that might help find his body . 

Further family info also much welcomed.

In hope ... with thanks in anticipation ...

M

Edit: For interest: The brother/former police constable mentioned in the second article is William 'Bill' BAGSHAW - mentioned later in this thread and in his earlier own thread https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/254271-serj-william-bill-bagshaw/#comment-2572222

 

Edited by Matlock1418
Edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

Wondering when his 6444 number was assigned.

Paul Nixons' site had this for the most likely period -

5440 joined on 15th March 1898

On 6th April 1898 - and with tensions in South Africa increasing - the Royal Warwickshire Regiment raised a 3rd regular battalion in Ireland. The 3rd Battalion drew numbers from the same series as the 1st and 2nd Battalions. It would eventually be disbanded in England on 23rd April 1907.

6661 joined on 13th February 1899

https://armyservicenumbers.blogspot.com/2009/09/roayl-warwickshire-regiment-regular.html

I've extracted the detail in full to explain why so many numbers were issued in such a short space of time.

It does however mean that the only way he was liable for mobilisation on the 5th August 1914 is if he was a Section D Reservist.

I'm currently having problems renewing the subscription to the only genealogy site I pay for but if no-one else has had a check through the WO97 series to try and pin down a likely date of enlistment then I'll give it a go when I can get back in. I'm assuming they are likely to be in the WO97 series as many of his contemporaries who signed up for a short service enlistment are going to be either time expired or discharged either honourably or dishonourably well before the outbreak of war.

Enlistment c1899 would also tie in with him reaching 18.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

He had served for twelve years... and his term on the Reserve was to have completed on the 6th December

Looks to me like he enlisted on 7 December 1898, perhaps all his time was with the Royal Warwickshires. He extended his time in the Army Reserve by four years. Had he survived, he would have been Time Expired on 6 December 1915 after serving 12 + 4 + 1 years service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PRC and @Keith_history_buffThank you for these swift replies

19 hours ago, PRC said:

6661 joined on 13th February 1899

Walter did serve pre-war with 3 RWR and photographic evidence places him in Malta and Gibralta with them [would appear c.1902 - 1905, presumably with Bermuda in between].

19 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

He had served for twelve years... and his term on the Reserve was to have completed on the 6th December

19 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

Looks to me like he enlisted on 7 December 1898, perhaps all his time was with the Royal Warwickshires. He extended his time in the Army Reserve by four years. Had he survived, he would have been Time Expired on 6 December 1915 after serving 12 + 4 + 1 years service.

Please - Do you know the source(s) of this info for Walter?

Some interesting background: His older brother William BAGSHAW had joined the RWR on 15 Mar 1898 as 5485 on a 7/5 enlistment [from William's service record]

All seems to make 6444 an original number rather than a new issue.

Many thanks.

M

 

Edited by Matlock1418
expand Walter's pre-war service
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

55331996_1915NewspaperandphotoWalterBagshaw002.jpg.a6d8cb43f8efedb5520aa0a6e661ef5d.jpg

Images courtesy of R58235 at IWM LOTFWW

  

23 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

He had served for twelve years... and his term on the Reserve was to have completed on the 6th December

As I understand it, you wondered where the quote came from, it was from the newspaper. If you have any other questions, then do let me know.

It was possible to join the army, and to make a request to join the same unit that your brother was in. There is one thread on here that mentions it. I have seen the form on some surviving service records that I can tell you anecdotally. Unfortunately I am not aware of a specific surviving service record with said form, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Keith_history_buff said:

As I understand it, you wondered where the quote came from, it was from the newspaper.

Doh! - Forgot/missed it in this recent re-visitation! :-/

Cheers.

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the birth of Walter Bagshaw, son of Thomas and Elizabeth Bagshaw, mothers' maiden name Ward, was registered with the civil authorities in the Bakewell District in the July to September quarter, (Q3), of 1881. So unless his parents took the risk of a fine and criminal prosecution by registering him late or giving a false date of birth, the earliest he could have been born and then registered in the Q3 period, was mid May 1881.

