LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2008-07 > 1216373879


From: Mike Shingleton <>
Subject: Re: [LON] Off Topic - Military question/s
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:39:28 +0100
References: <006f01c8e8b1$57fb1fb0$f79737d2@homezxa49jijcp>
In-Reply-To: <006f01c8e8b1$57fb1fb0$f79737d2@homezxa49jijcp>


-----Original Message-----
From: Nicci and Rob <>
Sent
Subject: [LON] Off Topic - Military question/s

> Hi,
> I am still chasing clues for my Great Grandfather and have come
> across what appears to be a entry for him in the "National Roll of the Great War".
> Can anyone tell me anything about the code next to each person's
> entry?? In this case it's Z4334C. And the address given after each
> entry. Is this the home address for each entry??

Nicci

I don't think the code has any great significance and may just denote
each entry on the National Roll. It does not appear to have any
military significance.

The address is the home address of the individual though at what date
(enlistment, discharge?).

The National Roll was published by The National Publishing Company of
Baker Street in London. I'm led to understand that the project ran
out of money which would explain why its not truly national. Instead
14 volumes were published as follows:

Section I - London
Section II - London
Section III - London
Section IV - Southampton
Section V - Luton
Section VI - Birmingham
Section VII - London
Section VIII - Leeds
Section IX - Bradford
Section X - Portsmouth
Section XI - Manchester
Section XII - Bedford & Northampton
Section XIII - London: (East & South East London)
Section XIV - Salford

It contains around 150,000 entries; only a tiny fraction of the
5.5million who served.

It is as well as to be wary of the entries on the National Roll until
their veracity can be established from some other source. According
to Norman Holding in his book "World War 1 Army Ancestry" the method
of collecting the information is not known but a large number of
inaccuracies have been uncovered. I've certainly noticed that some
entries seem 'embellished'.

To sum up - it was a commercial publication rather than a serious
attempt at creating a historical record.

Hope this helps.

Regards



Mike Shingleton

This thread: