Talk:Guy Branch

Why is he not a GC recipient?
The opening paragraph includes the following sentences. 'He was killed in action on 11 August 1940. Since his death occurred before the introduction of the George Cross his next-of-kin were not given the opportunity of exchanging the insignia of the Empire Gallantry Medal for the new award'. Branch was not the only pre-war EGM recipient to be killed in action before the announcement of the George Cross. Herbert John Mahoney GC in 1927 received the EGM on HMS Taurus. Mahoney was serving aboard HMS Basilisk in support of the evacuation from Dunkirk when a bomb detonated inside the No. 3 boiler room, killing her boiler and engine room personnel including Stoker Petty Officer Mahoney on 1 June 1940. A further attack sank the Basilisk. See https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/6384689 Four posthumous EGM awards after the outbreak of war were exchanged for the GC. Since five EGM recipients who were killed after the outbreak of war became GC recipients, I suggest that the sentence be reworded to 'He was killed in action on 11 August 1940. Unlike five other EGM recipients whose death occurred as a result of service after the outbreak of war, his next-of-kin were not given the opportunity of exchanging the insignia of the EGM for the new award'. Any comments? Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Dont have a problem with your suggestion but the bit about not been given the opportunity is not actually referenced in the article, do we know for sure that the next-of-kin were not asked, or could they have been asked and not wanted to. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In the case of the EGM unlike the AM and EM in 1971, the recipients or next of kin had no option but to exchange insignia. In 1971, anyone living on 21 October 1971 was deemed a GC recipient whether or not they exchanged insignia. Excluding the four honorary awards, 112 of 126 EGMs were exchanged and the two sentences highlighted implied that only living EGM recipients, which was the case in the AM and EM Exchange, could be deemed GC recipients. The point being that one pre war EGM and four post war EGMs lost their lives after the outbreak of war were deemed GC recipients so why did Branch miss out? Why did a fatal casualty of the Battle of Britain be excluded from the exchange? Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Found a comment in "The Military Historical Society" bulletin of August 1983 by Anthony Staunton about the discrepency between the list "I have cheked the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood and after some correspondence they awere able to identify the 113th award Pilot Officer Guy Rawstron Branch, Auxiliary Air Force. He had been awarded the Empire Gallantry Medal (Military Division) in the London Gazette 25th March 1938 but on checking that found that he was not entitled to exchange his medal for the George Cross" The central chancery also concluded that 112 was the correct number. No further explanation was given why branch was not entitled. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I commend you for the most brilliant rebuttal I have ever received. I am still laughing! On a serious note, half a lifetime ago (I am 70 next month) I was unaware that Herbert John Mahoney was killed in action at Dunkirk and his next of kin received the GC. Unlike the AM and EM exchanges where all living recipients as at 21 October 1971 were deemed GC recipients, specific provision was included in the EGM exchange for recipients posthumously honored with the EGM after the commencement of war in September 1939. Herbert John Mahoney has been considered the GC recipient for 78 years and his next of kin received the GC insignia 76 years ago. On one reading of the GC Warrant it was an incorrect decision to grant the next of kin the GC and record him as a GC recipient. I prefer the interpretation that he was an EGM recipient killed in action after the start of the war and was treated like the posthumous EGM recipients after the start of the war. If it was an error then it would be iniquitous to now cancel that award. It is equally iniquitous not to grant Guy Branch the GC. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I did think it may have been something to do with the fact he was missing in action and declared killed in action until 1941 but then he would have been alive and qualified. I commend your determination and patience on trying to find out why but it does seem like an injustice. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)