Discharge Reason ?

[MaureeninNY]

That's the problem. The few that say "demobilised" don't have the "shore' but some of the "Demob" ones do.

Maureen

[horselydown86]

Thanks Maureen.

They may not have all been written by the same person.

demobilized is a verb, so wouldn't fit with Shore on/in.

If some of the Demob ones do, then that's probably as near to certainty as we're likely to get.

[bbart]

These snippets are taken from just before, and just after, the one in question. They are dated 8 May 1919 and 13 May 1919, with the exception of the one taken late June, which reads "Shore from MCS."  I only included it as it was a change from "in/on" to "from".

I hope it will help!

[horselydown86]

They do help greatly, thank you bbart.

Looking particularly at the top pair, I think we can be confident that Maureen and Sc00p's readings are correct.

It looks like it's in rather than on, demobⁿ.

[Billyblue]

Some say Shore on and some say Shore In ??

And it's clearly demob ⁿ meaning demobilisation, as Maureen.

Shore on demobilisation makes sense, doesn't it!   Though why they have to specify that is interesting - they would hardly go to another ship if demob'd, would they

Dawn M

[MaxD]

Bit late to the party!

"Shore" was the standard term for a normal discharge from the service.  It sometimes has a qualifying addition as the example "Shore from MCS"  - in English "discharged from Mine Clearance Service".  So although all seamen would ended up on shore when they were demobbed, the term here is one of a number of types of notations that could be found in the discharge column including Services No Longer Required (SNLR) and "Run" (deserted).

MaxD

[weddieD1948]

Thank you so much, I had never considered that he only did his basic training and then demob ! I have no evidence really of what he did from the date on the service form through to 1938 when he met my mother and then they got married. He went out to australia under the governments scheme in 1926 and then another blank.  Thanks again for all of your help.

[weddieD1948]

Sudden thought comes to mind, if he had have only completed basic training would he have been assigned to the HMS ( training name) and not to an actual ship i.e. HMS Pangbourne ?

[MaxD]

His record would suggest he did, as you said, in your first post, serve on HMS Pangbourne, a minesweeper.  The Attentive II was the accounting base in Dover for small craft such as minesweepers so the first column is saying "he is on Pangbourne but his paperwork is being handled by Attentive II".  He did serve 5 months and being already a seaman** of some sort before he joined up suggests to me that training would have been short.  Like you, I find no record of her being struck by a mine, his discharge looks simply like the reductions now the war was over.  http://www.the-weatherings.co.uk/pccship0470.htm.

MaxD

** His occupation before joining was OS - Ordinary seaman - prob Merchant Navy