This book certainly raised a number of eyebrows when, on my recent trip to Holland, I showed it to some of those stated to be contributors and who, apparently, knew nothing about it. Such a pity that he includes details of a soldier whose remains were not found in Kate ter Horst's garden, but in the front of the Hartenstein Hotel some distance away. This is surprising as the author, Philip Reinders, is said to be one of the co editors of the last revision of Jan Hey's Roll of Honour in which the information about this soldier is correctly recorded. To quote John S, who I understand published this book, in his recent post on this forum about Leo Heap's book, said, "Now I can forgive an error or two, but it makes me doubt the whole thing". Why, oh why, did nobody bother to proof read this book before publication where such a silly mistake should have been picked up!! By the way which version have you got ? There was the one advertised by John S above but I understand that Mr Reinders has also privately published his own, supposedly expanded, version.
I've seen the error referred to by horsapassenger and this man now has two burial spots in two different books.....One of which must be wrong.....
The other interesting thing about this booklet is that the names are said to originate from a list supposedly compiled by Kate herself. It is known that many of the bodies lay in her garden, unburied, throughout the battle as it was too dangerous to attempt to bury them so this cannot be a list of burials. The list also includes one soldier whose death is recorded as 7th October, long after Kate and her children had been forced to leave their home at the end of the battle, so the question arises as to who actually prepared it and when. It becomes even more confusing when the person who is number 1 on the list died on 23rd September, No 18 on the 19th September and No 50 again on the 23rd September, with others on the list having dates of death generally between the 18th September and 26th September, but with the last being 7th October (and appearing at no 25 on list!!). I'd have thought that there would have been some chronology to such a list being compiled. Finally there is no mention as to who the persons were who appeared at numbers 33 or 40 on this list and there are also two people who are both stated to be number 49!! All rather confusing!!
