Henry James Hood

[whatlil]

I am trying to find out about my ancestor,Henry James Hood. He died at 2nd Southern General Hospital, Bristol on 13 April 1918. Apparently of dysentery, but I cannot be sure.

He originally enlisted in the Norfolk Regiment (service number 9096) but was transferred to 2nd Garrison Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers (service number 48891).

After researching this, it seems that all the 2nd were sent to India during ww1. I have noted that other remarks on this forum that any sick or injured soldiers were treated at local hospitals and if they died were buried there.

So why did Henry end up in Bristol? They wouldn’t have transported him back from India?

does anyone know if only part of the battalion went to India? Or maybe he became ill before they left? Unfortunately I have not been able to trace his service records.

can anyone point me in the right direction or help?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[johnmelling1979]

This thread from years ago also might be useful

[Allan1892]

I don't know if you have seen his gravestone (image courtesy of FindaGrave)

[whatlil]

yes, I have that. It’s not far from where I live so will visit sometime 

[Tawhiri]

His medal index card shows that he received both the British War and Victory Medals, but not the 1914-15 Star, so he definitely served overseas in a theatre of war after 31 December 1915. I'm not totally sure, but if he had only served in India on garrison duties he would have only received one of these medals and not the other, but others with superior knowledge will be able to chip in. There are also a number of pension index cards for him, most of which mention a Mary Ann Hood, although it gets a little confusing as there is a second Henry James Hood who seems to have been invalided out at some point, as he was awarded a Silver War Badge in addition to having a number of pension claims. If you have full access to Findmypast or Ancestry you should be able to find out more by working your way through all the cards and figuring out which one belongs to which Henry James Hood.

[whatlil]

Yes I have noted the other Henry and have worked out which medal card belongs to my Henry. Thanks for the info on the medals. I don’t think I will ever find out exactly what happened!

[RaySearching]

Henry's Medal roll entry and Mic show Henry died of wounds

He was most likely wounded, evacuated home and died in the hospital in Bristol whilst being treated for his wounds

You could of course apply for his death cirtificate which may give further info into the nature of his wounds or the cause of death

Ray

Edit

The above died of wounds  conflicts with his CWGC entry which indicates that Henry died of dysentery

 

 

 

 

Edited 31 May , 2023 by RaySearching

[whatlil]

Henry served in Royal Norfolk Regiment so that could account for one medal for serving in theatre of war? Then he was transferred to 2nd GBNF, presumably because he was unfit for front line. I wish I could find his service records…

 

What I can’t understand is being brought back from India while others were treated locally and if they died they were buried in India. Surely getting back from India would take months and months?

 

Does anyone know if any wounded or sick were brought back from India?

[charlie962]

If you look at that thread linked by John Melling above, the discussion is very relevant. I think you will probably find Hood was in Mesopotamia with the NF GBn doing garrison duties as explained in that thread.

Charlie

[charlie962]

He would have been trfd to NFGB at Basra 7/2/17.

Near number men with records surviving give good clues to what went on.

Eg 

Gott 48897

Newell 48898

Both ex Norfolks, although various battalions.

[PRC]

Am I missing something here?

Headstone and CWGC shows him as having died aged 21 on the 13th April 1918. So if that is correct born sometime between the 14th April 1896 and the 13th April 1897.

While there were potentially several opportunities for individual battalions of the Norfolk Regiment to have issued regimental service number 9096, in practice I suspect only the Regular Army Battalions, the 1st and 2nd, along with the Special Reservist 3rd Battalion did so. The three Territorial Force Battalions, (4th, 5th and 6th) and the former Norfolk Yeomanry, (12th) I don't believe got that high before the Territorial Force renumbering kicked in at the start of 1917.

The 1st and 2nd Battalions who shared a common number range probably issued service number 9096 in the pre-war summer of 1914 - 9058 was issued on the 26th March and 9102 on the 29th July, as a rough guide. Would potentially either tie in with his 18th birthday or he lied about his age when enlisting.

I believe the Special Reservists issued service number 3/9096 at the end of August 1914. Unhelpfully there isn't another MiC that would take either number out of the picture, and it is quite common to drop the "3/" identifier.

When I had cause to research him I had his birth registered in the January to March quarter, (Q1) of 1897, which would seem to indicate he lied about his age whichever way he enlisted.

If the Army followed standard practice then the earliest he could have been sent to a Theatre of War was his 19th birthday, (or rather what they believed to be his 19th birthday), so presumably he spent the intervening period with the 3rd Battalion - he might even still have been doing his basic training when the 1st Battalion moved from Belfast to France in August 1914.

