A family requested for an inscription not fulfilled

[Howard Clark]

When looking through the CWG documents for my great grandfather, it appears his widow (if I am interpreting this correctly) requested an inscription, but that did not happen.

I wondered if this was possibly due to cost or some other reason? It must have been a massive administrative burden and task to manage everything. And his widow had to raise three children on her own, so I doubt I she would have ever visited France, 

We checked another person listed and found a similar instance of requested inscription but nothing on the stone. 

Anybody know anything about this? It could be (entirely plausible) me not understanding the documents properly.

Thank you. 

[PRC]

1 hour ago, Howard Clark said:

When looking through the CWG documents for my great grandfather, it appears his widow (if I am interpreting this correctly) requested an inscription, but that did not happen.

Just to be clear - which one of these is the headstone you believe should have an inscription but doesn't?
Is it 76, 78 or 82 - none of the others have a personalised inscription requested.

Cheers,
Peter

[Howard Clark]

3 minutes ago, PRC said:

Just to be clear - which one of these is the headstone you believe should have an inscription but doesn't?
Is it 76, 78 or 82 - none of the others have a personalised inscription requested.

Cheers,
Peter

Thanks Peter.

I interpreted that as all of those below the quote, wanted the same inscription.

But you are probably right, it means those without didn’t. My interpretation then as I suggested it might be.

[PRC]

7 hours ago, Howard Clark said:

My interpretation then as I suggested it might be.

No worries . Once the Imperial War Graves Commission, (predecessor of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) had documented and accepted all the graves  under it's management, decided which cemeteries could be maintained and so which graves needed to be moved, etc, etc, the next step in the mid-twenties was to replace a myriad of different memorials with the iconic Portland stone grave marker. As part of the process the IWGC tried to contact the soldiers notified next of kin to ask them to confirm the details that were planned to be included on the headstone. This was when true ages and aliases were most likely to come to light, as well as variations on spelling, additional forenames, forenames in different order, etc, from the details held in service records.

The contact details from this exercise are what we see as the additional information on the CWGC website. On a wider level these have to be taken with a degree of caution as they may reflect an address and even an area as a result of the next of kin moving that would not have been known to the deceased . Names could also have changed as a result of re-marriage. And references to a late father, mother or wife could reflect a death in the same mid-twenties rather than meaning that they pre-deceased the individual commemorated.

In service records for Australians and Canadians you will come across a note that once the new headstone was in place a photograph would be sent. I don't lnow if something similar was done for those from the UK, although such pictures do turn up.

I've never seen it set out in black and white, but my interpretation of the headstone report has always been that the presence of the name and address means that the details on the stone have been found acceptable by the next of kin. The absence of any additional personal inscription means one was not requested.

If you check out the FAQ on the CWGC in connection with requesting changes to their records and commemorations, you will see that the key criteria for them is complying with that original request from the next of kin. As an aside a couple of years back I came across a news item in the contemporary local press about a Canadian airman who died in a trainining accident. I had the spelling of his name in the newspaper report which agreed with the spelling of his name in the General Registrars Officer Register of Deaths in England & Wales, and both agreed with the spelling of his name on his Canadian service records, (which incidentally included a report on the crash and his death). But despite umpteen different search criteria and an ever expanding date range, I could not find him on the CWGC website. Thinking he might somehow have been a missed sommemoration, I found his Canadian birth registration and baptism, (same spelling) and his entry in the 1910 Canadian Census, (same spelling). I then submitted the lot to the CWGC asking them to check their records.

After a couple of weeks I got a very nice reply, pointing me at the records of a man who I would never have guessed was the same individual. The original correspondence from the period had been checked, and the family were insistant that this was the name he should be commemorated by, and they wanted no reference to the name that, at least as far as official documentation was concerned, he had lived his whole life under. Nearly a hundred years on, long after all involved have passed away, the CWGC continue to comply with that request.

Cheers,
Peter

[Howard Clark]

36 minutes ago, PRC said:

No worries . Once the Imperial War Graves Commission, (predecessor of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) had documented and accepted all the graves  under it's management, decided which cemeteries could be maintained and so which graves needed to be moved, etc, etc, the next step in the mid-twenties was to replace a myriad of different memorials with the iconic Portland stone grave marker. As part of the process the IWGC tried to contact the soldiers notified next of kin to ask them to confirm the details that were planned to be included on the headstone. This was when true ages and aliases were most likely to come to light, as well as variations on spelling, additional forenames, forenames in different order, etc, from the details held in service records.

The contact details from this exercise are what we see as the additional information on the CWGC website. On a wider level these have to be taken with a degree of caution as they may reflect an address and even an area as a result of the next of kin moving that would not have been known to the deceased . Names could also have changed as a result of re-marriage. And references to a late father, mother or wife could reflect a death in the same mid-twenties rather than meaning that they pre-deceased the individual commemorated.

In service records for Australians and Canadians you will come across a note that once the new headstone was in place a photograph would be sent. I don't lnow if something similar was done for those from the UK, although such pictures do turn up.

