Greetings, Anyone able to discover for me the final fate of this vessel, please? I know she was built in Calcutta in 1818 & shows up in LR's in 1829 & was still carrying migrants to OZ in 1853. TIA Shirl OZ

Thanks, everyone, for your replies. I didn't think of getting the death certificate - that should clear up the mystery. I've just found another record that says: Name of Deceased Blackburn, Wm Month 7 Ship no ship Official Reference Lr. 13135/08 So it seems he wasn't attached to a ship at the time of his death. Regards Jan

BUSSORAH MERCHANT continued in LR until 1865, then removed She was registered in London, with ON 23157. In 1863 she was sold to Hadjee Joosup Siabdina, registered at Bombay (and given in error ON 30587, which was cancelled in 1865). Broken up 1867 David On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Shirley via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Greetings, > > > > Anyone able to discover for me the final fate of this vessel, please? > > I know she was built in Calcutta in 1818 & shows up in LR's in 1829 & was > still carrying migrants to OZ in 1853. > > > > TIA > > Shirl > > OZ > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found that death registration too. Also the probate reference: BLACKBURN William of Lax terrace Stockton on Tees died 20 June 1905. Administration London 11 July to Jane Ann Blackburn widow. Effects 803/18/- But I'm mystified as to why his death is recorded in the "Deaths at Sea" records. Could it be perhaps because he was still employed as a mariner, but happened to die while at home on leave? Regards Jan ----------------------------------- At 08:31 AM 29/03/2015 +0100, Peter Klein wrote: A William Blackburn's death was registered in the Stockton Registration District in the June Quarter of 1905, aged 52. This implies that he died within the Stockton district, and not at sea. Regards, PK

Fully concur Nivard, And it is patently obvious that throughout much of the 19th Century, when the administrators attempted to put something into place for the first time, such as the BMD Indexes in 1837, that the initial attempt often didn't work properly e.g. for births, and it wasn't until the system was revised circa 1875, that things improved. And to give this message a maritime theme, the Admiralty, which spent much of its time chasing up commanding officers who failed to complete their paper work correctly, was involved in a major breach of national legislation, in that it failed to have most of the changes it introduced, from about the 1860s, put before the Privy Council, in order that it could advise the King or Queen in order to give the nod to new legislation, and it wasn't until 1907 that this major omission was finally corrected......and even then changes would often appear to have been placed before the Council many months or even years after changes were actually introduced, as some sort of after thought ? And in my experience it wasn't until after WWII that some form of order was introduced across the board in the Admiralty, where many departments were reluctant to play the game. So I think what I'm saying is that from the top to bottom, to most folk in England, Administration was something totally new, with which a lot of people had a job complying with, and often still do, if they think they can get away with it ;-) Paul On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:01:39 +0100, Nivard Ovington via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Hi Peter > >The pertinent part of the passage from the National Archives is "Any >record made" > >There are many pitfalls in the system > >Deaths at sea (and other life events) were supposed to be recorded and >passed on but often they were not or were subsequently missed > >In theory if a man died at sea, it should not be in the local indexes >but in a separate deaths at sea index, again in theory if its in the >local index he died onshore or his body was washed up > >But as in many things, where humans get involved they have great >capacity to make a pigs ear of it > >Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >On 29/03/2015 11:42, Peter Enlund wrote: >> Dear List >> >> From the National Archives web site >> >> Any record made of a birth or death at sea from 1837 onwards was sent >> directly to the General Register Office and recorded in the Marine Register. >> >> I have men who died at sea and got the certificate from the GRO. In >> addition, there are registers at TNA of deaths at sea, apart from the >> index but theses records in BT156 and BT157 do not extend beyond 1890 >> >> I suggest that there is nothing unusual about the death being recorded >> in the local registry >> >> For more on this, the book “My Ancestor was a Merchant Seaman” is >> the authoritative reference on these and should be in local genealogical >> society libraries >> >> Regards, Peter in Melbourne > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message 50° 33' N, 2° 26' W http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html

I'm confused about the Death at Sea record (BT 334)I found for William Blackburn who died on 26 June 1905 at Stockton Durham. Under Rank, Profession or Occupation it says (12128) or it could be (12428). There is no ship listed. The 1881 census listed him as "Sea Engineer Mariner". Does this mean he died in Stockton (which is where he lived)? And if so, why is he listed as a Death at Sea? Cheers Jan

