I wonder where he went from Karachi - perhaps to the Merchant Navy and parts unknown ? And then 'jumped ship' again ? Anne South Australia Timber wrote: > Hi Lynne. > > I believe it stands for "Runner". In other words deserter. > > A lot of sailors would desert the ship when it arrived in an Australian port. > Many did this in the 19th century, & went on to become undisclosed citizens. > > Seamus....(tout á fait chevalier) with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I've been given two photographs of the Gosport Home Guard. There are no names on it, nor a date but if anybody would like a copy, let me know. Also, has anybody else got any photos of the Home Guard, as my grandfather was in it and it would be great to get a photo of him.

Lynne, I have several John Littles in my FH in Portsmouth.Can we compare notes?? My 2xGt.grandfather John was born about 1806 son of Thomas and Elizabeth(Bulbick) He had a brother Joseph and they both baptised sons John in 1837. I also have a John with a daughter Ann Walker. Brenda in Suffolk

Hi Jenny, Thanks for your suggestion, I really appreciate it! I'm having the PR double checked in the next day or so, so hopefully your suggestion will help to clarify the groom's occupaition. Thanks once again, kind regards, Jon

Hi Lynne. I believe it stands for "Runner". In other words deserter. A lot of sailors would desert the ship when it arrived in an Australian port. Many did this in the 19th century, & went on to become undisclosed citizens. Seamus....(tout á fait chevalier) System protected by system mechanics/Kaspersky -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of lynne robinson Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 8:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [!! SPAM] Re: [PORTSMOUTH-GOSPORT] NAVAL RECORDS JOHN LITTLE Hi Ian and Mike. Unfortunately, John Little simply doesn't appear in documentsonline at all. Presumably he would have left the Royal Navy before 1873, when the records start. This fits with what Mike suggested. On the other hand, we did find my husband's direct ancestor in documentsonline. According to the doc, he enlisted on 2 April 1896 for 12 years. There is a note that, as of Feb. 29th, '96, he transferred from the Royal Marines to the Royal Navy. Here's the puzzle. His actual service in the RN lasted from April 2 1896 to August 2, 1896, clearly MUCH less than 12 years. Under the column "If discharged, for what cause?" it states "Run" quite clearly. A note at the bottom adds Run 2-8-96 Karachi (Brisk). Brisk is the name of the ship he was on. In fact his entire service record is one line and, amusingly, the authorities have drawn a line under his record and added a second one underneath. We wonder if "Run" means he "ran away"? or could this possibly be something else? Thanks, Lynne Quoting Ian Thirlwell <[email protected]>: > Lynne, > > if you find his post 1873 record in documentsonline and he also served > before then, the post 1873 record should also give you his earlier > Continuous Service (CS) number. These are in three series from 1853 to > 1872 and you need to check if the CS number has a suffix a or b is is > without a suffix. This number, including suffix of present, can be used > to order the earlier service record from ADM 139 in the National Archives. > There's explanation of all this in Tracing Your Naval Ancestors by Bruno > Pappalardo. > > Cheers, > Ian > > lynne robinson wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> That's very helpful. Its difficult for me to judge how the class >> system might >> have worked at that time. Just to be sure I understand, my >> gggrandfather, the >> petty officer, would have been a COMMISSIONED officer and therefore likely >> wouldn't have left the Navy until he died or retired? >> >> How likely is it that he died on land and had his death recorded there? >> I can't >> find him in the online Royal Navy lists and, since they start at 1873, he >> should be there unless he died or retired prior to that. I guess he >> could have >> been invalided out since he likely would have been too young to retire. >> >> Any clues as to his likely life history are helpful since I have had great >> difficulty in being sure I have the right John Little. >> >> Hope you are enjoying your retirement, Mike. Thanks for taking time to help >> those of us who are still slaving away. >> >> >> Lynne >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

jonnixey.fh wrote >I have a marriage here from Gosport in 1915. The groom's occupation >appears to be "E.L. Pensioner". Does anyone have any ideas what this is >or could be please? Could it be E.I. pensioner? If so, it would be East India (Company) Pensioner. -- Jenny M Benson

