Help identifying officers in group photo of 2/5th Lancs Fus in Bedford, 1/5/1915, "B" Coy, Hill, Abbotts, H. Waterhouse

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

 

On 10/07/2024 at 21:30, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

see this link https://uk.forceswarrecords.com/search?docQuery=(filters:!((type:general.title.id,values:!((label:'UK,+Long+Service+Good+Conduct+Medal,+1830-1979',value:'1222')))),keywords:'A+V+Barwood,"A+V+Barwood","Barwood,+A+V"'

I understand that the above link leads to a NA document reference WO102_17-1, which confirms that Barwood, A.V., Bandmaster, service no 4056 was awarded the Long Service and Good Conduct medal while he was in the Royal Berkshires, the recommendation date being 1 January 1908.

Moving on to Whateley Abbotts’ NA service papers, which I also looked at on 7 June, they contained this document, which relates to Arthur Vincent-Barwood as well as Whateley Abbotts, confirming that the former returned to Britain on sick leave in late 1915, and did some home service with the 3^rd line unit of the LF from 21 February 1916, while Whately Abbots did some home service with the 3^rd line unit, being unfit for General Service, from 16 November 1915. Another document in Abbotts’ record, signed by him on 29 March 1916, at which time he was attached to the 4/5 LF at 14 Camp at Codford, Wilts, gives the date of leaving the 2/5^th LF as 3 October 1915, being sent from Etaples to UK on 11 October 1915, landing at Folkestone on 12 October 1915, and being on sick leave from 12 October 1915 to 12 January 1916. There is a slight inconsistency here with the attached letter, which states that he was fit for home service from 16 November 1915. Presumably this period of incapacity was caused by the first occasion of his being gassed, as referred to in his obituary.

Other information which emerges from the service record is as follows:

1.      He was born on 29 April 1873 in Burton on Trent and educated at Burton Grammar School.

2.      He served in the Staffordshire Yeomanry for 11 years 200 days, rising to the rank of sergeant, and retired time-expired in 1910.

3.     On the outbreak of WW1, aged 40 years 5 months he immediately enlisted as a private in the Cavalry, the Corps of Hussars, for a period of 3 years on 2 September 1914, becoming a sergeant in the 18^th Queen Mary’s Own Hussars in the 11^th Reserve of Cavalry.

4.      He applied for a commission in the 5^th Reserve LF on 21 December 1914; the CO of the 5^th Reserve LF, Lieutenant Colonel John Hall wrote in a letter to the CO of the 11^th Reserve of Cavalry on 30 December 1914, asking for Abbotts to be released to take up a commission, that he is “sadly in want of capable officers, especially men able to instruct”.

5.      In his application for a commission Abbotts confirmed that he had the South Africa medal with three clasps, and also said that he had the Efficiency Medal.

6.    In the attestation form of 2 September 1914 his height is given as 5feet 9 ½ inches, his chest measurement when fully expanded 36 inches, with an expansion of 2 1/2 inches, and his weight 144lbs; interestingly in the application for a commission his height is given as 5 feet 11 inches (might that have been with shoes?).

7.    In the attestation form his occupation is given as “commercial traveller”, while in the application for a commission it is given as “merchant”; there is no mention of the bankruptcy at all.

8.   Apart from the letter of March 1916 dealing with his health in late 1915/early 1916, there are two minute sheets referring to Medical Board reports, one dated 5 December 1916 stating that he was fit for General Service, and one dated 17 September 1917 stating that he was unfit for any service for 3 weeks, followed by a recommendation for 3 weeks sick leave in England from 3 October 1917. Copies of both minute sheets are attached. The earlier reference to a Medical Board report is followed by words which I read as “In not by”, the latter by the words which I read as “In & not by”. Have I read these words correctly, and what do they mean? Neither Medical Board report seems to relate to the two occasions on which Abbotts was gassed, directly at least, which according to his obituary were October 1915 and February 1918

    

 

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

I agree it definitely reads in & not by, as that appears even more clearly against the 5/12/1916 entry declaring him fit for general duty, but I’m afraid I do not know what it means.  Given its clear repetition I would say it’s a standard and accepted caveat of some kind in medical shorthand.  I’m sorry I can’t help more and wonder if a medical man like @Dai Bach y Sowldiwr might have a stab at deciphering it.

