Rfm Henry Douglas 24653 Royal Irish Rifles, KIA 22/07/1920 Mespoptamia

[PaulC78]

This is another case I've had rejected, which I can only assume was due to a lack of sufficient evidence. I thought I'd put it out to the forum in case anyone can turn up something useful...

Rifleman Henry Douglas, 24653, Royal Irish Rifles, apparently killed in action in Mesopotamia on 22 July 1920. The only evidence I was able to find is a few pension cards and soldiers effects register. His mother was Agnes Douglas, of 13 Eversleigh Street, Belfast, and the effects register names his father as John. He had a brother, Pte Robert Douglas 18/767 Royal Irish Rifles who died in Belgium on 1 Sep 1916.

Edited 15 October , 2022 by PaulC78

[ss002d6252]

7 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

This is another case I've had rejected, which I can only assume was due to a lack of sufficient evidence. I thought I'd put it out to the forum in case anyone can turn up something useful...

Rifleman Douglas Henry, 24653, Royal Irish Rifles, apparently killed in action in Mesopotamia on 22 July 1920. The only evidence I was able to find is a few pension cards and soldiers effects register. His mother was Agnes Douglas, of 13 Eversleigh Street, Belfast, and the effects register names his father as John. He had a brother, Pte Robert Douglas 18/767 Royal Irish Rifles who died in Belgium on 1 Sep 1916.

Assuming I'm understanding your post right - On what grounds have they decided both the MoP, War Office and Army Records Office are all wrong with their records ?

Craig

[DavidOwen]

I cannot find a MIC for him, nor is his death mentioned in any British or Irish newspapers on FMP. 

[PaulC78]

3 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Assuming I'm understanding your post right - On what grounds have they decided both the MoP, War Office and Army Records Office are all wrong with their records ?

I don't know Craig, we are still waiting for the reasons behind these rejections (though I'm not holding my breath that we'll be any wiser). The only logical conclusion I can draw is that the submitted evidence was somehow insufficient, and I don't necessarily have an issue with that given the aparrent absence of further records. That would at least be consistant with the few cases I had rejected last year.

[DavidOwen]

This might be of interest https://archive.org/details/32882019307837-theinsurrection/mode/2up?q=22+july

 

BTW isn't his name Henry Douglas?

Still couldn't find him though.

[PaulC78]

Cheers David!

[Matlock1418]

46 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

still waiting for the reasons behind these rejections

We are all similarly waiting for more transparency/communication from CWGC et al. - for so many more cases

Know you will post here if you get anything.

43 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

That would at least be consistant with the few cases I had rejected last year.

A consistently incorrect approach and outcomes would not seem desireable.

As mentioned in several other places before, I think change of method, transparency/communication and outcomes is needed at CWGC et al.

We can/must live in hope - anyone got any ideas on how to effectively progress?

M

[Matlock1418]

1 minute ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

as Craig says, SE and Pension Card should be strong enough in themselves unless the burden of proof is reversed and the records can be shown to be wrong.

But CWGC haven't yet [?? and never seem to] fully explain their decision(s) nor produce their evidence.

They don't even explain their burden of proof requirement [except it seems to have a particularly high bar - in my opinion they place it too high, far more than would be likely is a court of law]  Such matters are really a civil, not criminal, matter so the burden should be 'on the balance of probabilities' - where is the CWGC evidence that outweighs that presented??

M

[Matlock1418]

18 minutes ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

Of course,  the most obvious action  is   to shout very loudly "Wake Up, Tom" 

@museumtom may give him a more vigourous shake.  But think he is probably more 26 Counties rather than 6 Counties.

M

Edited 15 October , 2022 by Matlock1418

[PaulC78]

49 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

A consistently incorrect approach and outcomes would not seem desireable.

Consistent decision making is always desirable, even if you don't agree with the decision. "Incorrect" is merely your own personal view (which is fine, of course).

But if we can, I'd prefer to keep this discussion on topic and focus on any additional evidence that might help the case, rather than ruminating on the perceived shortcomings of the commemorations process.

Alan, thanks for your input!

[Matlock1418]

11 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

Consistent decision making is always desirable, even if you don't agree with the decision. "Incorrect" is merely your own personal view (which is fine, of course).

Fair enough - we can have our various opinions but I am not alone in considering the situation/system a bit 'strange' and in need of a serious review [Even if it perhaps then remains the same].

11 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

But if we can, I'd prefer to keep this discussion on topic and focus on any additional evidence that might help the case, rather than ruminating on the perceived shortcomings of the commemorations process.

Fair enough - but think you should review and consider further this case [and, of course based on their merits, other rejected non-comms, certainly don't give up].

Lest you think it was just about griping - which it was not - I have been looking around on your/his behalf, challenging to find more I would admit!  We await on CWGC to reveal their hand.

Good luck.

M

Edited 15 October , 2022 by Matlock1418

[museumtom]

Who waketh me from mine slumber, forsooth!

Belfast is a subject in its own right and once you open it you can be lost in there for a considerable time, begor. Having said all that Nigel Henderson is the undisputed expert in all things Belfast. I have sent him a link to this conversation. If there is anything to be found, he's yer man.

 

[hen190782]

Tom, I was just settling down for an afternoon kip!!! I would never describer myself as "the undisputed expert in all things Belfast"

Alan McMahon:  "Belly Telly", the Belfast Daily Telegraph. This is not digitised on BNA, so a trawl of the physical beastie may be necessary." I have never heard the newspaper referred to as the "Belly Telly" and it was not the "Belfast Daily Telegraph", and it IS digitised on BNA. The newspaper was called the "Belfast Evening Telegraph" up to mid-1918, when it became the "Belfast Telegraph". Not that any of that helps the case.

Rifleman Henry DOUGLAS is commemorated as a fatality on the memorial tablet for Mountpottinger Presbyterian Church in Belfast, but I doubt that would make any difference to the decision.

Based on the wording in the opening post, could the rejection be down to the case being submitted as "Douglas HENRY" rather than "Henry DOUGLAS"?

I will have a look and see if I can find anything to support the case.

Nigel

[PaulC78]

1 minute ago, hen190782 said:

Based on the wording in the opening post, could the rejection be down to the case being submitted as "Douglas HENRY" rather than "Henry DOUGLAS"?

Nope, that's entirley me! For the sake of clarity I'll go back and fix it.

[hen190782]

Just now, PaulC78 said:

Nope, that's entirley me! For the sake of clarity I'll go back and fix it.

Ah, well ...

[hen190782]

Paul - he also had another brother who served and survived ... James Morrow Douglas who was awarded the Military Medal with Australian Imperial Force.

[hen190782]

Sorry, Paul, but I cannot find anything else that would support a case.

[hen190782]

It is possible that the rejection was due to that old favourite excuse ... conflicting information.

This Dependant's Pension cards does not record date or cause of death for Henry Douglas

[DavidOwen]

10 minutes ago, hen190782 said:

It is possible that the rejection was due to that old favourite excuse ... conflicting information.

This Dependant's Pension cards does not record date or cause of death for Henry Douglas

Robert Douglas is a different soldier and he did die 1/9/1916 in France https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBM%2FCWGC%2FROLLOFHONOUR%2F000266935

[hen190782]

3 minutes ago, DavidOwen said:

Robert Douglas is a different soldier and he did die 1/9/1916 in France https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBM%2FCWGC%2FROLLOFHONOUR%2F000266935

I know that, my point is that there is a ? recorded against both the Date of Death and Cause of Death for Henry Douglas and the case reviewer might have determined that the absence of this information was in conflict with the pension card submitted.

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, hen190782 said:

It is possible that the rejection was due to that old favourite excuse ... conflicting information.

This Dependant's Pension cards does not record date or cause of death for Henry Douglas

To add/complicate further there is also a 'twin' card [headed with his brother's name] to this pension index card and a further card in the mother's name - men's and mother's cards were intended to help link up with a pension ledger index card [as presented in OP] and a Pension Ledger [Region 12 - Northern Ireland] and then the main Pension Awards File [sadly the file is lost - the reverses of all these cards show the file was deliberately destroyed in 1966]

Destruction of Pension Award Files would have taken place much earlier if a pension had not been paid - as can be seen on the OP's PLIC.

One might suspect however that the pension cards have not helped as it might perhaps be argued that a pension was paid legiimately for the son who s recognised as dying in 1916 - but it is unclear with respect to the one dying in 1920

Why a Soldier's Effects register entry would separately be made is puzzling, and somewhat contradictory, if he had not died on service.

Guess the CWGC's findings/resolution/revelation must be awaited.

M

Edited 16 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
typos

[hen190782]

2 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

To add/complicate further there is also a 'twin' card [headed with his brother's name] to this pension index card and a further card in the mother's name - men's and mother's cards were intended to help link up with a pension ledger index card [as presented in OP] and a Pension Ledger [Region 12 - Northern Ireland] and then the main Pension Awards File [sadly the file is lost - the reverses of all these cards show the file was deliberately destroyed in 1966]

Destruction of Pension Award Files would have taken place much earlier if a pension had not been paid - as can be seen on the OP's PLIC.

One might suspect however that the pension cards have not helped as it might perhaps be argued that a pension was paid legiimately for the son who s recognised as dying in 1916 - but it is unclear with respect to the one dying in 1920

Why a Soldier's Effects register entry would separately be made is puzzling, and somewhat contradictory, if he had not died on service.

Guess the CWGC's findings/resolution/revalation must be awaited.

M

I found four entries in the "Pension Ledgers and Index Cards, 1914-1923" catalogue on Ancestry. I think it is the conflicting information on the pension cards that has caused the rejection, although the Register of Soldiers' Effects on its own should have been sufficient.  

[ss002d6252]

A look at the pension records makes it quite clear a pension was paid, there's no ambiguity if all the details are looked at.

It's clear even post-1924 that there are pension files in place for both Robert and Henry. The SB36 even specifically confirms the details of Robert.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

8 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

It's clear even post-1924 that there are pension files in place for both Robert and Henry.

I agree, from the stamped & ink entries at the top of both the men's PIC, but was just suggesting the ? DoD might have thrown CWGC off.

M

[ss002d6252]

10 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I agree, from the stamped & ink entries at the top of both the men's PIC, but was just suggesting the ? DoD might have thrown CWGC off.

M

Possibly, but it shows they've certainly not looked at all the cards and ledgers.

Craig