Terry Denham Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 We started this new section towards the end of September 2006 and so I thought it was time for an update. So far GWF has put forward a total of fourteen non-commemoration cases for consideration by CWGC/MoD on behalf of its members since September 24th. To date five of these have been accepted for commemoration and added to CWGC's Debt of Honour. Pte John BULL Cpl Noel CLAYTON Pte Patrick CROSSAN Pte Joseph LOCKLIN Pte Richard PARRINGTON We have had no cases rejected so far and we await decisions on the remaining nine. In addition, there are eighteen cases awaiting judgement which were put forward on behalf of Forum members prior to this section being 'officially' set up. Let us hope that we have an even better story to tell at the beginning of 2008! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldstreamer Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 I have one pending investigation - I will let you know what happens - he is John Henry Brown keep up the excellent work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 2 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 2 January , 2007 My post only refers to those cases put forward by GWF. Obviously individual members are also following up further cases like Coldstreamer. Well done to all who are doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Hi Terry, Any update on the case of Cpl 228351 Harry BOOTH, 1st/1st (City of London) Battalion, Royal Fusiliers who you put forward on my behalf in May 2006. All the best Neil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Just out of interest - are there any patterns emerging (either from individual research or from CWGC responses) which indicate why these men were not commemorated in the first place? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 3 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Neil No news yet but BOOTH was in a batch of cases whose paperwork went astray in June between CWGC and MoD. He was resubmitted to MoD when this was discovered in December. I'll get back to you as soon as I hear. I don't expect it to be too long now. But who knows..... I counted BOOTH in the nine awaited mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 3 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Tom No pattern whatsoever. The only linking fact is that their names were never put forward by the military probably because of lax paperwork procedures, poor record keeping or simple failure to understand the requirements. The cases so far cover almost all possibilities. They include men who died on the Western Front in action (whose omission seems very odd), men who died in the UK of accident, wounds or illness (omission perhaps understandable) and men who died after discharge of service related causes (understandable as various government departments and NoK never linked up the info and post-discharge deaths were not initially to be counted). The same problems did not occur in WW2 as the military and CWGC were experienced and the numbers were much smaller. However, during WW1 you have to remember that this was all unexpected and much of the record gathering was retrospective. The military did not initially expect such large casualty lists. CWGC was not invented until March 1917. Once their record keeping role was established they had to set about gathering accurate lists for the previous three/four years from various sources - sources which varied in accuracy and quality. They were lucky in that their predecessor organisations in the Red Cross and in the military had started maintaining records - in the former's case, of their own volition. Had CWGC been instituted on 04.08.14 and its remit made clear to everyone, I am sure that virtually no names would be missing. At first the military did not appreciate the all encompassing nature of CWGC's obligation to commemorate all qualifying deaths. These rules were not clear to everyone (even in CWGC) for several years after the war. This caused some military personnel apparently to make their own decisions (eg relating to executed men, suicides, post-discharge deaths etc). Much of the work was done 'on the hoof'. Also, I have gained the impression that serving men who died in the UK 1914-15 were liable to be missed due to this lack of understanding and the fact that names were collected retrospectively (CWGC was not meant to include UK burials at first. They were added to its remit later). There seems to be a fair number of reserve or support troops missing - probably again due to this lack of clarity. Several of those submitted by GWF have been UK deaths amongst support troops (guarding railway lines etc). The same problems to not appear to affect the records of Australia, Canada, SA and NZ probably due to the much smaller numbers being involved. There are very few brought 'in from the cold' from these areas. The records for India and the colonies were very poor and many names remain unrecorded - mainly from the labouring troops and followers. There is no hope of getting these names now. Many were not recorded even at the time. The most certain thing is that it is a small miracle that the lists are as complete as they are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Terry, thanks as allways making everything clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 I add my thanks to Chaz's, Terry. A very interesting post. Many thanks for it. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 3 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Out of interest, I have just counted the new WW1 names added to the list in 2006. 156 men were brought in from the cold during the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 4 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 January , 2007 I forgot to mention in my initial post that there are also 19 cases awaiting judgement which were put forward on behalf of Forum members prior to this section being 'officially' set up. This makes a total of 33 member cases in the pipeline at 01.01.07. Two of these have been accepted in the first few days of 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Very valuable work. Well done to all concerned. I presume they mostly will be added as addenda to memorials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 4 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Ian Not necessarily though a large number will be. A reasonable number of these men died in the UK and their burial sites are known. Also, where they died in the UK but their graves are unknown, they will appear on the Brookwood (United Kingdom 1914-1918) Memorial which is reserved for casualties in this category. In these cases there is always a chance that their graves will be found later and the commemoration moved to the grave site. A nice research project for someone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Terry - if they have a UK grave is the grave in any way "adopted" by the CWGC for future maintenance? Regards Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 4 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Ian If the UK grave is traced and has a suitable private memorial, it is inspected periodically for condition etc just like all the other private war graves in a home country. If the private memorial is deemed unfitting or the grave is unmarked, CWGC will set about the task of getting permission to erect an official CWGC headstone. This can be complicated and time consuming due to the various legal issues as CWGC has no special rights in such matters. Ownership of the grave has to be established and permission sought from the owner. If no owner can be traced, permission has to come from the cemetery authorities. Permission is often readily given but it may not be due to local authority/church policies relating to clearing sites of headstones etc. In such cases, permission is often given for a Special Memorial ('Buried in this Cemetery') to be erected. Sometimes this has to be done anyway as the cemetery is known but the exact spot is not. As always, CWGC prefers to commemorate a casualty with a headstone over the grave where possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 the sad thing in some ways is that as graveyards are becomming full some of the older occupants families are being asked (if traceable) if they can have another burrial in the plot. I understand , if the family can not be traced then plots are being taken over and sometimes double headstones are being mounted or even the original removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 4 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Chaz Re-use of graves is currently forbidden under the Burial Act of 1857 unless a Home Office licence is obtained. However, these licences are obtainable and have been used. The usual method is to rebury the original occupant at a lower level leaving space for a new burial above. The government is currently reviewing the reburial situation and a Select Committee has studied the problem. A full review of our ancient burial laws is likely. During the Select Committee's deliberations, CWGC had their say by stating that all official war graves should be exempted from any such changes so that the graves can remain marked in perpetuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Terry, thanks. my father (89) was saying only yesterday about the depths graves were dug as one of our predecessors was a local grave digger. and somewhere its written how much he was paid and the lining cost etc. I had heard somewhere about compulsory purchasing plots that had not been taken up but reserved as used to happen years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Bagshaw Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Terry, Not strictly one of 'the cold' but how's Daniel Crew MM coming along? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Terry - thanks for the explanation. It's good to see the CWGC still doggedly doing it's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 4 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Anthony I check every day. I will make a point of asking tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted 8 January , 2007 Share Posted 8 January , 2007 Thanks for the update re Booth, all the best Neil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drummy Posted 16 January , 2007 Share Posted 16 January , 2007 Terry, Thanks for the PM re news of Booth being added for commemoration, I am extremely pleased and grateful for all your assistance, many thanks Neil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Bagshaw Posted 16 January , 2007 Share Posted 16 January , 2007 Anthony I check every day. I will make a point of asking tomorrow. Terry, Cheers, sorry i missed your reply!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now