This afternoon I was at Perth Cemetery (China Wall), Zillebeke. I couldn't help noticing 3 headstones "Believed to be ..." (I am not referring to Special Memorials "Believed to be buried in this cemetery")

I had not really paid attention to that type of inscription before. (The first time actually was last week, at Outtersteene (near Bailleul), the reburial of 4 Australians, 2 of them, identified, having "Believed to be" on the headstone.)

What struck me it his afternoon was that the 3 headstones was very new. (I'm not 100% sure but they felt like Botticino marble.) So my conclusion was that these stones replaced a former one which had a different inscription. So recently something must have been discovered so that the former headstone could be more specific (and/or detailed.)

My basic question, as these stones seem to be recent : does that mean that CWGC have become less stringent ? More readily allowing a "semi-identification" than they used to ?

Terry, if you are looking into this. Two examples. One of the three headstones was :
Major C.H. Turner, Suffolk Regiment, 30 Sept 1915, Plot 12.A.5
And the one next to him was a "Believed to be" too : Lieutenant J.J. Thill, same date, same regiment.
(I do not know what the inscription was before the headstone was replaced. If you don't know maybe I could ask CWGC Ypres.)

(Terry, you may guess that I am asking this with regard to my (future) attempt to have a name inscribed on a nameless headstone at Talana Farm Cemetery, Boezinge, about which I told you a month or two ago.)

Aurel

Aurel

I spotted one while I was over last weekend. I think it was in Tuileries Cemetery (just on the left as you go in).

John

Aurel

The 'Believed to be' superscription is not uncommon (I photographed one in Tyne Cot last weekend!) and means just what it says. There has been a large amount of evidence provided which is just short of 100% certain! However, on the balance of probablilities, CWGC feel safe in adding this 'qualified' statement of identity.

When the info reaches a point where confirmation is all but proven, then such an inscription is used. To CWGC, this is very similar to putting a name on a memorial or one of the names on a stone reading 'Known to be either X or Y' (which also occurs).

I cannot comment upon your thoughts that the inscription may be different to that used previously as we do not know what was there before. You should be able to get the answer from CWGC Ypres. You have nothing to do most of the time anyway!

The only info I can add is that the new headstones were authorised in March 1997.

Terry,

Thanks.
The thing that is puzzling me is that it looks as if the "Believed to be" headstones proportionally are relatived recent. Which makes me believe that CWGC recently have been less stringent, have agreed more often to have a headstone inscribed with a probably identity, where years ago this was turned down. (Of course it is also possible (and likely) that in recent years there has been more research and more requests to have a headstone altered.)

Three relatively new Botticino (?) headstones with "Believed to be" in Perth Cem. cannot be a coincidence. And may the one John mentioned for Tuileries Cem. is recent too ? (Next time I will have a look.) And who knows the one you photographed at Tyne Cot Cemetery too ? (Can you give me the name ?)

As to the inscription on the 3 Perth Cem. headstones before they were renewed, I'll ask CWGC Ypres, and let you know.

Aurel

Aurel

He was Pte J.Dolan 331771 HLI

Thanks, Terry.
Next time I'm at Tyne Cot Cemetery I'll see if the headstone is relatively new.

Aurel

Aurel

No - it is an older one.