Was James Carlisle a Rear-Admiral?

[David Earley]

I have been researching Engineer Lieutenant James Carlisle who died following the sinking of HMS Laurentic on 25 January 1917.  My biography of him is at  http://www.sussexpeople.co.uk/engineer-lieutenant-james-carlisle/

 

On his CWGC record he is referred to as the son of the late Rear-Admiral (Engineer) James Carlisle, R.N. I have obtained a copy of the father's service record from The National Archives, see below:

 

This shows his rank on retirement as Fleet Engineer. The Navy List for 1894 includes him in the Retired Officers again as a Fleet Engineer.

 

James Carlisle died on 6 April 1905.

There are several (incomplete) biographies of James Carlisle Junior online, most of which follow the CWGC in referring to his father as Rear-Admiral. 

As I can find no evidence that the father ever received the rank of Rear-Admiral, is it possible/probable that the War Graves Commission simply accepted what they were told by the family and recorded him as such in their records?

If not, can anyone turn up any evidence of the "promotion"?

 

Thanks for any help.

David

Edited 22 January , 2019 by David Earley

[Lawryleslie]

Good Afternoon David

This is a strange one for sure. As an ex RN Artificer I have a book on the history of engineering in the RN and it states that a Fleet Engineer was equivalent in rank to a Commander, some 2 ranks below Rear Admiral (the rank of Commodore was not substantive until 1997). The rank of Engineer Rear Admiral was not introduced until 1903 and given to the then rank of Chief Inspectors of Machinery. However this was a jump of one rank because until then Chief Inspectors of Machinery were equivalent in rank to Captain with 3 years seniority. 

I'm guessing that, as you say, it may have been self styled family promotion. Unless someone knows otherwise of course.

 

LL

Edited 22 January , 2019 by Lawryleslie

[David Earley]

I have found a photo of his grave  on which he is referred to as Fleet Engineer RN, so I'm sure that the War Graves Commission were misinformed.

 

David

[MaxD]

The London Gazette notice of his retirement styles him Chief Engineer and he is in 1881 Navy List as such.  His record is saying that Fleet Engineer is the new designation of his rank (3 years after his retirement).  That would explain his grave stone.  Agree also that the 1886 Order in Council produced the Fleet Engineer, equivalent, as said, to an operations branch Commander.

 

Max

 

 

[WeeArticle]

Thanks for sharing this David. It's always good to go back to original sources. I've found that the CWGC records for the Laurentic casualties have many errors and it certainly appears that you have verified another one. I'll make sure to amend this detail on www.laurentic memorial.com