# Family photo found..



## Erimus

This is from late Grandparents files, we know that all the family had a copy but we never found out who it referred to or where it was....perhaps Pacific Islands...

Anyone have any guesses? I did have a Great Grandfather who was an AB 1900/1910 but this looks much older than that.

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=70618&stc=1&d=1417968624

geoff


----------



## Bill Morrison

Hi Erimus. Were any members of your family Missionaries with all those Polynesians on board, the Missionary ship John Williams came to mind.
Regards Bill


----------



## trotterdotpom

They look more Melanesian than Polynesian to me. 

John T


----------



## Erimus

The family were staunch Methodists but don't think anyone was involved with Missions....regret the only Pacific Islanders I personally know are Samoan, and they don't look like that...

geoff


----------



## trotterdotpom

No, Samoans are Polynesian, these could be Solomon Islanders or similar.

John T

PS the Methodist missionaries were quie active in the South Pacific (Fiji, New Guinea, etc).


----------



## Erimus

......ours were South Bank,Cargo Fleet and Grangetown John...

Geoff


----------



## NY1917

I would try to date the picture through clothing and hat styles. If they were staunch Methodists, searching for photos of Methodist meetings and events for dates within 1900-1910 should give you some ideas of what people were wearing at the time not just in high fashion but in the circles your relatives frequented. 

Another simple thing to try is the Smithsonian Institution collection of Sears Roebuck catalogs - I don't have a direct link handy but search on Smithsonian Institution and you will be able to find your way around once you get there. Anyway, when you find a catalog for 1900, search hats. Repeat for other years within the possible range.

This will not give you a firm date - for one, the Midwest US may have not been wearing the exact same items at the exact same time, and for another not everyone threw out all their clothing and bought everything new every year, but it should give you a ball park.

Other things to look for and perhaps search on are Women's sleeves - they changed a lot and may help you date the photo.


----------



## Erimus

That is an interesting concept indeed...thanks....it will have to wait a while longer as am now onto my wife's Irish family and find 12 related branches within 20 miles!, and all the men are Patrick,John,Hugh or Michael........

Thanks anyway..

Geoff


----------



## NY1917

If you'd like I can copy the photo and post it for my friends to take a look at, but that would mean my copying it and putting it up elsewhere on the web, which I would never do without your approval.

(I know people who do costume history to varying extents and they love to answer questions like this.)

Or I could tell you where and you could post it, if you prefer.


----------



## Michael Taylor

Are those dorys stacked frd on starb side? If so maybe a whaler....long shot.


----------



## Erimus

NY1917 said:


> If you'd like I can copy the photo and post it for my friends to take a look at, but that would mean my copying it and putting it up elsewhere on the web, which I would never do without your approval.
> 
> (I know people who do costume history to varying extents and they love to answer questions like this.)
> 
> Or I could tell you where and you could post it, if you prefer.


That would be brilliant, as all we know is that there is family connection,possibly a grandfather or his brother..but who,what and where we have no idea and nobody left to ask...
Thanks
geoff


----------



## NY1917

geoff:

I've had one answer so far, which is that based on the boater hat (popular from 1880's to 1920's, but most popular 1890's - 1900-10) and the woman's puffy sleeves, which to her looked 1900-1910, that approximately 1900-1910 is a likely time frame. 

If I get any dissenting or more specific analysis I will post it here in this thread for you, but I'd say that's likely.

Closer photos that show more detail_ sometimes_ yield a tighter time frame - for example, it may be known that a particular detail was never used before date A, and may have taken a few years to get into general usage. It is not an exact science, but you work on likelihoods and use the clothes dating as a clue. It's just one more screwdriver in the toolbox for family historians


----------



## stein

That is a larger ship than the John Williams or any whaler, and there is at least a twenty man crew there beside the captain and his wife and the four-five visitors (none of them looking ever so slightly like a missionary). I believe we are looking forward from the quarterdeck of a steel ship, the standard compass being placed on top of the apprentices’ quarters to be a bit away from the iron, inside the now empty boat chocks. And I believe that it is a mirrored image - the removable walkway would normally be on the starboard side. 1900 - 1910 would be a natural guess to me, so if you see an AB there looking a bit like you...


