Help please identifying two soldier uniform photographs

[Lyndale]

Dear GWF Listeners,

I’m trying to identify the dates when the attached two uniform photos might have been taken please? I believe I’ve got the two regiment names correct, but because scarlet tunics were worn up to WWI and beyond for ceremonial parades, I’m foxed about the period.

Photo 1 of two soldiers (probably father and son) I believe belong to the Kings Own (Royal Lancashire) Regiment and that his inverted LS&GC chevron on left lower arm dates it after 1881, but does the Austrian Knot cuffs suggest a volunteer battalion? Hopefully the British Lion version of the collar badge is a clue?

Photo 2 is I think a soldier of the Lincolnshire Regiment. So far my research on the white metal version of the Sphinx collar badge suggests that this pattern was introduced in 1898, but I defer to any expert knowledge about this pattern. The backs of the mounts are blank and even with input from an expert in old photo studios, 'A.W. Boucher Photographer' is of an unknown location and not the A.A. Boucher of Brighton, who died in 1872. I would be grateful for any idea what date each of the pictures were taken please.

Regards LYNDALE

[tankengine888]

This is slightly leaning off-topic.. that's unless there's a proved WW1 connection. [If there's no proved connection then this will be locked and so on]
They do rather look like father and son..

I think this may be just pre or immediately post Boer War

Zidane.

Edited 14 May , 2023 by tankengine888

[Lyndale]

Dear Zidane, thank you for a prompt response and the approximate dating around the time of the 2nd Boer War, cheers Lyndale

[tankengine888]

Just now, Lyndale said:

Dear Zidane, thank you for a prompt response and the approximate dating around the time of the 2nd Boer War, cheers Lyndale

My knowledge is scarce on this topic, so I call in the artillery; otherwise @FROGSMILE

I'm not so sure you will be able to identify the men in these images unless newspapers mention it.

 

[Lyndale]

Thanks, Tankengine888, Frogsmile has been very helpful in the past, so I hope he joins in. I'm not actually after their names, but more inclined to find out what uniform and badge clues can date these two pictures. Cheers for responding, Lyndale

[Michelle Young]

Top photo looks like Kings Own Royal Lancaster and bottom photo Lincolns to me. 

[FROGSMILE]

17 hours ago, Lyndale said:

Thanks, Tankengine888, Frogsmile has been very helpful in the past, so I hope he joins in. I'm not actually after their names, but more inclined to find out what uniform and badge clues can date these two pictures. Cheers for responding, Lyndale

As Michelle has mentioned the upper photo shows two soldiers of the King’s Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster**) from the battalion’s mounted infantry [MI] section.  They are wearing typically unlined foreign service (aka ‘Indian pattern’) frocks with the usual trefoil knots, and Bedford cord riding breeches.

1st Battalion King’s Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster):

1899Singapore MI det only in South Africa

1900England MI det only in South Africa

 1901Malta 

Comment:  this makes your photo exceedingly rare and taken in South Africa within the 2-year window 1899-1900.

The lower photo shows a soldier of the Manchester Regiment.  He wears a ‘Home Service’# full dress tunic.  One of several regiments to wear a Sphinx collar badge at that time, it comes from the old 96th that had become the new regiment’s 2nd Battalion.  The pattern favoured by the regiment was especially distinguished by the very rounded head.  The rounded corners of the collar suggest the first version of the mitred cuff tunic pattern introduced circa 1902, which featured the piped, scarlet shoulder straps.  From 1907 the woven shoulder title was replaced by removable metal (brass) lettering.

Both photos probably date to some time just either side of the 2nd Anglo/Boer War.

** this is important as the Sovereign holds the title of Duke of Lancaster.

# indicating the battalion serving within Britain and Ireland, which was 2nd Battalion the Manchester Regiment:

 1900.04South Africa 

 1902England: Aldershot 

 1904Channel Islands: Guernsey 

 1907Portsmouth 

 1909Mullingar 

 1912Ireland: Curragh 

 1914.08.France and Flanders

 

 

Edited 14 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

8 hours ago, Lyndale said:

'A.W. Boucher Photographer' is of an unknown location

On the 1911 Census of England & Wales there is a 31 year old Arthur William Boucher, born "Gloster", Gloucestershire, who give his occupation as Photographer and who was in business on his own account. He was recorded as the married head of the household at Whitehill, Bordon Camp, Hampshire - a location that would suggest he was focused on the military trade. Arthur states he has been married 4 and a half years, and the union has produced two children - Madeleine, (possibly Madeleina) aged 3 and a half, and Cristina(? - Arthurs' handwriting is very difficult to make out), aged 1 year, 9 months. Both were born Bordon, so roughly that places him in the area since circa October 1907.

