Pte. Clement Aloysius DRAKE, 95918, RAMC = Died 26-4-21

[Matlock1418]

This former soldier is not currently commemorated by CWGC.

Help from a member(s) sought please ...

Wondering if this man is currently being / has ever previously been researched and/or considered for a non-comm case ??? @Terry Denham @PaulC78 Please ... Have IFCP any note?

MIC for a 'pair' and MR available [though I have not seen an image of the latter]

Several pension cards also available

 = Transfered to Z Reserve 23-2-19 with a disability pension from 24-2-19   Died of Bronchitis - Widow received a pension from 27-4-21.

His death is registered in Manchester in the April-June Qtr.  His widow's address is given as 49 Slater Rd, Oldham Rd, Manchester [MJ / Mary J DRAKE, formerly MALLOY, married April-June 1915]

I have his Birth Marriage and Death registrations

Could a member(s) please advise if there is available:

• Service or Pensions record - especially any hospital or Medical Board notes
• Soldiers Died in the Great War enty
• Burial location [presumably in Manchester]
• Any other information on this man and his death - newspaper articles perhaps?

I'm keen to avoid duplication of effort and/or to gather evidence - winding myself up towards potentially purchasing a DC!

Thanks in anticipation of your help.

M

Edited 13 January , 2023 by Matlock1418
add marriage details

[PaulC78]

He's not an IFCP case. Had a quick look for burial but found nothing. @8055Bell might be able to help?

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

He's not an IFCP case. Had a quick look for burial but found nothing. @8055Bell might be able to help?

Thanks for looking and for the mention/nod to Tim.

M

[8055Bell]

Morning M,

No help with the burial I'm afraid and no further relevant data.  I can't see evidence the bronchitis was related to military service - accepting the pension authorities made disability and dependents awards, but we don't 'know' why from the commemoration perspective. 

If you take this case forward succesfully we would have a landslide of Manchester Regiment cases to follow with similar circumstantial records.  It's clear the pension authorities accepted Clement died from bronchitis that was a consequence of military service yet I doubt this case would be approved.

It's rather sweet to note that Clement Aloysius Jr was born in the same Qtr his father died.  He must have had a tough childhood.

Tim

[Matlock1418]

14 hours ago, 8055Bell said:

No help with the burial I'm afraid and no further relevant data.  I can't see evidence the bronchitis was related to military service - accepting the pension authorities made disability and dependents awards, but we don't 'know' why from the commemoration perspective. 

If you take this case forward succesfully we would have a landslide of Manchester Regiment cases to follow with similar circumstantial records.  It's clear the pension authorities accepted Clement died from bronchitis that was a consequence of military service yet I doubt this case would be approved.

Tim,

Thanks for looking.

I would agree the evidence available for DRAKE so far is likely inadequate for CWGC and the purchasing of his DC would only be the cherry on top if we could beforehand find more support for a case to be lodged.

I personally think CWGC are currently likely always shying away from acceptance based on MoP alone, as they regularly seem to do - though I have to say I don't quite understand the CWGC logic, [except perhaps on their financial grounds] as the MoP would have had so much more evidence to hand and had to be very sure before they earlier proportionately splashed out so much more of the Nation's cash.  I think it is the potential for a national 'landslide'/'tidalwave' that is scaring off CWGC.  Hey ho!

Hoping something more on DRAKE might surface through GWF.

M

Edited 14 January , 2023 by Matlock1418
typos

[8055Bell]

Morning M,

I've been dwelling on the issues here and reflecting on discussions with Terry at IFCP.  The pension authorities sometimes accepted evidence from civilian doctors to establish whether a pension case should be approved.  In general we need need evidence from military authorities to justify commemoration.  This does create anomolies yet I tend to think the requirement for military evidence is fair enough.  It's just a shame we lost so many pension and service records in the blitz.