Doesn't mean he didn't enlist in December 1898, which is what the second newspaper article implies. However neither does it make him 16 when he enlisted in the Regular Army.  More likely scenario is at that point in time he joined the militia, transferred to the Regular Army on reaching 18, and the December 6th date is a red herring. What you are witnessing is the birth of a family legend:)

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Army Form B241 "To enable a younger brother to serve with an elder brother (both units being in the same country"
 

 

Army Form B 241 Soldier Application for a Transfer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PRC said:

What you are witnessing is the birth of a family legend:)

One which I am keen to avoid!

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PRC said:

More likely scenario is at that point in time he joined the militia, transferred to the Regular Army on reaching 18,

Which is what his brother William BAGSHAW did - first joined the Militia / 3rd Derbyshire Regt on 18 Jan 1898 as 6092 aged 18y 4m and then after a few months the RWR in 1898 aged 18y 6m according to his surviving papers - so it appears there need not necessarily be a long gap between Militia and Regular.

15 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

Army Form B 241 Soldier Application for a Transfer

Thanks for the background info on this process - sadly not [yet?] found in this man's case.

M

Edited by Matlock1418
addit on William Bagshaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

and of course any leads that might help find his body

CWGC shows 117 men of the 2nd Battalion as having died in the periond 18th / 19th December 1914. Most have no known grave and are remebered on the Ploegsteert Memorial.

Of those who have a known final resting place:-

Their commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Henry Watkin Lewis who died on the 18th aged 41 is buried in Sailly-Sur-La-Lys Churchyard. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/187005/

Private 7899 Richard William Fisher of A Company, who also died on the 18th has a Concentration Report on his CWGC webpage. He was identified from the Regimental number on a piece of his boot and was recovered post-war from an unmarked location at map reference Sheet 36 N.6.a.95.00 along with at least 2 other unknown Royal Warwicks, 2 Royal West Kents and 2 unknown British soldiers. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/98877/

1888252244_doc1838891Fisher.jpg.0fa6956d54137d0e183a8002e25ef4f7.jpg

Further investigation led to the Royal West Kents being re-identified as Royal Warwicks, but still without any individual identification.

1469445292_doc1838661Fisher.jpg.4b89f01dc96c6897f6b55abb70acb099.jpg

Private 2336 William Henry Griffiths, aged 51 and died on the 19th, is also buried at Sailly-Sur-La-Lys Churchyard. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/187021/

Private 3745 H.H. Harnden was another one recovered post-war from an unmarked location. He too was identified from a Regiment and number on a piece of his boot. He was also found at Sheet 36 N.6.a.95.00. The same page of the concentration report shows a number of Unknown British Soldiers of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment recovered in the surrounding area. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/99007/

312391200_doc1838896HardenandSmith.jpg.62af9400bb37c636470a5d559643079e.jpg

Private 600 J. Pemberton is shown on CWGC as having died between 18 December 1914 and 19 December 1914. His Concentration Report shoots him apparently receovered from a marred battlefield grave, being found at Sheet 36 N.5.b.8.8. There were several other graves at the same location, but no more Royal Warwicks on that particular page of the report. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/291786/

Private 3980 J S Rachel, died on the 19th, would also be identified by the Regiment and service number found on part of his boot when his body was recovered from an unmarked location in 1921. Once again this was at map reference Sheet 36 N.6.a.95.00. The same location gave up an additional 7 Unknown British Soldiers, two of which were identified as belonging to the Royal Warwicks. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/99562/

1474745334_doc1838890Rachel.jpg.c05f03ae7e228b8745d1e0141319fabe.jpg

Lance Corporal 7423 Isaac Ernest Smith was aged 34 when he died on the 19th December 1914.  He was found on the battlefield in 1921 in an unmarked location – map reference Sheet 36 N.6.c.95.90 – and identified from his disc. https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/99694/
(on the same report as H H Harnden).

Second Lieutenant Benjamin Arthur Standing, died on the 19th, was buried in Sailly-Sur-La-Lys Churchyard https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/187040/

Hope that helps. Wonder if map reference Sheet 36 N.6.a.95.00. was the old trench?
Peter

Edit All images courtesy the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Edited by PRC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, PRC said:

Wonder if map reference Sheet 36 N.6.a.95.00. was the old trench?