[Bob Davies]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

I agree it definitely reads in & not by

Yes it says that for certain.

It is I believe, to say that he is unfit to be serving actively (in) but he is not unfit to be in service (to be a member of the army) and on sick leave. (by)

If that makes scene.

It does to me in  'law terminology'  or 'medical terminology'.

I have never seen it written before.

Regards,

Bob.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Thanks @FROGSMILE & @Bob Davies,

I'm afraid it's not a term I've ever come across in medical terminology.
It must be an army legal phrase I think.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you Frogsmile, Bob Davies, and Dai Bach for your comments.

I find it odd that the phrase is used both when Whateley is declared "GS" (which my GF uses as meaning completely back to fitness, which is what I understand it would generally mean) and also when he is being declared unfit and being prescribed sick leave.

I considered whether it might be something to do with the fact that some part of his medical record was missing, but I can't really make sense of that, as surely they must at least have had the Medical Board reports that they were minuting, and the historical reports would have been of limited relevance?

Looking again at the "by" word, is it at all possible that the "b" is in fact a capital "C", so that the words are "In not Cy" and "In & not Cy", in which case might it be saying that at this stage of his career he was working as an Instructor rather than a Company man, which I suppose would have been relevant to how fit he needed to be to return to service?

This is just a thought - bearing in mind that when he joined the 2/5th LF Lt Col Hall wanted him to act as an instructor, though his official role when they first went to France was Transport Officer. His prior experience would certainly have been useful to the 1/5th LF when they first went to France in February 1917.

[Bob Davies]

6 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Looking again at the "by" word, is it at all possible that the "b" is in fact a capital "C",

I do not believe that it is a capital 'C'.

It is a lower case letter 'b', I bet my rum ration on it

Having slept on it, I think my second stab at it is as follows.

Unfit any service 3 weeks 'in'......., means it is a fact, that he will be unfit for 3 weeks.

unfit any service 3 weeks ........'by' is an uncertainty and not fact.

Possibly someone else may see the light in this?

Off to the rum shop now.

Regards,

Bob.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you, Bob, for your comment, and I hope that the rum shop was kind to you. 

The problem with your second suggestion seems to me to be that the "In not by" also appears when Abbotts is declared to be fit, not just when he is expected to be unfit for a period of time.

I too am going to have a second stab, this time assuming that it is indeed a small "b", as I agree that that seems most likely. I had another look at the usual form of Medical Board report, and, on the one I am looking at now, I see that after the questions about whether the man was fit for military service, and, if not, how long he was likely to be unfit, question (3) reads "Was the disability contracted in the service?", and question (5) reads "Was it caused by military service?". In the light of this I now consider it very likely that the words "In not by" and "In & not by" mean that Abbotts' illness on each occasion covered by the minutes was contracted while he was in military service, but was not caused by military service. Presumably this would have implications for the level of sick pay?

[Bob Davies]

8 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Thank you, Bob, for your comment, and I hope that the rum shop was kind to you. 

The problem with your second suggestion seems to me to be that the "In not by" also appears when Abbotts is declared to be fit, not just when he is expected to be unfit for a period of time.

I too am going to have a second stab, this time assuming that it is indeed a small "b", as I agree that that seems most likely. I had another look at the usual form of Medical Board report, and, on the one I am looking at now, I see that after the questions about whether the man was fit for military service, and, if not, how long he was likely to be unfit, question (3) reads "Was the disability contracted in the service?", and question (5) reads "Was it caused by military service?". In the light of this I now consider it very likely that the words "In not by" and "In & not by" mean that Abbotts' illness on each occasion covered by the minutes was contracted while he was in military service, but was not caused by military service. Presumably this would have implications for the level of sick pay?

