Author Topic: Help reading last line of this record please  (Read 1167 times)

Offline phenolphthalein

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 27 January 22 08:20 GMT (UK) »
Actually none of what you say is incorrect but none of it nullifies my suggestion.
i too have folk with extensive records from the Red Cross and war records.  Two have no known place of burial. One family took a year to get proper feedback -- they received his possessions but no place of burial.
As you point out this is just one of many pieces of documentation -- it does not nullify other documents.  It is one piece in a train of correspondence probably the record of a request for information rather than the answer to that request.
Most correspondence was indexed or retained.

My soldier who has no known place of burial has reports of his death and at least 2 cemetries where he is memorialised one at lone pine the other in australia.

He too had a very close family and the reverberations of his death are felt to this day.  There were also legal reasons for the family to pursue information about him for more than a year after his death.

i was merely implying that this note was merely a link in a chain of correspondence and may not reflect other correspondence sent by the family or from the red cross as further progress was made on his case. i think it refers to the request rather than the answer that is all.

Regards
pH

Offline Karen McDonald

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,474
  • ** THINK POSITIVE! **
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 27 January 22 09:21 GMT (UK) »
Hi all,

As far as the note at the bottom goes, I have tried making it clearer and I think that it says written re, not written are.



So maybe the letters at the beginning are a military unit and this unit has been contacted re: the location of the grave.

Just an idea...

I also think (not that I have much idea about these things  ::)) that they would have written particulars sent to if they had actually sent them. The fact that they only wrote particulars to makes me think it is indeed a request/instruction, rather than confirmation that it has been done.

Just my two penn'th.  ;D
McDonald MacDonald M'Donald McGregor MacGregor M'Gregor Twilley Wells Fentiman Carrington Rowe Needham Mitchell Mackie Collingwood Fuller Maides Shilton Hagon Budd

Online shanreagh

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,774
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 27 January 22 09:41 GMT (UK) »
Agree with Karen McD.

DGRV6 may be the abbreviation for another unit or a rank within a unit. 
'DGRV6  written re location of grave.'
So if it is DGVR6 who/what could this be? 

The earlier sentences are instructions to do things not that the things have been done.   
I suggest that whoever wrote the sentences knew of 73 Sgt Hampshire T and his relationship to the deceased soldier.  The intention was that the photograph etc would be sent.  Not that it was sent.

Another point is that if the same practice was followed as in NZ there are two sets of records for each solider, 1 at base and the 2nd followed the soldier, not right into the thick of battle but were kept where all the admin records were kept.  At war's end the files were amalgamated.  So you might see two copies of everything.  They may look familiar but need looking at carefully in case one page holds slightly different or more wording. 

Agree also with PH - that this record was a link. 

Some times the standard letter was in the file as a copy of the standard letter, not a copy of the actual letter.  In the two NZ soldiers who died, one in each war, in my family there are notes that the soldiers' superior or a ranking officer who may have been with them when they were last seen was also deputed to write to the family. 


Offline aus*jen

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 27 January 22 10:49 GMT (UK) »
Thankyou Karen,  your transcription 'written re' agrees with my own as stated in my initial post.

Regards,
Jen.
Boland   NSW, Australia
Gibbs   S.Aust. & Queensland
Jennings NSW, Australia
Page  Coventry UK, Queensland Aust.
Sellars (Sellard) Gloucestershire
Kirby  Lechlade, Gloucestershire
Hampshire  Stepney, Middlesex & Hampshire
Goddard,  Isle of Wight
Cushen, Isle of Wight
Keys,  Tyrone Ireland & NSW Australia


Offline aus*jen

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 27 January 22 10:55 GMT (UK) »
pH, I have written a lengthy response to you, I have nothing further to add.

