scottish regiment ?

[Tawhiri]

11 hours ago, IPT said:

Can anyone make sense of Mary Ann and Jaqueline English's later marriages?

My first thought is that at some point after 1939 both Mary Ann and Jaqueline adopted the use of the surname Seton-Burn, as in both cases this has been added to their register entries, before Mary Ann then married William Townsend in 1949. This adoption of the surname Seton-Burn was done at the same time, as the handwriting adding Seton-Burn to their register entries is the same. I can also see some dates on the far left hand side of the excerpt that IPT posted, and my assumption would be that these dates are a record of the dates that these changes were made. Mary Ann's death was registered in Derbyshire in 2002, and this confirms her birthdate as 3 July 1913, so her birth date in the 1939 register is correct.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVZJ-WHX2

TOWNSEND, MARY  ANN  Year of birth: 1913  

GRO Reference:  DOR  Q2/2002 in DERBY  (3941A)  Reg A52C  Entry Number 85

An early July birth date means that her birth should have been registered in the third quarter of 1913, if it was registered within the standard 42 day period allowed to register a birth. The only birth that I can find in the GRO Indexes that fits with this information is this one, registered in South Shields in the third quarter of 1913:

ENGLISH, MARY  ANN  Mother's maiden name: BAKER  

GRO Reference: 1913  S Quarter in SOUTH SHIELDS  Volume 10A  Page 1931

Searching for Jacqueline's birth brings up this birth which was registered in both the right location, and in the right quarter of 1935, based on the information in the 1939 register.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVQD-MLV2

Unfortunately I cannot find the corresponding entry in the GRO Indexes as there is a gap between 1935 and 1983, but I suspect that even if Jack were her father, his information won't be on her birth registration because her birth seems to have been registered as being illegitimate with no father's details being recorded. Jacqueline seems to have subsequently married Roger Webb in Warwickshire in 1957, and I'll leave it there as I have not found a corresponding death registration.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVDG-NWDN

As the OP noted, both of the earlier births of the Hanlon children were also registered as illegitimate, with mother's maiden name being left blank which means no father's details were recorded (if only they'd been living in Scotland, rather than England).

HANLON, STELLA  DOLORES  Mother's maiden name: -  

GRO Reference: 1921  S Quarter in CHORLTON  Volume 08C  Page 1264

Unfortunately I can't find Alan's corresponding birth registration in the GRO Indexes, as I suspect even though he was born in 1925, his re-registration under the surname Reid falls into that infuriating gap between 1935 and 1983.

Edited 16 June , 2023 by Tawhiri

[CorporalPunishment]

Without wishing to cause offence to anyone at all, having looked more closely at the photo in the opening post, I have my suspicions that all may not be as it seems. The mixed up medal ribbons, the somewnat crumpled appearance of the uniform which is unbecoming of a Major and a staff officer to boot, I am beginning to wonder if he was authentic or just a plain old "Walt". Call me cynical but something doesn't seem right to me.       Pete.

[IPT]

Phyllis Mary Lovell lived at 40 Clareville from around 1920 to 1925. The flat is advertised in February 1926 and that's presumably when Jack Burn landed, fully formed. Additionally, Claire Taylor lived there in 1929, and Joseph Miller lived there in 1930, both at the same time as Jack.

I did have a good look at a neighbour in 1925 called Major Pelham Henry Burn, but he seems legit. 

Ernest had his studio flat in Cromwell Road, where he was murdered in 1945, from around 1915, despite living at other addresses.

 

 

[IPT]

2 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Without wishing to cause offence to anyone at all, having looked more closely at the photo in the opening post, I have my suspicions that all may not be as it seems. The mixed up medal ribbons, the somewnat crumpled appearance of the uniform which is unbecoming of a Major and a staff officer to boot, I am beginning to wonder if he was authentic or just a plain old "Walt". Call me cynical but something doesn't seem right to me.       Pete.

I did feel that there was a touch of the monocled mutineer about the photograph. 

