lionboxer Posted 25 October , 2004 Share Posted 25 October , 2004 Can anyone help with this service number? SS/10251 (RFR/CH/B/7234). Trying to assertain whether this number corresponds with the name on our village war memorial. If this is correct it would mean that our man would have been a first class stoker at the age of sixteen when lost on HMS Aboukir on 22 Sept 1914. Is this too young to have served? Many thanks, Lionboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kin47 Posted 25 October , 2004 Share Posted 25 October , 2004 Hello Lionboxer That service number with the Royal Fleet Reserve number belonged to someone in their 40s or older A sixteen year old would be a Boy 1c. don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionboxer Posted 25 October , 2004 Author Share Posted 25 October , 2004 Many thanks Don. That muddies the water!! Anyone else with ideas? Lionboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 27 October , 2004 Share Posted 27 October , 2004 Hi Lionboxer, Just picked up this thread - been sick for pst wk & not active on the forum - The number SS10251 would belong to a Seaman, not a Stoker. Stokers SS numbers had 6 digits. The man bearing this number had signed on for a period of 5 or 7 years in the RN then 7 or 5 years in the RFR (Royal Fleet Reserve) This Special Service scheme was introduced in 1903. This man was not necessaruily over 40 yrs of age -- normally Seaman & Stokers joined around 16 or so, altho many artificers & skilled men joined later, in their early 20's. His adult time started at 18, & if he did say 7 yrs RN & 5 yrs RFR, he would have been 25 when he ent'd the RFR. The other letters & numbers mean: RFR - Royal Fleet Reserve rating CH - Chatham Port division (his home port division) B7234 - his "class" & number in the RFR - the B means he was not in receipt of a life pension - he would have needed 22 years RN service to qualify for life pension & then would have rec'd an A number. I would say that these two men are just that - 2 different men. No way a rating at 16 would be a 1st class Stoker - he would have to be over 18 to get his 1st class rating. Hope this helps you somewhat........ Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kin47 Posted 27 October , 2004 Share Posted 27 October , 2004 Bryan's comments made me look again at my numbers. The stoker in question service number was SS 102512 (the 2 was omitted in the original query.) This is Stoker 1c Hugh Gennery. Here the plot thickens -- RFR Ch B 7234 is a different geezer - a Stoker 1c as well but Sidney Keeler also lost in ABOUKIR. As Bryan pointed out being in the RFR assured your man was well past 16. The reason I said 40 or older was the scandal when the ABOUKIR, CRESSY, and HOGUE were lost was that were manned largely by older Reservist who were certainly not prepared for the rigours what befell them. Hope this helps (?!?) don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionboxer Posted 27 October , 2004 Author Share Posted 27 October , 2004 Many thanks Bryan and Don for your help. Sydney George Keeler is the man on our war memorial but we are having problems confirming his identity. We need to find a link to Bergh Apton or at least Norfolk. Just reaffirming his service number reveals it was :- SS/102151 and not 10251. Lionboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 27 October , 2004 Share Posted 27 October , 2004 Don & lionboxer, Sorry, I'm "adrift" here ---- which is the CORRECT number?? --SS102151, or SS102512??? Both of these numbers are definitely Stoker's numbers - the CHB number should "marry with" the SS number on his records - both have to be to the SAME man! Somethings definitely wrong here fellows! Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kin47 Posted 28 October , 2004 Share Posted 28 October , 2004 Bryan Nothing too sinister going on here. When I searched by dbase, I went by service number (any part of) and found Genery bacause the omitted number was at the end of the field. I didn't notice that the RFR number didn't match. I didn't find Keeler because the omitted digit was in the middle of the number, not at the end. Keeler is the man he is searching for. I went through my dbase and a 16 year old Keeler does not appear. There are many reasons this 16 year old does not appear and so I will no speculate the circumstance of his death. don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 28 October , 2004 Share Posted 28 October , 2004 OK Don , best wishes on yr search - he was pretty young to be a casualty so early in life - he must have only just joined & Aboukir his first ship. His SR would be in the PRO. Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionboxer Posted 28 October , 2004 Author Share Posted 28 October , 2004 Thanks for your help lads. The only Sydney Keeler with a Norfolk connection would be the sixteen year old. All very frustrating as this is the third man on the village memorial who has his name recorded incorrectly, or doesn't tie in properly. Back to the drawing board!! Lionboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 28 October , 2004 Share Posted 28 October , 2004 This is probably not of much help either, but it worthy of note that a number of the midshipmen on all three of the vessels were amongst those whose training at Dartmouth was cut short and a number of them would have been younger than 16. It should not be a surprise therefore that some of the youngest (forces) casualties of the war were lost in this action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now