Who is actually a "Veteran"?

[GCCE1854]

Been having this "discussion" on FindaGrave (a genealogical site where I do volunteer work), and I'd be interested in other member's opinions here, especially anyone outside the US. I'm posting this in the UK area, because my current issue has been with UK soldiers, but please feel free to comment with your thoughts and opinions from any country.

 

What actually makes a "veteran"? I've been working with listing graves of soldiers who died in the Crimean War. The FindaGrave website has an option to label people as a veteran, which makes it easy to spot and also available as a search parameter. I suggested to another volunteer that they mark some of the men buried on Cathcart's Hill as veterans. The response was a resounding no -- reason given? "Not a veteran. Died in service."

 

This caused me to do some looking online myself, and I found that the Armed Forces Covenant in the UK states the following (link given to their online PDF):

https://www.armedforcescovenant.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Veterans-Key-Facts.pdf

Veterans are defined as anyone who has served for at least one day in Her Majesty's Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve), or Merchant Mariners who have seen duty on legally defined military operations.

 

That seems pretty cut and dry. But what do others think? Who would you list as a "veteran"?

[Otter42]

This is an interesting topic, as I have wondered. In Oregon where I live in the US, we have an organized group.  They are called the Oregon State Defense Force. They are volunteers that assist our local guard units. They come under the authority of the Oregon Adjutant General. They wore military uniforms with rank and insignia, do drills on military installations, and have ID cards and dog tags.  Are they considered veterans?  I always thought not, but not sure now.

[Gunner87]

3 hours ago, GCCE1854 said:

Who would you list as a "veteran"?

 

Interesting question. While HM Government define a 'veteran' as 'anyone who has served for at least one day in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve) or Merchant Mariners who have seen duty on legally defined military operations' I think that is to avoid any grey areas when it comes to acknowledging an entitlement to services. Most people wouldn't class a soldier who failed to complete his or her basic training as a 'veteran'. The common sense definition would be a serviceman or woman who qualified in their role and spent a reasonable period with an active unit. Whether that person was deployed to an area of conflict should not make difference. 

[Proud Kraut]

There was a lively debate about the definition of a "Veteran" in Germany for decades. It was ended by then MoD von der Leyen in 2018. She decided that anyone who serves or served in the Bundeswehr and received an honorable discharge is a Veteran.

[GCCE1854]

So, I received a reply from the FindaGrave volunteer who owns some of the online memorials to officer's buried there (read my original post above). After his refusal to mark them as veterans, I wrote and asked him why and sent that quote from the Armed Forces Covenant, etc. Here is the reply:

 

I am an armed forces veteran and you missed a few key words that followed your definition. The one you used states "anyone who has served for at least one day in Her Majesty's Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve), or Merchant Mariners who have seen duty on legally defined military operations." What follows is "Under the definition, veterans have already left the Armed Forces". That is you must complete a period of service, leave the armed forces still alive and then you become a veteran. UK servicemen who die in service do not become veterans. Veterans are entitled to specific benefits that are not available to those in service. Sometimes it is possible to identify someone who completed their service and were recalled for active duty (e.g. Boer War/WW1/WW2) and then I would class these as Veterans. Those who died in the crimea war and most in later wars should not be classed as veterans as they enlisted for that war and died without becoming a veteran. Even Citizens Advice website on benefits and concessions for the armed forces, veterans and their families gives the following categories:
1. People who are serving in the armed forces.
2. People who used to serve in the armed forces (veterans)
3. The dependants of people serving in the armed forces and veterans
Even the US definition states "A Veteran is defined as a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable".
Veterans are clearly different to those currently serving in the armed forces. The Find a Grave definition is misleading.
Hope that helps.

 

Wow! I find this an insult to a lot of military personnel over the years. What really gets me is the "Those who died in the crimea war and most in the later wars should not be classed as veterans as they enlisted for that war and died without becoming a veteran." We'll pick on the Crimean War heroes here, since that's what I'm working on -- but this will apply to all the "later wars" and the men who served and died there.

 

Okay, so one of the soldiers denied the title "veteran" in this case is Lieut-Colonel Exham Swyny. He was a Gentleman Cadet at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, before being commissioned into the 63rd Foot on 1 Oct 1829. He served continually until his death at the Battle of Inkerman on 05 Nov 1854. That's a full 25 years service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

Another one of the soldiers denied the title of "veteran" is Brevet Major Gustavus Harrison. He was commissioned into the 63rd Foot on 5 Jun 1835, and served continually until dying in action during the Siege of Sevastopol on 7 Jul 1855. That's a full twenty years service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

Continue on to Captain Lionel Fraser. He was commissioned into the 95th Foot on 24 Nov 1843, and served continually until dying in action during the Siege of Sevastopol on 31 Aug 1855. That's just shy of twelve years service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

There's Lieutenant George Curtois. He was commissioned into the 63rd Foot on 23 Mar 1847, and served continually until his death at the Battle of Inkerman on 05 Nov 1854. That's over seven years of service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

 

Everyone reading this has probably figured that I'm a little upset about this, but I'm shocked, frankly. This completely doesn't make sense to me.