[TullochArd]

1 hour ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Without wishing to cause offence to anyone at all, having looked more closely at the photo in the opening post, I have my suspicions that all may not be as it seems. The mixed up medal ribbons, the somewnat crumpled appearance of the uniform which is unbecoming of a Major and a staff officer to boot, I am beginning to wonder if he was authentic or just a plain old "Walt". Call me cynical but something doesn't seem right to me.       Pete.

Ditto......"something doesn't seem right to me" as well.  I'm particularly suspicious that wartime service, GSO2 appointment, MC and Bar, CdeG and MiD under any Burn(s)/Burn(s)-Seton variation provides absolutely no physical trace in the LG (Public Record).  Furthermore I've failed to find any credible possibilities or connections in my (admittedly so far limited) search of the Army List and Harts. To me it looks increasingly like we have here (a) a photo of suspect provenance or (b) a photograph of an individual other than the Burn(s)/Burn(s)-Seton subject as suggested. I favour (b).

I must say that this thread has produced some absolutely cracking peripheral research.

Edited 15 June , 2023 by TullochArd
CdeG

[FROGSMILE]

I totally agree that it might well be someone else, but personally see absolutely nothing wrong with his uniform and general appearance, which I see as typical of an officer of his rank and appointment in wartime conditions.  It should be kept in mind at all times that service dress uniform during WW1 was akin to a camouflaged battle dress or combat uniform in modern times.  It might be slept in, caked with mud, but then brushed off, and generally worn thin at elbows and knees, albeit much less extreme in the case of officers on the general staff, who as a rule had better living conditions.  Nonetheless, it’s not like looking at an officer in service dress in more recent decades from WW2 onward, when as a uniform it took on a different status altogether.

Edited 15 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[CorporalPunishment]

8 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

I totally agree that it might well be someone else, but personally see absolutely nothing wrong with his uniform and general appearance, which I see as typical of an officer of his rank and appointment in wartime conditions.  It should be kept in mind at all times that service dress uniform during WW1 was akin to a camouflaged combat uniform in modern times.  It might be slept in, caked with mud, but then brushed off, and generally worn thin at elbows and knees, albeit much less extreme in the case of officers on the general staff, who as a rule had better living conditions.  Nonetheless, it’s not like looking at an officer in service dress in more recent decades from WW2 onward, when as a uniform it took on a different status altogether.

Except for the fact that the photo is post-WW1 and certainly post-September 1919.      Pete.

[FROGSMILE]

13 minutes ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Except for the fact that the photo is post-WW1 and certainly post-September 1919.      Pete.

Yes it’s true that the Armistice had been declared, but the wartime conditions were not over.  The Army was still functioning on an active service basis with operations ongoing in Russia and the Levant, as well as maintaining a standing army in the continent until such time as the Versailles Treaty was signed and ratified (six months after the conference commenced).  It made no difference to the dress culture when the army was still quite some way off returning to a peacetime posture.

Edited 15 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[CorporalPunishment]

2 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes it’s true the Armistice had been declared, but the wartime conditions were not over.  The Army was still functioning on an active service basis with operations ongoing in Russia and the Levant, as well as maintaining a standing army in the continent until such time as the Versailles Treaty was signed and ratified.  It made no difference to the dress culture when the army was still some way off returning to a peacetime posture.

Okay, scruffy officers still around, however, surely a Major would know the order in which his medal ribbons should be worn by the time that photo was taken.    Pete.

[FROGSMILE]

6 hours ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Okay, scruffy officers still around, however, surely a Major would know the order in which his medal ribbons should be worn by the time that photo was taken.    Pete.