Tim

[Matlock1418]

4 hours ago, 8055Bell said:

I've been dwelling on the issues here and reflecting on discussions with Terry at IFCP.  The pension authorities sometimes accepted evidence from civilian doctors to establish whether a pension case should be approved.  In general we need need evidence from military authorities to justify commemoration.  This does create anomolies yet I tend to think the requirement for military evidence is fair enough. 

Hi Tim.

Thanks for your post.  To continue our discussion about CWGC/JCCC ...

To me it seems CWGC/JCCC have been/are rather playing with loaded dice - to be emotive to some it might seem they have been/are actively cheating - as their own publically-published criteria do not specifically require military records as an absolute necessity.

I think it is highly disrespectful of CWGC/JCCC/others to suggest that "the MoP made mistakes" [as they have previously done] and now that they might suggest that civilian doctors could not be trusted to make accurate professional decisions.  After all the MoP had its own doctors and awards were not typically based on men's own local doctors' opinions [I would trust most of those doctors too - in the UK we generally err towards trust - though statistically some may have been 'off']. 

If professional men could not be trusted then those accusations could perhaps also be applied, past, present and/or future, to the military and to CWGC/JCCC/others too. ??

As we are not dealing with a criminal law case the apparent past/current CWGC/JCCC use of 'beyond reasonable doubt'/'beyond doubt' is a spurious approach.  On the 'balance of probabilities' is a much more appropriate approach to awarding commemoration in my opinion.  So where is the CWGC/JCCC/military evidence to outweigh the MoP?  

This is my significant gripe against CWGC/JCCC [and has been voiced by others].  I clearly would err towards BoP - probably a few unworthy, yet many worthy of commemoration revealed by MoP as a professional national organisation/government department.

So if in doubt, commemorate - and a bit like the rationale for the abolishion of the death sentence, better to save all - OK some unworthy cases might get through but surely better to commemorate than reject others who really deserve some recognition of their wartime service.

After all is it not the case that there are likely already some commemorated who perhaps do not really qualify? - Where is the official drive to unmask those?

Online / UK Book of Rememberance costs little - OK, headstones and memorials etc. would cost more but can surely be addressed longer-term.  As I have said before I suspect finance is currently driving CWGC more than their official remit for rememberance.

To not commemorate is otherwise disrespectful to many who are now identified and could/should be commemorated - and would be/is contrary to the CWGC's remit.

4 hours ago, 8055Bell said:

It's just a shame we lost so many pension and service records in the blitz.

Can't fault that particular opinion - WW2 can rightly be blamed for so much!

That the MoP also deliberately destroyed their files along the way is to be regretted too - but they were not alone, CWGC have also destroyed many of theirs [as a notable example: the Verification of NoK Forms that could have been so useful nowadays, with the full blessing of Sir Fabian Ware, for the WW2 war effort].

Ah, so much potentially useful, certainly interesting, material lost through the ages!

To close I would emphasise I am most certainly not generally anti-CWGC/JCCC but just feel they are mis-guided in their current adjudications for rejection if only MoP records are available.

M

Edited 18 January , 2023 by Matlock1418

[geeceedee]

Hi guys,

I've started doing some family tree research and stumbled upon this forum courtesy of Google!  Private DRAKE was my grandfather, I never met him and I know little about him as he died so long ago, but I do recall some years ago my father - Clement Aloysius Drake (Jnr) - telling me that he had been told that his father's health was severely affected by the war and that Clement (Snr) was "never the same again after that"; I think he mentioned Clement Snr may have been gassed?  Not sure if this story was apocryphal but his death certificate refers to Cause of Death as "(1) Lobar pneumonia and (2) Bronchitis and emphysema", both serious respiratory conditions which I would expect could be consistent with gassing - or maybe just the result of poor living conditions in the slums of Manchester? I see that his job was listed as "Corporation lamplighter" which indicates he was not engaged in heavy physical labour, but whether that was connected with him being an invalid would be conjecture. I've also attached a pic of Clement Snr to help put a face to the name (see below). On a sad note, Clement (Snr) died 26-Apr-21, just a few weeks before the birth of his son, my father Clement (Jnr), on 24-May-21.