Thank you very much for your comprehensive review - I shall digest and redigest again. :thumbsup:

Think when I last looked on G**gle StreetView I think 36N.6.a.95.00 is now a quite deep drainage ditch off the Rue des Breaux leading toward Le Maisnil - so perhaps previously a trench, or considered so, and how the bodies were later found ???

Have previously wondered about this Map Ref and Ypres Reservoir Cemetery so interesting that you have also noted.

M

Edited by Matlock1418
expand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the Concentration Reports for Fisher and Rachel, it would appear 14 other ranks, mostly identified as at least Royal Warwicks, were recovered from map reference Sheet 36 N.6.a.95.00. Additionally on the report for Fisher there is an unknown 2nd Lieutenant recovered from the same map reference – although admittedly that is I believe a 50 yard by 50 yard area.

Given the presence of boots and clothing I would say that the odds are that they were buried by their colleagues in a mass grave rather than by the Germans.

Unfortunately neither the Grave Registration Report or the Headstone order go as far as Plot 6 Row E Grave 44 in Ypres Reservoir North Cemetery where the unknown 2nd Lieutenant is buried, so I don’t know if he was subsequently identified.

Among the officers of the 2nd Battalion recorded as missing from this period and with no known grave there is:-

2nd Lieutenant George Bertram Monk, died 18th December 1914. Age 23. Son of Charles J. Monk, of 3, Linnell Close, Hampstead Garden Suburb, London.
https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/870534/

2nd Lieutenant Geoffrey Vincent Pearce, died between 18th December 1914 and 19th  December 1914. Age 25. Son of Sir William Pearce, Kt., M.P., and Lady Pearce, of Shepway Lodge, Walmer, Kent. Proceeded to France, Sept., 1914, with Artist's Rifles.
https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/1643388/

There doesn’t appear to be a missing person enquiry for either Monk or Pearce held by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which may imply for both of them that their fate and resting place were known at the time.

There is a piece on Monk on the Kings College London website that both suggests that he may have been buried in the mass grave, although one in no-mans land, and also has wider interest for the actions on this day.

Capt. I. H. G. White wrote: "Your son died a very gallant death. He was found, together with four other officers and 34 men within a few yards of a German machine gun, and it was obvious that he was one of a party that had made an extraordinary gallant effort to capture the gun and prevent it killing their comrades who were coming up behind. We buried him the next morning on the spot on which he fell": and an officer of the 22nd Queen's: "On the 18th a general attack was ordered on the German position with a view to keeping the attention of the enemy fixed while important operations took place elsewhere. I was on duty in the trenches when the attacking party went out. Bertram went up the scaling ladder with a smile on his face. The moment the enemy's fire broke out it was clear that no one could live in such a storm. Our men were assailed with a torrent of rifle bullets, machine-gun fire and hand grenades. The bravest might have blenched before this awful ordeal. As the fire died down the wounded began to crawl back to our lines; our patrols devotedly went out helping them in. as the night wore on and I saw nothing of the officers of your son's regt., I began to fear that he was amongst the killed or was lying too badly wounded to come in. At daybreak the Germans made signs to us to come over and pick up our wounded. I went out; after a long search I found your brave son just where I should have expected. He was lying dead within 30 yards of the German trenches, halfway across the wire entanglements, his right hand out-stretched as though pointing the way to his men. Death must have been instantaneous, for his head was pierced by two bullets from the machine gun. He was buried between the English and German trenches with his comrades. On Christmas Day we had another armistice to finish clearing the ground, and a funeral service was held, attended by a large gathering of German and English officers. It was a strange and impressive sight." Capt. Bare, Artists' Rifles, also wrote; "The following is an extract from a letter written by the Divisional General to our Colonel: "2nd Lieut. G. B. Monk was killed right on the enemy's wire entanglement, well in front of his battn. And opposite a machine-gun position. While deeply deploring the loss of these most promising young officers, it must be satisfactory for you to know that they gloriously upheld the traditions of your regt. ....." The Colonel has ordered the General's letter to be read to all the men in the regt., and we are proud to remember that your son belonged to C. Coy. and to know that he could not have died a finer death." Lieut. Monk was a fine athlete, he represented his school at cricket and Rugby football and was in the Guy's Hospital Rugby football team. A poem was written in 2nd Lieut. Monk's honour by Canon Rawnsley and published in a book entitled "European War, 1914-1915. De Ruvigny's Roll of Honour  https://kingscollections.org/warmemorials/guys-hospital/memorials/monk-george-bertram-fifield