Not necessarily given that the medal protocols were still evolving at that time.  It had only been just over a decade since the very first instruction on the wearing of medals had appeared in dress regulations.  I’ll check tomorrow, but I think that the details had been revised and updated in the 1911 regulations and / or the 1913 amendment just before the war.  The war itself led to an unprecedented exchange system between the entente cordiale nations and their subsequent alliances, with e.g. French, Russian, Italian, Japanese decorations being awarded to British officers, and visa versa (as I’m aware you know).  Although British officialdom was quite swift in agreeing what could be worn and where, for busy officers moved from pillar to post it wouldn’t have been the highest of priorities, and I’ve no doubt that some officers were less attentive, or inquisitive about the protocols than they might (should) have been.  I think that you’re right though that there’s overall something odd about this named individual, who has continued to be difficult to track down.  As things stand he still hasn’t been convincingly linked to the officer in the photograph.

Edited 16 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[CorporalPunishment]

3 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Not necessarily given that the medal protocols were still evolving at that time.  It had only been just over a decade since the very first instruction on the wearing of medals had appeared in dress regulations.  I’ll check tomorrow but I think that had been revised and updated in the 1911 regulations and / or the 1913 amendment just before the war.  The war itself led to an unprecedented exchange system between the entente cordiale nations and subsequent alliances, with French, Russian, Italian, Japanese declarations being awarded to British officers.  Although British officialdom was quite swift in agreeing what could be worn and where, for busy officers moved from pillar to post it wouldn’t have been the highest of priorities and I’ve no doubt some officers were less attentive or inquisitive than they might (should) have been.  I think you’re right though that there’s overall something odd about this individual who has continued to be difficult to track down.  As things stand he still hasn’t been convincingly linked to the officer in the photograph.

 "There's overall something odd about this individual". I'm glad we agree on one thing Frogsmile.      Pete.

[allyreid67]

7 hours ago, CorporalPunishment said:

Without wishing to cause offence to anyone at all, having looked more closely at the photo in the opening post, I have my suspicions that all may not be as it seems. The mixed up medal ribbons, the somewnat crumpled appearance of the uniform which is unbecoming of a Major and a staff officer to boot, I am beginning to wonder if he was authentic or just a plain old "Walt". Call me cynical but something doesn't seem right to me.       Pete.

I am having the same thoughts Pete, it all seems very suspicious to me !  

[IPT]

Just circling back to the signet ring, which, if it is indeed a Seton ring, has a cameo portrait of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, circa 1750.  There is one held by National Museums Scotland, known as the Seton Ring. It was presented by the Young Pretender to his host, a Seton, at Touch; of the Seton family of Touch.  It has on it "CPR", standing for Charles, Prince Regent", and "Dum Spirat Spero", which translates as 'While he breathes, I hope', which helps date the ring to before Charles' death on the 31st January 1788. The medallion is French and thought to have been made by Charles Roettier.

A near identical ring was sold by Bonhams for £8,125, in 2017.

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/24082/lot/117/of-jacobite-interest-an-18th-century-enamel-ring-set-with-a-cameo-portrait-of-prince-charles-edward-stuart-circa-1750/

My point is that this indicates that the Setons didn't have a big bag of them which they gave out to all the lads. as i'd supposed, because I can only find two, although there may have been copies?  If the officer in the photograph is indeed wearing one in 1919, then the options seem to be as follows;

 

If the officer in the photograph is Jack Burn;

1)  He is entitled to wear this 150 year old heirloom because he is a Seton

2) He is entitled to wear the signet ring through marriage, (but to whom?), but served under his original name

3) He legitimately earned the medals, is wearing his correct uniform, but is not entitled to wear the ring or the ring is fake.

4) He is a complete fake and is not entitled to the uniform, the medals or the ring.

 

If the officer in the photograph is not Jack Burn;

1) This officer is entirely legitimate, and Jack Burn adopts a version his identity c1926

 

I'm sure there are other permutations.  

 

 

Edited 16 June , 2023 by IPT
1926 not 1923

[allyreid67]

Fascinating ! Seton-Burn son, said that he was given the ring when he died but it wad later lost sadly.

he does still have the seal attached, which had the clan on it.

[allyreid67]

I must add that the man in the photo is definitely my grandfather as my father &  brothers have a striking resemblance to him, but whether the name is really Seton-Burn I cannot say.

