manchester regiment Posted 16 July , 2006 Share Posted 16 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 this is of great help to those who dont know how to get round the MICs,good post steve,regards bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 16 July , 2006 Share Posted 16 July , 2006 I've used the same warped logic as Steve before. Must be something how us Steve's have our wires connected (crossed?). It seems to fit in an awful lot of cases. The difficulty somtimes arises when there are more than one or two TF battalions, and therefore you can't see the wood for the trees. London Regiment anyone? Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner Posted 30 July , 2006 Share Posted 30 July , 2006 history boring I think not! £3.50 my weeks wages in 1965 is`nt history wonderful gunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldstreamer Posted 31 July , 2006 Share Posted 31 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. Hello all depends whats on the medal roll that the MIC refers you to. Found some jems on them! And Ive a 14 trio to a CG - nothing special - bit gutted as he wasnt due a QSA (low number you see) Thats becasuse he was serving in Australia whilst the reg was in S Africa - you need to go that extra mile to find the story. The MIC is only the start Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KevinEndon Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 Just pulling this to the top so new members get to see how things can be solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markacable Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 Is this the most boring M I C you have ever seen. £3.50 I feel as if I should get a refund lol. At least you can read which regiment he was in. Check out my Great Uncle's, his is even worse and he was KIA 24/7/17 but no mention of it on the card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Anderson Posted 8 January , 2007 Share Posted 8 January , 2007 Thanks Steve, I live and learn. Thanks Kevin, For bringing this thread to the top as I missed it before. Regards, Donny 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