a soldier who used to have a grave

[Auimfo]

Aurel/Sabine,

I just checked CWGC listings and there is an H.L. Jones, Royal Engineers listed in the special memorials at the rear of Plot II. He died on 03/05/1915.

Could the 'V' actually be an 'H' and this be the Jones you're thinking of? If so, we may have identified his actual grave within the cemetery - but why was it misplaced in the first place?

And I'm still not convinced that Gardiner's grave is a memorial. It's in a row of fairly obvious 'actual' graves and although it has 'NCO's and men' written on it, this could simply be those who dedicated the cross to him. What strikes me even more about it is the fact that it has the specific date on it. Why that day? There were numerous others from 12 HLI killed in the days either side so surely any 'memorial' would want to include them and therefore have between dates on it.

Anyway, I'm stumped on how we can proceed further without being able to positively identify some of the other graves in the front row. Perhaps we need the expertise of a professional photography company using some high quality scanning equipment to bring out the detail on some of the other crosses. I still think the one at II.A*.20 (Gardiner's row) with the second cross nailed to the back of it is a possible.

Tim L.

[Auimfo]

Ohhh.......

Sabine/Aurel,

When Sabine described the grave of V. Jones as being 'three to the left of Cobbold and one up' did you actually mean Cobbbold's left or our left as we look at the photo.

If I'm correct you actually meant Cobbold's left which would be our right as we look at the photo. This would mean you're talking about the photo I've posted below.

Now, you've also stated it's 'one up' but in fact I think you'll find it's actually nailed to the back of the cross in the front 'missing' row. This can also be seen in Alan's photo which I've shown below as well.

This is the cross I've been talking about possibly getting the detail from i.e. II.A*.20.

If it is the grave of H. Jones, Royal Engineers, it would appear it has been lost because he is now remembered on a special memorial at the rear of Plot II.

Is this confirmation that the graves were not moved at all and are actually still there?

The plot thickens! (pun intended )

Tim L.

[sabine72]

Tim,

I went to a photographer yesterday morning, he scanned it and while doeing it (to fast for my eyes) I could see other names we should be able to read.

from the scan in high resolution they will make a photo in size 30x45 cm. I have to waite until thursday to get it.

And about the grave, yes that is the one I was talking about. maybe I din't make it easy on you. since I have the postcard right in front of me. I sometimes forget you all have to scroll up 196 posts to see it.

I'll have to look again and now I'm not sure anymore, V or W or H;

I just wish you would be all here so I can show it .Because at the origenal you can see that the grave is in the row behind the first one.

and yes I think the same that gardiner's grave is not a memorial but a real grave.

But I could be wrong. I get that feeling after reading and reading over and over again the letters his wife lucy received.

sabine

[Aurel Sercu]

Tim,

I too was not sure which cross Sabine meant reading two names (Jones and Russell) but I think I agree with you : it must be the double cross (A* 20).

And it could be the Jones of the Special Memorial behind Plot II. One of the 7 "Known to be Buried" (There are 5 "Believed to be Buried")

5 of these "Known to be buried" are Royal Engineers, all died on that same day 3/5/1915. I might just as well write down the names. Don't know why, but who knows, somehow it may appear relevant later in this Topic :

R. Norsworthy, G. Lamkin, H. Jones, E. Blondun, W. Barnes.

By the way, comparing the two postcards (the one with Gardiner clearly recognizable (= Sabine's), and the general view (= Alan's) I also noticed a few other minor differences in row A*.

It seems to me

- that Cobbold's cross (A*17 ?) other arm is missing too

- that one of the two standard crosses between Cobbold (A*17) and the "double cross" (A*20) is missing too, either A*18 or A*19

- that in the rest of the row A* 22 and A* 23 are missing as well.

(I wish I could add a photo with a detail showing that part of the row, but somehow my PC refused to cut out that part ! "Error" ! Anyway, some can be seen in Tim's posting above.)

Not really relevant, these missing crosses, except maybe later ? (And to prove that this general view postcard is of a later date.)

***

Are the graves still there, you ask ? Who knows ... All of them ? All 30 ? And what about Torrome at Poelkapelle ?

***

As to Gardiner's cross being a Memorial or a Gravemarker. Yes, it looks as if it is a Gravemarker to Gardiner, by "NCO's and Men", not as a Memorial to Gardiner AND NCO's and Men.

But sooner or later other arguments may make me doubt again ...

