True Identity of a fallen soldier in the Great War Part 6

Explore your roots & tell us your family's history!
Post Reply
User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

Following the CWGC reply and their rejection of the evidence i submitted i once again sat down to compose another submission.This time i started by "tactfully" pointed out the fact that the "inconsistencies" hilighted by the CWGC were none of the sort.The Comission said that the inconsistencies were-That it is not possible to link a birth certificate, for the surname of Hoolahan and the forenames Robert and Edward with the casualty in the Commissions recordsThe Army Service Record of James Hoolahan/Hoolan does not give an address for either James himself or of his brother Robert.That I cannot be certain of the spelling of the surname and that I offer the opinion that the name could read Hoolahan or HoolanI suppose it sounds a bit arrogant, and yes i was probably suffering from a bit of self righteous indignation, but looking back now on the first submission it was probably too overblown. Too much conjecture and self opinion rather than cold hard facts and an impartial presentation of the evidence is something that i can now see runs right through it.Though in September 2010, when i began to address the supposed inconsistencies that the CWGC said were present in the evidence i cannot say with my hand on heart that i wasnt annoyed nor feeling a personal slight, it felt as if they hadnt really read all the submission or at least carefully considered what was in the evidence. I had hoped that the would undertake their own enquiries into my evidence to see if it stacked up independently.What i failed to take into account is the Commission is only there to ensure the commemoration of the "Fallen" and not to undertake any research into records they already have. The CWGC have 1.7m commemorations in 23,000 locations worldwide and undertaking their own research into my submission is something the CWGC do not have resources, or time to do.However i think my indignation with regards the inconsistencies the CWGC had hilighted was well placed, out of all the pieces of evidence and conjecture i had put forward it was these 3 points in particular that i felt i had clearly explained.So the September 2010 submission I hilighted the supposed inconsitencies-I then pointed out that if they had indeed read the evidence then the last two inconsitencies were nothing of the sort, the Army Service record DOES give an address for James and his brother Robert and that there has never been any uncertainty as to the spelling of the surname but only initial confusion when i began researching the family.As for the first inconsistency i pointed out that i had successfully linked at least the forename of Robert with the casualty on their records, the Commission only had an initial.The last two inconsistencies i then went onto once more explain, as carefully as i could,with the same evidence though probably a little more logically (behind gritted teeth because i thought i had done a good job first time around)I did the same with the first one but really hammered home the fact that the evidence was independent and officially recorded in military records.Additionally i had ordered and enclosed a copy of the Military death certificate for the casualty which showed Private 3/10645's first name was Robert and that this agreed with the Medal Card Index and the entry in the HMSO publication "Soldiers Died in the Great War 1914-1919", the latter not only confirming the forename of Robert but just as importantly that he was BORN in Leeds.
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

Medal Card Index
Attachments
Medal Card.jpg
Medal Card.jpg (81.18 KiB) Viewed 4072 times
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

Death Cerificate
Attachments
Private 310645 death cert.jpg
Private 310645 death cert.jpg (1.55 MiB) Viewed 4072 times
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

Entry in HMSO "Soldiers Died in the Great War 1914-1919"
Attachments
Soldiers Died in Great War.jpg
Soldiers Died in Great War.jpg (84.08 KiB) Viewed 4072 times
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

It was whilst i was formulating this new submission that returned to James Hoolan's Army Service record on Ancestry just to read it again as i was also beginning to look at what happened to him during the war.His service record is pretty comprehensive and shows that he was taken prisoner in 1917, something which my all knowing aunt had told me was the case.It was whilst i was searching his record on Ancestry that i noticed that there were two returns for James in the Ancestry search results under the War and Pensions records.This had not occurred the first time i had searched, so i clicked on both and compared the two.Page one of both returns were identical,same words, same handwriting, same date.So i suspected that there was a glitch in Ancestry's search engine and that it somehow had turned up two results for the same document.But i noticed that the number of pages for each supposed different search result were different, one was shorter in page numbers than the other, so i went to page two, where the next of kin details were recorded.The first example was the same as what i had originally seen and forwarded in my first submission to the CWGC, close up of the original page 2 next of kin details Click to enlarge    
Attachments
next of kin 1.jpg
next of kin 1.jpg (35.1 KiB) Viewed 4072 times
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

I then checked the second returns page 2.The handwriting is exactly the same, and a circular dark mark appeared in the top right hand corner was exactly the same as what appears on the other original copy (not shown on previous message image of Next of Kin details as have cropped to hilight next of kin details) showed that they were identical but there was something different with this "new" copy This other copy had the name Robert Hoolan crossed through as well as the words "2nd Batt West Riding Reg" and the relationship of "Brother" also crossed through.Additionally, and in a different hand "Maggie Hoolan" was written above the printed line "Name and address of next of kin"
Attachments
next of kin 2.jpg
next of kin 2.jpg (56.56 KiB) Viewed 4072 times
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

So what did this mean, why was Roberts name, address and relationship crossed through on this copy, and furthermore why was Maggie Hoolan added, and addition which can be seen to have been done in a different hand to that which appears on the first and second examples of this record on Ancestry.It seemed that there must have been a carbon copy for some if not all pages that were filled out at the time of James' Army Service record being written at his recruitment.This would explain the two Ancestry results as being correct rather than a glitch, and that what we have, in this second copy, was a collection of carbon copies of the original that would have been required fro another government department within the War Office.If this was not the case then there would only have been one example in the Ancestry results OR both examples would have had the alterations.To me this alteration and addition of Maggie Hoolan, despite her name and address already appearing on the other copy as well as the second, indicated two things.One was that Robert, his brother, was no longer a "Next of Kin" and secondly to hilight who James' remaining next of kin was "Maggie Hoolan" was written in above and next to her original mention.I felt that it was reasonable to conclude that Robert was no longer James' next of kin because he was infact now dead (at the time of the alteration).This was further proof, in addition to the War memorial inscription at St Pats, that Robert Hoolan had died during the war.
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

kango
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun 30 Aug, 2009 4:41 pm

Post by kango »

The plot thickens!Good stuff Chris look forward to next instalment.

User avatar
cnosni
Site Admin
Posts: 4199
Joined: Wed 28 Mar, 2007 4:47 pm

Post by cnosni »

kango wrote: The plot thickens!Good stuff Chris look forward to next instalment. Tomorrow hopefully
Don't get me started!!My Flickr photos-http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnosni/Secret Leeds [email protected]

Post Reply