Death Certificates

[Northern Soul]

A general observation.........so don't anyone take offence.

I am as interested as the next person in ensuring commemoration of those entitled to it. Indeed, through Terry Denham's good offices, I was successful in getting a local man recognised for commemoration after 90 years of ignominy. However, every time I see the phrase "get his Death Certificate so we can take it forward" (or words to that effect) I feel a bit uneasy because I can't help the feeling that this is not my responsibility as a taxpayer.

As I understand it the CWGC only commemorate service personnel on behalf of the MoD and are mandatad to do nothing else i,.e. if there is a query over a non-commemoration then the submission is to the MoD for consderation with the CWGC acting as directed by them.

Now, if say, I identify someone who, fairly obviously should be commemorated (and here I mean someone who is listed in the GRO Overseas Death Index etc. rather than someone who has been discharged and died of natural causes........and where there is potential ambiguity), then I should have thought it incumbent on the MoD to investigate it without me having to pay one Government department to provide a piece of paper to another Government department. These men and women are entitled to commemoration and a member of the public should not have to furnish proof where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a genuine mistake has been made. As an analogy, if I pick up a phone book and find a number in it then either that person has a phone or they used to have one - that's the reason they are listed. It's the same with the WW1 Overseas Death Indexes; if they are in there listed as a serviceman - and aren't listed with the CWGC - then someone in officialdom needs to explain why - and I don't think I should have to pay them to do so either.

Any thoughts?

[Drummy]

Completely agree, surely if a possible non comm is highlighted by a member of public and brought to the attention of MOD I believe that all subsequent enquiries such as obtaining DC or service file, war diary etc should be completed by the MOD, after all The National Archives and ONS are also government departments? Footing the bill for some basic document enquiries is surely the least that can be done for a service man or woman who lost their life in the service of their country and sadly have never received official commemoration for whatever reason.

[Malcolm]

I agree. The Scottish National War Memorial list my Private James Young Duncan as killed April 1918 even though he is on CWGC AND on the Menin Gate (names up to late 1917 only) AND he is listed on the Overseas Death Index AND the list of casualties for 17th Sherwoods for 31st July 1917. It comes from a missprint in SDITGW. Every enquiry gets the following ' Send us a death certificate ' IT GETS ME GOING............

Sorry.

Aye

Malcolm

[John_Hartley]

Similar earlier thread in this section

clickety click

John

[Terry Denham]

You are all understandably miffed by the current situation - so am I.

However, that is the situation we face.

CWGC are not charged with finding names - only recording those given to it.

There is no legal obligation on MoD or other authority to research names either. You can argue forever about 'moral' responsibility. Whilst a large percentage of the population would say that they were in favour of having such men commemorated, if it was said that it would divert effort and funds from helping the familes of current servicemen/casualties, then responses would alter (and that is the sort of official response that would likely be the result).

The reality is that pontificating about the rights and wrongs of the issue leads nowhere. I would rather spend the funds necessary from my own pocket (when I can afford it) to see some men commemorated than get on my high horse over who should be paying.

Having said that there are things that can be done (writing to MPs etc) to try to win over support for improving the current situation. Following recent discussions with another member of the Forum, I am making an attempt in this direction. It will take a long while with no guarantee of success but making the attempt is the important thing.

[jim_davies]

Stupid question, but how does one go about obtaining or searching for a death certificate for a soldier.?

The CWGC have nothing on Frederick Woods, see:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...c=51671&hl=

While I agree with much of what is written in the above posts, I really don't begrudge this lad a few extra quid.

Jim

[Terry Denham]

Jim

You apply to the GRO. http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/

If he died in the UK, he will be listed with everyone else. If he died overseas, he will be in the Overseas section.

If you post the details here, I can check the Overseas Index to get the reference number which reduces the cost.

[Terry Denham]

Jim

Sorry, you have given the details in the other thread..

He does appear in the GRO Overseas Death Index under Reference I.31.50

[John_Hartley]

Having said that there are things that can be done (writing to MPs etc) to try to win over support for improving the current situation.

Terry

If we were to lobby our own MPs, would it not be beneficial if we were all on the same song sheet (so to speak). I can see how a number of MPs all writing to Des Browne on the same issue might have more impact.

Perhaps there is scope for a specific thread where we might discuss a limited number of achievable changes to the MoD procedures and then, at some point, those members interested in writing could do so.

