Help reading last line of this record please

[shanreagh]

Huh?  I think all the efforts have been to help with the totality of records and that was why there were suggestions about looking at other contemporaneous files for extra help.  No-one on this thread ever suggested that the AIF files were added to by Red Cross, just other places to look. 

OP has not commented on if they are looking at the blended personal eg  file base plus the one that was carried with the group.  Not sure what the Aus practice was but the NZ practice, from looking at 3-4 of them, was that they were just added, ie no attempt was made to blend the two files.

The view that NOK are always advised first is not correct, how could it be?  My dad and his brothers knew before their mother who was NOK that their sibling was missing in action but not presumed dead, in fact he was only presumed dead in the 1950s after two searcher parties had gone to Crete from NZ after the war.   

The tips by others are like gold, I for one do not want to impede this practice as I want to have all the ideas possible when I put requests up......I don't want people to be put off by the rather ungracious reception that this OP has given.

We are not all like that and most of us welcome all the reckons, ideas, tips or off the wall ideas that you might have. Not one of us has the sum total of knowledge of these ancestors of ours. 

EDIT, not worth it.....the general points remain

[majm]

Huh?  I think all the efforts have been to help with the totality of records and that was why there were suggestions about looking at other contemporaneous files for extra help.  No-one on this thread ever suggested that the AIF files were added to by Red Cross, just other places to look. 

OP has not commented on if they are looking at the blended personal eg  file base plus the one that was carried with the group.  Not sure what the Aus practice was but the NZ practice, from looking at 3-4 of them, was that they were just added, ie no attempt was made to blend the two files.

In fact my own view is that perhaps there is a bit of confirmation bias going on......They seem a bit grumpy as result of the view that they have that the notations are a fait accompli, rather than just notations that may or may not have occurred.  The view that NOK are always advised first is not correct, how could it be?  My dad and his brothers knew before their mother who was NOK that their sibling was missing in action but not presumed dead, in fact he was only presumed dead in the 1950s after two searcher parties had gone to Crete from NZ after the war.   

The tips by others are like gold, I for one do not want to impede this practice as I want to have all the ideas possible when I put requests up......I don't want people to be put off by the rather ungracious reception that this OP has given.

We are not all like that and most of us welcome all the reckons, ideas, tips or off the wall ideas that you might have. Not one of us has the sum total of knowledge of these ancestors of ours. 

I will use the R2M button. 

JM

[shanreagh]

I don't know what this means.

My approach was to reassure other posters that mostly tips etc are welcomed.  A simple 'thank you' is all that is required.  We provide the info and most of the time are not interested in a response saying 'I'm going to disregard this' unless it is in the process of a joint effort to get further information.  And then it can be a happy merry band that gets to work turning up leads etc. 

Edits

[majm]

I don't know what this means.

My approach was to reassure other posters that mostly tips etc are welcomed.  A simple 'thank you' is all that is required.  We provide the info and most of the time are not interested in a response saying 'I'm going to disregard this' unless it is in the process of a joint effort to get further information.  And then it can be a happy merry band that gets to work turning up leads etc. 

Edits

At reply #15 our OP wrote : directly to you and thanked you and closed the topic.

R2M button - available to each of us and is an abbreviation for 'Report to Moderator' as in R2M

JM

Shanreagh, thankyou for your thoughts.  It was my intention when posting on this thread to ask for
opinions on the wording of the last line of the record, nothing more nothing less.  I did not post to
initiate a debate on whether a record written over 100 years ago was an intention or a fait accompli.

Perhaps the person who wrote the record was aware of the relationship of T. Hampshire to the deceased.  However, in my opinion it was not usual practice for the military to send sensitive information to anyone who was not nominated as n.o.k.  The wife of the deceased was not informed
of her husband's death until 28th April 1918, 23 days after he was killed in action.  She was still writing and requesting her husband's effects in 1921.

Sgt. Hampshire would also be unaware of his brother-in-laws death as he was fighting in France and  was himself gassed and suffered gunshot wounds.  I do not think he was in a position to request the
details of his brother-in-laws death.  There is no date on the record so possibly it was quite some time after the event.  Sgt. Hampshire was back in Australia less than a year later.

