TOPIC:

Hi! I'm doing some background on collateral ancestors, brothers F. and B. STAFFORD. One served in the 1st Btn and the other in the 2nd., respectively.
The medal rolls for B. are consistent in that the forms were completed correctly in 1901 (in SA) &1902 (in Ireland) and his service history was annotated correctly. However, the roll completed in SA for brother F in the 1st Btn appears to be in error. The entry has the correct Regimental No., but the initial is 'B' and it is under B Stafford that the name search on this site is returned. The pertinent medal roll for 1902 is missing and F's service history has not been annotated as receiving the medal. Neither was the assigned clasp assigned to his brother.
So my questions are:
With respect to medal administration and completion of forms, would more weight be placed on getting the Regimental No. correct or the initial/name?
Is the service history record updated on receipt of the medal rolls or is there some other mechanism?
If F were eligible, on what basis could it be refused?
Thank you for any light that can be shone on these matters.
JS

JS,

1. Naming. I would imagine there was a strong desire to name the medals correctly at the first striking and that all elements would have equal weight. I would hazard a guess that the regiment was the least likely to be incorrect, followed by the surname. Whether the number or initials would come next in the ranking is not possible to say. We see medals that have both number and initials corrected. It may be that a recipient would be more likely to ask for a correction to the initials than a correction to the number?

2. Process. Recent threads on the Bechuanaland Rifles suggested there must be another document in the naming process, used to identify the medals to be named. The medals rolls were the primary input to this process but, after they were received, there was a process step whereby the authorities reconciled the situations where people were on the rolls for different units or on 3 rolls for the same unit etc. These document are not known which is a great pity.

3. For Imperial troops medals could be withheld (or subsequently forfeited once issued) if the recipient committed a misdemeanour eg a crime or an act such as desertion.

Here is an extract from the Manual of Military Law, 1907:

F Stafford on the rolls has number 2959 and initial B. When you search FMP, his service papers identify him as Francis.



4204 B Stafford relates to Benjamin



The service papers are available free from the National Archives or at cost via FindMyPast. These documents will clarify their service in South Africa and the awards made.

WO97 confirms Benjamin Stafford served in South Africa from the 14th of December 1901 until the 29th of November 1902 and does show entitlement to Orange Free State, Transvaal, South Africa 1901 and 1902.
Francis Stafford served in South Africa from the 12th of September 1900 until the 24th of March 1902, his entitlement is not shown, which, of course, in WO97 is sadly so often the case.

Thanks.
If the medal were forfeited, would that be recorded on his service history?
JS

Frank Kelley wrote: WO97 confirms Benjamin Stafford served in South Africa from the 14th of December 1901 until the 29th of November 1902 and does show entitlement to Orange Free State, Transvaal, South Africa 1901 and 1902.
Francis Stafford served in South Africa from the 12th of September 1900 until the 24th of March 1902, his entitlement is not shown, which, of course, in WO97 is sadly so often the case.

Pity. but I guess it's too much to expect that all the paper work survived.
How much value did the soldiers put on receiving the medals? Would they tend to cause a bit of a stink if they did not receive something they were entitled to? Unfortunately, neither of them had families to inherit the medals or stories, so I'm very much in the dark.