Jump to content

Talk:Tower Hill Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleTower Hill Memorial is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2018WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
September 7, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Lists of ships

[edit]

If anyone wants to go to town attempting to construct lists of the ships listed on the Tower Hill Memorial for both WWI and WWII, there is a website with index pages here and here. That website has valuable pointers to other resources as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The merchant ships with articles that are listed on the memorial will mostly be in the following categories:

Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: (sorry for the double ping) I think you will be putting the article up for review soon? Might it be best to decide how to handle the casualties and ships before that point? In terms of images, I think a WW2 name panel might be a good addition. Maybe RMS Lancastria panel names? We need to be careful with the 'greatest loss of life' bit, as some shipwrecks/sinkings had great loss of life but only a proportion of them were merchant navy seamen. Possibly slightly expanding the 'Battle of the Atlantic' ceremony sentences might be a way to bring in the name of some of the ships? Or failing that, a list article of some sort. I suspect a category is better, but am struggling to come up with a suitable name for the two categories (WWI and WWII). Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of creating a list for the ships. There's more to say about them since their sinking (for those that were lost) is a significant part of their notability, and because we have a sizeable list of them. We can illustrate a list and give proper context. I think individual people's connections are more incidental, and we don't have enough of them to really sustain a list or category. Maybe we could find a way of working notable casualties' names into the list of ships? ​ HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances surrounding each ship can vary immensely. From being attacked and sunk with no survivors, to 'only' a few people killed (ship may or may not be lost), to all crew surviving (hence not on memorial, though the ship is lost). It is really difficult to work out how to handle this! Maybe ask at the ships WikiProject? FWIW (changing subject), there is a bit more on the WW1 unveiling ceremony that I have found, including the fact that the dedication was by the Archbishop of Canterbury (then Cosmo Gordon Lang) and how the unveiling of the memorial was reported by the IWGC. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that can be handled with careful wording of the scope of the list and memorial, and with a "notes" column in the table (which could also house information about notable casualties). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've created a (very rough for now) List of ships commemorated on the Tower Hill Memorial so we have something in mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World War I ships

[edit]

Initial listing of ships where WW1 casualties are listed on the Mercantile Marine Memorial. The vast majority of the thousands of ships listed will not have articles. Only one listed so far - there will be more.

Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC) updated. 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary of the sinking of the Lusitania was commemorated at the annual ceremony for 2015, see here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World War II ships

[edit]

Initial listing of 72 ships where WW2 casualties are listed on the Merchant Seamen's Memorial. Possibly a category might work best here, but am not sure. To put this in context, there are several thousand ships named on the memorial, the vast majority of which will not have articles.

As far as I can tell, much of the above comes from articles being produced on the A-E section of the 'Empire' series of ships. Plus some other shipwrecks and losses. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems great minds think alike. I had mixed feelings about listing individual casualties, especially with there being so few who had Wikipedia articles (that we've found). I like the idea of including a list of ships, although with 72 so far (and probably more than double that just from the rest of the Empire ships a whole realm of maritime history I didn't know about! if and when somebody creates articles for them) we might have to be a bit selective and include only the most notable or the ones with the highest casualties or some other criteria. We could also have a separate List of ships commemorated on the Merchant Seamen's Memorial or similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some more added above. Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) and 08:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Some brief thoughts

[edit]

