Guest KevinEndon Posted 9 July , 2006 Share Posted 9 July , 2006 Is this the most boring M I C you have ever seen. £3.50 I feel as if I should get a refund lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 9 July , 2006 Share Posted 9 July , 2006 Most "BWM/Victory Pair" MiC are similar in content if the Soldier in question survived,wasn't discharged or anything else,I expect he still suffered the same traumas & degradation as those with more comprehensive MiCs. You must remember they were never intended for Public viewing,but for internal Army Medal Office Reference to the Medal Rolls only~Shakespeare they were never intended to be!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themonsstar Posted 9 July , 2006 Share Posted 9 July , 2006 Hi There is a lot of info on it, if you marry it up with the Medal roll books I am sore you will get a good story from it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bloomfield Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Thats nothing! Harvey F J Labour Corps Private 213419 In th 'Remarks" column what looks like Decd (presumably Deceased) with NW/9/2429 on the bottom. I would download it but as I'm a complete Luddite I haven't a clue. Fred Harvey was conscripted into the 2/8th Royal Scots as 331144 and served in Ireland if memory serves before transfer to the Labour Corps' 268 Area Employment Company. He died of disease (flu?) on 2nd Dec 1918 and is buried in Abbeville Cemetery.To look at his MiC you'd think he didn't serve at all. I've always assumed he would have been awarded the pair, would I be correct in this? Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Hi There is a lot of info on it, if you marry it up with the Medal roll books I am sure you will get a good story from it I think you might be right. Checking of the Medal rolls will confirm for definite but it is quite possible that this soldier has two MIC's, the other one being this one: Medal card of Moorley, Robert Corps Regiment No Rank North Staffordshire Regiment 200289 Private Date 1914-1920 Catalogue reference WO 372/14 Who, it transpires, was a casualty of the war. MOORLEY, ROBERT EDWARD Initials: R E Nationality: United Kingdom Rank: Private Regiment/Service: North Staffordshire Regiment Unit Text: 1st/5th Bn. Age: 24 Date of Death: 21/07/1918 Service No: 200289 Additional information: Son of Robert and E. Moorley, of 44, Bath St., Newcastle-under-Lyme. Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead Grave/Memorial Reference: 62. N.C. 49. Cemetery: NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CEMETERY His two service numbers fall into the range for the North Staffordshires quite nicely, allowing for discharges, casualties etc. 2453 - 200286 2457 - 200287 2459 - 200288 2461 - 200289 2463 - 200291 2470 - 200292 2472 - 200293 so from one 'boring' MIC comes a bit of a story.......... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 To look at his MiC you'd think he didn't serve at all. Why?, he has a Medal Index Card for obvious service overseas with the Labour Corps, or doesn't that count? Admittedly it doesn't tell the whole story but Ireland was a home station and you didn't get medals for serving at home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 I've always assumed he would have been awarded the pair, would I be correct in this? I would assume so to, Labour Corps formed in 1917 so he would have no 'Star' entitlement. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Lines Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Interestingly quite a low number for someone who was not entitled to a Star of some kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KevinEndon Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 the other less boring one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliecoco Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Hi, Can I ask a question? On looking at the two MIC's for Robert Moorley, I wondered why they are thought to be the same soldier? If I was researching Moorely 2461, I wouldn't of put the two together as such. Obviously I would be at the NA with the benefit of a medal roll check, service records etc. If I have missed something here please point me in the right direction. I want to be an excellent WW1 researcher, so am always happy to learn. Alie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Alie, it was not uncommon for soldiers, particularly TF , to be renumbered. Steve has shown that the two numbers match up very well compared to others for whom he knows both numbers. Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KevinEndon Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 I took the first MIC and checked SDGW and CWGC and nothing is listed for either number. I wonder why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliecoco Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Hi Phil, Thanks for that - aware of the TF renumbering, but unless I had seen the renumbering on say the service records or medal roll, I wouldn't of necessarily put the two together. On re-reading Steve's post, as he says, it does sound likely to be the same soldier. There are only a couple of Robert Moorley's on the MIC's too. Steve is a clever clogs! I still have such alot to learn! Cheers Alie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KONDOA Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 You uninteresting MIC hides the fact your man would be in the line at Wieltje in September 1917 or therabouts.Possibly stood next to my grandfather. Roop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Hi Phil, Thanks for that - aware of the TF renumbering, but unless I had seen the renumbering on say the service records or medal roll, I wouldn't of necessarily put the two together. . Steve is a clever clogs! I still have such alot to learn! Cheers Alie. A 6 figure number always suggests the possibility of a previous smaller number. Sometimes SDGW will give both. Steve is, indeed, a clever clogs! We all have a lot to learn! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 If you think Robert Moorley's card is boring, take a look at Lt Colonel David De Lara Cohen's. It contains just his name and unit, 10th Bn London Regt. He never served overseas. What it does not reveal however is that he held the brevet of Colonel and was previously the CO of 1st London Div, RE., and held the Volunteer Decoration. Not that I'm suggesting you spend £3-50p on it of course, but there is a story behind every card. Terry Reeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliecoco Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Hi, I have really enjoyed this thread and I should hopefully be making a PRO visit later on this week. If I get the time, I thought I would check Moorley out. For my own benefit as much as anyone else's - it would be interesting to find out more I think. I don't think I have ever described a MIC to be boring - but I have used the word 'plain' before. As others have said each MIC, as indeed each of us, have a story to tell. But just from a researchers point of view, I have seen a plain MIC and thought 'oh', what sort of story or info can I get from this, particularly if the service records don't survive, and are from the Labour Corp especially. (The medal rolls don't usually give any extra information). This thread has proved that you can get alot! I hope that I can continue with more information later this week. Alie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Easy with the praise guys and gals I won't be able to get through the door , just hope after all this that I'm right, going to look a right chump if not. For the benefit of Alie and anybody else who cares to try and understand my somewhat warped logic I'll try and describe how I arrived at my conclusion but which, at the end of the day, is still unproven. When I looked at the original MIC it struck me that a soldier with a low 4-digit service number such as Moorley's could either be a pre-war regular or a territorial. If he was a pre-war regular I would have expected to see an entitlement to a 14 or 14/15 Star (although no Star entitlement isn't out of the question). As split MIC's are not uncommon a quick look of the MIC's searching for the 4-digit number failed to find a second one under that number/name combination so I concluded that he was perhaps a territorial. As a territorial soldier had no obligation to serve overseas before conscription was introduced in early 1916 there would not necessarily be an entitlement to a Star and he could have been entitled to the BWM and Victory medals only as recorded on the MIC. - OK so far. If he was a territorial there would have been a period between 1st January 1916 and the renumbering in early 1917 where the 4-digit only number applied, but as no discharge details or SWB references were mentioned on the MIC to explain why he only had the 4-digit number I thought perhaps service after early 1917 was a possibilty and that he should have been renumbered. - Still OK I think. Another search of the MIC's, this time for Moorley/North Staffordshire combination brought up (thankfully) only the two cards, the one we knew about and the second 6-digit number only card. - Looking promising. Assuming that this was the same man I then did a quick search for similarly numbered North Staffordshire soldiers to see if he fitted the sequence of renumbering which as shown earlier he did. - Almost there? At this stage I was happy to conclude that the two MIC's were indeed for the same man but as a final search I looked at the CWGC and found him listed. Checking Names to service numbers showed CWGC S/No. 200289 = Robert E. Morley, MIC (1) S/No. 2461 = Robert E. Morley and MIC (2) S/No. 200289 = Robert Morley. Conclusion, both cards are for a Robert E. Morley and therefore very likely to be the same man. Still with me? thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings. I'm sure that there are flaws in the logic? I used to arrive at my conclusion and I may not have written it down exactly as I meant to but I hope you can see where my train of though was going. The only way to definitely prove this is the case is to see what the Medal Rolls and Service Record (if it exists) says so if you do get the chance Alie, I too would be very interested in what the outcome is. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpgdpg Posted 10 July , 2006 Share Posted 10 July , 2006 Well I for one have learnt from your rambling Steve. Most interesting. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KevinEndon Posted 11 July , 2006 Share Posted 11 July , 2006 Many thanks Steve your logic works and is described a treat. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KevinEndon Posted 11 July , 2006 Share Posted 11 July , 2006 The boring MIC has just got better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliecoco Posted 11 July , 2006 Share Posted 11 July , 2006 Hi Steve, Thank you so much for explaining everything. Your logic seems spot on - you have taught me alot, as well as another way of thinking. Brilliant - and when I grow up I would like to have your warped logic sense! Just to complete everything, I will definately check Moorley out on Thursday, as all being well I should be at the PRO. Alie. Edit to say I have just seen the headstone picture from Privateparts, and me being nosey can I ask why you were researching Moorley? Is he a family member, or part of a research project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliecoco Posted 14 July , 2006 Share Posted 14 July , 2006 Hi, Just to complete this thread, I checked out the medal rolls for Moorley yesterday. And...................... Steve is spot on!! The medal roll for his Victory and BWM confirmed Steve's theory. Credit were its due - good bit of research work. So, PP if you PM me with your address I shall send on the two medal roll copies that I have for Moorley. I didn't do a service record check as I had found the anwser I was looking for on the medal rolls, and I also didn't have time. (Already juggling five other soldiers). Alie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Phillips Posted 14 July , 2006 Share Posted 14 July , 2006 Hi It's great to actually have someones research/thinking actually explained. I have a great deal to learn - but at least I have been able to see how to think. Thanks Steve. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minininja Posted 14 July , 2006 Share Posted 14 July , 2006 Hi I was reading this with interest as my G. grandfathers MIC was, i thought, as boring as this one...can any more light be shed on Drv Holley L46302?? Colin 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