Death certificates for the "uncommemorated"

[John_Hartley]

If someone dies whilst on service overseas, within the CWGC qualfying period, s/he automatically qualifies for inclusion on the Debt of Honour of Honour Register. Cause of death is irrelevent.

Yet CWGC/MoD usually insist on a death certificate being obtained and submitted as a key piece of evidence. The cost and hassle of this requirement can act as disincentive to submit a case, particularly if several cases have been uncovered. And, it seems to me, it's unnecessarily bureaucratic, not just for the applicant , but for CWGC/MoD.

Official government documentation, confirming the soldiers identity and date of overseas death, is already widely available and often for free. It's the General Register Office (GRO) Overseas Death Index, which is often mentioned on the Forum.

I don't understand why CWGC/MoD cannot use this document as the confirmatory evidence. Perhaps, it's because they've never thought to do so.

To submit a death certificate is, in effect, submitting one piece of "official paper" to confirm another piece of "official paper".

Knowing that the MoD can be , shall we say, "stick in the mud" about their procedures I doubt whether writing to them directly with the suggestion would have much effect. I am, however, thinking of writing to the three Members of Parliament who are Commissioners of the CWGC (and my own MP, of course). The MPs are Des Browne (who, as Secretary of State should be able to wave a magic wand), Alan Meale and Nicholas Soames.

I appreciate, of course, the absolute need for certificates in respect of servicemen who die after discharge so cause of death can be linked to war service.

Any other thoughts?

John

[Terry Denham]

John

An nice idea and worth pursuing. However, a word of caution.

As you know, I am undertaking an exercise to compare the GRO Overseas Military Indices 1914-1921 with the CWGC list to find any missing men.

The GRO Index, in theory at least, should be the most accurate list available of UK army, naval and RAF men who died overseas. There may be names missing but, personally, I have not found one yet.

But there are errors which would possibly be given as a reason for not taking the list as gospel. There are duplications certainly - names on the list twice with apparently two death certificates. There are also numerous name spelling differences/errors. I have also found one name which every other source says was not in the military at his death (under investigation). Also, the Index is only a typed list from an original document which plenty of scope for error.

My point is that the GRO may not be a totally problem free comparison list. However, in principle, I agree with you.

I am acquainted with Nicholas Soames, by coincidence, as he is a local MP for me and I am involved with him on a particular local issue. I may be able to assist there.

[Terry Denham]

John

An alternative proposal would be to leave the onus on the researcher to get documents as it currently stands but for MoD to refund any costs if the name is accepted.

As I typed that, I saw a flaw in the proposal. It may encourage MoD to reject borderline cases!

[Terry Denham]

The other problem with your proposal, John, is that the GRO Index does not contain some of the detail that would be required - eg date of death (only gives the year), the location (would be needed to decide to which memorial to be added) and any battalion or other unit (not strictly necessary but could be needed to pin down memorial).

Therefore, the DC would be needed in the end. Perhaps a better idea would be for the MoD to pay for the DCs!

[Terry Denham]

The GRO Index, in theory at least, should be the most accurate list available of UK army, naval and RAF men who died overseas. There may be names missing but, personally, I have not found one yet.

Sod's Law.

I have just found my first casualty missing from the GRO Overseas Death Index.

Officer - Died 1915 - on CWGC list - buried France. No trace under any name variation on GRO.

So it is not a complete list either!

[John_Hartley]

The other problem with your proposal, John, is that the GRO Index does not contain some of the detail that would be required - eg date of death (only gives the year),

Bu**er!

I hate it when I have a dead brill idea and someone immediately points out the fatal flaw!

As I'm sure you'd sussed, I had in mind the possibility of comparing the GRO with the CWGC records as a major project that Pals could become involved in. The costs involved in the present system make it impractical to proceed.

Another option (of benefit to the researcher), might be for the initial submission to be based on the GRO Index and for the MoD to obtain the actual certificate. This then meaning that it's simply budget transfers between different branches of government rather than "real money" coming from the taxpayer.

As you're in contact with Mr Soames, any chance of floating the problem past him to see what sort of response there might be?

John

[Terry Denham]

John

You are suggesting that one government department (MoD) pays another government department (Home Office) for inter-departmental services - as it is only moving cash from one pocket to another.

Well er - Can you really see that flying? Our Chancellor (any Chancellor) would be on that like a ton of bricks as would any commercial finance man!

Also, the thought of leaving it up to government desk jockeys to get the certificates in any timescale under a decade worries me. It would also mean that the researcher would be left in the dark not seeing the DC.

There has to be an answer but I don't think we are there yet.

[John_Hartley]

Well er - Can you really see that flying? ..........................

..............Also, the thought of leaving it up to government desk jockeys to get the certificates in any timescale under a decade worries me. ............

There has to be an answer but I don't think we are there yet.

Terry

Inter-departmental transfers were commonplace in the branch of government for which I used to work, so I see no reason why not.

However, your timescale point is very valid (as is the info the researcher would get from the DC).

Let me turn the question round then. What do you reckon the chances of the MoD being persuaded to refund the cost of the DC? A question to put to Soames,? And, yes, I know he's from an opposition party but he has the juice to make the right enquiries.

John

[Terry Denham]

I understand about departmental transfers. They happen in commerce as well. However, they still have to be allocated against budgets.

The refund idea could work but I am concerned that it would put pressure on to reject borderline claims out of hand - rather than consider them sensibly.

I am happy to contact NS on the subject. I'll contact you off Forum.

[SiegeGunner]

You are suggesting that one government department (MoD) pays another government department (Home Office) for inter-departmental services - as it is only moving cash from one pocket to another.

Terry,

This happens all the time. Coincidentally, one of the services provided to other government departments (for which they were charged at cost-recovery rates) by the departmental translation service I used to head was the translation of death certificates of British citizens who died abroad.

Mick

[Terry Denham]

Mick

I wasn't suggesting it didn't happen. I know it happens.

My point was that it still has to be 'paid for' by inter-departmental accounting and therefore has to appear on a budget somewhere.