Posthumous VCs

[roberthenry]

Michael Ashcroft along with some ex SAS soldiers are at present lobbying for posthumous VCs to be awarded to two SAS soldiers, Sgt Talaiasi Labalaba and trooper Thomas Tobin who were killed in the battle of Mirbat during the secret war in Oman 1972.

It appears that the reason given at the time was that, since it was a secret war, to award posthumous VCs would have drawn unwanted attention to the secret activities of the SAS.

Not much hope of an SAS man ever being awarded a VC if that is the case.

I have only read a short summary of the battle but I hope they have more luck than Blair Maynes supporters had.

[anthony]

Aug 23, 2011 8:44:22 GMT roberthenry said:

Michael Ashcroft along with some ex SAS soldiers are at present lobbying for posthumous VCs to be awarded to two SAS soldiers, Sgt Talaiasi Labalaba and trooper Thomas Tobin who were killed in the battle of Mirbat during the secret war in Oman 1972.

It appears that the reason given at the time was that, since it was a secret war, to award posthumous VCs would have drawn unwanted attention to the secret activities of the SAS.

Not much hope of an SAS man ever being awarded a VC if that is the case.

I have only read a short summary of the battle but I hope they have more luck than Blair Maynes supporters had.

Many Victoria Cross recipients have said that others were also deserving of the award and Sergeant Talaiasi Labalaba would have been a very worthy recipient. However, the Victoria Cross has no tradition of belated awards and no award has ever been gazetted more than six years after the action commended including the six medals presented to next of kin in 1907.

[roberthenry]

Coghill and Melvill awards were gazetted in 1907, 28 years after the action. But I am of the opinion that if people do not lobby nothing will change' if decisions taken at the time were wrong they need to be revised and amended if necessary. The 1907 awards were made after lobbying for posthumous medals. After all was it not the continuing lobbying of Coghill and Melvill's familys that those two very dubious awards were made.

[anthony]

Aug 24, 2011 11:01:07 GMT roberthenry said:

Coghill and Melvill awards were gazetted in 1907, 28 years after the action. But I am of the opinion that if people do not lobby nothing will change' if decisions taken at the time were wrong they need to be revised and amended if necessary. The 1907 awards were made after lobbying for posthumous medals. After all was it not the continuing lobbying of Coghill and Melvill's familys that those two very dubious awards were made.

In 1907 the following notice was published in the London Gazette.

‘The KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the Decoration of the Victoria Cross being delivered to the representatives of the undermentioned Officer's and men who fell in the performance of acts of valour, and with reference to whom it was notified in the London Gazette that they would have been recommended to Her late Majesty for the Victoria Cross had they survived:’

The only difference between the London Gazette, 2 May 1879:

Lieutenant Melville, of the 1st Battalion 24th Foot, on account of the gallant efforts made by him to save the Queen's Colour of his Regiment after the disaster at Isandlwanha, and also Lieutenant Coghill, 1st Battalion 24th Foot, on account of his heroic conduct in endeavouring-to save his brother1 officer's life, would have been recommended to Her Majesty for the Victoria Cross had they survived.

And the London Gazette, 15 January 1907.

Lieutenant Melvill, of the 1st Battalion 24th Foot, on account of the gallant efforts made by him to save the Queen's Colour of his Regiment after the disaster at Isandlwanha, and also Lieutenant Coghill, 1st Battalion 24th Foot, on account of his heroic conduct in endeavouring to save his brother officer's life, would have been recommended to Her Majesty for the Victoria Cross had they survived.

Is the correct spelling of Melvill without an e!

The 1907 cases were six of nine such cases prior to the South African War. Unlike 1907 or the three earlier 1902 memoranda cases for the South African War, there was no later notice to say that the next of kin of Home, Salkeld and Bankes, all Indian Mutiny awards, had received the medal. So the awards were gazetted in the case of Melvill and Coghill in 1879 not 1907. It should be mentioned that all six recipients listed in 1907 were already listed in VC books as recipients some with and other without mention of memoranda.

I agree with your sentiment about lobbying but the words of the King in 1907 indicate only those ‘notified in the London Gazette’ so that there would be no question of belated awards. Queen Elizabeth has indicated her wish not to reopen awards which was again affirmed in 2005 by her deft handling of the New Zealand attempt to obtain a Victoria Cross for the late Lance Sergeant Haane Manahi DCM for Tunisia in 1943.

[roberthenry]

It would appear by your explanation that what you appear to be saying is, that the posthumous awards made on 8th August 1902 and again on January 15 1907 were nothing more than an exercise in placating the relatives, or representatives of the men concerned, as they were already gazetted and it was unnecessary to Gazette them again as they had already appeared in Victoria Cross lists.
That is certainly not how I interpret it. They had not been awarded VCs because all of them had died during the action in which they "Would" have been recommended, not “Were” recommended "had they survived", and it had been decided that no provision had been made for an award of a VC in those circumstances.

