Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

For general discussions on the Royal Navy, including specific ships and bases, during Queen Victoria's reign.

Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby stuwismulGen » 06 Sep 2015 06:42

Greetings again
I'm seeking clarification about Good Conduct chevrons in the RMLI in the period 1900-1908..
The Service record I'm looking at seems to suggest my ancestor was awarded and lost them at a great rate between Jan 1903 and Sep 1905 but there is nothing to indicate why this might have been given that elsewhere his conduct appears to have been good and VG. So my questions are:
- does this record indicate that he did in fact lose the chevron and then almost immediately regain it? If so what kind of actions might have generated the loss and then the quick reinstatement?
- if he did do something untoward where might this be recorded? Is there a discipline book somewhere? would it be in the RM records or the RN? He would have been with HMS Forte fm 1902-1905, possibly off S Africa post Boer war

many thanks
Attachments
GWDines RM Conduct.jpg
GWDines RM Conduct.jpg (178.81 KiB) Viewed 534 times
stuwismulGen
New Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 30 May 2015 02:08
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby Frogsmile » 06 Sep 2015 10:00

A naval expert will be able to give you greater detail, but just as a starter I can say that the most common cause for losing a good conduct badge, was drunkenness.
Each marine had a conduct sheet on which misdemeanours were recorded. For minor offences he usually went before his divisional officer and for more serious offences in front of the captain.
sq
Relic of many a fight and siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby grumpy » 08 Sep 2015 15:00

The Royal Marines wore the badges army-style and under similar rules: King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions of 1913, for example, published very similar conditions to the army except that the periods were 2, 6, 12, 18, 23 and 28 years with the customary possibly of acceleration by two years for the last three.
In contrast to the army, the 1d per badge was retained by the Royal Marines after the introduction of army new pay rules in 1906. The award of GCBs to Royal Marines did not change until 1920 by Order in Council and this from their own [army] system to the Royal Navy's. Back-dated to Feb 1919 it put up badge pay to 3d per badge for the first three, with the next three badges not drawing pay but honorary.
The new RM scheme was thus neither fish nor fowl.
grumpy
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2009 19:38

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby grumpy » 10 Sep 2015 09:28

I do hope my contribution was of assistance.
grumpy
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2009 19:38

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby stuwismulGen » 11 Sep 2015 05:02

Thank you for this info grumpy and my apologies for the late response...I've been sidetracked by some WW2 naval enlistments.

The info about the conduct sheets is most helpful in giving me another direction to hunt. He seems to have been a pretty straightforward chap so uncharacteristic drunkenness might well have been a reason for a short-term loss of a badge.

Would the records be with the ship/captain records do you think? or somewhere with the RM documentation? I'm just not clear about how independent the RM were when they were assigned to a RN vessel. Though in truth as this would have been in the immediate post Boer war period the RMs may well have been assigned to duties on land... I'm still trying to track the HMS Forte's activity during this period so will undoubtedly end up at TNA next year.
Kind regards
M
stuwismulGen
New Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 30 May 2015 02:08
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby Frogsmile » 11 Sep 2015 15:19

stuwismulGen wrote:Thank you for this info grumpy and my apologies for the late response...I've been sidetracked by some WW2 naval enlistments.

The info about the conduct sheets is most helpful in giving me another direction to hunt. He seems to have been a pretty straightforward chap so uncharacteristic drunkenness might well have been a reason for a short-term loss of a badge.

Would the records be with the ship/captain records do you think? or somewhere with the RM documentation? I'm just not clear about how independent the RM were when they were assigned to a RN vessel. Though in truth as this would have been in the immediate post Boer war period the RMs may well have been assigned to duties on land... I'm still trying to track the HMS Forte's activity during this period so will undoubtedly end up at TNA next year.
Kind regards
M


There were two levels of offence and the records of the lower level were not retained. Only offences of a severity that would negate the award of a long service and good conduct medal were kept (those warranting appearance in front of ships captain or, if serving on land, commanding officer). These latter would be found in his RM records, assuming that they have survived.
sq
Relic of many a fight and siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby stuwismulGen » 21 Sep 2015 02:00

thank you for that frogsmile looks like I'm out of luck in terms of the hard evidence.. still its good to know that minor indiscretions did not follow a man thru for years on end.
M
stuwismulGen
New Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 30 May 2015 02:08
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby Frogsmile » 21 Sep 2015 19:51

stuwismulGen wrote:thank you for that frogsmile looks like I'm out of luck in terms of the hard evidence.. still its good to know that minor indiscretions did not follow a man thru for years on end.
M

It's important to understand that the differential in the level of infringement was structured around offences that could result in a sanction affecting pay. This could be either in the form of a fine of so many days pay, or a period of 'confinement' (the term used), which automatically included forfeiture of pay for the days 'served' as punishment (latterly the wives of married men would receive a minimal allowance so that she and any children were not 'unduly' penalised). This confinement also affected pension, as these days did not count towards service and thus a man would have to serve 'extra time' to make up the necessary total for a pension to be awarded. For these reasons only a ships captain or commanding officer could 'award' sanctions of that magnitude and they had to be recorded formally in such a way as was open to audit.
sq
Relic of many a fight and siege and sack, it points a moral and adorns the back.
User avatar
Frogsmile
Forum Fellow
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 20:17
Location: Wiltshire, England

Re: Good Conduct Chevrons RMLI- winning and losing!

Postby stuwismulGen » 01 Oct 2015 08:46

thank you for that clarification Frogsmile I hadn't registered that distinction
Cheers
stuwismulGen
New Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: 30 May 2015 02:08
Location: Canberra, Australia


Return to The Royal Navy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest