True Identity of a fallen soldier in the Great War Part - 7

[cnosni]

So on the 12th September 2010 i sent my latest submission, all 17,496 words worth along with the supporting evidence from the original submission.Looking at this submission now i can see i was pretty "Forthright" bordering on hostile at times, lots of block capital letters in bold.I had done this to try and hilight the evidence that the Commission did not mention in their reply to my initial submission, which were-•Image of original Medal Card Index for Private 3/10645, showing first his name to be Robert.•Transcript from “Soldiers Died in the Great War, 1914-1919” database showingfurther evidence that Private 3/10645’s first name was Robert, and additionally that he was born, lived and recruited in Leeds•Photograph of Inscription of Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan’s name on Great War Memorial of St Patricks Church, York Road, Leeds.•The lack of evidence in the General Register Office Registration indexes and 1911 census for a Robert Hoonan having ever existed to be Private 3/10645.I tried to represent that evidence in a different way, a hopefully more logical structure of presentation and reasoned conclusion.However there wasnt much new evidence besides the second example of the page of James Hoolans Army Service record with Roberts name crossed out, so i pinned my hopes on the conclusion that i made at the end of the submission.

[cnosni]

Conclusions at the end of the second submission, get ready, its long winded!!-Comparing what we know about Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan, Private 3/10645 has raised a significant number of similarities between Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and Private 3/10645.-The same first name,-Similar sounding (as pronounced) surname, -Same place of birth, -Same place of residence, -Both fought in the Great War, specifically the Army-Both in the same Regimental Battalion, from 24 Battalions in that Regiment.-Both in the same Battalion at the same time, 6th August 1915,-Both died in the Great War after 6th August 1915.-Neither soldiers Army Service record survives.I believe that these similarities are not coincidence, I believe the odds that two different men could share so many personal attributes and circumstances would be extremely high indeed, too high to be coincidence.I believe that this can be also be demonstrated it to too high to be coincidence when comparing the available records of Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan with those of the supposed Robert Hoonan which has shown there is a huge disparity over when records are available to prove their respective existence.Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan appears in the records in from 1896 to August 1915Robert Hoonan appears in the records only from April 1915 to July 1916Put simply this means that if Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan disappears from the records just after Robert Hoonan appears, then is this merely a coincidence?I am convinced that this is no coincidence and it is my assertion that this comparison of available Civilian and Military records relating to Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan with those of a supposed Robert Hoonan showing one man’s available records come to an end just as another supposed man’s record begin further reinforces my assertion that as there never was a Robert Hoonan born in England and Wales to be Private 3/10645 in the first place then there must be an alternative candidate for the true identity of Private 3/10645.I would like to present a proposed scenario based on the similarities, detailed on page 49 and copied on this page above, between the personal circumstances known to apply to Private 3/10645 and Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan when combined with the disparities in the civilian and military records for Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and the supposed Robert Hoonan overleaf on page 54-Proposed Scenario-Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan was born in Leeds in 1896 (see birth certificate page 14)-Robert survived to appear living with his family in Leeds in the 1911 census of England and Wales (see image of 1911 census entry in letter to CWGC 24th January 2010) -Robert Joined the Army, specifically the 2nd Battalion Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (West Riding) in or before mid February 1915, (see page two Army Service record of Brother James Hoolahan/Hoolan page 21)-That his surname was wrongly recorded at the time of enlistment as the similar sounding (to Hoolan) Hoonan, and as a consequence of this error Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan’s surname does not appear in the Military records (with the exception of James Hoolahan/Hoolan’s Army Service record) and Is shown in subsequent records as Private 3/10645 Robert Hoonan.-That Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan died in the War some time after 6th August 1915 (see Inscription for Robert Hoolan on Great War Memorial on page 24 and Army Service record for Brother James Hoolahan/Hoolan)AND That the death of Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan was actually on the 1st July1916 And was recorded as Private 3/10645,Robert Hoonan 2nd Battalion Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (West Riding)Therefore, if there never was Robert Hoonan to be Private 3/10645 in the first place then given the proven similarities between Private 3/10645 and Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan then I believe that it would be more than reasonable to conclude that- Private 3/10645 was in fact Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and not the non existent as named Robert Hoonan.Therefore, I would appreciate the Commission’s opinion regarding the similarities between what we know to be the personal circumstances and origins of Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and what has been proven to be the personal circumstances and origins of Private 3/10645, and whether the in the Commission’s opinion that these similarities are exceptional in their number and their degree of similarity .I would appreciate the Commission’s opinion regarding the disparities between the available records for Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and the available records for the supposed Robert Hoonan as compared on pages 51 and 52. Additionally, would the Commission also agree that the records show that as Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan disappears from the record evidence just after the appearance of the supposed Robert Hoonan.I would also seek the Commission’s position as to what degree of coincidence could be attributed to the similarities of the personal circumstances of Private 3/10645 and Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and the degree of coincidence in the disparity of the records for Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and the supposed Robert Hoonan.I would appreciate the Commission’s stance regarding the fact that if they accept that the evidence proves there never was a Robert Hoonan to be Private 3/10645 in the first place then there should be an alternative candidate for Private 3/10645.I welcome the Commission’s opinion on the Proposed Scenario detail on page 54 and the suitability of the alternative candidate that I assert to be Private 3/10645, namely Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan.I