Hope this helps.  BTW if you have any documents at all relating to Clement (Snr) that you could share with me (his service record, medical card, etc) I'd be most grateful - I've quickly learnt that researching your family tree is an expensive business with subscriptions, copy fees etc!

[Matlock1418]

On 05/01/2024 at 09:40, geeceedee said:

Hi guys,

I've started doing some family tree research and stumbled upon this forum courtesy of Google!  Private DRAKE was my grandfather, I never met him and I know little about him as he died so long ago, but I do recall some years ago my father - Clement Aloysius Drake (Jnr) - telling me that he had been told that his father's health was severely affected by the war and that Clement (Snr) was "never the same again after that"; I think he mentioned Clement Snr may have been gassed?  Not sure if this story was apocryphal but his death certificate refers to Cause of Death as "(1) Lobar pneumonia and (2) Bronchitis and emphysema", both serious respiratory conditions which I would expect could be consistent with gassing - or maybe just the result of poor living conditions in the slums of Manchester? I see that his job was listed as "Corporation lamplighter" which indicates he was not engaged in heavy physical labour, but whether that was connected with him being an invalid would be conjecture. I've also attached a pic of Clement Snr to help put a face to the name (see below). On a sad note, Clement (Snr) died 26-Apr-21, just a few weeks before the birth of his son, my father Clement (Jnr), on 24-May-21.

Hope this helps.  BTW if you have any documents at all relating to Clement (Snr) that you could share with me (his service record, medical card, etc) I'd be most grateful - I've quickly learnt that researching your family tree is an expensive business with subscriptions, copy fees etc!

Welcome to GWF.  I'm very peased you have found us and have joined. It is good to get a face to put to a name.

Thank you for your post and for the DC which is useful but we still seem to need military evidence of his cause of discharge to match the DC's (1) Lobar pneumonia and (2) Bronchitis and emphysema for CWGC commemoration - certainly both conditions were common at the time and though his possible/so far unproven gassing could potentially render him more liable for such conditions it was not the only potentially possible explanation/reason.

However I remain of the opinion that the MoP of the day were robust and wouldn't have paid out a pension for his disability pension and then for a dependant's/s' pension if they did not believe there was national liability.  Sadly CWGC and their relevant service authority [the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC)] frustratingly do not accept this logic at present for commemorations.

These are the two most informative records at WFA/Fold3

Image thanks to WFA/Fold3

This is for his [sadly unidentified medical condition] disabilty claim on discharge 23.2.19 - it looks like he was successful [All men had the opportunity to make using a form Z.22 - whether accepted or not was another matter!]

Awarded 5/6 pw from 24-2-19 to 26-8-19 [representing the 20% degree of disability for a pension Class V soldier/Pte under the 1918 Royal Warrant]

I think the SFC 17434 was likely a certificate identity number to allow for the collection of the pension from a Post Office - but I am rather more cautious about that.

His main claim award file is sadly clearly destroyed.

Then there is this:

Image thanks to WFA/Fold3

This was his dependant's/s' claim - the saddest aftermath

His widow made an initial claim for a war pension for herself and for a pension allowance(s) for her child(ren) under the prevailing Royal Warrant [which in this case would initially have been the then applicable 1919 RW] - Article 11 [widow] and Article 12 - the latter not being listed but it's clear from the Art 12 note and from the pension quantum that children were included [I shall explain below]

Much is probably self-explanatory but a few interpretations for you so as to avoid any mis-interpretation.

