RootsChat.Com
General => Armed Forces => Topic started by: Stewart R on Friday 31 December 10 14:06 GMT (UK)
-
This particular gentleman has allready been the subject of a topic in the common room and many helpful people have replied. My problem now is that I sent off for and received the attached document from the NA. The index on the site states that it is the admission paper for my ancestors admittance into the Greenwich pensioners on 1st July 1846. however the documents arrival has raised more questions that answers.
Firstly, the text on the document uses the word LATE. which would suggest he had allready passed away.
Secondly, he seems to have been discharged in 1814 after only 8 years & 10 months. Surely this was not long enough to be admitted into the Greenwich pensioners some 32 years later.
Has anybody seen this sort of document before and maybe shed some light on what I have here.
I rather hope that I am not infringing upon any copyright issue here by posting this. My appologies to Rootschat if it is :-[
Regards
Stewart
-
Can only offer my findings on the meaning of late, often used back then as we would use the word 'formerly' today.
You often find on marriage details in parish registers, 'John Bloggs to Mary, late Brown' - just meaning that her previous or maiden name was Brown.
Pat ...
-
For "late" read "lately" for modern usage.
His total service was, as calculated, 11 yrs 4 months 16 days. That would have included the period back to 1802.
It was the marines of The Conqueror who took the sword of Admiral Villeneuve at Trafalgar. That would have put this man in a special place in the esteem of the Asdmiralty - a Trafalgar veteran.
-
:o :o :o
Wow! thankyou Hackstaple. This is deserving of further research I think. Can I assume that you have taken that information from the handwritten text at the top right corner because I have puzzled over that, and what the additional figures refer to.
Just one thing though. Like most people, I suspect, who have naval or marine ancestors around that time, I have looked at the role call for Trafalgar veterans and I have been unable to trace him.
Thank you also Pat for your interest
Regards
Stewart :)
-
Hi Stewart
Is this the only information you have on him?
If you take his service in the Royal Marines away from his discharge date you will find that he joined the RM after Trafalgar. I believe that 'Trafalgar' men had two years added to their service towards pension, just like 'Waterloo' men; and this is always stated on any document showing their service.
UPDATE: I have just re-read your first post. This is a replacement Certificate of Discharge issued in 1846. He also served 2years 6mths and 11 days in the 16th Regiment of Foot, ie the infantry. His service record from this time does not appear to have survived - it was probably sent (with him) when he transferred to the RM.
Ken
-
HMM! that has just crossed my mind too ???
Using the date calculator Ive just posted in the common room he seems to have missed the battle by one month. Unless the 16th Regt. of foot he was with previously for 2 1/2 years were present. I don't think so though. :-\
I've done a bit a digging around the exploits of the 2nd regt. 7th co. of Marines and HMS Cyane. It seems that they also had quite an honourable past so maybe this would have been enough to grant him entrance into the Greenwich pensioners. :-\
Clearly still lots to do here :D
regards
Stewart
-
Thanks ken
You beat me to it with your update.
I'll have to learn to type faster ;D
Regards
Stewart
-
I'd like to throw another question into the pot regarding the attached document if I may.
The reason for discharge looks like Rheumatism to me and today we tend to associate this with nothing more than a bit of joint stiffness. Could it have been so debilitating then as to be discharged as unfit for duty especially in a 35 year old?
Regards
Stewart
-
Rheumatism is a generic term which includes conditions such as Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. It most certainly could lead to his discharge on medical grounds.
-
Thanks for that Pharmakon.
I suppose damp living conditions and/or a poor diet may have contributed to the condition, as such ailments I assume are usually associated with people of a more advanced age
Regards and a very happy new year
Stewart
-
Hi Stewart,
This is certainly an interesting document. It would appear that this differentiates between three postings (Conqueror, 2nd Battalion, Cyane) totalling 7 years 8 months and 21 days, out of 8 years 10 days and 16 days. Presumably he was on shore, in barracks, for the 1+ year of remaining time.
The 2nd Battalion came into existence in 1812; there is a wikipedia article on them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines_Battalions_%28Napoleonic_Wars%29
It is my understanding that regardless of time served, any Sailor or Marine given a medical discharge had the right to apply to live as an in-Pensioner at Greenwich.
http://sites.google.com/site/greenwichadmiraltyinpensioner/home/
Some men appear to have requested access when they became widowers. Prior to this, they were most likely out-Pensioners, receiving a quarerly payment.
Your ancestor could have set fire to the White House, which is quite an achievement!
Regards
-
Thanks for your interest and information GrenPen.
I was also puzzled about the "missing year" but I guess you've probably got it right as to him or his unit being posted to barracks. Having read one of the links, it suggested that the 2nd Battalion was lacking in discipline and were deployed to the barracks at Berry Head Fort in Torbay for a bit of training. This could somewhat reinforce your theory. Its a pity the document doesn't have more detail as the the dates of the postings, because with so much information on that link and others alike I could probably pinpoint him down to specific engagements.
As to my ancestor being involved with setting fire to the White house. I did find a small article on the incident, but after recent events I think I'll resist the temptation to put too many Google searches out on that subject, after all I don't want the Feds knocking at my door ;D ;D ;D. Eyes and ears everywhere you know ::)
Thanks again
Stewart
-
I'd like to throw another question into the pot regarding the attached document if I may.
The reason for discharge looks like Rheumatism to me and today we tend to associate this with nothing more than a bit of joint stiffness. Could it have been so debilitating then as to be discharged as unfit for duty especially in a 35 year old?
Regards
Stewart
I suppose damp living conditions and/or a poor diet may have contributed to the condition, as such ailments I assume are usually associated with people of a more advanced age
Stewart
Just stumbled across this thread.