Hi Peter The pertinent part of the passage from the National Archives is "Any record made" There are many pitfalls in the system Deaths at sea (and other life events) were supposed to be recorded and passed on but often they were not or were subsequently missed In theory if a man died at sea, it should not be in the local indexes but in a separate deaths at sea index, again in theory if its in the local index he died onshore or his body was washed up But as in many things, where humans get involved they have great capacity to make a pigs ear of it Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/03/2015 11:42, Peter Enlund wrote: > Dear List > > From the National Archives web site > > Any record made of a birth or death at sea from 1837 onwards was sent > directly to the General Register Office and recorded in the Marine Register. > > I have men who died at sea and got the certificate from the GRO. In > addition, there are registers at TNA of deaths at sea, apart from the > index but theses records in BT156 and BT157 do not extend beyond 1890 > > I suggest that there is nothing unusual about the death being recorded > in the local registry > > For more on this, the book “My Ancestor was a Merchant Seaman” is > the authoritative reference on these and should be in local genealogical > society libraries > > Regards, Peter in Melbourne

Hi Jan The answer would surely be in the death certificate I would expect it to say that he died in or on a ship or was on a passenger list to sail perhaps, or was reported dockside The age in the BT334 record is vague and the date of death is also different to the probate (although 20th to 26th could be a misread date) There does not appear to be anything in the papers, so the death cert seems to be the way forward Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 29/03/2015 16:46, Jan Glasby via wrote: > I'm confused about the Death at Sea record (BT 334)I found for William > Blackburn who died on 26 June 1905 at Stockton Durham. Under Rank, > Profession or Occupation it says (12128) or it could be (12428). There is > no ship listed. The 1881 census listed him as "Sea Engineer Mariner". > > Does this mean he died in Stockton (which is where he lived)? And if so, > why is he listed as a Death at Sea? > > Cheers > Jan

Found this death registration, perhaps he was working in dock on the vessel, wrong birth year but could be him First name(s)WILLIAMLast nameBLACKBURNGenderMaleBirth day-Birth month-Birth year1853Age52Death quarter2Death year1905DistrictSTOCKTONCountyDurhamVolume 10APage 46 Jane On 29 March 2015 at 10:26, Paul Benyon via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi Jan > > Whilst I can't explain the reason for the apparent error, perhaps I > can draw on a parallel problem that often existed in the 19th Century > Census, where it isn't unknown for the same person to be recorded more > than once, or not to be recorded at all : often in the case of people > who worked through the night, such as bakers, when perhaps they should > only have been recorded where they were at midnight. Often a case of > those responsible for filling in the forms not being fully au fait > with all the rules laid down for recording such events, or checking > with the parties concerned whether they were on the census at home or > not ? > > Can only surmise now, but perhaps in this case he was still on the > books of the ship on which he was serving, which happened to be in > harbour, at anchor, or at a mooring, maybe with a view to an early > start in the morning and the master, in error, recorded the death as > if they'd been at sea ? Perhaps a mute point in some cases ? And I do > have sympathy with the master of any vessel, who was expected to have > a thorough knowledge of so many things not connected with the day to > day running of a ship ? At least in the RN you probably had someone > else on board who knew where to look to find out how an event like > this should be handled, whereas in the MS this simply wasn't > financially viable, although, presumably, it was laid down in some > instructions somewhere? > > Paul > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:13:35, Jan Glasby via <mariners@rootsweb.com> > wrote: > > >Hi Peter, > > > >Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found that death registration too. Also the > >probate reference: > >BLACKBURN William of Lax terrace Stockton on Tees died 20 June 1905. > >Administration London 11 July to Jane Ann Blackburn widow. Effects > 803/18/- > > > >But I'm mystified as to why his death is recorded in the "Deaths at Sea" > >records. Could it be perhaps because he was still employed as a mariner, > >but happened to die while at home on leave? > > > >Regards > >Jan > > > >----------------------------------- > >At 08:31 AM 29/03/2015 +0100, Peter Klein wrote: > >A William Blackburn's death was registered in the Stockton Registration > >District in the June Quarter of 1905, aged 52. This implies that he died > >within the Stockton district, and not at sea. > > > >Regards, > >PK > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > 50° 33' N, 2° 26' W > http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Jan Whilst I can't explain the reason for the apparent error, perhaps I can draw on a parallel problem that often existed in the 19th Century Census, where