Arthur and wife Jessie(?) are likely to be the Arthur William Boucher and Jessie Lugg whose marriage was recorded in the Farnham District of Hampshire in the October to December quarter, (Q4), of 1906. Jessie was born Colchester, so possibly given the location she was from an Army family.

I'm not spotting Arthur on the 1901 Census*, and while there is an Arthur William Boucher of roughly the right age on the 1881 and 1891 Censuses, on both occasions he is shown as born Homerton, London. Father looks to be a Loreden Boucher and a Dyer \ Dyer & Cleaner - a useful check in case the marriage records for Arthur William turn up.

Edit while doing a doing a wildcard search I did turn up an Arthur Boucher, born Gloucester on the 1901 Census of England & Wales - but he is then shown as aged 31. It's not clear but looks like the census taker may have tried to insert a middle name - William perhaps. And as it's on page 14 of that particular return perhaps their attention may have wandered, the next entry for a Corporal is also shown as aged 31.

Image courtesy Genes Reunited

Trawling back to the cover sheet it looks like this is the barracks return for the 3rd Battalion, Manchester Regiment.

Image courtesy Genes Reunited.

I'm not spotting an obvious match for that Arthur Boucher on the 1871, 1881, 1891 or 1911 Censuses, so either very good at avoiding officialdom, not in the country or the age on the 1901 Census is incorrect.

So barring the age discrepany, if it is the same man who set up as a photographer according to the 1911 Census and he is the same A.W. Boucher responsible for the second photograph, then he only went into business after this census was taken on the 31st March 1901.

Trade directories and local newspaper adverts may help refine that, as well as confirming occupation from the 1906 marriage. Pure speculation, but if he was actually 21 and enlisted aged 18 he was probably 3 years into a period of 7 years in the colours suggesting a likely discharge to the reserves circa 1905.Of course he could have purchased his release, enlisted sightly later than 18, etc, etc.

That's probably far, far more than you wanted to know, and of course I hope it isn't a total red herring.

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

8 hours ago, PRC said:

On the 1911 Census of England & Wales there is a 31 year old Arthur William Boucher, born "Gloster", Gloucestershire, who give his occupation as Photographer and who was in business on his own account. He was recorded as the married head of the household at Whitehill, Bordon Camp, Hampshire - a location that would suggest he was focused on the military trade. Arthur states he has been married 4 and a half years, and the union has produced two children - Madeleine, (possibly Madeleina) aged 3 and a half, and Cristina(? - Arthurs' handwriting is very difficult to make out), aged 1 year, 9 months. Both were born Bordon, so roughly that places him in the area since circa October 1907.

Arthur and wife Jessie(?) are likely to be the Arthur William Boucher and Jessie Lugg whose marriage was recorded in the Farnham District of Hampshire in the October to December quarter, (Q4), of 1906. Jessie was born Colchester, so possibly given the location she was from an Army family.

I'm not spotting Arthur on the 1901 Census*, and while there is an Arthur William Boucher of roughly the right age on the 1881 and 1891 Censuses, on both occasions he is shown as born Homerton, London. Father looks to be a Loreden Boucher and a Dyer \ Dyer & Cleaner - a useful check in case the marriage records for Arthur William turn up.

Edit while doing a doing a wildcard search I did turn up an Arthur Boucher, born Gloucester on the 1901 Census of England & Wales - but he is then shown as aged 31. It's not clear but looks like the census taker may have tried to insert a middle name - William perhaps. And as it's on page 14 of that particular return perhaps their attention may have wandered, the next entry for a Corporal is also shown as aged 31.

Image courtesy Genes Reunited

Trawling back to the cover sheet it looks like this is the barracks return for the 3rd Battalion, Manchester Regiment.

Image courtesy Genes Reunited.

