Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

CmdrBond

HMS Egermont Egremont confusion also possible link to Battle of Jutland

Recommended Posts

CmdrBond

I am tracing my family tree, and apart from a minor discrepancy with dates (year of birth), I think I have found a service record that fits.

 

I have a marriage certificate dates 1-Mar-1919.

 

On this certificate, my great grandfather is listed under occupation as Leading Stoker HMS Egermont.

 

I think it's meant to be Egremont.

 

Family stories say he used to tell gory details from the battle of Jutland.  If I am reading the service record right, that would suggest he was on board the Inflexible at the time.

 

What I have is - 

 

23 May 11 - 9 Oct 11 - Sto. 2cl - Pembroke II

10 Oct 11 - 9 Apr 12 - Sto. 2cl - Inflexible

26 May 12 - ??? - Sto. 2cl - Inflexible

1 Dec 12 - 31 Mar 17 - Sto. 1cl - Inflexible

1 Apr 17 - ??? - Sto. 1cl - Pembroke II

2 Jun 17 - 30 Jun 17 - Ldg. Sto. - Pembroke II

1 Jul 17 - 31 Mar 18 - Ldg. Sto. - Blenheim (Wear?)

 1 Apr 18 - 21 Aug 18 - Ldg. Sto. - Beaulieu

22 Aug 18 - 31 Jan 19 - Ldg. Sto. (1) - Beaulieu (Jailed ???)

1 Feb 19 - 20 Apr 19 - Ldg. Sto. - Victory X

 

It would then appear he went back to the Pembroke II, but as RFA.

 

Then we move into the text in the bottom right which I struggle to read but suggests desertion and recovery!


But this may be of other sailors rather than himself.

 

I am very confused by some of the entries in this list, 

 

Pembroke II - as far as I can tell is RAF Eastchurch - but not until 1913!

The Infexible appears to have been an Invincible Class battlecruiser.

 

The Blenheim appear to have been a Blake Class armoured cruiser, but serving as a depot ship from 1907 - could this have been moored in the Wear?

 

I can't find any info on the Beaulieu that is pertanent to the time period.

 

And the Victory X appears to have been the accounting department at Portsmouth!

 

Can anyone help peice this together for me.

 

FB_IMG_1528895439577.jpg

FB_IMG_1528895432747.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Lowrey

"Beaulieu" is probably also Blenheim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malcolm12hl

H.M.S. BLENHEIM was serving in the Mediterranean as a destroyer depot ship - the names of the destroyers on which Leading Stoker Ford served during the period are in brackets after her name - H.M.S. WEAR in the first instance and H.M.S. JACKAL in the second.  The crews of smaller craft such as destroyers and submarines were normally carried on the books of their mother ship, as is the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
horatio2

HMS PEMBROKE II was one of the Divisions of the pay office at Chatham. Among others, they did hold on their books men of the RNAS, including Eastchurch. However, it is not correct to say that "PEMBROKE II ... is RNAS Eastchurch" (and certainly not RAF). Nor does being borne on the books of PEMBROKE II mean that he was serving with the RNAS. He was probably in Chatham RN Barracks awaiting a sea draft.

His final entries reflect the second part of his Special Service (SS) engagement, to serve in the Royal Fleet Reserve (RFR) (not RFA). He was mobilised by PEMBROKE from the RFR April-June 1921 in response to the national strike by coal miners.

A bit hard to read but it looks as though he deserted from INFLEXIBLE in 1912 but was recovered later after about six weeks absence. He was marked 'RUN' for desertion on 9 April 1912 but this was later removed after recovery. His Character assessment at the end of that year was downgraded to 'Fair' from 'VG' in consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CmdrBond
Posted (edited)

Thank you.

A lot of useful info.


I am surprised that the sentence for desertion or simply going AWOL was so lenient, and he still got promoted to 1st Class at the end of the same year - but then it was pre-war...

There are still a few things I don't understand...


What is the GB in the Sub-Rating and Badges columns, and the "class for conduct" section?

 

What does the circle with the line through it mean? Is it simply to tie remarks together across the page as it appears in at least 4 places? - Above the date in the Sub ratings column, next to (and possibly above, unless that is a different mark) the Run in the discharged column, in front of the Run Removed in the Wounds section and in the bottom right in front of what appears to read "per June 16 ledger "Inflexible"

Does it say "wounded" towards the bottom of the discharge column?

Under the "Wounds, scars, marks, &c." what do the BM and date and the NL and number mean?

Also in that section is "Run Removed" - does this mean he would have been somehow physically marked for going AWOL?

