Please don't anyone involved take this as a "tilt" at the project, because I'm involved with it myself (although I'm confining my activities to men who died in the UK at the moment.
However, looking at the IFTC web page - and taking a particular interest in the King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment - I thought I'd look and see how many men from that regiment had been added. I found one:
CLAYTON, FRANK
Initials: F
Nationality: United Kingdom
Rank: Private
Regiment/Service: King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)
Age: 20
Date of Death: 20/02/1915
Service No: 2718
N.B.: This casualty has recently been accepted for commemoration by the Commission. However, it will not be possible to add his name to this Memorial immediately. Please contact the Commission before planning a visit, for more information.
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Grave/Memorial Reference: Addenda Panel
Memorial: YPRES (MENIN GATE) MEMORIAL
I was suspicious because there was no Bn. shown, so just out of interest I checked the Medal Roll for him - no sign !!
A bit more checking identified this man:
GREENFIELD, ROWLAND
Initials: R
Nationality: United Kingdom
Rank: Private
Regiment/Service: King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment)
Unit Text: 2nd Bn
Age: 21
Date of Death: 20/02/1915
Service No: 2718
Additional information: Son of Samuel Henry Greenfield.
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Grave/Memorial Reference: Panel 12.
Memorial: YPRES (MENIN GATE) MEMORIAL
The similarities are too great for these two men to be anything other than one man with a previously undetected or overlooked alias.
So, back to my original question. How thoroughly are some of the submissions being checked, and what are the chances of there now being other men who are commemorated twice?
Is there a need for some independent verification, because on the basis of the above it doesn't much look like the MoD are doing it.
I'm all in favour of getting men commemorated, but not like this. It needs to be right.
Full Version: IFTC Project concern
Great War Forum > Battles, battlefields and places > Cemeteries and memorials > Possible non-commemorations
Another that looks a tad suspicious:
Pte Albert HARGEAVES
9618 East Lancashire Regiment
Died 17.05.15 Age 26
Commemoration: Ploegsteert Memorial, Belgium
ROSTRON
Initials: T
Nationality: United Kingdom
Rank: Private
Regiment/Service: East Lancashire Regiment
Unit Text: 1st. Bn.
Date of Death: 17/05/1915
Service No: 9618
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Grave/Memorial Reference: I. A. 68.
Cemetery: BAILLEUL COMMUNAL CEMETERY EXTENSION (NORD)
Again, no sign of a MIC for "Albert Hargeaves" against that number. If these aren't aliases then they have the hallmarks of simple administrative mix-ups.
Pte Albert HARGEAVES
9618 East Lancashire Regiment
Died 17.05.15 Age 26
Commemoration: Ploegsteert Memorial, Belgium
ROSTRON
Initials: T
Nationality: United Kingdom
Rank: Private
Regiment/Service: East Lancashire Regiment
Unit Text: 1st. Bn.
Date of Death: 17/05/1915
Service No: 9618
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Grave/Memorial Reference: I. A. 68.
Cemetery: BAILLEUL COMMUNAL CEMETERY EXTENSION (NORD)
Again, no sign of a MIC for "Albert Hargeaves" against that number. If these aren't aliases then they have the hallmarks of simple administrative mix-ups.
Andy
That is always possible and always has been. The same issues affect names already in the CWGC list and always has done since the list was first created.
All names are thoroughly checked - about twelve times by IFCP and then by CWGC and then by MoD according to their own system - but some come to a point where there is no further corroboration. You would not believe the hours spend cross-checking by various people including myself. The points you raise about your example were seen at the time and passed to MoD. In these cases, the MoD undertakes its own investigations and comes to a decision. It is the MoD who decides yes/no.
This has always been the case with CWGC commemorations.
I am afraid that it is not sufficient to be suspicious. Every record set that exists has errors and confusions. That has become obvious and no source single is 100% reliable. The MoD takes the view that if a death certificate exists (produced from the army death returns) then that is the legal evidence required unless some concrete evidence can be derived from other official sources.
