Mick M Posted 21 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 21 September , 2022 I think I've found an answer to the puzzle; In the original pic above from Phillips service record, C13 is just discernable in the second column next to HMS Bonadventure which according to this site (harwichanddovercourt.co.uk/submarines-ww1) serviced C13. He then transferred to C16 on 11th February 1917 exactly 1 month prior to the tragedy which cost him his life. I have 1 reference ( http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/H.M.S._C_13_(1907)) to C13 travelling to Harwich from Sheerness in April 1914 to take up duties with 6th Submarine Flotilla and a history of Harwich (harwichanddovercourt.co.uk) which refers to the "Harwich Force" set up after outbreak of war and under the command of then Commodore Sir ReginalTyrwhitt, this included 8th Submarine Flotilla. Did both Flotillas (6th and 8th) serve from Harwich or did 6th become 8th when the Harwich Force was formed? Its not particularly important as it does serve to show Philip served at Harwich after HMS Dolphin albeit on 2 boats... one last thing do we still refer to ships in the feminine or has that somehow now offensive? mick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick M Posted 21 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 21 September , 2022 25 minutes ago, RNCVR said: No, uncertain, what are tags? When you do a post you can imbed tags which a search may find and direct to the post. That has exhausted my IT knowledge but for instance a post concerning a soldier could be tagged with his name, unit, regiment, home town etc. I don't know if they can be later added. Mick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 21 September , 2022 Share Posted 21 September , 2022 39 minutes ago, Mick M said: I think I've found an answer to the puzzle; In the original pic above from Phillips service record, C13 is just discernable in the second column next to HMS Bonaventure Ione last thing do we still refer to ships in the feminine or has that somehow now offensive? mick. Think it refers to List 13 Mick. @horatio2will confirm? I think referring to ships & subs etc in feminine terms is still de rigeur but I have been out many many yrs so could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick M Posted 21 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 21 September , 2022 (edited) 24 minutes ago, RNCVR said: Think it refers to List 13 Mick. @horatio2will confirm? I think referring to ships & subs etc in feminine terms is still de rigeur but I have been out many many yrs so could be wrong. Thanks, glad I asked now...the 13 IN the ditto row but list column is definitely preceeded by a C though... Edited 21 September , 2022 by Mick M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_history_buff Posted 21 September , 2022 Share Posted 21 September , 2022 1 hour ago, Mick M said: When you do a post you can imbed tags which a search may find and direct to the post. That has exhausted my IT knowledge but for instance a post concerning a soldier could be tagged with his name, unit, regiment, home town etc. I don't know if they can be later added. Mick. Well done, I see you have been able to add one tag, and have got tagging. Hope the following makes for an informative read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 21 September , 2022 Share Posted 21 September , 2022 (edited) I believe the "13" in the DOLPHIN and the two BONAVENTURE rows refer to LList 13 on the respective ledgers = supernumeraries. Compare with the preceding List 5 for INDEFATIGABLE = ship's complement. I agree that the stand-alone "C" is a strange, untranslated anomaly. Its appearance from 1 April 1916 is also unexplained. However, I do not think the "C" should be associated with the following List "13" to conjure up a notional draft to HMS C.13. The final MAIDSTONE entry also has a strange List No. "XIV". List Nos are normally written (as before) in Arabic numerals but the ledger writer has, for some reason, chosen to use Roman numerals here. List 14 also = supernumeraries. In summary, I am afraid we are faced with a rather poorly-completed ledger record which does not reveal the full story. Edited 21 September , 2022 by horatio2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 21 September , 2022 Share Posted 21 September , 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mick M said: it does serve to show Philip served at Harwich after HMS Dolphin albeit on 2 boats... I do not believe this to be the case. Setting aside whether he served in C.13 or C.16 (if at all), HMS BONAVENTURE was based on the Tyne in 1916/17 (under Rear-Admiral Commanding, East Coast of England) not at Harwich. Edited 21 September , 2022 by horatio2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick M Posted 21 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 21 September , 2022 3 hours ago, horatio2 said: I do not believe this to be the case. Setting aside whether he served in C.13 or C.16 (if at all), HMS BONAVENTURE was based on the Tyne in 1916/17 (under Rear-Admiral Commanding, East Coast of England) not at Harwich. Thank you....he was definitely on C16 though when it sank. 3 hours ago, horatio2 said: I believe the "13" in the DOLPHIN and the two BONAVENTURE rows refer to LList 13 on the respective ledgers = supernumeraries. Compare with the preceding List 5 for INDEFATIGABLE = ship's complement. I agree that the stand-alone "C" is a strange, untranslated anomaly. Its appearance from 1 April 1916 is also unexplained. However, I do not think the "C" should be associated with the following List "13" to conjure up a notional draft to HMS C.13. The final MAIDSTONE entry also has a strange List No. "XIV". List Nos are normally written (as before) in Arabic numerals but the ledger writer has, for some reason, chosen to use Roman numerals here. List 14 also = supernumeraries. In summary, I am afraid we are faced with a rather poorly-completed ledger record which does not reveal the full story. Yes we can't assume anything really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 21 September , 2022 Share Posted 21 September , 2022 3 hours ago, horatio2 said: I do not think the "C" should be associated with the following List "13" to conjure up a notional draft to HMS C.13. Having reviewed the ADM 188 records of some of the other C.16 casualties, I must walk back on the above assessment. It appears that those ratings on the books of BONAVENTURE were not recorded as serving in submarines by the usual convention of placing the submarine in brackets in the "Ships..." column (e.g. Bonaventure (C.16)). Instead they recorded the submarine number as a "List and Number". @Mick M's hunch was, therefore, correct and we should accept that Stoker CLEMETT was, indeed, drafted to serve in HMSM C.13 on 1 April 1916. His later move to C.16 on the books of MAIDSTONE at Harwich was recorded in the usual manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick M Posted 22 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 22 September , 2022 23 hours ago, horatio2 said: Having reviewed the ADM 188 records of some of the other C.16 casualties, I must walk back on the above assessment. It appears that those ratings on the books of BONAVENTURE were not recorded as serving in submarines by the usual convention of placing the submarine in brackets in the "Ships..." column (e.g. Bonaventure (C.16)). Instead they recorded the submarine number as a "List and Number". @Mick M's hunch was, therefore, correct and we should accept that Stoker CLEMETT was, indeed, drafted to serve in HMSM C.13 on 1 April 1916. His later move to C.16 on the books of MAIDSTONE at Harwich was recorded in the usual manner. Wow, thank you for that. Mick Thank you one and all for your time and knowledge, I have learnt much from this thread. I've written his story for the church he is buried in so wanted to get it right. Mick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick M Posted 23 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 23 September , 2022 On 21/09/2022 at 17:04, Keith_history_buff said: Well done, I see you have been able to add one tag, and have got tagging. Hope the following makes for an informative read Very informative ta, I'd love for people to find RNCVR's journal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_history_buff Posted 23 September , 2022 Share Posted 23 September , 2022 Thanks for doing this Mick. At times I come across an interesting thread on here. The Original Poster has not tagged said article, and I know I won't otherwise be able to find it for love nor money. I'll comment on said thread, so I can find it that way. I do bemoan the fact that so few people tag their posts. The flipside is where you get meaningless tags. The tag of "grandad" has been added to several hundred records in The National Archives's Discovery database. It's of use to the tagger themselves, but is otherwise as much use as a chocolate teapot to anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNCVR Posted 23 September , 2022 Share Posted 23 September , 2022 1 hour ago, Mick M said: Very informative ta, I'd love for people to find RNCVR's journal... I could start a new topic specifically for the Journal, & certainly would like to as some might find it of interest, but as it's Victorian period it would be out of the Forum rules(?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick M Posted 23 September , 2022 Author Share Posted 23 September , 2022 2 minutes ago, RNCVR said: I could start a new topic specifically for the Journal, & certainly would like to as some might find it of interest, but as it's Victorian period it would be out of the Forum rules(?). I think it is very relevant in respect of training etc, I've tagged it on this thread but think it should have its own post explaining its relevance to WW1. That's my opinion for what it's worth. Mick. 28 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said: Thanks for doing this Mick. At times I come across an interesting thread on here. The Original Poster has not tagged said article, and I know I won't otherwise be able to find it for love nor money. I'll comment on said thread, so I can find it that way. I do bemoan the fact that so few people tag their posts. The flipside is where you get meaningless tags. The tag of "grandad" has been added to several hundred records in The National Archives's Discovery database. It's of use to the tagger themselves, but is otherwise as much use as a chocolate teapot to anyone else. That's made me laugh, thanks it was a crap day now its good. Mick. 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