@HJ Mitchell: glad to see you have got to this one! Did a quick copyedit and will check back later on as well. A couple of thoughts: (i) might it be worth mentioning that the Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red installation was just across the road? I visited that and was struck by how people queuing to see the modern memorial were standing right by the Tower Hill memorial and not really being aware of what it was! (ii) see note above about about ships and ship names (most of them were not well known at all); (iii) I see this addition was lost in the recent revamp - will there be anything on individual ships? (iv) Thank-you for keeping the external link! :-) (v) The recent gallery linked from your user talk page has excellent photos - I can get more later if needed as well. Do try and include a gallery of Wheeler's sculptures - or indeed all the sculptures if possible (quite a lot of visual imagery to cover here). Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carcharoth, thanks very much for having a look. I think most of the information is in now; it's mostly a case of copy-editing and prettifying.
  • Do you know of any sources that draw a connection between Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red and the Merchant Navy memorial? It could go in the see also section but I don't think we can draw a connection if someone else hasn't drawn it first.
  • I saw your note above and as you've seen I kept the external link. I doubt it would qualify as a reliable source so I'm not sure there's much more I can do with it but it's a great resource for somebody researching the ships.
  • I might add that sentence back (though I can't find any other sources discussing the Lusitania or any other individual ship in the context of the memorial).
  • I'll see what I can do about photos. I haven't decided exactly what the image layout will be but probably something similar to Manchester Cenotaph. If you can get me a set of photos of the sculptures (we have some nice ones of the sentries on Commons but none of the reliefs between the panels), I'll certainly try and incorporate them into a gallery. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,
Coming all too late to read of the work you and others have put into helping counter the all too widespread overlooking of the MN's vital contribution, may I admit to having made public that connection between 'Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red'? Invited by 'The Times' in 2015, I wrote an 800-word article on MN Day which concluded:-
'Who of those seeing the poppies in the Tower of London’s moat realised that 11,896 of them were named on the Merchant Navy Memorial across the road? Even the makers of London’s best-known map, the A-Z, have overlooked the memorial, an omission that will be remedied in future editions. Two more reasons therefore why September 3 is Merchant Navy Day.'
As you will see, it served as well to prompt a contrite A-Z company to put The Memorial on the map.
Finally, you may also care to note the entry that now concludes this thread.
With thanks,
Roger Hoefling LtVen (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Could you have another look through when you get chance? I've changed the layout slightly, added a lead, added a few more details, and done some copy-editing. In terms of prose and research, I think it's pretty much 'finished'. I need to illustrate it (I'd be grateful for any help you wanted to offer with that) and once that's done I'm minded to put it up for A-class review unless you think there's something major missing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: (apologies for the second ping) I've added a few photos now and I'm quite pleased with the layout. I'd like to put a gallery at the end of both of the "design" sections but I'm not quite sure what to put in the first one. For the second, I have a rough mental image of a gallery of Wheeler's "jaunty" reliefs, possibly flanked by the sentries at the entrance to the garden, but we don't seem to have any decent photos of them on Commons. Could you take some, or I could ask Thryduulf? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: How long do I have to get photos? :-) Nice weather at the moment. Might there be room for a picture from this category? Also, a thought: would I be right that of the articles you've worked on so far, only Mells and Spalding have names inscribed on them and those were 'local' memorials? This memorial, would I be right to say, is the first time you've worked on an article on one of the official CWGC memorials, by which I mean the huge series of memorials to the missing erected in the 1920s and 1930s? See List of Commonwealth War Graves Commission World War I memorials to the missing and List of Commonwealth War Graves Commission World War I memorials to the missing in Belgium and France. The point I am making (maybe clumsily) is that in the 'Lutyens' series of articles, you have had a bit about Lutyens and his work on memorials. Sometimes quite a bit about that. Here, for the CWGC memorials to the missing, I think it is important to set the context in which this memorial was erected. Currently, you have a single sentence about the memorials to the missing ('In particular, the Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) built many large memorials to those killed in the conflict who had no known grave.') and then several sentences on Lutyens. Maybe here, the balance should be reversed? When you say 'many' and 'large' that skips over quite a bit of context. It would be best to give some idea of the number of memorials to the missing, the period of time over which they were constructed, and the locations (and then repeat for WW2!). When mentioning Lutyens, rather than mention his cemetery work, maybe give more details of other memorials to the missing that he worked on as well as Thiepval (e.g. India Gate, Arras and Villers-Bretonneux)? All the CWGC memorials to the missing had a memorial register officially published and made widely available at the time (you can still buy these on rare books sites). See library listings here and here. Maybe a photo of one of the name panels as well? Given that I made the point about the Lusitania, I will try and find a panel for that when I get over there. Plus a WW2 panel as well (for balance, maybe RMS Lancastria). Talking of WW1 vs WW2 balance, the infobox only has the WW2 inscription. It should have the WW1 inscription as well. And maybe an external link to Battle of the Atlantic - 70th Anniversary Service? A final thought - many of the memorials to the missing have (rightly, IMO) accrued lists of names of those with Wikipedia articles who are commemorated on them. But how to incorporate those lists into an FA-quality article is another matter. Not sure how many people with articles are commemorated on this memorial (so far have found Alfred Cheetham and Bobby Atherton - taking photos of the names is a possibility, but such photos never look that good). Looking at 'what links here' gives a list of a number of (mostly torpedoed) ships with articles where casualties are commemorated here. I understand that ultimately such lists may not make it into the article (except maybe as a well-crafted footnote), but it will be potentially useful to have those lists on this talk page. Will have another look later as well. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at nominating it for A-class by the end of the week, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, especially with cosmetic things like images. It'll probably take a month to get through ACR and another month at FAC so there's no great rush. I've asked Chris M to get me some more photos, particularly of Wheeler's reliefs. If we end up with two sets, it just means we have more to choose from. We could also think about creating a gallery on Commons to better represent the aspects that we don't have space for in the Wikipedia article. Thinking out loud, it's a pity we don't have any photos of the buildings at Hooge Crater or Serre Road No. 2.
