British Army WW1 service records 1914-1920 with a signature dated July 1887?

[PatW25]

Hello there

I am researching one of my ancestors - name George Hoddle born 1871.  His service record which is badly burned around the edges has an Attestation form signed July 1887.  The half answers I can see to 2 of the questions are "3rd Oxford L" and "Militia".  I'm guessing that he was originally serving somewhere in the Army and has moved into the Great War Recruiting. However he apparently joined the Navy and drowned in Singapore in 1890 ( I was told this by a family member ) On one of the pages of the service record it looks like there will be an inquest.  I don't really understand all this. Hope someone can help and perhaps point me in the right direction

Thanks in anticipation

PatW25

[RussT]

Hello Pat

This all looks a bit confusing - to me at least !

Are you saying this is about someone who died in 1890?

If so, this pre-dates the Great War period (1914-1918), with which this Forum is concerned.

Can you post an image or a link to the document and I am sure someone here should be able to clarify the era

Regards

Russ

[Keith_history_buff]

Among the WO 363 records, you come across service records for men in units that were disbanded prior to 1914 like the Royal Garrison Regiment. It appears to me that there were odds and sods that got passed to a central repository during the interwar period, of which many were to disappear in flames in 1940.

Is this a link to the record that you were on about?
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBM/WO363-4/7409116/16/396

[Keith_history_buff]

3576  Private Charles Collier enlisted on 31 December 1890 and was posted to the South Wales Borderers on 2 January 1891. I have not researched further, but do not know if he served during WW1. His service record is in the WO 363 series, though. 

[RussT]

Yes, this looks to me like an Attestation Form which clearly pre-dates the Great War and there is no evidence from the document that the man served in the Great War - indeed it appears, as per your own family information, that he died in 1890 and there are some remarks in the document that might support some incident that occurred in 1890.

On the basis that this is outside the GWF remit, we will need to lock this thread.

I see you are still on-line in this thread, so will keep it open for a while to allow some time for you to reply with any argument you may have to keep it open.

Regards

Russ

 

 

2 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

3576  Private Charles Collier enlisted on 31 December 1890 and was posted to the South Wales Borderers on 2 January 1891. I have not researched further, but do not know if he served during WW1. His service record is in the WO 363 series, though. 

Any chance please if you could explain the context of your post to this thread?

Ta

Russ

[Keith_history_buff]

Russ, 

The question, as I read it is thus:

"WO 363 records are from the First World War. If this is the case, why have I come across a record that pre-dates that timeframe"

I thought it was straightforward that I was stating that whilst I had been led to believe this, my experience is that the WO 363 contain records that are not exclusively WW1. 
From a source perspective, I would opine that to talk about the WW1 source of WO 363 is in keeping with the forum.

Any debate about persons who did not participate in WW1, but who have a record in "the WW1 dataset of WO 363" would be at odds with the forum rules.

The record can be viewed on Ancestry, too.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1219/images/30837_155077-00391?backUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ancestry.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fsse.dll%3Findiv%3D1%26dbid%3D1219%26h%3D932674%26tid%3D%26pid%3D%26queryId%3D7d589d5dbd9d2596e56a3c4f975f2889%26usePUB%3Dtrue%26_phsrc%3DNaj3672%26_phstart%3DsuccessSource&ssrc=&pId=932674

This is more substantive evidence that WO 363 is not exclusively WW1 records.

[Keith_history_buff]

There is one implication here that very few people pick up on,

I would argue that the percentage of surviving WW1 records is lower than the figure that is often banded about. If you can come up with a good figure for the amount of "record sets" that have survived, the fact that they are not exclusively WW1 records will result in a lower record set count in respect of WW1 records.

[RussT]

No problem in keeping the thread open if members wish to discuss the vagaries of what are supposedly WW1 record sets

Regards

Russ

[Keith_history_buff]

Here's the most topsy-turvy thing that I have come across.

1151 Joseph Comerford has a record in WO 97. My experience is that these records cover the period 1760 up until the outbreak of WW1. In his instance, this record covers 1914 to 1918. Surprisingly, this old man, born 1865, has a medal index card too, reference WO 372/4/220955.

[PatW25]

Hello again

I also can't understand why George Hoddles record is in the 1914-1920 service records that's why I posted the thread.  Sorry if this doesn't comply with the rules. The Ancestry link in the reply from Keith_history_buf is exactly the record I'm referring to.

Thanks for looking anyway.

PatW25

[Keith_history_buff]

Hi Pat,

He was not in the First World War, so he cannot be discussed further. Unfortunately the Victorian Wars Forum is no more, which had covered military matters from 1837 to 1901.
Perhaps a Singaporean newspaper archive would document his drowning?

There is no naval record for George Hoddle, it looks like he drowned whilst serving with the 2nd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment whilst garrisoned there. The search did throw up one WW1 sailor named Henry George Hoddle who enlisted in 1914. This man, born Olney, Buckinghamshire on24 February 1887, is he a relation? This rating's official number is M8840.

Edited 15 July , 2022 by Keith_history_buff
Added in red font

[MaureenE]

I experienced a similar situation, as my grandfather retired from the British Army before WW1, and did not serve with the British Army during the War, but his prewar records are in the 1914-1920 British Army records.

Perhaps a common theme is that  the termination events were "overseas"  (my grandfather retired while stationed in India, and did not return to England) and the  service records were retained locally for a period  (an extended period for the death in Singapore in 1890) until someone realised they need to be forwarded to England, and by the time the records were sent it was the War period.

