The Scottish Military Research Group - Commemorations Project

apanderson · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject:

The point I was making was not that I thought anyone would ever wish to remove a/the name - I was merely stressing another angle.

We can all voice our opinions, but that's all it is - a personal point of view and as far as I'm concerned, it's nobody's business apart from those who maybe had an ancestor whom they believe should have been included - for whatever reason. Those who survived whether for a short time after the war or until they died of old age still endured the same horrors as those who paid the 'ultimate sacrifice'.

I wonder how many wifes and mothers never allowed themselves to believe their husbands or sons weren't coming home or how it would have felt to see a name on a memorial, but not to fully accept that the person that name represented was gone for ever. How long was hope was held out - just in case that loved one would someday, somehow return?

Maybe, just maybe, some of the 'missing names' were held back at the time for that reason. I don't know.

Anne

Adam Brown · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject:

Anne

That's a very good point I never thought of before. Some memorials were unveiled relatively quickly. Perhaps that is a reason? At what point was missing confirmed as death?

Adam

spoons · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject:

I'm afraid that I don't believe that the family wishes should be carried on in perpetuity regardless of the other circumstances. What if the soldier himself would have wanted that? CWGC certainly do not recognise wishes of parents to that extent (as far as I am aware). If they buried a soldier in a CWGC cemetery then he gets a stone, if he is listed on a memorial to the missing, then that is where his name goes. Of course the family can say what inscriptions do or do not go on a family grave, even where the soldier is buried there but I think it is for those who put up the memorial (or who are now responsible for the maintenance - which included the local council by legislation) to decide what names should be on the memorial.

I can understand why the memorial committee might have decided to agree with the wishes of relatives but I don't think they were any obligation to do so nor do I see that they shouldn't change their mind where circumstances change, even if this is only the passage of time.

That said, I am not in favour of just adding a name to a local memorial because of some recently discovered tenuous link but there are shades of grey here.

If I was ever faced with the unenviable task of deciding if a name should be added then I think I would ask myself..............If the members of the original committee had somehow survived, possessed the information we now have, be aware of changes to society and attitudes and knowing that any objecting relatives had now died, would they now wish to add the name?

\Paul

kinnethmont · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 1649 Location: Aberdeenshire

apanderson · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject:

Paul,

In local burial grounds to me if the family didn't want a stone, then no stone was/has been erected. I've found this in a mixture of family plots and specific CWGC plots. I didn't mean overseas burial grounds - I have no knowledge of them, so I hope I didn't give that impression.

Anne

spoons · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject:

that's interesting Anne, I knew that there were 'unmarked' graves where the family had buried the man, either in a family grave or in a single lair, but I always thought that if CWGC made all the arrangements, purchased the plot and buried the man then it always had a CWGC stone.

\Paul

apanderson · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject:

Paul,

If you have a wee look here:

http://scottishwargraves.phpbbweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=448&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15&mforum=scottishwargraves

Pte. J. McDonagh, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders (Page 2)

Anne

kinnethmont · Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 1649 Location: Aberdeenshire

Paul

It is commonly believed that CWGC were involved with burials overseas and at home as you suggest. This was not the case.

IWGC (later CWGC ) only became involved after the cemetries were handed over to them by the military body who created them and they were closed for burials. The same happened here in Military cemeteries and as far as I know sections of civil cemetries used for military burials where the local authority was obviously involved at the time.

In Anne's example burials may have been made from hospitals nearby from 1914 and the graves marked. Some of them may be in private family lairs.
The familar CWGC pattern headstones will have been erected in place of the markers in the early 1920's.
Before this happened the NOK were contacted at various times by CWGC regarding the details of the casualty in their Register. It was during this process that they had the option of a CWGC stone. If they chose not to have a CWGC stone and elected to erect their own that was the end of CWGC's involvement. If the NOK did not follow this up there will be no headstone over the grave now and this accounts for the variations found.
_________________
Jim

If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

www.kinnethmont.co.uk

David McNay · Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject:

Here's a link which might be of interest, albeit not covering the adding of any names. It does, however, highlight the need for people to do their research!

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/homenews/Mistakes-restored-church-war-memorials/article-507634-detail/article.html

DelBoy · Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: post 1947 name additions

I've only just read this facinating thread.

Most additions to memorials I've seen for post 1947 casualties appear to have been added in the last 10 years or so, including those which occured in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. So is name adding just a recent phenomenon?
If it is a relativley new thing to add these later military deaths to the local war memorial, then perhaps the families at the time never knew they had this option?

In my home town the only additional post 1947 casualty was listed 37 years after their death, this was after research by the unfortunate mans regimental association.
I'm sure there are more servicemen and women of a similar nature who could be added to many other civic memorials, who currently are not.

[edit - additional]
There are many casualties listed on memorials for ww1 and ww2 who died from no result of service, but are included because they were serving in the military when they died, be it a drowning, road collision, sporting accident or other event not in the course of their duties.

So are post 1947 additions to memorial, more specifically those which qualify for inclusion on the armed forces memorial in stafforshire because they are conflict related deaths, the only ones whch should be added to local memorials?

Cheers,
Derek.

Adam Brown · Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject:

Five new names are to be added to the Kirkcaldy War Memorial for post-WW2 deaths. I don't have any details of the circusmstances of the deaths but "The new right hand wall will bear the names of servicemen and women lost in conflicts from 1946 onwards".

This suggests that it will be for deaths on active service rather than accidents.

There is more detail of the Kirkcaldy news here:

http://scottishmilitary.blogspot.com/2011/07/names-to-be-added-to-kirkcaldy-war.html

Thanks

Adam

DelBoy · Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:41 pm Post subject: no new additions for Newtongrange

Looks like not all councils add name to the memorials in their keeping willy nilly.

Newtongrange memorialto not have names added

THE refusal to add the name of a dead soldier to Newtongrange War Memorial has sparked outrage.

Newtongrange Community Council won funding to put eight names on the memorial at Easter, after research by local historian John Duncan.

But those plans were put on hold after Midlothian Council refused one name and disputed others.

On May 6, 1947, George Noble was killed when his parachute failed to open during a training jump on Salisbury Plain.

Although Pte Noble died after the war, John Duncan pointed to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission criteria which honours commonwealth men and women who died in service between September 3, 1939, and December 31, 1947

I would be intrigued to know which additions were propsed and what criteria both Mr Duncan and the council each used.

Derek.

spoons