Hi Lynne, it's possible that there will be pre 1973 records, the problem though is finding them. There are files with surname indexes but they aren't searchable online. Reading from Pappalardo's book, sevice between 1853 and 1872 is split into two in the indexes: 1853-1862, and 1863-1872. For surnames beginning K to R the earlier index is in ADM 139/1021, the later in ADM 139/1025. From these you can obtain the CS number to look for the actual service record. I haven't gone through this procedure myself so don't know how easy it is to search the indexes. If they are straightforwardly in name alphabetic order, the National Archives may be able to find the entry for a particular name within their allotted time through an estimate request. "Run" means basically deserted. It appears quite frequently in the records, much more, perhaps, than you'd expect. Cheers, Ian lynne robinson wrote: > Hi Ian and Mike. > > Unfortunately, John Little simply doesn't appear in documentsonline at all. > Presumably he would have left the Royal Navy before 1873, when the records > start. This fits with what Mike suggested. > > On the other hand, we did find my husband's direct ancestor in documentsonline. > According to the doc, he enlisted on 2 April 1896 for 12 years. There is a note > that, as of Feb. 29th, '96, he transferred from the Royal Marines to the Royal > Navy. Here's the puzzle. His actual service in the RN lasted from April 2 1896 > to August 2, 1896, clearly MUCH less than 12 years. Under the column "If > discharged, for what cause?" it states "Run" quite clearly. A note at the > bottom adds Run 2-8-96 Karachi (Brisk). Brisk is the name of the ship he was > on. In fact his entire service record is one line and, amusingly, the > authorities have drawn a line under his record and added a second one > underneath. > > We wonder if "Run" means he "ran away"? or could this possibly be something > else? > > Thanks, > > Lynne > > > > >

Hi Lynne, Being absent without leave or desertion was and remains a fairly common offence in the Royal Navy. When a person did so his documents would be marked R for RUN. The procedure when I was Captains Secretary in HMS Hermes was to retain the ratings documents on board for three months. If he remained absent after this time his kit would be packed and removed to Barracks, his Service Documents closed ie marked R and I would raise a Warrant for his Arrest and send to the local police. The documents would accompany his kit to the Naval Provost Marshall at the Barracks. To prove desertion was always difficult to prove since we had to show that the culprit intended to remain PERMANENTLY absent from his ship. Mike Waterlooville

Hello Ron & welcome to the list. Have you got any dates that might help us all to help you?. Linda & Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:31 PM Subject: [PORTSMOUTH-GOSPORT] Blaber > Hi to all on list i am researching the name of Blaber the person thats > intrest me is William Blaber he was married to Louis Fossey he was station > master > at emsworth after his death she lived furlong house of people home in > emsworth house close emsworth any connections would be helpfull > best wishes > Ron Fossey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message >

Hi Ian and Mike. Unfortunately, John Little simply doesn't appear in documentsonline at all. Presumably he would have left the Royal Navy before 1873, when the records start. This fits with what Mike suggested. On the other hand, we did find my husband's direct ancestor in documentsonline. According to the doc, he enlisted on 2 April 1896 for 12 years. There is a note that, as of Feb. 29th, '96, he transferred from the Royal Marines to the Royal Navy. Here's the puzzle. His actual service in the RN lasted from April 2 1896 to August 2, 1896, clearly MUCH less than 12 years. Under the column "If discharged, for what cause?" it states "Run" quite clearly. A note at the bottom adds Run 2-8-96 Karachi (Brisk). Brisk is the name of the ship he was on. In fact his entire service record is one line and, amusingly, the authorities have drawn a line under his record and added a second one underneath. We wonder if "Run" means he "ran away"? or could this possibly be something else? Thanks, Lynne Quoting Ian Thirlwell <[email protected]>: > Lynne, > > if you find his post 1873 record in documentsonline and he also served > before then, the post 1873 record should also give you his earlier > Continuous Service (CS) number. These are in three series from 1853 to > 1872 and you need to check if the CS number has a suffix a or b is is > without a suffix. This number, including suffix of present, can be used > to order the earlier service record from ADM 139 in the National Archives. > There's explanation of all this in Tracing Your Naval Ancestors by Bruno > Pappalardo. > > Cheers, > Ian > > lynne robinson wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> That's very helpful. Its difficult for me to judge how the class >> system might >> have worked at that time. Just to be sure I understand, my >> gggrandfather, the >> petty officer, would have been a COMMISSIONED officer and therefore likely >> wouldn't have left the Navy until he died or retired? >> >> How likely is it that he died on land and had his death recorded there? >> I can't >> find him in the online Royal Navy lists and, since they start at 1873, he >> should be there unless he died or retired prior to that. I guess he >> could have >> been invalided out since he likely would have been too young to retire. >> >> Any clues as to his likely life history are helpful since I have had great >> difficulty in being sure I have the right John Little. >> >> Hope you are enjoying your retirement, Mike. Thanks for taking time to help >> those of us who are still slaving away. >> >> >> Lynne >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message >