[IPT]

Fascinating!

I may have overreached by talking about an original Seton ring, but I suppose the options are still the same.

I can't find that crest amongst the various Seton clans. What does the motto say?

http://www2.thesetonfamily.com:8080/peerage/The_Seton_Armorial.htm

    

[allyreid67]

I can't make out the motto

[Tawhiri]

I did spend sometime last night exploring possibilities in relation to his stated birth date in the 1939 England and Wales register and his choice of the forenames Augustus John/John Augustus, but didn't come up with anything. My thinking was along the lines that if his birth date in the 1939 England and Wales register was correct his birth would have been registered in the last quarter of 1890. His eventual choice of the forenames Augustus John/John Augustus is curious. If I were trying to stay under the radar these forenames wouldn't be my first choice so I was wondering if these forenames gave us a clue to his birth name. There were 24 individuals born in 1890 with the forenames Augustus John or John Augustus, with only four of them being born in the last quarter of 1890. These four individuals are all John Augustus Somebody. Tracing them leads to the result that two of them died as infants, one appears to have lived most of his life in and around Blackburn in Lancashire, while the most promising one went on to have a fairly long career in the Army, right up to and including WW2 judging by his photos posted on Ancestry. He seems to have spent a fair bit of time in India in the interwar period, and I suspect was serving with the Royal Engineers given he appears in Ancestry's interwar records of mechanical engineers.

So whatever his birth name was, I'm now fairly sure the forenames Augustus John/John Augustus were a later addition. I suspect the only way the OP is going to crack this particular conundrum is by going down the DNA route.

Edited 16 June , 2023 by Tawhiri

[PRC]

On 14/06/2023 at 08:56, allyreid67 said:

all the other dna matches I have that are linked thru the same line do not have him in their tree, we believe he was a bit of a cad 😁 and so many of the dna matches wont know about him !

So parking the idea of the man in the picture having a surname that is some variation on Seton-Burn, do any of those others have an online family tree?

I'd suggest you are probably looking for a male born 1880-1890 whose fate is unknown, possibly never known to have married. Birth years would be based on apparent age, assuming the picture was taken in 1919 versus the need for him to have been serving in the Regular Army in time to qualify for the 1911 Coronation \ Delhi Durbar medal.

What can't be ruled out of course is that he too was born on the wrong side of the blanket and later on took the name Seton-Burn which he believed was his by birthright.

Cheers,
Peter

[IPT]

The seal has the crest of the Giffard family.

The motto "Prenez Haleine Tirez Fort" meaning "Take breath, pull strong", which relates to the demi-archer (top left), despatching the panther (top right), based on alleged family events.  What larks.

 

More than half the 40 or so Giffard medal cards belong to officers. Some are interesting, but I can't immediately see anyone who fits the bill entirely. Worth a look though.

 

[allyreid67]

1 hour ago, IPT said:

The seal has the crest of the Giffard family.

The motto "Prenez Haleine Tirez Fort" meaning "Take breath, pull strong", which relates to the demi-archer (top left), despatching the panther (top right), based on alleged family events.  What larks.

 

More than half the 40 or so Giffard medal cards belong to officers. Some are interesting, but I can't immediately see anyone who fits the bill entirely. Worth a look though.

 

the plot thickens...🤣

[IPT]

I've attempted to put what is known into a linear order.

Essentially, we have him from 1926 to 1939, after which he reappears in 1948 having somehow collected Kathleen Crellin from Liverpool that year. In the interim, Ernest has been murdered.

In 1949, Mary Ann English's name is changed to Seton-Burn only months before she marries Townsend.  For whatever reason, it seems that Jack and Kathleen are amusingly recorded as Ronald and Vera Burn-Seton in the register that year. 

