We’ve been contacted at Historycal Roots by David Claydon who has commented on our Lionel Turpin page. David raises two points, one concerning the absence of a blue plaque for Lionel and the other to express the view that our article downplayed the significance of Lionel’s son, Randolph. Here is what David had to say:
‘I’ve often read the articles you’ve posted on your website and recently came across the page on Lionel Fitzherbert Turpin and the comments about his son, Randolph. As I have an interest in both the First World War and boxing, I may be able to offer a more balanced view.
I had to take issue with the comment about skewed priorities being reflected in the fact that Lionel Turpin lies in an unmarked grave while his son’s grave is marked and the house where he was born is commemorated with a blue plaque.
It is incorrect and a massive understatement to say that Randolph Turpin ‘achieved a degree of fame’. At one point he was the most famous and celebrated man in the country when he became the first black world boxing champion from England and the first British boxer in 60 years to win the World Middleweight Title, beating the man widely regarded even now as the greatest boxer who ever lived and was thought to be invincible. Turpin’s victory gave the country’s morale a huge lift in the difficult years that followed World War Two. There has not been an achievement in British boxing before or since that comes close to this and therefore Randolph Turpin richly earned the recognition of a blue plaque and referring to him as ‘a boxer (albeit a good one)’ is giving him nothing like the respect he deserves.
As the British Empire suffered over 900,000 fatalities and 2,000,000 wounded during the First World War, the sheer and tragic volume of numbers indicates how impractical it would be to argue for a blue plaque commemoration for each British soldier on either of those lists.
However, I fully agree that there is something very wrong when a man who fought, suffered and ultimately died for his country continues to lie in an unmarked grave but it could be argued that the fault, in this particular case, lies with Randolph Turpin himself rather than society’s priorities as, at one stage, he could easily have afforded to have the most lavish headstone in Warwickshire placed over his father’s grave.
It undoubtedly does a great disservice for Lionel Turpin and many others to lie in unmarked graves, but I also feel that you are doing his son, who certainly does not lie in a grand grave but a relatively modest one, a disservice too.
He was, in his own way, a hero as well.’
David makes some fair points, the focus of our piece was on Lionel and, because of that, we may have downplayed Randolph. There is, of course, a great deal of information about Randolph available on the pages of the internet, Wikipedia is one obvious place to start, but to continue the process of redressing the balance here is a complete (as far as we know) record of his career:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/13106
There is also an interesting film about Randolph, ’64 Day Hero’, on You Tube:
One final point, we are very pleased to report that descendants of Lionel Turpin have taken steps to get his grave in Leamington cemetery marked. This has involved quite a lengthy bureaucratic process but we understand their persistence has paid off and the grave will very soon be marked. A good ending for a story that we first explored over two years ago.