Your suggestion makes total scene.

Well thought out.

 Maybe I should have had a rum before my second suggestion

Regards,

Bob.

[FROGSMILE]

9 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

mean that Abbotts' illness on each occasion covered by the minutes was contracted while he was in military service, but was not caused by military service. Presumably this would have implications for the level of sick pay?

Brilliant!  I have been puzzling over it since you inquired and what you have suggested makes complete sense.  I am convinced of it and am kicking myself because the logic is obvious when looked at in the cold light of day.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thanks gents.

Moving on, I also looked at the NA service record of Major J. D. Barnsdale on 7 June. There is not much at all, mainly his application for a commission in the 5th (Reserve) Battalion LF dated 21 September 1914, in which he gave his address as Arthog Road, Hale, and his occupation as an “advertiser’s agent”. He stated that he had been a captain in the 1^st Notts Volunteer Battalion but had resigned in 1907 on leaving the town. He gave his height as 6 feet.

Other documents show that he was disembodied on 23 February 1919, wrote to the CO of the 5^th Bn LF applying for permission to resign his commission on 18 August 1920, and the resignation of his commission was gazetted on 17 November 1920, with him being permitted to retain the rank of Major.

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Another record that I looked at on 7 June was that of Lieutenant John Ernest Hartington. I did not expect that this record would reveal much that we didn't already know, not least because of the research done by @Mark Hone for his entry in the Bury Grammar School Roll of Honour, which can be found online http://bgsarchive.co.uk/authenticated/Browse.aspx?SectionID=164&tableName=ta_boys_rollofhonour

The service file retained at NA is quite slim and most of its contents relate to his death, to include the award of the death plaque and administration of his estate. It does, however, include his application for a commission dated 8 December 1914, which does contain one new piece of information, namely that his height was 5 feet 6 1/4 inches. Officer 6, who we have pencilled in for Hartington at the moment, is one of the smaller officers in the back row, if not the smallest, so this height is not inconsistent with him being Officer 6.

I had already looked at the service records for Hugh Waterhouse and Cecil Hill before starting this thread, and there are no surviving service records for William Duckworth, so that concudes the additional information that I was able to find in the NA service records in June relevant to this thread.

Edited 7 August by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy
To correct the statement that there are no surviving records for Hill

[FROGSMILE]

21 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Officer 6, who we have pencilled in for Hartington at the moment, is one of the smaller officers in the back row, if not the smallest, so this height is not inconsistent with him being Officer 6.

Have you factored in the ground that he’s stood upon?  I haven’t looked again myself and I know that we’ve discussed this before, so it’s just a gentle reminder, as it can be a notorious problem when trying to judge height.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

4 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Have you factored in the ground that he’s stood upon?  I haven’t looked again myself and I know that we’ve discussed this before, so it’s just a gentle reminder, as it can be a notorious problem when trying to judge height.

Yes, I recall that you - quite rightly - have alerted me to this factor previously, and I try to bear it in mind. That was one of the reasons for my rather cautious "this height is not inconsistent with him being Officer 6", rather than suggesting that it positively supports him being Officer 6. I still have some updates to post on the related thread, the "C" Company thread, which may include some more information on heights (I have not yet fully examined the photographs of the files relating to the officers dealt with in that thread). We may then have heights for at least most of the men who are believed to be in the back row of the photograph, and this may then assist in doing comparisons across the row, though I appreciate that this is only truly useful if they are all standing on something which is completely level right along its length, or, if they are standing on separate things, if those things are exactly level.

In the subject photograph the men are on three levels, the seated row in front, then the second row standing behind; I assume that the men in the second row would all be standing on the ground. Then there is the third row, who I assume must be standing on something or on some things above ground level. It could be a step, but as this photo was taken outide in front of a hedge that is unlikely, though it could perhaps have been a low wall in front of the hedge. The back row might have been stood on chairs, but if they had been on chairs I think that their heads would have been higher above the heads of the men in the second row than they are. They could have been standing on school forms, which I seem to recall we did for our school photographs, but that would only have been possible if some forms were handy, perhaps if they were based in a school. Or the photographer might have brought something for them to stand on, perhaps a set of boxes. I don't suppose we will ever know for certain what the arrangement was for the Bedford photo, and I don't suppose either that we can say that any particular practice was "usual" for army photographs - I imagine it very much depended upon the terrain and what "props" were available at the time. 

