TOPIC:

Hi all. i am still assessing the gray areas found between a despatch and the gazette and the inferences and notations in-between giving rise to perceptions of an award in 1901.

"8th May 1901 - an extract from general Plumers Special Despatch" is listed on this website.

Is anyone able to tell me please, where or how I may be able to view the original or the recorded copy so I can understand the full original wording ??

Researcherman
I am not entirely sure of what you are looking for. If, however, you have a look in the publication "South African War Honours and Awards 1899-1902" (SBN 85368 052 3) you will see instances in Lord Kitchener's "mentions" where he includes extracts from a subordinate senior officer's despatch of a certain date. These extracts can be a little hard to trace as they are not necessarily in date order. These extracts may be from an "ordinary" despatch; or a "special". They frequently cite examples of good work.
If this is what you are looking for, a good start would be to identify the unit involved, the date of the engagement and a soldier's name. Then you might search through Lord Kitchener's despatches and hopefully find what you are looking for.
A "mention" did not always end up with a medal being awarded. I am sure that, often, a "mention" was considered adequate reward in itself.
Hope this helps
IL.

Ok. I will give that a go.
The conflict I have is because I have two Sgt's from the same event gazetted are with MiD's, however one is recorded as a DCM in some publications.
Certainly the 2nd Sgt's actions are more gallant than the other and could easily have been the difference if a DCM was given.
Anecdotally "the other" claims many years later he was dudded at not getting a DCM. Maybe suggesting (or incorrectly thinking) between the lines that his mate "got" one and he didn't.
I have it on reasonable authority that two awards (MiD and DCM) for the same action is quite unlikely.

But on reading the extract on this site, the more gallant (perhaps adventurous is a better description), is noted in brackets as being promoted to a commission. (so why not the DCM). ??
It just makes you think, and if there is more evidence or documentation, it would be nice to read it in its original and/or full form.
Not having a yay or a nay is hard to let the subject go as complete. Thank you for the next clue.

Hello researcherman

You are better off consulting the original source - The London Gazette which is online.

I have been working on the ABW DCMs - trying to find a reason for every award, and am moving on to MIDs.

Regards
Meurig

Hi Meurig

I'm very interested, not say intrigued, by your comment about trying to research a reason for every award of the DCM. How are you getting on with this monumental task?

If it's any help I have the DCM group to 3186 Pte. G. Young of the Gloucesters. There's no indication in the usual reference sources as to why he received the DCM but a typewritten note that accompanied the group states that the Gloucesters' archives mentions that Young was one of 6 men of the battalion awarded the DCM who particularly distinguished themselves bringing in the wounded at Paardeberg. The others were 3348 Pte. E. Carpenter, 3871 Pte. E. James, 2641 Pte. R.E. Rees, 2622 Pte. J. Scaife and 3200 Pte. C.W. Smith.

Your MID project is even more jaw dropping!

Regards

David

G'day Meurig.
My investigation is found in the London Gazette,
9 July 1901 second entry - both Sergeants
Tasmanian Imperial Bushman and South Australian Imperial Bushmen

Considering your project, I have quite some detail of the event,
so when you get around to this one in your sequence,
should you wish that info at some point in time, contact me.

Cheers