Maureen

[Keith_history_buff]

Some very interesting content from the website of Forum pal Justinth 

https://warrecordsrevealed.com/2018/03/15/some-new-evidence-for-the-arrangement-of-ww1-british-army-service-records-in-army-record-offices/

 

https://warrecordsrevealed.com/the-chelsea-hospital-archive-of-soldiers-documents-1913-1921/


 

[ss002d6252]

10 hours ago, PatW25 said:

I also can't understand why George Hoddles record is in the 1914-1920 service records that's why I posted the thread.

Don't take it as an absolute literal.

Before, during and after the war records clerical records could easily be mixed up - what should be filed on shelf 1, ends up on shelf 10. With, eventually, millions of records it was bound to happen.

Then, along came the Germans the second time around.

The records saved from the records office fire were quickly sorted back into some sort of vaguely workable records. They didn't have the time, or likely the will, to sort every record they collected from the destroyed warehouse to check it was in the right record set. It was more a case of 'these piles are all ww1 records, we think, so let's treat them as such'. Since then the set has gone on to be known as 'WW1 records' but no-one now has the time or inclination to shift through them and check, so the whole set is still just referred to as ww1 records (which it is, mainly).

Craig

[PatW25]

Thanks for all the replies. and the 2 links to 'war records revealed' . I can see now why there are bound to be anomalies in the records and Maureen's experience with her Grandfather's records is very similar to my own.

I don't know if Henry George Hoddle that Keith found is one of my family. I haven't come across him yet but there are a lot of Hoddle's in Olney and I suppose he may be on one of the branch lines that I haven't explored yet so I'll be looking into him especially as I have his number.

I think perhaps Singapore Newspapers Archives may be my next step.

 

Thanks again

PatW25

[Keith_history_buff]

The WO 97 series of records, which purportedly covers the time period 1760 to 1914, was the compiled service records held by Royal Hospital Chelsea, as the authority for administering pensions, When a soldier had served long enough for a pension (eighteen years with the colours I believe), or had been invalided whilst serving, then these records were retained indefinitely as proof of service, and eligible for a pension.

If a man died in service, his service record was not retained. There would be no forthcoming pension claim from the dead man, and so his record would be disposed of.

It would appear that by accident a copy of George Hoddle's service record, documenting his enlistment in 1887 and his death in Singapore with 2nd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment circa 1890, did survive, and was added to the other "burnt records". I believe it was due for destruction after the 50 years had passed since his death.

Yet another interesting article on the War Records Revealed domain.
Disposal of service records KR 1912 KR 1923 KR 1940 

[PatW25]

Thanks for that Keith.  Interesting enough George Hoddle's record was the one in front of another of my ancestors Harry Hoddle on the Ancestry site. No joy with the Singapore Newspapers at the moment. The ones I looked at don't cover 1890.

PatW25

[Keith_history_buff]

I'll throw this out there as a possible theory that would need some research behind it, but leads on from the surviving record of George Hoddle who died in 1890 whilst on active service overseas in Singapore.

In addition to Arnside Street containing those service records of WW1 soldiers who were discharged by 1920, I am wondering if for those persons discharged from 1890 onwards, whose duplicate service records were retained under Kings Regs for a subsequent 50 years, these "archive until destruction date" records were also kept there. Gathering all surviving "burnt records" would result in (1) discharged during WW1 and after, as well as (2) discharged prior to WW1 being within the record set with archive series WO 363. 

[ss002d6252]

1 hour ago, Keith_history_buff said:

I'll throw this out there as a possible theory that would need some research behind it, but leads on from the surviving record of George Hoddle who died in 1890 whilst on active service overseas in Singapore.

In addition to Arnside Street containing those service records of WW1 soldiers who were discharged by 1920, I am wondering if for those persons discharged from 1890 onwards, whose duplicate service records were retained under Kings Regs for a subsequent 50 years, these "archive until destruction date" records were also kept there. Gathering all surviving "burnt records" would result in (1) discharged during WW1 and after, as well as (2) discharged prior to WW1 being within the record set with archive series WO 363. 

To add further, the 1908 TF regs mandated destruction of records on death - or storage for 35 years upon transfer to the regulars. Clearly, there was no pension for TF service, so the record retention was different. What the TF retention was by 1920 is a different question.

Craig

[Keith_history_buff]

There's a WO 363 record for 2246 Hugh Robert Rankin, born 1856 in Dover who enlisted in the 50th Brigade. I wonder if there are any older records than this in the "WW1 burnt records of the British Army". I'd guess this pre-dates the Cardwell Reforms.

[RussT]

18 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

I wonder if there are any older records than this in the "WW1 burnt records of the British Army"

If you have FMP then you can simply search just on record year search field.

The earliest record year date that I found which returned results was 1875.

The search results page often then gives you the man's date of birth.

Here's the first page of those search results - you can immediately see that there is a John Banks 18093 RA who was born in 1851

Russ

 

[RussT]

And here's part of his Attestation Form

 

[RussT]

If you then add birth year to the search field on top of the 1875 record year, then the earliest date you get for dated results is 1849.

The first one for Charles Reginald Brown shows he attested 1875 aged 26 (i.e. born 1849).

Russ

 

[Keith_history_buff]

Thanks Russ, I came across Rankin whilst looking for someone else of a similar name. Even more persons who are less likely to have served in WW1, let alone if they were still alive.

 

[Keith_history_buff]

This topic has come up before on the forum, I see