John

[jim_davies]

Terry,

Thank you. Will contact CWGC again.

Jim

[Terry Denham]

John

You are right about a concerted effort although letters should all look 'original' rather than copies of each other.

You will recall our discussing off Forum a certain MP who could help. As it happens, I am at a meeting this afternoon on another matter and he should be present so I may get the opportunity to broach the subject.

[John_Hartley]

Terry

Agreed. I think if we were to operate some form of concerted approach, there are a number of Forum members experienced in campaigning (in other fields) and will have good advice to offer.

If I may start a ball-rolling of things that would be relatively easy to achieve and which would bring good benefits:-

- the issue, as above, about the MoD funding the death certificates where there is prima facie evidence from the GRO.

- the introduction by CWGC/MoD of a standardised "application form". This would be used to supply the prima facie evidence and any other identification and supprting evidence. The design of the form would help to eliminate the sort of case of, say, someone simply finding a name on a memorial and banging in a submission. At a minimum, the member of the public needs to identify who the casualty is in miltiary records and that they are on the GRO (for post discharge, I agree the member of the public needs to obtain the death certificate to establish date and cause).

- although I would need to think this through in detail, I'd hope that the Commission could be persuaded to use some more "common sense" when submissions are made over errors in their records. I accpet this is difficult but I'm sure there's scope for improvement.

- and, finally, the setting of some "service standards" by CWGC/MoD in terms of how quickly they will investigate a submission, contact the member of the public to for required additional information/clarification, and make a determination.

Hope you don't mind me putting these ideas down in advance of anything you have in mind.

John

[SiegeGunner]

As long as death certificates for non-comms have to be paid for, perhaps there is scope for those who don't have any names to put forward to help the cause by donating to a fund established to cover the cost of death certificates for cases submitted through the Forum?

Mick

[andyspiller]

Mick

Although a splendid idea, would there not be issues regarding such a public fund? I am thinking of accounts, trustees, tax status etc.

Rgds

Andy

[SiegeGunner]

People could register their willingness to buy a certificate and then, when one is required, Terry or whoever could pick a donor at random and direct them to the pay point — so no holding of funds or other complications.

Mick

[andyspiller]

Mick

Fine - no probs there then.

Rgds

Andy

[JohnBelcher]

I supplied the Death Certificate for a man who was not commemmorated. Following investigation he is now recognised and his previously unmarked grave is now marked with a headstone.

Only thing is death certificate shows 13 April 1915 headstone and records shows 10 April.

Name: SWANBOROUGH, ARTHUR JOHN

Initials: A J

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Private

Regiment/Service: Gloucestershire Regiment

Unit Text: 1st Bn.

Age: 20

Date of Death: 10/04/1915

Service No: 9775

Additional information: Son of Arthur Henry and Ellen Swanborough of Englands, Wood Lane, Chippenham, Wilts.

Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: 575.

Cemetery: CHIPPENHAM (LONDON ROAD) CEMETERY

At least he is now commemmorated

[Tom A McCluskey]

Chaps,

Maybe this is an oversimplification:

But isn't this a case of one bunch of folks on the tax payers bill - the GRO - picking up the phone and speaking to some other bunch of folks on the tax payers bill - the MOD, who will ultimately talk to a 3rd party on the tax payers bill - the CWGC. This will not amount to millions considering the infrastructure and trained personnel are already manning the desk. To me there is still a job to be completed, made all the more ridiculous by the lack of a phone call from one civil servant to another - or a transfer of information from one civil servants computer to another:

(MOD) Fiona: 'Hi Diane is 1234 Tommy Atkins, Royal Blankshires on the Overseas Death Register, Born Devizes, killed at Loos 25 Sep 15?'

(GRO) Diane: 'Yes! he's registered and a Death Certificate was issued.'

(MOD) Fiona: 'Thanks Diane!, It does not look like he is commemorated, I will send a letter to CWGC Reference: Telephone Conversation MOD/GRO ---.'

(If this does not satisfy the problem, replace MOD with CWGC)

The MOD would have a hard neck to say 'not on my budget' when it was them that jolly-well sent these soldiers off to give their last mortal breath in the first place.

