Thomas Moore Telegraphist

[jaco]

The Royal Navy Service History

I have problems interpreting the columns to the right of the 'Ships served in' : What do the large and small numbers shown in the 'List' mean, and are the 'No.' figures the complement of seamen on board?

On the little 'Badges' grid, why was a badge (? Good Conduct)granted on 28 August 1920, deprived on 14 May 1924?

Thanks a lot

Eslin

[joseph]

Eslin,

“I have problems interpreting the columns to the right of the 'Ships served in' : What do the large and small numbers shown in the 'List' mean, and are the 'No.' figures the complement of seamen on board?”

This is his "Ships book number" each ship had a book divided into lists by department and the number is his number on this list, mainly for pay and allowances onboard its not anything to do with the ships complement.

‘On the little 'Badges' grid, why was a badge (? Good Conduct)granted on 28 August 1920, dep

Kings Regulations & Admiralty Instructions – 1913.

740. Number and Date of Award.-Badges for good conduct not exceeding three in number are to be conferred on men entitled by their ratings to hold them.

All men granted badges are entitled to the good conduct pay attached to them except in the case of honorary badge ratings.

Badges are to be granted when they become due, whether the man applies for the award or not.

741. Qualifying Service.-The following periods of service will be required to qualify for the award of a badge :

For one badge - - - - - - - 3 years.

For two badges - - - - - - 8 years.

For three badges - - - - - 13 years.

2. The whole of a man's service in the Royal Navy may be counted as qualifying service, with the following exceptions :

a. Time served in the rating of Boy of any class or before attaining the age of 18 years.

b. Time in the second class for conduct.

c. Time for which the character of " Indifferent " has been awarded.

d. Time prior to desertion unless the R. or R.Q. is removed.

e. Time prior to absence from the Service for five years or more, except as provided by Article 368 in the case of men invalided.

f. Time for which pay is not allowed ; for example, time lost through imprisonment, detention, cells, or civil custody, on account of D.S.Q., or during which a man has been out of the Service for any cause.

3. Two years' "Very Good" Conduct.-During the two years of actual service in receipt of wages immediately preceding the award of a badge, a man's conduct, in the opinion of his Captain, must have been uninterruptedly " Very Good " ; he must have conducted himself with sobriety, activity, and attention, and have been in the first class for conduct. Conviction by the civil power, or an order under the Probation of Offenders Act, may be regarded as breaking the continuity of this " Very Good " conduct if this is recommended by the Captain and approved by the Commander-in-Chief or other Flag Officer whose flag is flying to whom reference can most conveniently be made.

A second or third badge is not to be awarded unless during the same period as above the man's conduct has been uninterruptedly " Very Good," and the preceding badge has been in his possession continuously; except in the cases of awards made on account of service in non-badge ratings allowed to count under Article 742, or on the removal of R. or R.Q. under Article 744 ; in these cases two or more badges may be awarded together or at less intervals than two years.

4. Method of Reckoning.-The period of two years of " Very Good " time required by clause 3 is to be reckoned without reference to " V.G." or other assessed character on the service certificate, except " Indifferent." For example, the latter part of a year for which " Good " or " Fair " is awarded may be counted; but although a man may have been given " V.G." character for two years, it is within the discretion of the Captain to disallow any part of this time served under his command, a higher standard of conduct being required for good conduct badges than for the " V.G." character.

5. In the case of a man who joins from another ship, " Very Good " time for badge purposes is to be reckoned from the date entered on his conduct sheet.

NOTE.-In reckoning service towards badges, care should be taken that the same period of time forfeited is not deducted more than once ; for example, under " Cells " and 2nd class for conduct or 2nd class for conduct and "Indifferent " character.

He would have been a bad boy to loose the badge; it may give some indication elsewhere on the Service Certificate why he was deprived of it.

Regards Charles

[jaco]

Thanks for all the valuable stuff.

I am trying to work out how to download the service history as I don't have the Photo manipulation software to reduce the file size.