There is a picture of him here https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205385991

Monk, Peare and Standing, (the third 2nd Lt killed in this period), were all apparently commissioned from the Artists Rifles. The Roll of Honour for that Regiment shows all three as having died with the 2nd Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment at Rouges-Bancs, Armentieres. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CWm-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Geoffrey+Vincent+Pearce+1914&source=bl&ots=qlDNj2N8ea&sig=ACfU3U2z55DgXSHVCY51lohc6CxwAesnOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVnPPJ_9H2AhXHSEEAHavPAjQQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Geoffrey Vincent Pearce 1914&f=false

The 2nd Battalion War Diary also gives a reason why a fuller recovery of the bodies was not possible.

Shortly after daylight the enemy came out and started examining our dead. Parties went out fr. our lines & buried some of the officers and collected discs from some of the killed. Owing to 2 officers of the Queens & several small parties of the Bn, when engaged in carrying our wounded into the enemy's lines, (the enemy refusing to allow us to remove our wounded) being made prisoners, & also to Lt Bover S. Staffords being killed while helping to collect our wounded, the informal armistice was terminated. https://livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk/story/79373

I wonder if any attempt has been made to identify the 2nd Lieutenant now buried at Ypres Reservoir Cemetery. Any research done on that might also have turned up evidence that those buried in the same location where all from the 2nd Battalion and had died on the days concerned.

Hope that is of interest,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Peter, many thanks for your continued enquiries

1 hour ago, PRC said:

2nd Lieutenant Geoffrey Vincent Pearce, died between 18th December 1914 and 19th  December 1914. Age 25. Son of Sir William Pearce, Kt., M.P., and Lady Pearce, of Shepway Lodge, Walmer, Kent. Proceeded to France, Sept., 1914, with Artist's Rifles.
https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/1643388/

Without wanting to dilute or too much confuse my enquiries here it may be of interest that Walter BAGSHAW's family kept a newspaper clipping about 2nd Lt PEARCE's death.

1 hour ago, PRC said:

The 2nd Battalion War Diary also gives a reason why a fuller recovery of the bodies was not possible.

Shortly after daylight the enemy came out and started examining our dead. Parties went out fr. our lines & buried some of the officers and collected discs from some of the killed. Owing to 2 officers of the Queens & several small parties of the Bn, when engaged in carrying our wounded into the enemy's lines, (the enemy refusing to allow us to remove our wounded) being made prisoners, & also to Lt Bover S. Staffords being killed while helping to collect our wounded, the informal armistice was terminated. https://livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk/story/79373

Yes, this has already caught my eye and rather matches/confirms an armistice mentioned in a letter from Sgt William BAGSHAW to another older civilian brother John BAGSHAW in May 19151554874760_1915_05.25LetterreWalterBagshaw(1b).jpg.24395c2f2212928c045f7335e7a69259.jpg

Image courtesy of R58235 at IWM LOTFWW

The background to the letter is that the Bagshaw family were rather upset by the prospect of Walter having been "seen blown to pieces by a shell" as seems to have been reported in a local Derbyshire newspaper.  A bullet seems to have been considered better.

At the risk of creating another family legend [not desirable!] I am not wholly convinced by the letter on his cause of death and that "he had a smile on his face" and "Death was painless & instantaneous" [though one might certainly hope so].  This letter is the source that suggests he was buried in a trench with others.  But then again perhaps this was not possible. ???

The other mentioned "soldier/man" and "J. Turner" have not been identified and the circumstances/cause of Walter's death have not been known to be otherways clarified nor the mentioned map and place of burial identified.

