Is This Soldier One of Your Ancestors?


Roy Ward, a former Totley resident, has donated several photographs of WW1 soldiers to Totley History Group. All were friends of his parents, Jack and Norah Ward, but Roy hasn't been able to identify them all.

 

We would love to be able to put names, and possibly biographies, to them all and wonder whether any readers might recognize an ancestor among them. These are the first two photographs which are appearing simultaneously in issues of Totley Independent.


       Jack Ward, left, with unknown soldier ( photo 1)

         Unknown Soldier (photo 2)

 

We are grateful to Stephen Acaster who has written to us with the following information.

 

Hello, 


You may recall us speaking when you were in the early stages of arranging the local First World War commemorative display. I'm a locally based military historian with wide ranging interests within the subject.


Consequently, I was pleased to see some military photographs reproduced in the current edition of The Independent. I say immediately, that I have no social link with the individuals in the photos but nonetheless, always up for a challenge, I've spent quite some time analysing the two photos and the following may be of interest to yourself or the donor.

 

Dealing with the bottom picture firstly,it undoubtedly depicts a young soldier if the Notts and Derbys (Sherwood Foresters) Regiment which would have been the main infantry unit recruiting in this area in WW1 as Totley was then part of The County of Derbyshire as I'm sure you're aware. The young mans dress of khaki serge cap, tunic and greatcoat is entirely typical of the service uniform of that era.

 

The top studio shot is, may I say rather more interesting and something of a 'puzzler'! The young soldier in that photograph wears the dress of a mounted duty man of British or Allied Forces 1914-18. The leather bullet cross belt (bandolier) is the most striking feature and leads the initiated viewer to his leg-wear which immediately 'states' that the man rode horses as part of his military job.

 

Firstly the method of winding the cloth puttees (leg bindings) was peculiar to mounted soldiers, being wound from knee to foot rather than the infantry and other dismounted personnel who applied their leg bindings in the reverse way - foot to knee. I believe that the mounted men achieved a neater- more streamlined, almost 'riding boot' profile which facilitated better control of a horse. Secondly the soldier in the photo wears spurs - clearly an indicator of being a horseman.

 

After further research Stephen was able to confirm that the soldier is wearing Canadian uniform:

 

The cap badge had the shape of several similar, possible, badges but that of the Royal Engineers stuck in my mind, I guess as I'm well familiar with it having personally worn it for some years in my own youth!

 

It was the collar badges ('dogs') which challenged me as British RE badges have always been 'flaming bombs' and those in the photo clearly are not - taking a more 'cruciform' if not 'fleur de lys' type shape which simply didn't fit the 'RE theory'. It did, however, occur to me that the badges might just be Canadian maple leaves although the apparently 'heavy reflection' troubled me, as Canadian badges were often dark brown/bronze finish and essentially, non- reflective - unlike the brass 'gems' necessarily, if not proudly, burnished by the British Soldier!

 

The arm badge, which may just be discerned on the soldiers left upper sleeve, is also unusual as is what appears to be a solid metal shoulder tile (probably the word 'CANADA') visible at the lower edge of the left shoulder strap. Neither of these features were common on uniforms of that era - either arm badges of that design, per se, or and you may well have noticed that metal 'Shoulder Titles' commonly worn on shoulder straps were perforated (technically, 'pierced') lettering and not commonly in a solid block.

 

Anyway, enough of the technical bluster; what I'm now pretty sure that we have here is a soldier of the Canadian Engineers (the letters on the arm badge are probably 'CE'); the collar badges are almost certainly, 'maple leaves' which somehow, the light has caught upon during photography and the spurs etc simply confirm that as the engineers of both, indeed all Countries were largely horse transport - dependent, his personal dress is entirely consistent with the theory.

 

Even the potentially, big, sticking point of why a 'Totley Man' is in the uniform of a Colonial unit isn't the problem it seems, as his presence and appearance could (firstly), easily be the product of migration, one way or the other - Canadian Troops were present in UK in large numbers as were those of the other Dependencies. 