it isn't unknown for the same person to be recorded more than once, or not to be recorded at all : often in the case of people who worked through the night, such as bakers, when perhaps they should only have been recorded where they were at midnight. Often a case of those responsible for filling in the forms not being fully au fait with all the rules laid down for recording such events, or checking with the parties concerned whether they were on the census at home or not ? Can only surmise now, but perhaps in this case he was still on the books of the ship on which he was serving, which happened to be in harbour, at anchor, or at a mooring, maybe with a view to an early start in the morning and the master, in error, recorded the death as if they'd been at sea ? Perhaps a mute point in some cases ? And I do have sympathy with the master of any vessel, who was expected to have a thorough knowledge of so many things not connected with the day to day running of a ship ? At least in the RN you probably had someone else on board who knew where to look to find out how an event like this should be handled, whereas in the MS this simply wasn't financially viable, although, presumably, it was laid down in some instructions somewhere? Paul On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:13:35, Jan Glasby via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Hi Peter, > >Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found that death registration too. Also the >probate reference: >BLACKBURN William of Lax terrace Stockton on Tees died 20 June 1905. >Administration London 11 July to Jane Ann Blackburn widow. Effects 803/18/- > >But I'm mystified as to why his death is recorded in the "Deaths at Sea" >records. Could it be perhaps because he was still employed as a mariner, >but happened to die while at home on leave? > >Regards >Jan > >----------------------------------- >At 08:31 AM 29/03/2015 +0100, Peter Klein wrote: >A William Blackburn's death was registered in the Stockton Registration >District in the June Quarter of 1905, aged 52. This implies that he died >within the Stockton district, and not at sea. > >Regards, >PK > > > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message 50° 33' N, 2° 26' W http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html

Hi Jan, A William Blackburn's death was registered in the Stockton Registration District in the June Quarter of 1905, aged 52.  This implies that he died within the Stockton district, and not at sea. Regards, PK ________________________________ From: Jan Glasby via <mariners@rootsweb.com> To: mariners@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2015, 17:46 Subject: [MAR] Confusing death at sea record I'm confused about the Death at Sea record (BT 334)I found for William Blackburn who died on 26 June 1905 at Stockton Durham. Under Rank, Profession or Occupation it says (12128) or it could be (12428). There is no ship listed. The 1881 census listed him as "Sea Engineer Mariner". Does this mean he died in Stockton (which is where he lived)? And if so, why is he listed as a Death at Sea? Cheers Jan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi ,i am not a expert on boats/ships (and a very bad sailor ) but once while on a cruse ,we were in port , i was watching from the balcony these tug boats (different sizes )and the saying work horse of the sea is right , they were pulling this massive oil rig out of the dock , this way and that way all working together Fabulous to see ,never saw this before then Doris > > > > https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Old+Sun,+Crete+Hall+Rd,+Northfleet,+Gravesend,+Kent+DA11+9AA/@51.447097,0.3531645,1685m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8b6134df4a289:0xf20b06737e4529d3 > > But probably not. > > I'll be honest, I still don't understand what athwart a tier of steamers > means. Could you find an image of a tier of moored vessels like you > describe so I can picture it better? Was the rowing boat trying to go > inbetween the moored steamers and the tide swept it into them and it > capsized? > Tell me if the rest of the story is wrong anyway, as far as we can guess: > they would have set off from Goole in Goole No. 6, towing a barge full of > coal via the East Coast to the Thames; they'd then have have moored up in > a tier of steamers in a place regularly used for that purpose; then rowed > in the ship's rowing boat to a pub on the shore and back again, where the > rowing boat capsized before it could reach Goole No.6 and William drowned. > Although I don't know at which point the coal was unloaded. > > Also, just to flesh the story out a bit more: can you approximate how > large the crew would have been? How far out would they have been moored so > how far would they have had to row? Would there have been many seamen > still working in their 60s then? > > Obviously I know absolutely nothing about boats or sailing so sorry for > any daft questions. But I may as well ask as I'm here. When I first read > the document I was surprised an experienced seaman could drown in such a > mundane way (from ship to shore), but as you explain it was dangerous > work. > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 11:11, Andy Adams via > <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Jean > > I watched to see if anyone else was going to reply, nothing so far