You mention that often a superior or ranking officer is the informant in the case of a death in action.
On 5th April, 1918 the day of Pte. Keys death, the superior officer of the 52nd Btn. was also killed in
action.  Perhaps this could explain the lack of information with regards to his burial.

Thankyou all for your interest, perhaps the Armed Forces board will have some answers to the codes used in the document, I will ask.

This topic is now completed.

Regards,
Jen.

[shanreagh]

Huh?  I think all the efforts have been to help with the totality of records and that was why there were suggestions about looking at other contemporaneous files for extra help.  No-one on this thread ever suggested that the AIF files were added to by Red Cross, just other places to look. 

OP has not commented on if they are looking at the blended personal eg  file base plus the one that was carried with the group.  Not sure what the Aus practice was but the NZ practice, from looking at 3-4 of them, was that they were just added, ie no attempt was made to blend the two files.

In fact my own view is that perhaps there is a bit of confirmation bias going on......They seem a bit grumpy as result of the view that they have that the notations are a fait accompli, rather than just notations that may or may not have occurred.  The view that NOK are always advised first is not correct, how could it be?  My dad and his brothers knew before their mother who was NOK that their sibling was missing in action but not presumed dead, in fact he was only presumed dead in the 1950s after two searcher parties had gone to Crete from NZ after the war.   

The tips by others are like gold, I for one do not want to impede this practice as I want to have all the ideas possible when I put requests up......I don't want people to be put off by the rather ungracious reception that this OP has given.

We are not all like that and most of us welcome all the reckons, ideas, tips or off the wall ideas that you might have. Not one of us has the sum total of knowledge of these ancestors of ours. 

I will use the R2M button. 

JM

And I have removed a couple of lines.....it is not worth it in the context of this particular post but the important point is that most of us welcome the views of others with tips etc.  I don't want to stem the tide of these.  That would be most undesirable. 

[shanreagh]

I don't know what this means.

My approach was to reassure other posters that mostly tips etc are welcomed.  A simple 'thank you' is all that is required.  We provide the info and most of the time are not interested in a response saying 'I'm going to disregard this' unless it is in the process of a joint effort to get further information.  And then it can be a happy merry band that gets to work turning up leads etc. 

Edits

At reply #15 our OP wrote : directly to you and thanked you and closed the topic.

R2M button - available to each of us and is an abbreviation for 'Report to Moderator' as in R2M

JM

Shanreagh, thankyou for your thoughts.  It was my intention when posting on this thread to ask for
opinions on the wording of the last line of the record, nothing more nothing less.  I did not post to
initiate a debate on whether a record written over 100 years ago was an intention or a fait accompli.

Perhaps the person who wrote the record was aware of the relationship of T. Hampshire to the deceased.  However, in my opinion it was not usual practice for the military to send sensitive information to anyone who was not nominated as n.o.k.  The wife of the deceased was not informed
of her husband's death until 28th April 1918, 23 days after he was killed in action.  She was still writing and requesting her husband's effects in 1921.

Sgt. Hampshire would also be unaware of his brother-in-laws death as he was fighting in France and  was himself gassed and suffered gunshot wounds.  I do not think he was in a position to request the
details of his brother-in-laws death.  There is no date on the record so possibly it was quite some time after the event.  Sgt. Hampshire was back in Australia less than a year later.

You mention that often a superior or ranking officer is the informant in the case of a death in action.
On 5th April, 1918 the day of Pte. Keys death, the superior officer of the 52nd Btn. was also killed in
action.  Perhaps this could explain the lack of information with regards to his burial.

Thankyou all for your interest, perhaps the Armed Forces board will have some answers to the codes used in the document, I will ask.

This topic is now completed.

Regards,
Jen.

OK we agree to differ.  The OP just needed to say 'thank you', not argue the toss about the efforts of some of us to find extra info.   That is my point.....it was a rap over the knuckles for going the extra mile. 

[Neale1961]

So if it is DGVR6 who/what could this be? 

A map reference.

[Ruskie]

So if it is DGVR6 who/what could this be? 

A map reference.

That might make sense.

I thought it might be initials and regiment number:
DG Rg^t 6 written re location of grave (with ‘of grave’ struck out)

Unsure if the wording means that the photo and details of location of grave were ever sent or not. It implies they were intended to be sent to T Hamphire.