Lynne, if you find his post 1873 record in documentsonline and he also served before then, the post 1873 record should also give you his earlier Continuous Service (CS) number. These are in three series from 1853 to 1872 and you need to check if the CS number has a suffix a or b is is without a suffix. This number, including suffix of present, can be used to order the earlier service record from ADM 139 in the National Archives. There's explanation of all this in Tracing Your Naval Ancestors by Bruno Pappalardo. Cheers, Ian lynne robinson wrote: > Hi Mike, > > That's very helpful. Its difficult for me to judge how the class system might > have worked at that time. Just to be sure I understand, my gggrandfather, the > petty officer, would have been a COMMISSIONED officer and therefore likely > wouldn't have left the Navy until he died or retired? > > How likely is it that he died on land and had his death recorded there? > I can't > find him in the online Royal Navy lists and, since they start at 1873, he > should be there unless he died or retired prior to that. I guess he could have > been invalided out since he likely would have been too young to retire. > > Any clues as to his likely life history are helpful since I have had great > difficulty in being sure I have the right John Little. > > Hope you are enjoying your retirement, Mike. Thanks for taking time to help > those of us who are still slaving away. > > > Lynne >

Hi Mike. I think you've done damn well in sorting that grandmother out ! I take it that you weren't a "Bunting Tosser" ? Seamus....(tout á fait chevalier) System protected by system mechanics/Kaspersky -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 11 February 2007 6:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PORTSMOUTH-GOSPORT] William Rant Hi Ken, Its a real challenge. I'm going to have a few words with my maternal grandmother when I catch up with her. She was born MORRIS illegitimate. Became LIGHTFOOT when her mother married. Became MOORLEY when she married Had four girls and two boys all MOORLEY although my mother the eldest was registered the day her mother got married. When Mr MOORLEY disapppeared she teamed up with Mr LAWRENCE. The first child of this union was a LIGHTFOOT. The next two were LAWRENCE. After MR MOORLEY was declared legally dead she married MR LAWRENCE using her original name MORRIS. Good hunting Mike Waterlooville ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks so much, once more, Mike. This really helps me to understand what was likely going on with this ancestor. Based on this, the disconnected records I have for a likely John Little all fit together. Proving that it is the RIGHT John Little might prove more difficult, but at least I am on the right track. Thanks for the book recommendation. Definitely a "must read". Lynne Quoting [email protected]: > Hi Lynne, > > No he was NOT commissioned. Petty Officers are non - commissioned officers > and your man would have retired after 20 or 22 years service at 40 > yrs of age. > Exceptionally he could have served an additional five years, affectionately > known in the service as a Fifth Five. Continuous service was not introduced > into the Navy until 1852. > > A good book for anyone wishing to get the flavour of the Victiorian Navy is > John Winton,s ' Huurah for the Life of a sailor' Published 1977 > > Mike >

Hi to all on list i am researching the name of Blaber the person thats intrest me is William Blaber he was married to Louis Fossey he was station master at emsworth after his death she lived furlong house of people home in emsworth house close emsworth any connections would be helpfull best wishes Ron Fossey

Yes indeed he would be. The Paymasters looked after Correspondence, Pay, Stores and Victualling having taken over from the Purser. This branch of the Royal Navy was eventually known as the Supply and Secretariat and has recently changed again to Defence Logistics and Personnel administration. Mike Waterlooville

Hi Mike , Would a paymaster have been a commissioned officer? Thanks, Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [PORTSMOUTH-GOSPORT] Memorial to JACOB WESTLAKE WINDSOR > Hi Charles, > > What was his full name? > > The use of the term paymaster indicates that he was a serving officer of > the > Royal Navy not a Dockyard Official. Thus the accident may have occurred > onboard a ship in harbour. Portsmouth has had many burial grounds > developed with > the gravestones being broken up, used as paving etc and the practice > continues > today. Why there should be two references to memorials of different dates > some 59 years after the incident is unknown unless they were references > to him > on his childrens/grandchildrens graves. > > While on this problem yesterdays Portsmouth News had an article about some > 25 urns containing ashes at the Haslar Chapel which will be reburied, > probably > at the Clayhall Cemetery, unless the relatives wish otherwise. > Unfortunately > they have only traced two of the families concerned. > > Good luck in your hunt. > > Mike > Waterlooville > > PS Which is why it is always important to verify the source of your > information! > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message >

Hi Mike, That's very helpful. Its difficult for me to judge how the class system might have worked at that time. Just to be sure I understand, my gggrandfather, the petty officer, would have been a COMMISSIONED officer and therefore likely wouldn't have left the Navy until he died or retired? How likely is it that he died on land and had his death recorded there? I can't find him in the online Royal Navy lists and, since they start at 1873, he should be there unless he died or retired prior to that. I guess he could have been invalided out since he likely would have been too young to retire. Any clues as to his likely life history are helpful since I have had great difficulty in being sure I have the right John Little. Hope you are enjoying your retirement, Mike. Thanks for taking time to help those of us who are still slaving away. Lynne Quoting [email protected]: > Hi Lynne, > > Advancement to Petty Officer is relatively straightforward in the timescale. > Advancement would be as follows: > > Boy Seaman under 17yrs 6mths > Ordinary Seaman on attaining 18yrs > Able Seaman after six months > Leading Seaman after passing professional courses and dependant on vacancies > ( you would be placed on a roster according to seniority) > Petty Officer Seaman after qualifying professionally and like L/Seaman > advanced when vacancies occur. > > Other branches followed much the same system. Until the 1960's each Port > Division operated its own Advancement rosters ie Portsmouth, Chatham and > Devonport. In my case > I joined the Portsmouth Division in 1954 as a Junior Stores Asst 2 class age > 17, attained 1st class at 17 1/2 Probationery Stores Asst at 18 yrs Stores > Asst at 18 1/2 years qualified by examination for advancement but a very long > roster meant it was January 1960 before advancement to Leading Stores > Accountant. Passed for Petty Officer in May 1961 and advanced to > Petty Officer in Oct 1963. Commissioned in Sept 1967 to the Special > Duties List, (S/Lt (SD) > Stores) Promoted Lt in October 1970 and transferred to the General List and > finally promoted to Lt Cdr Seniority 25 Jan 1972. > > Hope this clarifies things. Commissioned Naval Officers never leave the > Royal Navy but only move from the Active List to the Retired List. > Those on the > Retired List can be called forward to the Active List but as my papers say > this would be unlikely after the age of 60yrs. Guess I'm safe now at 70!! > > Mike > Waterlooville >

Hi Lynne, No he was NOT commissioned. Petty Officers are non - commissioned officers and your man would have retired after 20 or 22 years service at 40 yrs of age. Exceptionally he could have served an additional five years, affectionately known in the service as a Fifth Five. Continuous service was not introduced into the Navy until 1852. A good book for anyone wishing to get the flavour of the Victiorian Navy is John Winton,s ' Huurah for the Life of a sailor' Published 1977 Mike

Hi Lynne, Advancement to Petty Officer is relatively straightforward in the timescale. Advancement would be as follows: Boy Seaman under 17yrs 6mths Ordinary Seaman on attaining 18yrs Able Seaman after six months Leading Seaman after passing professional courses and dependant on vacancies ( you would be placed on a roster according to seniority) Petty Officer Seaman after qualifying professionally and like L/Seaman advanced when vacancies occur. Other branches followed much the same system. Until the 1960's each Port Division operated its own Advancement rosters ie Portsmouth, Chatham and Devonport. In my case I joined the Portsmouth Division in 1954 as a Junior Stores Asst 2 class age 17, attained 1st class at 17 1/2 Probationery Stores Asst at 18 yrs Stores Asst at 18 1/2 years qualified by examination for advancement but a very long roster meant it was January 1960 before advancement to Leading Stores Accountant. Passed for Petty Officer in May 1961 and advanced to Petty Officer in Oct 1963. Commissioned in Sept 1967 to the Special Duties List, (S/Lt (SD) Stores) Promoted Lt in October 1970 and transferred to the General List and finally promoted to Lt Cdr Seniority 25 Jan 1972. Hope this clarifies things. Commissioned Naval Officers never leave the Royal Navy but only move from the Active List to the Retired List. Those on the Retired List can be called forward to the Active List but as my papers say this would be unlikely after the age of 60yrs. Guess I'm safe now at 70!! Mike Waterlooville

Hi Seamus, No I wasn't a Bunting Tosser (RN Signalman) I wus a Pusser. Mike