In the meantime does anyone know where I can find out precisely what a telegraphist did on board ship and what sort of conditions he worked under?

thanks again

eslin

[horatio2]

Telegraphists ran ship's communications through the medium of wireless telegraphy (W/T) as opposed to visual signalling (Flags, Lights, etc). They were all pioneers in W/T, recently invented by Mr Marconi. (First trans-atlantic signal in 1901.) They worked in their ship's W/T office, sending and receiving signals by morse code over what came to be known as "Radio".

[Bart150]

Joseph

Thanks very much for the explanation of the "Ship’s book number". I have service documents for several relatives and I’d been meaning to think about what those two columns of data meant. Now that I do, some questions occur to me.

1 In the column headed List we find a number corresponding to a ‘department’ of the ship. The great majority of the entries on the documents I possess are either ‘5’ or ‘15’, often with a superscript, such as 2. From this I conclude that these department codes were standard throughout the navy; eg ‘5’ meant the same whether on a battleship or a minesweeper. Where can I find a definition of what departments the codes ‘5’ , ‘15’ and the various other code values stand for?

2 I suppose that the number in the second column (ie number within department) was a sequence number allocated when the man joined the ship. Thus, if, eg, a ship was in commission a long time and there was a lot of turnover of crew, the next man to join (say) department 5 might get (say) number 201, even though department 5 only contained (say) 100 men at any one time. Is that assumption correct?

3 Assuming the answer to '2' is 'yes', suppose a ship went out of commission and was then recommissioned. My guess is that they would start the numbering within each department again at 1. Is that so?

4 Are the ship’s books containing these lists by department accessible now, eg at the National Archives?

5 This "Ship’s book number" information was recorded on both the service record (the document now available from the National Archives) and the certificate of service (the document which the man was given to take away when he retired from the navy). The service record only contains information up to 1929, but the certificate of service goes all the way through to retirement. On the latter, the "Ship’s book number" is recorded up to about 1936. After that it is not. How come?

I hope the above points are not too boring.

Best wishes

Bart

[joseph]

Bart,

For manning purposes every position in a ship was identified, numbered and "rated" according to the skills required to fulfil the duties associated with the position, hence a man fulfilling those duties became a "rating". Identical positions in different ships were given the same number so as to provide some continuity throughout the navy. The position number determined what mess the man lived in, on which side of the ship he lived (even numbered messes to port, odd to starboard), where his hammock was slung and stowed, what watch he was assigned to, port or starboard, and where his stations were for the various evolutions. Any equipment carried by the ship and assigned to that position (such as special tools, rifle and webbing, cutlass etc) carried the position number. This is the origin of a man referring to his job aboard ship as a "number". It is also the origin of the old sailor’s term "oppo", or opposite number, which originally meant the man in the other watch who did the same job, i.e. someone with whom he had a lot in common. Although they have lost much of their formal meaning, these terms are still in use today.

Thats the ships book number, not the same today but when I served I had one this was particular to me not the ship and it went with me; mine was '164S'

I am not aware of any ships ledgers at the PRO but there may be some at the National Maritime Museum.

Hope this goes some way to answering your questions

Regards Charles

[Bart150]

That’s really interesting, Charles. A great help. Thanks.

I love the linguistic insights.

So the answer to my question 2 is NO, and to question 3 N/A.

I was never in the Navy but I have the records of lots of relatives who were. I’d like to mention the following difficulty I now see. In (almost) all the records I possess a seaman keeps the same ship’s book number while he is on the same ship EVEN WHEN HE IS PROMOTED – indeed even when promoted twice on the same ship.

If, as you say, the number defines a certain combination of skills and duties, how can it be that when a man is promoted he keeps the same number? I have for example a man who went from Signal Boy to Boy 1st Class and then to Ordinary Seaman on the same ship, and kept the same number.

I don’t want to be quarrelsome, I’m just seriously interested.

Regards

Bart

[joseph]

Bart,

When a ships company joined a ship, at that time all at once the ship was manned for about 3 years "a Commision" the men would be put in positions which they where not nesessarily qualified for, but would get there during the commision. The ships sailed to there station and remained there for the commision and sometimes re-commisioning whilst there.