so I > offer my explanation/description. > > On the tidal Thames from Denton, just below Gravesend to just below Tower > Bridge there were 'tiers' where vessels were moored to await orders to > proceed to a discharging berth (most commonly in the NE coal trade), or > where barges would wait whilst waiting the next employment. > > These 'tiers' were formed by laying mooring bouys such that a vessel could > be tied up to two bouys, fore and aft, so that they could not swing out > into the river. Gaps were left between tiers so that vessels and craft > could pass through to reach riverside berths. > > It seems likely that a decision was made to row ashore in the ships boat > to enjoy a night in a hostelry. On returning great care had to taken, the > tide runs very hard at the tier locations and there is very real danger, > especially in the dark, of being swept onto the mooring resulting in the > boat being upset and the occupants deposited in the water. > > On balance this seems the most likely explanation as this was not an > uncommon occurrence on the Thames. I hope this was useful. > > Best wishes > > Andrew Adams > > ------------------------------- > > Supplementary to the detailed and interesting response from Andy Adams, I > was puzzled as to how she thought this incident involved a tug based in > Goole - the GOOLE NO. 6. George Robinson, compiler of the gooleships > website says: she was one of the larger ones and may have been down there, > think I read that Goole & Hull ST had some barges that were used for coal > shipments under tow so that could have been why she was on the Thames. See > NORA, EDITH, ELSIE (barges included in gooleships), all too big to be used > on the Humber I think. > This seems to tie in with the explanation detailed by Andy. > > Ron Mapplebeck (UK) > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com 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 > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com 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 MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you all very much. I've come a long way from "drowned" , which was all I had to go on initially. It happened in 1901, and from photos he was a slim cook, although I don't know how long before he died they were taken, especially given how prematurely aged people looked then. Btw, there are quite a few references to "athwart a tier" online, and more in google books. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22athwart+a+tier%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=-sAWVa_gHcztaoLVgoAJ#q=%22athwart+a+tier%22&start=0 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Old+Sun,+Crete+Hall+Rd,+Northfleet,+Gravesend,+Kent+DA11+9AA/@51.447097,0.3531645,1685m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8b6134df4a289:0xf20b06737e4529d3 On Wednesday, 25 March 2015, 13:58, Ron Mapplebeck <ron.mapplebeck1@virgin.net> wrote: Katie, I've picked up your further comments on this matter and those from other members. I'm not an expert on these historic aspects but I've found a photo that might help your understanding at: http://www.magnoliabox.com/art/549616/steam-tug-moving-between-barges-on-the-thames-london Click on the thumbnail for a larger image. You will see there barges haphazardly moored in tiers or rows, with a tug also visible. From the description provided by Andy I envisage maybe three or four rows/tiers of barges moored just off the river bank. There would possibly be several barges, maybe some with attendant tugs alongside, in each row. If your chap set off rowing from nearby then the distance to cover would not be great. If setting off from the pub, maybe they then had to row some unknown distance along the river first? As it appears the barges may not have been in "tidy" rows you can probably imagine the sort of difficulties that might be encountered in the dark? You actually stated: getting athwart a tier of steamers. That might suggest your chap encountered a number of small ships (coasters) also tied up in rows, before he got anywhere near back to his own tug. Or the steamers might just mean tugs as well? Getting athwart does suggest that for some reason they veered off their straight(ish?) route and the tide (possibly?) turned them around about 90 degrees so they were caught/stuck between two steamers/barges? You ask how many crew on the tug. Again, I'm no expert. Today, for a tug the size of GOOLE NO. 6 there might be a crew of only three or four, maybe doubled up to provide relief cover for a longer tow such as from the Humber to the Thames. A century ago, in more labour intensive days, I still can't think she would have a regular crew of more than six strong. Maybe master, mate, engineer, fireman/greaser, deckhand, cook - hopefully someone else on the List can clarify this. The master and mate would share watch and watch about so the navigational side would be covered, but whether extra hands would be on board for a longer voyage I simply don't know. As an example of crew strength see: http://www.swanseadocks.co.uk/Britannia%20Tugs.html Halfway down the page there is a five-strong complement for one tug. Lower down, dating from 1964, is a list of the crew of another tug apparently 7-strong. So, a lot of conjecture on my part, but hopefully this is of some help. Ron Mapplebeck (UK) ***** On 24/03/2015 19:50, kate smith via