RootsChat.Com
General => Armed Forces => Topic started by: Ayashi on Saturday 20 February 21 16:15 GMT (UK)
-
Hello all.
I was approached the other day by a military historian who has bought some medals that appear to belong to my 2nd great grandfather. He wanted to share information / reunite the medals with the family.
The medals concerned are a Tubruk/Suakin medal and a Khedive star, both in good condition, along with a photograph supposedly of my 2nd great grandfather (!!). I knew we had some medals and although my mother has been obstructive to my enquiries I found an old photo that show that we have a Khedive star and a LSGC medal of his. He was entitled to the Tubruk medal but we don't appear to have it in our collection. The historian suggests that we probably have the original Khedive and the one he has is a later addition (he has shown me the photos of the ones he has, along with the name inscribed on the Tubruk medal).
As far as the photo goes, I have asked older members of the family if they believe he shares any family resemblance to his son/grandsons. While we all appear to be equally bad at determining this, I think I do see a marked similarity between the man in the photo and one of his grandsons. That said, one of my cousins has a partner with supposed military knowledge who has shed doubt on pretty much everything, from the time period to the geographical location of the uniform (I have excluded this for a reason).
The historian is happy to keep the medals (and no rush of course) but if I wish to buy them (and I do!!) he has asked that I pay what he originally paid, which is a significant amount. He has shown me the original listing to verify his quoted price.
Essentially this post in in two parts-
Firstly, I'd like advice on making an expensive transaction of this nature. They probably do belong to my great great grandfather and I feel they should be reunited with the rest of his belongings. I'm mildly annoyed that they got separated and sold in the first place and have no idea who did it. I also have no idea how much these medals are usually worth.
Secondly, despite a growing feeling that he's the right person, I'd like to address my cousin's concerns about the photograph. I haven't mentioned the time period or military details with a view to getting expertise on the photograph itself, posted with permission. I can elaborate on both the opinion and on what it is meant to be if desired.
(https://i.imgur.com/32lt2Nq.jpg)
Thanks in advance
Ayashi
-
The photo was taken before the medals were awarded, as there are no medal ribbons on the tunic.
Do you know which regiment or corps your ancestor served in?
Could verify the shape of the cap badge.
The cap appears to be a Glengarry, assuming this is not a Scottish regiment then:
"Between 1868 and 1897, the glengarry was also worn as an undress cap for most British soldiers until replaced by the short-lived Field Service Cap."
This time period is coincident with the Tubruk/Suakin medal and Khedive star.
Tony
-
Thank you.
Yes, I know where he served, which was definitely not Scotland (cousin's partner reckoned Scots uniform as well). My ancestor was Royal Marines Light Infantry in Plymouth between 1882 and 1916.
-
Interestingly the photographer appears to be in Canada?
https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/Canada-DukeofWellingtonsAlbumGroup.html
Cathy
-
Canada? Oh dear, that makes things even more confusing! There's nothing in his military records about Canada. :-\
His uniform is very similar to the ones on that website, with exception of collar and sleeves. I don't know what that means though.
-
It might be worth looking to see which regiments were at Halifax Garrison when Bayley & Murphy were in business.
https://www.johncordes.ca/genealogy2/regiments/britishregiments_halifax.html
-
I suddenly had an epiphany when I realised that his stepdaughter got married in Ontario, Canada. I then looked up the distance between Halifax and Ontario and laughed.
-
As to the photo:
Without getting into tedious uniform minutiae (I can if you like!) I will say that this photo is 100 per cent consistent with the Royal Marine Light Infantry through the 1880s and first half of the 1890s. Read my other posts, I hope you will see I know what I am talking about when it comes to late Victorian uniforms.
A list of garrison units serving in Halifax will not help with this, as if he was in the RMLI he would have been in Halifax as a member of a Royal Navy ship's company, not as part of the army Garrison.
A member of the RMLI serving in the "Plymouth Division" between 1882 and 1915 would have spent almost his entire career as part of small details of marines onboard different ships around the globe - at this period that's what the Royal Marines were for.
