Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

death certificate etc etc


andy 1

Recommended Posts

are a death certificate and medal index card worth the paper they are written on.

for the last couple of years i have been trying to get the cwgc to amend the records they have on the death of my ancestor.

according to his death certificate and medal index cards and battalion roll of honour he was kia on the 1/7/1916 but the cwgc have it that he died on the 9/7/1916.they say that

after investigations of there military records they have no concrete evidence to enable them to amend there records.

what could be more concrete than a death certificate and medal index cards.

anybody any thoughts on this matter

regards

andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy

I have seen a death certificate which was wrong by a whole year. Registrars make mistakes too!

Hi Terry,

You are right, but I would ask, and I think this is within the tone of the original question - on what terms does the CWGC's knowledge hold precedence over both a death certificate and also an MoD agreed date of death on an index card? - they may not have been separately derived from independent sources, but the acceptance of both should really prompt a reasonable questioning of the CWGC information - where did they get their information from for example - I assume that it would be from the relatives in the early 1920's, who may have had a whole host of reasons for making an error or even changing the date.

I think the "case closed" sound of the response that andy 1 got is a little odd.

regards

doogal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after investigations of there military records they have no concrete evidence to enable them to amend there records.

Andy

Has his service record survived? The quoted line suggests that they might have looked at one - is it possible that it has a conflicting date of death on it? That might be a stumbling block.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy

I have seen a death certificate which was wrong by a whole year. Registrars make mistakes too!

[/quote

hi terry i hope you don't mind me putting this question on the forum seeing as how you are dealing with this matter for me with the cwgc.

i just don't see how they can dismiss a death certificate,medal index cards,the words of a researcher and the battalion roll of honour as not being concrete evidence to warrant them amending there records.

i would have thought official documents would have been more than enough evidence.even more so than the records of the next of kin or relatives at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy

Has his service record survived?  The quoted line suggests that they might have looked at one - is it possible that it has a conflicting date of death on it?  That might be a stumbling block.

Sue

sue

i am not sure. when i enquired with the mod in 1990 they told me they could not trace any records of his military service,because all his records where destroyed in the air raids of 1940.

wether i can get his service record from anywhere else i do not know.

regards

andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sue

i am not sure. when i enquired with the mod in 1990 they told me they could not trace any records of his military service,because all his records where destroyed in the air raids of 1940.

wether i can get his service record from anywhere else i do not know.

regards

andy

Have you checked recently at the National Archives? - I wonder if it may be worth a search through the burnt records. A long shot, but if it hasn't been done, then it should be.

regards

doogal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Great Uncle is shown on the CWGC Site as having died on 2nd April 1918. This is also the date given in 'Soldiers Died in the Great War', and on the Medal Roll. Interestingly, his death certificate shows the date as between the 21/03/18 and 02/04/18.

I have always assumed that this was due to the choatic situation his battalion were in as they retreated during the German Offensive. Presumably, no-one recorded or remembered the exact date. All that could be said for sure, was that he was dead by the time the battalion withdrew from the line on 02/04/18. This then became recorded as the date of death.

I wonder if something similiar is behind the contradicting dates for your ancestor.

Incidently, I did get my Great Uncle's Christain name corrected by the CWGC from Arthur to Albert.

Regards

Gavin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well all i can say is i wish i knew what records the cwgc are looking at because every where i look i always come up with the same details,first btn lincolnshire regiment kia 1/7/1916.

death certificate,medal index cards,researcher at kew,soldiers died in the great war,grimsby roll of honour,battalion roll of honour they all say the same 1btn kia 1/7/1916.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Terry will confirm that the date of death details held by the CWGC are not supplied by the next of kin but by the army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, Max.

CWGC also have access to pension records for verification of the original data given to them by the military.

Only the DC and the medal documents are relevant in this case as all the other unofficial sources can be in error or simply took their info from each other. SDGW, likewise, has too many errors to be reliable on its own.

However, I think Andy has a good case here (I have seen the evidence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, Max.

CWGC also have access to pension records for verification of the original data given to them by the military.

Only the DC and the medal documents are relevant in this case as all the other unofficial sources can be in error or simply took their info from each other. SDGW, likewise, has too many errors to be reliable on its own.

However, I think Andy has a good case here (I have seen the evidence).

A while back i contacted cwgc about a Pte Ernest Boyce Middlesex Reg, who is not listed on there site but is listed on sdgw and whos mic states death presumed,once again the cwgc would not even look into matter unless somebody else could provide proof,seems they dont care to do any homework themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than a year ago Terry put forward the case for an uncommemorated soldier, Pte. Bartley Evans 6/1577, - 6th Northumberland Fusiliers.

