Ancestry Pension Records

[nhclark]

Privacy issues arise whenever any form of record is placed in the public domain, whether at TNA or on Ancestry, or anywhere else. Applying filters is totally impracticable, and even if it were practicable, just whom would we accept to determine what the filter should be? Who would we appoint to manipulate history? And where would we draw the line - our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents, or some arbitary time period? Do we then advocate the destruction of all newspaper archives - indeed, all archives - just because we "might" come across something that someone else thinks that we "might" be better off not knowing?

It is the suppression of information that has led, over the centuries, to the suppression of human rights.

Just as an example, it is not so long ago that adopted children were denied the right to know who their birth parents were, and their mothers, who had usually given up their children when they themselves were very young, and under duress, were denied the right to even know where their children were.

So let's be adult about this. Yes, it's true that every so often we will come across something negative in a soldier's record - be it cowardice, venereal disease, criminal behaviour, even illegitimate children. Our task, if such information comes to light, is to use that information wisely and sensibly, with due consideration of others.

But for someone else to prevent me from seeing that information in the first place? - absolutely not! The records are either placed in the public domain, or they are not.

I'm a family historian, rather than a military historian. I can tell you - and I'm rather proud of it actually - that my family tree would look pretty bare if all the illegitimate children, rogues and rascals were left out.

Just a personal view.

Noel

[girlywhirl]

Due to the amount of personal information that can be found amongst the pension records, it makes me wonder, why allow the release of these records, and not that of the 1911 census?

The census has far less personal information, and is even older.

The madness is, that you can get a copy of someones marriage certificate from just a few years ago, but not the census from 96 years ago!

Chris

[Max]

The records are either placed in the public domain, or they are not.

Then regrettably, and being adult about it, I would have to say not.

[saberhagen427]

I just want to point out that there's a big difference between being made accessible to the public and being placed in the public domain. These records have been made accessible to the public, but they are still under crown copyright until 125 years after they were created.

I'm in favour of both making more government records accessible to the public sooner and of placing them in the public domain sooner, but those things both depend on arbitrary decisions by the government.

[nhclark]

Due to the amount of personal information that can be found amongst the pension records, it makes me wonder, why allow the release of these records, and not that of the 1911 census?

The census has far less personal information, and is even older.

The madness is, that you can get a copy of someones marriage certificate from just a few years ago, but not the census from 96 years ago!

Chris

I agree, there are a great many inconsistencies.

But, please, let's not make too much noise about it, otherwise governments will go for the lowest common denominator, and apply a 100-year closure period to everything. Here in Victoria some nong has just decided that even the 100-year closure on birth certificates will be extended. Now that's privacy for you, Victorian style!

One point that is missed in these sorts of discussions is how many instances there are of information actually being misused?

In the famous words of Margaret Thatcher - "Give me two examples...."

It's all a storm in the proverbial teacup as far as I'm concerned. Those who wish to go back to the dark ages and to be treated like mushrooms are welcome to do so. Give the rest of us the information and we'll use it wisely. I'm sick to death of people presuming to make decisions on my behalf when I am quite capable of making better decisions for myself.

Noel

[nhclark]

Semantics Gavin. You know what I meant. And, I'm sorry, you cannot copyright information.

Anyway, you've all heard enough for me for one evening.

Noel

[Max]

Andy........put your view to Ancestry they may remove the record.

Steve

I am in the process of doing just that, not to Ancestry, but to the NA and my MP.

Andy

[Beau Geste]

It is certainly not unknown but generally if the record was in WO363 (the burnt series) then it will not also be in WO364 (the records released on Ancestry).

Hello Chris,

I think I remember a discussion on The Forum a month or so ago that the term "Pension Records" was something of a misnomer in the sense that not all those being released were pension records. I was hoping that my long search to prove that Pte 20304 Richard Lofthouse of The Welsh Regt ( and later Pte 63615 Richard Lofthouse of The South Lancs) was my grandfather might have a happy ending. However, only one Richard Lofthouse appears, a Dvr in The Royal Engineers (who incidentally I never came across in the medal index cards!

Since my RL isn't there, I assume it was because he survived the war and didn't qualify for a pension.

Back to the drawing board.

Harry

[shinglma]

Since my RL isn't there, I assume it was because he survived the war and didn't qualify for a pension.

The point Chris and others have made on a number of occasions is that these papers are service not pension records. They do not even comprise papers for all soldiers awarded a pension. Instead they are simply those service papers which were being stored separately from those damaged/destroyed during the Blitz and now comprise the 'burnt records' in WO 363.