Having said all that, I have just reminded myself that my GF tells us that while they were in Bedford  the Officers' Mess was at Oakley House, Bromham Road "which was really a school". It strikes me that the Officers' Mess would have been a  convenient venue for the group photograph, so maybe they would indeed have had school forms handy. It does look to me that the amount by which the third row is raised above the second row could well fit with the back row standing on forms, but, as I say, we shall never know for certain. 

 

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 07/08/2024 at 23:32, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

my GF tells us that while they were in Bedford  the Officers' Mess was at Oakley House, Bromham Road

Alas, this is indeed what my GF tells us. I have checked the original text in his handwriting once again, and there is no doubt that that he wrote "Oakley". He adds that that the school was attended by a man called St Barbe, who was to become a fellow officer in the 1/5th LF later. However, in exploring further whether the Old School at Oakley (a photograph of which I included in the book as most likely being the Bedford school where the Officers' Mess was) could be described as being on the Bromham Road, and becoming doubtful, I have revisited a later part of the text of my GF's memoir, and find that in the later place, which I did not include in the edited version of the book, my GF says St Barbe "had been to School at ORKNEY HOUSE, Bedford, under Old Blake. This was the house the 2/5^th had their Officers Mess at Bedford in April 1915."

Orkney House was the preparatory school for Bedford School*, and though it was not exactly on the Bromham Road, at least on modern town maps, it was on St Peter's Street, which eventually turns into Bromham Road. I am therefore now fairly certain that the Officers' Mess was in Orkney House, and that the reference to Oakley in the earlier part of my GF's memoir is an error.

The place where the Bedford group photograph of the officers of the 2/5th LF was taken on 1 May 1915 (link here for ease of reference https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/310415-where-we-are-with-identifying-the-men-in-a-group-photo-of-the-25th-lf-on-151915-and-the-mystery-of-the-30th-man/) does look to me as if it may well have been a school. Can any Bedford members help with whether it might have been taken in the vicinity of the preparatory institution of Bedford School (though I am aware that that building was extended in the 1930s)?

*This is my error - Orkney House was not Bedford School Preparatory School, but another preparatory school in Bedford. See further posts below.

Edited 13 August by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy
To add footnote

[PRC]

2 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

had been to School at ORKNEY HOUSE, Bedford, under Old Blake

According to an obituary in The Times in the 1920's, the headmaster was an Arthur Henry Blake.

He completed the return for Orkney House, Bedford on the 1911 Census of England & Wales.

Looking at the addresses on either side, Alice Emily Marshall, (45, Widow, living on Private Means), was recorded as the head of the household at 18, Clapham Road, Bedford.

On the other side was a Mary Williams, a married woman aged 56, who was head of the household at Barsham House, (or Barcham House?, difficult to make out), Bedford. Enumerator has it down as 2-4 Clapham Road, Bedford.

I've tried making sense of it on Google Street-views, but the house numbers they indicate are difficult to reconcile to the images. The houses are big and set back from the road, and few have numbers that are visible on gate-posts let alone front doors.

I've therefore gone for the Satellite view, courtesy Google Maps. Starting from the roundabout in the bottom right corner and the junction with Union Street, the even number houses are "below" Clapham Road., starting with 2. There are several houses that look like they could support a boarding school - two even appear to share what looks like a playground area and a car park out front. May be difficult to count off against the 1911 Census - looks like there is also a newer build in what was probably one of the side gardens.

Hope that makes sense,
Peter

 

[alantwo]

@A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

IF Oakley House, there is a property of that name about 3 miles NW of Bedford.