  • Yes, you're right, this is the first CWGC article I've worked on. My interest is in war memorials (WWI in particular) in general, but I've so far focused largely on Lutyens and I'm working my way through his works. Once I've finished with Lutyens I'll move on to some of the others (I started Grade I listed war memorials in England and Grade II* listed war memorials in England as something of a hit list). Although I've come to it by working through the list of Lutyens' memorials, I don't think he's disproportionately represented. He gets a few sentences of introduction so the reader understands just enough of how he went from designing posh houses in Surrey to designing nationally important war memorials, which is similar to what Maufe gets in the WWII section. As you can see from the bibliography, I've used several histories of the CWGC (I've ordered a couple more just to make sure I'm covering the breadth of literature) and its own website as well as a pile of books on war memorials generally along with biographies of Lutyens (and the ODNB entries for both architects and both sculptors). The books on the CWGC aren't overly concerned with the Tower Hill Memorial; they focus mostly on France and Belgium. I could perhaps add a few sentences about the CWGC and the memorials to the missing in the background section if you think it would help.
  • I agree with you on photos of the name panels. There's only so much room, but I've attempted a gallery at the end of the WWI section. See what you think. I had planned a gallery of different views around the colonnade, but I don't think there'll be room. We could do something similar for the WWII section, but we don't have many photos of the WWII panels on Commons.
  • You're right about the infobox; that's a relic from before the overhaul. I don't know if there's a way to fit in two inscriptions, and I think it would make the infobox too unwieldy, so I've cut it out.
  • I don't object to that external link (the Battle of the Atlantic ceremony), but I'm not sure what it adds to the reader's understanding when we've already told them there was a ceremony, cited to something we can use as a source rather than a hobby site (albeit an impressively thorough one).
  • I have mixed feelings about a list of names, especially as there are so few (that we know of), and they tend to be dominated by sportsmen, senior officers, and recipients of gallantry awards. I broadly support a list of ships, but we might need to be selective and move the complete list to its own title (see my comments above). Certainly compiling the lists here is a useful exercise; whether or not they make it into the article, they'll still be useful. ​ HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took the photos yesterday, including a couple of the WWII panels, and I'm part way through sorting them. All being well I should have them on Commons later today. Is there a link you can give me to the titles of the reliefs and which is which so I can give them better filenames and descriptions? Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are now on Commons, all categorised into Commons:Category:Tower Hill Memorial and/or one of the three new subcategories of it I have created - one each for plaques, the reliefs and the sentry statues. My photos are also in the gallery at Commons:User:Thryduulf/Tower Hill Memorial. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went a day after you, in the evening when there were less people. The light wasn't as good, but I have some different angles and shots (plus lots of duplicates, though I'll upload those as well to give the widest possible choice). I might even be able to find the older pics I took a few years ago at some point. Though the point of diminishing returns might already have been reached, as the rather cramped nature of the site limits the number of angles and possibilities for photos. I'll try and upload at least an initial selection later today. I'd also appreciate titles for the reliefs - surely Wheeler or someone named what he was depicting? Apparently not, I think "allegorical representations of the Seven Seas" is the best we are ever going to get. About what Harry said about the shelter buildings at Hooge Crater Cemetery, we do have File:Hooge Crater Cemetery-2.JPG, so I'll do something with that as well. Will come back to rest of the comments above later. Carcharoth (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. According to Ward-Jackson, the reliefs don't have names. In fact, they don't seem to have attracted an awful lot of attention (and a lot of that negative—Pevsner certainly wasn't impressed). Looking at Chris's photos, it looks like we should be able to compile a gallery of them but I'll wait to see both sets. And thanks very much for the Hooge Crater photo; it's really useful for the reader to be able to see the similarities rather than just read about them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sentries are more impressive than the reliefs, IMO. It might be an idea to use similar cropping of the photos as seen here? Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of the Wheeler statues in Sculpture in 20th Century Britain linking out to other works by Wheeler and others. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: have now uploaded the photos. See Commons:User:Carcharoth/Tower Hill Memorial. More than needed, but hopefully some will be of use in addition to the ones Thryduulf has already uploaded. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth and Thryduulf: Thank you both. I really appreciate your efforts! I've added and replaced a few photos. My current thinking is that the best way to show the Wheeler reliefs is with a slideshow gallery in the design section, above the gallery of the sentries. I just need to pick out the best photo of each of the seven (if either of you fancies having a go at that, please feel free; I might be AFK for a day or so). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wheeler's allegorical sculptures representing the Seven Seas