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

I just wish you would be all here so I can show it .Because at the origenal you can see that the grave is in the row behind the first one.

Sabine,

(First of all, apologies, I had not read your posting # 203 yet when I was typing my # 204)

Do you mean that

- in the original it "looks as if" the larger white cross is in the row behind (which would situate it in the present row A), but in fact it's not

- or that as a matter of fact it "is" in the row behind ?

Personally I too have thought that it might be in the row behind it, but in the end I believed, as someone said in a previous posting (Alan ? Tim ?) it is nailed to the back of the smaller standard cross.

Aurel

[sabine72]

aurel,

it is not nailed to another one because you can see it coming out of the ground.

you know what my husband said.

Boezinge and elverdinge are so close to eachother why cann't the two of you get together instead of sending emails?

He is right isn't he?

send me an email and let me know

sabine

[nfh249]

Thanks all for a fascinating thread! I hope between you you are able to solve the mystery, until then I'll follow with interest!

Regards,

Neil.

[Aurel Sercu]

1.

it is not nailed to another one because you can see it coming out of the ground.

2.

you know what my husband said.

Boezinge and elverdinge are so close to eachother why cann't the two of you get together instead of sending emails?

He is right isn't he?

send me an email and let me know

sabine

Sabine,

1. Actually I tend to disagree. I do believe that at first sight it certainly looks as if the white cross, from the photographer's point of view, is a cross partly hidden by the small wooden standard cross third right from Cobbold's cross. And that you can see it coming out of the ground.

However, that would mean that the cross would stand halfway between Gardiner's row, and the row behind it (present row A). And I think even between the second set of crosses (11-20 and 21-30). Unlikely....

But I have another argument. Look at the photo with the general view of the cemetery. There is no doubt the photographer was standing more to the left. (I think he was standing on a ladder or wall where now the entrance is, a few meters before you reach the entrance, in where now the path is.)

In that case the white cross (on which you saw the two names) would have been clearly "loose" from the standard cross in the first row, a certain distance between the two.

Well, it isn't. You can see that both of them are closely together again. (See the tiny photo in Tim's post # 202)

I think that when the standard crosses were erected, the white cross had broken off, and it was simply attached, considered as an extra proof of the identity of the man (men ?).

This was not done farther on in that row (see your own postcard), cross A* 23, which had apparently broken off too, but was planted deep in the ground.

But I could be wrong of course.

2.

Your husband is right of course. "Get together" ? I'll ask my wife

Sorry I couldn't see you at the cemetery this morning.

Tomorrow morning and afternoon and Tuesday morning and afternoon will be difficult again. Even Wednesday. (I hope there won't be too many postings in this Topic. Otherwise it will be hard to follow ! ;-)

Aurel

[Jacky Platteeuw]

I must agree there as many reasons to consider Gardiner's cross as a grave marker as there are to consider it as a commemoration.

However there are other elements which, in my opinion, tend towards the commemoration theory:

1. Like Tim says ' although it has 'NCO's and men' written on it, this could simply be those who dedicated the cross to him.' Indeed but it seems odd to me that the caption isn't, 'Officers, NCO's and men' then. There were other officers involved on 2nd August a Captain Thomas Myles (possibly the replacement of Gardiner) and a Second Lieutenant J. Bannatyne were killed

2. The cross itself was almost certainly put there some time after and is specifically for 31st July 1917. Indeed on that date only Gardiner, NCO's and soldiers were killed. Personally I am convinced that if it was a grave marker only the name of Gardiner would be mentioned.

Jacky

[Auimfo]

Jacky,

You're right - there are reasons to believe that Gardiner's grave marker could be either an actual grave or a memorial and all are valid.

But, the reasons I find that support it being an actual grave seem to outweigh the other. Firstly it's in a row of graves that are obviously 'actual' graves as evidenced by Alan's photo. Secondly, it says NCO's - plural, yet only one NCO was killed on the same day as Gardiner. Thirdly, if 12/HLI were dedicating a memorial to the ten men killed on 31/07/17, surely they would list all their names on a memorial. And lastly, why specifically the 31/07/17. There were 6 men killed the following day (who are remembered on the Menin Gate). Surely a battalion memorial for those killed in the area around that time would want to include these men as well (if not more) and have between dates i.e. 21/07/1917--5/08/1917.

No, I'm convinced it's an actual grave marker dedicated by the NCO's and men who served under Gardiner.