I would have liked to have thought that some benevolence would have been shown on the part of the GRO, otherwise it makes their position look like a gravy train for more revenue generation (£10.50 for Death Certificate + the offer of speedy delivery) whilst there is a growing interest in family history.

Anyway, point of view over...out!

Aye

Tom McC

[Northern Soul]

Chaps,

Maybe this is an oversimplification:

But isn't this a case of one bunch of folks on the tax payers bill - the GRO - picking up the phone and speaking to some other bunch of folks on the tax payers bill - the MOD, who will ultimately talk to a 3rd party on the tax payers bill - the CWGC. This will not amount to millions considering the infrastructure and trained personnel are already manning the desk. To me there is still a job to be completed, made all the more ridiculous by the lack of a phone call from one civil servant to another - or a transfer of information from one civil servants computer to another:

(MOD) Fiona: 'Hi Diane is 1234 Tommy Atkins, Royal Blankshires on the Overseas Death Register, Born Devizes, killed at Loos 25 Sep 15?'

(GRO) Diane: 'Yes! he's registered and a Death Certificate was issued.'

(MOD) Fiona: 'Thanks Diane!, I will send a letter to CWGC Reference: Telephone Conversation MOD/GRO ---.'

(If this does not satisfy the problem, replace MOD with CWGC)

The MOD would have a hard neck to say 'not on my budget' when it was them that jolly-well sent these soldiers off to give their last mortal breath in the first place.

I would have liked to have thought that some benevolence would have been shown on the part of the GRO, otherwise it makes their position look like a gravy train for more revenue generation (£10.50 for Death Certificate + the offer of speedy delivery) whilst there is a growing interest in family history.

Anyway, point of view over...out!

Aye

Tom McC

Precisely Tom, and if the retrospective official commemoration of a serviceman or servicewoman who died on service for their country is dependent on me or some other member of the public having to dig into our pockets then it's a damn disgrace.

If there is a legal entitlement for them to be commemorated and the evidence suggests they have been overlooked then it should be incumbent on the authorites to pursue it. My cycnicsm suggests that this "provide a Death Certificate" response has more than a little to do with tacitly discouraging such research. It's nonsense - period.

Andy.

[Max]

Precisely Tom, and if the retrospective official commemoration of a serviceman or servicewoman who died on service for their country is dependent on me or some other member of the public having to dig into our pockets then it's a damn disgrace.

If there is a legal entitlement for them to be commemorated and the evidence suggests they have been overlooked then it should be incumbent on the authorites to pursue it. My cycnicsm suggests that this "provide a Death Certificate" response has more than a little to do with tacitly discouraging such research. It's nonsense - period.

Andy.

I think that you are half right here.

If the MoD took the full financial responsibility of having to investigate every submission made to them, regardless of how half baked, then I for one as a taxpayer would object. I do think however that a successful submission should result in all expenses being reimbursed.

Andy

[Northern Soul]

I think that you are half right here.

If the MoD took the full financial responsibility of having to investigate every submission made to them, regardless of how half baked, then I for one as a taxpayer would object. I do think however that a successful submission should result in all expenses being reimbursed.

Andy

Andy,

My contention concerns the more or less certain cases. To repeat part of my original post - ..............It's the same with the WW1 Overseas Death Indexes; if they are in there listed as a serviceman - and aren't listed with the CWGC - then someone in officialdom needs to explain why.

I don't believe that reimbursement should be the issue either - we shouldn't have to pay in the first place. I don't know what the hourly tarriff of the average Whitehall employee is but I'm pretty sure that the taxpayer would end up paying a great deal for the process of reimbursement than the value of any monies reimbused.

Andy.

[John_Hartley]

Andys (or is that Andies or, even, Andes)

In post #12, I made a couple of practical suggestions for improvements. One was there be an "application form". This would be the basis for rejecting the ill-prepared submission (for example, someone simply saying there's a Fred Bloggs on my local memorial and I can't find him on CWGC). The "form" would concentrate the applicant's mind to actually identify the potential casualty and provide some evidence that they met the usual criteria.

I entirely agree with "NS Andy" that, once reasonable evidence was submitted, the MoD should obtain certificates (or re-imburse the cost if a certificate had to be obtained to gain the evidence).

This part of the bureaucratic exercise would be a fairly low level administrative task and, as an ex civil servant, I know that low level public sector administrators do not get paid much.

John

[Max]

Some good ideas John.