Regards,  Jen.
Boland   NSW, Australia
Gibbs   S.Aust. & Queensland
Jennings NSW, Australia
Page  Coventry UK, Queensland Aust.
Sellars (Sellard) Gloucestershire
Kirby  Lechlade, Gloucestershire
Hampshire  Stepney, Middlesex & Hampshire
Goddard,  Isle of Wight
Cushen, Isle of Wight
Keys,  Tyrone Ireland & NSW Australia

Offline Karen McDonald

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,474
  • ** THINK POSITIVE! **
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 27 January 22 11:21 GMT (UK) »
Thankyou Karen,  your transcription 'written re' agrees with my own as stated in my initial post.

Regards,
Jen.

Duh. Silly me. Sorry, Jen! I was looking at Conohy's post.  ::)

All the best,
Karen
McDonald MacDonald M'Donald McGregor MacGregor M'Gregor Twilley Wells Fentiman Carrington Rowe Needham Mitchell Mackie Collingwood Fuller Maides Shilton Hagon Budd

Offline aus*jen

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 27 January 22 11:29 GMT (UK) »
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.
 
Boland   NSW, Australia
Gibbs   S.Aust. & Queensland
Jennings NSW, Australia
Page  Coventry UK, Queensland Aust.
Sellars (Sellard) Gloucestershire
Kirby  Lechlade, Gloucestershire
Hampshire  Stepney, Middlesex & Hampshire
Goddard,  Isle of Wight
Cushen, Isle of Wight
Keys,  Tyrone Ireland & NSW Australia

Online shanreagh

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,774
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #16 on: Thursday 27 January 22 21:00 GMT (UK) »
.......

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.

.......
Regards,
Jen.

You may say it is complete but I cannot let this incorrect statement pass without correction.
' 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'

In both wars I had uncles lost.  In the case of the latter one in WW2 his three brothers were overseas at the same time and in the same conflict.  His mother, in NZ, was NOK.  All three were advised of possible death/missing within days.  One, my father was given leave to meet every ship that was bringing survivors from Crete to see if his brother was there.  In his case they were all told of the circumstances of him going missing, and in fact another brother had met him,  in the thick of battle in Crete.  This would have been before his mother would have been told. 

My other uncle, who put up his age and ran away to join AIF, was killed in France in April 1918.  Several of his fellow soldiers had seen where he fell, rescued him but he later died.  All of them wrote to my grandmother about what had happened.  My grandmother was advised relatively soon after his death 8-10 or so days, and the letters followed.  She was in contact with AIF up until mid 1920s over aspects of his death and getting his effects forwarded. 

My thoughts are that it is quite probable that if a soldier, doing the admin  knew of another's relationship to the deceased the suggestion may be made that they be advised .......even in the thick of battle the admin back from the lines were still working and if a letter had been sent it would have been sent in the reasonable expectation that it might get there to Sgt Hampshire.

It does not read as if Sgt Hampshire 'requested', more that someone knew of the relationship and made a recommendation.  Just as in WW2 word had got back even from Crete  if the three brothers fighting there had not yet and so my father was told and able to be deputed to meet the ships. 

The people on this board are so helpful and I would welcome any tips that others have .......it sounds a little churlish to dismiss ideas from others. 

Hopefully the military board will be able to advise what the initials stand for.   :)

Offline majm

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,385
  • NSW 1806 Bowman Flag Ecce signum.
    • View Profile
Re: Help reading last line of this record please
« Reply #17 on: Thursday 27 January 22 22:03 GMT (UK) »
Hi All,

The snip is obviously from a B2455 file.  That means it is from the Service Personnel file of an AIF soldier.   The Red Cross files are a separate set and are not part of the B2455 AIF series.  Any entry written on the Statement of Service would be written by AIF personnel, not by anyone else, so not by Red Cross, not by NOK, not by NAA, not by DoD - Army.  So it was written after the soldier had Fallen, but before the End of Hostilities.   

Our OP has closed the topic.   Please may we all respect that decision.

Lest We Forget.

JM 
The information in my posts is provided for academic and non-commercial research purposes. 
Random Acts of Kindness Given Freely are never Worthless for they are Priceless.
Qui scit et non docet.    Qui docet et non vivit.    Qui nescit et non interrogat.   
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
I do not have a face book or a twitter account.