I've never seen it set out in black and white, but my interpretation of the headstone report has always been that the presence of the name and address means that the details on the stone have been found acceptable by the next of kin. The absence of any additional personal inscription means one was not requested.

If you check out the FAQ on the CWGC in connection with requesting changes to their records and commemorations, you will see that the key criteria for them is complying with that original request from the next of kin. As an aside a couple of years back I came across a news item in the contemporary local press about a Canadian airman who died in a trainining accident. I had the spelling of his name in the newspaper report which agreed with the spelling of his name in the General Registrars Officer Register of Deaths in England & Wales, and both agreed with the spelling of his name on his Canadian service records, (which incidentally included a report on the crash and his death). But despite umpteen different search criteria and an ever expanding date range, I could not find him on the CWGC website. Thinking he might somehow have been a missed sommemoration, I found his Canadian birth registration and baptism, (same spelling) and his entry in the 1910 Canadian Census, (same spelling). I then submitted the lot to the CWGC asking them to check their records.

After a couple of weeks I got a very nice reply, pointing me at the records of a man who I would never have guessed was the same individual. The original correspondence from the period had been checked, and the family were insistant that this was the name he should be commemorated by, and they wanted no reference to the name that, at least as far as official documentation was concerned, he had lived his whole life under. Nearly a hundred years on, long after all involved have passed away, the CWGC continue to comply with that request.

Cheers,
Peter

As a Clark … without an E … we are used to having Es added. And it was the same for John Clark’s records. 
 

Thank you for all of this. A fascinating bit of info. Do you have any reading suggestions on why they chose to keep the remains in France and the politics of giving land to Britain. Was it political? Visiting the cemeteries from the Somme to Ypres … I would imagine there was no space in Britain and a potential cause of political turmoil? 

[Michelle Young]

The Unending Vigil is a bit dated but is the history of IWGC/CWGC. Also Missing by Richard Van Eden talks about the early work. 

[kenf48]

 

12 hours ago, Howard Clark said:

Do you have any reading suggestions on why they chose to keep the remains in France and the politics of giving land to Britain. Was it political?

Copy of the form sent to the nok by the IWGC:- 

Unfortunately unaware of the original attribution may even be CWGC - just in my files

As for reading as an accessible introduction Empires of the Dead David Crane

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empires-Dead-Vision-Creation-Graves/dp/0007456689

Reviewed on GWF here

But for a few pennies you can make your own mind up

[Howard Clark]

12 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

 

Copy of the form sent to the nok by the IWGC:- 

Unfortunately unaware of the original attribution may even be CWGC - just in my files

As for reading as an accessible introduction Empires of the Dead Alan Crane

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empires-Dead-Vision-Creation-Graves/dp/0007456689

Reviewed on GWF here

But for a few pennies you can make your own mind up

That is a fascinating document. John’s widow, with three children to feed, would have been unlikely to afford to pay for the extra inscription or to be able to visit. 
 

 

[Howard Clark]

1 hour ago, Michelle Young said:

The Unending Vigil is a bit dated but is the history of IWGC/CWGC. Also Missing by Richard Van Eden talks about the early work. 

Thank you. Will order. Genuinely curious.

Am presuming one of the reasons for prominent memorials in every town was due to the absence of graves. With an empire, I suppose this would have been reasonably familiar to Britain. But not perhaps for those called up under conscription in 1917?

Think there may have been parliamentary debates about bringing remains home too.

[Matlock1418]

8 minutes ago, Howard Clark said:

That is a fascinating document. John’s widow, with three children to feed, would have been unlikely to afford to pay for the extra inscription or to be able to visit. 

In the end the requirement to pay for a personal inscription was dropped, but probably too late for many of those involved.

M

 

Edited 24 May , 2022 by Matlock1418
typo

[Howard Clark]

20 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

 

Copy of the form sent to the nok by the IWGC:- 

Unfortunately unaware of the original attribution may even be CWGC - just in my files

As for reading as an accessible introduction Empires of the Dead Alan Crane

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empires-Dead-Vision-Creation-Graves/dp/0007456689

Reviewed on GWF here

But for a few pennies you can make your own mind up

Ordered. Thank you Michelle 

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, Howard Clark said:

Think there may have been parliamentary debates about bringing remains home too.

It was the subject of much discussion - probably best summarised in the suggested reading [I'd have suggested David Crane's Empires of the Dead if it hadn't already been suggested, but ... there you go, your choice - fill your boots!]

M

[Howard Clark]

2 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

It was the subject of much discussion - probably best summarised in the suggested reading [I'd have suggested David Crane's Empires of the Dead if it hadn't already been suggested, but ... there you go, your choice - fill your boots!]

M

Just ordered.

Thank you all for making suggestions and helping.
 

I just wish I had started this 35 years ago, when we still had John’s children (and my grandfather) Alive.

[kenf48]

The Times 24/11/1917.  

The principle of equality of sacrifice first declared.

