Underage Stoker

[Pat Twomey]

Would be very grateful for some help with the following. This is Denis O'Connell who enlisted in November 1910 and gave his birth as December 1890 which would make him 20 on enlistment. In actual fact he was not yet 17 having been born in Cork on 24th November 1893. As I'm not familiar with the Naval enlistment process can someone let me know the benefit of being 20 rather than 17?

Also, born in Cork would he have enlisted in Queenstown (Cobh)?

He later (1919) died on board submarine L55 which was trying to escape from some Bolshevik destroyers.

Thanks in advance,

PatDenis O'Connell service record.pdfDenis O'Connell service record.pdfDenis O'Connell service record.pdfDenis O'Connell service record.pdfDenis O'Connell service record.pdf

[horatio2]

The minimum age for enlistment as a stoker RN was 18. Enlistment at Queenstown is possible if he lived and worked locally..

Edited 5 August , 2023 by horatio2

[KizmeRD]

As h2 says - the navy didn’t accept underage enlistment as a Stoker, as the work was deemed to be too physically demanding. Hence if that was his career choice, he would have had to fib about his age.  Boys (Seamen branch) were also paid a lot less than adult Stokers, and were not treated so well either.

MB

And in order to enlist as a boy, he would have needed parental approval (which maybe wouldn’t have been forthcoming). Perhaps he ran away from home in order to join the navy?

Edited 5 August , 2023 by KizmeRD

[Pat Twomey]

Thanks for that H2 and KRD. I'm reading a fascinating account of how stokers were treated as the 'lowest of the low' following the great influx of poorly trained stokers into the RN in the latter part of the 19th C. It seems the introduction of the 'water-tube boiler' created a shortage of stokers and corners were cut in the recruitment and training of same. Maybe O'Connell saw one of the recruiting posters (see below from 1910), presented himself to the Naval base in Queenstown, and was enlisted without too any questions being asked.

[horatio2]

6 minutes ago, Pat Twomey said:

enlisted without too any questions being asked.

There was no requirement for a candidate to produce a Birth Certificate, so the only question to be addressed was "Does this man appear to be of the age he has given?"

The d.o.b. could not be changed. King's Regulations (1913) state: 

355. Date of Birth.-Unless otherwise ordered by the Admiralty, the date of birth as given by a man or boy on entering the Service shall be the date from which his age is to be determined so long as he is in the Service.  No alteration is to be made in the date of birth recorded on the service certificate of a man or boy without previous reference to the Admiralty.

[KizmeRD]

An Able Seaman was paid 1s/8d per day in 1914, compared to a Stoker’s pay of 2s/1d per day.

And stokers didn’t purely shovel coal - there were many other duties below deck relating to the running of ship’s auxiliary machinery and systems (i.e. not purely main engines and boilers). Naval stokers learnt all sorts of useful knowledge (in an age of steam), and after serving their time in the navy, they likely acquired a more transferable skill set (for finding alternative employment ashore) than any seamen would have.

For any strongly built young man who was mechanically minded, it wasn’t such a terrible career choice. Also with the introduction of the Special Service engagement, a man only needed to commit to the navy full time for a period of five years (instead of 12). And as previously stated, the demand for stokers in the Royal Navy was eceedingly high, so perhaps it did offer an easier entry route (with less questions being asked of someone who might have been under-age). 

MB

Edited 5 August , 2023 by KizmeRD