----------



## Erimus

It is believed that both my Grandfather and a Brother-in-Law were sailing as AB's up to time of their marriages...in which case the picture, if it is either of them, would be from about 1880 to 1901 absolute latest.

geoff


----------



## stein

I would say the ship was built within that timespan. Of hats I know nothing.


----------



## Erimus

> Of hats I know nothing.


Nor I Stein!

geoff


----------



## Erimus

The Great Uncle had drawn this picture...don't think it is same vessel but does it give clue as to age etc?? The picture is dated 1921 which isn't relevant is it?

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=73258&stc=1&d=1420658036

geoff


----------



## stein

I would guess not, though it would be the same type of ship. What is the name written on her bow - British Commander?


----------



## Erimus

We thought that but first name not clear, but cannot find a vessel name of that era..

geoff


----------



## Roger Griffiths

Could the vessel be KNIGHT COMMANDER ON 48802 built 1861 missing 1899 Register closed 1900.

regards
Roger


----------



## Erimus

Roger Griffiths said:


> Could the vessel be KNIGHT COMMANDER ON 48802 built 1861 missing 1899 Register closed 1900.
> 
> regards
> Roger


That would fit the dates very nicely Roger...many many thanks

geoff


----------



## cueball44

Roger Griffiths said:


> Could the vessel be KNIGHT COMMANDER ON 48802 built 1861 missing 1899 Register closed 1900.
> 
> regards
> Roger


Could it be the one the Russians sunk in 1904 for allegedly carrying contraband ?.


----------



## Erimus

cueball44 said:


> Could it be the one the Russians sunk in 1904 for allegedly carrying contraband ?.


Yes I have been looking on the Knight Line site, but it is described as a Steamer...

geoff


----------



## stein

It looks as if there have been some mixup with a steamer when built by Walpole in Dublin in 1864. http://dublincitypubliclibraries.com/image/iln-026-knight-commander

There was another half page, but somehow it matters not how much I resize it, it still is too big. (Not working URL removed).


----------



## Erimus

Even more interesting.....thumbnail. Google page is barred from access.

Geoff


----------



## cueball44

Erimus said:


> Even more interesting.....thumbnail. Google page is barred from access.
> 
> Geoff


She was described as a steamer, when in fact she was a full-rigged sailing ship. Geoff, try right clicking on the thumbnail, then click open link.


----------



## stein

I managed to get the rest of the text here. She was reduced to a barque rig in 1892 the text says. And I found another view of the launch. Picture from book "Ships and Shipbuilding at Liffey." By Paul Sweeney. Free pages courtesy of Google Books. Suits the drawing well as far as I can see. It was not unusual to replace the bowsprit-jibboom combination with a stump bowsprit at the time she was reduced to a barque.


----------



## stein

San Francisco Call, Volume 72, Number 141, 19 October 1892 
A DISASTER FEARED.

The British Ship Knight Commander Supposed to Have Foundered. London, Oct. IR.— Great uneasiness is felt in shipping and Insurance circles regarding the British *hlp Knight Commander, Captain Murdoch, which sailed from Sau Francisco July 30 for Queenstown. It is believed she. foundered off Cape Horn. The Knight Commander is one of the best known traders that ever came to this port. She was an Iron bark, built in Dublin in 1864, for H. Fernie of Liverpool. her List run was made to Calcutta, and she made phenomenal speed for those days and made n fortune for her owners. She remained in that service for several years and has been through ail the experiences that can befall a sailing ship without going to the bottom. Her masts have been toru out on more than one occasion, but she has always been right side up when the storm was over, and it is hoped she will not break her record this time.

