Find Ancestors

Hello,

I have seen from Ancestry, that my great-great uncle Charles Johnson joined up in WW1 to join the King Liverpool North, but was discharged as not being fit for service. He then joined the 3rd Lancashire Fusiliers; but I am a bit confused - how come he is not fit for the King Liverpool North, yet is able to join the 3rd Lancashire Fusiliers?

Any help/suggestions are most welcome.

Regards

Rachel

You need to say which Charles Johnson - there are LOTS of them! then someone can look at the record. Does the index on Ancestry give year and place of birth? If not, how many pages does it say there are?

Hello,

Thank you for your message - yes Johnson was certainly a popular name! Charles Johnson was born in 1885 in Widnes, Lancashire. It says there are 9 pages; however after the 9th page, there is another record also about Charles Johnson and the name, age, occupation etc all seem to be the same as that on the 8th and 9th pages.

Regards

Rachel

Rachel

I havent looked at the record but I'd take a bet that he joined as a 'reserve'

Ginny

Name: Charles Johnson
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1885
Age at Enlistment: 29
Birth Parish: Widnes
Birth County: Lancashire
Document Year: 1914
Regimental Number: K13832
Number of Images: 7


Note it say's 7 pages, If you are on the 7th page and you click next page tab then you are generally looking at another persons record

Page 9 is image 6849 the army number is 44982 and he was also discharged as medically unfit and has got a different dob

These are two different men

Roy

Hi,

That's him - I can't understand why he was unfit for the Kings North Liverpool and was fit for the Lancashire Fusilers though. Also, when he was discharged, he had a change of occupation and did not return home, but went to Manchester which I also find puzzling. Finally, after the 7th page, the information is still the same so whilst it looks as though its another person's record, could the informaiton be to do with my Charles Johnson?

Regards

Rachel

I don't think the second lot of records relates to the same man. Different occupation and he's living in Manchester. Don't know where your man was living but his mother was in Liverpool

RachelHi,

I have found that on page 6 (proceedings on Discharge) his occupation is now a hospital steward, and his address is in Oakfield Drive, Manchester and these details are the same as the next record (page 8 onwards).

Is this common - to have a change of occupation when being discharged and not to return home?

Regards

I think i have the answer,
His first army service was with King Liverpool North which was a Infantry regiment, so he would need to be at the peak of physical fitness.

this would not stop him joining a regiment that was not as demanding, and the second record you have is for a man who joined the army medical corps.
so could? be your man

Roy

Sorry but I still think you are mixing up two different man.

Your Charles Johnson who joined the Kings Liverpool North had the service number13832. He enlisted in Liverpool in 1914 and was discharged in 1917.

The other Charles Johnson enlisted in Manchester. His number was 44982 and he enlisted in 1915.

Two completely different men.

Kath. x

Hi,

Thank you for your reply. That does seem to make sense - although I am still unclear as to why his occupation would change on discharge, and why he went back to Manchester as opposed to returning to Liverpool

Regards

Rachel

Having looked again at both records it looks like Kathleen is correct these are Two completely different men.

if you look again the two men even have different colour eyes and hair

Roy

Rachel

The record of your Charles Johnson ends on the image number 2721 - Top left of the image. The next page is someone totally different. Your man only served 26 days and was discharged 'not likely to become an efficient solider' which could mean any one of many things for example his eye sight was poor, his hearing was impaired, he may have had a bad chest, he may have been ‘simple’ or in military speak ‘of defective intelligence' etc…
Is there anything you know about him after his belief military career that would help you piece together the reasons why he was discharged after only 26 days?
MB

Mummy Bear, i think you are looking at the wrong record? the record starts image number 6840

2717 on top left

Roy

and ends on image number 6844 and 2721 in the top left
MB

Hi,

I do not know why he was discharged after 26 days. Whar surprises me is that he was a Boilermaker, which was a reserved occupation; yet still joined up.

Regards

Rachel

It says "Not likely to become an efficient soldier". I would think this just means he didn't make the grade. Just like today when a lot of men are discharged during or after basic training if they don't seem to be up to the job.

Kath. x

Hi,

Thank you all for your help - it is appreciated.

Regards

Rachel