M

Edit: For interest - Frank and Sam were other civilian brothers of Walter.

Edited by Matlock1418
Edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PRC said:

Looks like the birth of Walter Bagshaw, son of Thomas and Elizabeth Bagshaw, mothers' maiden name Ward, was registered with the civil authorities in the Bakewell District in the July to September quarter, (Q3), of 1881. So unless his parents took the risk of a fine and criminal prosecution by registering him late or giving a false date of birth, the earliest he could have been born and then registered in the Q3 period, was mid May 1881.

Doesn't mean he didn't enlist in December 1898, which is what the second newspaper article implies. However neither does it make him 16 when he enlisted in the Regular Army. 

Great deductions Peter = Bagshaw family records give a date of birth for Walter of 12 May 1881

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking through the MiCs for a J. Turner who served with the Royal Warwicks, although there are a number, I think the choices really boil down to:-

Private 736 John T Turner. First landed France 1st November 1914. Taken Prisoner of War. John was serving with with B Company 2nd Warwicks when he was taken prisoner on the 19th December 1914. Looks like there could be at least four cards for him on the ICRC website.
 https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/2233282/3/2/
https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/143835/3/2/
https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/1496972/3/2/
https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/3273391/3/2/

Report PA14006 for example records John Thomas Turner as born Birmingham and with next of kin in the city. Of course John Turner may well have known William Bagshaw through time spent together pre-war in the Army rather than being a native of Matlock.

I’m not sure how him being captured on the 19th December 1914 reconciles with the narrative of a letter written in May 1915 which records that J. Turner is now wounded.

No obvious surviving service records.

Private 7537 James Turner. First landed France 19th September 1914. Subsequently served Rifle Brigade with service numbers 6721 and 212990. Reached rank of Acting Corporal.

No obvious surviving service records.

I’m not spotting him in the casualty records under his Royal Warwickshire number. It’s only speculation at this stage but one possible reason for the change of regiment is a posting following recovery from a wound that required his medical evacuation back to the UK. A near number search might bring up evidence of when the Rifle Brigade issued service number 6721 – although I suspect there may be several versions of the number with different prefixes.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited by PRC
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PRC said:

Private 736 John T Turner. First landed France 1st November 1914. Taken Prisoner of War. John was serving with with B Company 2nd Warwicks when he was taken prisoner on the 19th December 1914. Looks like there could be at least four cards for him on the ICRC website.
 https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/2233282/3/2/
https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/143835/3/2/
https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/1496972/3/2/
https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/3273391/3/2/

Report PA14006 for example records John Thomas Turner as born Birmingham and with next of kin in the city. Of course John Turner may well have known William Bagshaw through tine spent together pre-war in the Army rather than being a native of Matlock.

I’m not sure how him being captured on the 19th December 1914 reconciles with the narrative of a letter written in May 1915 which records that J. Turner is now wounded.

Peter, Once again many more thanks.

Walter BAGSHAW also landed 1 Nov 1914 - both it would seem headed as reinforcements for 2 RWR [potentially from 3 RWR I would hazard]

TURNER, 736 was recorded in the ICRC records as being both 3 and 2 RWR [which doesn't seem totally out of the question] and having been captured 19 Dec 1914 at Fleurbaix and La Bassee, both of which are close(ish) to the 2 RWR action of 18/19 Dec 1914.

The family letter refers to "the contents of J Turner's letter" - Could it possibly be the case that TURNER, 736, could have got a letter back to the UK by May 1915 from being a PoW and Turner's circumstances perhaps being sort of 'self-censored' by Bill Baghaw ???

If the J. Turner letter did come from a PoW camp then the other soldier/man seems likely to have also been a PoW - not that this gets us much further I fear. 

Got to admit though that I have always thought the J Turner letter info read as having come from a wounded soldier in the UK [whilst Bill Bagshaw was serving as a training Sergeant with  the RWR - up ranked from his previous service I think - having been recalled/voluntarily having a spell of a year off from being a Derbyshire policeman] but ... ???

The allegedly marked map would be so much more helpful!!!

The puzzle/search continues.