You say that there was no further notices for Home, Salkeld and Bankes, but when I look I find that all three had survived the actions for which they were awarded the VC, although later killed in action’ or died of wounds before they were gazetted. They had been provisionally awarded the Victoria Cross. Bankes by the commander in Chief in India and Home and Salkeld by Major General Sir Archdale Wilson Bart K.C.B. so there would be no further need for more notification.

The spelling of Melvill in any publications I have is spelt without an e and it also appears on the Rorkes drift website without an e The LG appears to be the only place , it is spelt with an e.

The Lance Sergeant Haane Manahi case I believe mirrors that of Lt Col Blair Mayne where the citations were made out for the award of the VC but later altered to the DCM for Haane and another DSO for Mayne. Although it is not known who changed the citations VC rationing has been suggested in both cases. Both decisions I believe were wrong and should be changed, and in Maynes case the lobbying has continued.

[anthony]

My thanks to Robert for his thoughtful comments.

The gazettes of 8 August 1902 and 15 January 1907 represent a formal change in policy on posthumous awards. The gazette of 15 January 1907 also represents a continuation of the policy against belated awards. Although next of kin played a crucial part in leading to the 1907 decision, the King had twice rejected War Office submissions since 1902 to reverse the policy. It was only when the King had been assured by War Office that there were only six remaining memoranda cases and that there would be no belated awards that the King agreed to the policy change.

Each gazette listed six names but three of the 1902 names were not memoranda cases but represented the first three official posthumous awards gazetted. The other three 1902 names and the six 1907 names were the final nine of the 12 memoranda cases. There were no further notices for Home, Salkeld and Bankes who were subject to memoranda for the Indian Mutiny. All three had survived the actions for which they were awarded the VC, although later killed in action or died of wounds before they were gazetted. However so did one of the other two Indian Mutiny memoranda recipients, Edward Spence.

The reason for the War Office change of heart is undoubtedly the fact that they were ‘provisionally awarded the Victoria Cross. Bankes by the Commander in Chief in India and Home and Salkeld by Major General Sir Archdale Wilson Bart K.C.B.’ These facts were included in the published memoranda. I also agree with Robert that there was ‘no further need for more notification’.

Until 1920, the Victoria Cross Warrant was silent on the question of posthumous awards and silence usually means assent. So in 1902 and 1907, no regulation needed to change just the policy. In 1920, a specific provision was included in the warrant stating posthumous awards were allowed but that was after more than one hundred posthumous awards had been gazetted for the First World War.

If there was no need for more notification in respect to Home, Salkeld and Bankes then the 1902 and 1907 gazettes, which essentially repeated the earlier gazettals, was more in the nature of notifications of a change in policy that the gazettal of the award.

[roberthenry]

Anthony, When you say that Home, Salkeld and Bankes were the subject of memoranda. In what way. I interpret it that their awards were made under paragraph 7 of the VC warrant, ie. on the spot by their commanding officer and forwarded for confirmation, hence the "provisional" awards.
Edward Spence may have come under paragraph 8, ie. not witnessed by a commanding officer and his deed only confirmed after his death??

I agree that the 1902 and 1907 awards cleared the way for posthumous awards to be made, but I still believe that the reasons those awards were made was to confirm that those men would now be recognised as recipients of the VC, not just names who "had they survived" would have been recommended for the VC.

[anthony]

The Home, Salkeld and Bankes awards were made under paragraph 7 of the VC warrant, ie. on the spot by their commanding officer and forwarded for confirmation. I suggest that "provisional" awards required confirmation. The memoranda for Home, Salkeld and Bankes state they were not awarded the VC. In the words of the gazette they would have been recommended to Her Majesty for confirmation had they survived.

The warrant did not prevent awards being forwarded to next of kin and the change of heart at the War Office was almost certainly because the awards had been provisionally conferred. The change of heart took place some months after the three memoranda appeared in the gazette and I have searched the London Gazette seeking a notice similar to the 1902 and 1907 notices without success.

If there was no need for notification in respect to Home, Salkeld and Bankes then the 1902 and 1907 gazettes, which essentially repeated the earlier gazettes, was more in the nature of notifications of changes in policy rather than the gazettal of the awards.

[roberthenry]

Thanks Anthony I never knew that those three VCs had not been awarded at the time. It would be interesting to know the circumstances as to how they were eventually awarded.

[anthony]

I am checking on the details the three VCs and will get back to you. The Wikipedia entry for Walter Hamilton VC (Afghanistan 1879) stated that this was the first posthumous award of the Victoria Cross. The article then stated that ‘Because he was not alive to receive it the British War Office decided that it could not be awarded to him. Hamilton's father Alexander protested vigorously against this decision and only after several months of dispute did the War Office concede and award the medal.” I have deleted it and added the following.

