Thomas Woodall

[Annette7]

Thomas Woodall, son of Samuel Woodall and Ann Peabody (married 21/12/1892 Staveley, Derbyshire) - his birth reg'd Sept.qtr. 1893 Chesterfield (regn. district for Staveley) mmn Peabody, was baptised 9/8/1893 Staveley and 1901 and 1911 census confirm he was born in Staveley.

He married Alice Maud Neale 5/4/1915 Owston, Yorkshire (as earlier stated).

He definitely wasn't killed WW1 (as you say yourself, he returned to Doncaster after the war and worked at a colliery, fell off a roof and injured his back) - indeed, he appears to have died in Doncaster, Dec.qtr.1937 aged 44.

You begin this thread by stating 'Thomas Woodall bc.1893 Coventry, moved to Doncaster'.   As birth, baptism and 1901 and 1911 census' all show Thomas Woodall was born 1893 Staveley, Derbyshire and he did indeed move to Doncaster.

Army record (Pension Ledgers & index cards) shows he was a Corporal in Grenadier Guards, regimental number 15577, address Highfields (Doncaster district), Yorkshire. Plus he is listed in Medal Index.   However, there are no service or pension records for him (you have to remember that 60% of records were destroyed due to enemy bombing in WW2 - including those for both of my own grandfathers, alas).

There are no other army records available in which he appears so not possible to give you any more information about him, other than what you now seem to know.

Annette 

[Katrina1959]

Thomas Woodall, son of Samuel Woodall and Ann Peabody (married 21/12/1892 Staveley, Derbyshire) - his birth reg'd Sept.qtr. 1893 Chesterfield (regn. district for Staveley) mmn Peabody, was baptised 9/8/1893 Staveley and 1901 and 1911 census confirm he was born in Staveley.

He married Alice Maud Neale 5/4/1915 Owston, Yorkshire (as earlier stated).

He definitely wasn't killed WW1 (as you say yourself, he returned to Doncaster after the war and worked at a colliery, fell off a roof and injured his back) - indeed, he appears to have died in Doncaster, Dec.qtr.1937 aged 44.

Thank you for trying

You begin this thread by stating 'Thomas Woodall bc.1893 Coventry, moved to Doncaster'.   As birth, baptism and 1901 and 1911 census' all show Thomas Woodall was born 1893 Staveley, Derbyshire and he did indeed move to Doncaster.

Army record (Pension Ledgers & index cards) shows he was a Corporal in Grenadier Guards, regimental number 15577, address Highfields (Doncaster district), Yorkshire. Plus he is listed in Medal Index.   However, there are no service or pension records for him (you have to remember that 60% of records were destroyed due to enemy bombing in WW2 - including those for both of my own grandfathers, alas).

There are no other army records available in which he appears so not possible to give you any more information about him, other than what you now seem to know.

Annette

[Katrina1959]

Just for some further clarification, the Thomas killed in WW1 (14/10/1918) was, as has been mentioned before, from Stalybridge and was the son of a John Woodall and (Eve) Maria Plant (married 1890).   Said son Thomas shown on census as bc.1899 (not ca.1893) and his birth was registered Ashton under Lyne (reg. district for Stalybridge) in Sept.qtr.1898 - mmn Plant.

So, this is clearly not the man who was married to Alice Maud Neale - is it the husband of Alice that we are still seeking information about?    I'm confused too.

Annette
The Thomas Woodall who was killed in action 14/10/1918 was in 1/7 Battalion Cheshire Regiment Service no 243608 is the one married to Alice Maud Neale he was born 20th July 1893 in Staveley Chesterfield ( no connection to Staley Bridge ) I have his Birth Certificate which clearly states hi parents as Samuel Woodall and Anne Peabody and a copy of the marriage Certificate witnessed by May Ann and Jonathan Gregory Neale's Mark, the other Thomas is the one found as a corporal in the Greadier Guards.
Like I have already stated I am trying to clarify who this Thomas is and I would be a lot happier when it is resolved, this no reflection on yourself but I do wish that people read the posts properly then there would not be any confusion as to why I have asked for the help in the first place.
The second Thomas seems to be a bit of a mystery, However I know that Alice Woodall did not marry him.   And taking into account  that she had lost her husband in 1918 and then her baby daughter  Rosanna 3 months later I really do not think she would have gone to the arms of another  especially when her sister in law was living so close by and keeping an eye on even through her own grief because I really knew that was what my grandmother would do for her brother.

[Annette7]

Just for some further clarification, the Thomas killed in WW1 (14/10/1918) was, as has been mentioned before, from Stalybridge and was the son of a John Woodall and (Eve) Maria Plant (married 1890).   Said son Thomas shown on census as bc.1899 (not ca.1893) and his birth was registered Ashton under Lyne (reg. district for Stalybridge) in Sept.qtr.1898 - mmn Plant.

