shinglma Posted 16 August , 2003 Share Posted 16 August , 2003 Accroding to my notes from Officers Died in... HENRY DELAFOSSE SIMPSON T/LT Killed in action 24/08/1917 but CWGC has HUGH DELAFOSSE SIMPSON Could someone check ODGW as I am separated from my copy and I want to know whether its my error. Thanks in advance Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 16 August , 2003 Share Posted 16 August , 2003 Hello again, Mike! It's HENRY in "Officers Died....." Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 16 August , 2003 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2003 and hello again to you Tom! The rate these discrepancies are coming up it could be a long night - you didn't have plans did you? :-) Thanks once again. Kind regards Mike S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 16 August , 2003 Share Posted 16 August , 2003 This name is shown as Hugh Delafosse SIMPSON in the 1984 reprint of the original 1927 CWGC register for Tyne Cot Memorial. Due to a different typeface being used for amendments, it can be seen that this name was an addition between 1927 and 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 16 August , 2003 Author Share Posted 16 August , 2003 That suggests then that originally both ODGW and CWGC had this chap down as Henry only for it later to be corrected in only the CWGC register to Hugh? The odd thing is that I have been through several hundred of the other ranks and found only a handful of discrepancies yet with the officers have found three in fifteen records. Thanks once again Terry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 17 August , 2003 Share Posted 17 August , 2003 Sorry - it doesn't suggest that as far as CWGC is concerned. My previous posting was unclear. His whole entry is in a different typeface not just his name. This simply means that they did not have his name in their records in 1927 or that the entry was amended in some way. From the style and layout it looks like an addition. This was a very common occurence and thousands of names were missing from the earliest editions of the registers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinglma Posted 17 August , 2003 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2003 Thanks Terry - that's interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now