 

The line about joining the RFR - what does the "Ch B 12 Yor" mean?

Looking at the bottom right, and now understanding what I am reading a bit more, I see the Run was recorded on 9/4/12.  It looks like "Inflexible", Plymouth OR Weymouth - can't decipher what's in the brackets though, could be another smaller ship?

 

Weymouth would make sense if sent back to his ship at Portland as per the line further down.

 

Looks like recovered 23/4/12  Then sentenced per Wt (warrant?) 128 of 29 April 12 to 28 days det. (detention?) (inflexible then unreadable)

What is what looks like to read

Place to h? 4233/23/4/12

hh4233/23•4•12
prior to the Recovered deserter...

Against the Jackal there is what looks like to be a (1)

On the left extension to the bottom right there is also a (1) followed by an unreadable word (over?) and the 5 yrs 7-3-18 Vide left 18 ledger ASBG June 19

Any ideas?

Also above that, does it say "Passed profy for higher rating?

And FINALLY - going back to the Marriage Certificate - It is written HMS Egermont, which I believe to be Egremont.

I have been sent an extract from Paul H. Silverstones "Directory of the World's Capital Ships"

 

Achilles

 

Type: Broadside ship

Class: 'Achilles' (1860)

 

  • 1861 - August 1: Laid down at Chatham
  • 1863 - December 23: Launched
  • 1864 - November 26: Completed
  • 1865 - Bow mast removed
  • 1868 - Refit, rearmed with ML guns
  • 1874 - Rearmed again
  • 1877 - Rerigged, reduced to bark
  • 1878-80 - Mediterrainian
  • 1878 - February 14: Naval demonstration in the Dardanelles
  • 1879 - October: In collision with battleship Alexandria
  • 1885 - Paid off
  • 1890 - Reboilered
  • 1902 - Depot ship, Malta: renamed Hibernia
  • 1904 - March: Renamed Egmont
  • 1914 - Depot ship, Chatham
  • 1916 - June 19: Renamed Egremont
  • 1919 - June 6: Renamed Pembroke
  • 1923 - January 16: Sold and broken up.

My James Ford is claiming he was serving with HMS Egermont on 1/3/1919 - Which would make sense if he was with the depot ship Egremont in Chatham as that wasn't renamed until June.

The problem is his service record states he is at Victory X between 1/2/19and 20/4/19.

I have found very little about Victory X - this is from Andy Pare's "Call the Hands"

HMS Victory X - Portsmouth accounting section 1917-19
 

Edited by CmdrBond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
horatio2
On 14/06/2018 at 14:43, CmdrBond said:

I am surprised that the sentence for desertion or simply going AWOL was so lenient, and he still got promoted to 1st Class at the end of the same year - but then it was pre-war...  He was awarded 28 days detention for desertion (lenient?). His advancement to Stoker 1st Class was a matter of time in 2nd Class rate and assessment of his efficiency as a stoker, not his character

There are still a few things I don't understand...


What is the GB in the Sub-Rating and Badges columns, and the "class for conduct" section? It reads "G1B"  - granted 1st Good Conduct Badge on date shown.

 

What does the circle with the line through it mean? Is it simply to tie remarks together across the page as it appears in at least 4 places? - Above the date in the Sub ratings column, next to (and possibly above, unless that is a different mark) the Run in the discharged column, in front of the Run Removed in the Wounds section and in the bottom right in front of what appears to read "per June 16 ledger "Inflexible"  The various ticks, marks and numbers in brackets do indeed link entries about the same subject.

Does it say "wounded" towards the bottom of the discharge column?  The last entry in the 'discharged; column is "Demobd" = demobilised

Under the "Wounds, scars, marks, &c." what do the BM and date and the NL and number mean?   Probably an obscure reference to correspondence from the Naval Law (NL) Division of the Admiralty concerning his desertion 15 years earlier.

Also in that section is "Run Removed" - does this mean he would have been somehow physically marked for going AWOL?  No, he was not branded 'RUN' on his forehead but it was marked on his service records. AWOL and desertion are not the same offence.

 

The line about joining the RFR - what does the "Ch B 12 Yor" mean?  The entry reads "CH.B.12702" his Official Number in the Royal Fleet Reserve (RFR).

Looking at the bottom right, and now understanding what I am reading a bit more, I see the Run was recorded on 9/4/12.  It looks like "Inflexible", Plymouth OR Weymouth - can't decipher what's in the brackets though, could be another smaller ship?  It looks as though he deserted in Plymouth (Weymouth was not likely as a place to desert with Portland the naval base) and was recovered from desertion and returned to INFLEXIBLE at Portland on 25 April 1912.