So, this is clearly not the man who was married to Alice Maud Neale - is it the husband of Alice that we are still seeking information about?    I'm confused too.

Annette
The Thomas Woodall who was killed in action 14/10/1918 was in 1/7 Battalion Cheshire Regiment Service no 243608 is the one married to Alice Maud Neale he was born 20th July 1893 in Staveley Chesterfield ( no connection to Staley Bridge ) I have his Birth Certificate which clearly states hi parents as Samuel Woodall and Anne Peabody and a copy of the marriage Certificate witnessed by May Ann and Jonathan Gregory Neale's Mark, the other Thomas is the one found as a corporal in the Greadier Guards.
Like I have already stated I am trying to clarify who this Thomas is and I would be a lot happier when it is resolved, this no reflection on yourself but I do wish that people read the posts properly then there would not be any confusion as to why I have asked for the help in the first place.
The second Thomas seems to be a bit of a mystery, However I know that Alice Woodall did not marry him.   And taking into account  that she had lost her husband in 1918 and then her baby daughter  Rosanna 3 months later I really do not think she would have gone to the arms of another  especially when her sister in law was living so close by and keeping an eye on even through her own grief because I really knew that was what my grandmother would do for her brother.

I'm sorry, Katrina, but you are wrong in saying the Thomas Woodall in Cheshire Regiment who was killed 14/10/1918 is the man married to Alice Maud Neale.  Army record of soldiers effects shows his effects went to his sister Mary E Woodall on 23/4/1920.   He was born 1898 Stalybridge and his sister Mary Elizabeth was born 1894 Stalybridge - Stalybridge was historically part of Cheshire and one can understand why young Thomas joined a Cheshire Regiment. 

I've viewed the marriage certificates of Thomas Woodall/Alice Maud Neale and that of his sister Mary Ann Woodall to James Buckley on FindMyPast so I know all the details.   I note that when Mary Ann married 16/1/1915 Owston, the witnesses were obviously her brother Pte. Woodall and his future wife Alice Maud Neale. 

I don't know how I can convince you any clearer - the Thomas killed 14/10/1918 had his personal effects go to his sister Mary E Woodall (authorised in 1920) whereas the Thomas Woodall born 1893 Staveley had no sister Mary E. indeed his sister was Mary Ann Buckley (having married 3 months before he did).

I don't know what the background to your research is but the husband of Alice Maud Woodall, nee Neale was not killed in WW1.   

According to the records Alice Maud Neale was born 30/6/1891, died 1978 Doncaster.

Births entries shows that she and husband Thomas had 3 children at Doncaster:

Thomas A. born 1916
Rosanna M. born 1918, died 1919
John L. born 1922. 

We are not allowed to give details of 1939 Register (copyright) but from free index I can tell you that both boys are with Alice.

I don't know the background to your search so don't know whether Alice stated that her husband had been killed in WW1 when he clearly hadn't.   Perhaps they split up soon after his return but then, if so, who fathered her younger son born 1922?   Then again, you said yourself earlier that after he was demobbed he worked in a colliery and that he fell off a roof, injured his back i.e. if he had been killed in the war he wouldn't been demobbed and gone to work in a colliery.

The Thomas in the Grenadier Guards must be the one who was married to Alice Maud Neale - his entry in Pension Ledger and Index Cards shows home address as Highfields (which was the area of Doncaster the family lived in).   There was no other Thomas Woodall living in that area.

I can assure you that myself and others trying to help you do carefully read what you post but there are times when you contradict yourself, as with Thomas who you state was killed WW1 and then later say he was demobbed and went to work in a colliery.   Do you understand what I mean?

Annette

   

   

[chempat]

I started out looking for just about any Wood* born in Coventry, 1891 to 1895, to help, seemed straight-forward.

Then I twigged:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=764644.0

You never got in touch for me to send you the birth certificate.

[Annette7]

I started out looking for just about any Wood* born in Coventry, 1891 to 1895, to help, seemed straight-forward.

Then I twigged:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=764644.0

You never got in touch for me to send you the birth certificate.

Having just read through all 8 pages on that thread (in early 2017, on which I contributed too) everything said then is just being repeated.   When we actually 'prove' that some things you are saying are simply wrong you won't accept it and don't respond when these are pointed out.   18 months down the line to this thread and you are still quoting the same incorrect information ignoring all that has been done for you and the fact that a lot of what you state is simply not accurate and proof has been given to clarify what we say.

I will bow out of this now - we can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped even when we've proved that a lot of what you are stating as 'fact' is clearly untrue.

Such a shame.

Annette