Most "Boys" where in Ordinary billets (and enjoyed the pay) when they joined the ship if they didn't make it to Ordinary Seaman by the time they where 181/2 they got the boot.

Regards Charles

[Bart150]

Thanks, Charles. This gets interesting.

I have a nice sample: the records of 7 ratings spread over the period 1875-1945, most with several promotions, of course. I'm going to study them in the light of what you've said. Will let you know when I've done that.

Regards

Bart

[jaco]

Thanks, Charles. This gets interesting.

I have a nice sample: the records of 7 ratings spread over the period 1875-1945, most with several promotions, of course. I'm going to study them in the light of what you've said. Will let you know when I've done that.

Regards

Bart

[jaco]

I uploaded the Service Record but forgot to add any comments Anno Domini...

Hopefully the record is readable.

Re the badges - the "sub_ratings" and "Character & Ability" entries do not (with all the VG's) seem to be about a troublesome character.Having said that, shouldn't he have expected a promotion at sometime in the twenties?

eslin

[joseph]

Eslin,

The SC is not too easy to read, but may just be my age.

As a telegraphist he would be required to take some pretty stringent exams to get promotion, and still may have as there will be another Service Record following on from this one.

I cannot make out what the letters are in the Sub Ratings column if you let me know what they are I may be able to decifer them.

Yes he has got a good record with maybe one glitch that was the CP whilst he was on the Hood this denotes time in Civil Custody and is deducted from his service. Just looks like a night in cells on the 19/07/1926. And at sometime it looks as though he lost a Good Conduct Badge.

Regards Charles

[jaco]

Eslin,

The SC is not too easy to read, but may just be my age.

As a telegraphist he would be required to take some pretty stringent exams to get promotion, and still may have as there will be another Service Record following on from this one.

I cannot make out what the letters are in the Sub Ratings column if you let me know what they are I may be able to decifer them.

Yes he has got a good record with maybe one glitch that was the CP whilst he was on the Hood this denotes time in Civil Custody and is deducted from his service. Just looks like a night in cells on the 19/07/1926. And at sometime it looks as though he lost a Good Conduct Badge.

Regards Charles

[jaco]

Hello again,

Thank you for all your assistance.

You mention that there is another service record to follow - how do I find out, and can I get hold of a copy. When they sent me his enlistment papers etc. the Fleet Air Arm said that that was all the records that they held.

Re his night in the cells, is it possible for me to find out where the Hood was on that night? You never know

his antics may have made the local papers...

I have made an enlargement of the C & A section. What is the significance of the asterisk that I have highlighted?

Thank you again

eslin

[joseph]

Eslin,

Its a VG Star,

Should the Captain be entirely satisfied with the behaviour, conduct, and work of a man for the year, apart from the offence which necessitated the award of good, he may assess his character as V.G., although he may have been deprived of one badge, or if in the first three years of his service or in a non-badge rating, awarded cells for not more than five days, but this consideration is only allowed on one occasion during a man's service. An award made under these circumstances should be distinguished by an asterisk, thus :-V.G.*

Looks like thats when he lost the badge.

Regards Charles

[joseph]

Eslin

In 1923 the system for recording Service Records was change so all newly joined personnel had the new record and all the rest changed in 1928.

This is the address from the NA site;

For service between 1928 and 1938, please contact

The Directorate of Personnel Support (Navy)

Navy Search

TNT Archive Services

Tetron Point

William Nadin Way

Swadlincote

Derbyshire

DE11 0BB

Tel: 01283 227913

Fax: 01283 227942

Regards Charles

[joseph]

Eslin,

His Sub Rating is "Cabinet Watchkeeper"

Regards Charles

[jaco]

Eslin,

His Sub Rating is "Cabinet Watchkeeper"

Regards Charles

Thanks as always for the information, but, please, I have to ask, what does "Cabinet Watchkeeper" mean?

regards

eslin

[Bart150]

Charles

Re Changes of rank

I’ve been through the sample of service records that I possess, and made this analysis:

Changes of rank and changes of ship’s book number for a seaman while on same ship (leaving out pseudoships such as HMS Vivid etc): total 23

Case A: Change of rank, but not number: 20

Case B: Change of number, but not rank: 0

Case C: Change of rank and number together: 1

Case D: Change of rank first, number soon after: 1

Case E: Change of number first, rank soon after: 1

As far as I can make out Eslin’s Thomas Moore had just a couple of Case A changes.