M

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

The family letter refers to "the contents of J Turner's letter" - Could it possibly be the case that TURNER, 736, could have got a letter back to the UK by May 1915 from being a PoW and Turner's circumstances perhaps being sort of 'self-censored' by Bill Baghaw ???

Very possible. And if John Turner was one of the wounded men taken into the German lines as a condition of the local armistice on the 19th, or indeed one of the small party of Warwicks sent over to assist who were then taken prisoner, then might explain why he was aware of the final circumstances of Walter.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PRC said:

Very possible. And if John Turner was one of the wounded men taken into the German lines as a condition of the local armistice on the 19th, or indeed one of the small party of Warwicks sent over to assist who were then taken prisoner, then might explain why he was aware of the final circumstances of Walter.

Certainly adds a new possibility, but sadly no nearer [yet?] in finding Walter's original and/or later burial.

The search goes on.

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PRC said:

Private 7537 James Turner. First landed France 19th September 1914. Subsequently served Rifle Brigade with service numbers 6721 and 212990. Reached rank of Acting Corporal.

No obvious surviving service records.

I’m not spotting him in the casualty records under his Royal Warwickshire number. It’s only speculation at this stage but one possible reason for the change of regiment is a posting following recovery from a wound that required his medical evacuation back to the UK. A near number search might bring up evidence of when the Rifle Brigade issued service number 6721 – although I suspect there may be several versions of the number with different prefixes.

Looking at TURNER, 7537/6721/212990 brings up a couple of pension cards at WFA/Fold3

As 212990 [by then a Cpl] = Trans: 14-6-19 [to Z Army Reserve one might suspect] Made a disability pension claim 4.1924 for a GSW Lt Arm [unfortunately as might be expected from this source there was no date of wounding given] but his claim was Rejected.

Both the Turners identified above came from Birmingham [probably not that surprising for RWR] and Walter Bagshaw, though born in Matlock, had been living and working in Birmingham too.

Still a puzzle as to the wounded "J Turner" referred to in the family letter above and how William 'Bill' Bagshaw knew the contents of a letter from him.

= Still searching for more on Walter BAGSHAW, 6444, RWR.

M

Edited by Matlock1418
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Resolved my issue with my genealogy service provider earlier to day so finally have a route to narrowing down when the Regular Army Battalions might have issued service number 6444. I quoted from Paul Nixons’ site earlier as to how it would have fallen into the period 15th March 1898, (5440) and the 13th February 1899, (6661) – the unusually large volume of numbers issued resulting from the raising of a 3rd Regular Army Battalion of the Regiment. Walter is known by you to have served in the 3rd Battalion.

I’ve come to the conclusion that peacetime regimental numbers were most likely issued after the new recruit reached the Depot. I usually find that if date of arrival at the depot is taken into account then anomalies relating to date of enlistment and regimental numbers seem to disappear. It’s not foolproof and I wouldn’t want to extend it to wartime enlistments.

6442 George William Hines attested for a short service 12 enlistment – split 7 and 5 – at Birmingham on the 8th December 1898. He reached the Depot at Warwick on the 8th December 1898.

6443 Joseph Charles Eaton attested for a short service 12 enlistment – split 7 and 5 – at Derby on the 7th December 1898. He reached the Depot at Warwick on the 12th December 1898.

6445 Thomas Carter attested for a short service 12 enlistment – split 7 and 5 – at Birmingham on the 8th December 1898. He was then serving with a Militia Battalion of the Royal Warwicks. He reached the Depot at Warwick on the 13th December 1898.

6446 Harry King attested for a short service 12 enlistment – split 7 and 5 - at Barrow on the 9th December 1898. He was then serving with a Militia Battalion of the Lancashire Fusiliers. He reached the Depot at Warwick on the 14th December 1898.

6447 John Swinbourn attested for a short service 12 enlistment – split 7 and 5 – at Warwick on the 14th December 1898. He arrived at the Depot on the following day.

So based on that limited sample, Walter Bagshaw most likely enlisted 7th/8th December 1898 but almost certainly reached the Depot 12th/13th December 1898 where regimental number 6444 was issued.