The reference to the Norfolk Regiment on his MiC should mean he served in a Theatre of War with them - hopefully the Northumberland Fusiliers service medal roll will indicate which Battalion(s) he served with - Ancestry only.

When I took a picture of the headstone in July 2014 it was a wee bit cleaner than the image on FindaGrave.

The far-flung theatres of war such as Mesopotamia did try to hang on to their wounded and sick, as they knew they were unlikely to receive replacements from the UK on a one for one basis. With excellent hospitals in what is now Iraq and India, many of the wounded and sick were treated locally. But in some cases the wounds were too severe and men would be returned via hospital ships to the UK for treatment and then discharge from the Army. In some cases the climate was a factor in the persistance of sickness, and men would be returned to the UK with a recommendation that on recovery they should only be considered for service in "more moderate climes".

I've checked my notes from the contemporary local newspapers but I'm still drawing a blank - nothing for Henry in the Norwich Mercury for the rest of the month. However I do have a gap for the week after his death for the Eastern Daily Press - from memory I believe the microfilm had been broken when I went back to the county archive to view it and it was away being repaired. The equivalent week of the Eastern Evening News is on my 'to do' list.

Hopefully you are aware that the brothers are remembered on the fold out panels of the Norwich City Memorial - not sure if they are still away being repaired but Norwich City Council put up images on their Flickr account before they went.

Courtesy Norwich City Council, restrictions on reuse apply.

They are also listed on the War Memorial in Holy Trinity Church on Trinity Street.

Cheers,
Peter

[whatlil]

Thanks Peter for taking the trouble to give me this information. 
 

I was trying to figure what happened to Henry before I do more on Alfred who is a bit more straightforward.

 

thanks again

Lynda

[charlie962]

47 minutes ago, PRC said:

The reference to the Norfolk Regiment on his MiC should mean he served in a Theatre of War with them - hopefully the Northumberland Fusiliers service medal roll will indicate which Battalion(s) he served with - Ancestry only.

Roll says 2nd Bn Norfolks 

[PRC]

8 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Roll says 2nd Bn Norfolks

So as he wasn't in a Theatre of War before the 1st January 1916, must be a strong probability that he was part of he draft sent out to help rebuild the 2nd Battalion after it was lost at Kut - either while the original Battalion was still besieged in the city or after it's surrender.

If he was deemed fit enough for combat service initially something must have happened between then and February 1917 for him to be downgraded to being fit only for a Garrison Battalion given his relative youth.

Cheers,
Peter

[whatlil]

Peter - Henry James Hood's date of birth was 28 November 1896, so he would have been 19 in Novenber 1915.

The army must have changed their rules because his brother Alfred Ernest Hood died at the age of 18.

I agree that Henry must have been in a Theatre of War between 1st Jan 1916 and Feb 1917 with the Royal Norfolk Regiment and got injured and then transferred to 2nd GBNF and went with them to India or Mesopotamia in 1917. Got ill or injured again and was brought back to UK to die at 2nd Southern General Hospital, Bristol on 13 April 1918.

I have ordered his death certificate and also contacted NF Museum to see if they can anything.

 

Thank you everyone who has helped on this topic

Lynda

 

[charlie962]

1 hour ago, whatlil said:

agree that Henry must have been in a Theatre of War between 1st Jan 1916 and Feb 1917 with the Royal Norfolk Regiment and got injured and then transferred to 2nd GBNF and went with them to India or Mesopotamia in 1917.

Not quite what we are saying. He would have been sent to Mespot to join the 2nd Bn Norfolk's, presumable 1916.

As Peter has mentioned, the 2nd Norfolks lost the majority of their men take prisoner after the Seige of Kut. The remainder of the battalion were merged temporarily with a residue of the Dorsets (who had suffered similarly at Kut) to form a Composite Battalion known as the 'Norsets'. This was only split again once sufficient replacements had arrived to reconstitute each battalion. Hood would have been one of these replacements. 

Probably due to sickness (a greater cause of casualties than the enemy in Mespot) he became unfit for frontline duties and thus was transferred to the 2nd NF Garrison Battalion whilst still in Mespot in Feb 1917.

It wasn't until late 1916 that the army in Mespot was sufficiently fit that an advance on Baghdad was started. Baghdad was captured 11th March 1917. It is quite possible that Hood was involved in some of the earlier actions of the advance, but not the final capture.

Edited 2 June , 2023 by charlie962

[whatlil]

thanks for clarifying this Charlie 962

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, whatlil said:

The army must have changed their rules because his brother Alfred Ernest Hood died at the age of 18.

I believe following the losses of 21 March 1918 men aged eighteen and a half who had undertaken six months training in the UK were sent to France - this was a temporary measure of expediency given the crisis on the Western Front at that time.

