American land owner and the removal of war graves off estate?

[Laird of Camster]

Am currently on a battlefield tour of the Western Front. During the tour we stopped at Hyde Park Cemetery.

 

The tour guide, explained how an American who had made a fortune making whiskey, owned an estate nearby. There was a CWGC cemetery on his estate, and that he wanted these graves removed. Which eventually happened after a long legal battle, and the graves were moved to  Hyde Park Cemetery. 

 

I am curious to learn more about this story, unfortunately the guide was unable to confirm the American land owners name, in order for me to look further into this story.

 

Is anyone able to shine any light on who he was, or indeed the circumstances in question? 

Edited 26 August , 2023 by Laird of Camster

[PRC]

I assume you mean Hyde Park Corner Cemetery?

The CWGC webpage for that Cemetery includes the following in the History section.

Hyde Park Corner was a road junction to the north of Ploegsteert Wood. Hill 63 was to the north-west and nearby were the 'Catacombs', deep shelters capable of holding two battalions, which were used from November 1916 onwards. The cemetery was begun in April 1915 by the 1st/4th Royal Berkshire Regiment and was used at intervals until November 1917. It contains 83 Commonwealth burials of the First World War and four German war graves. BERKS CEMETERY EXTENSION is separated from Hyde Park Corner Cemetery by a road. The extension was begun in June 1916 and used continuously until September 1917. At the Armistice, the extension comprised Plot I only, but Plots II and III were added in 1930 when graves were brought in from ROSENBERG CHATEAU MILITARY CEMETERY and EXTENSION, about 1 Km to the north-west, when it was established that these sites could not be acquired in perpetuity. Rosenberg Chateau Military Cemetery was used by fighting units from November 1914 to August 1916. The extension was begun in May 1916 and used until March 1918. Together, the cemetery and extension were sometimes referred to as 'Red Lodge'.
https://www.cwgc.org/visit-us/find-cemeteries-memorials/cemetery-details/9101/hyde-park-corner-royal-berks-cemetery/

Looks like the move from Rosenberg Chateau Military Cemetery and Extension has been previously discussed on the forum here

Would sound like the most likely match for the scenario you have set out.

Cheers,
Peter

 

[Laird of Camster]

Thanks Paul. 

The removal of the graves from ROSENBERG CHATEAU MILITARY CEMETERY, would certainly seem a plausible theory. 
 

But our tour guide was most passionate, about there being a rich American (whiskey producer), who owned the land and refused to let the graves remain on his estate. That there had been a court case, which the CWGC had lost and as such all the graves were moved. I have been unable to find anything on the internet about this, which I did find curious. 

 

 

[AOK4]

1 hour ago, Laird of Camster said:

Thanks Paul. 

The removal of the graves from ROSENBERG CHATEAU MILITARY CEMETERY, would certainly seem a plausible theory. 
 

But our tour guide was most passionate, about there being a rich American (whiskey producer), who owned the land and refused to let the graves remain on his estate. That there had been a court case, which the CWGC had lost and as such all the graves were moved. I have been unable to find anything on the internet about this, which I did find curious.

The "tour guide" was talking about Rosenberg. You can either believe the "tour guide" or the real story. The owners of the chateau, the family Motte (brewers from Armentieres) wanted the cemetery away from their chateau and pleaded very stubbornly with the Belgian authorities. The British authorities were very reluctant to move the bodies, but in the end, there was no other choice as the matter was causing quite a bit of friction. It was even discussed in the Belgian parliament and in the end the IWGC gave in as they realised that a court case would most probably be lost by them. (Plans to build a monument on top of Hill 63 were related and had to be given up as well.)

May I recommend your "tour guide" to read (I don't know whether he is local or British?) the article in "Shrapnel" (the magazine of the Western Front Association België vzw), 2000 (II), 46-57.

Jan

[michaeldr]

This subject has been raised before on the GWF and the previous threads have various links which may prove useful again

Here is one more; see https://kar.kent.ac.uk/81449/1/246Godden_-_Designing_Memory_-_Corrected_Submission.pdf p.224> [p.225 of the pdf]

Edited 27 August , 2023 by michaeldr

[michaeldr]

I understand that this is a transcript of an article which appeared in The Times of 10^th March 1930 covering this story

https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~brett/genealogy/photosleuth/thetimes10mar1930.txt

[knittinganddeath]

8 hours ago, Laird of Camster said:

 

But our tour guide was most passionate, about there being a rich American (whiskey producer), who owned the land and refused to let the graves remain on his estate. That there had been a court case, which the CWGC had lost and as such all the graves were moved.

Interesting case of Chinese whispers, it seems! Armentieres became Americans, beer became whisky, the possibility of a court case became an actual one. If it were a movie, it would be tagged "Based on a true story."

[AOK4]

2 minutes ago, knittinganddeath said:

Interesting case of Chinese whispers, it seems! Armentieres became Americans, beer became whisky, the possibility of a court case became an actual one. If it were a movie, it would be tagged "Based on a true story."

Indeed. Quite a few of these tour guides don't let the truth get in the way of a good story unfortunately...

[Hedley Malloch]

Makes one ponder the meaning of 'In Perpetuity'.

[Laird of Camster]

Thank you very much to everyone who had replied to my post.

It is all very interesting and greatly appreciated!!!

[Hedley Malloch]

An interesting post which begs a number of questions not the least of which is why the French landowner's view was allowed to prevail. It shows, too, that the location of memorials and cemeteries was often contested. The Ploegsteert Memorial commemorates mainly British casualties killed in France. It was originally planned to be placed in Lille but the French objected and it was moved to Ploegsteert.

It contrasts with cemeteries like Hibou Trench on the Arras battlefield. Here, the lines of both the AI Autoroute and the TGV Nord were deflected to preserve its physical integrity. But both pass very close to it, disturbing its peace and tranquility. I think it would have been better if the whole cemetery had been located to some quieter corner of a neighbouring farmer's field and the original site marked with a commemorative plaque.

[AOK4]

7 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

An interesting post which begs a number of questions not the least of which is why the French landowner's view was allowed to prevail. It shows, too, that the location of memorials and cemeteries was often contested. The Ploegsteert Memorial commemorates mainly British casualties killed in France. It was originally planned to be placed in Lille but the French objected and it was moved to Ploegsteert.

It contrasts with cemeteries like Hibou Trench on the Arras battlefield. Here, the lines of both the AI Autoroute and the TGV Nord were deflected to preserve its physical integrity. But both pass very close to it, disturbing its peace and tranquility. I think it would have been better if the whole cemetery had been located to some quieter corner of a neighbouring farmer's field and the original site marked with a commemorative plaque.

The reason why the landowner's views were accepted? Probably his status and wealth were taken into consideration, but he had a point. He wanted to rebuild his property and the cemetery was then too close to these buildings (there were rules in those days how close a cemetery could be of houses as a lot of people depended for drinking water of a wellbore.

While in those days exhuming bodies and burying them in concentration cemeteries was a generally accepted view (look at the German cemeteries which were concentrated in the 1950s), it is not today. This is why Hibou Trench was not moved. This sensitivity goes even further. While the motorway connecting Kortrijk to Ieper was no problem in the 1970s (and not a single person bothered about the remains that were discovered - officially none), nowadays the possible presence of remains on the trajectory from Ieper to the coast is reason enough for the opposition to use this to stop the motorway from being built...