San Francisco Call, Volume 72, Number 142, 20 October 1892 
SHE IS A HOODOO SHIP.
Some Strange Tales of the Knight Commander. WHAT ONE MATE SAID. He Wonld Not Be Surprised If She Should Founder at Sea and Did Not Want to Sail in Her.
The report from Liverpool that it Is feared the bark Knight Commander,, from this port for Queenstown, has foundered off the Horn, arouses some- very preploxing and disagreeable speculations. The Knight Commander is one of a number of vessels owned in Liverpool, and all having the prefix Knight, as Knight Errant. Knight Templar, Knight Poursurvant, aud so forth. She is about the oldest of her class and decidedly behind the age as a swift and safe carrier. She was rigged as a bark when she arrived here for the simple reason that she was dismasted in the voyage here, and a sufficient number of spars could not be obtained at Port Stanley when she put in there to refit. , " The Knight Commander arrived here on April 4 and sailed on July 30. She has therefore been out only about eighty days. She was not likely to be spoken by any steamer below Valparaiso. It is therefore passing strange that rumors should already be spread that she is lost

In this connection it Is pertinent to recall an interview between First Mate Muller of the Knight Commander and a representative of Thk Call, who boarded the vessel when she docked a week or two after ber arrival. Muller was evidently uneasy in his mind. He said the ship carried too small a crew, and showed the miserable quarters In the forecastle which it occupied.' Then, taking the reporter into his cabin, he showed how the woodwork was rotten, and great rents in the walls and roof showing the sky. "A single heavy sea," said he, "would sweep all this away." Then he showed a wide, deep hole abaft' the mainmast, covered with a grating and communicating directly with the hold. If a big sea should come aboard or the vessel be pooped there is nothing in God's world to prevent tier from sinking. I don't want to go out in her. I expect nothing less than for her to founder at sea. " The reporter did not see Male Muller again, but the conversation made a lasting impression on his mind which the rumor of the present disaster has not tended to remove. The Knight Commander has always been looked upon as a "hoodoo" ship by sailors from the time she made her first trip from Calcutta to Liverpool. Her career bas been a most romantic one. The scenes that have been enacted on her decks, and the storms she has been through would furnish material for a novelist like Captain Marryatt. She was built of Iron in Dublin in the year 1864 for H. Ferris of Liverpool, in which port she was registered. It was just after the war of the rebellion in this country that she made her first trip in command of Captain Bell. Times were still lively and war prices could still be obtained, so there was a great deal of money to be made by getting some of the luxuries of the Orient to Liverpool where they could be sold to American merchants. '.' Her first run was to Calcutta for tea, and as she was built for speed, she made her run in good time. She carried sails whereever they could be placed. Studdingsails stuck out over the bulwarks almost as far a* the length of tho ship, They occasionally .few away in the gales of the Indian Ocean, but ihey were replaced; anything to make time.

Dozens of men have met their death by being washed from her decks. An apprentice boy was killed by falling. down her hatchway Into the hold. There have been lights with mutineers and among the sailors. Men have fallen from the rigging and been killed, and in many ways her decks have been stained witb blood.
Some of her runs have been made in extraordinarily short time and others have, been almost endless. On her last trip she was 453 day* getting here from Antwerp, and arrived here a bark, although she left Antwerp a ship. She left Antwerp in February,' 1891, and put into Port Stanley, Falkland Islands, July 3 of the same year. She sailed again, but returned on October i with a jury-rudder, her own having been carried away in a storm. When repairs were ; made she sailed ouce more, but returned December 22 with a mutinous crew. She got another at Montevideo and arrived lv Sen Francisco ninety-nine days later. While at Port Stanley her first mate, Wilson, went ashore after some men who refused to work and a fight ensued. He was taken to jail by a constable, but when being searched for weapons used his revolver on the man, wounding him severely. He was taken to Montevideo, where he nearly died of his wounds. Wilson had to serve six months in ill for the offense, and another mate had to be secured. .
Every Duns, that could befall a ship has struck the Knight Commander, She has been becalmed for mouths on the Pacific and lias had all her masts carried away in the typhoons of the Indian Ocean. She* has been in the heat of the tropics. ' where the pitch melted out of the seams of her deck, and she has been caught In the ice and snows of the Antarctic. She has "arrived weeks before she was expected and has also turned up mouths after she was given up. "■:
Sailors aro afraid of her, and at times it has been necessary to pay several hundred dollar:, blood money to get tho very worst kind of men to man the ship.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD Thursday 23 November 1899
RE-INSURANCES ON SHIPPING.
On the ship Knight Commander, which sailed from Cardiff June 8 for Pisagua, and was spoken July 16, 3•[?] [?] W., 10 guineas per cent. had been paid on October [?] She is an iron ship of 1351 tons, built in 1864 at Dublin by Messrs Walpole and Webb a