Sabine/Aurel

I am also pretty certain the two crosses are nailed together. If you check the photo below, it outlines the parts of the photo that make me think this. Also, if it were actually a separate cross behind, then it would be in an extremely unusual position - in between two rows and in the middle of the dividing path between two groups of 10 graves. I think Alan's photo really clinches it because it doesn't show it in that odd position but it does still appear to be nailed to the front cross.

Oh, and Aurel, I agree entirely with your view that Cobbold's cross seems to be missing the second arm and some other crosses appear missing in Alan's photo. I had noticed this as well.

Tim L.

[Jacky Platteeuw]

Haven't been through the whole thread again so if this photo has been posted before apologies: a view from end of the 20's or beginning of the 30ies. Comes from a booklet 1914-1918 British War Cemeteries Ypres. Edited by Nels.

Jacky

[Aurel Sercu]

The cross itself was almost certainly put there some time after.

Jacky

Jacky and Tim,

My opinion : it is a grave marker AND a commemoration cross at the same time.

Originally, at a cemetery somewhere near Potyze, a simple cross must have been planted on the original grave, the day Gardin,er was buried. Later (a few days or weeks or months) it was replaced by something more decorative by "NCOs and men".

When the remains of Gardiner were relocated to Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery, the gravemarker / commemoration cross were taken to the Cemetery as well, looking still nice enough to be re-used. (Other graves had had simple crosses that had been too damaged, and were replaced by standard crosses. Torrome's and Cobbold's and Jones's and some more still looked OK enough.)

Jacky, just this, but it's only a simple detail, and hardly relevant : what do you mean by "there" ? Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery ? As I explained in my posting # 193 I think it was somewhere else (Gardiner's original burial place somewhere nearby. Some time between his death (31/7/17) and the end of the war. (Argument : the extent of the damage.)

But as I said, an unimportant detail only.

Aurel

[Jacky Platteeuw]

Aurel,

Indeed 'there' means Potijze Chateau.

Could it be that the discussion we are having now has possibly also been done some 80 years ago ?. If so eventually the decision was possibly made that this had to be considered as a commemoration cross and so Gardiner ended up on the Menin Gate.

Just a thought.

Jacky

[Aurel Sercu]

Aurel,

1. Indeed 'there' means Potijze Chateau.

2. Could it be that the discussion we are having now has possibly also been done some 80 years ago ?. If so eventually the decision was possibly made that this had to be considered as a commemoration cross and so Gardiner ended up on the Menin Gate.

Just a thought.

Jacky

Jacky,

1. It had to happen one day. At last we disagree. Is this the end of a beautiful friendship ?

2. Possible. Yet (and I know this is a bit macabre), if there was doubt 80 years ago, wouldn't they (Army ? IWGC ?) have taken the trouble to find out if there was 'something' beneath ? (Yes, I know, there may have been other priorities.)

And also : what about the other plus 20 in the row ?

Aurel

[Alan_J]

And what about, specifically, Cobbold? A clear grave marker cross "Killed in Action", clearly in Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery some 80 years ago - and yet now Cobbold is one of the Missing commemorated on the Menin Gate?

ALan

[ian turner]

Hopefully Sabine's re-scan will provide some more names from the missing row to give us something else to chew on.

Meantime I was pouring over the cemetery plans for more inspiration as to why an entire row was removed. First, when comparing with the old pics, it can be seen that the 'missing row' is split up into three sections, in conformity with all the other rows in Plot II.

I conclude that this missing row was indeed a row of graves, and Capt Gardiner's marker was not just a memorial. His is one of ten in the section. The access path between these individual sections can be seen in the old views.

So why remove the row? The obvious suggestion about access is the most obvious, but that consideration was not applied to Plot I, and nor to the Lawn Cemtery, where rows are close to the boundary wall. But as Plot II is also by the access gate, which in turn is opposte the Cross, maybe it was thought necessary to leave a section either side of Plot II to enable easier access to the two other plots. The symetry of Plot II is also more in line with Plot I without 'our' row in place.

Looking at the inter-war picture, it seems as if the tree (or its remains, where the wall does a turn to narrrow down to Plot I) is still in place, and what appears to be a line of small shrubs is appx where our missing row was. The picture is a bit indistinct at that point for me to be sure. This area is seen to be quite clear of anything in the present day views.