The MoD is the independent reviewer as you term it.
There are hundreds of duplicated entries in CWGC and have been for decades - all caused by poor record keeping in the past. The view taken is that if they cannot be proven to be incorrect (guesswork and circumstantial evidence not being sufficient) then they remain. It is better to commemorate a few men twice than many not at all. The example you cite would fall into this category and is not new as the similarities were noted during checking but CWGC decided it was possibly not a duplicate.
Nothing in this world is perfect as much as we would like it to be. You would not believe some of the errors that have come to light during our researches - and some of the incredible co-incidences that have occured which many people would write of as duplications.
So what is your solution? Evidence cannot be manufactured. All possible evidence is presented to MoD and they decide. They accept or reject - and they do both. The alternative is to do nothing.
IFCP has a system of backtracking with any cases that generate subsequent further information and MoD will look at it. But it has to be evidence and not hunches.
That is always possible and always has been. The same issues affect names already in the CWGC list and always has done since the list was first created.
All names are thoroughly checked - about twelve times by IFCP and then by CWGC and then by MoD according to their own system - but some come to a point where there is no further corroboration. You would not believe the hours spend cross-checking by various people including myself. The points you raise about your example were seen at the time and passed to MoD. In these cases, the MoD undertakes its own investigations and comes to a decision. It is the MoD who decides yes/no.
This has always been the case with CWGC commemorations.
I am afraid that it is not sufficient to be suspicious. Every record set that exists has errors and confusions. That has become obvious and no source single is 100% reliable. The MoD takes the view that if a death certificate exists (produced from the army death returns) then that is the legal evidence required unless some concrete evidence can be derived from other official sources.
The MoD is the independent reviewer as you term it.
There are hundreds of duplicated entries in CWGC and have been for decades - all caused by poor record keeping in the past. The view taken is that if they cannot be proven to be incorrect (guesswork and circumstantial evidence not being sufficient) then they remain. It is better to commemorate a few men twice than many not at all. The example you cite would fall into this category and is not new as the similarities were noted during checking but CWGC decided it was possibly not a duplicate.
Nothing in this world is perfect as much as we would like it to be. You would not believe some of the errors that have come to light during our researches - and some of the incredible co-incidences that have occured which many people would write of as duplications.
So what is your solution? Evidence cannot be manufactured. All possible evidence is presented to MoD and they decide. They accept or reject - and they do both. The alternative is to do nothing.
IFCP has a system of backtracking with any cases that generate subsequent further information and MoD will look at it. But it has to be evidence and not hunches.
Terry, let me prefix this by saying I think the project is a fascinating and exciting endeavour, and credit to all those involved.
However, the examples cited by Andy are a little worrying since it seems to imply a name will be added to a memorial without proof that the person ever existed. There appears to be no trace of either of the men Andy quoted who are to be added - so where did the starting point for their existence come from? Or have I mis-understood something here?
However, the examples cited by Andy are a little worrying since it seems to imply a name will be added to a memorial without proof that the person ever existed. There appears to be no trace of either of the men Andy quoted who are to be added - so where did the starting point for their existence come from? Or have I mis-understood something here?
I preface everything below with my ongoing respect and admiration for what is happening as a result of the IFTC project
I too have noticed a discrepancy with the recent batch of commemorations - this refers to the KLR entry
5210 L Cpl Ernest Howell 8 KLR (kia?) 8/8/16
According to my database (from KLR medal roll and confirmed by MIC) No 5210 of the 8 KLR was allocated to Pte Arthur Daniel Stevens
I can account for all of the other 5210 TF number allocations of the KLR other than that allocated to the 9 KLR (Ken Lees may know whether Howell was allocated this number), I can even account for the regular 5210 KLR number.
I also cannot find anyone on the MIC named Howell who has a number remotely similar to 5210.