M

[Matlock1418]

On 31/05/2023 at 18:16, Tawhiri said:

There are also a number of pension index cards for him, most of which mention a Mary Ann Hood

At WFA/Fold3 these cards show Mary Ann Hood was awarded a combined pension of 10/- pw from 14.1.19 for the loss of her two sons, Henry James HOOD and Albert Ernest HOOD [typical of a fairly normal 5/- each]

The cards are silent on the cause of Henry's death but Albert is shown as Died of Wounds.

M

[PRC]

3 hours ago, whatlil said:

Peter - Henry James Hood's date of birth was 28 November 1896, so he would have been 19 in Novenber 1915.

The army must have changed their rules because his brother Alfred Ernest Hood died at the age of 18.

You had 42 days after the event to register the birth, and what then appears in the GRO indexes is the quarter registered - which isn't automatically the same as quarter born. So a birth at the end of November 1896 registered early in the first quarter of 1897 would be both feasible and legal.

I've done a bit more delving on the Regular Army Battalions service numbering and can now see that 9094 was issued on the 6th July 1914 and 9100 on the 24th July 1914, so sometime during that 19 day period (inclusive) Henry is likely to have enlisted at Norwich (place of enlistment, Soldiers Died in the Great War). Note - this makes him under 18. That knocks on to your other point about changing the rules. Nearly all the prewar elements of the British Army - Regular, Reserve, Territorial - usually missed their recruitment targets. A generation of recruiters had grown up knowing that if they were to get paid if a likely looking lad turned up and claimed to be 18 or older they weren't going to insist on seeing a birth certificate. These were the same individuals that in August 1914 were going to have to deal with a massive influx of volunteers. As they say, old habits died hard and we may never truely know how many or how few of these volunteers lied about their age in order to go to war.

I'm trying to keep it straightforward but I do have to point out here that the prewar Regular Army were allowed to recruit a small number of  under 18's but these required the express permission of the War Office. They were either usually musicians or "sons of the regiment" - children of deceased or disabled soldiers. I think it's unlikely this is what we are looking at here, as we are normally talking 14 to 15 year olds.

Whereas accepting a 16 or 17 year old as an "18" year old in peace time meant at worst they'd be packed of somewhere in the Empire for garrison duty after completing their basic training, now it meant they could be sent to a combat zone.

The pre-war underage recruits who lied about their age to get in also probably came from backgrounds where they wouldn't be missed, or where the household was happy to lose another mouth to feed. The wartime recruits often came from families that did care about them. Some came forward to reclaim their children, presenting proof of age. Other recruits soon grew fed up with army life, particularly when it became clear they might not see combat until 1915 or the reality of the fighting began to hit home. Some were even out in France when they revealed their true age. At that point they'd be returned to the UK. The older ones were usually retained in the UK to await their 19th birthday. The younger ones were discharged.

Even if Henry enlisted as a Special Reservist rather than a Regular, a recruitment at the end of August 1914 would have meant he still lied about his age.

So we don't know when the Army regarded him as reaching 19, or whether his true age came to light and that is why he doesn't proceed overseas in time to qualify for the 1914/15 Star. That doesn't mean that he may not have sailed from England around about the time of what we know to be his true 19th birthday, he just may not have arrived in a Theatre of War until seven or eight weeks later.

The underage sending of soldiers to a Theatre of War remained a bone of contention between the civil powers and the army for much of the war. For the army it was part of their way of life, but politicians now had to deal with angry constituents trying to reclaim their sons as well as the propaganda value to both sides about portraying the other as using child soldiers.

It would be part of the bargain between the civil powers and the army behind the passing of legislation introducing conscription in early 1916 that young soldiers would no longer be sent out - although it was still down to the army to root out those too young to already be in the frontline.

That deal was still too new for the Army to risk it when the campaign on the Somme was running out of steam - although they contemplated it.

But with the losses at Passchendaele in the late summer of 1917 relationships between Haig and the British Government came close to breaking down. He wanted the 18 year olds to be released to provide one last push - Lloyd George refused.

It took the significant losses suffered in the open stages of the German spring offensive for the British Government to back down, compromising by allowing the older part of the cohort of 18 year olds then in training to be sent to France & Flanders - as @Matlock1418 has already mentioned.

I've only done the most basic of near numbers searches for Alfred Ernest Hood, who died serving with the 7th Battalion, The Queens (Royal West Surrey Regiment) - that is, by looking at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website. But even that brings up some interesting points.