Both image (c1900) and map (1901) from bedsarchive.bedford.gov.uk.

Regards

Alan

 

Edited 13 August by alantwo

[FROGSMILE]

On 07/08/2024 at 23:32, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

though I appreciate that this is only truly useful if they are all standing on something which is completely level right along its length, or, if they are standing on separate things, if those things are exactly level.

That is exactly right and sums up the difficulty of judging height without a clear view and interpretation of the ground.  It can be very frustrating in those instances when there is very little else to go by, but is only meaningful when one can be sure.

Edited 13 August by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

On 07/08/2024 at 23:32, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I don't suppose either that we can say that any particular practice was "usual" for army photographs - I imagine it very much depended upon the terrain and what "props" were available at the time. 

Although your closing sentence is true there were some common practices.  The Army supply system did provide deal trestle tables, and bench seats for use in tented dining and mess facilities (plus pay parades) and so they were a part of ‘camp stores’ and equipage.  It was common to have the front row standing, the second row stood on the long bench seats, and the rear row either seated or standing on the trestle tables (depending on the total number of rows).  Other variations used a row of chairs if they were available, but the principles were the same.

The method I’ve described was certainly used in WW1 from past photographic evidence, as well as WW2, and well on into my own service (I saw and participated in the arrangement very many times).

The bench and table designs changed very little, although the folding metal trestle part became more angular and simplified over time.  The legs could always be folded, as both benches, and tables, were designed to be stacked flat in the back of a 3 ton lorry**.  In some of the very old camps I saw tables and benches with date stamps spanning 60-years.

** the load space dimensions dating back to the Army’s first motorised lorries##, and packing schemes devised on that basis for generations (literally). It meant that even when equipment varied in age it was all packable within the same standard space.  As a result the benches and tables became omnipresent and guaranteed to be seem when deploying into the field during the analogue age.

## that were themselves deliberately scaled on the old GS Army wagon.

 

Edited 13 August by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

18 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Alas, this is indeed what my GF tells us. I have checked the original text in his handwriting once again, and there is no doubt that that he wrote "Oakley". He adds that that the school was attended by a man called St Barbe, who was to become a fellow officer in the 1/5th LF later. However, in exploring further whether the Old School at Oakley (a photograph of which I included in the book as most likely being the Bedford school where the Officers' Mess was) could be described as being on the Bromham Road, and becoming doubtful, I have revisited a later part of the text of my GF's memoir, and find that in the later place, which I did not include in the edited version of the book, my GF says St Barbe "had been to School at ORKNEY HOUSE, Bedford, under Old Blake. This was the house the 2/5^th had their Officers Mess at Bedford in April 1915."

Orkney House was the preparatory school for Bedford School, and though it was not exactly on the Bromham Road, at least on modern town maps, it was on St Peter's Street, which eventually turns into Bromham Road. I am therefore now fairly certain that the Officers' Mess was in Orkney House, and that the reference to Oakley in the earlier part of my GF's memoir is an error.

The place where the Bedford group photograph of the officers of the 2/5th LF was taken on 1 May 1915 (link here for ease of reference https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/310415-where-we-are-with-identifying-the-men-in-a-group-photo-of-the-25th-lf-on-151915-and-the-mystery-of-the-30th-man/) does look to me as if it may well have been a school. Can any Bedford members help with whether it might have been taken in the vicinity of the preparatory institution of Bedford School (though I am aware that that building was extended in the 1930s)?

 

Orkney House seems to have been quite rural going by these photos of school sports, unless the location is at a remove from the house itself.

images via web search.

Edited 13 August by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

Probably need someone with a really good understanding of the development of Bedford - I've not been there in nearly 50 years

I've previously drawn on the comment posted by @A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy that one of the officers had attended the school where they were quartered, and the headmaster was "Old Blake". I did find a Private School in Bedford on the 1911 Census that was headed up by an Arthur Henry Blake - at Orkney House.

Image courtesy Genes Reunited - declaration on the Census return.

