Royal Navy Ratings – missed commemorations, (Not RND, RNR or RNVR)

[PRC]

Of all the possible missed commemorations in my pile of to do’s, it’s the Royal Navy ratings that I find the hardest to resolve. While I have a specific individual uppermost in my mind, what I’m really looking for is more general guidance on sources of information.

What I’m talking about specifically is those ratings who died post discharge but before the CWGC cut-off of the 31st August 1921 where ill-health may have been a factor in their discharge and where the ill-health was caused or aggravated by their service.

From that perspective the entry in the Register of Seamen’s Services seems to be just about the least helpful of any surviving service records.

• In my (limited) experience this document never has an “in your face” statement as to whether caused  \ aggravated by service.
• Rating can be discharged OR invalided out of the service – in both scenarios sometimes with a one\two word medical condition written beside it and sometimes not. Sometimes the condition will appear in the lines above, followed by postings to the likes of HMS Pembroke or Haslar as a prelude to leaving the service. There is then nothing written against Discharge \ Invalided.
• Seldom any reference to a Pension being awarded, which would be likely if the condition was caused or aggravated by service – even when a Ministry of Pensions card exists to confirm one was awarded.
• While a date and place of birth are useful, these are not always correct, and with commonish names from large metropolitan areas, (and small Norfolk villages!), next of kin details with addresses is what would also be desirable.

So the case I’m looking at came about as a result of an “In memoriam” notice appearing in the same column as someone I was researching. The newspaper concerned was the edition of the Smethwick Telephone dated April 30th, 1921.

Image courtesy FindMyPast.

Maximising the contrast brought up faint indications that the year of death was 1917.

A check of the General Registrars Office Quarterly index of deaths in England & Wales for the 10 years prior to 1921 brought up a number of candidates, but the two that stood out was a William G. Scrivens, aged 22, whose death was registered in the Kings Norton District in the April to June quarter, (Q2), of 1917 and the death of an 18 year old William T. Scrivens recorded in the same District and quarter. Kings Norton Civil Registration District included the civil parish of Smethwick.

I checked the online local papers of the period of death and found no reference to coroners enquiries, so looking at natural causes with a physician in recent attendance.

A check of the Military records on FMP for both of them brought up one interesting match – a Royal Navy rating, J.13514 William George Scrivens, born Birmingham, October 1894, enlisted 1912.

William George Scrivens was invalided out on the 8th August 1916 with Tuberculosis of the Lungs.

Again I’ve tried increasing the contrast on the faint handwriting to see if there is any acknowledgment that his condition was caused or aggravated by his service, but it is still not really comprehensible.

Finally the nearest I can see to a pension being awarded is this note:-

Does that read "Traced Pension 25/8/16"?

All the above images sourced: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D6865684

Even the award of a disability pension could be used as an argument that the Navy accepted his condition was caused or aggravated by his service.

But unfortunately the only pension card I could turn up so far was for a claim from an unknown person for a Dependants Pension following his death – which is referenced as having occurred on the 23th May 1917 – not the 24th April 1917 shown in the In Memoriam notice.

Image courtesy Fold 3.

To make matters even worse, taken at face value the card would read as if he hadn’t received a disability pension and so the claimant for a dependant pension was turned down. Papers were put away pending an appeal. In fact the claim could have been turned down for a variety of reasons and of course nothing there to indicate outcome of the appeal.

So am I missing something in the available paperwork?

Or is there another offline trove somewhere that would address the key issue of whether or not the Navy accepted the condition was as a result of or aggravated by his service.

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

16 minutes ago, PRC said:

Does that read "Traced Pension 25/8/16"?

I would say so.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

17 minutes ago, PRC said:

To make matters even worse, taken at face value the card would read as if he hadn’t received a disability pension and so the claimant for a dependant pension was turned down.

It wouldn't matter whether he'd received a pension himself, he just had to have died under the qualifying conditions for the dependant pension (almost always a parent's claim).