Stewart, even children can have rheumatism and even in this day and age.
As you say, the damp living conditions that soldiers often have to live through would be very conducive to rheumatism. He may have actually had rheumatoid arthritis which is even more debilitating.
In 1814, invalided out at 35 with rheumatism was probably fairly common.
Dawn M
-
Thanks Dawn, as Pharmakon said earlier, Rheumatism is a bit of a generic term that covers a wide range of related conditions.
Whilst puzzling over this document and particularly the date it was produced I was wondering if any one could tell me whether the a widow was entitled to any pension payment if the subject had died?
Regards
Stewart
-
Rheumatism is a generic term which includes conditions such as Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis. It most certainly could lead to his discharge on medical grounds.
One of my ancestors, writing in 1856, described his condition as Rheumatism. When he died a short time later the cause of death was Consumption!
Mike.
-
Thanks Mike
I'm not certain the two conditions are medically related as I believe consumption is an old name for Tuberculosis (TB). I reckon however, they were both brought on by similar cold and damp living conditions. So suffering from both conditions is a possibility I suppose.
Regards
Stewart
-
My ancestor was: "... Master of a merchant ship trading from London to various parts of the World but chiefly to Africa from which part I returned from last December Ill with Rheumatism since which time I have been confined to my Home with a severe attack of that painful complaint and am at present in the most reduced circumstances having had to part with all my nautical implements Household Furniture & clothing to maintain my Wife & Family during my illness ..."
I'm not sure if he had both conditions or was mis-diagnosed with the generic "Rheumatism", but "Consumption" was on the death certificate. He would certainly have been subject to damp living conditions at times.
Mike.
-
hi Mike and Stewart
He certainly could have had both conditions at the same time.
But you don't usually die from rheumatism, whereas having TB in olden days was a death sentence.
Dawn M
-
Whilst puzzling over this document and particularly the date it was produced I was wondering if any one could tell me whether the a widow was entitled to any pension payment if the subject had died?
Hi Stewart
I do not know specifically about the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, but in the army widow's pensions for other ranks were not introduced until 1902, and even then they only lasted for six years. In the 19th century there were various charities available, but the general tone of the times, was that you did enough to fulfil your Christian duty, but not so much that you corrupted their soul by giving them a life of leisure.
Ken
-
The reason why I asked the question, Ken, was that I had assumed he'd died before the date of the 1846 document and that maybe his widow required copy of his papers to make some sort of claim. My assumption was based upon details of a possible burial record in 1835 for him on a parish register that had been discovered on a previous topic of mine ???. I may have to investigate the accuracy of that particular transcription as it would seem he was very much alive in 1846. ::)
Just as a matter of interest, would it have been normal for him to have been in residence at Greenwich with a wife back in Devon, as it would hardly seem fair that he was being looked after whilst his wife struggled on her own?
Thanks also to Dawn & Mike for your comments.
Regards
Stewart
-
would it have been normal for him to have been in residence at Greenwich with a wife back in Devon, as it would hardly seem fair that he was being looked after whilst his wife struggled on her own?
Hi Stewart,
Kevin Asplin's transcriptions of admissions to Greenwich indicate that this man came from near Manchester. I did a BMD death search for James Wolfenden, and a number of men of that name lived in Bolton.
Although the certificate of service was processed at Plymouth, he was in the 7th Company when on shore, and I believe that this was a Chatham Division company (number divisble by 3, with a remainder of 1), rather than a Plymouth company (number divisble by 3) or a Portsmouth company (number divisible by 3, with a remainder of 2).
http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/item/researching-family-and-royal-marine-history/sdvafvvv
When a man was admitted as an in-Pensioner to Greenwich (or Chelsea, for that matter), he alone was admitted, and his wife and children had to make their own means. Many men found this too great a strain, and became out-pensioners instead. Perhaps this happenned to James, and he travelled back to Bolton.
Best wishes
-
Thanks GrenPen for your continued interest. It's interesting to see that his company (The 7th) were based in Chatham, but the fact seems to muddy the waters a little more because I always believed he had been stationed in Plymouth. I'm pretty sure he met his wife there as that is where they were married.
Unfortunately I'm now beginning to entertain the possibility that this document may not be my ancestors, but that of another James Wolfendale. ??? :'( This is mainly due to the date the copy was applied for. Plymouth parish records for "my man", state that he died in 1835, so what is he doing applying for a document, presumably to gain entry into the Greenwich pensioners, in 1846. Unless, as I mentioned in a previous post, the application was made by his widow for some reason.
Still lots to do here!! ::)
Regards
Stewart
-
Hello Stewart,
It would appear that this man is another James Wolfenden.
When he entered Greenwich as an in-Pensioner, his entry number was 9127. He died ("Discharged Dead") on 12 October 1847.
His trade was recorded as "weaver". He was married in Eccles in November 1835, and his wife lived in Salford. It is not apparent whether his wife was deceased, or if she was still alive at this time.
Source: ADM 73/47.
Regards
-
By a complete fluke, I have been advised of a James Wolfindale who was in the Royal Marines. This man was effectively made redundant in January 1832. He had completed 24 years and 9 months service. He was rewarded an out-pension for life. (Source: ADM 6/293)
Two other men with 20+ years service had the same treatment. This looks as though perhaps someone on high has decided to retire all NCOs with over 20 years of service.
I suspect this is the fellow that you are after.
Now would be a good time to hire a researcher, to look into this. Presumably this man was in the Plymouth Division at the time.
-
Once again, thankyou for your continued interest. Your time and effort is very much appreciated :)
Regards
Stewart