The enumerators have that down as being on Clapham Road, and from the neighbouring census returns I suggested it was somewhere between 4 and 18 Clapham Road. A satellite image shows several potential sites - indeed in the past they could all have been one site.

Just in case Arthur and his school were previously located elsewhere, I looked for him on the 1901 Census of England & Wales. Arthur H. Blake, a Schoolmaster, with his family are recorded living at 8 Clapham Road, Bedford, but there is then a rather convoluted entry covering 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Clapham Road which shows them full of a mix of boarders who are pupils and domestic servants, with a nurse and a matron.

The Times (from The Times Digital Archive) and other newspapers, (British Newspaper Archive) have adverts for a Private School at Orkney House, Bedford dating back to the early 1890's.

Going back to the current map, it is clear that the backgardens of the even numbered houses on Clapham Road would have ended when they met the back gardens of the houses on Warwick Avenue. And looking at the houses on Warwick Avenue I would say most architecturally are of a same vintage as the houses on Clapham Road - so not a question of back gardens being sold off, and Warwick Avenue being a later development.  However the first sets of houses, the ones that might have backed on to the likes of 2-12 Clapham Road, are a modern block of flats. Here's a view courtesy Google Streeviews looking down Warwick Avenue towards Union Street. The houses on the left back onto the houses on Clapham Road.

Image sourced Google Streetviews.

The two cream houses are numbers 7 (nearest) and 5, leading me to believe that the two with the black and white faux woodwork were numbers 3 and 1. If that was the original numbering then would seem to imply that end of Warwick Avenue in 1915 might still have been the back gardens of houses of Clapham Road - including those of Orkney House.

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

Orkney House seems to have been quite rural going by these photos of school sports, unless the location is at a remove from the house itself.

Even in 2024 this satellite picture of the area shows a number of school fields, local nature reserves and country parks a short distance from the Orkney House on Clapham Road, and that's even after several Retail and Light Industrial developments. There also seems to been some sort of educational trust during this period that covered Bedford with an onus on sharing facilities. Of course it could also have been a wealthy parent or patron locally who made their land available for the school to hold the sports.

Image courtesy Google Maps.

3 hours ago, alantwo said:

IF Oakley House, there is a property of that name about 3 miles NW of Bedford.

The 1910 edition of Kellys Directory for Bedfordshire lists Oakley House as the seat of Rowland Edmund Prothero, Esquire, M.A., M.V.O., J.P., F.R, Hist, Soc., https://specialcollections.le.ac.uk/digital/collection/p16445coll4/id/52607/rec/1

The 1911 census of England & Wales records him as a Barrister at law, and head of the household at 3 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, London. He served in the wartime govenment of Lloyd George, being raised to the peerage in 1919 as Lord Ernle of Chelsea. (Wikipedia), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowland_Prothero,_1st_Baron_Ernle

His only child from his first marriage, Rowland John Prothero was recorded at Eton on the same Census. Lieutenant Rowland John Protheroe, 7th (Queens Own) Hussars, would die of wounds at Baghdad on the 8th November 1918. The additional family information on his CWGC webpage is that he was the "Son of the Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund Prothero, 1st Baron Ernle, of 3, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, London and Oakley House, Oakley, Beds." https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/634921/rowland-john-prothero/

As it doesn't appear to have been the families main residence it could still be possible that they let it out to be a school - but the headmaster would then presumably be a different "Old Blake", which would seem rather a co-incidence.

Cheers,
Peter

[alantwo]

Junction of Clapham Road/Union Street, Bedford c1884.

Image from National Library of Scotland.

Regards

Alan

 

[PRC]

40 minutes ago, alantwo said:

Junction of Clapham Road/Union Street, Bedford c1884.

Thanks Alan,

Any idea what the "La" is running diagonally with houses on it, with a junction in the bottom left hand corner? Going from the 2024 imagery I'm guessing that's Lansdowne Road, which has a small cresecent off it,(also known as Lansdowne Road to keep things simple!),  the west end of which I think we can see in the c1884 extract.

