HUBERT ELLIS HOPKINS Pte Z/6169

[Denise Hopkins]

Hi

I'm getting a bit confused :

1. The passenger list above for Osmanieh has H Hopkins aboard.

2. It left Southampton on 17th Dec 1917 and sunk on 31st Dec 1917

3. One of the casualties is T Wren who is also  recorded as Port Division as Chatam ( the same as H Hopkins)

4. I can't find any record of Hubert Hopkins/H Hopkins or stoker boarding the Suva through Sept, Oct, Nov or Dec of 1917 in Royal Navy Log Books - Edited by Keith Bull (HMS Suva Oct 15- April 1919). 

5. It mentions on the 27.11.17 - Two ratings joined the ship, one for passage and on the 3.1.18 - Three stokers, three Seedie boys and one lascar joined ship for passage. I would have thought that all where for passage?

6. Does this strengthen the case that Hubert was on the Osmanieh as he doesn't appear to have been on the Suva (see point ) and could he have boarded the Suva as one of the stokers on the 3.1.1918?

Any thoughts?

[MerchantOldSalt]

Denise

1.  The H Hopkins on OSMANIEH may not be Hubert Hopkins, it is quite a common name and there were many H Hopkins in the RN and RNVR

3.  T Wren is actually James Wren and was a casualty on the OSMANIEH the remainder of the Chatham men survived the sinking

4.  Hubert Hopkins was an Ordinary Seaman, that is Seaman Branch he was not a Stoker, Engineering Branch

6. With the lack of further detail on the OSMANIEH passenger list, that is service number or first name, it is impossible to be sure who was H Hopkins OS Chatham Division, it is just a possibility.

 

Tony

[Denise Hopkins]

Thanks Tony. Now I understand.

Denise

[horatio2]

11 hours ago, Denise Hopkins said:

I can't find any record of Hubert Hopkins/H Hopkins or stoker boarding the Suva through Sept, Oct, Nov or Dec of 1917 in Royal Navy Log Books

It is rare for junor ratings joining or leaving a ship to be named as individuals in the log.

 

11 hours ago, Denise Hopkins said:

I would have thought that all where for passage?

Men joining "for passage" were in transit to other ships - so, passengers not members of the ship's company.

[Denise Hopkins]

Thanks Horatio2. I'll try trawling through the microfilm of Ripley and Heanor News from OCT 1917 at Ripley library for any other mentions of Hubert. I've tried using variations on his name at the Newspaper Archives but if you don't put in the right headlines you don't always get what you found earlier. Weird I know!

Thanks for everyone's efforts and advice.

Denise

[Denise Hopkins]

Hi

Just a thought. As anyone got any thoughts on the following :

 Hubert's service record as stated in a previous post is incomplete. It shows he was posted to the Suva 28th Nov 1917 but then is incomplete until back on it on 31st Oct 1918 to 31st May 1919. The Suva's log shows that it was in Colombo having a refit from 28th March 1918 until 22nd May 1918 sailing on that day to Aiden. Could this be why the Hubert's record is incomplete? Would he have been assigned with others to another boat and if so why isn't it on his service records? Would he have been given work on the boat during this time - unlikely as the log mentions numerous and various workers boarding to undertake work. His older brother who was a sergeant in the KRRC got married on the 24th Sept 1918. I presumed Hubert was at the wedding as it mentions an Indian mat given for a present but now I'm thinking that he probably wouldn't have attended the wedding as it would have taken weeks to get their and back and 'leave' may have been an issue too! I think the Indian mat was bought during his time in Colombo and was sent home.

Thanks

Denise

 

[horatio2]

Denise

I am afraid you are mis-reading his record.

 

His service in SUVA was comtinuous from 28 Nov 1917 to 31 May 1919. During the first period, which you desribe as "incomplete", he was an Ordinary Seaman until on 31 October 1918 he was advanced to Able Seaman. The reason there is no "To" date for this first period is that he remained in SUVA continuously. A "To" date is only entered when a man is finally 'taken off the books', in Hopkins' case on 31 May 1919.

 

It follows, therefore, that the whole of your long postulation is incorrect, Nice try though!

[Denise Hopkins]

Thanks Horatio2 - hopefully i'll advance from ordinary ... to able...! it's a good learning curve and I was probably right about Hubert and the Indian mat and not being at his brother's wedding! This research is very compulsive but at the same time very enlightening!!!

Thanks again

Denise