I have posted before of my concerns about single source indicators as proof of death even if they are death certs but as a civil servant bow to the MOD ruling.
Promenade
I too have noticed a discrepancy with the recent batch of commemorations - this refers to the KLR entry
5210 L Cpl Ernest Howell 8 KLR (kia?) 8/8/16
According to my database (from KLR medal roll and confirmed by MIC) No 5210 of the 8 KLR was allocated to Pte Arthur Daniel Stevens
I can account for all of the other 5210 TF number allocations of the KLR other than that allocated to the 9 KLR (Ken Lees may know whether Howell was allocated this number), I can even account for the regular 5210 KLR number.
I also cannot find anyone on the MIC named Howell who has a number remotely similar to 5210.
I have posted before of my concerns about single source indicators as proof of death even if they are death certs but as a civil servant bow to the MOD ruling.
Promenade
Paul
Yes. I am afraid you are missing something along with several others who are not part of the process.
The MoD is starting from a point where they have (in their terms) concrete proof of a man's death - the military death certificate bearing the details given in the army death returns held by and supplied to GRO by the MoD's forebears.
This they take as definite proof unless contradicted by some other major official source. It is true that there were errors in these death returns at the time (as with all sources). The army has a system of filtering out the errors as they were discovered and reversing the information held by GRO. This process is still happening for WW1 names where errors are discovered. Many men who apparently have certificates in the GRO Indices in fact don't when you apply for them as they have been cancelled for various reasons by the military. It appears to have been a robust system but undoubtedly some slipped the net.
The IFCP process involves obtaining a death certificate for any apparently missing men (after many cross-checks to avoid ordering for men already commemorated. These cross checks eliminate probably about six in ten of the 'possibles' due to typographical errors, aliases etc). The DCs are subjected to the same cross-checks but with the benefit of the additional information they bear which again eliminates about half of those.
Those that remain are checked for other supporting/contradicting evidence. I should have said that the first check is for an extant service record as that will provide the required evidence without the need for a certificate. A fair percentage of cases are cleared this way. This is a task made much easier now that all such surviving records are online A-Z at Ancestry.
Cases are then submitted to CWGC on a 'this name is apparently missing basis' for them to ensure that there is a prima facie case (eg was the death within the qualifying dates etc) and to ensure that the name is not already commemorated. From memory, only two submissions from the early days have failed this test. The possible cases are then passed by CWGC to the relevant department of MoD. All this is standard procedure and the IFCP cases are treated no differently to any others.
The MoD then makes its own checks (which they do not divulge). The sources used by MoD are again not disclosed but they have come back in certain cases with information which has not previously been revealed showing that it is not a rubber stamp process. On average this procedure is taking about three to four months from MoD.
MoD do not give reasons for acceptance - only for rejection. The list of men to be commemorated is their decision and nobody else's (Obviously the same applies to the other member countries). From where I stand, it looks as though the army is taking the view that 'we have a legal document proving death and nothing to contradict it with certainty so we will confirm commemoration'. The alternative, of course, would be to refuse commemoration without belt and braces evidence and so deny many people their rightful commemoration. This seems to me to be a slight softening of attitude in recent years.
There are cases where a possible duplication etc will get through though they are small in number. Do not be surprised by this. The view taken by offialdom seems to be that this is acceptable and the situation can be reversed. This is not new. This has applied since memorials to the missing were first erected. There are many existing cases without 100% evidence. However, this does not seem to be well understood by the general community. The CWGC list of names approved by the military contains already hundreds of duplicates (I have personally identified about 250 which will remain) and similar errors but which lack the final 5% of proof. These names are left 'just in case'. The view has been expressed to me that (as I said above), it is better to name a man twice than not at all. If final proof is eventually presented, the name will be removed. This causes no stress.
