WW1 Merchant Navy BT 377/7/93196 (at TNA)

[jcmac]

I have d/loaded this doc't gratis from TNA under the present "no charge" arrangement.
Page 2 of the doc't gives details of "Service in Royal Navy when called ........"  - in this case from 30.5.1915.
The dating of items under "arrival" and "termination" is leading to conflict of opinion with Mrs. - putting it mildly! - and any help would be thankfully received. This is my incomplete attempt to link arrival dates with terminations.
                 P. 30. 5.15       
Girl Eileen.  P. 16. 3.16       
                                        Victory 18.10.16
The Boys       18.10.16       
Ben & Lucy      1.10.17   
                                         Research 20.2.18
Vivid              21. 2.18        Vivid 16.5.18
Satellite          16. 5.18        Satellite 31.12.18
Halcyon ii        31.12.18       Halcyon ii 18.3.19

The three ships are Girl Eileen 128564, The Boys 136593, Ben & Lucy 129994. Other names are shore bases.
Can anyone view the original doc. and comment on the details above please.
jcmac.     

[seaweed]

The ships THE BOYS, GIRL EILEEN and BEN AND LUCY were all Drifters hired by the RN in Jan 1915 and crewed by and large with RNR personal. Poster hmac  is more knowledgable than myself concerning WW1 Royal Naval Reserve records. Hopfully he will spot your post and comment on the contents.

[HMac]

Hello,
RNR records can be difficult to interpret and there are mistakes and omissions to contend with too.

GIRL EILEEN 30.5.15 – 16.3.16 (VICTORY 18.10.16) VICTORY being the accounting base at Portsmouth.
THE BOYS 18.10.16 – ?? (RESEARCH 20.2.18) RESEARCH being the base ship/account at Portland.
BEN & LUCY 1.10.17 – ?? (RESEARCH 20.2.18) RESEARCH being the base ship/account at Portland.
THE BOYS 21.2.18 – 16.5.18 (VIVID 16.5.18) VIVID being the depot ship/account at Devonport.
BEN & LUCY 16.5.18 – 31.12.18 (SATELLITE 31.12.18) SATELLITE being depot ship/account at Tyne.
HALCYON II 31.12.18 – 18.3.19 (HALCYON 18.3.19) HALCYON being depot ship/account at Lowestoft.

VICTORY would have control of the account for GIRL EILEEN and then it would pass to RESEARCH for looking after THE BOYS and BEN & LUCY and so on. Hope that makes some sense. 

Regards
Hugh

[jcmac]

seaweed and HMac,
I thought I had made a good stab at decoding the details !!!! How wrong I was.
I very much appreciate your knowledgeable input.

Were CL&A (or equivalent) for these vessels covering 1915 - 1919 (if completed) held at TNA or NMM within/outwith the normal BT99 or Official Number lists ? 
(I see a Ben & Lucy one in the 1915 extracts).
Many thanks,
jcmac.

[HMac]

I don't think you will find crew agreements/lists for any of the vessels requisitioned by the Admiralty as they were under RN control. The crew agreement for BEN & LUCY that you see may be prior to requisition as there is some doubt about when she came under The RN.

He was awarded the Victory Medal and the British War Medal.

Did he serve in the Merchant Navy at all? Is there any doubt about his year of birth?
Regards
Hugh

[seaweed]

As all the ships mentioned were RN from January 1915,so they would not have Crew Agreements in  the  BT records. As far as I am aware The Royal Navy did not keep Crew Agreements. You can search the 1915 MN and fishing vessels Crew Agreements online from the NMM Greenwich.

https://1915crewlists.rmg.co.uk/#advanced-search

No mention of  GIRL EILEEN or THE BOYS. There is a half yearly Crew Agreement for BEN AND LUCY.
However I would suggest that it will only cover the time  before the vessel was hired by the RN.

[jcmac]

HMac and seaweed,
Thank you for your further replies which suggest there is little prospect of further details.
McFadyen may have been born late 1889 and registered early 1890 (McFayden) - I have no other info.

I will keep your advice in mind when looking at others but suspect his will be representative of other entries.
Many thanks.
jcmac.

[HMac]

No worries - I asked as I have found a Lachlan McFadyen b 1892 from Tiree a seaman in merchant service. I couldn't find a birth becuase I was looking at 1890 instead of 1889.
Regards
Hugh