----------



## Erimus

Wow..you have been busy Stein, very thorough research indeed...frightening article about her condition though.....

It was the different bowsprit that made me wonder about the similarity between pictures.....

Am now working on the artist as he was either my Grand Uncle or his son, about whom I know little,but I do have access to four ancestry sites at moment.

Thanks again..great read.

Geoff


----------



## stein

In the interest of knowing whether the photograph could be of the Knight Commander, one could search for ships one can reasonably believe looked like her. Walpole & Webb's second ship was the Hackfeld of 1.249 tons, and in their second year they built the British Nation, 1.302 tons for the British Shipowners Company of Liverpool, sold to Sandbach, Tinne & Co in 1880.


----------



## Barrie Youde

#13

The mirrored image theory.

Isn't it usually the case with a mirrored image that men's jackets etc appear to be the wrong way round? (i.e. pocket handkerchief on the right, which doesn't happen in reality.

In this photograph there is no clear image of a jacket, but the man on the extreme left (2nd Mate?) appears to be wearing a jacket quite normally, with his right hand shoved in where the left side of his jacket closes across and in front of the right side. Next but one to him is a man wearing a shirt which also seems to close (button-up) in the same normal way. Would this be the case with a mirror-image?

No pocket handkerchiefs (or medal ribbons) are visible. These are usually the give-aways.


----------



## Erimus

Barrie...could always look on Facebook!!

geoff


----------



## Erimus

stein said:


> In the interest of knowing whether the photograph could be of the Knight Commander, one could search for ships one can reasonably believe looked like her. Walpole & Webb's second ship was the Hackfeld of 1.249 tons, and in their second year they built the British Nation, 1.302 tons for the British Shipowners Company of Liverpool, sold to Sandbach, Tinne & Co in 1880.


That is a path I will progress..perhaps when I have identified just who was the artist as I may be able to back track his history to match...

Thanks again

geoff


----------



## Barrie Youde

#32

Quite so!


----------



## stein

Maybe they did things differently in Dublin, except for buttoning, or particularly with buttoning. Anyway, Walpole's second sailing ship was not named Hackfeld but Caldbeck, Hackfeld was a later name for the British Nation, before it ended up as Australia.


----------



## Bill Morrison

Hi Geoff, I have been following this thread with great interest. All family histories are intriguing and at times frustrating as usually there is no one left to ask. I spend a lot of time on various sites researching my own family and have found newspaper archives to be very informative, though you can get easily side tracked. In your post with the picture of the Knight Commander I ran the name through the Liverpool Mercury it showed eight reports but not a lot of information. I also ran it through Trove Australia an other good site and found a print of the Knight Commander but from the opposite direction. I will try to down load it if it lets me.
Bill


----------



## Erimus

Bill...that is brilliant...looks lots more like the original one...

cheers

geoff


----------



## stein

There was a crew list there as well, regrettably from as early as 1874 (with a number of Norwegians who remarkably all had English names).
I came across the promise of one from 1893, but when trying to fish that one out I was informed that it probably was not in the archive when harvested - whatever that might mean. And, yes, the British Nation is a totally different ship, and since its only connection here is having the same builder as the Knight Commander I would consider this ship uninteresting now.


----------



## cueball44

Could it be this one. Ex Knight Commander 1870 purchased from Carlyle & Co. London. Renamed British Commodore 1882 sold to Parry& Jones Liverpool, 1898 sold to Chile and later hulked.


----------



## stein

No, I think she was built in 1864 and belonged to Carlyle and Gedes, then Henry Fernie and then Lowden & Company. The drawing and the painting fits perfectly with the photograph of her just before she was launched, which you will find above. #27


----------



## Free Forester

*Knight Commander*

*Hello all. I'm new to this! I have just found that my g-grandfather died at sea on the Knight Commander in 1892 age 68. I always thought he just plied the East Coast of the UK as a cook, or ship's hand. Not quite sure how to follow this up and check it out. Has anybody any tips please?*


----------



## Roger Griffiths

Hello,
If you give us a name plus place and date of birth we can then check out the deaths at sea records and possibly give you some information on how to obtain the vessels logbooks and crew agreements.
Could you also tell us where he resided at time of death as there are several vessels with the Name KNIGHT COMMANDER around about this timescale.

regards
Roger


----------



## Free Forester

Thanks for reply. Someone has told me that he actually died in an accident Boston docks! Not at sea! Samuel Billings. dob 1824. I am going to look at the newspaper archives, it may be in there if it was an accident. I didn't really think he would be on that ship you were all talking about.


----------



## Roger Griffiths

Yes he did, He was master of KNIGHT COMMANDER and fell into the hold of the ship after slipping on a frosty deck. The vessel was docked at Boston. Boston was also given in his last address Frinton road, Skirbeck, Boston
He died at 8.45 am 2/12/1892.
There was an inquest held so you should look for the conclusions of the inquest.

regards
Roger


----------



## lisawines

*My gg uncle Samuel Wattleworth died on the Knight Commander*

Hello everyone and thanks to you all for this wonderful thread. My great grandmother's brother, Samuel George Wattleworth, was on the Knight Commander from about 1896 (his 1st letter was dated July 1896) until she was lost between July (she was last spoken off the coast of Brazil) and October 1899 (when she was due at Pisagua). I have been staring and staring and staring at the photo of the captain and crew that Geoff posted. (Who ARE you cousin Geoff?  I am writing a biography of Sam and the "hoodoo" Knight Commander and have a spreadsheet of all the mentions in the press of the ship and have all/most of the owners' and the captains' names. The captain of the last voyage was named Thomas but I have no idea what his first name was. He became the captain after the KC returned from Vancouver to Belfast with Captain F. W. Fairbank (with his younger brother as 1st mate). Captain Thomas then took her from Belfast to Cardiff and from there they began the journey to Pisagua.

Many thanks to the person who found the crew list of 1874. How can I find the same for the years 1896-1899? In one of Sam's letters he mentioned they had new men who were older than him but he was "the boss". (He was about 20 when he died) So I'd love to know what his position was. I know that for a while it was just him and the captain in Vancouver, as he said in his letter that it was difficult for all the ships to find crew since all the men were taking off for the Klondike.

Anyway, thanks for any help you can send my way.

Best,
Lisa


----------



## wightspirit

Crew agreement for Knight Commander for 1899 is here: https://www.mun.ca/mha/holdings/searchcombinedcrews.php. The ship's Official number, which you'll need, is 48802. Copies can be ordered online and as soon as payment is received you'll be e-mailed what you want. They've stopped sending hard copies but it's a quick and efficient service.

