TOPIC:

Hi Rob and welcome back

I have, using the information you supplied, gone through the rolls exhaustively.

L Zanetti was in all likelihood L Gunner no. 1830 who was awarded the QSA and KSA with the 2nd Battalion, East Kent. He was as you surmised wounded at Bakenlaagte on 30 October 1901.

W Zanetti poses a bigger problem - the Gunner with 76th RFA was HA Gunner with no initials even resembling those of William Joseph?? This chap was also awarded both the QSA and KSA with the 76th Battery with clasps Paardeberg/Driefontein/Johannesburg/Diamond Hill/ Wittebergen and the Relief of Kimberley (he was a busy man)

He does not appear oin the casualty roll like L Gunner.

Your only solution to this quandry is to pull both chaps papers from Kew. This might reveal why aliases were used.

Regards

Rory

Rory, Many thanks for your quick response. William Zanetti surely is quite elusive

I'm not sure why William ZANNETTI doesn't show, could it be that he enlisted under the name GUMMER? The family name ZANNETTI was frequently misspelt on 19th century records and I have seen it written as AZENTY. Are there any records on rolls in the names GUMMER or AZENTY? Is the number 30925 an army number or a unit number?

I moved to Dubai 2 months ago so not as close to Kew as I like but I will endeavour to visit when I'm next in London.

Thanks again Rob

Hello Rob,
I looked at this a couple of days ago, interestingly, there was a William Zannetti in WO364 who served in 1917 at home in the Labour Corps during the Great War, he lived in Kingston on Thames and was married to a Rose Zannetti, moreover, there was a William Joseph Zannetti who married in 1905, also to a Rose, interestingly, his father's name was Louis Zannetti, food for thought perhaps?
How much do you actually know, that is absolute fact, about this family?
Regards Frank

Hi Frank - yes that's him - I believe that they are one and the same person and his father was definitely Louis (Luigi) ZANNETTI who had settled in Kingston Upon Thames. According to a descendant William had served in the army in both the Boer War and WW1. Thanks for finding this.

William's descendant has written to me and recorded that she discovered 2 W.GUNNER's in army records for the period.

The first is W.Gunner, India 1897-1898, 1st Battalion Royal West Kent Regiment No. 2637. The second is W. Gunner, South Africa, Second Boer War, 1898-1902, 2nd battalion East Surrey regiment No 5737.

William ZANETTI appears on the census for Kingston in April 1901 so do the dates given for the 2 records relate to the campaign dates or denote the actual period of time that the individual soldier spent on campaign?

Given that Kingston was the Regimental HQ for the East Surrey Regiment I suspect that the second record may refer to him. Do you know any further information about W. GUNNER - East Surrey Regt no 5737?

Many thanks for your help.

Kind regards Rob

Hello Rob,
I have to say that I am a little surprised that you, or indeed, anyone else, would think that William Zannetti served in the Anglo Boer War and I am amazed that you would think that he not only committed a very serious matter of a fraudulent enlistment once, but, then, would in effect, do so again, on a second occasion in 1917, I certainly don't think he did.
What is the actual, factual, evidence that you have to suggest that he did serve in this war?
Regards Frank

Hi Frank, apologies for the late response.

According to his descendants he served in both the ABW and WW1 (the latter of which has been proven). My first post in this thread shows a photo of young William Joseph ZANNETTI taken around 1899 wearing a uniform of that period.

I don't think that the name he used on enlistment may have been intentionally used to defraud the army. He was born out of wedlock so it may have been that he used his mother's maiden name(GUNNER)in his early years until his parents married later in his childhood.

Four of my grandfather's brothers served on the Western front during WW1. Their real family name was MASTROCOLA but they all enlisted using the family name Di ROSA which (for reason's I have never discovered) was a business name that their father traded under. It is only on 1918 records that their real family name begins to appear on records (list of absentee voters, medal rolls). The use of an alias at the time of recruitment did not appaer to have had any adverse impact for any of them.