 

Moreover and I freely confess that this WAS news to myself and for me, the really interesting bit, although I still find it somewhat surprising, ; I'm told that the Canadian Government was permitted to recruit British men into its Armed Forces as opposed to our own Services - for which better pay / conditions awaited those so attracted! I must research that more myself!



Two more of Roy Ward's photographs of unknown WW1 soldiers appeared in Totley Independent for April/May 2015. Stephen Acaster saw them and wrote to us again. His letter is reproduced below.


I happened to be in The Library yesterday and looked at a back (April/May 2015) issue of Totley Independent. Ive been rather busy this last few months and don't believe that I collected a copy...or if I did...passed it on before opening it!

 

Firstly, thank you for printing my response to an earlier plea for help on what appear to be a series of photos of WW1 personalities about whom, it seems, little is known.

 

In the same issue, there are a couple more photos which again, whilst the individuals are in no way connected to myself, are interesting and the following observations, offered, may assist somebody to piece together, a factual jig-saw.


The soldier in the  full-length study was, undoubtedly, a member of the British Infantry - The Leicestershire Regiment. The large 'Royal' tiger which formed the centre of that Regiments badge is quite plain to see for those of us familiar with such adornments. He carries a 'swagger' stick under his right arm - 'a bit of show' which, prior to WW2, soldiers added to their dress when 'walking out,' (maybe to impress the ladies - although they'd maybe need to try a bit harder than that nowadays!).


 


The sticks, (of cane or similar, pliable material,) usually, also bore the regimental badge embossed on a white metal or sometimes even silver, top - just visible in this photo forward of the young man's fingers of his right hand. They also had metal tips - often brass. It may be of interest to note that in British cavalry regiments, the soldiers carried whips instead. 'Swagger Sticks' should not be confused with officers' canes which were generally thicker, leather covered, devoid of metal fittings and barely pliable - as carried by Dad's Army's Capt. Mainwearing!


 


Although the more modern, 'webbing' (material) equipment had been in existence since 1908, the chap in The Leicesters wears what is referred to as a '1914 Pattern Leather Equipment' belt with what those of us of older generations will recognize as a 'snake' hook fitting. Accoutrements in both materials existing, side by side, for some time until leather eventually phased out. 

The 'half body' image of the other young soldier certainly depicts a member of a British Light Infantry Regiment and having had a magnifying glass to the photo, I'm fairly confident that it is the Durham Light Infantry, the initials 'DLI' I believe, just discernible between the 'stringed horn device typical of most Light Infantry Units.



Curiously he appears to be wearing only one part of a (right) shoulder badge - the title - which Id expect to say 'DURHAM' although these were generally accompanied (surmounted) by another, slightly smaller version of the stringed horn badge but without the aforementioned, initials. he wears a braided string, unit lanyard around his left shoulder. He also appears to be wearing a similar Leather Equipment belt of 1914 Pattern - which is just visible.


 


Of course neither of these Regiments were local to this area but its quite possible that Totley men joined or were posted to their ranks. It should be borne in mind, however, that Regional recruiting areas 100 years ago were probably more important, jealously guarded than they are today so that there is nonetheless, an equally strong possibility that these were respectively, Leicestershire and County Durham men - maybe even with no connection to this area whatsoever.


 


Don't think that can help further at this time but maybe a just a 'starter for ten, for someone local, to add to/ piece together, what they know of relatives.



Kind Regards


Stephen Acaster

Two more of Roy Ward's photographs of appeared in the Totley Independent for October/November 2015 with a reminder that these were friends or acquaintances of his parents, Jack and Nora Ward, but Roy hasn't been able to identify them.

 

We wonder whether anyone might recognize an ancestor among the faces here or know when and where the photographs were taken. 


        Royal Hippodrome's "Victory Pic-nic" July 11th 1920


The first photo is annotated Royal Hippodrome's "Victory Pic-nic" July 11th 1920. There were many theatres around the country with the name of the Royal Hippodrome, of course. Above the door are the words Upper Circle Only. The poster on the wall behind bears the names Lorna & Toots Pounds, Peter Cawthorne (or Gawthorne) and Fred Duprez. The rest of the poster is too faded to read.

