Canadian Expeditionary Force - Hilton Parker - age problem!

[tilly56]

Good morning

Along with other members of the BFHS, I am trying to help a lady who is looking for information for a WW1 memorial. 

One name on the list struck me - Hilton Parker.  I found quite a lot of info about him, and quite a lot of questions, too!

The main question is - on the attached document, he gives his date of birth as 15th December 1886.  However, the only Hilton Parker born in Berkshire at that time, is registered in Jan/Feb/March 1884....... so is there a reason why Hilton would have lied about his age, making himself three years younger than he actually was?  Was there an age limit for signing up in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces?  (He emigrated to Canada in abt 1915 and worked on the railway.)

Second question - there is the word "batmen" handwritten on the document - does this simply mean he was a "Batman"?

I would be very grateful for any help answering these questions.

Many thanks

Tilly

[km1971]

Hi Tilly

His parents would have had six weeks to register his birth, so it he may have been born on 15th December 1883, and he just shaved three years from his age. With such an uncommon forename it is highly unlikely that there were two of them born that close together in one county.

Even a DoB in 1883 would have been within the limits for enlisting. It could be that the lie was made when he emigrated in order to get the job with the railway, and he had to continue with it. The only time most people needed a birth certificate was when they applied for an old age pension. In the army officers had to provide proof of age, but other ranks did not.

I assume the same conditions regarding private servants applied to the Canadian army, but in the British army officers were allowed Privates to act as Batmen. The number depending upon their rank, and if they were mounted or not.

Ken

[tilly56]

Hi Ken

Thank you very much for your reply -  I have passed on the information!

As you can see from the document, Hilton gave his mother's name as Elizabeth, when it was in fact Emily (going by the censuses...) - strange!!

Thank you for your help

Tilly