wrote: > Links don't seem to have shown up as links this time, don't know why. > http://www.dover-kent.com/2014-project-a/Old-Sun-Inn-Northfleet.html >  > > > >      On Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 19:38, kate smith via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: >    > >    Thanks very much! He drowned off Rosherville, Gravesend. In fact, I may have found the place he spent his fateful last evening. > > OLD SUN INN Pub of Northfleet > |  | > |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | > | OLD SUN INN Pub of NorthfleetHistorical archives of pubs in Northfleet, Kent, England. | > |  | > | View on www.dover-kent.com | Preview by Yahoo | > |  | > |  | > > > > https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Old+Sun,+Crete+Hall+Rd,+Northfleet,+Gravesend,+Kent+DA11+9AA/@51.447097,0.3531645,1685m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8b6134df4a289:0xf20b06737e4529d3 > >  But probably not. > > I'll be honest, I still don't understand what athwart a tier of steamers means. Could you find an image of a tier of moored vessels like you describe so I can picture it better? Was the rowing boat trying to go inbetween the moored steamers and the tide swept it into them and it capsized? >  Tell me if the rest of the story is wrong anyway, as far as we can guess: they would have set off from Goole in Goole No. 6, towing a barge full of coal via the East Coast to the Thames; they'd then have have moored up in a tier of steamers in a place regularly used for that purpose; then rowed in the ship's rowing boat to a pub on the shore and back again, where the rowing boat capsized before it could reach Goole No.6 and William drowned. > Although I don't know at which point the coal was unloaded. > > Also, just to flesh the story out a bit more: can you approximate how large the crew would have been? How far out would they have been moored so how far would they have had to row? Would there have been many seamen still working in their 60s then? > > Obviously I know absolutely nothing about boats or sailing so sorry for any daft questions. But I may as well ask as I'm here. When I first read the document I was surprised an experienced seaman could drown in such a mundane way (from ship to shore), but as you explain it was dangerous work. > > > > >    > >          On Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 11:11, Andy Adams via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: >    > >  Jean > > I watched to see if anyone else was going to reply, nothing so far so I offer my explanation/description. > > On the tidal Thames from Denton, just below Gravesend to just below Tower Bridge there were  'tiers' where vessels were moored to await orders to proceed to a discharging berth (most commonly in the NE coal trade), or where barges would wait whilst waiting the next employment. > > These 'tiers' were formed by laying mooring bouys such that a vessel could be tied up to two bouys, fore and aft, so that they could not swing out into the river. Gaps were left between tiers so that vessels and craft could pass through to reach riverside berths. > > It seems likely that a decision was made to row ashore in the ships boat to enjoy a night in a hostelry. On returning great care had to taken, the tide runs very hard at the tier locations and there is very real danger, especially in the dark, of being swept onto the mooring resulting in the boat being upset and the occupants deposited in the water. > > On balance this seems the most likely explanation as this was not an uncommon occurrence on the Thames. I hope this was useful. > > Best wishes > > Andrew Adams >  > ------------------------------- > > Supplementary to the detailed and interesting response from Andy Adams, I was puzzled as to how she thought this incident involved a tug based in Goole - the GOOLE NO. 6. George Robinson, compiler of the gooleships website says: she was one of the larger ones and may have been down there, think I read that Goole & Hull ST had some barges that were used for coal shipments under tow so that could have been why she was on the Thames. See NORA, EDITH, ELSIE (barges included in gooleships), all too big to be used on the Humber I think. >  This seems to tie in with the explanation detailed by Andy. >  >  Ron Mapplebeck (UK) >    >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com 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 MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi I am still trying to track down the death of Capt Andrew Gowans - What I know to date is that he Captained ships between Greenock and St John's, the latest ships Agreement list I can find for him is Captaining the Maiden Voyage of the Walter Bain which he leaves after that journey in late 1851. As previously stated the family tombstone has him Lost at Se in Jan 1855. I recently came across this article in a Greenock newspaper dated April 17 1855. "Intelligence has reached town of the melancholy death of Capt. Gowans of St John's Newfoundland, by the upsetting of a boat at Purto Rico. The deceased was well known in Greenock, having been for many years in the Employment of Messrs Kerr & McBride." This tends to support my theory that the family had relocated to St John's sometime between 1851 and 1855. Any ideas about how to track down a death of the island of Puerto Rico? Thanks Gillian.