But getting back to the removal of our missing row. One suggestion was that there were insufficient remains to make it worth re-burial and thus they were 'converted' to being commemorated as missing, except Pvte Torrome. I now doubt that, since these were concentrated burials and surely that decision would have been made at the time of concentration? And would that be the case for the whole row of some thirty remains? But perhaps it was the case, and it was more expeditious to simply post the names as missing.

If that is so, then might there have been any correspondence between the IWGC and the families of the deceased? Once again a glimpse of the CWGC files for Capt Gardiner, and Pvts Torrome and Cobbold would be interesting.

Any re-alignment also beggars the question as to why the missing graves were not re-sited within the cemetery, and if Torrome was the only identifiable victim, then why not put him close by in Plot I for instance, where conformity issues would not be so great, instead of removal to another cemetery at a distance?

Otherwise it seems that the path of the wall adjacent to our missing row is aligned to conform with the egde of Lawn Cemetery, and the opposite wall of Plot II is sighted to mirror the outline; both are pinched-in to make a smaller border to Plot I.

Finally, another consideration is that from the old pics there seems sufficient space for access between the missing row and the wire fence. In that case, could not the wall have been built to the same alignment?

Surely symetry was not that paramount, and we are not talking of using a vastly extra amount of land from the Chateau grounds?

Ian

[Aurel Sercu]

1.

So why remove the row (Gardiner's row) ? The obvious suggestion about access is the most obvious, but that consideration was not applied to Plot I, and nor to the Lawn Cemtery, where rows are close to the boundary wall.

2.

Looking at the inter-war picture, it seems (...) what appears to be a line of small shrubs is appx where our missing row was.

3.

Finally, another consideration is that from the old pics there seems sufficient space for access between the missing row and the wire fence. In that case, could not the wall have been built to the same alignment?

Surely symetry was not that paramount, and we are not talking of using a vastly extra amount of land from the Chateau grounds?

Ian

Ian,

1. True. Yet somehow, when at the cemetery itself... In an earlier posting I wrote that I had calculated that if Row A* (Gardiner's row) had been left where it was, the distance between the row of headstones and the boundary wall would haven been 3,80 m (12 feet). Compared with the distance between the other rows of Plot II this would leave less than 1 meter (3 feet) of extra space. Somehow this may have been considered too little at the time ? (As I said it seems that there always is considerable room in cemeteries between the wall and the first row (though this certainly is not an absolute rule).) And if it was the intention to plans shrubs ... (See Item 2)

2. Yes, I had noticed these shrubs myself too. Wondering if they were planted there because there was enough room because Row A* had been removed, or that Row A* had been removed because the shrubs were considered necessary. (The mystery of the chicken and the egg, you know)

3. I'm not sure I understand. (Sorry.) Do you mean

a. that you think the wall near Plot I should have been in line with the wall of Plot II ?

b. Or do you mean that the wall near Plot II should have been in line with the wall near Plot I ? In that case, Row A* (Gardiner's row) would have been too close to the wall maybe ? (See my item 1 : I calculated 3.80 m, 12 feet.) Maybe it was considered at the time that this was not enough, since maybe because shrubs were intended to be planted ?

But I think you meant a. Also when reading "We are not talking of using etc."

And on the other hand I realize that the distance of Row E in Plot I is even closer to the wall....

So complicated... Conjectures and theories and hypotheses ...

For the rest of your post I can only say I have the same questions, and questions and questions. And non-answers and non-answers.

Two days ago I was at the cemetery, and spoke to the man whose garden is adjacent to Plot II. (The one with the heron on his chimney.) I explained the problem. He didn't say much (he was mowing his lawn and was glad he could take a break) but somehow I think I could read on his face : "Is that your problem ? Well well well ..." Or did I read : "Who cares ?"

Aurel

P.S. And of course also this, considering the date today... We could give a very special thought to Captain F. Gardiner, and Privates Thomas Connor, Joseph Ewan, William Greenwood and other men of the 12/HLI, and many hundreds of other men of other battalions, who today exactly 89 years ago went over the top, and ...

[ian turner]

P.S. And of course also this, considering the date today... We could give a very special thought to Captain F. Gardiner, and Privates Thomas Connor, Joseph Ewan, William Greenwood and other men of the 12/HLI, and many hundreds of other men of other battalions, who today exactly 89 years ago went over the top, and ...