This pension index card was in the soldier’s name and there was/is another briefer card in the widow’s name so they could be cross-referenced/accessed.  These typically came from/lead to a ledger page(s) via the claim case references and then to an awards file using Case No 3338. The related ledger is unavailable/lost and the awards file probably deliberately destroyed once its use was passed [as was the common case]

Form 104-88 = Death notification of a married man sent from the man’s Record Office to the War Office [not relevant as he died after discharge]

Form 104-76 = Declaration made by the Widow of a Soldier in support of claim to pension for herself and children

Date of birth: 26.5.91 = his widow’s - required because her pension could be age-related [but not relevant or indicated here].  Such an age banding of pension is believed to address the less likely possibility of re-marriage with increasing age.

The standard pension for a widow with children, under the 1919 RW, was 26/8 pw, plus for first child 10/- pw and for a second child 7/6 pw which matches the quantum of 44/2 pw paid from 27.4.21 [I.e. this indicates she had two dependant children under 16y, including your father it would seem, and this was taken into account when the pension award was made in Sep 1921]

The child(ren)'s allowance(s) were paid to their mother, typically until they reached 16 when such payments ceased [occasionally up to 21 if they were in some form of further vocational training or sometimes if they had impairment/disability] - then the child(ren) would certainly be expected to go out to work to earn their keep. Or paid until the earlier death of a child.

She also got a grant of £6 [£5 + £1] and £1 intended to have covered urgent expenses arising from her husband's death [often being within a month of death the payments seem a bit late, possibly as the result of his death being after discharge]

I think the WFC 2856 was likely a certificate identity number to allow for the collection of the pension and allowances from a Post Office - but I am rather more cautious about that.

... So there it was/is ... the MoP paid out a disability pension and a significant dependants' pension. So why CWGC/JCCC won't accept those, especially the latter, as evidence for commemoration rather defeats me = I think he should be commemorated at CWGC [Well in a way at least he is here on GWF].

Anyway I hope of interest to you.

What we really need for an attempt at CWGC commemoration is his medical board report on discharge to corroborate things, or similar ... so if you find such evidence [preferably many docs!], then please post here.

M

Edited 6 January by Matlock1418
typos

[geeceedee]

Hi @Matlock1418 thanks so much for taking the time to provide such a detailed and informative response!  The amount of the pension 44/2 and the fact that equates to a widow plus two children is interesting because at 7.9.21 Mary actually had three children - William (Bill) DOB 29.9.16, Elizabeth (Bessie) DOB 15.9.19 and Clement Jnr (DOB 24.5.21); although I guess it could be that "a week from 27.4.21" simply recognised that at that 27.4.21 date there were only two children, and the pension for her third child (Clem Jnr) was subsequently added.  However much it was, I'm sure it was gratefully received - to @8055Bell's point, my father Clem Jnr did have a very tough chlldhood indeed - living in what must have been extreme poverty he lied about his age to join the army for "three squares a day"!

Thanks again for all your help!

[Matlock1418]

25 minutes ago, geeceedee said:

Hi @Matlock1418 thanks so much for taking the time to provide such a detailed and informative response!  The amount of the pension 44/2 and the fact that equates to a widow plus two children is interesting because at 7.9.21 Mary actually had three children - William (Bill) DOB 29.9.16, Elizabeth (Bessie) DOB 15.9.19 and Clement Jnr (DOB 24.5.21); although I guess it could be that "a week from 27.4.21" simply recognised that at that 27.4.21 date there were only two children, and the pension for her third child (Clem Jnr) was subsequently added.  However much it was, I'm sure it was gratefully received

Ah my error, your father, Clement jnr, wasn't being counted at the date of the 44/2 pw award from 27.4.21 [as might be expected if his birth hadn't yet occurred - arriving on 24.5.21]

And anyway, and clearly very unfortunately under these circumstances, a child was only awarded if born before or within nine months after a man's discharge [which was 23.2.19] - so your father's birth [24.5.21] would not have accrued any pension allowance.  Clearly that wouldn't have helped his mother's financial situation.  A difficult time it must have been.  No wonder he later went looking for "three squares a day".

M

Edited 7 January by Matlock1418
add