Hi Gillian Perhaps also try a Rootsweb list that concentrates on PUERTO-RICO: http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/usa/PR/misc.html#PUERTO-RICO and seek local advise ? Regards Paul On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:00:34 +1100, Gillian Mauchan via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi > >I am still trying to track down the death of Capt Andrew Gowans - What I >know to date is that he Captained ships between Greenock and St John's, the >latest ships Agreement list I can find for him is Captaining the Maiden >Voyage of the Walter Bain which he leaves after that journey in late 1851. >As previously stated the family tombstone has him Lost at Se in Jan 1855. > >I recently came across this article in a Greenock newspaper dated April 17 >1855. > >"Intelligence has reached town of the melancholy death of Capt. Gowans of St >John's Newfoundland, by the upsetting of a boat at Purto Rico. The deceased >was well known in Greenock, having been for many years in the Employment of >Messrs Kerr & McBride." > >This tends to support my theory that the family had relocated to St John's >sometime between 1851 and 1855. > >Any ideas about how to track down a death of the island of Puerto Rico? > >Thanks Gillian. > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message 50° 33' N, 2° 26' W http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html

Katie, I've picked up your further comments on this matter and those from other members. I'm not an expert on these historic aspects but I've found a photo that might help your understanding at: http://www.magnoliabox.com/art/549616/steam-tug-moving-between-barges-on-the-thames-london Click on the thumbnail for a larger image. You will see there barges haphazardly moored in tiers or rows, with a tug also visible. From the description provided by Andy I envisage maybe three or four rows/tiers of barges moored just off the river bank. There would possibly be several barges, maybe some with attendant tugs alongside, in each row. If your chap set off rowing from nearby then the distance to cover would not be great. If setting off from the pub, maybe they then had to row some unknown distance along the river first? As it appears the barges may not have been in "tidy" rows you can probably imagine the sort of difficulties that might be encountered in the dark? You actually stated: getting athwart a tier of steamers. That might suggest your chap encountered a number of small ships (coasters) also tied up in rows, before he got anywhere near back to his own tug. Or the steamers might just mean tugs as well? Getting athwart does suggest that for some reason they veered off their straight(ish?) route and the tide (possibly?) turned them around about 90 degrees so they were caught/stuck between two steamers/barges? You ask how many crew on the tug. Again, I'm no expert. Today, for a tug the size of GOOLE NO. 6 there might be a crew of only three or four, maybe doubled up to provide relief cover for a longer tow such as from the Humber to the Thames. A century ago, in more labour intensive days, I still can't think she would have a regular crew of more than six strong. Maybe master, mate, engineer, fireman/greaser, deckhand, cook - hopefully someone else on the List can clarify this. The master and mate would share watch and watch about so the navigational side would be covered, but whether extra hands would be on board for a longer voyage I simply don't know. As an example of crew strength see: http://www.swanseadocks.co.uk/Britannia%20Tugs.html Halfway down the page there is a five-strong complement for one tug. Lower down, dating from 1964, is a list of the crew of another tug apparently 7-strong. So, a lot of conjecture on my part, but hopefully this is of some help. Ron Mapplebeck (UK) ***** On 24/03/2015 19:50, kate smith via wrote: > Links don't seem to have shown up as links this time, don't know why. > http://www.dover-kent.com/2014-project-a/Old-Sun-Inn-Northfleet.html > > > > > On Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 19:38, kate smith via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Thanks very much! He drowned off Rosherville, Gravesend. In fact, I may have found the place he spent his fateful last evening. > > OLD SUN INN Pub of Northfleet > | | > | | | | | | | | > | OLD SUN INN Pub of NorthfleetHistorical archives of pubs in Northfleet, Kent, England. | > | | > | View on www.dover-kent.com | Preview by Yahoo | > | | > | | > > > > https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Old+Sun,+Crete+Hall+Rd,+Northfleet,+Gravesend,+Kent+DA11+9AA/@51.447097,0.3531645,1685m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8b6134df4a289:0xf20b06737e4529d3 > > But probably not. > > I'll be honest, I still don't understand what athwart a tier of steamers means. Could you find an image of a tier of moored vessels like you describe so I can picture it better? Was the rowing boat trying to go inbetween the moored steamers and the tide swept it into them and it capsized? > Tell me if the rest of the