Ancestry have rather muddied the waters in suggesting that these are the records for all men who awarded a pension after the war. They are wrong on both accounts. There use of the term pensions records has lead to:

- the belief that if granddad was awarded a pension his papers should be in WO 364

- an artificial distinction between 'service records' in WO 363 and 'pension records in WO 364

- the resultant belief that if granddad was awarded a pension there is no need to search WO 363.

A preliminary look at these online records suggest they suffer from a number of indexing problems symptomatic of the usual rush to publish. Amongst these we might list the following:-

- records which have not been indexed.

- records which have been indexed several times (this seems very common and may be a result of the soldier having multiple service numbers)

- records where the linked page is not the first one (meaning that you have to browse backwards as well as forwards)

- records which have been indexed under the wrong service. I've come across a couple which are indexed against service numbers which don't appear on the record.

- records only indexed against one service number when more than one was held.

A comparison of the missorts in WO 364 as listed on the main site with these records suggested a number of anomalies including those listed above.

My message is don't abandon all hope - it may still turn up - but be aware that it may simply not exist in this recordset.

Have you ever checked the burnt series in WO 363?

Regards

Mike Shingleton

[gnr.ktrha]

Hello All,

I have found a relative on the site, but can't get his document to open and show the image. Can anyone do a quick look up for me? His name was Joseph Wilson, Private Durham Light Infantry number, 7997.

I would just like to know if there is anything really interesting in his records.

Many thanks,

Stewart

[Beau Geste]

No Mike I haven't. I assumed, obviously wrongly, that the recent release covered burnt series inWO 363 as well!!!

How do I do that?

Harry

[westkent78]

Max,

I commend you for thinking of this lady's feelings. Why not print off a copy of the relevant file, edit out the offending pages and present it to her? She's not likely to go looking if she has a copy in hand- in effect you're doing what the clerks many years ago should have done.

This file has been in the public domain ever since the records were released, X number of years ago- it is neither Ancestry or the NA's fault that whichever war records department was tasked with purging files did not catch this. Ancestry and the NA can't be expected to sift through each record for such details.

Realistically, how many people are going to look at the relevant record? Do you know she is unaware of the situation of her birth? Perhaps she is aware and you are jumping to false conclusions-it's not like she'd discuss it with anyone if she did know if it's as shocking as you say, especially if you're not related?

I would respectfully disagree with you that files like this should not be in the public domain.

Here we are trying to gain as much insight into the world of the WW1 and the last thing we want is the government restricting access to us all because of a few cases.

I myself have discovered some fairly shocking family secrets from some records, online and due to go online, so I feel I do have some personal perspective on this.

Sorry Max, but I feel the wider access of records is to be encouraged, even if it at the expense of a miniscule minority of 'undesirable' records becoming accessible. The past is not the cosy place we often pretend it to be looking through our rose-tinted glasses. If you don't want to find out the truth, or the version of it which you can find from the fragments left to us, don't look in the first place.

I'm minded to write to my MP and the NA to commend them for the releases and ask to continue the process apace, and I would hope that all likeminded people do the same. This is such a boon for all family and military historians and it would be a crying shame if a few 'do-gooders' ruined it for us all.

Best regards,

Matthew

[Max]

Stewart

I have found a Joseph Wilson # 7997 but no mention of DLI.

Where and when was he born

Andy

[Max]

Hello Mathew

Great minds think alike. I have done precisely that by emailing the filtered file to her daughter. I am going to contact her shortly and mention the existence of the other bits and pieces and see what she thinks. I have no idea if this lady knows she is illegitimate, that is not what concerns me, it is the comments made by my GG Grandfather in a letter to the army on behlaf of his son, they are to say the least extreme, quite possibly inaccurate and will definately be very very upsetting.

Andy

[gnr.ktrha]

Hello Andy,

He was born in Durham West in 1897, I think. I could only find on MIC to a Joseph Wilson with that number and he was listed as DLI. He was later given the number 204914, which is a 5th battalion number. What unit was the chap you found in? Are you sure he never served with the DLI at any time?

Regards,

Stewart

[Max]

Hello Stewart

He was born near Birmingham and served in the Worcs Reg (TF) and York and Lancs as a regular.

Andy

[gnr.ktrha]

Hello,

That is a blow. It's always the same, I find people that I have been asked to look up, but never one of my own family!

