TOPIC:

I now have this one, to William Thomas Jearey. Jearey served in the BSAP from 11 October 1899 to 9 August 1901. He then joined the ASC as a conductor on 1 January 1902 and served till 31 May 1902. This gave him the 18 months for the KSA but as he did not qualify for a KSA in 1902, he got it without the usual two bars.

But since he now had a KSA and service in 1901 which qualified him for a 1901 bar, that 1901 bar should be on this KSA not his QSA. There does not seem to be a great understanding of how the KSA worked even back then.

I will have a look when I get it in my hands and see when the 1901 bar was added and if the rivets aren't right I may move it over, or just put a loose one on the KSA ribbon.

Ryan

Picture is from Gary Neate's auction but since I own the medals I am sure he won't mind me using it.

Hello Ryan

Surely the lack of a SA02 clasp on the KSA is due to the fact he was a civilian and therefore not eligible for clasps? The KSA roll shows no clasps issued.

The medals are correct on account of the chronology of issue: - the SA01 clasp was issued in 1906 off the BSAP roll, and is marked "Not Eligible for KSA" - this was later changed to "Yes". The KSA was not issued until 1910.

The poor clerks didn't stand much chance of getting it correct by the regulations due to the time it took to prepare and check rolls.

Regards
Meurig

Yes he did not get a 1902 bar on his KSA as he was a Conductor.

The state of the medals reflects the chronology of their issue but is not correct based on the regulations.

When his KSA was issued they should have told him to return the QSA and taken the 1901 bar off it and put it on the KSA.

If there is a KSA the date bars go on it. This is exactly the same as the groups previously in this thread except the KSA was issued later. The 1901 bar belongs on the KSA not the QSA.

Here's my only example of a single clasp KSA but it has an interesting history.



Many years ago I picked up the QSA to 5219 Pte. T. Frost West Yorkshire Regiment who was wounded at Willow Grange 23/11/1899. Such documentation as I could find showed that at some point during his service he changed his name to Bridges.

Years later while idling through the DNW catalogue the night before the auction, having already place my bids, my eyes nearly popped out my head when I saw his KSA and 1914-15 trio in the name of Bridges (all West Yorkshire Regiment) which I'd originally overlooked. The KSA is named to 5219 Sjt. T.F. Bridges the 1914-15 Star to 3-8943 Sjt. T.F. Bridges and the pair to 2/Lieut. T.F. Bridges. He was wounded at Gallipoli 13/8/1915.

Judging by more documentation that came with them the previous owner had clearly been baffled as to the absence of Bridges from the QSA roll and I was happy to secure the medals for relative peanuts with the broken group clearly not having a wide appeal.

Bridges is one of those men who qualified for the KSA with single clasp 1902 despite not serving 18 months in South Africa. As he was invalided home as a result of being wounded in action his time convalescing in the UK counted towards the 18 months before he returned to South Africa in early 1902.

Thomas Frost Bridges came from Sheffield and was a humble labourer. In his commission reference in 1917 his CO wrote "He has served with the Battalion since it was raised, being absent in England on account of a wound received in action. He is a man of long experience, an energetic and conscientious worker. Altogether a reliable man." He was further promoted to Lieutenant in 1919 before being demobilised in 1920.

David

Good Morning David.....

That is one He** of a reunite, congratulations and a very great story.....

Mike

Hello David

Super piece of work to reunite.

Having just bought a QSA with a similar history - wounded December 1899, invalided to the UK in 1900 and returned to SA in 1902 - but not entitled to the KSA, just SA02 on the QSA.

I looked at Frost/Bridges and helpfully the KSA roll shows the dates by which they calculated the period of service "at the war" (this is not shown for my man):



I calculate his period of service including sick furlough as 230 days - way short of the 18 months (~545 days).

I understood that the sick furlough counted towards "active service" and therefore when that expires he is not on "active service".

Am I mis-understanding?

Regards
Meurig