Search for content in message boards

Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 28 Apr 2015 12:59AM GMT
Classification: Query
Hello,
Looking at records for my grand uncle who enlisted in Royal Marines in 1901, is shown as retired in 1922, but appears in the UK Navy Lists through 1949.
The record summary from British National Archives says "latest date of discharge: 1944" but on the actual record page it says, "Retired lists under provision A.?.O. 1358/22 on 11/7/22." It might say A.E.O. or A.F.O. or some other initial in the middle because it's hard to read.
His seniority date is 29 Oct 1915 so he must have become an officer on that date.
When did he retire? How is that different than being discharged? What is the provision?
Thank-you for any information,
Kathy
Attachments:

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 28 Apr 2015 2:31PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 28 Apr 2015 5:06PM GMT
That is Admiralty Fleet Order 1358/22 of 1922.

The retirement matters and provisions of that particular order were discussed in a parliamentary question in 1922.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1922/may/...

What was his full name. ?

The award of his commission would have been published in the London Gazette which is the official newspaper for official government announcements and for legal announcements, it also has one of the most useless search facilities on the internet.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_London_Gazette

He never actually ceased to be an officer, even after his retirement from active service in 1922, because he still held the King's Commission and he could only lose that if he had voluntarily resigned his commission, or had lost it as a punishment for a disciplinary infraction, neither of which happened.

That's why former officers are entitled to style themselves with their retired rank and to be saluted by serving members of the forces of lesser rank than themselves.

Assuming that he was about 16 to 18 when he enlisted in 1901 he would have been born circa 1883 to 1885 and so at the outbreak of WW2 he would have been aged about 54 to 56 which at first glance seems far too old for WW2 military service.

However, some former servicemen who were too old for normal active service were sometimes accepted for military service in WW2, at least they were in the Royal Navy and as the Royal Marines are part of the navy, that policy was probably applied to them as well.

Of course doubtlessly they would probably have served in a non combat role in the U.K..

One skilled retired former service man in the R.N., not an officer, was accepted for service in the R.N. in 1939 at the age of 64 and he was compulsorily retired in late 1944.

So I'm guessing that your great/grand uncle volunteered his services in WW2 and was accepted and served during WW2 until he was discharged in 1944.

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 28 Apr 2015 7:20PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 28 Apr 2015 7:28PM GMT
Thanks! Once again, you've provided lots of information.
His name was John Creeden born 10 August 1884. He was attested at age 17 in 1901, purchased his discharge, and reenlisted 25 September 1901. He was a Royal Marine Gunner, Warrant Officer. I have all the records except for the original attestation which isn't online. I've found no mention of service in WWII except on the summary for his service records at British National Archives. But it certainly makes sense that he'd volunteer in WWII.
I didn't find anything on him on the London Gazette site but I didn't try too hard.
I'm attaching the summary stating 1944 discharge and the entry in Navy Lists 1949. And a close up of a comment, "See D . . . . for R 102" in case that makes sense to you.
Kathy
Attachments:

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 29 Apr 2015 2:52AM GMT
Classification: Query
I think I've got most of it figured out, I'll try and explain it to you when I've had some zzz's.

Forget the London Gazette, he's not listed in it, because although he was commissioned, he wasn't actually an officer in the usual sense that being commissioned would mean, it has to do with the Navy/Marine's weird and convoluted rank system, and in most things that the Navy did administratively, they usually seemed to prefer using the most convoluted and obscure procedure that they could devise, keeping things simple and straightforward doesn't seem to have been a preferred option with the Navy.

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 29 Apr 2015 11:59PM GMT
Classification: Query
Looking forward to it!

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 4 May 2015 6:16PM GMT
Classification: Query
Hi! Any luck figuring it out? The summary that says his last date of discharge was 1944 also says he was a warrant officer. Would it help to see all the records from that section?
Thanks,
Kathy

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 4 May 2015 11:15PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 4 May 2015 11:30PM GMT
Sorry, I meant to get back to you sooner on this, but I got sidetracked somewhere.

I'll try and keep this as brief, basic, and simple, as possible,...it basically relates indirectly to how the Royal Navy did things in their own way, especially in comparison with how the army did things, and in particular regarding ranks and rank structures, and of course as the Royal Marines were a branch of the Navy they followed the Naval practices, or at least their supervisors their Lordships of the Admiralty probably did so on their behalf.

In the Army someone who is commissioned is always an officer and a senior non commissioned officer above the rank of staff sergeant is always a Warrant Officer grade 1 or grade 2.

Before the Army introduced warrant ranks in 1915 those ranks and functions were carried out by a rank equivalent to Staff Sergeants.

The senior non commissioned rank structure in the RN has always been very arcane and abstruse and from the 18th century until recent years they made a lot of changes in those ranks and rank titles and at various times they had commissioned warrant officer ranks which were mostly the equivalent of senior warrant officer rank i.e. someone who held a warrant or at some periods a commission but who wasn't an officer.

The RM followed the same practice in the early 20th century and you can read about that on the link below.

Until after WW1 the RM had two branches, the Royal Marine Artillery RMA they manned artillery field guns onshore in support of the RM infantry.