 

1890	Allegedly born 13th October 1890
1906	Annie Kathleen Crellin (later "Seton Burn") born 22/4/06 in Liverpool
1911	The officer in the photograph is serving in the military
1913	Birth of Mary Ann English (later Seaton Brown) 3/7/1913
c1919	Officer photographed with signet ring, MC & Bar, French CdG
1921	Birth of Stella Delores Hanlon in Chorlton (thought to be Jack's daughter)
1924	Death of Stella Delores Hanlon in Manchester
1925	Birth of son, Alan SS Hanlon/Reid, in Kensington
1926	First appears at 40 Clareville.
1929	At 40 Clareville. Claire Taylor also there.
1930	Major Jack Burn catches a thief
1930	Ernest Castelein listed at 40 Clareville in city register
1930	At 40 Clareville. Joseph Miller also there.
1931	At 40 Clareville. Dorothy Violet Thwaites also there.
1931	Janet A S Hanlon marries Joe Reid
1933	At 40 Clareville.
1933	At 40 Clareville.
1935	Birth of Jacqueline Mary English ("Seaton Burn") 26/8/1935
1939	Living with Ernest Castelein at 45 Lonsdale w/ Mary Ann and Jaqueline Mary
1945	Ernest Castelein murdered at Flat 5, 52a Cromwell Road
1948	Kathleen Crellin still registered in Bentley Road, Liverpool as per 1939 register
1948	At 7 Russell Road with Kathleen Crellin
1948	Jaqueline Mary English name change to Seton-Burn 4/12/48
1949	Mary Ann English name change to Seton-Burn 29/4/1949
1949	Mary Ann "Seton Burn" (English) marries William Townsend
1949	At 243 Cromwell Road (Ronald and Vera Burn-Seton)
1950	At 243 Cromwell Road with Kathleen Seton-Burn
1952	At 44 Cheniston Gardens with Kathleen Seton Burn
1953	At 44 Cheniston Gardens with Kathleen Seton Burn
1955	At 44 Cheniston Gardens with Kathleen Seton Burn
1956	At 44 Cheniston Gardens
1956	Dies after illness on 27/1/2956, registered in Hampstead
1957	Kathleen Crellin name change to "Seton"
1965	Kathleen Crellin name change to "Seton-Burn"
1992	Annie Kathleen Crellin ("Seton Burn") dies at Flat 44 15 Nevern Road Chelsea

Edited 18 June , 2023 by IPT

[IPT]

Also found this snippet from July 1949;

"THE PERSONAL property of Major A Seton-Burn if claimed by 20th will be sold to defray cost of removal and storage"

Something appears to have happened in 1949 to make him leave suddenly and to use an alias.

[allyreid67]

51 minutes ago, IPT said:

Also found this snippet from July 1949;

"THE PERSONAL property of Major A Seton-Burn if claimed by 20th will be sold to defray cost of removal and storage"

Something appears to have happened in 1949 to make him leave suddenly and to use an alias.

oh my goodness ! this is fascinating, I have never seen this.

that is the year he left mary ann english and she married William Townsend.

I wonder if it was anything to do with the painter, Ernest Castelein, he possibly owned the house in 45 Lonsdale Road and maybe , after his murder in 45, and after probate, the property was sold and they had to move out.

this is starting to sou d like a move script 🤣

[TullochArd]

10 hours ago, IPT said:

Just circling back to the signet ring, which, if it is indeed a Seton ring, has a cameo portrait of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, circa 1750.  There is one held by National Museums Scotland, known as the Seton Ring. It was presented by the Young Pretender to his host, a Seton, at Touch; of the Seton family of Touch.  It has on it "CPR", standing for Charles, Prince Regent",

Is the fuzzy photo we have actually showing this impressive and historically pure Jacobite CPR "Seton" ring? Such a bold and partisan Charles Edward Stuart connection seems at odds with our subject's given name ......... Augustus .......... as in Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, commander of the British government forces at Culloden.  I'm pretty sure such an observation would go unnoticed at any serious core Seton family child naming deliberation......or maybe they have just become a rather forgiving, and inclusive, bunch by the mid 19th century?