Aurel,

And that is why I think we owe it to them to sort out their resting place, if at all possible! Even if in my case from the comfort of a chair, in front of a computer - or from a bike in Belgium in your case!

As to the query you had about my musings - when you look at the old pics, with our row in place, there seems sufficient space between the foot of our row (ie. the feet of the interred) to the wire fence so as to easily walk past. When building the wall, why not make it just a bit further away (not taking much more land) thus leaving plenty of space between the wall and our row, without having to disturb them?

The only reason I can see for moving our row is one of symetry - leaving a neat group of rows, with a wall either side equally spaced. And that wall conforming to the extent of Plot 1 at one end, and the Lawn Cemetery at the other.

Its the only reason I could see for moving the row, if that indeed was what happened.

Ian

[Andrew Hesketh]

What's going on? When I went away a for few days I said quite clearly that I expected this mystery to be solved when I returned!

I have spent nearly an hour carefully reading through all the posts of the last few days and may I thank you all (particularly Aurel for all his work) for providing such great ideas and constructive criticism.

It appears that we have now developed some clear theories. It will be interesting if Sabine's high resolution scan reveals more names for us to work with.

P.S. And of course also this, considering the date today... We could give a very special thought to Captain F. Gardiner, and Privates Thomas Connor, Joseph Ewan, William Greenwood and other men of the 12/HLI, and many hundreds of other men of other battalions, who today exactly 89 years ago went over the top, and ...

Quite right. Rest in Peace Captain Frederick Thomas Gardiner.

[Aurel Sercu]

What's going on? When I went away a for few days I said quite clearly that I expected this mystery to be solved when I returned! tongue.gif

Andrew,

Actually the mystery was solved an hour or so after you disappeared into thin air. But we (Sabine, Tim, Alan, Ian, Jacky, Andy, me, etc.) agreed not to make it public yet, to keep the solution to ourselves, in order to maintain the tension, and excitement. For you and the other viewers. Nice "plot", isn't it ?

Serious now. Thanks for the photo. And on the internet I found that there is a book in which part of it is about F. Gardiner ?

"Underwood and Bagthorpe - Recording the memories of the people of two Nottinghamshire mining villages in both World Wards" (2005)

The webpage said :

"The first section is about the young men from the village who went away to fight in the First World War. Still treasured by his family, Frederick Gardiner’s letters to his parents back home in Bagthorpe give an insight into life as a Sergeant in the Cyclists Battalion in 1915 and then as a Captain in the Highland Light Infantry until his death on 31st July 1917, the first day of the third Battle of Ypres. He has no known grave and is remembered on the Menin Gate memorial."

Do you have that book or extract ?

Aurel

[Alan_J]

Andrew,

Thanks for posting the picture - a salutary reminder that there is a face behind every name. We have been debating this for several days now, and it's too easy sometimes to forget the reality - your photo helps remind us.

I had an e-mail from sabine that she hopes to be able to collect the high-resolution picture perhaps tomorrow, so maybe there will be more information then that we can look at.

Alan

[Andrew Hesketh]

1. Actually the mystery was solved an hour or so after you disappeared into thin air. But we (Sabine, Tim, Alan, Ian, Jacky, Andy, me, etc.) agreed not to make it public yet, to keep the solution to ourselves, in order to maintain the tension, and excitement. For you and the other viewers. Nice "plot", isn't it ?

2. "Underwood and Bagthorpe - Recording the memories of the people of two Nottinghamshire mining villages in both World Wards" (2005) Do you have that book or extract ?

1.

2. No I don't. But I know someone who might. I'll contact them.

I had an e-mail from sabine that she hopes to be able to collect the high-resolution picture perhaps tomorrow, so maybe there will be more information then that we can look at.

Let's hope so Alan.

[Auimfo]

Welcome back Andrew.

If they thought the Da Vinci Code was a huge hit, wait until the book and movie about 'The Potijze Conspiracy'

Here's a short bio of Gardiner taken from the same website where you found the photo:

Son of William and Isabel Gardiner, of The Farm, Bagthorpe, Jacksdale, Notts; husband of Lucy Margaret Amy Gardiner (nee Gregory) of Carlton Tower, Harpenden, Herts. Served with Sherwood Foresters Aug 1914 to Sept 1915. Gazetted to Highland Light Infantry, Sept 1915.

From Eastwood and Kimberley, Advertiser:

The sad was received on August 7th, by Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Gardiner, The Farm, Bagthorpe, that their second son, Capt. Frederick Thomas Gardiner, Highland Light Infantry, was killed in action on July 31st, a few days before his 26th birthday.