There will be cases where an expert researcher into a particular unit will convince themselves that an error exists with gut feeling and their experience being the guiding factor rather than 100% evidence. This is to be expected and is totally understandable. Even though these beliefs may well be correct, simple suspicion does not overcome the fear at CWGC/MoD of deleting a name that actually should be there. I am well aware (as is CWGC and MoD) that a few names may need to be cancelled in future following further research and it is not a problem.
Others have expressed their personal views and I would like to make a few commemts aimed at nobody in particular. Most of the people who are commenting here have been known to me for years (if only through the internet) and I list them amongst the 'good guys'. However, there has been a tendancy to home in on the tiny number of cases which may have issues etc. The hundreds of absolutely rock-solid cases seem to be ignored but I suppose that is human nature. Bad news is good, good news is ignored (I know that is not applicable to those in this thread but it is to a few who have communicated off-forum).
The IFCP team is not perfect (sorry, guys) and nor is anyone else. The team spends hour upon hour working at a very tedious task. Personally, I have had to abandon much of my social life and other tasks to join this project and I know many who have done the same. Others have chosen to help in different ways and others still have decided not to join in. At the end of it, there will be about 1500 men and women whose names will be remembered whereas they were not before. True, some will have issues and doubts, but that is small price to pay in my view.
What does confuse me is why some people do not bother to seek information before commenting. Few people have bothered to enquire about how things work or what the processes are and have made erroneous assumptions. Again, I suppose that is life. I think it would be more useful if anyone who finds a possible anomaly contacts us to discover whether it is a known issue and to pass on whatever it is that they know. There are many experts around who have unique knowledge which is otherwise untapped.
There does seem to be a rose tinted view of the existing casualty lists out there and I confess that I shared this view before getting involved so deeply with this. That illusion has been dispelled by the past ten months of being submerged in the processes with every source proving to be unreliable on many occasions. Nothing is perfect and to assume that it is will only lead to disappointment.
There will be errors and they should be corrected when they come to light. The overall result is more important than some of the minutiae and all one can do is to do one's best. The men and women who died deserve no less.
That is my view on things but I am happy to talk further to anyone that contacts me. Thank you for your words of support.
Yes. I am afraid you are missing something along with several others who are not part of the process.
The MoD is starting from a point where they have (in their terms) concrete proof of a man's death - the military death certificate bearing the details given in the army death returns held by and supplied to GRO by the MoD's forebears.
This they take as definite proof unless contradicted by some other major official source. It is true that there were errors in these death returns at the time (as with all sources). The army has a system of filtering out the errors as they were discovered and reversing the information held by GRO. This process is still happening for WW1 names where errors are discovered. Many men who apparently have certificates in the GRO Indices in fact don't when you apply for them as they have been cancelled for various reasons by the military. It appears to have been a robust system but undoubtedly some slipped the net.
The IFCP process involves obtaining a death certificate for any apparently missing men (after many cross-checks to avoid ordering for men already commemorated. These cross checks eliminate probably about six in ten of the 'possibles' due to typographical errors, aliases etc). The DCs are subjected to the same cross-checks but with the benefit of the additional information they bear which again eliminates about half of those.
Those that remain are checked for other supporting/contradicting evidence. I should have said that the first check is for an extant service record as that will provide the required evidence without the need for a certificate. A fair percentage of cases are cleared this way. This is a task made much easier now that all such surviving records are online A-Z at Ancestry.
Cases are then submitted to CWGC on a 'this name is apparently missing basis' for them to ensure that there is a prima facie case (eg was the death within the qualifying dates etc) and to ensure that the name is not already commemorated. From memory, only two submissions from the early days have failed this test. The possible cases are then passed by CWGC to the relevant department of MoD. All this is standard procedure and the IFCP cases are treated no differently to any others.
The MoD then makes its own checks (which they do not divulge). The sources used by MoD are again not disclosed but they have come back in certain cases with information which has not previously been revealed showing that it is not a rubber stamp process. On average this procedure is taking about three to four months from MoD.
