Over the Christmas break, you may have been left waiting on your mail but spare a thought for the recipient of a letter that arrived over a hundred years late.
Originally sent in 1916, the letter finally reached its destination in South London over a hundred years later - leaving current resident Finlay Glen in total shock.
Advert
The 27-year-old explained how he initially been confused by the letter, telling CNN: “We noticed that the year on it was ’16. So we thought it was 2016."
The date was part of the postmark, which had been stamped on the envelope as it travelled to London from Bath in 1916.
“Then we noticed that the stamp was a King rather than a Queen, so we felt that it couldn’t have been 2016,” he added.
It had been 1p stamp featuring King George V and had been used to send the letter during WWI.
Advert
Because it wasn’t addressed to him, Finlay held on to the letter for another two years and kept it in a drawer, before plucking up the courage to open it.
“Once we realized it was very old, we felt that it was okay to open up the letter,” he said.
Although under the Postal Services Act 2000 opening someone else’s mail is technically illegal, the letter was sent long before it became an offence and Finlay said that he could ‘only apologise’ if he had committed a crime.
The letter was written to ‘my dear Katie’ and oddly enough, has another postal connection - as she was the wife of stamp dealer, Oswald Marsh.
Advert
An expert in his field, the wealthy businessman was regular called as a witness in criminal cases relating to postal fraud.
While no one can explain why the post didn’t arrive, we know that the letter was sent by Christabel Mennell in Bath as she holidayed in the area.
Though the recipients have long since passed, a Royal Mail spokesperson did apologise for the delay and told CNN: “Incidents like this happen very occasionally, and we are uncertain what has happened in this incident.
Advert
"We appreciate that people will be intrigued by the history of this letter from 1916, but have no further information on what might have happened."
Katherine Sidnell