story is wrong anyway, as far as we can guess: they would have set off from Goole in Goole No. 6, towing a barge full of coal via the East Coast to the Thames; they'd then have have moored up in a tier of steamers in a place regularly used for that purpose; then rowed in the ship's rowing boat to a pub on the shore and back again, where the rowing boat capsized before it could reach Goole No.6 and William drowned. > Although I don't know at which point the coal was unloaded. > > Also, just to flesh the story out a bit more: can you approximate how large the crew would have been? How far out would they have been moored so how far would they have had to row? Would there have been many seamen still working in their 60s then? > > Obviously I know absolutely nothing about boats or sailing so sorry for any daft questions. But I may as well ask as I'm here. When I first read the document I was surprised an experienced seaman could drown in such a mundane way (from ship to shore), but as you explain it was dangerous work. > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 11:11, Andy Adams via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Jean > > I watched to see if anyone else was going to reply, nothing so far so I offer my explanation/description. > > On the tidal Thames from Denton, just below Gravesend to just below Tower Bridge there were 'tiers' where vessels were moored to await orders to proceed to a discharging berth (most commonly in the NE coal trade), or where barges would wait whilst waiting the next employment. > > These 'tiers' were formed by laying mooring bouys such that a vessel could be tied up to two bouys, fore and aft, so that they could not swing out into the river. Gaps were left between tiers so that vessels and craft could pass through to reach riverside berths. > > It seems likely that a decision was made to row ashore in the ships boat to enjoy a night in a hostelry. On returning great care had to taken, the tide runs very hard at the tier locations and there is very real danger, especially in the dark, of being swept onto the mooring resulting in the boat being upset and the occupants deposited in the water. > > On balance this seems the most likely explanation as this was not an uncommon occurrence on the Thames. I hope this was useful. > > Best wishes > > Andrew Adams > > ------------------------------- > > Supplementary to the detailed and interesting response from Andy Adams, I was puzzled as to how she thought this incident involved a tug based in Goole - the GOOLE NO. 6. George Robinson, compiler of the gooleships website says: she was one of the larger ones and may have been down there, think I read that Goole & Hull ST had some barges that were used for coal shipments under tow so that could have been why she was on the Thames. See NORA, EDITH, ELSIE (barges included in gooleships), all too big to be used on the Humber I think. > This seems to tie in with the explanation detailed by Andy. > > Ron Mapplebeck (UK) > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com 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 MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You also have to remember that the victim was a ship's cook, in his sixties. In those days, no-one would have trusted a slim cook, so there is a reasonable presumption that he was overweight. Further, the river is pretty wide there and tidal. I don't recall being given a date for the death, but IMHP, the Thames at Southend is only warm enough for swimming when shallow water comes in over sun-heated mud flats. The Thames at Gravesend doesn't get that effect. Given the likelihood that he had taken of ale, I reckon that his survival chances, once he had fallen into cold water at night, were minimal - even if he had been younger and a fair swimmer. Graham On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:58 AM, john.harker via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: > You have to remember not all seamen could swim . > Doris > > | > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com 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 > MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

You have to remember not all seamen could swim . Doris | ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Links don't seem to have shown up as links this time, don't know why. http://www.dover-kent.com/2014-project-a/Old-Sun-Inn-Northfleet.html On Tuesday, 24 March 2015, 19:38, kate smith via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote: Thanks very much! He drowned off Rosherville, Gravesend. In fact, I may have found the place he spent his fateful last evening.    OLD SUN INN Pub of Northfleet |   | |   |  |   |   |   |   |   | | OLD SUN INN Pub of NorthfleetHistorical archives of pubs in Northfleet, Kent, England. | |  | | View on www.dover-kent.com | Preview by Yahoo | |  | |   | https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Old+Sun,+Crete+Hall+Rd,+Northfleet,+Gravesend,+Kent+DA11+9AA/@51.447097,0.3531645,1685m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d8b6134df4a289:0xf20b06737e4529d3 But probably not. I'll be honest, I still don't understand what athwart a tier of steamers means. Could you find an image of a tier of moored vessels like you describe so I can picture it better? Was the rowing boat trying to go inbetween the moored steamers and the tide swept it into them and it capsized?  