This is a copy of the questionnaire forwarded to the relatives of the Fromelles missing.

How many absurdities can you spot?

Mel

Most of the questions seem to be very relevant - so what is the problem

Chris

I agree with Chris - the more information they have, however obscure and unlikely it may be to find, the more chance they have of eventually making an identification.

The hair locks question - I have seen quite a few lockets in which human hair has been placed

None?

Gareth

How many of us would know how many fillings our great-grandfather had???

Bruce

I suspect I agree with you, Chris.

I imagine some of the possibly obscure questions might help to support information that shows up in forensic examination.

John

The only odd one I saw was the question about beards. Other than that it all could be relevant.

I guess if the man had had the childhood diseases mentioned he might not have made front line service?

I give up but I expect Mel will list the "absurdities" for our edification.

As you say, Bruce. All relevant questions for sure, as others have said. But it's virtually certain that practically no one alive will have even met the men whose remains the project is trying to identify, let alone be able to answer first hand any of the observational (as opposed to documentary/genealogical) questions.

Is this the absurdity you observe, Mel?

Jim

I believe that many of those diseases can actually be identified from traces/marks left on the bones, anything that helps to narrow the search I would think is relevent.
Remember that many recruits lied on enlistment, and some may not have been too keen to disclose anything that would keep them away from the front.

One of the questions asks about a beard. I was under the impression that a beard wasn't allowed, if only to safeguard a good connection for a gas mask.
What is more, if someone leaves home clean-shaven, has a photo taken in Amiens or wherever, still clean-shaven, but between that and his death decides to grow a moustache, who would know?
Getting as much information as possible is understandable, but I'm not sure anyone alive today would be able to answer some of them.

Bruce

Stu - well understood, the reasons for asking are clear. But the effects of such diseases woud render a man less than A1 fit and perhaps obviosuly so at the recruiting medical?

Anyway, the more you know the better informed you are, so no harm in asking any questions, however much a long shot they may prove to be.

I don't see any of the questions as 'absurd' per se. In any investigation the tiniest detail can often be a deciding factor so while for the majority of recipients these questions won't be able to shed any light whatsoever, the existence of an old photo showing your relation with a pen in his left hand rather than his right might just be the key to distinguishing his remains from those of another man of similar build, haircolour, rank, etc.

I agree that the more info that can be taken from the relatives, regardless how trivial it appears, the better chance of remains being identified.
While many of those diseases may have left recruits less than A1, in the rush to enlist as many men as possible, in many personal accounts you read that the medical was often just a cursory look over before a man was passed.
Many years ago, I had a converstion with the forensic archaeologist Margaret Cox, she told me about some work that she had been carring out on the W.F. and she mentioned that many of the remains that she had studied had shown signs of serious disease and malnutrition from youth.

Re beards - beards were only allowed in the British Bns for the Pioneer Sgt - so possibly relevant there

Say if I was answering these question for my great uncle I reckon I could answer quite a few

Chris

I thought no-one was allowed a beard, but once again I learn something new here.

I suspect that you have given up all too easily. it is entirely a matter for yourself as to whether you consider my comments as "edification" or otherwise.

Let's start with Section 4 Service History. Bear in mind that this is not a generic questionnaire about any missing soldier but the British missing at Fromelles. Whoever settled this particular section clearly has no grasp of the British forces deployed at Fromelles.

A cursory glance at the Official History or even a reputable online source such as here:
http://www.1914-1918.net/61div.htm
would have established that the British forces so deployed were exclusively of the 61st (2nd South Midlands) Division. The said Division was a second line Territorial Force formation so:

a) Why ask? The answer is precisely in the type of Division that was involved which the compiler should have known.
b ) Why ask a question for which the answer is already known re: the so called 'Working List' & CWGC entry
c) The same as a) above
d) I have no idea of what the possible relevance of who a soldier joined up with is in this context but I do take issue with 'if he was a volunteer'. What other would he have been at this stage of the war? The only impact of the Military Service Act at this juncture would have been on only those Terriers that had not taken the Imperial Service Obligation.
e) A matter for proper research re: transfers in from other TF units which the relatives may or may not have undertaken but which the MoD/CWGC damn well should.
f) Same as e) above. The MoD/CWGC have not retrieved one set of service papers for a single missing soldier. Hence, the absurdity of inclusion within the Working List of soldiers from diverse regiments as the DCLI, Munsters, Scottish Rifles etc.
g) The compiler should have known that the forces deployed and those missing were infantrymen. Where gunners and tunnellers come into it is anybody's guess.

It is precisely the lack of background knowledge on the part of the compiler that leads to other ridiculous questions such as those concerning beards (perhaps the RND were involved?) or trench foot which would have been a truly remarkable achievement given that the Division only landed in France in the last week of May.