MoD do not give reasons for acceptance - only for rejection. The list of men to be commemorated is their decision and nobody else's (Obviously the same applies to the other member countries). From where I stand, it looks as though the army is taking the view that 'we have a legal document proving death and nothing to contradict it with certainty so we will confirm commemoration'. The alternative, of course, would be to refuse commemoration without belt and braces evidence and so deny many people their rightful commemoration. This seems to me to be a slight softening of attitude in recent years.
There are cases where a possible duplication etc will get through though they are small in number. Do not be surprised by this. The view taken by offialdom seems to be that this is acceptable and the situation can be reversed. This is not new. This has applied since memorials to the missing were first erected. There are many existing cases without 100% evidence. However, this does not seem to be well understood by the general community. The CWGC list of names approved by the military contains already hundreds of duplicates (I have personally identified about 250 which will remain) and similar errors but which lack the final 5% of proof. These names are left 'just in case'. The view has been expressed to me that (as I said above), it is better to name a man twice than not at all. If final proof is eventually presented, the name will be removed. This causes no stress.
There will be cases where an expert researcher into a particular unit will convince themselves that an error exists with gut feeling and their experience being the guiding factor rather than 100% evidence. This is to be expected and is totally understandable. Even though these beliefs may well be correct, simple suspicion does not overcome the fear at CWGC/MoD of deleting a name that actually should be there. I am well aware (as is CWGC and MoD) that a few names may need to be cancelled in future following further research and it is not a problem.
Others have expressed their personal views and I would like to make a few commemts aimed at nobody in particular. Most of the people who are commenting here have been known to me for years (if only through the internet) and I list them amongst the 'good guys'. However, there has been a tendancy to home in on the tiny number of cases which may have issues etc. The hundreds of absolutely rock-solid cases seem to be ignored but I suppose that is human nature. Bad news is good, good news is ignored (I know that is not applicable to those in this thread but it is to a few who have communicated off-forum).
The IFCP team is not perfect (sorry, guys) and nor is anyone else. The team spends hour upon hour working at a very tedious task. Personally, I have had to abandon much of my social life and other tasks to join this project and I know many who have done the same. Others have chosen to help in different ways and others still have decided not to join in. At the end of it, there will be about 1500 men and women whose names will be remembered whereas they were not before. True, some will have issues and doubts, but that is small price to pay in my view.
What does confuse me is why some people do not bother to seek information before commenting. Few people have bothered to enquire about how things work or what the processes are and have made erroneous assumptions. Again, I suppose that is life. I think it would be more useful if anyone who finds a possible anomaly contacts us to discover whether it is a known issue and to pass on whatever it is that they know. There are many experts around who have unique knowledge which is otherwise untapped.
There does seem to be a rose tinted view of the existing casualty lists out there and I confess that I shared this view before getting involved so deeply with this. That illusion has been dispelled by the past ten months of being submerged in the processes with every source proving to be unreliable on many occasions. Nothing is perfect and to assume that it is will only lead to disappointment.
There will be errors and they should be corrected when they come to light. The overall result is more important than some of the minutiae and all one can do is to do one's best. The men and women who died deserve no less.
That is my view on things but I am happy to talk further to anyone that contacts me. Thank you for your words of support.
Thanks for that in-depth explanation, Terry. I am a great admirer of the project, and my only concern was that a case which could prove to be a 'false trace' might harm the project's reputation in the eyes of MOD/CWGC, or indeed anyone else. And that is not what anyone with even the slightest interest in the Great War could want. I am always happy to be proved wrong, and especially so in this case. I sincerely hope that you and the team will publish something about the work you've been doing sometime in the future.
Thanks, Paul.
The idea of a book had not ocurred to me but it is a distinct possibility now you mention it.