Capt. Gardiner, who was a member of the teaching profession, was educated at Heanor Secondary School, and had just completed a two years’ course at St. John’s College, Battersea, in July, 1914. He mobilised at the outbreak of war with the 5th Notts and Derby Territorial Force, and at once volunteered for active service. He was made sergeant of the cyclists’ platoon, and after training at Luton, Harpenden, and Bishop Stortford, he was drafted to France in February, 1915. In July, 1915, he received a severe gunshot wound in his right forearm, and was invalided to England. He was on the eve of again departing for France, when he was gazetted to the Highland Light Infantry in September, 1915. After training in England and Scotland, he went to France in August, 1916, and took part in the Battle of the Somme. He was home on leave in February, 1917, and later moved to Ypres, where he met his death.

The following letters were received by his wife, who resides with her parents, during her husband’s absence, at Carlton Towers, Harpenden:-

Dear Mrs. Gardiner, - Allow me to offer you my sincerest sympathy on the loss of your husband, my very good friend since I first made his acquaintance on the Somme last October. I enclose two letters which he handed to me an hour or two before he met with his heroic death, for that is what it was. He was exposing himself to almost certain death in order to encourage his men, who were in a very dangerous part of the trench. I was not very far from him at the time, and I heard of his death in a very few minutes. It is with very great grief to me, as I had come to regard him as a real friend, and we all esteemed him as an excellent soldier, and a man of quite extraordinary courage and noble sense of duty. I will not intrude upon your grief further than to assure you once more of my very deep sympathy with you in your heavy loss. Believe me, yours very sincerely. R.H.T. STEWART, Chaplain to the Force.

Dear Mrs Gardiner, It is with the deepest regret that I write to you regarding the death of your husband. He was killed near Ypres on the 31st ult., by heavy shell fire whilst in a trench with his company. His death was almost immediate. His company was badly scattered by the shelling, and later moved forward, so I have not yet any details of his burial. I am indeed sorry for you in your bereavement, your husband was one of our best offices – the bravest of the brave – and beloved by his command. I have lost in him one of my most valued and trusted officers. My deepest sympathy is with you in your bereavement, but no words can make your sorrow any lighter. Believe me, yours very truly, W.E. ST. JOHN, Lt.-Col., H.L.I.

Capt. Gardiner had splendid abilities and varied interests. He was a good athlete and at school and college had won prizes for swimming, running, jumping, and shooting. On several occasions he played rugby with Notts. County reserve team. Once again war has demanded its toll and cut short a splendid life in the hey-day of its promise.

It's a shame St. John wasn't able to provide details of his burial but perhaps this implies there actually was a burial which could mean the cross at Potijze is a grave not a memorial. Not conclusive, I know, but just a little more added weight to the debate.

I think we're going to have to wait for Sabine's enhanced photo and Terry with info from the CWGC.

And I think it's important to make mention that if (and only if) it is found that an error has been made at Potijze, we don't start finger-pointing or blaming the relevant body (be it the Army or the CWGC etc). I think we are all well aware of the monumental task that was taken on after the war. Personally, I am always humbled by the care and attention to detail they have always applied to their work. To have made some errors is perfectly natural and completely understandable.

Tim L.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Tim,

That's an excellent website isn't it? I've contacted the people behind it to let them know about this thread and tp ask if I may use bits from it as and when they are helpful. They are very friendly and delighted that this is being investigated.

I'm hoping they might be able to root out some more information for us. They tell me that Gardiner's medals and a few personal posessions were purchased by a local private collector who may be able to add something.

I posted the letters many post ago (easy to forget in the complexity of this thread I know!). I agree that the implication is of burial, but an earlier poster I believe read it the other way. Pretty much sums up the whole thread really!

As you say, to make progress we are now waiting on Sabine and Terry to come up with their contributions.

[John_Hartley]

Pals

I just love a detective story - this is fascinating.

My apologies if this has alreayd been suggested and I've missed it, but has anyone looked at Gardiner's file at the NA? It's my experience that these will often contain letters concerning bodies being exhumed and re-interred. They can be quite precise. One of my recent researchees is a Lt Sidebotham, KSLI, whose body was located "about 1500 yards south east of Boesinghe" having been buried "behind the canal bank". He's now at White House Cem.

John