G/68500 Private Arthur Charles Chantler, 7th Battalion, died 8th August 1918 aged 19.
68504 Private Albert John Coel, 7th Battalion, died 8th August 1918, aged 19.
68507 Private C.F. Cookson, 7th Battalion, died 16th August 1918.
68518 Private Bertie Victor Elliott, 7th Battalion, died 24th October 1918, aged 19.
G/68525 Private Albert Edward Gander, 7th Battalion, died 8th August 1918.
68531 Private William Gower, 7th Battalion, died 8th August 1918, age 19.
68540 Private Herbert Joseph Hawgood, 7th Battalion, died 26th April 1918, age 18.
G/68541 Private Frederick Charles Hearn, 7th Battalion, died 26th April 1918, age 18.
68544 Lance Corporal Geirge Edward Hill, 7th Battalion, died 19th October 1918, age 19.
G/68546 Private Arthur Wellesley Holt, 7th Battalion, died 8th August 1918.
G/68547 Alfred Ernest Hood.
G/68550 Private Harry Charles Hudson, 7th Battalion, died 26th April 1918, age 18.

• They are in alphabetical order, which is very suggestive of a draft
• They all served with the 7th Battalion.
• Where it is known, those who died in April were aged 18, those who died August or later were aged 19.
• Difficult to be sure but I dont think any of the G/68xxx numbers died before the spring of 1918. So they may have been a very lucky cohort or they were only allocated those numbers at that time, even in Theatre or shortly before departure.

Hope that makes sense.

3 hours ago, whatlil said:

Royal Norfolk Regiment

One very small and minor point - they didn't get the "Royal" until 1935.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 2 June , 2023 by PRC
Typos

[Allan1892]

19 hours ago, whatlil said:

Peter - Henry James Hood's date of birth was 28 November 1896

Just in case his baptism is of interest to you -- baptised at St Mark's Church, New Lakenham on the 7th March 1897 along with siblings Frederick James and Thomas. (image courtesy of Ancestry)

Edited 3 June , 2023 by Allan1892

[PRC]

2 hours ago, Allan1892 said:

baptised at St Mark's Church, New Lakenham on the 7th March 1897 along with siblings Frederick James

The birth of a Henry James Hood, mothers’ maiden name Lincoln, was registered with the civil authorities in the Norwich District in the January to March quarter, (Q1), of 1897.

And the birth of a Thomas Hood, mothers’ maiden name Lincoln, was registered with the civil authorities in the Norwich District in the January to March quarter, (Q1), of 1895.

But the birth of a male Hood, mothers’ maiden name Lincoln, which was registered in the Norwich District anywhere near this period was a Frederick George Hood in the July to September quarter, (Q3) of 1890. There is no candidate for a Fred \ Frederick \ Fredrick \ Frederic, etc – (I did a wild card seard on Fred*) - with middle name James in England & Wales during the whole of 1891.

On the 1891 Census of England & Wales the 9 month old Frederick G., born Norwich, was recorded living with his parents at 29, Chapel Street, Lakenham, Norwich. On the 1901 Census of England & Wales the family were at 5 Branford Road, Norwich and the household includes a 10 year old Frederick G., born Norwich. There is no candidate for a male child who is a year younger. On the 1911 Census parents Frederick James and Mary Ann state their union has produced 8 children, all then still alive. If we can take that stement at face value then the absence of Frederick James cannot be accounted for by a death.

Meanwhile, a 21 year old Frederick George Hood, born Lakenham, Norfolk was recorded on the 1911 Census of England & Wales as a Private in the 2^nd Battalion, Norfolk Regiment, then in barracks at Belgaum, India. The scope of that census included army garrisons around the empire.

I believe brother Frederick George Hood to be 7497, Norfolk Regiment.

The census was taken on the night of the 2^nd April 1911. If the date of birth in the baptismal register is correct – July 28 1891 – then Frederick would actually have only been 20 years old. Of course mistakes can happen on the census return as well as the baptismal register, but as the return is likely to have been completed by someone responsible for admin for the Battalion, then there is the distinct possibility that “21” was how old the Army believed him to be, and so possibly another case of having lied to join up under age.

To check that out I did a near number search.

7492 Ernest William Cole attested at Great Yarmouth on the 11^th July 1907. (WO97 pre-war discharge record)

However 7504 Henry John Turner transferred into the Norfolk Regiment on the 1^st July 1907. (WO97 pre-war discharge record)

7515 Arthur Laws attested at Stratford, London on the 21^st August 1907. (WO97 pre-war discharge record)

So looks like Frederick George Hood overstated his age by nearly two years, (according to the baptismal roll) or 1 year according to the civil birth records.

Those three individuals with WO97 series records had all enlisted for a standard 12 years short service, split 7 years in the colours, (i.e. in uniform, in barracks, subject to military discipline 24/7, and receiving full pay, medical care and board and lodgings) and 5 years in the reserves, (back in civvy street, subject to military discipline only when attending refresher training, receiving half pay and liable for immediate recall in the event of a national emergency such as war).

Given his likely enlistment of mid-July to mid-August 1907, if Frederick opted for the same terms then his period in the colours must have just about been up when war was declared.

We can tell he was still out in India with the 2^nd Battalion, as his medal index card shows he entered a theatre of war, (5a Asiatic), with the Norfolk Regiment on the 15^th November 1914. He would also see service in 1919 on the North West Frontier of India and Afghanistan, receiving the Indian General Service Medal with the associated clasps as a result. One consequence of that is that his Medal Index Card has the address to which his IGSM was sent to on the back – 160 St Georges Street, Norwich.

I’m not spotting any record for him at the International Committee of the Red Cross, so hopefully that means he wasn’t amongst those taking prisoner at the fall of Kut, although raises the question of how he managed to avoid it. There is also the prospect that he and Henry may have served together at some point.

There is one other thing that can be inferred from his Medal Index Card – the note that he was discharged to the Class “Z” Reserve on the 8^th November 1919. His original enlistment in 1907 might not have been a short service one – that’s only an informed assumption on my part.  He might instead have gone for a long service enlistment of 21 years, all in the colours, to qualify for a pension.

However a 12 year enlistment would have been up July/August 1919. While that had been suspended from 1916, it kicked back in with the signing of the armistice. If he was still serving overseas, (and we’ve seen he was fighting on the northern frontier in India), then even the peacetime terms of his enlistment meant they had up to three months to get him home. Wouldn’t want to read too much into it but potentially could mean his original enlistment was on the 8^th August 1907.

The Class Z Reserve was introduced after the armistice to allow the army to rapidly downsize. Unlike the regular reserves there was no commitment to carry on paying them anything, but members of the reserve were liable for immediate recall in the event that the peace talks broke down and hostilities resumed. With the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, the need for the Class Z Reserve disappeared and  it’s members were released from their obligation in early 1920.

Cheers,
Peter

[charlie962]

Peter, there is a surviving militia attestation that shows a Frederick George Hood (son of Fredk James Hood of 182 Essex Place, Crook St, Norwich) attested to Militia 16/8/06 (Svc no 5749) but transferred to Norfolks Regulars 26/7/07.

Charlie

[charlie962]

10 hours ago, PRC said:

means he wasn’t amongst those taking prisoner at the fall of Kut, although raises the question of how he managed to avoid it.

LongLongTrail says this of 2nd Bn.

Details and transport that had not been at Kut joined similar detachments of the 2nd Dorset and formed a composite battalion, named the Norsets. This was broken up on 21 July 1916, as the battalion had been reconstituted by the arrival of new drafts.

[PRC]

16 hours ago, charlie962 said:

Peter, there is a surviving militia attestation that shows a Frederick George Hood (son of Fredk James Hood of 182 Essex Place, Crook St, Norwich) attested to Militia 16/8/06 (Svc no 5749) but transferred to Norfolks Regulars 26/7/07.

Good spot Charlie. When he signed up he claimed to be 17 years an 1 month old, so a July 1889 birth. That mis-statement as to age I'm sure would have carried through into his Regular Army enlistment. The family have therefore got form when it comes to signing up under age

Image courtesy Genes Reunited.

15 hours ago, charlie962 said:

LongLongTrail says this of 2nd Bn.

Details and transport that had not been at Kut joined similar detachments of the 2nd Dorset and formed a composite battalion, named the Norsets. This was broken up on 21 July 1916, as the battalion had been reconstituted by the arrival of new drafts.

I was thinking in terms of whether it could be confirmed if he was wounded or sick and therefore was away from the Battalion at the time they became besieged. I wasn't finding him in a Casualty List in the period 1914-16 which tends to swing the balance towards sickness, but I'm only using the online transcriptions at FMP and The Times Digital Archive so I have very little confidence that I haven't missed him. Presumably there could have been a few able-bodied men who were assisting with getting the sick away and then couldn't get back in the city before it was cut off. Edit 6 hours later -  Just re-read your post, so details and transport were out side Kut as well. If he was with those then a lucky man indeed.

We know he was fit enough to stay out there - the IGSM with clasps for 1919 shows that - but could be he saw out the war at the Depot at Belgaum upon recovery. Any meet up with brother Henry would therefore have been fleeting, rather than the two fighting alongside each other.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 4 June , 2023 by PRC