[Gunner87]

1 hour ago, GCCE1854 said:

So, I received a reply from the FindaGrave volunteer who owns some of the online memorials to officer's buried there (read my original post above). After his refusal to mark them as veterans, I wrote and asked him why and sent that quote from the Armed Forces Covenant, etc. Here is the reply:

 

I am an armed forces veteran and you missed a few key words that followed your definition. The one you used states "anyone who has served for at least one day in Her Majesty's Armed Forces (Regular or Reserve), or Merchant Mariners who have seen duty on legally defined military operations." What follows is "Under the definition, veterans have already left the Armed Forces". That is you must complete a period of service, leave the armed forces still alive and then you become a veteran. UK servicemen who die in service do not become veterans. Veterans are entitled to specific benefits that are not available to those in service. Sometimes it is possible to identify someone who completed their service and were recalled for active duty (e.g. Boer War/WW1/WW2) and then I would class these as Veterans. Those who died in the crimea war and most in later wars should not be classed as veterans as they enlisted for that war and died without becoming a veteran. Even Citizens Advice website on benefits and concessions for the armed forces, veterans and their families gives the following categories:
1. People who are serving in the armed forces.
2. People who used to serve in the armed forces (veterans)
3. The dependants of people serving in the armed forces and veterans
Even the US definition states "A Veteran is defined as a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable".
Veterans are clearly different to those currently serving in the armed forces. The Find a Grave definition is misleading.
Hope that helps.

 

Wow! I find this an insult to a lot of military personnel over the years. What really gets me is the "Those who died in the crimea war and most in the later wars should not be classed as veterans as they enlisted for that war and died without becoming a veteran." We'll pick on the Crimean War heroes here, since that's what I'm working on -- but this will apply to all the "later wars" and the men who served and died there.

 

Okay, so one of the soldiers denied the title "veteran" in this case is Lieut-Colonel Exham Swyny. He was a Gentleman Cadet at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, before being commissioned into the 63rd Foot on 1 Oct 1829. He served continually until his death at the Battle of Inkerman on 05 Nov 1854. That's a full 25 years service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

Another one of the soldiers denied the title of "veteran" is Brevet Major Gustavus Harrison. He was commissioned into the 63rd Foot on 5 Jun 1835, and served continually until dying in action during the Siege of Sevastopol on 7 Jul 1855. That's a full twenty years service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

Continue on to Captain Lionel Fraser. He was commissioned into the 95th Foot on 24 Nov 1843, and served continually until dying in action during the Siege of Sevastopol on 31 Aug 1855. That's just shy of twelve years service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

There's Lieutenant George Curtois. He was commissioned into the 63rd Foot on 23 Mar 1847, and served continually until his death at the Battle of Inkerman on 05 Nov 1854. That's over seven years of service before his death. Oh, but he's not a veteran -- and he only "enlisted" for the Crimean War.

 

 

Everyone reading this has probably figured that I'm a little upset about this, but I'm shocked, frankly. This completely doesn't make sense to me.

 

The Cambridge Dictionary actually has both points as a definition.

 

'a person who has had a lot of experience of a particular activity' This would certainly be appropriate the Crimea casualties.

 

and

 

'someone who has been in the armed forces during a war' Fitting what both you and the Find a Grave volunteer says with the addition of serving in a conflict as opposed serving in peace time..

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/veteran

 

 

 

 

[tankengine888]

Found a First World War fellow.. Lieutenant Roy Anslow, commanding 15 Platoon, 'D' Company, 53rd Battalion. He fell at Peronne on September 1st, 1918 when a shell landed in the middle of his platoon in a trench. On FindAGrave he's listed as a veteran. His record clearly states no prior service.. Some contradiction?
[It might be different as he is Australian?]
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/56540754/roy-anslow

 

Zidane.

[GCCE1854]

2 hours ago, tankengine888 said:

Found a First World War fellow.. Lieutenant Roy Anslow, commanding 15 Platoon, 'D' Company, 53rd Battalion. He fell at Peronne on September 1st, 1918 when a shell landed in the middle of his platoon in a trench. On FindAGrave he's listed as a veteran. His record clearly states no prior service.. Some contradiction?
[It might be different as he is Australian?]
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/56540754/roy-anslow

 

Zidane.

 

Nice! At least that one is completed in the correct format. FindaGrave considers anyone who served any time (one day or twenty years) in the military to be a veteran. So, they instruct all volunteers to label memorials as such. Sadly, such is not the case, since the modern generations have changed the meaning of the word. In 1983, Webster's Dictionary defined veteran as "A former member of the Armed Forces". It had nothing to do with whether you were a former member because of retirement or death.