-
Thank you T1. Wouldn't his service records reflect his service on board a ship though? His records state that between 7 Aug 1882 and 2 May 1883 he was at the recruit depot in Walmer. Between 3 May 1883 and 9 Feb 1884 he was in Plymouth.... No, I've just realised I might be dumb. His records say "Name of division or ship" not his location ::) He was "Co. 47, Plymouth Division" between those dates, before 10 Feb 1884-16 May 1885 when he was "RM Battn Egypt".
-
Hi again,
Royal Marines were always a member of either the "Plymouth Division" "Portsmouth Division" or "Chatham Division". These were a little like regiments in the army, although more for administrative purposes. But being assigned to one of these did not necessarily mean he was in one of those three locations. Just the same you can be in the "Royal Regiment of Scotland" but be serving in Northern Ireland or Afghanistan.
Typically you may not see locations in an RM record, except for specially formed units such as "RM Battn Egypt". So you need to identify the unit (such as Co. 47) or the ships named in his record, then research separately where they were actually located during those dates.
T
-
Thanks again!
I suppose if nothing else this has made me gain a new understanding of his records! Theo's military service documents were one of the first things I obtained when I started doing FH and apparently completely failed to read them properly.
Most of the "co" column are letters, not all of them I can read (need a better copy in front of me). Assuming we are talking about after being in the recruit depot but before going to Egypt, co. 47 will be our people. Before getting his records I had no idea he even left Plymouth.
As an aside, something else I'm terrible at- how old do you think he looks in that photo?
-
Age is pretty hard to tell with these guys isn't it - as you probably know the moustache was a formal requirement for regular soldiers and marines. He looks about 30 to my 21st century eyes, but that probably makes him about 25.
-
That's another thing that is concerning me a bit. Theophilus was born in 1863, so at enlistment (1882) he was 19 and he'd be 21 coming into the Sudan conflict. He looks significantly older in the photograph, but then again my grandfather was apparently already balding in his early 20s so some men are a bit disadvantaged I guess! I have a photograph of his grandson aged 27 and there's a reasonable comparison there imo.
-Edit- that said, he didn't get awarded his first medal until 1886. I don't know how long it would have taken to actually get to him as well. That would give him an extra couple of years into mid-20s... but your dating of 1880s-early 1890s would be spot on. It's just the lack of medals that complicates things here. If he had them already, why wasn't he wearing them?
One thing that made me chuckle a bit is that the shadow under his nose kinda makes it look like he shaved half his moustache and forgot the other half!
In my defence re. Plymouth, he's there on every census (1891, 1901, 1911), married there (1887), his four bio children were born there (1888, 1890, 1895, 1898) and he died there (1916) so perhaps I can be mildly forgiven for assuming he didn't go anywhere else.
- Another edit- my cousin's partner says that the single stripe on his sleeve suggests a Corporal? Would that be the case?
-
Badges of rank are worn in the upper arm, the chevron on his lower left arm is for three years good conduct.
-
Aha! The question is, does 3 years good conduct help us with a date?
His character and ability were highly regarded right from the beginning but I note that he was recommended for a medal in 1889, 1890 and 1891 before being granted his LS&GC medal in 1892. Could that be related?
-
The time period needed for a LS&GC medal is not directly related to the 3 years for a good conduct stripe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Long_Service_and_Good_Conduct_Medal_(1848)
Tony
-
I suppose in the end more will be known by his movements and supposedly appearance in Canada. How would I go about finding out more with regards to specific company movements?
-
I'm still fairly 'dog with a bone' about the date at the moment.
I've been told that medals for Sudan weren't issued until 1888 at the earliest.
There's a note in his record regarding him as Lance-Corporal in 1885 (full Corporal in 1893). Would there have been an obvious mark on the uniform for a LC? I'm also assuming that good conduct badges were not represented by physical items?
I suppose it would be fairly pointless asking someone to take a punt at his height? ;D
I'm fairly obsessive about this at the moment because although the signs are good, if the picture ends up dating in the early 1880s the age becomes a conflict.
The historian I've been speaking to doesn't know how to follow the company movements either so I'm still in the dark there.
-
Two chevrons points down on upper arm a Corporal, a single chevron for a Lance Corporal. So the photo was taken earlier, unless of course he misbehaved and was demoted, but that would have been noted in his records.
-
Aha, thank you!
He certainly looks older than 22 though...
The interesting thing about the lc is that it is noted in the box labelled "promotions and reductions", but obviously added later on because it is written squidged in above his Corporal entry at the top of the space. It isn't mentioned at all in his service rank/company/conduct box, which only notes him as a Private until he becomes a Corporal.
My aunt is going to send the photo to my great uncle, although how long that will take and if he'll have any idea I don't know.
-
A guess at his age: early 30s (looking at his face and ignoring the receding hairline)
Height: I think he is a short man. 5’ 3” ish. (Determined due to his head being proportionately large for his body.)
I can understand your determination to solve this mystery Ayashi. It’s intriguing. :)
-
The interesting thing about the lc is that it is noted in the box labelled "promotions and reductions", but obviously added later on because it is written squidged in above his Corporal entry at the top of the space. It isn't mentioned at all in his service rank/company/conduct box, which only notes him as a Private until he becomes a Corporal.
This may be because lance corporal was not a full rank but an 'acting' position, at least that was the case in the army at the time, so probably the same in the RMLI. The full 'rank' of a lance corporal was private.
Well, it seems like if the photo is your man, it must have been taken around 1885. So the question is could he be an old-looking 22 or 23 year old. Personally, if you look past his hair at his face I would say yes it's possible.
-
Thank you both.
According to his file, Theophilus was 5' 8, but then again his date of birth doesn't match his birth certificate and he manages to have blue eyes in 1882 and hazel eyes in 1890. ::)
-
Long Shot: If the height of the table and chair in the Photograph, can be estimated, then it might be possible to determine the height of the male subject.
-
Hmm... (Suddenly I feel all CSI! I bet the cast of the shows could tell you what he had for breakfast...)
The top photo in Cathy's link ( https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/Canada-DukeofWellingtonsAlbumGroup.html ) is the same set-up, although the chap there is sitting down and it doesn't mention his height. Even if we knew how tall he was, I'm not sure how easily we'd be able to determine the height of the chair. I'll see if I can find out...
-
I had a quick look, on various Online Sites, that were selling Antique Victorian Chairs, and the seat heights varied from an average of 18" to 24" (As His height was 5’8", I'll stick to Imperial Measure). I'll leave it to You, to appraise the CSI ;D
ADD: The Chair Back's, seem to average around 30" to 32" in height, measured from ground, and some Chair Seat heights can be as low as 16".
-
Thank you Sandblown.
The world's worst detective has determined thus:
Comparing the height of the seat (which appears to be approx 1.5ft as predicted, although two different chairs), the height of the chair back (which I'd noted as approx 3ft before I saw your edit) and, assuming it is the same room as it appears to be, the height of the floor to the wall pattern and approx height of the table I think we work out at 5'8 - 5'9 approximately even after the most imprecise measuring tactic possible.
Comparing with John NURSE (5ft 6 1/2 aged 18) was going to be even more impractical, especially given that he's sitting down. I charitably added a smidgen to make him 5'7 and loosely plotted his height, which took several attempts but my final one did work out Theo as 5ft 8. I think that one could really be up for interpretation though, I'd get different results from different attempts until the end of time.
All in all though, I'm fairly confident that our photo guy is not a short fella at least. Maybe I should go to his grave and tell him Ruskie says he has a big head ;D
-
Aw no don’t do that Ayashi. I don’t want to offend the poor guy.
I know people have different sized heads, but when you look at really tall people, their heads looks small compared to their bodies, so I was basing my estimate in that. ;)
I also thought your chap looked fairly short of limb as well as large of head. >:(
-
Well, it's not like measuring photos is particularly accurate, you could still be right for all I know lol
;)
Sometimes I do wonder if it would be a valid tactic to go to a cemetery, say a few choice things and see which graves start revolving... ;D
-
I believe You did very well, Detective Ayashi.
I forgot to add that the average table height is around 30", and the chair in the photograph, would be considered nearly 'highback' at 36", average 'highback' is around 40".
By the way, I don't own any antique chairs, nowadays, but out of curiosity, I measured the seat height of My three piece suite, and it came to 17," so not much has changed over the years.
I won't venture into estimating Human height by limb/bone lengths, but there are Online Tables/Articles, which describe these methods.
I hope it was an interesting exercise and fun method to work on, which might come in useful for the future, as a rough guide for height estimating.