The things I have discovered during the process have changed my view of several aspects of the subject and, being honest, it has made me less dogmatic and fixed in my ideas about war graves etc. Like many people, I had lost sight of the commemoration of men having been organised by human beings with all their faults. The realisation that perfection is unattainable comes as quite a shock at first.
Some of the coincidences have been really unbelievable. In addition, the use of alias names was far more widespread than I ever imagined. Those listed with alias entries by CWGC are only half the story. In fact, we have submitted so many alias additions (another offshoot result of the project) that CWGC is reviewing how they handle and present such information.
Just by way of example of some of the issues that crop up, how about this for a conundrum....
I have the DC of an apparently missing casualty which says….
A/Cpl Alexander RENNIE
125371 Lovat Scouts
Age 24
Enlisted in Glasgow
Died 15.04.18
Lost at sea S.S. ‘Pomeranian’
Then see below from CWGC (discovered as part of the cross-checking process)
Name: RENNIE, ALEXANDER
Initials: A
Nationality: United Kingdom
Rank: Third Officer
Regiment/Service: Mercantile Marine
Unit Text: S.S. "Pomeranian (Glasgow)
Age: 23
Date of Death: 15/04/1918
Additional information: Son of Mrs. Mary Rennie, of "Roseneath," Buchanan Drive Rutherglen. Born at Glasgow.
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Memorial: TOWER HILL MEMORIAL
Work that out!
The idea of a book had not ocurred to me but it is a distinct possibility now you mention it.
The things I have discovered during the process have changed my view of several aspects of the subject and, being honest, it has made me less dogmatic and fixed in my ideas about war graves etc. Like many people, I had lost sight of the commemoration of men having been organised by human beings with all their faults. The realisation that perfection is unattainable comes as quite a shock at first.
Some of the coincidences have been really unbelievable. In addition, the use of alias names was far more widespread than I ever imagined. Those listed with alias entries by CWGC are only half the story. In fact, we have submitted so many alias additions (another offshoot result of the project) that CWGC is reviewing how they handle and present such information.
Just by way of example of some of the issues that crop up, how about this for a conundrum....
I have the DC of an apparently missing casualty which says….
A/Cpl Alexander RENNIE
125371 Lovat Scouts
Age 24
Enlisted in Glasgow
Died 15.04.18
Lost at sea S.S. ‘Pomeranian’
Then see below from CWGC (discovered as part of the cross-checking process)
Name: RENNIE, ALEXANDER
Initials: A
Nationality: United Kingdom
Rank: Third Officer
Regiment/Service: Mercantile Marine
Unit Text: S.S. "Pomeranian (Glasgow)
Age: 23
Date of Death: 15/04/1918
Additional information: Son of Mrs. Mary Rennie, of "Roseneath," Buchanan Drive Rutherglen. Born at Glasgow.
Casualty Type: Commonwealth War Dead
Memorial: TOWER HILL MEMORIAL
Work that out!
I forgot to say in all that above....
Of course, anyone is welcome to volunteer for the Project. Many people have come forward to offer their services - often with time consuming and burdensome results. Anyone with expertise or time to spare is welcome to volunteer.
One aspect of the Project is the tireless contribution of a dedicated group of people. Nobody moans or carps. They just get on with it and have built up an excellent 'spirit' amongst themselves. I know John feels the same way in that we all owe a debt of gratitude to these people.
I have never worked with a more amenable and knowledgeable bunch. It will be sad when it is all over (if ever!).
Of course, anyone is welcome to volunteer for the Project. Many people have come forward to offer their services - often with time consuming and burdensome results. Anyone with expertise or time to spare is welcome to volunteer.
One aspect of the Project is the tireless contribution of a dedicated group of people. Nobody moans or carps. They just get on with it and have built up an excellent 'spirit' amongst themselves. I know John feels the same way in that we all owe a debt of gratitude to these people.
I have never worked with a more amenable and knowledgeable bunch. It will be sad when it is all over (if ever!).