I'm not spotting an obvious match for that Arthur Boucher on the 1871, 1881, 1891 or 1911 Censuses, so either very good at avoiding officialdom, not in the country or the age on the 1901 Census is incorrect.

So barring the age discrepany, if it is the same man who set up as a photographer according to the 1911 Census and he is the same A.W. Boucher responsible for the second photograph, then he only went into business after this census was taken on the 31st March 1901.

Trade directories and local newspaper adverts may help refine that, as well as confirming occupation from the 1906 marriage. Pure speculation, but if he was actually 21 and enlisted aged 18 he was probably 3 years into a period of 7 years in the colours suggesting a likely discharge to the reserves circa 1905.Of course he could have purchased his release, enlisted sightly later than 18, etc, etc.

That's probably far, far more than you wanted to know, and of course I hope it isn't a total red herring.

Cheers,
Peter

Thank you Peter, fantastic research by you as per usual.  Surely it would be a bit uncanny if this is not the same Boucher given the connection with the Manchester Regiment.

Edited 14 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Bob Davies]

Two very interesting photographs, I have nothing to add with regard to when they were taken but I am intrigued by what the two soldiers in the top photograph are wearing on their lower legs.

Some sort of puttees?

@FROGSMILE are you, or anyone able to advise please?

I have seen pictures from the Boer war with soldiers wearing puttees and of course  very common in the Great War.

Though from the Boer war, I only remember seeing soldiers wearing khaki uniforms wearing puttees, never with scarlet 'typically unlined foreign service (aka ‘Indian pattern’) frocks'

Regards, Bob.

[PRC]

The 1921 Census of England & Wales has an Arthur William Boucher born Gloucester, c1870 who was living in the parish of Ash & Normandy in the civil registration district of Farnham, Surrey. Living in the same household apparently are a Jessie, Madelaine and 11 others. I don't have subscription access so can't see the additional details or whether Arthurs' handwriting has confused the transcribers as to his age.

Image courtesy FindMyPast.

As you can see no candidate for an Arthur William Boucher in England & Wales born c1880, although of course he could be there under other variations of his first names, or mis-transcribed.

There is also no likely death for an Arthur William Boucher born c1880 in England & Wales. There is however a death of a 72 year old Arthur W. Boucher recorded in the Surrey South Western Civil Registration District in the July to September quarter, (Q3) of 1943. As part of a local government re-organisation in the mid-30's, the Surrey South Western District was created, absorbing the area previously covered by the Farnham Civil Registration area. One of the civil parishes that fell within the new District was Ash & Normandy. https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/surrey south western.html

The 1944 Probate Calendar has an Arthur William Boucher also known as Butcher of 168 Lynchford Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, who died on the 13th August 1943 at Warren Road Hospital, Guildford. Probate was granted to an Arthur Cecil Boucher, private, H.M. Army.

May be a co-incidence but the birth of an Arthur Cecil Boucher, mothers' maiden name Lugg, was registered with the civil authorities in the Farnham District in the October to December quarter, (Q4), of 1919.

So if we are in fact seeing a 31 year old Private on the 1901 Census then he could well be coming up to the end of his first period of enlistment, all of which as been spent in the Colours. I would suspect if he had signed up for the full 21 years in the colours and had any drive to him then he would have been promoted by this stage of his military career. But if he was out of the army in the next year or so then he could well have been running his own business in the Aldershot area, and using his contacts to secure business with men of the 2nd Battalion, Manchester Regiment, while they were stationed in the town.

Cheers,
Peter.

[FROGSMILE]

11 hours ago, Bob Davies said:

Two very interesting photographs, I have nothing to add with regard to when they were taken but I am intrigued by what the two soldiers in the top photograph are wearing on their lower legs.

Some sort of puttees?

@FROGSMILE are you, or anyone able to advise please?

I have seen pictures from the Boer war with soldiers wearing puttees and of course  very common in the Great War.

Though from the Boer war, I only remember seeing soldiers wearing khaki uniforms wearing puttees, never with scarlet 'typically unlined foreign service (aka ‘Indian pattern’) frocks'

Regards, Bob.