Dave W


----------



## lisawines

wightspirit said:


> Crew agreement for Knight Commander for 1899 is here: https://www.mun.ca/mha/holdings/searchcombinedcrews.php. The ship's Official number, which you'll need, is 48802. Copies can be ordered online and as soon as payment is received you'll be e-mailed what you want. They've stopped sending hard copies but it's a quick and efficient service.
> 
> Dave W


Thank you, Dave. Ordering now!

Lisa


----------



## lisawines

For those of you who were interested in the date/location of the photograph of the ship and crew that Geoff posted, I THINK I may know, based on two of Sam Wattleworth's letters home. The letters are dated July 4 & 6, 1897 from Mauritius. He says that there's no proper harbour at this "not very nice" place and every day at 6am he has to pull the life boat over a mile ashore for the n***ers :-( who work the cargo and then take them back again at night. He says the workers wear nothing but a "piece of old bag" around them. He says the captain's wife did very well, considering it was her first voyage on a sailing ship. He says that during the voyage, one of the sailors "went off his head" and yelled "Goodbye all hands!" and jumped overboard. They were unable to save him. The captain at this time was Frederick William Fairbank (who had been 1st mate on the ship in 1893). His wife was Esther Isabel Ritchie Fairbank. I haven't yet found evidence of the birth of the child who's in her lap. Sam also says that the two new hands "are very soft and thick headed", older than him (one was 23), but that he was "the boss." In the photo I see at least two men who look young, the 3rd and 6th from the far left. So perhaps one of them is my ancestor!

Lisa


----------



## Erimus

Well this has been an interesting journey and think that my own family will be happy with all the assistance given here..

thanks
geoff


----------



## Bill Morrison

Well Geoff. Who needs Sherlock Holmes when you have the worlds greatest Detective Agency. Ships Nostalgia at your service. Great outcome.


----------



## lisawines

Erimus said:


> Well this has been an interesting journey and think that my own family will be happy with all the assistance given here..
> 
> thanks
> geoff


Hi Geoff - if you have the original photo and/or a high quality scan of the crew on the ship, can you zoom in enough to see if the young man 3rd from left is wearing a pocket watch/chain? My ancestor Sam's older brother was a watchmaker and in Sam's letters he thanks his brother for fixing the watch and sending it back to him, so it would help me see if that guy is MY guy. 

Or, better yet, if you can send me a high-quality TIF scan of the photo via email I would be very, very grateful. 

After I receive the Knight Commander crew files from 1896-99 that I ordered, I will post the crew name lists to see if your ancestor is on any of the lists.

Lisa


----------



## Erimus

As far as crew are concerned...I am not yet convinced that the two photographs are 'a pair'..I do not have a good picture of crew,the one I have in archive is only about 2 1/2 inches x 2...the best photo you would get is by clicking on the thumbnail in Post 1 of this thread..and I don't see a watch but then my eyesight is failing....hope this helps and good hunting.

geoff


----------



## tiachapman

remember the missonaries visitng the Bongo club on night sat in the 50s or was it the Sally any way they were converted by South bank JEAN and a few of her mates from the COOK


----------



## MichaelHowe

Hi

My great uncle was Sam Wattleworth, an AB who was drowned when KC sank in 1899. His name is on the crew lists we have for KC. 
Do you think you could give me the names of any of your ancestors that might have been on the KC in the late 1890's.
I am very interested in the photo you show of the crew on the KC.
If you preferred you could reply directly to me at '[email protected]"

Your reply would be very much appreciated.

Regards, Michael Howe


----------



## Erimus

Michael....if any of my ancestors were on KC,whilst is possible, rather than probable, they would have had the surname,as mine, Fletcher.....it would have been either my Grandfather Samuel or one of his brothers....

geoff


----------



## MichaelHowe

Hi

Thank you so much for a quick reply.

S Fletcher is on the crew list for 1896. Captain (S ?) H Whetton.
He appeards to have come fro Middleborough. 30 Pollard Street.
He was discharged 14 March, 1896 at Dunkirk. He was a cabin boy.

