Joined headstones

[Terry Denham]

...as opposed to the other non-wargrave military headstones in there which I think (?) might be cared for by the CWGC...

These are indeed Non-World Graves in CWGC Care.

The headstones are of the MoD Non-World War (Army) pattern.

[sitush]

Phew, Terry! Am I glad that you cleared up the 1982-on policy before I asked the question! Loads of stuff I've read has talked of the difference between US policy of repatriation & UK policy of (more or less) leave them where they are. I've read some big moral debates about this difference, although inevitably politics gets a mention. I think that there has not long since (1 - 2 years) been a documentary about this on terrestrial TV also, but didn't watch cos am deaf and whatever channel it was on still didn't have a subtitling system worth stressing over.

I don't have enough knowledge of these conjoined headstones to comment about them being a CWGC experiment, but it's as good an explanation as any other put forward here & it reads as if you have spoken with them. With the knowledge of such stones in the UK (and perhaps elsewhere) - cue Dave/Croonaert - perhaps we can work out how long the experiment lasted & who/why/what qualified for it. Eg: did the CWGC approach the families and ask?

Malta seems likely to be a totally different ball-game to those we see in the UK. Has anyone seen any in, say, France or Belgium? Yes, I do know that both of those countries have their rocky bits, just as here

Dave will again correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not a massively different WW1 headstone in the Marble/St Margaret's yard which was especially erected by the chap's family? I wonder if this is also maintained by CWGC?

A bit ridiculous this: I was only there a couple of Sundays ago for the Service.

[CROONAERT]

is there not a massively different WW1 headstone in the Marble/St Margaret's yard which was especially erected by the chap's family? I wonder if this is also maintained by CWGC?

Take your pick...

[CROONAERT]

...

[CROONAERT]

...

[Terry Denham]

Sitush

I have, indeed, asked CWGC about the multiple width headstones - after the last time this topic was mentioned on the Forum.

The reply was that they were experimental but there was no real explanation of what the experiment was. It was probably an attempt to save funds by producing two/three headstones in one go. Obviously, it did not work - probably for operational reasons - as the experiment does not seem to have progressed to full blown practice.

CWGC would not have consulted relatives (I doubt that they still could have contacted them) and the Commission almost certainly owns the burial plots/rights anyway.

Under the terms of their Royal Charter, CWGC does not care for private headstones. Relatives were permitted to choose a private stone or a CWGC stone when the casualty died in a home country but the downside is that CWGC does not have to maintain the private ones. Having said that, there are a few examples where an agreement has been made and CWGC has 'adopted' a private stone after financial matters have been sorted.

[sitush]

That's great info, Terry. Thanks a lot. I did do a search here for it but got no results - mea culpa. I'll live in hope (but not expectation!) that someone searching in future can perhaps put in the right words to find this thread.

It reads like a bit of a "on the hoof" job as experiments go, but then even the most organised of outfits don't have records of the whys and wherefores of everything.

I'm very ignorant about even the most general detail of CWGC stance regarding anything, but do seem to recall that relatives were offered a choice of inscriptions of what - for the sake of argument - might be called the standard stone? Kipling was involved, most famously. There was also the option (I think) that the standard stone could have a family-originated/person-based epitaph - I wonder if this cost the family in any way?

Some odd things happened with bureaucracy which might seem shameful to some of us today, eg: I've in the past spoken with several men who were kids when their elder brothers died in WW1. and who could recall the family being charged burial expenses for what is now a CWGC cemetery in France/Belgium etc. An old story, which I'm sure has been previously commented upon here, and subject as always to the "rose tinted" aspect both of us now and them then.

Croonaert/Dave: it would seem from your photos you've "done" that particular spot in its entirety. Great stuff. Feel free to call in for a brew should you ever have reason to revisit.

[CROONAERT]

Croonaert/Dave: it would seem from your photos you've "done" that particular spot in its entirety. Great stuff. Feel free to call in for a brew should you ever have reason to revisit.

Sadly, my main (only?) reason to visit this area over the past 30 odd years died earlier this year . However, as a small but significant part of my childhood was in this area and there is still some business that I have to conclude nearby (along with the fact that I happen to like the area too!), I might just take you up on your offer!

Dave

[alliekiwi]

I'm very ignorant about even the most general detail of CWGC stance regarding anything, but do seem to recall that relatives were offered a choice of inscriptions of what - for the sake of argument - might be called the standard stone? Kipling was involved, most famously. There was also the option (I think) that the standard stone could have a family-originated/person-based epitaph - I wonder if this cost the family in any way?

I think the family epitaph did cost them. I was told the other day that that was why New Zealand stones do not have them; the NZ government did not offer the families the option as some would not have been able to afford it. However, I'd love to know if it's possible for family to pay for an inscription now (or rather, the next time the stones are touched up by the CWGC).

Some odd things happened with bureaucracy which might seem shameful to some of us today, eg: I've in the past spoken with several men who were kids when their elder brothers died in WW1. and who could recall the family being charged burial expenses for what is now a CWGC cemetery in France/Belgium etc. An old story, which I'm sure has been previously commented upon here, and subject as always to the "rose tinted" aspect both of us now and them then.

I've heard that, too. But I think requiring payment from families stopped early in the war, and after that the standard stone/grave was paid for by the government or whomever. Terry might know the details, though.

We have a family-kept headstone for great uncle Jock in New Zealand, since he was buried so far away in France. Great granddad was the stereotypical scotsman and tagged it onto another stone - two for the price of one as it were! See attached. (Also note spelling of 'MacKENZIE'. Alexander was 'McKENZIE' on his own headstone right next door. *head desk* It's a conspiracy to drive me nutty.)