They’re an early issue of puttees Bob (they were common issue in India and other foreign stations decades before being adopted on the Home establishment).  The first puttees were quite thick, coarse and straight edged, not curved, as they became much later#, which made them difficult to wrap neatly around the tapering shape of the human calf and ankle.  It was for this reason that the crossover method, a technique developed for wrapping bandages around limbs was used, something that soldiers learned from rudimentary first aid training.  At a time when the men in the eight service companies were being issued trousers and leather leggings (military gaiters) the men in the mounted infantry (MI) section were instead issued breeches and puttees** together with their scarlet frocks and that’s what we see in the photo.  From 1899 the scarlet frocks were gradually replaced with drab khaki versions of a very similar cut, but without any piping and with outer pockets added.

# a patented design change.

** Clothing Regulations refers. 

 

 

Edited 15 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, PRC said:

The 1921 Census of England & Wales has an Arthur William Boucher born Gloucester, c1870 who was living in the parish of Ash & Normandy in the civil registration district of Farnham, Surrey. Living in the same household apparently are a Jessie, Madelaine and 11 others. I don't have subscription access so can't see the additional details or whether Arthurs' handwriting has confused the transcribers as to his age.

Image courtesy FindMyPast.

As you can see no candidate for an Arthur William Boucher in England & Wales born c1880, although of course he could be there under other variations of his first names, or mis-transcribed.

There is also no likely death for an Arthur William Boucher born c1880 in England & Wales. There is however a death of a 72 year old Arthur W. Boucher recorded in the Surrey South Western Civil Registration District in the July to September quarter, (Q3) of 1943. As part of a local government re-organisation in the mid-30's, the Surrey South Western District was created, absorbing the area previously covered by the Farnham Civil Registration area. One of the civil parishes that fell within the new District was Ash & Normandy. https://www.ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/surrey south western.html

The 1944 Probate Calendar has an Arthur William Boucher also known as Butcher of 168 Lynchford Road, Farnborough, Hampshire, who died on the 13th August 1943 at Warren Road Hospital, Guildford. Probate was granted to an Arthur Cecil Boucher, private, H.M. Army.

May be a co-incidence but the birth of an Arthur Cecil Boucher, mothers' maiden name Lugg, was registered with the civil authorities in the Farnham District in the October to December quarter, (Q4), of 1919.

So if we are in fact seeing a 31 year old Private on the 1901 Census then he could well be coming up to the end of his first period of enlistment, all of which as been spent in the Colours. I would suspect if he had signed up for the full 21 years in the colours and had any drive to him then he would have been promoted by this stage of his military career. But if he was out of the army in the next year or so then he could well have been running his own business in the Aldershot area, and using his contacts to secure business with men of the 2nd Battalion, Manchester Regiment, while they were stationed in the town.

Cheers,
Peter.

I think that you’re concluding statement seems entirely likely Peter.  Brilliant deductions.

Edited 14 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Lyndale]

Dear Perter (PRC) Michelle, Frogsmile and Bob (Davies) for your wonderful joint input. Apologies for late reply, due entirely to the AU-UK time difference. With Peter identifying who most likely A.W. Boucher (photographer) was and that he operated for a time (c1907) at Borden Camp Hants. This Peter is excellent detective work for which I sincerely thank you. My thanks also go to Michelle for your input.

Thanks also go to Bob for finding AW Boucher in the 1921 census. I have a subscription with FMP, so will now go and open the household schedule, 

Most grateful Frogsmile that you joined the conversation and provided the detail that I was hoping could be determined from clues in the two photographs. I tried to PM you before posting, but after pressing 'send', a message in red typeface said 'Frogsmile cannot receive messages'. I do have one more question please...I was told that the Austrian knot cuff meant a volunteer battalion, so would that fit with the mounted infantry section of the Kings Own Regiment (Lancaster) during the Boer War being a volunteer unit? 

If I now have this correct, to sum up, we have two soldiers of the Mounted Infantry Section of the Kings Own (Lancaster) Regiment in South Africa between 1899-1900 (probably father and son and probably volunteers) plus whilst the photographer's name at the bottom of the mount is obliterated, the location ends in "LING", this is probably a South African town.

Then we have a regular soldier of the 2nd Bn. Manchester Regiment, with uniform clues dating the picture 1900-1907 (1907 at the very latest) but because of Peter's detective work, placing the photographer A.W. Boucher in Hampshire around 1907-1911 and because the 2nd. Bn. was in Portsmouth Hants. in 1907, then that is the more likely period when that photograph was taken. 