We might have more information we can send, including copies of original do***ents if you like.

Regards

Michael Howe


----------



## Erimus

Brilliant thanks a lot,

Geoff


----------



## SallyBell

There was a steamship Knight Commander, but the one in the sketch looks like my great grandfather's ship, also Knight Commander. He was captain of Knight Commander until she was run aground in 1991 when my grandfather was a baby. The ship was then dry-docked in Peru for repairs, went to another company and was later lost with all hands so my father told me. No idea whether the people in the original picture are my family or not.


----------



## SallyBell

*More on foundering in 1891.*

I answered too quickly having not spotted the whole thread (sorry, new to this). The story from 1892 makes a lot of sense to me, as the story my father told me, from his father, was that in late 1891 after they foundered on Desolation Island, my great grandfather James Bell was asked to sail the ship home and he refused, as he said she was not safe to take to sea. I was always told that she was lost with all hands shortly afterwards, which would make sense in view of the news stories from 1892, although she seems to have turned up again afterwards.


----------



## EddieLlew

Hi All - I have been recently been trying to expand my Ancestry tree, in particular family from Birkenhead/Liverpool area. Whilst researching one family member, the 1881 England Census showed that he was an Engineer on a vessel called Knight Commander. His name was John Marles (Born circa 1829). A brief search on the internet makes me feel there have been several vessels with that name and I am at a loss as to which one he was on. I came across this very interesting and informative thread and thought I would reach out and see if anyone can help me identifying his vessel. John Marles is my mother's 2nd great grandfather and she (and her sister) are very interested and would love to know more. Any help, pointers and/or info would be much appreciated.


----------



## EddieLlew

1881 Census


----------



## Roger Griffiths

Hello and welcome 
As far as I can tell there were three vessels with the name KNIGHT COMMANDER around in 1881.
An educated guess is two can be discounted.
1/ Official number 48802 was a sailing vessel of 1434 tons so would need a larger crew than severn.
2/ Official number 78327 was a Brixham fishing Smack of 53 tons
Both of these vessels do not appear in the Mercantile Navy List for 1880 or 1882 (No 1881 edition on line)





Crew List Index Project







www.crewlist.org.uk






The one I think is the vessel you are interested in is KNIGHT COMMANDER Official Number 58970. She was Paddle Tug of 73 tons, so a crew of severn would be about right.
She was built in Garston in 1868 and was registered in Liverpool in 1869 She was deleted from the British Register in 1941 bearing the name DESPATCH.

It seems her Crew Agreements for 1881 have been lost or destroyed. Her 1880 C/A's are with Liverpool record office and her 1882 C/A's are with MUN


Crew List Index Search Results



regards
Roger


----------



## EddieLlew

Roger Griffiths said:


> Hello and welcome
> As far as I can tell there were three vessels with the name KNIGHT COMMANDER around in 1881.
> An educated guess is two can be discounted.
> 1/ Official number 48802 was a sailing vessel of 1434 tons so would need a larger crew than severn.
> 2/ Official number 78327 was a Brixham fishing Smack of 53 tons
> Both of these vessels do not appear in the Mercantile Navy List for 1880 or 1882 (No 1881 edition on line)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crew List Index Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.crewlist.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one I think is the vessel you are interested in is KNIGHT COMMANDER Official Number 58970. She was Paddle Tug of 73 tons, so a crew of severn would be about right.
> She was built in Garston in 1868 and was registered in Liverpool in 1869 She was deleted from the British Register in 1941 bearing the name DESPATCH.
> 
> It seems her Crew Agreements for 1881 have been lost or destroyed. Her 1880 C/A's are with Liverpool record office and her 1882 C/A's are with MUN
> 
> 
> Crew List Index Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> regards
> Roger


Many Thanks Roger for the quick reply and the clarification. I now have a few more avenues to follow, which should be interesting.

Regards,

Mike


----------

