family history mag

[Guest wrinklyone]

There are, I think, five generally available magazines fighting it out for the growing number of folk interested in tracing their family history. Most have very similar titles. There is a fair amount of repetition, and which one you choose is really a matter of personal preference. It would be very unusual for each edition not to have at least one piece about WW1.

The August issue of Family History Monthly has two articles, four pages in all, about women in the war, mainly the VADs. Nothng startlingly new, but there is a list of possible sources of info.

[Sue Light]

I was encouraged to buy it this morning because the cover shouted:

'Nurses of the First World War - their stories and how to trace them'

But in similar fashion to others before it, the articles related only to VADs, with no word - not a single reference - to any trained nurses who served during the Great War; the reader is given the impression that all nursing was done by VADs alone. When a similar article appeared in another family history magazine last year, Mary Ingham, a researcher specialising in women's service records did voice a complaint to the editor. The reply waffled around 'too much to include in a small amount of space' but it would be good to read something other than these one-sided pieces purporting to describe 'Great War Nurses.'

Sue

[bernardmcilwaine]

sue,i buy them all the time,they have some pretty good stuff in them,but some of the articles are just the basics,your eg being one of them,i would have thought they would have printed an article covering the whole aspect of nursing,bernard

[Stebie9173]

I would imagine that the one about WW2 soldiers history has a little more informed comment.

It's by someone called Paul Reed.

Anyone heard of him?

Steve.

[bernardmcilwaine]

not off the top of my head NO

[Sue Light]

I would imagine that the one about WW2 soldiers history has a little more informed comment

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've no argument with the content of the article - I imagine it's well researched and accurate [although I'm no expert on VADs]. But it's a bit like writing a piece on the Army Service Corps, forgetting to mention the Infantry, and then calling it 'The Men Who Won the War.'

There's a lot of good stuff in the magazines, but this just seems to rub me up the wrong way.

Sue

[Guest wrinklyone]

Yes. Let's all write to the editor! I'm sure we can all think of a specific woman who served - so much more effective than a general complaint.

I might draw attention to that person I enquired about recently (QMAAC Worker Ethel Barham) who was a casualty of the war.

[signed] Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells.

[Guest wrinklyone]

Perhaps Jim Strawbridge could remind us (or at least me) of the best estimate of the number of women who died whilst serving in WW1?

[Jim Strawbridge]

Perhaps Jim Strawbridge could remind us (or at least me) of the best estimate of the number of women who died whilst serving in WW1?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could but I am a bit hesitant to do so because I could use a number of criteria and get different answers. For instance, should munition workers be included ? And Scottish Women's Hospital which was so badly shunned by the British Army ? Should the cut off date be November 1918 or the CWGC date in 1920 ? Should it be just the British casualties, include the Commonwealth and/or the other nations ? See the problem ?