Have I missed anything?

As always, I'm amazed at the knowledge of those who take the trouble to respond to people like me who ask for expert help on the GWF, many thanks to you all, Lyndale in Melbourne.

  

[FROGSMILE]

7 hours ago, Lyndale said:

Dear Perter (PRC) Michelle, Frogsmile and Bob (Davies) for your wonderful joint input. Apologies for late reply, due entirely to the AU-UK time difference. With Peter identifying who most likely A.W. Boucher (photographer) was and that he operated for a time (c1907) at Borden Camp Hants. This Peter is excellent detective work for which I sincerely thank you. My thanks also go to Michelle for your input.

Thanks also go to Bob for finding AW Boucher in the 1921 census. I have a subscription with FMP, so will now go and open the household schedule, 

Most grateful Frogsmile that you joined the conversation and provided the detail that I was hoping could be determined from clues in the two photographs. I tried to PM you before posting, but after pressing 'send', a message in red typeface said 'Frogsmile cannot receive messages'. I do have one more question please...I was told that the Austrian knot cuff meant a volunteer battalion, so would that fit with the mounted infantry section of the Kings Own Regiment (Lancaster) during the Boer War being a volunteer unit? 

If I now have this correct, to sum up, we have two soldiers of the Mounted Infantry Section of the Kings Own (Lancaster) Regiment in South Africa between 1899-1900 (probably father and son and probably volunteers) plus whilst the photographer's name at the bottom of the mount is obliterated, the location ends in "LING", this is probably a South African town.

Then we have a regular soldier of the 2nd Bn. Manchester Regiment, with uniform clues dating the picture 1900-1907 (1907 at the very latest) but because of Peter's detective work, placing the photographer A.W. Boucher in Hampshire around 1907-1911 and because the 2nd. Bn. was in Portsmouth Hants. in 1907, then that is the more likely period when that photograph was taken. 

Have I missed anything?

As always, I'm amazed at the knowledge of those who take the trouble to respond to people like me who ask for expert help on the GWF, many thanks to you all, Lyndale in Melbourne.

  

Yes you’ve summed it up well, but take care with the title of the unit - The King’s Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster).

As regards the cuff decoration, what is seen on the two soldiers is a simple ‘trefoil’ knot.  The ‘Austrian’ knot on an Infantry tunic is more elaborate and it’s that which depicted a soldier of the auxiliaries, either rifle volunteer corps, or volunteer battalions of line infantry, depending on period.  See enclosed images of a volunteer’s home service frock and compare.

I’m sorry that the PM did not get through, but it’s because I’ve retained quite a few former messages and so although I weed off the top I don’t have much margin before it’s full again.  I will keep weeding and I apologise for the inconvenience.

Edited 15 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Lyndale]

Dear All, especially Peter (PRC) who identified A.W. Boucher. Here is a scan of the first two lines of the 1921 census for him and his wife, which as you will see, Arthur William Boucher is still practicing professional photography. In the same dwelling are their four children aged 1 to 13 (two born in Borden) then follows 4 nieces, 3 nephews and one sister-in-Law, four of which were born in Aldershot. It must have been a big house! Cheers Lyndale.

[Bob Davies]

10 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

They’re an early issue of puttees Bob (they were common issue in India and other foreign stations decades before being adopted on the Home establishment).  The first puttees were quite thick, coarse and straight edged, not curved, as they became much later#, which made them difficult to wrap neatly around the tapering shape of the human calf and ankle.  It was for this reason that the crossover method, a technique developed for wrapping bandages around limbs was used, something that soldiers learned from rudimentary first aid training.  At a time when the men in the eight service companies were being issued trousers and leather leggings (military gaiters) the men in the mounted infantry (MI) section were instead issued breeches and puttees** together with their scarlet frocks and that’s what we see in the photo.  From 1899 the scarlet frocks were gradually replaced with drab khaki versions of a very similar cut, but without any piping and with outer pockets added.

# a patented design change.

** Clothing Regulations refers. 

Thank you for you explanation FROGSMILE, complete with pictures to help

 

9 hours ago, Lyndale said:

Thanks also go to Bob for finding AW Boucher in the 1921 census.

Not me Lyndale, that is all Peters @PRC great work.

