Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

HMT Nagoya Archangel 1918 - unrecorded death?


johndavidswarbrick

Recommended Posts

Gentlemen,

One of the men commemorated on the Tonbridge Memorial that I am researching is Edward Stephen Mankelow, born 25th March 1887 at Tonbridge. He joined the Royal Navy on 21st October 1903 for 5 + 7 years. He did his five years then went ashore. He was recalled in August 1914 and continued to serve until 19th May 1916 [Pembroke I], after which there are no further entries.

He does not seem to have an entry on the CWGC site – and no entry in the Royal Navy Graves Register.

All of which rather stumped me until I found this:

Extract from the Tonbridge Free Press 1st November 1918

DEATHS

MANKELOW

On September 11th at the General Hospital, Bakaritza [Archangel] Edward Stephen Mankelow, A.B. aged 31 years, youngest son of Mr Henry Mankelow, 10, Northcote Road, from the results of influenza contracted while on board H.M.T. “Nagoya.”

HMT Nagoya was at Archangel in September, one of three ships which transported American soldiers to that port.

However, there is no record that I can find for any death on the ship at that, or any other time. The Navy Index [ADM 12/1597A] for 1918 had a reference to HMT Nagoya – but for its sailing orders on August 15th – with an added note about a collision on 11.2.19

The same index has a reference to “Manktelow [sic] A. H.” – wrong spelling and wrong initials.

[“X 9144 Sg D.H. S.D. 177 (ML9) 11 a 85 a Mention 6/11 CW” – is the full entry]

Anybody out there with any idea as to why the Navy appear not to have noticed that this man died – or even that he served after 1916?

Any thoughts – ideas – theories – etc. welcomed.

Thanks,

Dave Swarbrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Navy operate the same as the army with 1 year extra wartime service as 12 years + 1 would fit in timewise if he was discharged as time expired. Perhaps he was then later re-enlisted/conscripted.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is no I.C. (Index Casualty) number against this entry.

His record should not just cease in 1916. There should be something alongside the last entry to show how he was discharged (e.g. 'Shore', 'Invalided', 'Run').

The MANKTELOW reference is to another rating, Leading Deckhand Archibald Horace MANKTELOW, 177.SD, RNR, who was not a casualty either but was Mentioned in Despatches.

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=D8553028

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

Craig - He was recalled in August 1914, having previously being transferred to R.N.R in October 1908. In 1916 he served 90 days' detention for refusing to work in a coaling party - he then was posted to Pembroke I - a shore establishment - from 14th May '16 to 19 May '16 - and that's the last entry. In the Remarks column the last entry reads: "Approves of discharge S.N.L.R." Despite that he would seem to have died serving as an AB in 1918.

I have seen the same medal card - definitely him SS108 was his service number. There is no other sailor with the same name.

What was he doing between his last entry in May 1916 and his presumed death in September 1918?

Why no CWGC entry?

Why no Naval Graves entry?

Odd!

Dave Swarbrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Now we know. His bad disciplinary record caused the Admiralty to have him discharged 'Services No Longer Required' in May 1916. They were not prepared to put up with him any longer.

He was not in RN service in 1918. Probably able seaman mercantile marine (MM). So not odd at all since MM flu deaths are not CWGC.

In 1908, after completing his five years in the Fleet he was discharged to the Royal Fleet Reserve (RFR) for the next seven years - not to the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horatio

Thanks for solving the mystery! Apologies for misreading the initials for the Royal Fleet Reserve - it's a very funny looking "F"

I can know complete his story in my database.

I knew that someone on the Forum would solve this - thanks again for all contributions,

Dave Swarbrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is his entry in the printed copy from the BT Register:

post-7031-0-96107000-1394837856_thumb.jp

and from the original handwritten register (showing some alterations):

post-7031-0-34595400-1394837559_thumb.jp

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry

Thank you so much for this - absolute confirmation makes the whole thing certain.

Dave Swarbrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...