Naval medal query - RET on 1914/15 Star

[RNCVR]

Pretty certain roll shows final rank for BWM & VM, but the star could be a different rank, that rank in which he first entered the theatre of war.

[headgardener]

36 minutes ago, RNCVR said:

Pretty certain roll shows final rank for BWM & VM, but the star could be a different rank, that rank in which he first entered the theatre of war.

 

Sure, I realise that, I was wondering whether the rolls show both ranks in the case of an officer who held a lower rank on his star and a different or higher rank on his BWM&VM. My recollection of 2 of my own RN Surgeons groups was that the rolls listed both men as 'Surg. Lt.' and 'Surg. Lt. Cdr.' respectively and these were the ranks shown on their BWM&VM's, but in both cases their stars were impressed as 'SURG.' I don't recall the plain rank of SURG. showing on their medal roll entries. 

But maybe I'm mistaken?

In the case of officers with different ranks on star and BWM/VM, do the rolls show both ranks? If they do, then that would appear to confirm Horatio 's suggestion that - RET - is a misrendering of LT because SURG. LT. is the only rank shown on the roll and SURG. - RET - is what's shown on the star. 

[horatio2]

3 hours ago, headgardener said:

do the naval officers' medal rolls indicate differences between a lower rank on a 15 star and a senior rank on the BW&VM?

Good question but I think only one rank is ever recorded. In this case there is no "lower" and "senior" distinction because Surgeon and Sugeon Lieutenant were the same rank - merely the result of an administrative re-naming in November 1918, instituted to bring civil and military officer branches  into line.

[TullochArd]

The worthies at the BMF appear to have put this one on the back burner with an "open" verdict due to lack of evidence.  The consensus settles on the following contribution "The revised image of the Moore star also suggests to me that all the letters were impressed at the same time. It also suggests that the BA is correct but should be differentiated by stops. This I would suggest is an error on the part of the "engraver" As for the -RET- it may represent RETAINED/RETIRED/or some term particular to Naval Surgeons ranks of which we are at present unaware. There are lessons to be learnt here, not the least of which are the problems that can be caused by a distorted image, but more so the value of excellent high resolution images. I am interested in learning more about unusual post nominal letters or unusual entries on the back of stars in members collections. Final verdict....the star to Moore is officially impressed."

[seaJane]

Thanks very much to everyone for their contributions.

[headgardener]

7 hours ago, TullochArd said:

The worthies at the BMF appear to have put this one on the back burner with an "open" verdict due to lack of evidence.  The consensus settles on the following contribution "The revised image of the Moore star also suggests to me that all the letters were impressed at the same time. It also suggests that the BA is correct but should be differentiated by stops. This I would suggest is an error on the part of the "engraver" As for the -RET- it may represent RETAINED/RETIRED/or some term particular to Naval Surgeons ranks of which we are at present unaware. There are lessons to be learnt here, not the least of which are the problems that can be caused by a distorted image, but more so the value of excellent high resolution images. I am interested in learning more about unusual post nominal letters or unusual entries on the back of stars in members collections. Final verdict....the star to Moore is officially impressed."

 

I can accept an 'open' verdict, but I don't follow the person's thinking in the clip you posted. If - RET - is taken to be a true representation of something pertaining to Surgeon Moore, it clearly isn't presented as a post-nominal on the medal. And it wasn't included on his medal roll entry unlike the post-nominals listed on his other medals. The facts of his service exclude the possibility that it means either 'Retired' or 'Retained'. There isn't a plausible abbreviation in contemporary Medical Directories or Navy Lists. It isn't carried over onto the BW&VM. We know that there is one mistake in the naming on the star, so why not two? (maybe something written on a paper document that was slavishly copied by the person who prepared the medals - this sort of scenario could be supported by the way in which the letters RET are bracketed by hyphens which doesn't match the standard methods of presenting names or abbreviations on WW1 RN medals). An 'open verdict' is fine, but balance of probabilities suggest an error (IMHO.... 😉). 

Edited 25 August , 2020 by headgardener

[Jim Strawbridge]

I'm with headgardner on this one. If the RET were official it would have surfaced in respect of other medals, No one, as yet, has seen another example.

[TullochArd]

41 minutes ago, Jim Strawbridge said:

I'm with headgardner on this one. If the RET were official it would have surfaced in respect of other medals, No one, as yet, has seen another example.

 

Me too ....... also "Retired", in whatever form, would, by convention follow RN and not a rank/appointment.  

[BobbieCrompton]

Hi @seaJane

I came across your post while researching for my application to the repair shop! I am Maurice Sydney Moore's great granddaughter! 

We have his Navy Sword which was given to him by his father (Sir John Moore) and is the topic of my application to the repair shop.  We inherited it from my grandfather Richard Moore who sadly passed away in December 2021. 

Have you got any photos or information about the medals? My Dad would love to hear and can share more information about him with whoever it was who owns them now, I saw that this query was from an acquaintance. My grandfather wrote a book... Leeches to lasers... about our family and has Maurice's story well documented... it may even shed some light upon the RET query because we don't know what that means easter! It can be retired as he served for years after this medal was given. 

I'm not sure how this forum works or if I can contact you directly... I made an account to post this! 

hope you see this,

Best wishes,

Bobbie

 

 

 

[seaJane]

Hi Bobbie,

How kind of you to get in touch! For future reference, to send personal messages, click on the name of the person you want to contact, and then click on the small envelope icon you will see. You need an account to do that, so it is just as well that you joined and posted! (I think you need to have posted at least one message in order to use the message system).

 I know who was my original enquirer within two people, but it depends whether I was on lockdown or not when the enquiry came in. If I was, the enquiry will be on my home PC and I can find it. If I wasn't, it will have been on the work system to which I no longer have access, as I retired on 31 December. Hold the line for a bit and I will be in touch again.

Best wishes,

seaJane

PS: When you say Sir John Moore do you mean Moore of Corunna? If so I am a bit starstruck .

 

 

 

Edited 9 February , 2022 by seaJane

[seaJane]

okay @BobbieCrompton, I was on lockdown - hooray - and the enquirer was @simoneyre who is a member of the Forum.

I'll drop him a line in case this tag doesn't alert him.

seaJane

 

 

 

 

Edited 9 February , 2022 by seaJane

[BobbieCrompton]

Hi SeaJane, 

Thank you for looking, that's great! 

Ha, sadly not that Sir John.... This one was knighted by Queen Victoria for services to Medicine in about 1901... something to with the start of the GMC I think! 

 

Best wishes,

Bobbie 

[seaJane]

4 hours ago, BobbieCrompton said:

Thank you

My pleasure. There is a message incoming your way.

sJ