Clasps and rose 1914 Star

[mickgall]

Hello all

I'm trying to find out what the clasps on my Granddads medal card relate to. Him and his were at Mons, Le Cateau  etc. At Mons their battery 120 RFA was the furthest forward of the artillery, in the line with 1RWK's and I believe they had to move the guns under enemy rifle fire, would the clasps have anything to do with that.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Mick

[tankengine888]

Hello Mick

Clasps and rosettes on a 1914 Star were to assist in distinguishing between the 1914 Star and 1914-15 Star; the ribbons were the same you see.
The 1914 Star (better known as the 'Mons Star') was sanctioned in 1917, then the 1914-15 Star in either late 1918 or early 1919 from memory

The medals were virtually the same, with the sole exception of the lettering '1914 STAR' and '1914-15 STAR'

In 1919 with the creation of the near-identical 1914-15 Star, Clasps and rosettes were sanctioned for the 1914 Star to help distinguish between the two stars. The Clasp read '5th AUG. - 22nd NOV. 1914'.. See attached images.

Zidane.

[AndrewThornton]

[Michelle Young]

Clasp is the Bar worn on the ribbon with the dates Aug 5th-November 22nd  IIRC. the rose is a silver rose worn in the ribbon bar when only the ribbon bar was worn.

EDIT, crossed posted with Zidane.

[PRC]

And to quote from our parent site - with my emphasis

Clasp to the 1914 Star

A bar clasp inscribed “5 Aug. to 22 Nov. 1914” was given to all those who qualified for the 1914 Star and who served under fire. Since the same ribbon is used with the 1914-15 Star, holders of the 1914 Star were permitted to wear a small silver rosette on their ribbon when the decoration itself is not worn. On the medal index cards this is usually noted as the “Clasp and Roses” or “C&R” .It was necessary to apply for the issue of the clasp.
https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/how-to-research-a-soldier/campaign-medal-records/the-british-campaign-medals-for-the-great-war/

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 24 August by PRC
Typo

[AndrewThornton]

25 minutes ago, mickgall said:

Hello all

I'm trying to find out what the clasps on my Granddads medal card relate to. Him and his were at Mons, Le Cateau  etc. At Mons their battery 120 RFA was the furthest forward of the artillery, in the line with 1RWK's and I believe they had to move the guns under enemy rifle fire, would the clasps have anything to do with that.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Mick

This may also be of interest: https://oldcontemptiblesassociationscrapbook.wordpress.com/2024/03/06/chum-james-henry-ives-bromley-and-farnborough-branch-1889-1979/

[Allan1892]

@mickgall -- you have posted two medal cards, which one is your grandfather?

[horatio2]

19 minutes ago, PRC said:

Since the same ribbon is used with the 1914-15 Star, holders of the 1914 Star were permitted to wear a small silver rosette on their ribbon when the decoration itself is not worn.

It may have been the Army intention that the Rose on on the Riband was to discriminate between the 1914 Star and the 1914-15 Star, irrespective of whether a Clasp had been earned.

However, the Admiralty policy was quite different:  " ... in undressed uniform when ribands [alone] are worn the grant of the Clasp will be denoted by the earing of a small silver rose in the centre of the riband." It was not possible to distinguish between the riband worn by a man holding the 1914 Star (no Clasp) and the riband of a man holding the 1914-15 Star.

 

[mickgall]

Hello Tankengine, Andrew, Michelle, PRC and Allan thanks for the quick replies and great info. Allan I had believe they both were but I've just dug out his service record to check and it's showing his service No as 7740 see attached photo but he appears to have had quite a few numbers. See attached photo. He had an interesting early life. His real name is Albert Edward Gall b Sept 1897. In June 1911 when he was 13 he went to Australia and joined the RN as a boy servant on board HMS Cambrian but left in Dec at own request. He had joined under name of Herbert Cook. He travelled back to England on a Merchant ship and promptly joined the RMLI as Albert Gall in which he served until discharged in March 1913 after 94 days as services no longer required because I think he lied about his age his conduct is shown as VG. Then in Dec 1913 as Herbert Cook he joined the 4th Batt Kings Regt in Liverpool ( I'm getting the impression he liked wearing uniforms). Then in May 1914 he transferred to the Royal Field Artillery 120 battery to be with his older brother Tom.