The Royal Marine Light Infantry RMLI that's the branch that your relative was in, they served onshore as infantry, some of the RMLI, their gunners, also manned the guns on board capitol warships, traditionally they manned the aft most gun turrets and their bandsmen manned the ship's fire control system.

Both branches were merged after WW1 and the RM shore artillery function was provided by the army via the Royal Artillery.

The lowest rank in the RMA was gunner = an army private, your relative was a sergeant gunner until he was commissioned at which point his new rank was gunner, but that was really an abbreviation for his formal rank title which was commissioned gunner i.e. an additional new rank of senior warrant officer in the RM except that instead of being a Warrant Officer as he would have been in the army the RN/RM called the new rank commissioned gunner even though he wasn't actually an officer.

He was senior to other Warrant Rank soldiers in the RM and to RN ensigns who were basically trainee junior officers, and unlike Warrant Officers in the army he was saluted by people of lower rank.

As an officer on the retired list he was liable to recall in an emergency so in WW2 he might have either volunteered or been recalled.

In about 1949 the promotion rules for commissioned RM gunners were changed and they became eligible for promotion to full officer rank.

Phew !, convoluted innit, ? ! ... but basically simple.

Here's the information link, this was published in the London Gazette, study it at your peril. :):)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pbtyc/Lond...

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 5 May 2015 12:42AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 5 May 2015 12:43AM GMT
These attached documents are from http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7848564

I haven't checked all of his postings, that's your job :):)

I know that http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14569021 says that he enlisted in 1901 and purchased his discharge in 1901 but where does it say that on his service record. ?

That might be an error caused by the difference between his enlistment date and the date on which his adult service commenced when he became 18, anyway I can't see any mention on his service record to a purchased discharge, but you're accepting a description of a document as being an accurate report of what the original document says, and the only way to be certain of what that document really says, is to get a copy of the original document.

Attachments:

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 5 May 2015 12:55AM GMT
Classification: Query
Thanks! I am a complete novice with military knowledge but I think I followed your explanation. I will check out the website, too.
My understanding now is that retired in 1922 and went home to live his life but was still a commissioned RM gunner so was liable to recall during WW2. Since his last date of discharge was written as 1944 he must have served in some capacity in WW2 but likely not between 1922 and WW2. His name was on the Navy Lists through 1949 when you said he might have been eligible for promotion to full officer rank. He lived until 1976 but he doesn't appear on the Navy Lists after 1949. If he received full officer rank would he stop appearing on the lists?
Yes, very convoluted!
On another topic, I think my step great grandfather served at the age of 15 on the training ship Ganges in 1871. I only have his name age and birthplace for corroboration as he's just on a list of boys 2nd class. What an amazing and dreadful place the Ganges was. He's the man you found in a much earlier message who you had predicted would be Irish. Indeed, most of this Creeden line came from Ireland and had a very hard life when they first settled in Brentford.
Thanks again for all your help!
Kathy

Re: Royal Marine retirement provision 1358/22

Posted: 5 May 2015 1:50AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 5 May 2015 2:23AM GMT
Surnames: Creedon
Yep you've got the gist of it,...basically,...and believe me, that was definitely the short version. :):)

Check some of the previous message threads on this board and you will find a lot of explanation about naval matters and especially about interpreting naval service records, which have the same format as RM service records.

Service past 1949 !,...give the guy a break, consider what his age would have been by then !, and anyway, he was discharged in 1944.

Royal marine service records for WW2 service can be obtained from the UK Ministry of Defence but they cost £30 and you'll need to supply his death certificate.
https://www.gov.uk/requests-for-personal-data-and-service-re...

BTW- You probably noticed that his surname has been misspelled as Creedon on one of his two WW1 medal record documents, there is one on which he is listed as an enlisted man and one on which his medals were issued in his commissioned rank, and it has also been misspelled as Creedon on his death registration.

Actually, forget that, you wouldn't need to supply his death certificate, because he would now be well past the age at which the MOD would automatically regard him as being deceased.

Retired in 1922 ?,...yes, that's what his records say, and and anyway, he had got his maximum term of pensionable service years in by then.

The RM was massively downsized post WW1 and especially in 1922 and in 1922 it was almost disbanded entirely, he might have retired voluntarily or he might have been compulsorily retired just as many other officers were, and they were offered a financial bonus to apply for retirement.

Ohhhhh !, another one. ! :):) Your best bet with that is to post a new separate thread about your great grandfather, lumping different people into the same message thread just causes the thread to become unmanageably confused and difficult to follow.

Yep, HMS Ganges, the Royal Naval training establishment for Boy Seamen, for them wot ain't already aware,...certainly always had a rep.

No rum at that age,...and I don't know about sodomy, although it was certainly frowned upon :):), but definitely plenty of the lash, and later the cane, a huge number of gunners daughters were kissed at Ganges for sure, right up until corporal punishment in the RN was finally made illegal in 1967, despite much resistance from the Admiralty, who had actually wanted to expand it's use, the army had banned it's use in 1956.

Perhaps the RAF personnel were better behaved, the RAF had never used it.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic