linge Posted 11 July , 2006 Share Posted 11 July , 2006 Per the CWGC Thiepval Memorial Register Private, 23057, Reginald Giles, 1st Battalion, Gloucester Regiment was killed in action on 20th August 1916 aged 14 years. He was the son of Stephen and Fanny Giles, of 30, Lewis Lane, Cirencester, Glos. Per SDGW he was born in Cirencester and Enlisted in Birmingham. He appears on the Cirencester Parish Church War Memorial as Reginald S. Giles. It is regularly quoted in other publications that he is the youngest soldier recorded in the Thiepval Memorial Registers and one of the youngest to die on the Somme. I recently tried to confirm some family information for Reginald Giles and found the family at the time of the 1901 Census as follows: 30, Lewis Lane, Cirencester, Glos. Stephen Giles, Head, aged 49 years, Coachman Domestic, Wilts Cricklade Fanny Giles, Wife, aged 49 years, Glos Chedworth George Giles, Son, aged 14 years, Errand Boy, Glos Cirencester Wilfred Giles, Son, aged 12 years, Glos. Cirencester Florence Giles, Dau, aged 10 years, Glos. Cirencester Reginald Giles, Son, aged 5 years, Glos Cirencester The children’s births were registered in Cirencester RD as follows: George Stephen Giles June Qtr 1887 Wilfrid Giles March Qtr 1889 Florence Kezia Giles March Qtr 1891 Reginald Stephen Giles Dec Qtr 1896 If this is the same Reginald Giles it would make him aged 19 years when he was killed in action in August 1916. The family information and address appear correct but just in case this Reginald Giles died after 1901 and the couple had another son in 1902/3 who they also called Reginald I checked the death and birth indices between 1901 and 1903. I could not find either a registered death or a registered birth for a Reginald Giles in the Cirencester RD during this period. Does any one have any other information which could confirm the age of Reginald Giles was he 14 years old as per CWGC Registers or was he actually 19 years old? Would he have lied on enlistment to appear younger?, Could his parent’s have given the wrong age when submitting next of kin details?, or Could a mistake have been made when scanning the original CWGC Registers with aged 19 appearing as age 14? Any help gratefully received. Regards Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Bennett Posted 11 July , 2006 Share Posted 11 July , 2006 The general concensus is that the age is a typo error, but I think because of the emotion this has evoked, it may never be changed. (a la' John Condon) Presumably someone can locate his death certificate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 11 July , 2006 Share Posted 11 July , 2006 I have checked this one with CWGC before and was informed that the NOK supplied his age. Therefore, either they got it wrong by accident or design, a handwritten figure was misread along the line or it is correct. If you get his overseas death certificate, it should have his age on it. The reference number for this is I.52.178 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linge Posted 11 July , 2006 Author Share Posted 11 July , 2006 Thanks Peter and Terry I thought this may have been raised before. I'll probably get a copy of the death certificate to see what age that gives. Regards Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linge Posted 4 August , 2006 Author Share Posted 4 August , 2006 Terry/Peter I did manage to get his death certificate which gives his age as 18 years (still think from the Birth Registration it should be 19). Terry If I send it to CWGC will they alter it or would their view be that as the commemoraton information came from the next of kin then he could have lied abot his age on enlistment and the age of 18 years is therefore incorrect? Regards Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 4 August , 2006 Share Posted 4 August , 2006 Pam As it is an overseas DC , it will give his military details and so there should be no doubt that it refers to the same man. There should be no reason why it cannot be changed with this evidence but you never know.... Send it to CWGC and see. Let us know what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Bennett Posted 5 August , 2006 Share Posted 5 August , 2006 If the change is accepted by the CWGC it will have a profound effect on the Lochnagar Crater Ceremony on 1st July, as he is always mentioned there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 5 August , 2006 Share Posted 5 August , 2006 I had the same issue with Walter Wild Speight who is buried in New irish farm cemetery and was listed as the oldest soldier to die on the Salient (aged 62) in several publications including the Holts guide. I discovered Walter Wild Speights real age while researching the First War losses of Hatfield Woodhouse in Doncaster. His details and correct age, 41 is stated on his mothers grave within the cemetery. I obtained his death and birth certificates and sent them to the CWGC who changed his age on his stone in New Irish Farm. I think its probably just a case of misreading date of birth or age when collating the information, there being such a big difference. