L/Corp John William Ferguson - 3rd Manchester Regiment

[temptage]

Ive got an odd one here. Ive been going through my research on casualties in Cleethorpes Cemetery.

I got to the aforementioned JW Ferguson, checked on the CWGC website and there is no mention of him.

I know its been a while, probably as long ago as 2014 when I last did any research on him, and it was 2013 when I photographed his headstone when his name was included in the list I printed off from the CWGC website.

 

On looking at his burial record it clearly states that he was a serving soldier at the time of his death (they do have his rank incorrect)

 

He is included in the Soldiers Who Died In The Great War

 

and it was even reported in the local rag (typical that they have his middle name incorrect). 25th July 1915 WAS a Sunday too

 

But it seems for some reason the CWGC have removed him from the database.

 

Anyone have a clue why that may be? I have emailed the CWGC but I could be waiting weeks before I get a reply.

 

 

[RussT]

 

Lance Corporal J W Furguson | War Casualty Details 4028953 | CWGC

[Matlock1418]

 

1 hour ago, temptage said:

On looking at his burial record it clearly states that he was a serving soldier at the time of his death (they do have his rank incorrect)

No, it's the correct rank from the Army's perspective - a Lance Corporal was an appointment [a probationary role at the grace of/granted by his Commanding Officer - admittedly coming with a single stripe/chevron] so his substantive rank of Private would technically be correct [Next substantive rank in his regiment = Corporal]

1 hour ago, RussT said:

Lance Corporal J W Furguson | War Casualty Details 4028953 | CWGC

In fact it is CWGC and many other records who consistently, as for so many soldiers, provide Lance Corporal as a rank - incorrect really but now seems a nice touch to reflect their trusted appointments.

[Remember LCpl would not be impressed into the back or rims of any medals, only Pte - I believe the Army Medal Office even had to include an explanatory slip with many medals to head off potential complaints/requests for amendment!]

M

Edited 14 February , 2023 by Matlock1418

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, temptage said:

2 hours ago, temptage said:

 

Mouth to mouth [??] - or is that someone's modern interpretation of attempted resuscitation?

Image thanks to WFA/Fold3

Left a widow and six children under 16 yo. - Separation Allowanace for all would have been continued to be paid until the pension was awarded.

Interesting to note that seemingly due to the circumstances of his death Accidentally drowned whilst bathing the Ministry of Pensions only initially provided a 'short pension/temporary pension' [for period of war & 12 months after] under Article 15 of the then current Royal Warrant in 1917.  A further supplementary allowance owing to exceptional circumstances [to a combined total max. matching the standard pension and allowances payable] was possible but we can't see any such award here.

A total of 15/- pw was considerably less than the normal Private soldier's widow's pension of 12/6 pw [the >35 yo enhanced rate] plus the children's allowances of 5/-, 3/6, 2/-, 2/-, 2/- and 2/- respectively.

It rather looks like the later Royal Warrants' Art. 11 & 12 applied so hopefully she and her family got more and avoided the most dire of straits.  Certainly the DEAD, 1930 stamp would suggest the pension and allowances continued for longer than the war plus 12 months. [The claim became DEAD, 1930 - this would appear to coincide with the youngest child, Lucy, turning 16 and losing the allowance, but leaves us wondering why no widow's pension continuing = possibly she had remarried or had died by then ?? ]

Whichever way you look at things it seems rather unlikely she was a rich widow so such an impressive and expensive-looking stone cross grave memorial seems remarkable and would seem to reflect the felt magnitude of her/the family's loss.

M

Edited 14 February , 2023 by Matlock1418
add

[ss002d6252]

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

Interesting to note that seemingly due to the circumstances of his death Accidentally drowned whilst bathing the Ministry of Pensions only initially provided a 'short pension/temporary pension' [for period of war & 12 months after] under Article 15 of the then current Royal Warrant in 1917. 

It seems that they regarded him as having 'died from wounds, injury or disease neither attributable to military service nor certified as aggravated by such service, but not due to serious negligence or misconduct'.

The rate under the 1917 RW was 10s and by the time of the 1918 RW it was 15s - somewhere in between the two RWs the value must have increased.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said:

It seems that they regarded him as having 'died from wounds, injury or disease neither attributable to military service nor certified as aggravated by such service, but not due to serious negligence or misconduct'.

The rate under the 1917 RW was 10s and by the time of the 1918 RW it was 15s - somewhere in between the two RWs the value must have increased.

Craig, Think you previously helpfully provide this abstract

Small observation - "Soldiers Pensions 1917" [printer's date mark 5/17] indicates 15/- pw

So that seems to give an indication of a pre-1918 RW rise around the time of this case's short pension award - a small mercy for his widow I guess.

M

[temptage]

Thankyou Gentlemen. Such a simple solution. Annoying because I searched by name, and by date of death and neither showed up, because they are the two details thay have incorrect!!!

So basically the CWGC have spelt his surname incorrectly AND got his date of death wrong, even though the correct name and date are on his archive papers.

I will fire off an email to them pointing out their errors on his record (and send them a link to this thread so they can read all of your replies too)

 

You can stand down now, Soldiers.

Diiiiiiiiiiiiismissed

[Matlock1418]

On 14/02/2023 at 17:02, Matlock1418 said:

The claim became DEAD, 1930 - this would appear to coincide with the youngest child, Lucy, turning 16 and losing the allowance, but leaves us wondering why no widow's pension continuing = possibly she had remarried or had died by then ??

Here's potentially the reason for a pre-1930 cessation of a pension for a widow called Lucy FERGUSON living in Chorlton on Medlock:

Surname	First name(s)	Spouse	District	Vol	Page

                  Marriages Dec 1921

Ferguson

Lucy

Weston

Chorlton

8c

2037

Or

Marriages Dec 1924
Ferguson	Lucy	Walker	Chorlton	8c	1247

Will need more investigation.

I didn't find an immediately suitable death registration - so ???

OK, standing down now.

M

Edited 15 February , 2023 by Matlock1418