Sorry not been able to contribute to recent naval posts, but we cannot have Nick dominating the naval stuff, so here's one of mine
The maiden voyage of HMT Tyndareus was chronicled in an earlier FPHS Journal, but to briefly recap. She left Devonport on 22 December 1916 bound for Hong Kong, with 1030 officers and men of the 25th Middlesex Regiment plus 108 crew (and 5 dogs) on board. She hit a mine on 6 February 1917 when rounding the Horn of Africa. She did not sink due to modifications introduced to the design of the ships, following the Titanic disaster, but dipped severely at the bows. Everyone including the dogs was rescued by HMHS Oxfordshire and SS Eumaeus and taken to Cape Town. Tyndareus was towed stern first back to Simonstown where she was repaired and the regiment made a delayed arrival in Hong Kong
Illustrated is a cover with London mc of 13 March 1917, but the reverse is the good bit
You will see a double rim oval cachet from ORDERLY ROOM / 3 FEB 1917 / 25th BN MIDDLESEX REGT. with a difficult to decipher blue crayon censors name. There is also a single line CENSORED mark in blue 34.5mm x 3mm letters, pretty close to Goulds 4A42 which is illustrated in Volume 2, but tentatively attributed to Cordelia.
The letter presumably was handed in to the Orderly Room by the writer on 3 February and stamped on the back accordingly, three days before Tyndareus hit the mine. I assume the Orderly Room staff then distribute the mail to whoever is available amongst the officers. Bearing in mind this is a troopship with Army officers on board, is it standard practice for a naval censor mark to be used? If so who would it have belonged to? A Captain Flynn was in command of the ship.
As all men were rescued, it's a reasonable assumption all mail was also salvaged intact. Perhaps the last letters were censored ashore in Cape Town, but a cover I have from the men in Cape Town has an Army South Africa / Official Free mark and a WYNBERG CAPE cds of 9 Feb 1917.
So, is this the censor mark of HMS Tyndareus? Who used it, where and when. Can anyone decipher the signature?
Comments and observations welcomed. I have copied the cover to Michael Gould also
Cheers
Tony
The scans do not seem to be attached, I'll try again
Well, I've managed to get the front on the post, here, hopefully is the back !
Tony, my understanding is that censorship was performed at unit level: that implies to me that the mark belonged to the 25th Battalion, not Tyndareus, and the signature would be that of an officer of the 25th Battalion. However, that begs the question: why was the 25th Battalion not using one of the normal army censor marks ? I wonder if Alistair might have any record of marks associated with the Middlesex regt ?
On the other hand, I wonder if the Battalion had no mark, and borrowed Tyndareus's ?
That's as far as my thoughts have gone (a welcome distraction from the vacuous drivel pumped out on television, these days).
Good to see you yesterday and at Banstead this morning - keep up the good work !
chrs
N
Hi Tony
Good to see you and many other friends at Banstead.
As this Battalion was on-route to Hong Kong, not a war zone, it's likely they were not issued with a Censor Hand-stamp.
I'd suggest a Naval mark.
Regards
Chris
The Webmaster points out to me that this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days, do you want to start a new topic? Since 17 August 1917 actually.
With respect, I would have to repeat all the information in the earlier post if I started a new one.
There is much discussion going on just now around the material from AK, so I am wondering if Chris Grimshaw (who replied to the post above over 2 years ago) or anyone else, can now add more detail.
The query essentially revolves around the CENSORED mark on this cover with the Army cachet of the 25th Bn Middx Regt. alongside.
The CENSORED mark is not in Gould as far as I can see. It is not an Army mark, so I feel it should be, or is, a censor mark from HMT Tyndareus, applied on board just 3 days before she hit a mine. The mail was obviously salvaged.
Agree?
However does the Army cachet, because of the peculiar circumstances (very naval) qualify for inclusion in a list of naval cachets, albeit in maybe an 'Others' section?
Cheers
Tony
In view of the ambiguity and uncertainty associated with this mark, I'd suggest classifying it as 'Others' and add a write up as per this thread.
chrs
N