Evidence submitted was death certificate (presumed KIA 27/04/1915), SDGW, Batt. War Diary casualty listing (Missing 27/04/1915), all agreed the same date, number and name. In this case there was no dispute about dates or name.

His medal card did not appear on the online MICs at first. When it appeared it was an incomplete MIC, noted as such, showing the name, DOA in France, 14/15 Star but with only the edge containing the last number '6/157' and half of the statement 'Dea---' not on the film. A copy of this incomplete MIC was submitted.

I presume it was the incomplete filmed MIC which was the only problem, although it is obvious that it is only the last number missing.

Here is a case where the actual card would have been essential for this soldier. His comrades missing that day are commemorated on the Menin Gate.

However Terry has said that sometimes it can take 2 years before a decision is taken, so there is hope for him yet.

Kate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back i contacted cwgc about a Pte Ernest Boyce Middlesex Reg, who is not listed on there site but is listed on sdgw and whos mic states death presumed,once again the cwgc would not even look into matter unless somebody else could provide proof,seems they dont care to do any homework themselves.

It is not part of the remit of the CWGC to look into such matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not part of the remit of the CWGC to look into such matters.

If cwgc not responsible to look into such matters ,then who is,mod? you would think that if a possible error is brought to there attention,i dare say they have access to relevant records themselves,then commonsense would tell them to look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max is correct

CWGC are not able to investigate such matters according to the restrictions of their Royal Charter. They are only there to record the names supplied by the relevant authorities and to maintain qualifying graves/cemeteries/plots.

The authority to list or not to list a name is given by the MoD in the UK or by the equivalent in the dominions. If a missing name is identified with concrete evidence and brought to their attention, CWGC will seek permission for an amendment from the appropriate authority. Errors of their own making are corrected on their own authority.

This means that the onus of proof is on the supplier of the information. CWGC have no authority to investigate or undertake research under their Charter. To expend funds in doing so would put them in the wrong unless they are given reasonable grounds to start with. Given such grounds, they will forward a case to MoD. Unfortunately, not everyone understands that some of the 'evidence' floating around is not always reliable nor do they appreciate the high standard of proof usually required.

Kate

Don't worry. Bartley Evans is still progressing. I check frequently but the hold-up is with MoD who do not have sufficient staff to dedicate to such matters. They are all deployed on other personnel related issues due to the heavy workload currently affecting our armed forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max is correct

CWGC are not able to investigate such matters according to the restrictions of their Royal Charter. They are only there to record the names supplied by the relevant authorities and to maintain qualifying graves/cemeteries/plots.

The authority to list or not to list a name is given by the MoD in the UK or by the equivalent in the dominions. If a missing name is identified with concrete evidence and brought to their attention, CWGC will seek permission for an amendment from the appropriate authority. Errors of their own making are corrected on their own authority.

This means that the onus of proof is on the supplier of the information. CWGC have no authority to investigate or undertake research under their Charter. To expend funds in doing so would put them in the wrong unless they are given reasonable grounds to start with. Given such grounds, they will forward a case to MoD. Unfortunately, not everyone understands that some of the 'evidence' floating around is not always reliable nor do they appreciate the high standard of proof usually required.

Kate

Don't worry. Bartley Evans is still progressing. I check frequently but the hold-up is with MoD who do not have sufficient staff to dedicate to such matters. They are all deployed on other personnel related issues due to the heavy workload currently affecting our armed forces.

Terry,

do you mean that if you raise a query with cwgc they automaticaly pass it on to mod to investigate or it just gets forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max is correct

CWGC are not able to investigate such matters according to the restrictions of their Royal Charter. They are only there to record the names supplied by the relevant authorities and to maintain qualifying graves/cemeteries/plots.

The authority to list or not to list a name is given by the MoD in the UK or by the equivalent in the dominions. If a missing name is identified with concrete evidence and brought to their attention, CWGC will seek permission for an amendment from the appropriate authority.

I wonder that it may be a good idea for the CWGC to include this information on their website. It might save a great deal of confusion - and probably time for them.

In many ways, in spite of the lengthy protestations that appear on their site regarding their status, in my opinion, it never really offers a clear and correct route away from the CWGC for those who quite reasonably at first sight believe the CWGC are the active authority for altering details.

regards

doogal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Great Uncle is shown on the CWGC Site as having died on 2nd April 1918. This is also the date given in 'Soldiers Died in the Great War', and on the Medal Roll. Interestingly, his death certificate shows the date as between the 21/03/18 and 02/04/18.

I have always assumed that this was due to the choatic situation his battalion were in as they retreated during the German Offensive. Presumably, no-one recorded or remembered the exact date. All that could be said for sure, was that he was dead by the time the battalion withdrew from the line on 02/04/18. This then became recorded as the date of death.