Creep 
I would rather an occasional man commemorated twice than not at all. I am sure if proof is forthcoming the men will be looked at again.
I have only ever checked N&D men and so far all of them are being commemorated for the first time.
I always get worried when something is prefaced by 'I think the project is wonderful' (or words to that effect)
YOUR PROJECT NEEDS YOU - VOLUNTEER TODAY
I would rather an occasional man commemorated twice than not at all. I am sure if proof is forthcoming the men will be looked at again.
I have only ever checked N&D men and so far all of them are being commemorated for the first time.
I always get worried when something is prefaced by 'I think the project is wonderful' (or words to that effect)
YOUR PROJECT NEEDS YOU - VOLUNTEER TODAY
Steve,
Not sure why you shoud get 'worried' as this is exactly what I feel. This was a conscious statement on my behalf to avoid it appearing that I was attacking the project - indeed I have been part of it - as Terry has pointed out the information is challenged a number of times before acceptance and recent postings I hope, would be, and indeed should be, part of the same process.
Promenade
Not sure why you shoud get 'worried' as this is exactly what I feel. This was a conscious statement on my behalf to avoid it appearing that I was attacking the project - indeed I have been part of it - as Terry has pointed out the information is challenged a number of times before acceptance and recent postings I hope, would be, and indeed should be, part of the same process.
Promenade
Prom
You are safe in assuming that any subsequent information that comes to light and is processed - but only if we know about it.
It is dangerous to assume that such information will be picked up from posts here or on any other forum. They are not constantly monitored. An email to the project with the details will work far better and will not be missed.
You are safe in assuming that any subsequent information that comes to light and is processed - but only if we know about it.
It is dangerous to assume that such information will be picked up from posts here or on any other forum. They are not constantly monitored. An email to the project with the details will work far better and will not be missed.
I'm not sure why you should be worried either, Steve. I didn't think there were any totems being erected here.
Thanks for the explanation, Terry. If the concern is to ensure that no-one is overlooked, even if it does mean a double commemoration, then that is a noble position. I don't have a ready answer to your challenge as to what I would do. However, there is one instance which was raised in another thread where it is patently obvious that there had been a mix up and the man did not, in fact, die, and I think that an element of common sense has to prevail.
One suggestion is this. As regards "double commemorations", why not post them here and let the forum regulars have a look and see if they can offer any insight; if they aren't aware of these issues then they can't comment, and there are a lot of people with specialist knowledge about particular regiments which is in infinitely more depth than that mustered by the CWGC/MoD, which I'm sure you'll agree, and it may just be the case that some of the confusing entries can be resolved. When all is said and done, these people had to originate from somewhere in the country and the number of people who are researching war memorials may well have picked up information which realistically could never be known to the authourites. Why not give them a chance?
You say you have a list of 250 or so where it is supected that a man has been commemorated twice. Why not post some names - any from the King's Own? You never know.....................................
Andy.
Thanks for the explanation, Terry. If the concern is to ensure that no-one is overlooked, even if it does mean a double commemoration, then that is a noble position. I don't have a ready answer to your challenge as to what I would do. However, there is one instance which was raised in another thread where it is patently obvious that there had been a mix up and the man did not, in fact, die, and I think that an element of common sense has to prevail.
One suggestion is this. As regards "double commemorations", why not post them here and let the forum regulars have a look and see if they can offer any insight; if they aren't aware of these issues then they can't comment, and there are a lot of people with specialist knowledge about particular regiments which is in infinitely more depth than that mustered by the CWGC/MoD, which I'm sure you'll agree, and it may just be the case that some of the confusing entries can be resolved. When all is said and done, these people had to originate from somewhere in the country and the number of people who are researching war memorials may well have picked up information which realistically could never be known to the authourites. Why not give them a chance?
You say you have a list of 250 or so where it is supected that a man has been commemorated twice. Why not post some names - any from the King's Own? You never know.....................................
Andy.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.