The parent's claim would have used the same initial condition as a widow.  In the 1917 RW the basic condition on the death side was

Quote

...either (a) is killed while in the performance of military duty, or (b) dies a result of wounds or injuries received in the performance of such duty within seven years of receiving such wounds or injuries, or (c) died of disease certified as contracted or commencing while on active service or as having been aggravated by active service, within seven years of his removal from duty on account of such disease, may, provided the soldier’s death has not been caused by his serious negligence or misconduct...

And then financial dependence conditions on top.

Craig

[ss002d6252]

I can see it now

https://www.fold3.com/image/703728549


It is likely that a claim was being paid until 1926 when it was stamped as DEAD.

Craig

[horatio2]

Since his eligibility for a pension was confirmed on discharge in August 1916 after less than four years service from age 18, thepension must be linked to his discharge invalided with tuberculosis of the lungs. There is no other naval pension that he could have qualified for. It is then only necessary to link his TB on discharge with his cause of death on his death certficate about nine months later. IF c.o.d. = TB there are grounds for attribution to/aggravation by RN service.

36 minutes ago, PRC said:

Rating can be discharged OR invalided out of the service

Not quite, Invaliding is a cause of discharge.

That is my take, for what it is worth.

[PRC]

7 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

Not quite, Invaliding is a cause of discharge.

Sorry should have been clearer.

An entry on an individuals register of seaman's services entry could read xx/xx/xx Discharged (Tuberculosis) or xx/xx/xx Invalided (Tuberculosis). I was wondering whether the use of either term inferred anything specific or were they just used interchangeably.

Cheers,

Peter

[horatio2]

Loks like clumsy recording. "Tuberculosis" is not a Cause of Discharge. Nor are "Piles" or "VD". They can be reasons for invaliding and discharge,

[PRC]

1 hour ago, horatio2 said:

Loks like clumsy recording. "Tuberculosis" is not a Cause of Discharge. Nor are "Piles" or "VD". They can be reasons for invaliding and discharge,

Thanks @horatio2 - I would agree with you. I'm more used to army records where, if they have survived, the attributable \ non-attributable issue is quite clearly addressed and it is a question then of cause of death on the death certificate.

I get the impression with the CWGC, and behind them the individual services, that any doubt or grey areas means rejection.

1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said:

It is likely that a claim was being paid until 1926 when it was stamped as DEAD.

Thanks Craig.

What tells you a pension was in payment, rather than just claimed, (and therefore possibly rejected).

Cheers,
Peter

[ss002d6252]

Just now, PRC said:

 

What tells you a pension was in payment, rather than just claimed, (and therefore possibly rejected).

If that was the case it would just be marked as rejected (or similar), the DEAD mark was used for existing claims that ceased.

Craig

[seaJane]

Am I correct that my man here is in an equivalent situation?

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/295334-charles-peck-bugler-royal-marine-light-infantry/#comment-3085393

[horatio2]

Esentially, yes. You know the cause of death from the DC and need to match it to the reason for his discharge invalided. This is not shown on his ADM 159 ledger record so, as discussed on your other topic, you need his discharge papers from ADM 157 instead. I suspect that he was not invalided with TB but could be wrong.

The difference to RN records (the subject of this topic) is that the RN equivalent of RM discharge papers do not survive.

Edited 19 January , 2022 by horatio2

[seaJane]

Thank you for the clarification @horatio2, and apologies @PRC for barging in on your post.

[Matlock1418]

Am 'bumping' as have recently been in similar discussions with @PRC and have a couple of cases where men died post-discharge and pensions for disability and death/dependancy involved.

I usually circulate more in kharki so this Navy lark is a foreign field.

Can anyone give any more info on the likely CWGC/Navy [rather than Army, with which I am more familiar] document requirements and perspective on processing potential non-comm cases ???

M

Edited 23 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
add