William Alfred Guiver - Royal Engineers

[condronjames]

Morning all

Ive posted a number of times about the Guiver family. My Great Grandmother, Alice Guiver was one of ten, and at least four of her brothers (Benjamin, George, Herbert and probably Frank) all served in WW1. Herbert was sadly killed in 1916. They are all the children of William and Harriet Guiver and are from the Chadwell Heath area.

There is another brother William Alfred Guiver, born 1877 and died 1935, who I know less about.
 

There is a record on Fold 3 (attached) which shows a man of that name in the Royal Engineers but I’m unable to conclusively show that he is my man. Can anyone make the link between the Royal Engineer and the Chadwell Heath Guivers for me please?
 

i also struggle to interpret the information on the Fold 3 document, so if anyone can explain the various letters/numbers I’d be very grateful. 

 

Really appreciate the help. 
 

James 

[Matlock1418]

WR/35227 = RE Number [Waterways & Railways] - 24837 and 336649 probably also Army numbers

Other numbers = Various claim numbers and identity document number [in order to claim at a Post Office]

DEAD 1935 = Date when the claim was considered dead [not necessarily the man]

50/- = His pension per week [I haven't the relevant Royal Warrant guide for 1919/1920 but likely quite a high level of disability for a Sapper or less for a higher rank in 1920]

16.1.20 = Pension from - rather suggests his date of discharge might have been 15.1.20

Treatment = Getting therapeutic treatment might be a condition of receiving a disability pension [the MoP had a number of treatment centres for such purposes] - after all a pension was generally only intended as a publically-funded stopgap on way to getting better and into employement.  However, the fact that it is struck-though leaves us in a bit of a dilema as to its relevance on this card

M

Edit: @ss002d6252 may perhaps be able to offer more assistance on the pension etc.

Edited 23 March , 2022 by Matlock1418
Edit

[condronjames]

47 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

WR/35227 = RE Number [Waterways & Railways] - 24837 and 336649 probably also Army numbers

Other numbers = Various claim numbers and identity document number [in order to claim at a Post Office]

DEAD 1935 = Date when the claim was considered dead [not necessarily the man]

50/- = His pension per week [I haven't the relevant Royal Warrant guide for 1919/1920 but likely quite a high level of disability for a Sapper or less for a higher rank in 1920]

16.1.20 = Pension from - rather suggests his date of discharge might have been 15.1.20

Treatment = Getting therapeutic treatment might be a condition of receiving a disability pension [the MoP had a number of treatment centres for such purposes] - after all a pension was generally only intended as a publically-funded stopgap on way to getting better and into employement.  However, the fact that it is struck-though leaves us in a bit of a dilema as to its relevance on this card

M

Edit: @ss002d6252 may perhaps be able to offer more assistance on the pension etc.

This is excellent information. Thank you.

He did die in 1935 so would seem to be a strange coincidence if not aligned to that? He also previously worked on the railways in civilian life so maybe more evidence to show that that could be my man. 

 

[PRC]

3 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

WR/35227 = RE Number [Waterways & Railways] - 24837 and 336649 probably also Army numbers

No obvious MIC so most likely home service only and also no Silver War Badge issued. (A SWB roll entry might have given something about any medical cause for discharge).

3 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

16.1.20 = Pension from - rather suggests his date of discharge might have been 15.1.20

In which case what does the 9-1-19 date relate to? Could it possibly be that the 1920/21 dates reflect either a late claim to a pension or an updated \ renewed award on review?

If he wasn't discharged on medical grounds and if he was discharged on the 9th January 1919 and if he was home service only, (how many more caveats can I add , then such an early release date may be indicative that this Royal Engineer worked in a key industry - I believe Railways was one of them.

4 hours ago, condronjames said:

They are all the children of William and Harriet Guiver and are from the Chadwell Heath area.

BTW - have you had any joy in tracking the other sons who served on the 1918 absent voters list?

Cheers,
Peter

[Matlock1418]

4 minutes ago, PRC said:

In which case what does the 9-1-19 date relate to?

On relection Peter I think you are probably correct = 9-1-19 does very much look like a discharge date - I cannot explain why it might take a year to define the pension rate on this card though [nor the rate]

M

[condronjames]

53 minutes ago, PRC said:

No obvious MIC so most likely home service only and also no Silver War Badge issued. (A SWB roll entry might have given something about any medical cause for discharge).

In which case what does the 9-1-19 date relate to? Could it possibly be that the 1920/21 dates reflect either a late claim to a pension or an updated \ renewed award on review?

If he wasn't discharged on medical grounds and if he was discharged on the 9th January 1919 and if he was home service only, (how many more caveats can I add , then such an early release date may be indicative that this Royal Engineer worked in a key industry - I believe Railways was one of them.

BTW - have you had any joy in tracking the other sons who served on the 1918 absent voters list?

Cheers,
Peter

Hi Peter. Thanks for all the info. No I haven’t got access to that one I don’t think. Herbert was killed in 1916, and I know quite a lot about Ben, but George, Frank and Willam are more of a mystery. If the right man, George served with the 148th Siege Battery and wad mentioned in dispatches, but don’t believe I’ve ever categorically proven that he is my relative. 

Is there any record to show who Royal Engineer William Guiver’s next of kin were? 

[Terry_Reeves]

His number indicates Inland Waterways Transport and Docks.

TR

Edited 23 March , 2022 by Terry_Reeves

[Matlock1418]

17 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

His number indicates Inland Waterways Transport and Docks.

And docks usually had railways didn't they?