would also be interested to know that if the Commission do agree with the evidence that I have presented in this and my letter of 24th January that prove that there never was a Robert Hoonan to be Private 3/10645,but they do not agree that Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan is a suitable alternative candidate then is there any other evidence within the Commission’s records for another suitable alternative candidate to Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan to be Private 3/10645 and if not will they seek such evidence from alternative sources?In conclusionI appreciate that it is not within your remit to prove that a Robert Hoonan did or did not exist, and that this state of affairs regards this case has not come about by the fault of the Commission.I understand that your records rely on what was available and what was supplied to yourselves, if this information was incorrect and the Commission have no way of knowing it was incorrect and therefore one would have with what I believe to be the current situation in this case.I believe that in my letter of 24th January 2010 that I had proved beyond doubt that there was no Robert Hoonan born in Leeds, or the West Riding of Yorkshire or the whole of England and Wales between 1837 and 1915 and that in all that time there are only four occurrences of the surname Hoonan appearing in the databases of Ancestry.com/Free BMD and Findmypast.com of the GRO registration indexes and that two of those four instances can be proved to be mistakes, therefore leaving only two examples of the surname Hoonan from two hundred and twenty eight million, four hundred and four thousand two hundred and ninety two births, marriages and deaths registered during that time period. I would also, once again, like to once again highlight that in the 1911 census of England and Wales, with 32 million individual contained within, there is not one instance of the surname Hoonan.Additionally in the 1.7 million names on the CWGC Debt of Honour database that the only instance of the surname Hoonan is Private 3/10645.The only example of an individual with the surname Hoonan is the supposed Robert Hoonan in any records connected with the Great War, including the aforementioned 703.000 individuals on the database 'UK Soldiers Died in the Great War’, the original HMSO 1921 publication Soldiers died in the Great War 1914-1919 and the 4.8 million individuals on the Great War Medal Card Index is the supposed Robert Hoonan and that all of these particular record sources must have been sourced from the one original document, the now non existent Army Service record for Private 3/10645.Just to add to these large statistics is the British Army World War 1 Records 1914-1920 burnt records themselves which contain no record of the surname Hoonan in 3.9 million individual records contained within.The same applies to the 728,000 individual records in the British Army Pension Records 1914-1920; there is no instance of the surname Hoonan.Even without my own evidence, the statistics of the aforementioned official government documents, which number two hundred and seventy two million two hundred and seventy five thousand two hundred and ninety two show only seven instances of the surname Hoonan, two of which are mistakes in transcriptions of the GRO registration indexes and four of which apply to the same individual, Private 3/10645, and those four are exclusively restricted to military records and those four instances are sourced from the then existent Army Service record for Private 3/10645, in other words the four instances in the military records are reduced to one.Robert Hoonan existed as a name only and this was restricted exclusively within the military records, just one instance from nearly two hundred and seventy three million individual records in the civilian and military records.In April this year I made a visit to the grave of Private 3/10645.It is looking very worn and needs attention as the inscription is virtually unreadable, and I would hope that whatever the outcome of all of this that the wheels are put in motion to rectify this.I would therefore ask that if you do reconsider this case that it should be noted that that Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan was born and lived in Leeds as shown in his birth certificate and entry in 1911 census for England and Wales.Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan was in Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (West Riding), specifically the 2nd Battalion, in August 1915, as shown in the army record of his brother James Hoolahan/Hoolan, at the same time as Private 3/10645.That the Army Service record of James Hoolahan/Hoolan clearly shows that his brother Robert, named as next of kin, has had his name was drawn through at later date to that of its original completion on 6th August 1915 and that the facsimile copy of the same record in its original state shows this alteration took place at a later date and in a different hand, thus indicating that Robert was no longer next of kin to James, in other words he had died.Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan died in the Great War and that his sister had his name inscribed as ‘Robert Hoolan’ appearing as Hoolan Robert on the Great War memorial of the church where he was baptised in 1896.Also consider that as this amendment to James Hoolahan/Hoolan’s Army Service record and the inscription on the war memorial show that Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan died in the Great War then why does his name not appear on any of the relevant databases, including that of the Commission’s?And why, despite the evidence on the Army Service record of James Hoolahan/Hoolan that his Brother was in the 2nd Battalion West Riding Regiment, is his name absent from the records of the regiment?Add to this the evidence I have enclosed proving that the casualty 3/10645 DID have the forename Robert AND that he was born and lived in Leeds, as shown on the death certificate and “UK Soldiers Died in the Great War, 1914-1919”database then we have the situation where someone who never existed ,R Hoonan, has the same place of birth, place of residence, in the same Battalion of the same regiment and same fate as Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan and that the fate of Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan does not appear in the Military records and that the Army Service record for the supposed Robert Hoonan and Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan were both destroyed in an air raid in 1940. Robert Hoolahan/Hoolan is missing from these death related Military records and that this absence from those records can be shown to have originated at the time of his enlistment into the Army in or before mid February 1915, with an honest and easily made mistake, the mistake being that the person completing the Army Service record at enlistment misheard the surname of Hoolahan, pronounced as “Hoolan” and recorded the name as “Hoonan”.I would also like to remind you that Mr C Ford, Archivist of the 2nd Battalion Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (West Riding),also known as simply the West Riding Regiment, and abbreviated to WRR in the Commission’s records, concurs with this in his letter to myself dated 21st October 2009.I hope you would agree with me that if you give the ultimate sacrifice for your country then the least you should expect is to be remembered, with your real name.