Newspaper article says his term in the Reserves was to end on the 6th December, so that would imply he enlisted on the 7th.

Hope that helps,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@PRC

Peter,

Once again many thanks for your detailed analysis and input - it really is much appreciated. :)

Your examples, above, do seem to give some more detail as to the likely start and I suppose likely service terms of 7/5 for his 12 years years in the army - perhaps not all in the Regulars as the newspaper obituary recounts [but which then also goes in to describe him having a term in the Reserve too]  The newspaper's account of him starting at age 16 seems unusual, especially if he had been a tram conductor in Matlock beforehand.  Makes details of his service so desireable.

His obituary's reported post-discharge marriage to Dagmar Crossland would appear to fit with his transfer to the Reserve [Banns 16-30 October, possibly ceremony 26 December 1910] and he seems to have then moved to Birmingham by the 1911 Census, presumably to then become employed by Dunlop.

After Walter's death his widow returned to Starkholme, Matlock, for a while - seemingly until at least October 1918 [when she is named on a dependant's pension card of Frank Bagshaw, 873, 16th KRRC - Walter's nephew, KiA 13/4/18] She was also recorded there in the 1921 Census, with her mother and one son Walter James.  Presumably she went back to her family for support and assistance with her young family.  Sadly of their two sons John Edward, the younger one, appears to have died in Q2 1918 aged only five.   But later she returned to Birmingham [seems there by the time CWGC were recording her address as 109 Solihull Road, Sparkhill] 

Still looking for more on Walter's army career ...

M

Edited by Matlock1418
addition of Dagmar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

I suppose likely service terms of 7/5 for his 12 years years in the army - perhaps not all in the Regulars as the newspaper obituary recounts [but which then also goes in to describe him having a term in the Reserve too]

He wouldn't have retained his original number if he hadn't completed his 12 years, regardless of the split, and then gone on to extend his service in the reserves by four years by joining Army Reserve D. The half-pay and limited medical care would have been a useful financial safety net for a man newly married in 1910.

Of course just because his regimental service number contemporaries signed up on a 7 & 5 spilt doesn't automatically mean he did too, nor does it mean he didn't subsequently extend the period in the colours to do less in the reserves for his initial 12 year enlistment. Given the information in the newspaper articles he may even have extended to do the full 12 years in the Colours. However I think it's safe to infer he didn't sign up for a 21 year long service enlistment.

3 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

The newspaper's account of him starting at age 16 seems unusual, especially if he had been a tram conductor in Matlock beforehand.

Not that it proves much but I just did a quick and dirty search of the 1911 Census of England & Wales looking for individuals born 1897 +/- 2 years and with occupation Tram Conductor. It came back with 57 matches for these young men aged 12 to 16. And checking the 1901 Census of England & Wales for Tram Conductors with a Matlock connection, the youngest was aged 15. Seems like a 16 year old Tram Conductor wasn't therefore that unusual.

Cheers,
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PRC said:

He wouldn't have retained his original number if he hadn't completed his 12 years, regardless of the split, and then gone on to extend his service in the reserves by four years by joining Army Reserve D. The half-pay and limited medical care would have been a useful financial safety net for a man newly married in 1910.

Of course just because his regimental service number contemporaries signed up on a 7 & 5 spilt doesn't automatically mean he did too, nor does it mean he didn't subsequently extend the period in the colours to do less in the reserves for his initial 12 year enlistment. Given the information in the newspaper articles he may even have extended to do the full 12 years in the Colours. However I think it's safe to infer he didn't sign up for a 21 year long service enlistment.

Thanks again Peter for your interpretation.

3 minutes ago, PRC said:

Not that it proves much but I just did a quick and dirty search of the 1911 Census of England & Wales looking for individuals born 1897 +/- 2 years and with occupation Tram Conductor. It came back with 57 matches for these young men aged 12 to 16. And checking the 1901 Census of England & Wales for Tram Conductors with a Matlock connection, the youngest was aged 15. Seems like a 16 year old Tram Conductor wasn't therefore that unusual.

Remarkable.

He did come from a pretty large family though [13 children] - so perhaps 'needs must' from an early age.

M

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...