Max Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 A personal view: the family should not have the right to deny the nation or community the memorilization of its dead. Well said. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 The CWGC view is quite clear and unequivocal. CWGC must commemorate every qualifying casualty no matter how they died or where. They are obliged to do this under the terms of their Charter which gives them no leeway in the matter. Several n-o-k asked for their relatives' names not to appear on the memorials to the missing but all such requests had to be refused as to agree would have been a breach of the Royal Charter. I have always followed this view and, as I have said before, I believe that nobody has the right to deny a casualty his proper recognition. Others have different views to which they are entitled but I simply don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 I'd be interested to know what the official policy is, with regard to a case like this, of the SAD campaign. Do they actively support you, stay neutral (but offer advice) or distance themselves? Have you spoken about this to pal, Rosemary....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 The CWGC view is quite clear and unequivocal. I too fully support the CWGC view. These are national memorials and CWGC is governed by a clear and appropriate charter. I do, however, believe it is different with the local "village" memorials. These were established by local subscription and to whatever rules "the committee" decided. Unless we know the rules, to ask for inclusion of a casualty simply because we have discovered them and feel they should be included does not seem to be to be appropriate. I accept that other have different genuinely held views. The example I mentioned earlier was that of a soldier who appears in SDGW as residing in the area of one of the memorials I research. CWGC makes no reference to family (which, of course, may explain why he isnt on the memorial in the first place) nor were there any newspaper reports of his death. It does not seem right to ask the local authority to add him simply because I want him to be added. In saying that, I believe there is a difference if a family member "discovers him" and wants him adding. I recently discovered a relative. The local authority were not willingn to add him to his local memorial but have added his name to the main town memorial. I feel I am a custodian of family history. The issue of SADs is a very difficult one but, on balance, I think I wish John well in this. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 Please excuse this if it’s a naïve question. But I've been thinking about this subject and I'm still not sure where I stand. What happened if the man concerned was not an Anglican? Would he still have been commemorated inside the Parish Church even if he had been one way or another well removed from the Anglican version of Christianity: for example, Quaker, Unitarian, other Nonconformist or Catholic? I’m aware that in some communities an agreement was made that such men would be included on external memorials, but I am also aware that this would have caused outrage in others (both from the non-Anglican man’s family and / or from the Anglican community). I knew one surviving soldier (a MM), a Methodist, who would have seen hell freeze over before agreeing to be listed in an Anglican memorial.. had he been killed and been asked. So, how far does knowing his religious affiliation (if you do) affect your mission, John? Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 Just to clarify my point... I agree with John. CWGC is different as these are national memorials. Local memorials should be the responsibility of the locals. If they want a memorial amended, so be it. If not, so be it. I would argue for amendment (and did when our village memorial was amended three years ago - though there were no dissenting voices). I would also argue for inclusion of SAD cases etc. They were all casualties of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christine liava'a Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 if the man concerned was not an Anglican? Yes, the fact that he is not already on the memorial may mean that he was not a member of that church, so to put him on it would be distorting the truth. A town or village memorial is different, it should be all inclusive, but a church one reflects the membership of the church at the time. If you can prove he was a member of the church, or if the memorial says " all the soldiers of the village"or words to that effect, OK get him added in an addendum section, which keeps the original in its original historical state. but if you can't, or if it says "members of this church", and you don't know, leave him off, and perhaps get him added to a non- church memorial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spike10764 Posted 2 February , 2004 Share Posted 2 February , 2004 It's difficult to say a man who died in the Great War should not be included on a memorial. I agree it should be in the form of an addendum to keep the original in it's historical state. It's good to see you are making strenuous efforts to get all the facts in this case and building up sufficient background. I hope you do get to achieve this(inclusion) but still respect the outcome if for reasons, as yet unknown, it is not possible. regards Spike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 2 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 2 February , 2004 Sorry folks one thing I omitted to tell you and Christine has reminded me. The village has a war memorial but no names, so the churches are the guardians of the names. I will take on board what Christine has said though as it is a valid point. Thanks for the comments and support from various quarters, as the type of questions and statements made here are definitely food for thought, and have certainly stopped me from rushing in waving saying 'YOU GOT TO PUT HIM ON THE ROLL OF HONOUR!!!' any more thoughts please let me know. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 2 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 2 February , 2004 I’m aware that in some communities an agreement was made that such men would be included on external memorials, but I am also aware that this would have caused outrage in others (both from the non-Anglican man’s family and / or from the Anglican community). I knew one surviving soldier (a MM), a Methodist, who would have seen hell freeze over before agreeing to be listed in an Anglican memorial.. had he been killed and been asked. So, how far does knowing his religious affiliation (if you do) affect your mission, John? Gwyn Gwyn I missed that.... maybe virtually impossible as his papers are lost. However the church records themselves may reveal more.. so all is not lost. Another thing to consider... hmm getting more complicated as it goes on John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 3 February , 2004 Share Posted 3 February , 2004 Sorry folks one thing I omitted to tell you and Christine has reminded me. The village has a war memorial but no names, so the churches are the guardians of the names. John I am sure you know some towns/villages have a book of names when the memorial has none. Sometimes the book can be difficult to locate as I discovered when Andy Fiton & I researched Lewis Charlesworth, his story is on the WFA Site. Also if a man was not a member of a church and memorial is to members it seems obvious non members should not be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 3 February , 2004 Share Posted 3 February , 2004 I missed that.... maybe virtually impossible as his papers are lost. John John - is it possible for you to visit the other churches and chapels to see what their memorials say? Or write to their ministers? Or are any of us in that region? Just a thought; I'm not sure how far geographically you are from the locality. Or even (back to the original point I made) write a piece or letter for the local paper and ask whether anyone knows whether he's commemmorated anywhere? I suppose I'm asking whether it is fact that he isn't on a memorial, or have you (sorry to sound personal) assumed that he would be unlikely to be because of the way he died and your first check corroborated that suspicion. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 3 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2004 John - is it possible for you to visit the other churches and chapels to see what their memorials say? Or write to their ministers? Or are any of us in that region? Just a thought; I'm not sure how far geographically you are from the locality. Or even (back to the original point I made) write a piece or letter for the local paper and ask whether anyone knows whether he's commemmorated anywhere? I suppose I'm asking whether it is fact that he isn't on a memorial, or have you (sorry to sound personal) assumed that he would be unlikely to be because of the way he died and your first check corroborated that suspicion. Gwyn Gwyn I live about 2 miles from the churches concerned. There are two in Ingatestone, and I have been to both. The one at Fryerning would have been his parish church based on where he lived and in conversation with the vicar. I have photos of all the memorials in the location with the exception of one church and I didnt take that as it was just prior to the Sunday service. There are a number of methods open to getting a persons religion if they had one. Attestation papers and the church records themselves. That will be one of my leads to follow up. As for Newspapers the Essex Chronicle and the Essex Weekly News were the local papers at the time and I have to get to the Essex County record Office in Chelmsford in order to access them. I had my suspicions that he would not be there because of what had happened to him, but as I said earlier, I dont move ahead until it is there in front of me. I have th 1901 Census to examine to locate them, in addition the CWGC entry states mother only, does that mean no dad as in dead or separated? I have been down the road they lived and found nothing in the way of houses that match the period, so the census may throw an exact location (at a price!). In addition a trip to the Family Record Centre is on the cards... (Its closer than the PRO). Did Archibald have brothers or sisters? What relatives are there still alive. Was he an only child? The possibilities are endless, and all need checking. What is important to me is this dialogue as new thoughts and ideas will help me along the way. I have no idea if I will succeed but hell I got to try! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 3 February , 2004 Share Posted 3 February , 2004 Thanks for the explanation, John. I'm sorry if my question sounded patronising. That wasn't intended and I admire your tenacity. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 3 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2004 Gwyn Not patronising at all.. any comments are greatfully received. May take time but I will prepare my case.... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinnethmont Posted 5 February , 2004 Share Posted 5 February , 2004 I have been keeping an eye on this developing subject as I have been involved recently in preventing a name being added to a local WW1 memorial in support of the local community and relatives of the War Dead. The individual concerned never ever lived here. His mother did but left the area long before the man was born in 1878. She left a number of cousins and it was suggested this type of distant link entitled his name to be added 84 years after the memorial was unveiled. He is already commemorated in at least three other locations including the city of his birth. As to methods used. In this case the Parish Minister and Session Clerk were charged to draw up a roll of " communicants, adherants and parishioners" and the final Roll of Honour details both casualties and survivors who took up arms. The parish War Memorial was erected by Public Subscription in the care of a War Memorial Committee. The committee members, being locals, knew very well those who left, never more to return home. The names of the Fallen are identical on the Roll of Honour and the War Memorial unveiled in 1920. Readers may be interesed in the Local Criteria section of the Council's Policy which is now being applied in this case : a) Individuals shall have been born or have lived the majority of their life in the parish in which the War Memorial is located or in the event of there not being a War Memorial in that parish the nearest War Memorial and no other. Validation of residency will be from the appropriate Community Council, It must be feasible to add an inscription. There shall be no onus on the Council to provide additional space should there be none available, c) The inscription shall be in keeping with the style and form and shall not detract from the look of the memorial in any way. d) Individuals will only be entitled to have their name recorded on one War Memorial in xxxxxxxx. ( Name deleted - Scotland area) I am happy to provide further details of this particular case by direct e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Clarke Posted 8 February , 2004 Share Posted 8 February , 2004 It is a complex issue, I know that in Thomas Highgate's home village they refused to put his name on. John If you are referring to the March 2000 incident; in the poll organised by the vicar, the villagers of Shoreham voted for the inclusion of Thomas Highgate's name on the memorial. It was members of the RBL and parish council who opposed that move. Rosemary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 8 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 8 February , 2004 Rosemary In the case of Highgate... knew the RBL local branch had stopped it... mind you I thought the RBL in principal were actually for it. Regarding the Scotland case... was the man a SAD case or was he prevented from going on this memorial because he was already on a number of other memorials? In an earlier thread it was noted that there wsa no set criteria for inclusion on the original war memorials. In fact it seemed to be quite ad hoc. What has been proved, and see my other thread was the fact that the precdent as been set and there are SAD cases who are included. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_McGarry Posted 8 February , 2004 Share Posted 8 February , 2004 It is a complex issue, I know that in Thomas Highgate's home village they refused to put his name on. John If you are referring to the March 2000 incident; in the poll organised by the vicar, the villagers of Shoreham voted for the inclusion of Thomas Highgate's name on the memorial. It was members of the RBL and parish council who opposed that move. Rosemary Was this because Thomas had never lived in Shoreham...Not because he was SAD... John... If you track down living relatives of your man.... Are you going to be the one who tells them something they may not want to know ! .... I think there are pro's and con's to this... tread carefully would be my advice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinnethmont Posted 8 February , 2004 Share Posted 8 February , 2004 John Your query regarding the Scotland case. He was not SAD, he died at sea. The man is comemorated on a number of other memorials including his city of birth. The proposal to add him was based on very tenious links connected to the links there of his very extended MATERNAL family laterly. Originally it was said by the RBL he was born there, etc and that he had been " simply missed off " in 1920. This was proven to be nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 8 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 8 February , 2004 Steve Have already put my foot in it... There is to be a new war memorial in the village and Archibald Brown's name was due to go on it... in fact he is on the list... with the additional information that he was executed... I have spoken to the woman who was commissioned to get the list, she was unaware that this fate had happened to him, so Imikght have got him on by default.... so the matter is out of my hands for now... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Clarke Posted 9 February , 2004 Share Posted 9 February , 2004 Was this because Thomas had never lived in Shoreham...Not because he was SAD... It was purely the events surrounding his death that were an issue. Official RBL policy (1985 conference) supports pardons and related matters and this has been evendent on many occasions but individual branches still seem at liberty to make their own decisions on such matters which seem to be at odds with that ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 9 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 9 February , 2004 He was from the village, but as Rosemary says, the local branch did seem to be at odds with others. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 23 February , 2004 Author Share Posted 23 February , 2004 Just as an update... I have now got Archibald Browne's death certificate two things.. 1. He is Browne 2. He was 28 and I still cant find him on the census! I was also thinking that technically apart from the CWGC who would remember the SAD cases (National Arboretum). They forfeit their medals, scroll, and death plaque.... even for some their name on the war memorial.. British Society wanted them rubbed out totally...they never existed. Even though they volunteered or had been called to the colours... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludovica Posted 24 February , 2004 Share Posted 24 February , 2004 Don't forget that in 1901 lots of young fellows might have been in other places in the Empire.. Just a thought 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