Tell me if the rest of the story is wrong anyway, as far as we can guess: they would have set off from Goole in Goole No. 6, towing a barge full of coal via the East Coast to the Thames; they'd then have have moored up in a tier of steamers in a place regularly used for that purpose; then rowed in the ship's rowing boat to a pub on the shore and back again, where the rowing boat capsized before it could reach Goole No.6 and William drowned. Although I don't know at which point the coal was unloaded. Also, just to flesh the story out a bit more: can you approximate how large the crew would have been? How far out would they have been moored so how far would they have had to row? Would there have been many seamen still working in their 60s then? Obviously I know absolutely nothing about boats or sailing so sorry for any daft questions. But I may as well ask as I'm here. When I first read the document I was surprised an experienced seaman could drown in such a mundane way (from ship to shore), but as you explain it was dangerous work.           On Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 11:11, Andy Adams via <mariners@rootsweb.com> wrote:   Jean I watched to see if anyone else was going to reply, nothing so far so I offer my explanation/description. On the tidal Thames from Denton, just below Gravesend to just below Tower Bridge there were  'tiers' where vessels were moored to await orders to proceed to a discharging berth (most commonly in the NE coal trade), or where barges would wait whilst waiting the next employment. These 'tiers' were formed by laying mooring bouys such that a vessel could be tied up to two bouys, fore and aft, so that they could not swing out into the river. Gaps were left between tiers so that vessels and craft could pass through to reach riverside berths. It seems likely that a decision was made to row ashore in the ships boat to enjoy a night in a hostelry. On returning great care had to taken, the tide runs very hard at the tier locations and there is very real danger, especially in the dark, of being swept onto the mooring resulting in the boat being upset and the occupants deposited in the water. On balance this seems the most likely explanation as this was not an uncommon occurrence on the Thames. I hope this was useful. Best wishes Andrew Adams ------------------------------- Supplementary to the detailed and interesting response from Andy Adams, I was puzzled as to how she thought this incident involved a tug based in Goole - the GOOLE NO. 6. George Robinson, compiler of the gooleships website says: she was one of the larger ones and may have been down there, think I read that Goole & Hull ST had some barges that were used for coal shipments under tow so that could have been why she was on the Thames. See NORA, EDITH, ELSIE (barges included in gooleships), all too big to be used on the Humber I think. This seems to tie in with the explanation detailed by Andy. Ron Mapplebeck (UK)   ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It's the vessel named on his death at sea document on findmypast, so I guess that must have been the vessel. Did you speak to the owner of the website specifically about this? I wonder if there were ever any memorials for people who died whilst working for them, or any other records. Annoyingly I can't find any newspaper reports on it, but if as Andy said such drownings were quite common, maybe it was not considered newsworthy. On Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 12:06, Ron Mapplebeck <ron.mapplebeck1@virgin.net> wrote: Supplementary to the detailed and interesting response from Andy Adams, I was puzzled as to how Kate thought this incident involved a tug based in Goole - the GOOLE NO. 6. George Robinson, compiler of the gooleships website says: she was one of the larger ones and may have been down there, think I read that Goole & Hull ST had some barges that were used for coal shipments under tow so that could have been why she was on the Thames. See NORA, EDITH, ELSIE (barges included in gooleships), all too big to be used on the Humber I think. This seems to tie in with the explanation detailed by Andy. Ron Mapplebeck (UK) *** On 26/02/2015 15:41, kate smith via wrote: Taken from William Thornton's 1901 death at sea document. "Drowned whilst going from the shore to the vessel by getting athwart a tier of steamers and the boat capsized." What does that mean? I think this was the vessel. http://www.gooleships.co.uk/scott/gooleno61885.htm It looks tiny but was supposedly 100ft. It happened in the Thames and he was a ship's cook in his 60s. Thanks for any help. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARINERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message