Arthur Davison -Norfolk Regt

[Recce Mitch]

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

[Peter J]

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.

[km1971]

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

[Recce Mitch]

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

[jim1]

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 ?

[Recce Mitch]

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

[Flattybasher9]

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

[jim1]

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.

[Recce Mitch]

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