Metropolitan Police PC E Postle N division

[TVPRCS]

Hello, I have just purchased a Victorian Jubilee medal with 10 year clasp issued to PC E. POSTLE of N Div. in the Met. Can anyone throw any light on this Officer for me please? I am retired job and have just started Police medal collecting, apart from my own, this is my first purchase. Also any recommendations what to buy etc. would be good.

Many Thanks TVPRCS

[Mervyn Mitton]

Welcome to GMIC. I am sure one of our Police researchers will be able to assist. I htope we will see you regularly on this Forum. Mervyn

[Michael Johnson]

N Division is Islington. Postle isn't listed in J.H.F. Kemp's book, so must have joined pre-1879, unless you misread the name.

[TVPRCS]

Hi, Thanks for the info Michael and the welcome from Mervyn. I can confirm that the spelling and initial are right as is the Div. number.Where do I go from here? Any suggestions welcome. Thanks TVPRCS

[Tom King]

Try contacting the Met Police Records (historic centre) at Empress State Building. They have incomplete Divisional ledgers for N Div you might get lucky and he might be listed in there.

[1314]

A Police Constable F 147 Edward Postle was a witness in the Old Bailey case in which George Medler was found Guilty of coinage offences.The hearing date at the Old Bailey was the 5th April 1852.

[1314]

There is also a Postle family history website which invites queries.They may be able to help.See www.postle.co.uk

[Odin Mk 3]

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I suspect this medal has been re-named.

I have searched through all the Discharge Register indexes from 1897 to about 1910 and failed to find anyone called Postle or something similar. These indexes are rather basic and are semi alphabetical but all the As, Bs Cs etc are listed in the order the men left; they also give the page number for their respective entry in the Register. Result nothing at all - no officer called E Postle left the Met in this period (which is when you would expected him to have done, based on him earning this medal and clasp).

I then went through some extracts I have from the old Police Order database and also couldn't find this man. This was beginning to make me suspicious that he had left earlier than 1889 when the Discharge Registers start, which means he might not be entiitled to the 1897 bar.

In desperation I went back to my early warrants list which I compiled when I started work on the book. It also contains officers who received no medals at all. Eureka I found him.

Warrant No 71205 Edgar Postle joined the Met 11/02/1887 as a PC in Y Div (Highgate) and resigned 30/05/1887 as a PC in N Div (Islington).

As the Jubilee procession was held on 21st June 1887 he had already left the Met Police three weeks before that event and therefore was not entitled to the medal at all.

Which brings me to the conclusion that he might have felt he should have received one but didn't, so he has self bestowed someone elses on himself (albeit one with the 1897 bar added as well).

A rough idea of the naming style is given below. It would be good if you could post a photo of the edge for comparison purposes.

Sorry it's not better news for you.

[Odin Mk 3]

No Discharge Register entry or service sheet for him I'm afraid. He does appear in the Attestation Register which gives his full name as Edgar Peter Postle.

The 1911 Census gives this same named individual who seems around the right age:

name: Edgar Peter Postle

event type: Census 1911

gender: Male

age: 48

birthplace: Blofield, Norfolk

registration district: Henstead

sub-district: Humbleyard

parish: Newton Flotman

county: Norfolk

Looks like he came from Norfolk and went back there after leaving the Police

Edited March 6, 2013 by Odin Mk 3

[Odin Mk 3]

I would like to point out that it is very unusual for find these medals re-named.

Historically they were not that expensive to buy and there appeared to be no little interest in re-naming them in order to add them to groups of other medals etc.

The Met had been issued with a few unnamed medals which were held as spares, so any serving officer losing his medal could easily get a replacement from the Police.

I have handled hundreds of these medals over the last twenty years and have only ever encountered a couple of re-named medals. So if this turns out to be the case for this example then you have been extremely unlucky.

[Mervyn Mitton]

Good research Odin. However, as you say, badluck if he is one of a few to end up with a re-name. Hope you are well. Mervyn

[Tom King]

When did officer actually receive these medals where they issued prior to the event or well after? With his discharge so close to the event is it not more than likely a medal was named to him in anticipation of him being in service and prior to the jubilee a submission made of the names of all serving officers. It may have then been sent to the division never to be issued as he was released from service prior to the event?

[Odin Mk 3]

As far as I am aware the medal was authorised after the actual procession because the Queen was very pleased with the way everything went for the event and the part played by the Police. The medal was then issued to all men who were on the strength of the Met Police on the day of the actual procession, irrespective of whether they actaully manned the route or not (for example most of the Dockyard Divisions 1st - 5th Divs wouldn't have been in London).

It may be that some officers who had recently left the force might have erroneously been included on the list of intended resipients BUT from the initial post about this medal it also has the 1897 bar (10 year clasp). To me it seems highly unlikely they would make the same mistake twice and I believe there is definitely something not quite right here.

I would add that I have never before come across an example of a Met Police Coronation or Jubilee Medal named to a man who had already left the force other than those issued for the Police Pensioners. These men returned for a short period to help with policing the various events and they can usually be identified from their previous service and then linked to their earlier Warrant Numbers. The practice of re-employing pensioners was valid for the 1897, 1902 and 1911 events only and was not used for 1887 which was effectively the first time such an event had been held.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Odin Mk 3

[Tom King]

I missed the original reference to the 97 bar. It would be great to see a photo of what we are talking about here as this has got me intrigued. I have an unnamed 1897 somewhere which I assume originally was part of the spare allocation sent to Divisions.

[Odin Mk 3]

Apparently there were 30 spare 1897 medals and 30 spare clasps (Source info - article by J P Farmery OMRS Misc of Honours No 7 1985)

[TVPRCS]

Hello Gentlemen,

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this subject, I won't bore you with the detail. I would like to Thank everyone who has responded to my initial post on PC POSTLE. It is quite clear now that the Bar was an 'add on', as there are no ageing or wear marks to the medal ribbon. It most certainly does not belong with the medal.

I too contacted the Met archives section and found PC Postle never even finished his Probation (if that existed then). I attach with this post a photo of the name enscribed on the medal. I was just wondering if he was mistakenly allocated one as his leaving the job, the parade and distribution of medals were all in a relatively short space of time?

Your views are most welcome, I just can't see somebody that disillusioned with the job going out of his way to get a medal and enscribe it himself, a mistake would seem more likely and a medal in the post I would have thought? Kind Regards Ian TVPRCS.http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_04_2013/post-15206-0-16240800-1366176966.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_04_2013/post-15206-0-16240800-1366176966.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_04_2013/post-15206-0-02674500-1366177110.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_04_2013/post-15206-0-16240800-1366176966.jpg

[Odin Mk 3]

Given the close proximity of his leaving date to the Jubilee it could be that when the list of N Div officers was compiled (needed for the engraver of the 1887 Medals) they mistakenly included your man in error. The naming does appear to be the sloping capitals style used for this issue and from the images there might even be the faint guide lines which are noticeable on some medals; these were used to get the letters all the same height. Without actually handling the medal I'm inclined to favour your suggestion that this medal was issued in error to him after he had left.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Odin Mk 3

[Deelibob]

This medal is now for sale on e-bay but the picture supplied appears to show the name Pontle as do three of the above pictures. Was there a PC Pontle or do I need to go to spec savers !

[TVPRCS]

Good Morning, Yes I am selling the medal as I have my eyes on another one. The name on the medal is POSTLE . It's my close up iPad photo that has let me down. Best regards.