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

[hen190782]

30 minutes ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

Hi Nigel- I note the pension card actually refers to  a ROBERT HENRY  Douglas and says KIA -question mark- with a date, 1st September 1916-again,question mark.

    This would match in, with parental name and address to:

 

Wrong! The Pension Card refers to Robert Douglas AND Henry Douglas ... one dependant receiving pensions for two sons, as indicated by the two lines, one for Robert and one for Henry. 

Edited 16 October , 2022 by hen190782

[hen190782]

2 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

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

Craig

Or maybe they have looked at two pension cards and spotted the absence of specific details for Henry Douglas.

15 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

Yep, that is what I think as well.

[PaulC78]

Thanks all for your efforts. A lack of clarity over the additional cards may well have been a contributing factor in the decision. They picked up on something similar with regard to another case I had rejected last year.

And I know some of you know, but it's JCCC who make these decsions, not CWGC.

7 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

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

I very much doubt that would be the case. More likely, the other two cards add an element of doubt to a case that is already lacking.

[hen190782]

I have been advised by Terry at IFCP that he is expecting to receive explanations for rejections this week. As you all may know, the staff at CWGC were merrily updating with new accepted case but were not bothering to inform IFCP or even add the names to the database. Consequently, there are about 300 commemorations to be added to the database and this has probably had an adverse effect on the notification of reasons for rejections.

  

[ss002d6252]

7 minutes ago, hen190782 said:

11 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

 

Or maybe they have looked at two pension cards and spotted the absence of specific details for Henry Douglas.

If they'd looked at all the available cards and ledgers, then they would have seen the ledger for the case in Henry's name and his details on the cards. It seems clear that, for whatever reason, they've not looked at them all.

Quote

       Given the layout of the card,  it looks to me that  this is a pension card for   BOTH   (SUPPOSED) casualties- the 1916 and the 1920

Correct - and quite common where there was more than one casualty associated with the claim. The idea being to allow the cross-reference of all the men involved.

Quote

2)  Whether  there actually is  a casualty   who is a son of  Mrs Douglas. There is no doubt about  R.Douglas of 11RIR and 1/9/1916.    There has to be considerable doubt about whether there actually is a casualty  of July 1920 at all-or whether the date is some sort of confusion  by the applicant in respect of the 1916 son.

The MoP was quite happy there were two casualties - there were two open files, for two soldiers, both with different details recorded (included death) - the War Office were also, independently, happy enough to open the Effects Record, which had to have the details sent through from the Army Record Office (who were also then satisfied he was deceased). We shouldn't just focus on the MoP side of the side.

Craig

[hen190782]

5 minutes ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

Houston, I think we have a problem:

   I post again the  CWGC entry for  Private Robert  Douglas,  11th RIR , KIA on 1st September 1916.

       Note that the service number given  is  18/767

 

Note that the pension card  in the original  post is 24653:

 

Now note that the  other pension card  posted by Nigel has BOTH  service numbers  

 

       Given the layout of the card,  it looks to me that  this is a pension card for   BOTH   (SUPPOSED) casualties- the 1916 and the 1920

Also, the names Robert and Henry are above each other, not adjacent-  suggesting 2 names considered:

And also, the   dates of death  in the same manner:

 

        Thus,  I suggest 2 things (avoiding the Belfast Daily Telegraph this time round!!)

1)   Whether  there is one casualty or two on the later card posted by Nigel

2)  Whether  there actually is  a casualty   who is a son of  Mrs Douglas. There is no doubt about  R.Douglas of 11RIR and 1/9/1916.    There has to be considerable doubt about whether there actually is a casualty  of July 1920 at all-or whether the date is some sort of confusion  by the applicant in respect of the 1916 son.

3)  Off to the 1911 Census pronto...........

4)   Nigel-  Are there any other Douglas names on the war memorial you put up?    is this more likely to be the 1916 man?????

 

 

The memorial tablet in Mountpottinger Presbyterian Church ... H Douglas and R Douglas recorded at the bottom (which implies that their names were added later.

[PaulC78]

Alan, not sure I see your confusion. There were two men, Robert Douglas 18/767 who died in 1916 and is recorded on CWGC, and Henry Douglas 24653 who died in 1920 and is not recorded by CWGC.

[hen190782]

1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said:

If they'd looked at all the available cards and ledgers, then they would have seen the ledger for the case in Henry's name and his details on the cards. It seems clear that, for whatever reason, they've not looked at them all.

Correct - and quite common where there was more than one casualty associated with the claim. The idea being to allow the cross-reference of all the men involved.

The MoP was quite happy there were two casualties - there were two open files, for two soldiers, both with different details recorded (included death) - the War Office were also, independently, happy enough to open the Effects Record, which had to have the details sent through from the Army Record Office (who were also then satisfied he was deceased). We shouldn't just focus on the MoP side of the side.

Craig

But there is NO Death Date or Death Cause for Henry Douglas on the Dependant's Pension card, which means that there is conflicting information between two pension cards, which could be the reason for rejection. As I said in a recent post, IFCP hopes to have the rejection reasons this week, so rather than second guessing, let us wait and see what IFCP receives.

 

OK, guys, I am bowing out of this discussion as it seems to be going round and round in circles. 

[hen190782]

1 minute ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

    Thank you Nigel.   That is a soupcon  that there are 2 different men, which is at least a start. Now to find the 1920 fellow

There is a second ever smaller soupcon (if a smaller soupcon is a possibility)  in the service number of the 1920 man-    I have had a look at RIR casualties  on CWGC as a rough and ready guide as to when the 5 figure numbers were introduced  into RIR. Against casualties,  the earliest 5 figure number is the end of December 1917. Which suggests  that  the 5 figure  number man of 1920  is confirmed as different to the 1916 man, as the 1916 man could not realistically have had a 5 figure number  as well as his CWGC listed number. Trivial, but it does confirm the real likeliehood  of a 1920 casualty-   and may counter any claims that the 1920 man is a confusion with the 1916 man.

[Quite why  RIR switched to 5 figures numbers instead of 6 like most other units in 1916 or so is a mystery-as is why they were still being used in 1920]

 

 

The Royal Irish Rifles had five-digit numbers from the establishment of the Kitchener Army battalions in 1914. The 2nnnn number for Henry Douglas indicates that he enlisted later than the 1nnnn series, probably late 1915 or 1916. It is worth mentioning that Henry Douglas was born in 1900, which could explain the absence of medal entitlement documentation as mentioned earlier in the thread. Robert Douglas has a low number as he enlisted with 17th (Reserve) Battalion.

 

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

Just as a query-where was this?   Was there one for all Ireland?   Were there separate for the Free State and Northern Ireland after May 1922. 

In this case: Dual-named PIC and the opening PLIC have a MoP reference of 12/D/3689

That is a Region 12 [Northern Ireland] / Dependant's / Case 3689

For info: Region 13 was Southern Ireland

M

Edited 16 October , 2022 by Matlock1418

[ss002d6252]

1 hour ago, ALAN MCMAHON said:

 

     Just as a query-where was this?   Was there one for all Ireland?   Were there separate for the Free State and Northern Ireland after May 1922.   It looks to me as though  the 1920 man just might have got lost  in the administration changes between his death and hitting the administrators-for pensions,at least, in 1924.

By 1924 the regional pensions had all been called back in and were being run from London. There would have been a section in the department dealing with what was previously the regional work.

Craig

[PaulC78]

The reason for rejection given by JCCC is as follows:

Quote

Rejected due to insufficient evidence, principally linking the casualty to the battalion in Mesopotamia in July 1920.  If new evidence can be provided the case can be reinvestigated.