On 15 May 1879, six weeks after the action at Futtehabad, the Government in India forwarded a Victoria Cross recommendation for Hamilton to London which on 6 August determined that his act was not covered by the Victoria Cross regulations. There was a change of heart when the Secretary of State for India, Lord Cranbrook, noted that Hamilton’s actions were similar to those of Captain John Cook and Lieutenant Reginald Hart who had both been awarded the Victoria Cross two months earlier. By this stage Hamilton had been killed at Kabul on 3 September and in order to avoid the precedent of seeming to approve a posthumous award the submission to the Queen on 28 September was backdated to 1 September 1879. The award was gazetted on 7 October 1879, the 12th Victoria Cross recommendation approved after the death of the recipient. (M J Crook, The evolution of the Victoria Cross, Midas books, 1975, pp. 73-74.)

[anthony]

MEMORANDUM.

Lieutenants Duncan Charles Home and Philip Salkeld, Bengal Engineers, upon whom the Victoria Cross was provisionally conferred by Major-General Sir Archdale Wilson, Bart., K.C.B., for their conspicuous bravery in the performance of the desperate duty of blowing in the Cashmere Gate of the Fortress of Delhi, in broad daylight, under a heavy fire of musketry, on the morning of the 14th September, 1857, preparatory to the assault, would have been recommended to Her Majesty for confirmation in that distinction, had they survived.

Gazetted 18 June 1858
Medals to next of kin on 7 July 1858

MEMORANDUM.

Cornet William George Hawtrey Bankes, 7th Hussars, upon whom the Commander-in-Chief in India has reported that the Decoration of the Victoria Cross has been provisionally conferred, for conspicuous gallantry, in thrice charging a body of infuriated fanatics, who had rushed on the guns employed in shelling a small mud fort in the vicinity of Moosa-Bagh, Lucknow, on the 19th of March, 1858,—of the wounds received on which occasion he subsequently died, would have been recommended to Her Majesty for confirmation in that distinction, had he survived.

Gazette 24 December 1858
Medal to next of kin on 30 December 1858

[roberthenry]

Thank you for the reply Anthony, but it would seem that from what you say that there was no delay in the awards to Home, Salkeld and Banks. The next of kin recieved them within a few weeks after they were gazetted.

[anthony]

Robert.

I agree that that there was no delay in the awards to Home, Salkeld and Banks so it raises the question as to what was the meaning of the memoranda. There were twelve cases in all, nine from before the Boer War and three during the Boer War. In nine cases no VC was sent to the next of kin until 1902 or 1907. In three cases there was no delay in the awards being forwarded and no further notice appeared in the gazette to indicate that the medals had been sent to next of kin. While there were gazette notices in 1902 and 1907 that stated the crosses had been forwarded to next of kin the actual wording essentially remained unchanged from memoranda that appeared in the gazette shortly after their deaths. So in all twelve cases the next of kin either immediately or belatedly received the medal and the gazetted words for all twelve cases is that they ‘would have been recommended to Her Majesty for confirmation had they survived’.

There is no dispute that nine medals went to next of kin in 1902 and 1907 but should these dates or dates when the memoranda were originally published determine when they they should be considered VC recipients. I realise it is an academic question but I feel that they were and were considered at the time VC recipients from the date the memoranda were original published.

Anthony

[roberthenry]

Anthony, The memoranda for Home Salkeld and Banks are worded

"they would have been recommended to Her Majesty for confirmation had they survived."

That says to me that they would have been presented to her Majesty to be confirmed as Victoria Cross recipients had they survived. The operative word being "confirmed"

The rest of the memoranda are worded differently using words such as

"Would have been recommended to her Majesty for the decoration of the Victoria Cross had he survived"

and that phrase alone says to me that they were not Victoria Cross awardees until the situation was rectified in 1902 and 1907.

[anthony]

Robert

I agree with the critical distinction you make but the salient words for the Home, Salkeld and Banks trio and the other nine are that "they would have been recommended to Her Majesty ... had they survived ..." Whether it was confirmation or recommended both types of memoranda are saying that the awards had not been approved by the Queen. Whether it was one day or three weeks or sixty years before the next of kin received the actual cross the fact is that all twelve were sent and in all cases it was because of the original memoranda. For the Home, Salkeld and Banks trio there was never any official acknowledgement that the crosses were delivered to their next of kin unlike 1902 and 1907. But in none of the twelve cases were the individual memoranda cancelled and a citation substituted.

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of a pre 1907 official list of recipients. In addition to the note listing the names of those who forfeited the award was there another note listing the names of those who were subject to memoranda? Did such a list include the names of Home, Salkeld and Banks and were they all listed in the alphabetical list like those who had forfeited their award? I suspect there was an official list since Parry’s 1906 edition lists 522 awards and Wilkins’ 1904 work lists the 520 recipients to that date.

Anthony