M

[ss002d6252]

5 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

 

50/- = His pension per week [I haven't the relevant Royal Warrant guide for 1919/1920 but likely quite a high level of disability for a Sapper or less for a higher rank in 1920]

Just on my dinner break - work has got in the way of a life - but I agree that it's very high. I can't see any increase for a sapper that would take it that high form the outset. One caveat is that I've seen the odd one where the rate included child allowances etc, rather than just the man's rate as is usually shown.

1 hour ago, PRC said:

In which case what does the 9-1-19 date relate to? Could it possibly be that the 1920/21 dates reflect either a late claim to a pension or an updated \ renewed award on review?

If he wasn't discharged on medical grounds and if he was discharged on the 9th January 1919 and if he was home service only, (how many more caveats can I add , then such an early release date may be indicative that this Royal Engineer worked in a key industry - I believe Railways was one of them.

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

On relection Peter I think you are probably correct = 9-1-19 does very much look like a discharge date - I cannot explain why it might take a year to define the pension rate on this card though [nor the rate]

09 January 1919 would be what I would have expected as the discharge date, but there's no 1919 pension reference number to match that. It may be missing, or he may not have claimed it immediately.

I'll take a look later if I get more time.
Craig

[Terry_Reeves]

21 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

And docks usually had railways didn't they?

M

Yes, but they were operated by men from the Railway Operating Division, hence the different class of numbers.

TR

[Matlock1418]

37 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

they were operated by men from the Railway Operating Division, hence the different class of numbers.

That I can understand - but who built & maintained the railways in the docks?

M

Edited 23 March , 2022 by Matlock1418

[PRC]

The most likely man on the 1911 Census of England & Wales is recorded as a Bricklayer employed by a Railway Company. Presumably an IWT Company would have had some on those on the strength as a specialist tradesman.

Cheers,
Peter

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, PRC said:

The most likely man on the 1911 Census of England & Wales is recorded as a Bricklayer employed by a Railway Company. Presumably an IWT Company would have had some on those on the strength as a specialist tradesman.

Seems plausible on both accounts.

We'll no doubt see what @Terry_Reeves has to say.

M

[6RRF]

33 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

That I can understand - but who built & maintained the railways in the docks?

M

Can I recommend Bill Aves "R.O.D The Railway Operating Division on the Western Front; The Royal Engineers in France and Belgium 1915-1919" Donington 2009

The short answer to the question is that the ROD took over, maintained and where necessary expanded the existing facilities of the Nord Railway. Something which may slightly complicate the issue is that out on the big railway the ROD operated tender engines borrowed from various British railways until they started getting their own in 1918. Docks on the other hand normally need tank engines of one kind or another. Some were borrowed  from the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway just across the way, but a number were taken over from the Inland Waterways and Docks Division. There's a very nice photie of ROD 609 a Kerr Stuart 0-6-0T at Le Havre on page 170 of Aves book

Edited 23 March , 2022 by 6RRF

[Terry_Reeves]

The IWT & D did have tradesmen in their ranks, including masons, so it is quite possible that bricklayers were also on their strength. 

For future reference, the following are the number groups for the Railways  & IWT&D:

WR 100000 + and WR 200000 + all six figure nos = Railways

WR 300000 +  six figure nos = IWT & D

WR 500000 + & WR 600000 +  all six figure nos =  IWT & D 

WR 30000 + & WR 40000 + all five figure nos = Roads and Quarries. 
 

The WR pre-fix number was promulgated by an Army Order of March 1918. 
Un-prefixed RE numbers were issued prior to this. Men with only a WR pre-fixed number therefore,  can only have enlisted in 1918 unless they had transferred from outside of the RE.

TR

 

 

 

 

Edited 23 March , 2022 by Terry_Reeves

[Matlock1418]

23 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

The IWT & D did have tradesmen in their ranks, including masons, so it is quite possible that bricklayers were also on their strength. 

For future reference, the following are the number groups for the Railways  & IWT&D:

WR 100000 + and WR 200000 + all six figure nos = Railways

WR 300000 +  six figure nos = IWT & D

WR 500000 + & WR 600000 +  all six figure nos =  IWT & D 

WR 30000 + & WR 40000 + all five figure nos = Roads and Quarries. 
 

The WR pre-fix number was promulgated by an Army Order of March 1918. 
Un-prefixed RE numbers were issued prior to this. Men with only a WR pre-fixed number therefore,  can only have enlisted in 1918 unless they had transferred from outside of the RE.

Thanks Terry.

M

[condronjames]

44 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

The IWT & D did have tradesmen in their ranks, including masons, so it is quite possible that bricklayers were also on their strength. 

For future reference, the following are the number groups for the Railways  & IWT&D:

WR 100000 + and WR 200000 + all six figure nos = Railways

WR 300000 +  six figure nos = IWT & D

WR 500000 + & WR 600000 +  all six figure nos =  IWT & D 

WR 30000 + & WR 40000 + all five figure nos = Roads and Quarries. 
 

The WR pre-fix number was promulgated by an Army Order of March 1918. 
Un-prefixed RE numbers were issued prior to this. Men with only a WR pre-fixed number therefore,  can only have enlisted in 1918 unless they had transferred from outside of the RE.

TR

 

 

 

 

So should I conclude that, even though it’s likely that the bricklayer on the 1911 census (who is definitely my man) is the same man as the Royal Engineer we have been discussing, it is not possible to prove this conclusively i.e. no records to show next of kin, address, DOB etc of the Royal Engineer? 

[Terry_Reeves]

Personally, I don’t think any definite conclusions can be drawn. It is a possibility, but no more than that at the moment.

TR

Edited 23 March , 2022 by Terry_Reeves