 

Fred Duprez was a well known American character actor and comedian. He was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1884 and had a long struggle before becoming famous turning his hand to any trade including railway ticket collector and van driver. He made several tours of England returning home for engagements there and also to keep an eye on his large poultry farm in New Jersey. Fred would have been aged 35 at the time this photo was taken. There are hundreds of newspaper entries of variety shows and plays from around 1913 onwards in which he appeared including a show at the Sheffield Hippodrome on Cambridge Street in April 1920. In several of these shows he appeared with Lorna and Toots Pounds, Australian singers and mimics. He later went on to produce his own shows and act in many films, mainly British. He died whilst on board ship bound for England in 1938.

 

The second photo is of a group of five men, two of whom are dressed in military uniform.


Once again, Stephen Acaster, a military historian, has written to us with his observations.


The first thing which strikes me, is the air of a festive occasion about the five man group...I'm no social historian but it occurs to me that they're maybe at a wedding - judging by their spruce appearance - button-holes and maybe a bit more than 'Sunday Best' outfits? The two soldiers look almost out of place....before I get to their dress the fact that the majority of the all-male group is in civilian clothes does surprise me a little. On the basis that even young men often looked older then - maybe 'more mature' would be better, I seems to me that all present in the shot were of 'service- age' - say 18-40 yet they're not all in uniform - particularly if, indeed, it was a wedding occasion, as soldiers, if not their consorts/female friends, tended/tend to like the glamour of their uniform on such occasions!


If in the absence of uniforms, the other men weren't soldiers - it begs the question 'why?' Had they been wounded veterans - it was the practice to wear silver, lapel badges issued on their release from The Services to 'prove' that they had served - not least to avoid the presentation of the notorious white  feathers (somewhat simplistically suggesting cowardice) by the more unforgiving, if not jingoistic, elements of the community - a disconcerting practice which was real and not just wartime folk-lore! The 'presenters' themselves, however had more often than not, been no where near a battlefield! Maybe they were in  'reserved occupations'? I guess the question will remain unanswered unless your publication of this and other photos has the desired effect of prompting modern day relatives into providing the missing pieces of these historical jig-saws...


Be that as it may - finally the aspect I have a little more knowledge of... the uniforms! On this occasion - we don't really need to see the lower halves of the soldiers bodies including examine their leg - wear to determine their units because more than a strong clue is in the distinctive leather ammunition bandoliers (bullet pouches) strapped across each mas chest. Those are the mark of and peculiar to mounted soldiers - either cavalry per se, or Corps men whose units relied heavily on horsed-transport - e.g. the artillery, Army Service Corps or Royal Engineers. Clearly men in those units/jobs couldn't wear the more cumbersome leather or webbing ammunition equipment of the infantryman when riding or even driving wagons. Were we to be able to see their feet, I'm pretty certain that the two men would be wearing spurs - with the appropriately bound puttees! 


The style of tunics themselves, largely unaltered during the conflict - don't help with dating the photo as with the bandoliers which remained standard for mounted soldiers well into the '20s and '30s and in some cases even longer. The white shoulder lanyards - too widely used at than time to be real indicators of unit although white did become the preserve of cavalry and artillerymen - a tradition which to some degree, remains to this day. The images of the buttons are simply too diminutive to help and in the absence of head-wear we cannot see any cap badges. Frustratingly, just visible, apparently on the lower jacket sleeve jacket of the man to the viewer's left seems to be some sort of badge although it may also be a flaw in the photograph - and whilst I'd favour the former theory - again that detail in the image, if indeed that is what it is, simply to small and indistinct for certainty. Neither of the uniformed men appears to be wearing badges of rank - the barely visible 'arm badge' possibly providing  contradiction to this statement - so I'm assuming private soldiers rather than NCOs in the absence of better evidence


Kind regards


Stephen Acaster