[AndrewThornton]

43 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

It may have been the Army intention that the Rose on on the Riband was to discriminate between the 1914 Star and the 1914-15 Star, irrespective of whether a Clasp had been earned.

However, the Admiralty policy was quite different:  " ... in undressed uniform when ribands [alone] are worn the grant of the Clasp will be denoted by the earing of a small silver rose in the centre of the riband." It was not possible to distinguish between the riband worn by a man holding the 1914 Star (no Clasp) and the riband of a man holding the 1914-15 Star.

 

Actually, the protocol was exactly the same. Clasp and Roses were only issued to those who met the qualification criteria. If an individual did not qualify for the Clasp, they would not be issued with the Roses either.

Edited 24 August by AndrewThornton

[PRC]

1 hour ago, horatio2 said:

It may have been the Army intention that the Rose on on the Riband was to discriminate between the 1914 Star and the 1914-15 Star, irrespective of whether a Clasp had been earned.

Ii could be wrong but not sure how intentional it was on the Army's part - as a individual could be wearing the 1914 Star Riband without rosette because they didn't qualify for one or because they didn't apply for one - the award of the Clasp leads to the rosette. At that point there would be no way to distinguish from the Riband of the 1914/15 Star.

So if they have a rosette it's a useful distinction - if they don't it isn't.

Or am I missing something?

Cheers,
Peter

[horatio2]

1 hour ago, mickgall said:

joined the RMLI as Albert Gall in which he served until discharged in March 1913 after 94 days as services no longer required because I think he lied about his age his conduct is shown as VG.

Not quite. He was RMA (not RMLI) and was discharged SNLR after 35days in naval detention for a serious offence that is not detailed.  Prior to that his Character had been assessed as only FAIR over a period of 38 days. He id earn a single day of VG before he was administratively discharged from the RMA with "General Character FAIR".  We can assume that the offence for which he was sent to detention was such that his retention would not have been to the benefit of the Naval Service.

Although his former RN service saw him discharged with VG Character, his ADM 188 record does contain a note that the Admiralty (AG) was to be notified if he re-entered the service. No reason for this is given. The letter from his father in December 1912 confirms that he entered the RN and RMA under the correct d.o.b.

[horatio2]

3 hours ago, mickgall said:

Then in Dec 1913 as Herbert Cook he joined the 4th Batt Kings Regt in Liverpool

Not only did he enlist in the Army under his previous RN alias but he also, in Questions 11 and 12 of the attestation, he lied about/denied  his previous naval service (RN and RMA). I sense some covering of his tracks here.

Edited 24 August by horatio2

[mickgall]

hello Horatio, yep there was something going on but there's no one left alive now to tell the story.

Mick

[Keith_history_buff]

Did you get the RSPCA letter and the RMA statement of service from Yeovilton for a fee? Or were they from Kew?

[Matlock1418]

3 hours ago, horatio2 said:

35days in naval detention

Thank you - every day a school day - I was previously puzzled, but now now know what the D before 35 days means.

It seem remarkable that they then gave him VG for one extra day before discharge [But I note it was not Exemplary]

M

Edited 24 August by Matlock1418

[Matlock1418]

7 hours ago, mickgall said:

5 hours ago, mickgall said:

I've just dug out his service record to check and it's showing his service No as 7740 see attached photo but he appears to have had quite a few numbers.