Considering this data and what you’ve already said, I’ve arrived at the following assumptions.

The ship’s book defined the role of each ‘number’ on the ship. This definition included the ideal rank for the holder of the number.

At the start of the ship’s commission many men held a lower rank than the ideal for their number.

In such a case, this fact cannot be seen from the service record. The service record shows, eg, that the man was an able seaman with number 5/12; it doesn’t indicate (eg) that the ideal rank for number 5/12 on that ship was leading seaman.

During the ship’s commission some men were normally promoted in rank. This usually meant that a man thus reached the rank defined as ideal for the number he was already holding. It could happen, though less often, that a man was promoted to a rank higher than the ideal for his number.

Therefore, in general, at the end of the ship’s commission the actual ranks matched the ideal ranks for the numbers more closely than at the start.

I’d be glad if you could tell me whether the above assumptions are correct.

If so, I’m interested to know whether the following further guess that I have made is correct: a man’s living conditions on the ship were determined by his number (ie he had living conditions appropriate to the ideal rank for the number); but his pay was determined by his actual rank, irrespective of his number.

Regards

Bart

[joseph]

Eslin,

Watchkeep (continuous shift working) in main or auxiliary wireless offices onboard ship. Looking after the actual wireless cabinets and tuning them in to the required frequencies and ensuring they where available. Quite a responsible job worth 6d per day extra to an ordinary telegraphist a large rise on top of his 1/3d per day normal pay.

Regards Charles

[joseph]

Bart,

Generally yes, the only time a man would move number on a commission is if he moved from Junior Rate to Senior Rate, these are the only two basic living quarters there are others but specific to Rank IE the Master at Arms had his own Mess with the Schoolmaster and Writers.

“Officers and men are as a rule to retain one number on the ship's books during the whole period of the commission, and those who may have been discharged and re-entered in the same quarter are to return to their original numbers ; but if, from having been borne as supernumeraries, or from any other cause, their names necessarily appear in more than one place in the books, cross references are to be made at each entry, so that there may be no difficulty in tracing the whole of their services.”

This is a ‘List of the List’

In all ships with a complement of 60 and above the complement list should be subdivided as follows:

List

5. Military Branch.

5A. Engineer Branch.

5B. Artisan Branch.

5C. Sick Berth Staff.

5D. Accountant Staff.

5E. Miscellaneous ratings.

5F. Schoolmasters in training ships, and seamen riggers.

In ships of complements of below 60 the list should be subdivided thus :

5. Military Branch.

5A. All other ratings.

Regards Charles

[Bart150]

Thanks Charles

That increases my understanding.

Which then raises further questions: How come we often get superscripts to list 5 - very often 2?

And if the list 5 covers all the ratings in the ship how come we get lists with other numbers, particularly 15 and 12?

Sorry to be persistent, but it is interesting.

Regards

Bart

[joseph]

Bart,

The '5' list is sea going ships, 15 and 12 Shore establishments/ships and depot ships.

Do they fit into that catagory?

Regards Charles

[Bart150]

Bart,

The '5' list is sea going ships, 15 and 12 Shore establishments/ships and depot ships.

Do they fit into that catagory?

Regards Charles

Charles

I find '5' if the seaman is actually ON a depot ship.

But if he's on a destroyer whose admin is done by a depot ship (as was normal), then he is on a '12' list.

With that refinement the distinction between the '5' and '15' works very well.

In fact I have an apparent exception that proves the rule. One man was on HMS Hibernia in 1912-13 when the first case of aircraft taking off from a warship took place. He is on a '15' list - since, although Hibernia was a ship (not a shore establishment), it wasn't at sea; it was (I suppose) somewhere safe near Chatham where it was convenient to do experiments.

Interesting. Thanks.

Bart