a soldier who used to have a grave

[Auimfo]

Ian,

I don't think the plot's are 'raised' but rather that there has been excavation around them. This can be seen at the rear of Gardiner's row of crosses where the ground falls away and I suspect if we could see the foot of this front row there would be similar excavation. Also, I think Alan's photo really does supply pretty strong evidence that the front row was indeed an actual plot.

Aurel,

Interesting what you say about the difference in plaque and metal strips. But I think I can see a couple of similar plaques and crosses in rows behind - particularly on the right side of the photo, about today's row A and B.

Then again it could be my eyes playing tricks.....

Tim L.

[ian turner]

Aurel,

OK - I will have another go:

1) 1918-19 view shows 'our row' as flat/bare earth, but all other rows in Plot II seem raised.

2) Early 20's view shows all plots equally covered in vegetation, so cannot verify point (1) from this photo. (This is not relevant to my theory).

3) Theory - all the markers in 'our row' were from original graves.

4) Those original graves were lost, but the markers were recovered and placed in Potizje.

5) Gardiner and Cobbold's graves remain missing, and they appear on Menin Gate.

6) Torrome's remains recovered and ID'd and reburied in Poelcapelle.

7) 'Our row' was never a grave plot, just a holder for the markers until

Menin Gate was constructed.

8) 'Our row' could easily be removed (no interred to consider) when designing the final cemetery layout.

Hope that is clearer.

Ian

[shinglma]

Nein.

Ja

I did promise to look up 12/HLI on my visit to the NA tomorrow - don't think that's still needed so I'll do the service record if you like.

Mike

[Auimfo]

Great stuff Mike. Fingers crossed that it can provide some clues.

Tim L.

[Aurel Sercu]

Aurel,

Interesting what you say about the difference in plaque and metal strips. But I think I can see a couple of similar plaques and crosses in rows behind - particularly on the right side of the photo, about today's row A and B.

Tim L.

Tim,

You may be right. Let's wait until we have Sabine's high resolution scan.

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Aurel,

OK - I will have another go:

(...............)

Hope that is clearer.

Ian

Ian,

Great ! I don't have alzheimer yet ! For I understand. And it makes sense. If it is more than just a hypothesis, don't know... I wish there were other things to corroborate your view.

And maybe there is something : as someone has already pointed out (don't remember who ... was it you ?) : What does that white "thing" near grave one in A* (Gardiner's row) say ? What is it doing there ? Normally if it is something saying "Plot II", it is superfluous, for there is already a sign near the 1st grave of the present row A saying Plot II.

Oh, it will be such a wonderful moment when we see Sabine's high resolution scan...

Maybe on her scan the "thing" will be found to read : "This row does not contain any graves. Only markers recovered from elsewhere in the Potijze area, of graves that were lost. Forum members 86 years from now should be warned not to spend too much time and energy on this mystery, for it is not !"

Aurel

[Andrew Hesketh]

Ja

Danke!

[ian turner]

Aurel,

Yes, an early Govt health warning on the white post - 'Discovering the truth of this row may be harmful to your health (and eyesight)'!

Ian

[Alan_J]

Maybe on her scan the "thing" will be found to read : "This row does not contain any graves. Only markers recovered from elsewhere in the Potijze area, of graves that were lost. Forum members 86 years from now should be warned not to spend too much time and energy on this mystery, for it is not !"

I hate to pour cold water on this excellent idea, but unfotunately the "white thing" is on my postcard not Sabine's! And I have already tried scanning that area at the highest resolution I have, and I can't decopher anything on it at all

However, Aurel, I'm sure Jacky has this same postcard as he posted a scan of it in a thread about a year ago identifying the cemetery in (yet another ) old postcard as Potijze Chateau grounds! So perhaps in your next contact he could bring it along and you could have a look yourselves! I did post the link to that thread several pages back, but PM me if you want it again.

Alan

[Aurel Sercu]

Alan,

Apologies. I am doing my best when referring to the two photos not to mix up you and Sabine. This time, not enough obviously.

Two things.

1. Coincidentally this afternoon I asked Jacky to make a high resolution scan of the part of his postcard with the two rows, and the white signs. He emailed it to me an hour ago, and indeed : no result. Nothing readable on that sign near Gardiner's Row A*

2. But it made me think this (and please, correct me if I am wrong.)

- The second line of graves on your photo (at present this is Row A) has the sign Plot 2.

- The first row (Gardner's A*) has a sign which we cannot read.