 

Weymouth would make sense if sent back to his ship at Portland as per the line further down.

 

Looks like recovered 23/4/12  Then sentenced per Wt (warrant?) 128 of 29 April 12 to 28 days det. (detention?) (inflexible then unreadable)

What is what looks like to read

Place to h? 4233/23/4/12

hh4233/23•4•12
prior to the Recovered deserter...   Looks like some deserter tracing "TRACE" action initiated through the Naval Law (NL) Division.

Against the Jackal there is what looks like to be a (1)

On the left extension to the bottom right there is also a (1) followed by an unreadable word (over?) and the 5 yrs 7-3-18 Vide left 18 ledger ASBG June 19   Cross reference (1) to an increase of pay for length of service.

Any ideas?

Also above that, does it say "Passed profy for higher rating?   Yes.

And FINALLY - going back to the Marriage Certificate - It is written HMS Egermont, which I believe to be Egremont.  I think EGREMONT is probably correct

I have been sent an extract from Paul H. Silverstones "Directory of the World's Capital Ships"

 

Achilles

 

Type: Broadside ship

Class: 'Achilles' (1860)

 

  • 1861 - August 1: Laid down at Chatham
  • 1863 - December 23: Launched
  • 1864 - November 26: Completed
  • 1865 - Bow mast removed
  • 1868 - Refit, rearmed with ML guns
  • 1874 - Rearmed again
  • 1877 - Rerigged, reduced to bark
  • 1878-80 - Mediterrainian
  • 1878 - February 14: Naval demonstration in the Dardanelles
  • 1879 - October: In collision with battleship Alexandria
  • 1885 - Paid off
  • 1890 - Reboilered
  • 1902 - Depot ship, Malta: renamed Hibernia
  • 1904 - March: Renamed Egmont
  • 1914 - Depot ship, Chatham
  • 1916 - June 19: Renamed Egremont
  • 1919 - June 6: Renamed Pembroke
  • 1923 - January 16: Sold and broken up.

My James Ford is claiming he was serving with HMS Egermont on 1/3/1919 - Which would make sense if he was with the depot ship Egremont in Chatham as that wasn't renamed until June.

The problem is his service record states he is at Victory X between 1/2/19 and 20/4/19.  He was borne on the books of HMS VICTORY X while actually still serving in HMS JACKAL (see bracketed ditto mark). His record shows no evidence of being borne on the books of EGREMONT and we only have his statement on the marriage certificate that he was. It is possible that he had been lent EGREMONT from JACKAL

I have found very little about Victory X - this is from Andy Pare's "Call the Hands"

HMS Victory X - Portsmouth accounting section 1917-19
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CmdrBond

Thank you very much.

 

I had missed the cross over of dates.

 

And yes, I do think 28 days detention was lenient, especially if it was desertion and not just AWOL, as you say they are different.

 

Especially considering men were shot for desertion (although I appreciate that this was more in the army and on the front lines during the war).

 

I think you have covered pretty much everything that can be gleaned from this record.

 

One thing that is bothering me, and doubtful can be rectified without getting actual certificates, if available, is his fate of birth.

 

If these records do indeed link the same man, why is good age different?

 

I get that men lied about their age to join.  As far as I can tell, in WW1, you supposedly had to be 18 to join and 19 to serve in combat.

 

But if he was born in 1890 as the marriage certificate suggests, he would have been 20 when this record was started.

 

Unless he had already spent 2 years in training?

 

The, what looks like to read, P.I.E. 254564 just above the main portion of the form - would that be his number in the RN? Or is that the SS number in the top right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
horatio2
Posted (edited)

The d.o.b. difference cannot be explained and the marriage certificate and record seem to be for the same man (same place of birth and marriage). According to the d.o.b. he gave on first engagement he would have been 29, three months short of his 30th birthday on marriage. He either deceived his wife or the Admiralty. The minimum age for an SS stoker was 18 (maximum 25), so either year of birth would qualify - no point in giving a false d.o.b..

 

He appears to have had no service or training before May 1911 (engagement papers would confirm - the Fleet Air Arm Museum has his engagement papers.)

 

The entry you note is "P.I.C. 254564" and is the number of the Protection and Identity Certificate that he was given on demobilisation in 1919.

 

The normal maximum summary punishment for desertion was detention. "The maximum summary punishment that can as a rule be awarded is detention ... but except in aggravated cases the award is not to exceed 30 days." [KR&AI 1913]. Longer terms of detention or imprisonment could only be awarded by court martial.

 

 

Edited by horatio2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CmdrBond

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×