Buried at Sea is this true?

[GeoffT]

My wifes great grandfather, Frederick Graham, is listed as being at HMS Vivid in 1917, where he seems to have died age 39. I understand that this was a stone frigate, but some records say that he was buried at sea, although the CWGC have a headstone for him in Wimborne Road Cemetary in Bournemouth. It seems that he a nd his wife, with their children moved to Bournemouth from the Isle of Wight cica 1914.

Could he really be buried at sea and the headstone in Bournemouth is a memorial.

Many thanks for any help.

[horatio2]

20 minutes ago, GeoffT said:

some records say that he was buried at sea

Which records would these be?

If buried at sea (why?) after death in Devonport Barracks, he would be commemorated on the Plymouth Naval Memorial (no known grave but the sea). He has, however, a marked grave at Bournemouth, as would be expected.

[GeoffT]

I think it was an ancestry.com, but not sure. I am certain that it said buried at sea, which seems extremely unlikely to me. It said whilst serving on HMS Vivid, so I was surprised to find this was a stone frigate. My further research the showed him buried in Bournemouth,  which makes more sense. Am I right in thinking that the CWGC wouldn't erect a headstone if the body wasn't there? The cemetery manager can't be sure.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

7 minutes ago, GeoffT said:

I think it was an ancestry.com

Trust anything you read on Ancestry trees as highly dubious unless you can verify  what's written from reputable sources.

[TullochArd]

1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Trust anything you read on Ancestry trees as highly dubious unless you can verify  what's written from reputable sources.

Sound advice from DByS.  He was certainly not buried at sea. 

K/40547 Stoker 2nd Class Frederick Lewis Graham RN died of disease/illness (actually Pneumonia and Heart Failure) in Plymouth, Devon.  He was serving at Vivid II which was the Naval Barracks at Devonport at this time  His body was returned to Bournemouth, where his wife and family were living at 3, Verulam Place, Yelverton Road, Bournemouth.  He had prior service in the RNVR (20236) according to his one page Service Record.  Local newspapers seem a good next step, there is also a Pension Record for him.  No obvious (at least to me) medal entitlement.

Edited 11 January by TullochArd
Local newspapers seem a good next step.

[horatio2]

51 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

He had prior service in the RNVR (20236)

Well, sort of. Having volunteered for service in the Royal Navy (probably in mid-1916), he was placed on RNVR List 'Y' and returned to his civilian employment until called forward on an 'hostilties only' engagement in February 1917.

56 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

No obvious (at least to me) medal entitlement.

British War Medal only claimed by and issued to his widow [ADM 171 medal roll].

With less than seven weeks RN service, he had not completed his initial training at Devonport as a stoker - usually about three months before a sea draft..

[GeoffT]

Hi Guys

Many thanks for this information especially from Horatio.

My wife thanks you. Its sad that contracted pneumonia so soo after going up at Vivid, we're the conditions bad there?

One of his daughters is also buried in the same cemetery, she was only 43 when she died in 1943, from an illness.

[GeoffT]

2 hours ago, TullochArd said:

Sound advice from DByS.  He was certainly not buried at sea. 

K/40547 Stoker 2nd Class Frederick Lewis Graham RN died of disease/illness (actually Pneumonia and Heart Failure) in Plymouth, Devon.  He was serving at Vivid II which was the Naval Barracks at Devonport at this time  His body was returned to Bournemouth, where his wife and family were living at 3, Verulam Place, Yelverton Road, Bournemouth.  He had prior service in the RNVR (20236) according to his one page Service Record.  Local newspapers seem a good next step, there is also a Pension Record for him.  No obvious (at least to me) medal entitlement.

Thanks for the info regarding his cause of death. We did know the rest of that. It may be that Ancestry is not always correct, but it was an official document, I'll see if I can find it.

[TullochArd]

1 hour ago, horatio2 said:

Well, sort of. Having volunteered for service in the Royal Navy (probably in mid-1916), he was placed on RNVR List 'Y' and returned to his civilian employment until called forward on an 'hostilties only' engagement in February 1917.

British War Medal only claimed by and issued to his widow [ADM 171 medal roll].

With less than seven weeks RN service, he had not completed his initial training at Devonport as a stoker - usually about three months before a sea draft..

....... so how does he qualify for lone BWM if he had no qualifying service as RNVR and was shore based in training before his death. Could he be a BT351 case?

Edited 11 January by TullochArd

[horatio2]

8 hours ago, TullochArd said:

so how does he qualify for lone BWM if he had no qualifying service as RNVR and was shore based in training before his death. Could he be a BT351 case?

You may not be aware of the Admiralty criteria for the BWM. The Admiralty differed from the War Office. The Admiralty granted the issue of the British War Medal to all ranks who had completed 28 days' mobilised service between 5th August 1914 and 11th November 1918.