I wonder if something similiar is behind the contradicting dates for your ancestor.

Incidently, I did get my Great Uncle's Christain name corrected by the CWGC from Arthur to Albert.

Regards

Gavin

thanks for the reply gavin

but in my case it is a definite date 1/7/1916 the only people who say it isn't are the cwgc.they even have his battalion wrong they say he was in the second battalion,everything else says he was in the 1st battalion lincolnshire regiment.

what i can't understand is, from reading these posts it appears the cwgc get there info from the mod.the mod must have gotten there info from the army for the medal index cards and the death certificate.yet the cwgc say there is no concrete evidence to warrant the change.

so you would think if the info for the death certificate and medal index cards and pensions was supplied by the army branch of the mod,the info for the cwgc would be from the same people so why the difference in dates and battalion.

one more question for terry denham if he reads this.

terry is it possible to ask the cwgc what complete info they have on my ancestor,and also could they tell me where they get his information from.

regards

andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a lot of confusion here.

CWGC looks at every query and act upon it. If an error is theirs, they correct it.

If a potential 'error' disagrees with the information originally supplied by the military, it is referred back if there is sufficient such evidence to warrant such reference. No queries are 'just forgotten' and I do not understand why such an insulting remark should be made.

CWGC gets the blame often for matters which are not within their remit. Their website explains what their remit is and they cannot be held responsible for other people's misconceptions.

CWGC is the first filter for corrections and such requests should be sent to them. However, they are not the deciding authority for major amendments such as the addition of new names etc.

Andy has a good case and it is being looked at again. I will find out what the problem is if it becomes an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy

I know this will still not be official documentation acceptable to the MOD, CWGC, but what does the War Diary say that the 1st Lincolns were doing on 9th July 1916?

I presume they were in the massive advance on the 1st.

Terry

I know the MOD have had quite a lot on their plate recently, so it is not surprising that there is a delay.

kate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi kate

as far as i can remember i think the 1st lincs where taken out of the line on the 4/7/16 because of the heavy losses sustained on the 3/7/16.and they where not in reserve again til the 11/7/16.on the 1st the 1st lincolns made up carrying parties (ammo etc) after being in reserve earlier in the day.

further more my ancestor is believed to be buried in gordon dump cemetery,according to the lincolns war diary on the 1/7/16 the 1st lincolns where engaged in carrying ammo to a dump.

gordon dump is situated on the site of a supply dump,i believe my ancestor was killed carrying supplies to this dump and was buried there,then after the war it was turned into an official war cemetery.

this makes me believe even more that my ancestor was in the 1st lincolns at the time of his death and that he was killed on the 1/7/16.

i'm sure somebody will correct me if i'm wrong.

andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi kate

        as far as i can remember i think the 1st lincs where taken out of the line on the 4/7/16 because of the heavy losses sustained on the 3/7/16.and they where not in reserve again til the 11/7/16.on the 1st the 1st lincolns made up carrying parties (ammo etc) after being in reserve earlier in the day.

further more my ancestor is believed to be buried in gordon dump cemetery,according to the lincolns war diary on the 1/7/16 the 1st lincolns where engaged in carrying ammo to a dump.

gordon dump is situated on the site of a supply dump,i believe my ancestor was killed carrying supplies to this dump and was buried there,then after the war it was turned into an official war cemetery.

this makes me believe even more that my ancestor was in the 1st lincolns at the time of his death and that he was killed on the 1/7/16.

i'm sure somebody will correct me if i'm wrong.

andy

When i contacted cwgc about Pte Ernest Boyce Middlesex Reg. i was told they would need to see death certificate and any other records,i told them that i did not have death certificate,but Ernest Boyce was listed on sdgw his mic states death presumed and he is listed on overseas death register,i would think that cwgc/mod have access to these records and takes only minutes to check them,but i feel there still waiting for me to produce a death certificate which if i dont is the reason why i said is it forgotten,i dont see why this is insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i contacted cwgc about  Pte Ernest Boyce Middlesex Reg. i was told they would need to see death certificate and any other records,i told them that i did not have death certificate,but Ernest Boyce was listed on sdgw his mic states death presumed and he is listed on overseas death register,i would think that cwgc/mod have access to these records and takes only minutes to check them,but i feel there still waiting for me to produce a death certificate which if i dont is the reason why i said is it forgotten,i dont see why this is insulting.

Everybody including MOD have access to records, but it's not the MOD who are trying to prove anything. You're the one who needs to produce the evidence - the onus is on you to 'prove' your case. It mays seem 'unfair' but that's how it works. Why not just get the certificate etc., and send it off?

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...