Men of the Royal Naval Division sometimes sported face fungus.

Chris

I may be wrong but I think you will find that Pioneer Sergeants were entitled to sport mutton chops rather than a beard.

My point here is that particular question was not asked because the compiler thought there might be an off chance that a Pioneer Sergeant is missing (there isn't); it is the fact that their knowledge of matters military is so slender that they asked the question in the first place.

Mel

Is it possible the questions are asked because many of those who hope to find grandad DON'T know the answers? If, say, my next-door-neighbour thought their great uncle was buried at fromelles because they'd read all about it in the papers and knew he was missing in action somewhere, and were approaching fromelles as a possibility, asking these questions might easily eliminate their great uncle as a possibility.

So, I suspect it might be possible these questions are so worded to eliminate what are, effectively, time-wasters.

Maybe rather than slagging off the questions they do ask your time would be better spent suggesting to them the questions that you consider relevant and in persuading them to incude those?

I'm sorry but it seems to me, as an outsider, that there are those here who would not be happy regardless of how any of this issue was dealt with and I'd suspect axes are being ground as we speak..... Surely it's better to ask questions that folk may not be able to answer than to not ask and end up being unable to identify someone purely because you didn't ask one question?

Well, no, it wasn't. As someone who would never have seen the absurdities that vexed Mel, I now withdraw from this thread.

I absolutely agree with the general point that a number of posters have made that a small piece of information, if available, could help to corroborate the identification of a set of remains.

The MoD have engaged a coterie of anthropologists, pathologists, dentistry experts etc to assist in the identification process. They clearly have a key role to play and especially so in the identification of the Australian dead where the service records are incredibly comprehensive and contain much of the type of information asked about in this questionnaire for the British missing.

My concern here is that those experts are clearly pressing for information in respect of their own specialisms without any regard as to how those questions sound.

For example, you do not need to have a Ph.d in Edwardian social history to recognise that horseriding, archery or tennis were not the pastimes of the working class. I can understand the point of the question but why not phrase it in a more appropriate form such as ' Certain sporting pastimes can affect the development of the human body, did your relative engage in any particular sporting activity?' I think that the latter question sounds considerably less ridiculous than the former.

I can see what Mel is saying and agree with him.

The authorities are asking questions that need not be asked because any basic understanding of the events rule them out as being relevant. It implies that the people compiling these letters have absolutely no comprehension of the facts and couldn't be bothered finding out. This is worrying.

From the Australian side of things, similar letters have been posted requesting family trees from registered descendants. Now, having researched all the Australian soldiers and located a large number of these descendants, I am aware that quite a few aren't exactly sure how they're related and some are even completely wrong. Nevertheless, the authorities are going to base the DNA comparison tests on these trees without even conducting even the most basic genealogical research for confirmation. What is most concerning is that we have already conducted genealogical studies into the 191 Aussies and have constructed their family trees with accuracy from births, deaths and marriage records. Any descendant can quickly be placed into each of these and an accurate family relationship established - however the authorities (who are well aware of our work and have been provided examples) do not seem at all interested in it's value. It appears that they are willing to risk the accuracy of DNA testing by relying solely on the say-so of descendants.

They can engage DNA experts, historians, anthropologists, pathologists and archaeologists but for some reason genealogists seem unimportant. I certainly hope this slapdash approach doesn't jeopardise the identification of any of these soldiers who might otherwise have been named.

Cheers,
Tim L.

Steve

I don't think that comes into the equation at all. There are very few 'immediate' relatives that would be able to answer more than a couple of questions in any event and many of the more 'distant' ones would have no knowledge at all.

It is this as well that I find deeply troubling. If the responses to this questionnaire are to be the primary source of all that is known on the soldier then that creates a grim prospect.

Mel

Thank you for your incisive contribution to the discussion.

A number of posters have noted that particular diseases had a lasting physiological effect and that many of the men, although classified as AI, objectively fell well below that standard.

I think that you would agree that socio-economic circumstances were the main determinants of health, nutrition and physiological development in Edwardian Britain. It would, therefore, have been prudent to ask for the confirmation of the occupation of the father, the number of siblings of the soldier, the town, city or village in which he was raised, when he left school etc. A good deal of this information can be readily secured from the census material.

I also think that you would agree that questions along those lines are broadly sensible.

Now toddle off and persuade the MoD of the case.

Please do not forget to report back on your success.

I have sent my reply back and tried to answer as best I can the questions. To be fair to the SPVA they have said many of the questions will be difficult to answer. However I've been disappointed that it appears service records at the National Archives were not accessed.

I am trying to attend a relatives meeting so a few more answers may be revealed as to the types of evidence/information it is hoped to use.

Those of us who have watched the "Meet the Ancestors" and Time Team programmes will know the sorts of techniques used. One I have seen used is analysing bones for the minerals they contain. This apparently can tell you the types of water people drank as kids and thus identify the area they originated from.