[PRC]

It may be excessively wishful thinking on my part, but could one interpretation of the letters on the right hand end of the photographers tag on the first picture of two soldiers actually be "Darjeeling".

I'n not sure if there is anything in the uniform style to actually preclude these men from serving in India.

Cheers,
Peter

[FROGSMILE]

24 minutes ago, PRC said:

It may be excessively wishful thinking on my part, but could one interpretation of the letters on the right hand end of the photographers tag on the first picture of two soldiers actually be "Darjeeling".

I'n not sure if there is anything in the uniform style to actually preclude these men from serving in India.

Cheers,
Peter

No there’s nothing to preclude India Peter.  The 1st Battalion’s movements continuing on from those already mentioned were:

1903India: Calcutta 

 1906Burma: Shwebo 

 1908India: Lebong 

 1910Lucknow 

 1912Dover

NB.  India Pattern scarlet frocks would be more unusual after 1902, but not impossible.

Edited 15 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Lyndale]

Apologies to Peter (PRC) who I should have acknowledged when I posted the 1921 census data for finding the AW Bucher census information. Cheers Lyndale.

[Lyndale]

Dear Frogsmile & Peter,

The Darjeeling option had been suggested to me earlier by a Victorian photography expert but was put to one side because all the locations in India around the turn of the century I found for the Kings Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) were 1000's of miles away from that town in southern India. HOWEVER, Lebong station in 1908 is only 5 miles away, a drop of 1000ft (300M) below Darjeeling - see map.  Therefore, this raises the question please, should I discount the Mounted Infantry unit in South Africa 1899-1900 in favor of the mounted infantry unit in Darjeeling India 1908 for the location & date of this 2-man photograph??? Cheers Lyndale

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Lyndale said:

Dear Frogsmile & Peter,

The Darjeeling option had been suggested to me earlier by a Victorian photography expert but was put to one side because all the locations in India around the turn of the century I found for the Kings Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) were 1000's of miles away from that town in southern India. HOWEVER, Lebong station in 1908 is only 5 miles away, a drop of 1000ft (300M) below Darjeeling - see map.  Therefore, this raises the question please, should I discount the Mounted Infantry unit in South Africa 1899-1900 in favor of the mounted infantry unit in Darjeeling India 1908 for the location & date of this 2-man photograph??? Cheers Lyndale

I can’t be categoric but it’s much more unlikely for scarlet frocks to still be seen in 1908 other than the type used as an alternative in India to full dress.  Those in the photo are clearly well worn and have been used in the field, which reinforces my point.

Edited 15 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Lyndale]

Thank you Frogsmile, cheers Lyndale

[FROGSMILE]

18 hours ago, Lyndale said:

Thank you Frogsmile, cheers Lyndale

Everything about their general appearance suggests the earlier period to my eye.  I would also have expected Boer War medal ribbons on the older man as a minimum.

From 1892 to 1894 the 2nd Battalion King’s Own Royal Regiment were at Ahmednagar, so they too should at least be considered.  They returned home to England in 1895.

NB.  I wonder if any Darjeeling photographers can be tied to what little can be seen of the first word at the base of the photograph,

Edited 16 May , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

My very rudimentary knowledge, fortified by a couple of Google searches, tells me that Darjeeling and a number of nearby locations were used by the British as Hill Stations - places with milder climates that officers, wives and civil servants could retreat to when the heat on the North India plain proved too much, or where soldiers could be sent to convalesce, so it wouldn't necessarily mean that the whole Battalion was in the area.

Having said while I don't know if an officer would have retained a British Army other rank groom and a batman or sourced them from native staff while at the hill station - these two are possibly not 'smart' enough to be carrying out those roles.

I've tried a quick look for men of the 1st Battalion with surviving service records from this period in the WO97 series. Sometime, particularly for those who were medically discharged after overseas service, the medical history statement can actually be very informative about the movement of a Battalion within the course of the year. A bit like the B.103 document in WW1 era service records it can provide a great deal of information that goes beyond where the Battalion was nominally stationed. The Medical Officer at each location would sign them off - even on a nothing to record basis. Unfortunately after about 30 tries I had to give up have not found a single instance where it had been retained - as usual, when your are looking for something you can never find it

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 15 May , 2023 by PRC
Typo