 

77480 I believe

MIC also suggests Labour Corps from 30.6.17

5 hours ago, mickgall said:

Attestation sheet also seems to suggest 320509 [Labour Corps] 473 Home Service Employment Company

Starling & Lee's excellent 'No Labour, No Battle' gives 320509 as issued approx. June to September 1917 [which nicely fits with the MIC] and puts 473 Empl Coy at Ripon

M

[horatio2]

11 hours ago, Keith_history_buff said:

Did you get the RSPCA letter and the RMA statement of service from Yeovilton for a fee? Or were they from Kew?

FAAM Yeovilton do not hold any papers for this man so, presumably, these came from ADM 157 at TNA.   https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14894692

 

Edited 25 August by horatio2

[horatio2]

14 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

It seem remarkable that they then gave him VG for one extra day before discharge [But I note it was not Exemplary]

EXEMPLARY was not an option for RN/RM Character/Conduct assessments. Choose from:  VG, VG*, GOOD, FAIR or INDIFFERENT, depending on the scale of punishments awarded.

Edited 25 August by horatio2

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, horatio2 said:

EXEMPLARY was not an option for RN/RM Character/Conduct assessments. Choose from:  VG, VG*, GOOD, FAIR or IDIFFERENT, depending on the scale of punishments awarded.

Ah ... it was all very tongue in cheek given he got VG for one day after 35 days detention.

But cheers for expanding - learned more about things naval. 

M

[mickgall]

Morning All.

I've attached some more pics from his service records. The RMA record I went to Kew for and his army record was from the MOD. It looks like his offence was that he deserted if I've read it right. He was Transferred to the Labour and was at Risborough (as a PTI  I think) where he met some of the other relatives who were in the RE Inland Waterways Dept who introduced him to my Nan. They had all been Thames Lightermen before the war.

Mick

[Matlock1418]

1 hour ago, mickgall said:

It looks like his offence was that he deserted if I've read it right.

Be aware that Desertion ['Running'] and AWOL were significantly different offences - or that's how I so understand things [But Navy and naval discipline not being my main knowledge area!]

The more serious Desertion tended to imply an intention to not return - throwing away arms/equipment/uniform, long duration and being apprehended by the police being aggravating factors.

Though not smiled upon, the less serious AWOL being more a case of shorter unauthorised absence or overstaying a short pass or leave - the fact that he appears in 1913 being AWOL for just one day from 17 Jan and then surrendering himself 18 Jan would have likely been considered potentially mitigating factors.

Well that's how I read things from above.

His other records however do rather show a propensity for AWOL.

M

[horatio2]

1 hour ago, mickgall said:

It looks like his offence was that he deserted if I've read it right.

The Descriptive Return records that he was absent without leave for just one day (17 to 18 January 1913). He is not noted as being in desertion and his ADM 159  ledger record is not marked as "RUN". On its own, that single day of absence would be unlikely to lead to the court martial which handed down a sentence of 35 days detention on 7 February, three weeks later. I consider that another, more serious offence is lurking unrecorded in the background to this man's service in early 1913.

In the normal course, one might expect a case of a single day's Absence (be that Absence Without Leave or Quitting ship, boat, working party, or other duty, without leave, but not with intent to desert) to be dealt with by a non-warrant, summary punishment by his commanding officer almost immediately. For some reason his offending (Absence+++) was considered so serious that it had to be passed up to a court martial. Tack on to the end of his detention a discharge SNLR and we have an offence and punishment package that clearly does not result from just a single day of Absence.

I assume his Kew ADM 157 file did not include his Company Conduct Sheets that would have revealed all.

Edited 25 August by horatio2

[horatio2]

One last observation: although he forfeited 35 days service time in detention, the punishment from his CM trial was, in fact, 42 days. He did, however, earn seven days remission of sentence, reducing the damage to 35 days.

[mickgall]

Afternoon Matlock and Horatio, many thanks for the replies, Ill have a look through his ADM records and see what I can find. Also his brother Tom did desert in Jan 1916, its on his MiC, Ill have a look in a bit, having a few sherberts up the White Swan at the mo on a B/H Sunday.

Mick