Hi all.

On a mission today to find the grave of Second Lieutenant Henry Kelly V.C M.C and Bar. The V.C being awarded for action on the 4th oct 1916 on the Somme (Tenth Duke of Wellington)

I arrived too late to catch the records office open at Southern Cemetery, Manchester, where Henry was buried in 1960. So, i will return during the week .

As i was there i had a look about, and came across there Memorial wall.

A number of there names came under as ' Served as'. Here's one. Andrew Molloy. Served as 91775 Pvt John Davies.

The King Liverpool Regt 16. 4. ?



F.L.Gellatly served as ... F.L Roberts


Cameron Highlanders 16.5.18



My question is, why would they serve as?

Is this him here

Cheers Mike

There were a variety of reasons for a man to serve under an assumed name. Under age on enlistment so using someone else's documentation perhaps. That was already a common subterfuge for youngsters wishing to start work under age.

Lots of thanks Mike. I think i saw a grave number on the stone F-372? As he did indeed achieve the rank of Major.

Thinking of men serving under an alias, I don't think this is a typical example, by any means, but interesting.

This is a letter written by the mother of a serving member of the AIF, who sadly, was KIA:

"I, Mary Lavinia Annie Green solemnly declare that I am the mother of the late Dallas William Henry Green who enlisted under the name of Frank Henry Green 1951 13 Batt and 2192 31st Batt and that there was no reason for him to enlist under an assumed name other than his childish dislike to his first name and I wish his proper name, Dallas William Henry Green to be placed on the records."

(letter witnessed by a J.P.)

Regards
CGM

There have been many examples of serving under an alias on the forum and this thread is a good example:

Here

Regards
CGM