# John Banks Ross ... First Mate at 25



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

An uncle of mine was born in 1885 and married in January 1911, when he was 25. He was serving in the Merchant Navy and gave his occupation as "First Mate". I am wondering would that be unusually young for someone in that position or is it unremarkable? How long would he have to have been sailing before he attained that rank and would he have to have passed exams or was it simply a matter of gradually acquiring experience and working up to First Mate? I'm trying to establish his possible whereabouts between the 1901 Census, when he was 15 and still at home and when he next find him in the records at the time of his marriage in January 1911 .....


----------



## wightspirit (Feb 15, 2008)

You're in luck, assuming I have the right man, born 9 November 1886. On the genealogy website Ancestry, he has about 25 do***ents listed, showing he qualified for 2nd Mate in 1908, 1st Mate in 1910 and Master in 1914. His certificate number is 004.604. Details of some of his ships are also listed. Also on Ancestry are entries about him, but some of it seems to be erroneous - it's not uncommon - some American researchers have him listed under their ancestry. And if you don't have this - here's his WW1 medal card: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D8087082

Dave W


----------



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

Excellent! Many thanks for this. Our John Banks Ross was born 30 Nov 1885 (I have his birth certificate) but the do***ents relating to the acquisition of his qualifications are definitely him. He was latterly a Captain (Captain Jack Ross) and died in 1948.
The other John Banks Ross that comes up in a search has absolutely nothing to do with -our- John.


----------



## Roger Griffiths (Feb 10, 2006)

Hello,
Have you explored Lloyds Captains Register.
Lloyd's Captains Register's are now held by London Metropolitan Archives.
The information contained is as follows
Name, place and year of birth;
Date, number and place of issue of the master's certificate obtained;
Any other special qualification, including the 'steam' certificate from 1874;
Name and number (taken from the Mercantile Navy Lists) of each ship; Date of engagement and discharge as master or mate; the destination of each voyage; casualties;
Any special awards (e.g. war service)
These records cover masters with foreign trade certificates sailing either as masters or mates. Up until 1947.

regards
Roger


----------



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

Thanks for that hint, Roger. No, we hadn't known about that possible source. It is extremely important that we find out exactly where he was in the early part of 1904. We discovered that he served on the Carisbrook Castle (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1731986) and from the list there we see that the voyage was from 16 December 1902 to 13 September 1904 and his service record shows that he served 7/12/02 -13/09/04. Does this _really_ mean that the ship was away for all that time and John would have been on the ship for all that time, or was there some system of leave, and how would that have worked anyway? From the listing on that page I note that some ships were on short voyages and this one was really long!


----------



## Roger Griffiths (Feb 10, 2006)

Hello again,
First of all there were several vessels around in that timescale with very similar names, 
CARISBROOK
CARISBROOK CASTLE
CARISBROOK*E*
CARISBROOK*E* CASTLE
You say you discovered he served on CARISBROOK CASTLE official number 108351.
The vessel you quoted from the National Archives website is the CARISBROOK O/N 108692
*Clearly two different vessels.*
Always search for British ships with an official number as well as a name.
Could you post the list of ships you have, if possible with their official number? 

regards
Roger


----------



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

Apologies ... I should just have put Carisbrook! I knew about the other ones but my tired brain added the Castle bit! It is definitely the one on that list 108692.


----------



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

I am attaching a copy of his sailing history which shows him definitely on the Carisbrook Official Number 108692


----------



## Roger Griffiths (Feb 10, 2006)

Hello again,
Thanks for that.
Back to your original question. Yes. he would have been away from home for all that time. It was not uncommon.
I once researched a vessel from the 1930's. She was away from a UK port for more than three years!
No Aeroplanes about in those days to relieve crew members!

Try and get hold of that 1902-1904 logbook from TNA. It should contain information on where he voyaged to.

regards 
Roger


----------



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

That's good to know ... sorry, not good to know (at least for our purposes)! (EEK). We've got to absolutely prove that he could not have been on home ground (Isle of Lewis) in the early part of 1904 (i.e., before, say, the end of March). So it's good to know that voyages _could_ last as long as that, but only from the point of view of general knowledge! Are you sure he would have been on board the whole time? (Are you sure there wasn't a way to "teleport" at that time?) (Jester).

... Meanwhile, I've requested that logbook ....


----------



## Roger Griffiths (Feb 10, 2006)

If you need* Proof* that he was still on board in late March /early April 1904, you need to consult the relevent Crew Agreement/s.
They should be stored with the Logbook/s. Be sure to ask.

regards
Roger


----------



## mifhin (May 19, 2013)

Thanks for that, Roger. I'm still at the "Page check requested" stage of this and I will have to wait and see what they come back with. I'll ask at that point for them to check the Crew agreements (and hoping that they can do that) ...


----------