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linge Posted 5 August , 2006 Author Share Posted 5 August , 2006 I'll send the Overseas Death Certificate and other information to the CWGC and see what their response is. Thanks Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linge Posted 30 August , 2006 Author Share Posted 30 August , 2006 Terry/Peter/Mick I had not got round to contacting CWGC about this (and sending the Overseas Death Certificate) but had got a copy of the Birth Certificate. This said: Reginald Stephen Giles, born 24th October 1896 son of Stephen and Fanny Giles (Nee Trotman) of 30, Lewis Lane, Cirencester. Which would make him 19 years old on 20th August 1916 when he died. In order to add extra weight to the findings whilst we were visiting Oxford next week we intended to take a trip to Cirencester and see if we could find a newspaper report of the death of Reginald Giles. On checking the CWGC site I now see there is no need to do this as Reginald Giles' age at death now correctly state 19 years. (I had to keep checking just to make sure I wasn't seeing things) I don't know when this happened (as I was dealing with an old printout - he was however mentioned at Lognagar this year) but at least it is now correct. Regards Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 30 August , 2006 Share Posted 30 August , 2006 This was amended at some time February to date this year. I presume someone else also did the legwork and provided the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 30 August , 2006 Share Posted 30 August , 2006 This was amended at some time February to date this year. I presume someone else also did the legwork and provided the evidence. Always someone to steal the thunder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 August , 2019 Share Posted 17 August , 2019 A posting in this topic after 13 years ... But it's only for an additional question re Reginald Giles. Can someone find out for me, consulting the Census 1911, if after the 4 children mentioned in the Census 1901 (George, Wilfred, Florence, Reginald) more children were born in the family (in or after 1901) ? (Too complicated to explain why I would like to know, but it is for a piece of research not directly related to Reginald Giles.) Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 17 August , 2019 Share Posted 17 August , 2019 6 minutes ago, Aurel Sercu said: A posting in this topic after 13 years ... But it's only for an additional question re Reginald Giles. Can someone find out for me, consulting the Census 1911, if after the 4 children mentioned in the Census 1901 (George, Wilfred, Florence, Reginald) more children were born in the family (in or after 1901) ? (Too complicated to explain why I would like to know, but it is for a piece of research not directly related to Reginald Giles.) Aurel There seems to be a "Kithy" ? aged 8 in 1911 Click Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phsvm Posted 17 August , 2019 Share Posted 17 August , 2019 The 1911 census, which Reginald's father Stephen would have completed (rather than an enumerator visiting the family) stated Stephen and Fanny had 11 children of which 9 were still alive at the time the census was taken. Looking on the GRO website and entering the surname Giles with the mother's maiden name of TROTMAN the following come up: Margaret Ellen 1874 William John 1876 - 1877 Charles Henry 1878 Sarah Anne 1879 Ernest Edward 1881 Susan Kate 1883 Louisa Kate 1885 - 1886 George Stephen 1887 WIlfred 1889 Florence Kezia 1891 Reginald Stephen 1896 It seems unlikely, however that Kitty was actually Stephen and Fanny's daughter. If she was, Fanny would have been 51 when she gave birth. There is no GRO brith registration for a Kitty born to a Giles/Trotman marriage. There is, however a birth registration for a FRANCES KATHLEEN GILES, with the mother's maiden name omitted (which might suggest it is GILES and so omitted as it would be the same as the child's registered surname) in Cirencester in the 2nd Quarter of 1903 which would be correct for the Kitty listed on the census. It seems more likely that she is an illigitimate grand daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBrook Posted 17 August , 2019 Share Posted 17 August , 2019 Kithy would appear to be Frances Kathleen Giles born in quarter 2 of 1903 in the Cirencester Registration District. She was baptised at Cirencester on 29 July 1903, her abode was given as Union Workhouse, and her mother as Annie, single woman. Stephen and Fanny Giles had a daughter Annie born about 1880, who may be the mother of Frances Kathleen, in which case Kithy would have been there grand daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 August , 2019 Share Posted 17 August , 2019 Thanks, Mike, phsvm and HarryBrook for your prompt replies! And what you write is very useful for me. (I had indeed 'hoped' that there was another child of about that age.) Even if Kitty / Kithy / Frances Kathleen may be a granddaughter. (Thanks phsvm and HarryBrook for coming to the same conclusion both of you.) Actually, the girl being a daughter or a granddaughter is not really crucial for my research. Thanks again. Aurel 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