Link to the related website that has useful info: the Age of Nelson.

This forum is devoted to the Royal Navy during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793 - 1815).
And why not the other navies of the period?
To avoid spam, you must register to be able to post - it's free.

FAQ         Register         Profile         Search         Log in to check your private messages         Log in
Naval General Service Medal and women
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ageofnelson.org Forum Index -> Age of Nelson
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:31 pm    Post subject: Naval General Service Medal and women Reply with quote

Quote from: Seafaring Women; By Dr. Linda Grant de Pauw. Excerpted with permission of the author from "Seafaring Women" http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1800seawomen.htm
Quote:
Such "quibbling" is found repeatedly in the history of women in the military services. For instance, Daniel Tremendous McKenzie was awarded the Naval General Service medal, with his rating recorded as "Baby," in recognition of his presence on the Glorious First of June, but the admiralty ruled against allowing the medal to any of the women, because it would leave the naval office "exposed to innumerable applications of the same nature. "


I remember having read somewhere (I have an annoying tendancy to forget when and where I have read things) that the original text of the advertisement for the application for the General Service Medal did not discriminate in sex, but simply stated that everyone who had been present in one of the medal-rewarding actions could make an application. This general text was never published however, as Queen Victoria herself did prevent this. Is this true, or does my memory fail me here? Is there more information available on this particular subject?

Danni
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PeterL



Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Posts: 8
Location: California, USA

Post Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:41 pm    Post subject: Naval General Service Medals Reply with quote

It was announced in the London Gazette on several occastion, this one (here) being the most relevant. I have never heard of Queen Victoria not wanting the text published. Sounds incredible.

The reason women were not allowed to claim the medal, has probably a lot more to do with the fact they were not borne on the ships books, and as such - claims could simply not be verified.

Cheers, -Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was very much in the summer holidays mood when I made my post, so I was a bit lazy and refrained from looking in some of my books myself. Embarassed
I just did and found the following in Susan Stark's Female Tars:
Quote:
Three women applied for the medal: Mary Ann Riley and Ann Hopping, who had participated in the Battle of the Nile in 1798 (...) and Jane Townshend, who had served in the Defiance at Trafalgar in 1805. The four admirals who formed the committee to decide who would get the medal at first agreed to give it to women. Sir Thomas Byam Martin, the committee's spokesman, wrote regarding Jane Townshend's application, "The Queen in the Gazette of the first of June [1847] directs all who were present in this action shall have a medal, without any reservation as to sex, and as this woman produces from the captain of the Defiance strong and highly satisfactory certificates of her useful services during the action, she is fully entitled to a medal."
Then, however, Admiral Martin went on to explain that the committee had had second thoughts. Someone, very likely the queen herself, had disapproved of their initial decision. The idea of a woman participating in a naval battle was distasteful to Victoria. The queen was strongly convinced that a woman should know her place, which was at home and under the control of a man (...). Admiral Martin explained the committee's final decision to disallow women's claims to the medal: "Upon further consideration this [giving the medal to women] cannot be allowed. There were many women in the fleet equally useful, and it will leave the Army exposed to innumerable applications of the same nature."

David Cordingly in Women Sailors and Sailor's women later adopts Susan Stark's idea that Queen Victoria seems to have played a key part in the decision to exclude women from the medal. He adds nothing new on te subject though.

I cannot find that Susan Stark had any source for her supposition that Queen Victoria was somehow involved in this matter. In her notes she mentions an article from W.B. Rowbotham "The Naval General Service Medal, 1793-1840"; Mariner's Mirrow 23 (1937) 366-67.
Unfortunately I am not able to get my hands on a copy of this article. As far as I can tell from her notes (and from Cordingly's notes) it does not mention the possibility of the Queen's involvement. If any one of you is capable of finding out, I would be much obliged, as I am left with the following question:
Why did the committee change opinion?
It could not have been the reason that was stated ("it will leave the Army exposed to innumerable applications of the same nature"), as that motive is quite nonsensical. There cannot have been many women who were able to prove that they were present in one of the medal-rewarding actions. Hardly any, if none, were mentioned in the musterbooks, nor could have produced similar evidence as Jane Townshend. (It makes me wonder what kind of proof babyboy McKenzie had to offer. Cordingly only mentions that his father (an able seaman) appeared in the muster books.) Question

Danni
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ionia



Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 46

Post Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

During the early years of the Great War, when Marines were in short supply, it was nescessary to use soldiers for this purpose on board RN ships. Unlike the navy, wives and children of soldiers were carried on strength and when on ship were listed in supernumanary lists in the muster book and victualled (it was pretended that naval wives were not on board and were not entitled to be victualed). Consequently, at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent there were many army wives and children on board the ships engaged. As an example, the BRITANNIA had 17 women and 13 children on board.

Commander Rowbotham discusses the presence of army dependants in MM 47/1 of 1961.
_________________
Ionia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Redfish



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 59
Location: Arnhem

Post Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed this means that quite a number of women and children of soldiers were actually mentioned in the muster books. It doesn't solve the questions, though.

Not many of these women would still have been alive by the time the medal was issued. So if the Admiralty was trying not to establish a precedent , would it not have been more likely to exclude all these children who had no use on board a ship whatsoever (unless they were turned into extremely young powder monkeys Wink )?

It would not explain baby McKenzie's proof either, as (according to D. Cordingly) his father was listed as an able seaman. In his note on father McKenzie Cordingly is very elaborate about his appearance in the muster books while nothing is stated on his baby son (or wife, who had been on board with him as well). This indeed makes sence as it was not custom to have them mentioned in the books, like Ionia states. Yet, how was baby McKenzie's presence proven?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.ageofnelson.org Forum Index -> Age of Nelson All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ   Search    Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Nun