- Anyway, whatever it says, this row A* is NOT Plot 2. (Since Plot 2 only starts in the second row on the photo.)

- If CWGC register says that Plot 2 contains graves that were brought in from burial places in the Potijze area, this means ... that Gardiner's row, not being Plot 2, does NOT come from a different burial place,

- But has remains of men who were buried there at Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery right after their death.

Am I right ? (Though I know that this does not explain what happened to that row later of course.)

And if I may point out a weak spot myself : if these men (row A*) were buried there originally, isn't it a bit hard to assume that 2 Scots Guards (Torrome and Cobbold) fallen on 19 April 1916 were lying next to a man (officer Gardiner) who did not fall until more than 1 year and 3 months later ?

I think I'll watch Thelma and Louise tonight on Flemish TV. To give my mind some rest.

Aurel

[Andrew Hesketh]

- The second line of graves on your photo (at present this is Row A) has the sign Plot 2.

- The first row (Gardner's A*) has a sign which we cannot read.

- Anyway, whatever it says, this row A* is NOT Plot 2. (Since Plot 2 only starts in the second row on the photo.)

Just because it is next to the present row A doesn't mean A* is not in plot II. That is like saying the present row B is not in plot II because there is no sign there either.

My mind is too active as well Aurel. A good film could be the right idea. Shame that 'Thelma and Louise' is not a good film....

You might want to rent this - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0471796/

[Aurel Sercu]

1. Just because it is next to the present row A doesn't mean A* is not in plot II. That is like saying the present row B is not in plot II because there is no sign there either.

2. My mind is too active as well Aurel. A good film could be the right idea. Shame that 'Thelma and Louise' is not a good film.... :

3. You might want to rent this - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0471796/

Andrew,

1. I tend to disagree. For me the sign Plot 2 means that from there on (where it is planted) Plot 2 starts.

This is what I have seen a couple of times on other cemetry photos with the original markers and the unfinished lay-out, always near the first row.

If row A* had been Plot 2 too, then sure the sign would have stood there.

And the letters indicating the rows (A, B, C, D etc.) were planted near the first grave of the row. You can see these signs too, low to the ground. (But of course not readable on Alan's photo)

2. Well, I remember it ends with a big bang. And somehow I have to let off steam.

3. Strange. When I clicked, I had a text "Internal Server Error". Unusual name for a movie. Is it with Susan Sarandon too ?

Aurel

(Edited)

P.S. Just clicked again. And now it worked.

It seems a movie about "a kleptomaniac who, feeling bored, decides to steal herself a collection of shiny young men." Shiny young men ? I run no risk. I'm not shiny. (The title I can't remember. Something of a large black bird with a long tail. Can't see the link either.

[ian turner]

Aurel/Andrew,

Of course the Plot II sign starting at today's row A may indeed be as per Aurel's theory, but that does not rule out row A* being just for markers (as per my latest theory)!

I do not think that row A* precedes Plot II - previous current burials were in Plot I or Lawn Cemy.

Plot II is too well laid out to be other than a concentration plot.

Let's await the scans...

Ian

[Alan_J]

- The second line of graves on your photo (at present this is Row A) has the sign Plot 2.

- The first row (Gardner's A*) has a sign which we cannot read.

- Anyway, whatever it says, this row A* is NOT Plot 2. (Since Plot 2 only starts in the second row on the photo.)

- If CWGC register says that Plot 2 contains graves that were brought in from burial places in the Potijze area, this means ... that Gardiner's row, not being Plot 2, does NOT come from a different burial place,

- But has remains of men who were buried there at Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery right after their death.

Aurel,

I think it's certainly a possibility. As several have said, there seems no reason for another sign when we already have one naming the cemetery and one naming Plot 2. But (it seems there is always a 'but' in this thread), row A* would I think be the closest to the ruins of the chateau - would that have been where rows of graves were started? It could have been. The other issue that always comes up is Torrome!

But I'd tend to agree that Plot 2 starts from the sign saying 'Plot 2'.

Another possibility I'll throw in here is that the postcards may predate decisions on how to commemorate the missing. One early suggestion was that all soldiers who had no known grave should have in effect a 'personal memorial' in the cemetery nearest to where they were known to have last been seen alive. That is, perhaps each soldier would have a cross (or today a stone) with their name on (similar to the "Believed to be buried.." special memorials). In which case, perhaps row A* was an early move towards this, a row of grave markers or memorials recovered from elsewhere, but the bodies were not found, and the sign might signify this. A comment earlier about how the ground in front of row A* looked flat compared with those behind might tie in?