[TullochArd]

3 hours ago, horatio2 said:

You may not be aware of the Admiralty criteria for the BWM. The Admiralty differed from the War Office. The Admiralty granted the issue of the British War Medal to all ranks who had completed 28 days' mobilised service between 5th August 1914 and 11th 

I certainly wasn't h2. Thankyou. That curious decision certainly undermines the 'risk and rigour' criteria when applied in this case and similar in comparison to the other two services. 

  

Edited 12 January by TullochArd

[horatio2]

17 hours ago, GeoffT said:

Its sad that contracted pneumonia so soo after going up at Vivid, were the conditions bad there?

A good question. There were probably several hundred ratings (max = 2,500) who were borne on the books of HMS VIVID and accommodated in the RN Barracks at any one time. The barracks were first opened in 1889 and enlarged ten years later, so were relatively new, and I am not aware of any particular health problems. A new Sick Quarters/Hospital was in-build from 1903. A quick check of deaths from illness in HMS VIVID during March and April 1917 shows a total of some forty such cases but it is unlikely that they were all 'barracks deaths'. Is this number exceptional in an era before antibiotics and modern treatments? I cannot judge but I suspect not.

Edit:  Stoker GRAHAM was one of four VIVID deaths on 26 March 1917. The other three died of (1) measles and broncho-pneumonia, aged 21 (2) measles and pneumonia aged 33 and (3) meningitis aged 23.

Edited 12 January by horatio2

[seaJane]

Don't forget that without antibiotics a lung infection of a minor kind would transform to pneumonia very quickly and that would be fatal - it's not the standard of healthcare, it's the nature of airborne infections in close quarters when there is no medication (penicillin discovery 1928).

[GeoffT]

I appreciate that, which is why "Spanish flu" was so devastating.

But this was before then and the death rate among healthy, fit young men, still seems high to me.

[horatio2]

3 hours ago, seaJane said:

Don't forget that without antibiotics a lung infection of a minor kind would transform to pneumonia very quickly and that would be fatal - it's not the standard of healthcare, it's the nature of airborne infections in close quarters when there is no medication (penicillin discovery 1928).

A quick review of HMS VIVID deaths in March 1917 seems to strongly support @seaJane's observations. Of 22 deaths in that month fourteen show cause of death as pneumonia and seven of those are also linked to measles. 'Other' causes include cerebro-spinal fever, heart failure, diphtheria, TB and one suicide. It would seem that an outbreak of measles was present in the Devonport Base and Barracks. We forget what a highly infectious killer measles could be in those pre-vaccination days.

2 hours ago, GeoffT said:

the death rate among healthy, fit young men, still seems high

The above description does not reflect reality. Although most casualties were in their twenties more than a third were in their thirties or older with oldest aged 57

[seaJane]

20 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

. We forget what a highly infectious killer measles could be in those pre-vaccination days.

Anecdotal evidence only: I can't remember whether I'd had the vaccine, but I had measles that turned to pneumonia in 1967.

[healdav]

13 hours ago, seaJane said:

Anecdotal evidence only: I can't remember whether I'd had the vaccine, but I had measles that turned to pneumonia in 1967.

Measles was a killer pre-vaccine. And was a horrible disease. I had it, with spots in my eyes in the early 1950s, so I am lucky not to be blind. I lay in bed in a completely blacked out room (not darkened), for some six weeks. I had to have a scarf wrapped round my head and my eyes closed to go across the landing to the  toilet.

It infuriates me when the chattering classes talk about it being a 'childhood disease, and giggle about their Jemimah having to stay off school for a  few days. "And we don't believe in vaccinations".

Believe me, I would have stuck the needle in myself if a vaccination had been available in my young days.

[seaJane]

20 minutes ago, healdav said:

Believe me, I would have stuck the needle in myself if a vaccination had been available in my young days.

Measles vaccine 1963 so we were both lucky. And of course nutrition levels are way up on 1914-1918 which means immunity is boosted too.

[Matlock1418]

On 11/01/2024 at 16:30, GeoffT said:

My wifes great grandfather, Frederick Graham, is listed as being at HMS Vivid in 1917, where he seems to have died age 39.

Of course, there was a sad aftermath  

Image thanks to WFA/Fold3

Much is probably self-explanatory but a few interpretations for you and to help avoid mis-interpretations:

Frederick Lewis GRAHAM, K 40547

His widow, Kate, made an initial claim for a war pension for herself and for a pension allowance(s) for her children under the prevailing Royal Warrant [which in this case would initially have been the 1917 RW] - Article 11 [widow] and Article 12 [child(ren)].

Date of birth: 26.2.1879 = his widow’s - required because her pension could be age-related/supplemented if she was >45 [which she obviously was not]. Such an age banding of pension is believed to address the less likely possibility of re-marriage with increasing age.

S.A. means Separation Allowance - A portion of a sailor's pay which was matched by the government and sent to his dependants to make sure they were not left destitute while he was on active service.  SA were often slightly more generous than pensions and children’s allowances because a wife had to maintain a home in the same level of comfort as before ready for her husband’s return whilst a widow did not have such a need and costs – after all, apparently, she could then cut back and down-size her home!  Typically, the No. for whom SA is paid on the card reflected the number of children – as we can see here [but see the later note about the fourth child]

She also got a Grant [Typically no more than £3] to cover urgent expenses arising from her husband's death - often for mourning dress [though not worn much at that time of the war], sometimes for moving home [typically downsizing as as mentioned above!] - commonly used for local newspaper death notice inserts [these quite often had a photo = so a good place to search, e.g at British Newspaper Archive or through Find my Past]

The standard pension initially paid to his widow was 26/3 per week from 27.9.17 [there usually was an approx. six month gap between death and paying of a pension [to allow 6 months for calculation] - in the meantime standard Separation Allowances continued to be paid – so, unlike what many observers think when they first see such a card, there was not a complete absence of monies in the intervening period].

26/3 pw = 1917 RW 13/9 pw for a widow <45y [of a Stoker of Cl 2 rank] plus increments of 5/0 [60d], 4/2 [50d], 3/4 [40d] = fourth child no longer entitled as >16.

The child(ren)'s allowance(s) were paid to their mother, typically until they reached 16 when such payments ceased [occasionally up to 21 if they were in some form of further vocational training or sometimes if they had impairment/disability] - then the child(ren) would certainly be expected to go out to work to earn their keep. Or paid until the earlier death of a child. Hence their recorded dates.

N/N is thought to mean 'Noted for Novel' i.e. special treatment/calculation - likely because of the fourth/eldest child becoming ineligible for an allowance due to his age

DEAD,1931 indicates the claim became dead eventually - likely because her youngest child reached 16 in 1930.  This raises the question had his widow remarried [and lost her pension in favour of a one-off remarriage gratuity/bounty - value would vary between one & two years' worth of pension according to the year of re-marriage] or had she died by then?? - You may likely know the situation.

I hope of interest/value.

M

[GeoffT]

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

Of course, there was a sad aftermath  

Image thanks to WFA/Fold3

Much is probably self-explanatory but a few interpretations for you and to help avoid mis-interpretations:

Frederick Lewis GRAHAM, K 40547

His widow, Kate, made an initial claim for a war pension for herself and for a pension allowance(s) for her children under the prevailing Royal Warrant [which in this case would initially have been the 1917 RW] - Article 11 [widow] and Article 12 [child(ren)].

Date of birth: 26.2.1879 = his widow’s - required because her pension could be age-related/supplemented if she was >45 [which she obviously was not]. Such an age banding of pension is believed to address the less likely possibility of re-marriage with increasing age.

S.A. means Separation Allowance - A portion of a sailor's pay which was matched by the government and sent to his dependants to make sure they were not left destitute while he was on active service.  SA were often slightly more generous than pensions and children’s allowances because a wife had to maintain a home in the same level of comfort as before ready for her husband’s return whilst a widow did not have such a need and costs – after all, apparently, she could then cut back and down-size her home!  Typically, the No. for whom SA is paid on the card reflected the number of children – as we can see here [but see the later note about the fourth child]

She also got a Grant [Typically no more than £3] to cover urgent expenses arising from her husband's death - often for mourning dress [though not worn much at that time of the war], sometimes for moving home [typically downsizing as as mentioned above!] - commonly used for local newspaper death notice inserts [these quite often had a photo = so a good place to search, e.g at British Newspaper Archive or through Find my Past]

The standard pension initially paid to his widow was 26/3 per week from 27.9.17 [there usually was an approx. six month gap between death and paying of a pension [to allow 6 months for calculation] - in the meantime standard Separation Allowances continued to be paid – so, unlike what many observers think when they first see such a card, there was not a complete absence of monies in the intervening period].

26/3 pw = 1917 RW 13/9 pw for a widow <45y [of a Stoker of Cl 2 rank] plus increments of 5/0 [60d], 4/2 [50d], 3/4 [40d] = fourth child no longer entitled as >16.

The child(ren)'s allowance(s) were paid to their mother, typically until they reached 16 when such payments ceased [occasionally up to 21 if they were in some form of further vocational training or sometimes if they had impairment/disability] - then the child(ren) would certainly be expected to go out to work to earn their keep. Or paid until the earlier death of a child. Hence their recorded dates.

N/N is thought to mean 'Noted for Novel' i.e. special treatment/calculation - likely because of the fourth/eldest child becoming ineligible for an allowance due to his age

DEAD,1931 indicates the claim became dead eventually - likely because her youngest child reached 16 in 1930.  This raises the question had his widow remarried [and lost her pension in favour of a one-off remarriage gratuity/bounty - value would vary between one & two years' worth of pension according to the year of re-marriage] or had she died by then?? - You may likely know the situation.

I hope of interest/value.

M

Hi M

Yes that's very interesting, thank you.