 

and the Kenyon Report which set out the principle in greater detail

The-Kenyon-Report.pdf

 

 

 

[Matlock1418]

BTW: The expected payment for personal inscriptions on CWGC headstone = per letter/character/space was 3 1/2d each [threepence halfpenny each] so it could really add up for a hard-strapped widow & family.

There was an intended limit of letters/characters/spaces [about 65 I think] and whilst some got many more on a headstone [some running into many dozens!] many settled for fewer e.g. RIP - or quite likely most commonly none.

M

[PRC]

10 minutes ago, Howard Clark said:

With an empire, I suppose this would have been reasonably familiar to Britain.

My understanding is that part of what drove a political consensus for the creation of the Imperial War Graves Commission was the shoddy treatment of the war dead in the Boer War, which at the time also led to an enthusiasm for the creation of civic memorials with individual names listed. Before that, (Crimea, Napoleonic, etc), such things are almost unheard of. My local Cathedral has a memorial to the named officers and other ranks of the 9th Foot, (the future Norfolk Regiment), who died in the Indian Mutiny, and another to the men, wives and children of the 9th Foot who's ship sank while returning home from Japan in the 1860's, but those were both paid for by the officers and men of the Regiment, not by public subscription, and are hidden away up a corner.

War memorials were also not unique to the UK, - most villages and even hamlets in France have them, even though in theory most of the dead commemorated died on home soil. But even there the resources required to take home the bodies and the addition burden this would have placed on the logistics system already straining to keep armies in the field would have seriously impacted the ability to carry on fighting. And thats before we even get round to what is now called the "optics" of near continuous funerals and the impact this would have on domestic morale. With the UK there was the added burden of getting them across the Channel or back across the seas and oceans - this was a World War andgiven the number of transports and hospital ships lost to enemy action this wasn't risk free and there was often barely enough shipping capacity. There are also sanitation aspects to take into account, especially for those who died beyond France & Flanders

While there were some organisations offering heavily subsidised or even free trips in the twenties and thirties to visit the corner of a foreign field where a loved one was resting, what I find particularly touching is the family headstones here in the UK in a churchyard or cemetery where they are named and remembered. According to CWGC my local civic cemetery has 503 official war dead, but you can easily double that with those who are remembered.

We shall remember them
Peter

[Howard Clark]

13 minutes ago, PRC said:

My understanding is that part of what drove a political consensus for the creation of the Imperial War Graves Commission was the shoddy treatment of the war dead in the Boer War, which at the time also led to an enthusiasm for the creation of civic memorials with individual names listed. Before that, (Crimea, Napoleonic, etc), such things are almost unheard of. My local Cathedral has a memorial to the named officers and other ranks of the 9th Foot, (the future Norfolk Regiment), who died in the Indian Mutiny, and another to the men, wives and children of the 9th Foot who's ship sank while returning home from Japan in the 1860's, but those were both paid for by the officers and men of the Regiment, not by public subscription, and are hidden away up a corner.

War memorials were also not unique to the UK, - most villages and even hamlets in France have them, even though in theory most of the dead commemorated died on home soil. But even there the resources required to take home the bodies and the addition burden this would have placed on the logistics system already straining to keep armies in the field would have seriously impacted the ability to carry on fighting. And thats before we even get round to what is now called the "optics" of near continuous funerals and the impact this would have on domestic morale. With the UK there was the added burden of getting them across the Channel or back across the seas and oceans - this was a World War andgiven the number of transports and hospital ships lost to enemy action this wasn't risk free and there was often barely enough shipping capacity. There are also sanitation aspects to take into account, especially for those who died beyond France & Flanders

While there were some organisations offering heavily subsidised or even free trips in the twenties and thirties to visit the corner of a foreign field where a loved one was resting, what I find particularly touching is the family headstones here in the UK in a churchyard or cemetery where they are named and remembered. According to CWGC my local civic cemetery has 503 official war dead, but you can easily double that with those who are remembered.

We shall remember them
Peter

Oh that is interesting.

I suppose politicians will also have had an eye on what was happening in Russia to pressurise them to do something equal and fair. 
 

 

[kenf48]

1 hour ago, Howard Clark said:

Oh that is interesting.

I suppose politicians will also have had an eye on what was happening in Russia to pressurise them to do something equal and fair. 
 

 

Not exactly the IWGC (or CWGC) was, and is, apolitical.

You and your daughter may wish to see the CWGC online exhibition 'Shaping our Sorrow' which includes objects held by the Commission including the 8000 signature petition from Lady Florence Cecil to repatriate the bodies of the fallen.

https://shapingoursorrow.cwgc.org/

In the early years of the war the wealthy and well connected did attempt to exhume the bodies of their relatives and pay for them to be brought home. This was in spite of a ban on exhumation.

https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/soldiers-bodies-commemoration-cultural-responses-exhumations-great-war

 

[Rockford]

10 hours ago, kenf48 said:

 

Copy of the form sent to the nok by the IWGC:- 

Unfortunately unaware of the original attribution may even be CWGC - just in my files

Hello

Thank you for posting this.  I was not aware that there was a charge for the personal inscription.

Best wishes

Rockford