Obviously, this approach was not adopted, and we have the memorials to the Missing. I can't remember off-hand when the decision was made, or when the first of the Memorials to the missing was constucted; I'll have a look at some books and files and see if I can find out - unless Terry Denham pops in here with the answer.

However (again the but) - but what about Torrome? It's been suggested by several (including me) that Torrome's location at Poelcapelle might be an administrative error - by the Army before handing over to IWGC or else by IWGC. Just about any theory we come up with falls down if Torrome was moved to Poelcapelle (after having been moved from elsewhere to Potijze) - unless row A* was there all the time of course?

Follow? I'm not sure I do now! No wonder we're confused!

Alan

[Alan_J]

Sorry Ian,

I've just worked out that what I've said in my last post is basically what you suggested several posts further up.

I could have just put "I agree"!

Alan

[ian turner]

Another possibility I'll throw in here is that the postcards may predate decisions on how to commemorate the missing. One early suggestion was that all soldiers who had no known grave should have in effect a 'personal memorial' in the cemetery nearest to where they were known to have last been seen alive.

Alan,

That seems indeed to add weight to my hare-brained idea!

My explanation for Torrome was that his remains were subsequently found in his original battlefield grave, identified and reburied in Poelcapelle.

Maybe we will see more like this if we can get further names from Sabine's scan.

Ian

[Alan_J]

I've spent the last half an hour trying to scan various bits of the postcard at high resolution to see if any of the row markers are legible.

Fist point: there does not seem to be a row marker by row A* at all. There is one clearly in A, C and D. One is not visible for B however....perhaps obscured by undergrowth, which is thicker than it is around A*. There are also row markers visible in other postcards of the same era for "regular" cemeteries. So the row markers should be expected to be there.

Below is a scan of the first five rows, A* and A-D. In red is an area I have then scanned at very high-resolution and with a few different settings. It is the fifth row back, row D today.

[Alan_J]

You may be able to tell from the scan above, but here are the two higher resolution scans of the red-edged area: -

I make that a certain "D". Counting back it is the fifth row back, but the fourth today - row D!

So the hyopothesis that row A* was either not part of Plot 2 (original war-time burials, rather than concentrated), or not actual burials at all but recovered grave markers, may have some more weight!

Alan

[Andrew Hesketh]

Alan - that 'D' is pretty clear and adds weight to Ian's and Aurel's arguments. We seem to be returning to the idea that row A* did not contain any burials. As has been said, if we can read more names off Sabine's new scan we may be a little wiser.

Is there nothing at all on the sign by A*, or is it just too faint tobe legible?

[Andrew Hesketh]

Sabine has placed flowers in remembrance of Frederick Gardiner and has asked me to post her photograph. A lovely gesture.

[Alan_J]

Andrew,

I've tried various combinations of settings and I can't even see letters on the sign by A* let alone anything that might be words.

Aurel and Jacky have tried as well, also no luck (see a few posts ago).

Alan

[Andrew Hesketh]

Hmm - why have a sign that says nothing?!

[ian turner]

Been driving myself silly trying to read the sign by row A*

It is almost legible.

Small words on top, large letters underneath.

Can we not get a better scan of that sign. I played with the contrast and brightness settings and the words get clearer, but not clear enough!

(Probably says: Keep off the grass!)

Ian

[Alan_J]

I'm sure it says something, it's just that I can't see it - maybe it is in smaller or thinner lettering than the other signs.

The more I think about this, the more I feel the "grave markers with no bodies" in row A* fits the facts. From points that have been made by various people throughout this thread, and just to summarise:-

1. Row D today is marked as row D then, so row A* cannot have had a row designation then.

2. The ground in front of row A* looks undisturbed in Sabine's (I'm sure this is the earlier) postcard, wheras in row A and back from this the ground has been disturbed for the burials of recovered bodies from elsewhere. No need to disturb the ground when just grave markers are being put in.

3. Torrome being at Poelcapelle would fit - as I think Ian said, if his body was recovered later and identified. It would be really interesting to know if his name was ever on the Menin Gate! Depends when Poelcapelle was made, I can't find any information on that.

Ian, just seen your last post, if I get time I will scan the sign again it and post it here.

Alan

[ian turner]

Nice tribute from Sabine.

I cannot be there in person, but here's my twopence-worth to add to this commemoration.

Ian