Nelson & His World

Are ships' muster rolls always reliable?

On several threads we have discussed men who claimed, or are stated, to have 'served with Nelson' (e.g. George Richards on the previous 'Retired Royal Marine' thread) but who do not appear on the Trafalgar Roll. Sometimes a man with the same, or a similar, name would appear, but on the muster rolls of a different ship from the one claimed (usually Victory). In one case, that of Jack Rider, his claim to have served in Victory at Trafalgar was later substantiated by a captain who had served in Victory as a midshipman, though he doesn't appear on Victory's muster rolls.

Well, false claims to glamourise one's own or an ancestor's service are not unknown; but I wonder - was it possible to serve in a ship but to be missed off the muster rolls? Women, of course, were frequently on board ship illicitly so they wouldn't appear. Could men be missed off either through carelessness or because they too were aboard illegally?

Well d--n my eyes! I have never heard such a thing said about a King's ship!

Anna,

Well, I won't d--n my eyes, but I would have thought such a thing most irregular! Surely the services then, as now, be it army or navy (and these days soon to be diminished RAF), regulated and documented everything that legitimately moved - besides things that didn't.

Having said that I would agree there appear to be quite wide dicrepancies, which seem unaccountable. It's probably sacriligious to say so , but are we certain that the Trafalgar Roll is as accurate as it might be? For example, have these details surfaced after the Roll was published?

There are good reasons why it is unlikely for men to have been on board without their names being in the muster books. Virtually the first thing that happened when a seaman entered a ship was for his name to be entered in the books, and each man was given a unique number. Without his name in the books he would not be paid, and could not draw tobacco or slop clothes. The purser would want everyone entered in the books otherwise he would not be paid for their victuals. So it was in everybody's interests that names were entered, and the men were mustered evey week so mistakes would be quickly rectified.

Seamen might enter under a false name so that it would be hard to trace them if they deserted, but it seems unlikely that this could account for the number of men that claimed to have served with Nelson.

Sometimes men might be lent from one ship to another for a few days without that being regularised in the muster, but again that wouldn't account for many discrepancies.

I think that 18th century naval administration was remarkably effective.

There are a few discrepancies between the Ayshford Trafalgar Roll and the National Archives Trafalgar Ancestors database, which I think are usually accounted for by mistranscribed names.

False claims were made not just to glamourise one's name, but often when seeking financial assistance in later life. As well as Greenwich pensions, I believe the public were also sometimes very forthcoming.

I think it has been said before that if everyone who claimed to serve with Nelson had been on board the Victory, she would have sunk!

Anna

The first 2 words that came into my head regarding the accuracy of the muster books were "pay" and "provisions" - exactly as Tony stated.

The muster was taken every Sunday - just like a school register - so if a man was not included (albeit under an alias etc.) it would very quickly have come to light.

So my confidence in the musters is quite high.

I imagine that the issue with George Richards was that somebody saw his name associated with Nelson's and assumed incorrectly that he MUST have been at Trafalgar.

But for all we know he might have been on one of the ships that were despatched to Gibraltar for water and provisions just days before the battle took place.

I imagine that some of those men were a bit fed up that they missed their place in history just by a quirk of fate.

And who knows - maybe some succumbed to the temptation to "gloss the truth".

MB

Notwithstanding Tony's comments above, let's not forget - 'serving with Nelson' might not mean 'on Nelson's ship'.
Many seamen would have been proud to serve in his navy. (or hated it I suppose)
And also let's not forget - Nelson wasn't only at Trafalgar!

My ggg.grandfather was at the Battle of the Nile, on Orion according to the muster rolls, and I'm sure he would have said - 'I was with Nelson' whenever Nelson's exploits were talked about or written in the papers. Fame by association!

I know I'm proud to say 'my ggg.grandfather served with Nelson' even after 200+ years!

Cheers, MTS

Well, I'm green with envy of anyone whose ancestor served with Nelson!

The reason I asked the question, though, is that I was puzzled by the fact that, according to the muster rolls, no Jack Rider served at Trafalgar and yet Captain Carslake later verified that, as a midshipman, he had served in Victory with him. So either the muster rolls were incomplete or Captain Carslake's memory was at fault!

Another reason why men claimed to have served with Nelson was to escape the severity of the law. The record books of the Old Bailey show that many a man up before the beak pleaded, in mitigation, that he had 'served with Nelson'.

You are absolutely right, MTS, 'serving with Nelson' might mean serving in his ship, serving in his fleet, or serving in his navy. The first two are perfectly valid, but not the third. I really don't like modern commentators using the term 'Nelson's Navy', as it ignores the wealth of talent and organisation that went towards placing a small part of such an effective force at Nelson's disposal. Except I bet I have used the term myself in the past!

Your ancestor of course qualifies 100%, and I will be responding on the other thread, but am a bit pushed for time just at the mo...

MTS

I am interested to know how you knew about your ancestor serving on HMS Orion.

Was it information that had passed down through the generations?

Or was it something that came to light more recently??

Thanks

MB

The original lead came from the 'Ancestry' site, where I've got my family tree displayed. The site automatically does searches through various records and offers 'Hints' to follow up if it finds any matches to people in your tree. (These are often so wide of the mark but that's a discussion for another forum!).
It threw up Barney's application for the Nile Clasp to the NGSM, showing him on the Orion at the Nile.

ps - I tried to upload an image here but it didn't - will have to find out how that works

I googled Battle of the Nile and found the cd of the Muster Rolls. This only cost about £10 and has over 1100 actual scans of the musters pages and is well worth pouring over even if you don't know of any relatives there!

There is a family story of a John Appleby that was captured by the French for some time. When he came home he walked into the local pub and swept his wife into his arms. However, she didn't recognise him and said she was a 'respectable widow woman and didn't go in for that sort of thing'. (love it!)
I can't match a suitable John Appleby in my family tree (yet!) but I have got some service records and pension docs for a John Appleby, born in Sunderland and serving in the Navy 1803-1830, so I'll keep looking. Perhaps I need to put this up as a seperate topic (?)

Cheers, MTS

MTS

That's fantastic!

You obviously don't know if his NGSM still exists.

I don't know if you are aware - but the medals all had the recipients names engraved on them. So if it is still out there somewhere it will be identifiable to him.

MB

I came across a contemporary reference to the practice of seamen using a false name, or 'purser's name' in the journal of Robert Wilson, HMS Unité, 30 Oct 1806:

But this would be very unlikely for a midshipman who would want his sea time recorded under his correct name so that he would be eligible for promotion.