About the contributor

When I was young, there was a kind of family legend about how, when I was an infant, burning petrol from a crashed aircraft had slashed across my pram, which was in the front garden - only moments after I had been taken out of it and put into my bedroom cot.

This tale was given some weight by the framed presence of certificate, signed by Winston S. Churchill that commended my mother- 'Margaret, Mrs McEnroe, Housewife ... for brave conduct.

My mother of course told me about the crash and it's aftermath, of how she had rescued one small girl from the burning wreckage, but how one Owen Morgan Owen had rescued another child just as the fuel tank of the aircraft exploded.

He, quite properly was awarded an B.E.M.

It was not until the then Public Records Office at Kew released the minutes of The Interdepartmental Committee on Civil Defence, Gallantry Awards that I learned the exact details.

I have copies of those minutes, PRO HO 250/52,in which the accounts are given as Cases 1817A and 1817B, and of course have the framed certificate.

When I copied the minutes documents to all who had known my Mother, I sent the following :

About : Document HO/250/52, Cases 1817A and 1817B.

Herewith the account, from the minutes of the Interdepartmental Committee on Civil Defence, Gallantry Awards, of Ma's courage in 1941. It was compiled from a sort of Magistartes's meeting, and should therefore have the legal standing of sworn statements.

Note, mind, the odd few things wrong about it : for example, in the copy of her signed evidence, she's given as "Mr." McEnroe, that she is the wife of "Edward" [My Father's name was Philip] - and so far as I'm concerned, far worse, that she "rushed upstairs for my baby and saw that my landlady had her in her arms." HER? - that was actually, ME.

Such errors may be put down to the fact that this Committee had dealt in this kind of detail with at least one thousand cases between May and October 1941 - and can consequently be excused some mistakes. It does make you wonder, however, about the accuracy (which historians are forced to take for granted) of some of those documents upon which we depend.

Of course, while I was checking, that accuracy was made evident. Remember that this was a group of perhaps seven people, with two secretaries, who had gone through enormous amounts of offered evidence. They were hardworking and honest people who may well have been bombed-out. It appears, however, that they could also backtrack; some of the folks who had offered evidence had not been similarly entriely honest :

From HO/250/*** :

"The Chairman told the Committee of the case of Mr. ** **(Case***), Commandant of a Works Fire Brigade, who had been gazetted on *** for the award of a B.E.M.

It had subsequently been brought to the Regional Commissioner's notice that there was a good deal of doubt that he really had done all that appeared in the reports.

It had, on investigation, come to notice that Mr.** **, who is Managing Director of the firm, had himself signed the letter giving the report of the incident. The recommendation had been withdrawn."

So, it can be seen that the docementary evidence given here (given some mistaken copytyping) mean what it says.

Thus we have Mum and Dad, young people - in their prime you might say - behaving better than I think I might have been able to in their circumstances.