Allie

[Terry Denham]

Sitush

The relatives of the Commonwealth dead of both world wars were offered the opportunity to add a Personal Inscription to their CWGC headstone. That is, those with graves were so offered. The relatives of names on memorials to the missing had no such facility offered although the subject was debated at the time.

The relatives were sent a Final Verification Form asking them to confirm the details held by CWGC and to add any personal details they wished to appear in the forthcoming registers. They were also asked if they wanted the Personal Inscription on the same form. (These forms no longer exist for WW1. They were destroyed in 1970).

There was a limit of 66 letters (including spaces) and no non-Roman alphabet could be used. Initially, there was a charge (WW1) of three and a half pence (pre-decimal money) per letter.

Many people could not afford this charge but it was deemed that a charge would give relatives 'some ownership' of the grave! The NZ government objected to this charge on the grounds of equality for all (Oddly, one of CWGC's founding principles) and forbade any inscriptions on NZ stones (though a few are known). The Canadian government paid the cost themselves.

Those not submitting the fee were not chased for payment, however, and after a while the charge became voluntary - as it was during WW2. In all probability, many people never paid anything for the inscription but the threat of a charge undoubtedly put off many people. This is one reason why there are fewer PIs on WW1 stones than WW2 ones (and they are shorter for WW1! - less cost).

If the relatives refused a PI at the time of the return of their FVF, no inscription can now be added as it would contravene the wishes of the NoK at the time. However, if a Form was never returned, no such refusal can have taken place and so CWGC will add a PI today free of charge - but only if it comes from a close relative (stated recently by CWGC as parent, child, g/parent, g/child, sibling). I have gone through this process myself over the past year to have a PI added to my uncle's grave (on behalf of his two surviving siblings) in Normandy and so can speak from first-hand experience.

However, the situation is slightly different in the UK (and probably the other home countries). Many CWGC headstones are placed on privately owned graves. In these circumstances, CWGC cannot prevent further family members being buried in the grave (forbidden in CWGC graves - except for ashes). Then, they will permit a PI or addition to a PI on their headstone but at the expense of the relatives.

I have never heard of any relatives being charged by the army for burial in one of their cemeteries overseas (later turned over to CWGC). I would be interested if there was any evidence for this. They would have been charged by a stonemason if they wanted to erect a private headstone - many of which were later cleared by agreement with CWGC.

I hope that helps.

[alliekiwi]

If the relatives refused a PI at the time of the return of their FVF, no inscription can now be added as it would contravene the wishes of the NoK at the time. However, if a Form was never returned, no such refusal can have taken place and so CWGC will add a PI today free of charge - but only if it comes from a close relative (stated recently by CWGC as parent, child, g/parent, g/child, sibling). I have gone through this process myself over the past year to have a PI added to my uncle's grave (on behalf of his two surving siblings) in Normandy and so can speak from first-hand experience.

Terry, in the situation New Zealanders were in of not being given the option for a PI, would sending back the form with other things on it, but no PI on it, still constitute a 'refusal' by the NoK to have a PI? Because the CWGC database for my great uncle shows that they must have sent the form back as there is "Additional information: Son of Alexander and Catherine Mackenzie, of Lochbroom, Ross-shire, Scotland. Also served at Gallipoli."

I'm sure the family would love to get a PI added - I know I would! Uncle Jock was unmarried, but he has several neices and nephews still living. Would that be close enough?

[Terry Denham]

Sending back the FVF without a request for a PI constituted a refusal and no subsequent addition is allowed.

However, in the the case of NZ casualties, the NZ government ruling supercedes all requests and none are allowed. Unless they change their minds! However, even then, it has to be a direct relative under current guidelines as mentioned above. They may accept g/grandchild now although that was not in the list given to me.

The original ruling was the fault. No PIs should have been allowed for anyone or they should all have been free. The Canadian government was the only one to get it right from the beginning in my view.

Approach CWGC NZ and see what they say.

[alliekiwi]

Thanks for that, Terry. I'll give it a go but am not too hopeful!

I agree with what you say about the PIs - it should have been all or nothing.

Allie

[sitush]

Terry, a lot of good info - thanks.

Re: families being charged for burial costs, I have only anecdotal evidence spoken to me by siblings of the deceased. Rose-tinting is certainly possible.

One example, for which I did see some paperwork but stupidly did not copy, was a Laurence Booth. His younger brother, Cecil Joseph Booth, died in his early 90s a few years ago but did to the end have both a Ministry of War (or whatever) "statement" & also the Dead Man's Penny/Farthing for Laurence. The statement clearly showed deductions from accrued pay for various items, one of which related to his burial. Those documents have probably gone now but I'll make enquiries of Joe's family just in case they have retained them.

Joe was to his death as angry as he claimed his mother had been that the govt should have made what he believed to be a "standard" deduction for a man who died on active service and before 11-11-18. Perhaps the circumstances in this case were unusual, but I have heard a similar story from others (without any documentation to see).

[Terry Denham]

Now that you mention it, a deduction from pay rings a very faint bell with me but I can't remember why!

[Terry Denham]

Out of interest, CWGC's annual accounts in the early years show a separate item for the amounts received from the public for Personal Inscriptions as follows....

Financial Years in the UK are April to March. Currency is pre-decimal.

1919-20 £41/5/6

1920-21 £5578/2/4

1921-22 £6458/11/7

From that date onwards the amount received from private individuals for PIs disappears from the accounts as a specific item though donations from the public does appear with the figures being at a much lower level. Presumably this was following the cost being made voluntary.