RootsChat.Com
General => Armed Forces => World War One => Topic started by: Recce Mitch on Thursday 13 February 14 00:02 GMT (UK)
-
This is a photo of my mother’s parents. Any information on the service of Arthur Davison would be greatly appreciated.
He served with the Norfolk Regiment
Possibly his Army No is 170203
Below is the only other information I have
Mum’s Family History
Daniel Davison – Arthur’s father (mole catcher)
Isabel Hortence Davison - Arthur’s mother?
William Barber – Jessie’s father (agricultural labourer)
Arthur Davison born 8 December 1890, Aylsham, Buxton.
Arthur Davison (agricultural stockman) married Jessie Barber 6 February 1918, Parish of Skeyton, Norfolk
Arthur Davison resided Swanton Abbot at time of marriage
Jessie Barber resided Skeyton at time of marriage
Cheers
Paul
-
This is a photo of my mother’s parents. Any information on the service of Arthur Davison would be greatly appreciated.
He served with the Royal Norfolk Regiment
Possibly his Army No is 170203
Below is the only other information I have
Mum’s Family History
Daniel Davison – Arthur’s father (mole catcher)
Isabel Hortence Davison - Arthur’s mother?
William Barber – Jessie’s father (agricultural labourer)
Arthur Davison born 8 December 1890, Aylsham, Buxton.
Arthur Davison (agricultural stockman) married Jessie Barber 6 February 1918, Parish of Skeyton, Norfolk
Arthur Davison resided Swanton Abbot at time of marriage
Jessie Barber resided Skeyton at time of marriage
Cheers
Paul
Hello Paul,
Without wishing to be in any way pedantic, this man served with the Norfolk Regiment, as opposed to the Royal Norfolk Regiment. The 'Royal' title was conferred upon Regiment on its 250th anniversary, in 1935.
I can find only one MIC for the Norfolks in the name of Davison, with first initial 'A'.
A. A. Davison, Pte. Norfolk Regt (and Essex Regt.) Army numbers: 29111 and 41380 (respectively). Awarded VM & BWM.
However, there is an Army pension record available on Ancestry, of an 'Arthur Davison' of Swanton Abbot, serving with the Norfolk Regiment and with the service number 170203.
May I ask the source of the service number you quoted: 170203?
Regards,
P.
-
It is hard to see what his regimental number is, but it is not 170203. That number was not used by the Norfolks. The 2 looks like a ? - so even the Ancestry compiler was confused. So it may be 17003 or 14003. Maybe someone at the regimental museum can tell you what numbers were issued in September 1914. Or someone on the Great War Forum. They may also be able to tell you if a No 1 Dress uniform was issued to WW1 short enlistment men. I would have thought that all they got was a khaki uniform.
He only served four days. He may have re-enlisted/was conscripted when the physical requirements were lowered. But as it is a common name you may have problems. If it is the right man the photograph must be later as there is no wife listed with the next of kin.
Added... just noticed the red sash. So some kind of senior NCO. Probably three stripes of a Sergeant. So again a Norfolks expert should be able to date when they had their rank on only one arm.
I would put a link to here on the photograph section for someone to date that dress.
Ken
-
Peter thanks for your reply. I have edited the Royal out of the post as I wasn't aware of when Royal came into being. The Army No was suggested by someone on WWI forum from I believe Ancestry. I don't have an Ancestry account myself.
Ken thanks for your reply. I will do as you suggest re the photo
Cheers
Paul
-
The woman's dress style is pre WW1 but not by much. 1910 give or take a year or two.
Just reading the rest of this & if this is Arthur he would only be around 20 when this was taken & he looks older.
Also is he likely to be a Sgt. at that age ?
-
Jim I think that the photo would've been taken around the time of his marriage in 1918. The mystery I now have is when did he re-enlist as he is a Sjt in the photo
Cheers
Paul
-
I wonder if there are a few questions regarding this post. Name Arthur Davison, seems O.K. Father, Daniel, seems O.K. Mother, Isabel, perhaps, problematic. Perhaps it's Frances, (Fanny England). (2 Census's and army papers show mother as "Fanny") Service number, 170203, papers show what I would say is 170123.
Service length 4 days.
Regards
Malky
-
It all looks a bit odd to me too.
This chap is a Colour Sgt. or WO2 so not someone who's only been in for 4 days.
He appears to have been discharged because he had no teeth whereas this chap looks like he has a full set.
If he re-joined why isn't there a medal card for him ?
Also I find it hard to believe this is a 1918 photo. You don't even see older women dressed like this that late.
-
Malky thanks for your reply.
Re Army No & Mothers name that is why I used possibly & a question mark in relation to those 2 bits of information as I was not sure if they were correct.
Thanks for confirming Mothers name as you said that 2 census's and the Army record confirm Fanny as being her name.
Jim thanks for your reply.
Maybe she is wearing those clothes because they were the best she had and wanted to look her best for the photo. Wouldn't it be possible after some time in the Army he saw a dentist. Weren't a lot of records lost during WWII?
Cheers
Paul
-
About 70% of service docs. were destroyed in a fire in WW2 but the medal cards still exist & there should be one for him if he re-joined.
-
It all looks a bit odd to me too.
This chap is a Colour Sgt. or WO2 so not someone who's only been in for 4 days.
He appears to have been discharged because he had no teeth whereas this chap looks like he has a full set.
If he re-joined why isn't there a medal card for him ?
Also I find it hard to believe this is a 1918 photo. You don't even see older women dressed like this that late.
The photo is not 1918 as the No 1 dress and red tunic was withdrawn in 1914. By 1918 only khaki would have been available. The soldier in the photo is a Sgt and clearly must have enlisted well before 1914 to earn that rank. The peaked cap was introduced into use circa 1906 so you can date the photo between 1906-14. Possible misidentification as your Sgt cannot be born in 1890 I think.
-
Alan thank you for your reply. I have always been told that the photo is of my Grandfather so what I have found out is a little disappointing. I am going to try and compare the photo against some others I have (non military)
Cheers
Paul