Issue 164 of After the Battle

[Indefatigable]

I received this morning my copy of After the Battle magazine issue 164 and it contains two articles I would like to bring to members attention.

One is an article on the Sarajevo Assassination which I found very interesting and well researched and another article called "The first to be killed in Action" , this covers both world wars and for WWI mentions Private John Parr which was the subject of a now closed thread raised by SS002d6252.

regards

Indefatigable

[Mark Hone]

I love ATB and was a subscriber for many years. I hesitate to ask but do they recognise that while Parr was the first soldier killed on the Western Front he was definitely not the first British serviceman killed in action? An unknown member of the crew of HMS Amphion, 150 of whom died when she sank on 6th August 1914, claims that melancholy distinction.

[Indefatigable]

I love ATB and was a subscriber for many years. I hesitate to ask but do they recognise that while Parr was the first soldier killed on the Western Front he was definitely not the first British serviceman killed in action? An unknown member of the crew of HMS Amphion, 150 of whom died when she sank on 6th August 1914, claims that melancholy distinction.

Mark

They mention the sinking of HMS on 6th August when hitting a mine without naming any casualties although they do state that 1 Officer and 150 men + 18 german prisoners were drowned. (I can only assume that hitting a mine did not count as being in action, this subject has cropped up before with hospital ships).

They also mention Private Joseph Viles dying in a traffic accident on 4th August, Corporal Arthur Rawson being accidently shot by a colleague and Private Bai of the Gold Coast Regiment being killed on 15th August in the German protectorate of Togoland. They also added that by the 21st August over 300 British and Commonwealth soldiers and sailors had already lost their lives.

regards

Indefatigable

[Mark Hone]

Hmmm, I don't want to engage in semantics but I can't really see how the loss of a British warship to a mine which has recently been laid by an enemy vessel it has just helped to sink doesn't count as 'being in action' , but still. Does the ATB article go into the theory that Parr may have been the victim of friendly fire?

[Indefatigable]

Martin

No reference is made about the death being caused by friendly fire.

The article starts of detailing with his enlistment details and that he was serving as a reconnaissance cyclist with the 4th Battalion, Middlesex Regiment arriving in France on 14th August 1914. On 21st August he and another cyclist were sent northwards from Bettignies, France (1km from the border) into Belgium for a scouting mission to Obourg just east of Mons some 15 kms away. When describing his death they use the phrase "it is believed that" the two cyclists encountered a German cavalry patrol which resulted in Parr being killed. His body was not recovered due to a forced retreat a couple of days later. Parr was buried by the Germans at St-Symphorien Military Cemetery (south-east of Mons). It goes on to state that due to confusion his death was not registered and when his mother wrote to the regiment asking about him they were unable to provide any information other than he might have been captured. It goes on the state that a permanent headstone was erected on the grave after the war stating his age was 20 and date of death was on 23rd August with the headstone being corrected in 1982 to show the correct age and date of death following further research. He apparently had enlisted in the Middlesex Regiment on 6th May 1912 giving his age as 17 years 10 months. The article also questioned his age when he died.

Checking on the CWGC I found his entry which gives his service number as L/14196 and age as 20. It also states that he is believed to be the first British casualty of the war.

His enlistment can be found on Ancestry but with a service number of 6846. His date of enlistment was on 6th May 1912 and he gave his age as 17 years 10 months.

Further checking reveals that he was baptised on 4th September 1898 at St John, Holloway, Islington as John Henry Parr. A GRO recorded birth could not be found for that combination of names although a GRO birth was found in 1898 for a Henry John Parr in the June quarter for Westminster.

The 1901 Census gives his age as 3 years and the 1911 Census as either 13 or 15 years depending on your interpretation of his father's handwriting. I believe it was written as 13.

There are a couple of public family trees shown on Ancestry that include him and one has picture of his headstone.

In my view he was only about 15/16 when he died despite his age given on the enlistment papers.

regards

Indefatigable

[Guest History Angels]

Hi. I'm a genealogist and have researched the Parr family on behalf of Barnet Council who were looking to trace any of his living relatives, which I'm pleased to report was successful.

I have a copy of Private Parr's birth certificate. He was born on 19th July 1897 at 36 Lichfield Grove, Finchley, the son of Edward Thomas Parr & Alice (formerly Barker).

When he enlisted in May 1912 he was actually 14 years 10 months.

Hope this helps.

[Indefatigable]

History Angels

Welcome to the forum and many thanks for the information.

regards

Indefatigable