Max Posted 11 April , 2005 Share Posted 11 April , 2005 How can a missing man be not finally recorded as dead? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The short answer is that, generally, he can't. Unfortunately unless Steve can unearth James service record at Kew or you can locate a family member who has his medals with regimental number then there is little or no chance of ever being able to deduce James service and place/time of death. Have you checked for a death certificate? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Ford Posted 11 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 April , 2005 Hmm that was a conclusion I really didn't want to come to... I look at that photo that was so lovingly cherished for so long and just hate the idea that he's now anonymous. No, I didn't find a death certificate - I looked but didn't find...again it's a bit of a needle in a haystack situation - i don't know the regiment so I can't trace possibles on the Army Returns and there is nothing in the normal PRO records (that I found, anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 11 April , 2005 Share Posted 11 April , 2005 There is only one James P. Woodhall in the GRO Overseas Death Index (Pte 330120 Notts & Derby Regt Died 1918 Ref I.45.325) and no James P. Woodalls. There are a number of plain James Woodall/Woodhall entries including our RMF man in 1915. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 11 April , 2005 Share Posted 11 April , 2005 If your family has good recollection, do they recall a death plaque?? He didnt die without proof from the nation. We still need to ascertain his correct name. I think we are chasing the wrong man based upon crossed wires in family lore. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 11 April , 2005 Share Posted 11 April , 2005 Just an idea. And it might not lead anywhere but the official 1901 Census allows you to see who lived where in 1901. If the Woodhall family is at 59 Wilford Road, then you could eliminate the RMF for good... I think it's still £5.00 minimum charge. You could also download the Tabard Street images while you're at it! (But I'll send them to you if you don't want to try that) Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Ford Posted 11 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 April , 2005 Hmm. Don't know, will ask. I agree, I think I have to forget James P and start from scratch again. I have some credit on 1901 from the other side of the famlies research... bear with me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Ford Posted 11 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 April , 2005 The Brown family lived at 59 Wilford Road in 1901. Nothing to do with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 11 April , 2005 Share Posted 11 April , 2005 Oh, Blow Good job we're not trying to find them... Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Ford Posted 11 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 11 April , 2005 I have a John Smith in the family on the other side if you fancy a crack at that one?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 11 April , 2005 Share Posted 11 April , 2005 Bad research here. Theres a possible 20 year gap between 1901 and the CWGC records. Many people could have lived at the same address in that time. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Roop, It was a long shot but if the Woodhalls (and especially James) were there, they could not have been the same ones as in Southwark. That would have eliminated our Munster Fusilier. As it is he's still a possibility. At least in my mind. Speaking of research. Can you tell us if the Service Records of soldiers who died stand any chance of beingstill at Kew. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Theres an 80 % chance of the 40% of surviving records of finding your man. However, even if 100% were available given the tentative factual details it would be difficult to say who this man is. SR's only work with known facts. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Ford Posted 12 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 April , 2005 To be fair Roop - these are known facts. OK so they're not in writing but I'm speaking to the generation immediately below James... and my family stayed in the same properties for 20 years so it's not such a long shot at all - this is a pattern I've seen on both sides of my family from this generation. James' picture stood on the mantel piece of the house in Potier Street until my great great grandmother died in the 2nd world war years, and then in my great grandmothers house until the 1980s and then my grandmothers now. This man was revered, loved and honoured by my family for many years: the chances of the story being lost in the mists of time are so far remote that I just can't imagine it because the story isn't being told by different people: it's being told by the people who were around within a year of his untimely death and who had it drummed into them that his memory would live on...I'm perfectly willing to admit that my family have got the story wrong... but short of the regiment that he served in, the detail of his life and death is too far well known. I just want to show my grandmother that he is not just honoured in our family but also by the world and that his short service in the forces was not in vain. I can't see any other way of doing it other than eliminating all those possible people who *might* be James, even if the details don't match: I think it's proven here by Steve and Andy that my research at Kew is flawed: that's not based on folklore but on facts that the age of my James simply doesn't match the RMF man and he cannot therefore be the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 My family has lived in the same house for 37 years, Denise. And my father in the only other house he's lived in for 27 years. Some people just like where they are. Others move every 5 minutes. Each to their own, of course. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Quite agree Denise that we should keep on plugging and turning over those stones. The NA may yet yield something. My Great Uncle was "lost" - really just "mislaid" -- as his surname on the Menin Gate is recorded as "Levington" rather than correctly as "Levingston". He is now "found" and has had several family visits since. The last time I took a great niece to see him , we also discovered she had an uncle on the Menin Gate , so had a double visit in splendid weather. Talk about a warm glow ! A fabulous trip. We Will Remember Them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Hello Denise, everyone I have just ploughed through all the birth records on 1837online.com for any James Woodall/Woodhall registered between January 1883 and December 1889 and I can find only one that is registered in Southwark (or anywhere close) and he is our old friend James Parmorall Woodall March quarter 1888, District: St Olave Southwark Vol: 1d Page 216. There are no other candidates at all who come anywhere close. Steve, could you have a look on the 1901 census at the other Woodall family who are living in St George, Southwark at the time? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Andy, At 9 Little Hunter Street, John Woodall, 30, Head, b Southwark, Fish curer Jane Woodall, 28, wife, b Bermondsey Children : John 11, Jane 9, William 6, Ellen 3, Joseph 10 months. This fits with James' eldest brother John on the 1881 and 1871 Censuses (ages 10 and 5 months respectively, Mary Ann and John Jnr. were living with her parents John and Harriet Holtom in 1871) The children are James' nephews and nieces. Steve. Denise, I now have census details for 1871,1881,1891 and 1901. E-mail me and I'll sent you copies (big files) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Steve Thanks for the info. We now have a James Woodall on the 1901 census who was apparently killed during the Great War but who has no death record and given his age as 16 in 1901 census has no matching birth record. To be missing either one is unlucky, but to be missing both is very unlikely. In my mind there is only one possibility that matches the circumstance and that is James age on the 1901 census has been recorded incorrectly. I believe that the James Parmorall Woodall whose birth was registered in the March quarter 1888 is the Munster Fusilier, 8550 James Palmerer Woodall (SDGW) DoW 21/10/1915, the middle names are too close for there to be much doubt. The only way to find out if the James Parmorall Woodall (registered 1888) is the same James Woodall on the 1901 census is to order his birth certificate and check his parents details. I am absolutely convinced that they are one and the same person. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Ford Posted 12 April , 2005 Author Share Posted 12 April , 2005 One other point to throw into the melting pot - and one I've quizzed my family about until I'm blue in the face: Could James not have been his real name? They insist it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Denise If James is not his real name (why it wouldn't be I don't know) and you have no idea what his real name actually is then I'm afraid you have no chance of tracking him down. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 How about this for a creative idea? Early in this thread Denise stated that 'her' James had a partner with whom he had children but to whom he was not married. Could James have entered his partner's name on his enlistment papers using the name 'Mrs Woodhall' to disguise their unmarried status (so she could get pay, pension etc). She was his common law wife after all. It would then have been this 'Mrs Woodhall' who received and returned the Final Verification Form to CWGC and not the other Mrs Woodhall - his mother! His partner could well have been living in West Croydon by the 1920s. It might also explain how 'Woodall' was altered to 'Woodhall' - if the partner was not sure how to spell her assumed name! Does that fly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 CWGC says Son of Mrs Woodhall. Good try that man! Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 True, True. But why let the facts get in the way of a neat solution Back to the drawing board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Hi Denise Have you looked at the local paper(s) for the war years. Do not just look for his death, some papers recorded the names of men who joined up. Also look at papers following the war years, my grandad's family placed memoriams in our local paper from years after his uncle was killed (also gives his Regiment). Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 12 April , 2005 Share Posted 12 April , 2005 Alrighty then, I've just been to the Town Library and looked through the GRO Indexes on Fiche for 1885 and 1886. Plenty of James Woodalls and Woodalls but none anywhere near London, let alone Southwark/Walworth/Olave. James Parmorall Woodall, March 1888, St Olave, 1d-218, is there but the fiche is smudged (you would believe it, wouldn't you) the legibile bits are Pa......all so middle name could be (almost) anything. I've not checked for middle names or for 1884, 1887 et al. This is starting to point back to our Munster Fusilier, isn't it? Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now