I'm sure theres lots of others. Manual labourers are more likely to have bone/muscle structures that reflect the occupations. I know from having broken my leg recently and the subsequent X rays is that my consultant told me you can tell I was a cyclist from the thickened outer layer of my leg bone one the X ray. The subsequent miles of cycling stressed the bone, causing it to thicken in all the right places. Its surprising the clues that can be revealed from bones. Smoking a pipe could leave a gap in the front teeth is another example I've seen quoted.

Richard

Hi Everyone,

As a relative who has received this questionnaire to fill out I don't have any problem with them compiling a questionnaire full of very detailed, even obscure, questions that I personally cannot answer as even if one person can answer some of them then it may help a particular man get a named grave - I suspect most will not be able to answer many of them though. Furthermore as someone whose knowledge of the military during WWI is scant I would never have noticed many of the anomalies Mel spotted straightaway with the exception of the inclusion of elitist sports in the sporting activities question which seemed bizarre even to me. I do, however, feel that we have a right to expect those compiling the questionnaire to either possess a detailed knowledge of the regiments involved themselves or if the questionnaire was compiled by DNA experts, as I presume it was, to consult with and get it vetted by those with such knowledge so anything unnecessary could have been weeded out. Overall, though, I have no real gripe against the main body of the questionnaire as, although it could have been better researched, it is not going to cause any real harm.

What I do have to take issue with, however, is the below part of the DNA guidelines list:

d. If there are no sisters of the deceased then detail the family on his mother's side and their living FEMALE family members (great, great aunts, great aunts, and/or the various cousins.)

This line is misleading and could encourage relatives to chase up female relations who are not suitable matches while discounting male relations who are - I will not go into the intricacies of why here as all of that can be found on the DNA Testing thread but if they wanted to direct the relatives towards finding an MtDNA match without explaining the ins and outs of DNA transference and, at the same time, keep it short and general then something along the lines of "if there are no sisters of the deceased then detail any living relations on his mother's side of the family who are on the end of an unbroken female line extending back to his maternal grandmother or maternal great-grandmother; the living relations on the end of such lines can be male or female" would not have taken up much more space but is much more accurate. There really is no way to simplify it further and by doing so confusion can easily ensue.

Regards

Michelle

Melpack

Im afraid to say that you are one of those that does not want to help a project like this - you just want to be seen as one of those that is clever than every one else - at this point I shall take no further point in this charade

Chris

Hi Richard,

It is rather amazing how much information can be gleaned simply from bones; I truly hope a wealth of information can be gathered from the remains at Fromelles and that it can help with the identification process in a subsidiary capacity to DNA matching. It will be very interesting to, at some point, see the anthropological interpretations of the information gathered from the bones possibly on a programme like the ones you mentioned!

Regards

Michelle

Chrisharley9

And that comment amply demonstrates your profound ignorance of matters.

Mel

Oh and by the way it is do and not does. It is also one of those that are more clever or cleverer...... It is certainly not 'one of those that is clever than everone else' but then I suppose I is clever than everyone else in pointing that out.

Just read through questionnaire again. Realised one important question missing:

Was he married?

Relevant in my case as my relative, AE Marshall 182 MGC, is my grandfather and he may have been wearing a wedding ring.

I'm yet to receive my questionaire ......

Hi Orlando,

I would drop them an email in case it got lost in the post - I didn't receive mine either but they just emailed it over to me. I wasn't too concerned about getting a posted copy since I could print it out. I have it in pdf form and can email it to you if you would prefer as well.

Regards

Michelle

Hi Keith,

I assume that they will be taking this information from the family trees relatives are providing as other familial relationship questions were also not asked on the questionnaire.

Your point about wedding rings is interesting though; I believe the vast majority of the men, if not all, would not have been wearing them as I'm sure I've previously read that the practice of men wearing wedding rings began during WWII as a way for the men to remember the loved ones they had left at home (I may be wrong here though!)

Regards

Michelle

ETA: THIS history of wedding rings would suggest it did begin around WWII.

Have a look at link below, particularly the passage "Hidden gems", and you will see why I raised the point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/gloucestershir...000/8212567.stm

Hi Keith,

Thanks for the article - the find of a wedding ring really is fantastic. I agree the experts should definitely check how many of the men were married in case of other finds such as this but I still think it will turn out to be a very rare occurrence. It certainly can't hurt to cover all eventuallities though.

Regards

Michelle

"Whether they rode a horse".......You are thinking in a modern sense here - my father and uncles were all taught to ride horses as this was the only form of travel for the working class as well as the richer people..it was the lower classes (and therefore the PBI) who rode and drove carts etc. and never aspired to driving a motor vehicle.

Jacksmum