One last thing, there were two other men I tried to view, but there files would not open. One was

G [?George] White, number 827. I am hoping he was in the Hampshire Regt. Circ 1880's,

the other chap was Pte R. Wright, number 4614, who I hope was with the Lancashire fusiliers in 1898. If you could confirm that these are the two I found, that would be fantastic.

It's strange, but some files on Ancestry open with on proble, whilst others just would not. It was a Library comptor I used and they are ment to be set up to access the site.

Many thanks and fingures crossed,

Stewart

[Coldstreamer]

Ive discovered a lot of interesting information.......for example I didnt know that the Coldstream Guards served in Russia in 1919 attached to another regiment.

Steve.

neither did I - who was he ??

[lionboxer]

Please would some kindly soul look up the STARMAN brothers Frank and Reggie for me as I can't open their files.

Lionboxer

[Max]

Many thanks and fingures crossed,

Stewart

Hello Stewart

Direct hit on both of these. If you PM me your email address I will sort you out.

Andy

[Stebie9173]

George (Albert) White, No. 827, joined the Hampshire Regiment at Winchester on 4th April 1883. Enlisted aged 19 years, 11 months. Of Itchen Abbas, Winchester, son of Henry White of same. Transferred to 1st Royal Welsh Fusiliers 1-12-1887, Served Home, then Malta 23-7-1884 to 8-1-1886, India 9-1-1886 to 21-1-1891, (Served in Burma Campaign, 1885-87 - 1854 IGS Medal + Clasp), then Home until transferred to A Reserve 25-1-1891. Discharged 3-4-1895.

Re-enlisted 2-9-1914 at Newport. L-Cpl 1st Monmouthshire Regiment 4-11-1914, Transferred 21st RDC 29-4-1916, A/Cpl 20-9-1916, Transferred 338 Coy RDC 14-7-1917, Transferred 3rd Bn RDC 25-8-1917, Transferred 331 Coy RDC 20-4-1918, Transferred 334 Coy RDC 1-6-1918, Disembodied 9-3-1919. Served in UK from 2-9-1914 to 9-3-1919.

Husband of Charlotte White, 35 Price Street, Mainder, Newport. Death Certificate 2-1-1944, Heart attack due to old age, aged 78. Witness, Son A E White, 25 Glendower Street, Monmouth.

----

Richard Wright, 4614, 1st (and mainly 2nd) Lancashire Fusiliers. More to follow...

He did the rounds too. Enlisted 13-11-1893, Reserve 22-11-1902, Re-engaged for 4 years 13-11-1905. India 1896-98, Egypt 1898 - Soudan (incl. 1898 Campaign), Crete 1898, Malta 1898-99, South Africa 1899-1902 (QSA & KSA, including Relief of Ladysmith, Laings Nek, + others).

Great War service 1/9th Manchesters, 3392/351531 (Served Dardenelles, Oct-Dec 1915, + with battalion to Marseilles & France 1-3-1917, posted to 30th Infantry Base Depoit from 13-3-1917. Voluntarily transferred to the RFC as Air Mechanic 1st Class, 402587, from 15-8-1917. To RAF 1-4-1918 and RAF Reserve 14-2-1919). Discharged 30-4-1920. There is more detail on his pre-war movements but I haven't listed them!

Medal card of Wright, R

Corps Regiment No Rank

Manchester Regiment 3392 Corporal

Royal Air Force 402587 Corporal

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documen...p;resultcount=2

(Or you can take up Andy's kind offer!)

All in all, two VERY good service records.

Steve.

[Max]

Steve

I'll send the images on to Stewart, hes sent his email address.

Cheers

Andy

[Stebie9173]

Ok, Andy. I'll stop now, then....

Steve.

[shinglma]

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that the recent release covered burnt series inWO 363 as well!!!

How do I do that?

Harry

If their project goes to plan WO 363 should be online by the end of 2008. Until then they can only be viewed in person at the National Archives.

Regards

Mike S

[gnr.ktrha]

Hello,

Thank you both very much for all of your help and i can't wait to see the images. Thanks also for taking the time to transcribe some of the information for me.

My dad has Mr Wright's Sudan medal. It is in poor condition, I afraid. It was in a family friends coin collection and the suspender was missing. But still, it is a very nice item and it's good that the naming is legable.

I bought Mr White's Indian General Service medal in London about 12 years ago. I could not find out anything about him before and with him having a fairly common name, I could not take my research any further.

Thank you both once again. It's a pitty the NA could not have done this instead of Ancestry. It would have been great to have seen the documents in full colour! We can live in hope.

Regards,

Stewart