Image courtesy Google Maps.

If that is correct then at best what might become the Union Street end of Warwick Avenue was a track, and the rest just open fields.

Cheers,
Peter

[alantwo]

Hi Peter, I’ve checked the original, yes Lansdowne Road.

Alan

19 minutes ago, PRC said:

Thanks Alan,

Any idea what the "La" is running diagonally with houses on it, with a junction in the bottom left hand corner? Going from the 2024 imagery I'm guessing that's Lansdowne Road, which has a small cresecent off it,(also known as Lansdowne Road to keep things simple!),  the west end of which I think we can see in the c1884 extract.

Image courtesy Google Maps.

If that is correct then at best what might become the Union Street end of Warwick Avenue was a track, and the rest just open fields.

Cheers,
Peter

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Apologies, I thought I had read somewhere that Bedford Preparatory School was originally called Orkney House, but I must have imagined it, as I certainly can't find it now, and from @PRC's research it does seem that the school run by Mr Blake was a separate institution.

I have edited my earlier post to acknowledge my error.

Here is what my GF says in full on the two occasions he mentions the school the first from his entry for 18 April 1915, and the second from his entry for:

1. "We ran into Bedford about 9.00 pm. The station was very busy. With some difficulty I managed to get a “growler” and went round to the Mess which was at Oakley House, Bromham Road. It was really a school – and one which turned out to be of interest, for St Barbe – of whom I shall have something to say later – was there at one time under ? who still ran the school."

2. "Had a chat with St Barbe, who was a tea planter in Malay when war broke out. He had been to School at ORKNEY HOUSE, Bedford under Old Blake. This was the house the 2/5^th had their officers Mess at Bedford in April 1915."

The question mark in the first quote is in the original, and indicates that my GF could not at that time remember the name of the headmaster. He had either remembered it or checked up on it by the time he wrote the second passage. He uses two different names for the school, Oakley House to Orkney House, but obviously it is not possible that both names are correct, The name in the second passage is more likely to be the correct one, as by that time he had been able to fill in the name of the headmaster. That Orkney House is the correct name is further confirmed by PRC having been able to find a Mr Blake as the headmaster of a school of that name.

I therefore think that Oakley House is a red herring, but thank you for looking out the building with that name, @alantwo. It is possible, of course, that the reason why my GF had Oakley House in his mind originally was that there was indeed a house - and a village - of that name in the vicinity.

That just leaves the reference to "Bromham Road" in the first quote, but if my GF had misremembered Oakley House it is possible that he also misremembered Bromham Road, and meant to say Clapham Road.

Bedfordshire Archives have an image or images of Orkney House Preparatory School under reference Z 50/9/212-213a, included in a collection which the catalogue tells us comprises pictures made by the Photographic Unit of Bedfordshire County Council between 1962 and 1995, with the additional information that "original images include postcards and photographs" https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/0d13b846-92bd-4ffc-8b0e-276f0137568f . Naturally these images are not digitised, and can only be viewed by visiting the archive in Bedford in person.

[PRC]

10 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

That just leaves the reference to "Bromham Road" in the first quote, but if my GF had misremembered Oakley House it is possible that he also misremembered Bromham Road, and meant to say Clapham Road.

Sorry i can't resist, but I promise I'll make this the last one - the 1901 OS 25 inch to the mile map showing how much the area had developed.

Clapham Road, (named in the margin of this extract), runs off into the top left corner.
Warwick Avenue was then known as Waldeck Avenue.

Just off the bottom of this extract and the next road running westwards out of Bedford was Bromham Road. While they are a distance apart by this stage, both look to continue into the town centre, with changes of name. Someone new to the town and looking to head west out of the town centre would therefore need to be aware of both.

Image courtesy The National Library of Scotland. https://maps.nls.uk/view/114481872

Do we know where the bulk of the Battalion were billeted - just wondering if the Bromham Road might feature in connection with that - leading to subsequent confusion.

Cheers,
Peter