[cnosni]

So that submission was posted in September 2010, and though i received as acknowledgement of receipt from the CWGC i was not to receive a full response until February 2011.This time the response from the CWGC was formulated by the Manager of the Commissions Records Section, a Mr Nic Andrews.

[cnosni]

As you can see the evidence that i had provided with regards forename and place of birth had now been accepted by the Commission, despite this same evidence being presented in the original submission in January 2010.Mr Andrews also acknowledged that there was no uncertainty about the spelling of the surname of Hoolahan and its corrupted pronunciation of Hoolan.However despite the Commission acknowledging that Private 3/10645 was "probably" my Great Uncle the evidence was still not sufficient for the Commission to amend their records but were willing to add a note that the casualty "may have" spelt his surname Hoolahan or Hoolan.If you take a close look at response number 3 on the CWGC reply you will note a crucial piece of evidence that the CWGC had unearthed themselvesResponse number 3 states-"Information available to the Commission confirms that Private Hoonan's next of kin was recorded as his sister Miss Margaret Ann Hoonan of Sloe Street, York Road Leeds.This information links through the address and forename with the information contained in James Hoolan's enlistment papers....."One has to ask just how many coincidences one needs to be able to say "Hang on a minute,we must have one and the same bloke here!"The two supposedly diffrerent men shared the same forename, had a similar sounding surname,same place of birth,served in the same battalion at the same time,were both killed in the Great War, both having no surviving Army Service Record and now both named their sister as next of kin and that these two next of kins both had the same forenames and middle names AND just happened to be living on the same street at the same time!!That was it, Teddy out of the window, where is my phone!

[kango]

Now now Chris a ranty phone call never buttered no parsnips. :-)You've won some good concessions there, remember the old saying?"Slowly, slowly catchee monkey"