Hmm. That gallery worked better than I thought it might. Tempted to put it straight in the article! Not sure how it works at different screen resolutions and on different devices. Some of the pictures at commons:User:Thryduulf/Tower Hill Memorial will be of a better quality (in a different light as well) and I have also cropped too tightly on some of these. It depends if you want a dark border round each sculpture or not, and whether it is essential to include the full view of each sculpture (arguably it is). But for now, this may be OK. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works well actually! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, slideshow might work as well. Lots of possibilities. I've not tried half the gallery syntax options, so worth exploring different ones. Carcharoth (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used a slideshow in an article before, so just to play with the syntax, see below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding here earlier. IMO, slideshow doesn't really work. Maybe that's just me. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant navy association

[edit]

Not really important here, but I don't believe there is a wikipedia page for the UK Merchant navy association (MNA) mentioned in the article. Their website is at http://www.mna.org.uk/ if anyone is interested in adding them.

Ping me if you do. Thanks! Hydromania (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hydromania, I noticed that myself. Its not my area of expertise (my interest here is in war memorials rather than the merchant navy), but you could take a crack at it yourself. There's some good advice here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

The only casualties (with articles) that I've been able to ascertain so far that are named on the Tower Hill Memorial are the following:

There may be others to add later. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to miss one of the most obvious: Archibald Bisset Smith (VC). See here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I think you will be putting the article up for review soon? Might it be best to decide how to handle the casualties and ships before that point? In terms of images, I think a WW2 name panel might be a good addition. I suspect there are a couple more people with Wikipedia articles, and maybe some non-notable 'famous' people (if you know what I mean) that get mentioned briefly in sources, but not much. It will take a while to track these down, so not more than a footnote, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War memorial

[edit]

The lead starts by mentioning 2 memorials (in bold, nonetheless). Then at the end of the lead, we're introduced to the Falklands War memorial. Then we read about the 2 World War memorials, and later we read a section about the Falklands War memorial. Should the lead start by mentioning all three memorials in bold, or, should the Falklands War memorial have a separate article? I'm not sure either are necessary, I guess the current wording makes the Falklands War memorial seem tangential. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note, the first section refers to a war by name, as does the second, but then the Falklands War memorial section is "Later history". Should this section be called "Falklands War memorial"? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The later history section isn't exclusively about the Falklands memorial, and it's not an integral part of the Tower Hill Memorial so I think the coverage it gets is adequate. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's enough written about it to justify an article of its own; you couldn't say a lot beyond what's in this article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context for casualty lists

[edit]

Should the article have a note putting the casualty lists in context? I don't think it is entirely obvious to most readers that the list of casualties under each ship's name is only: (a) the merchant seamen on board the ship; and (b) those merchant seamen without graves. If a body was recovered, identified and buried, or the casualty died later on land (e.g. after rescue), then the name was not included on this memorial. More common is the case where the list on this memorial of those that died on any one ship, sinking, or incident on a ship, will not be the complete list. If those on board the ship included those serving with the army, air force or navy, then those casualties were listed on different memorials. If you had DEMs gunners on board, they would be listed as army (usually Royal Artillery) casualties. If there were lascar seamen on board or from the Indian Navy or the Indian Merchant Navy, they might be listed on the Lascar War Memorial or on the Bombay 1939-1945 Memorial Roll of Honour. What is probably needed is a note saying that the casualty lists are often not the complete casualty list for the ship, as the memorial a missing casualty was listed on depended on what organisation they were serving in. Examples of how this is handled in the articles on various ships include: SS Calabria (1922)#Monuments and relics, MV Abosso#Monuments, SS Yoma#Monuments, SS Abukir#Monuments and wreck, SS Aguila#Monuments, RMS Lancastria#Memorials, and so on. I am aware that we need a source explicitly stating this. I think this will be possible, and will try and find something. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of a ship that sustained casualties that is not listed on the Tower Hill Memorial is the HMHS Rewa. Four people died in the sinking of this ship (see here), but they were in the Indian Merchant Service and are listed in the Bombay 1914-1918 Memorial. This has stirred a memory of a source somewhere that compared the treatment of different 'nationalities' within the Empire by the way they were put on different memorials, comparing the 'British' Mercantile Marine commemoration with how the Indian, African and Chinese merchant sailors are remembered. That might be a way to include this in the article. But I have to locate that source first! Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Not found the academic source I was thinking of yet, but while looking for other memorials, I came across a perfect illustration of this, the Chinese Merchant Seamen memorial, unveiled in Liverpool in 2006. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is inferred in the existing sources and the inscriptions enough that we can mention it. I think going into detail of who is commemorated where is diverging too far from the main topic, but I agree it's worth pointing out that not every merchant sailor is commemorated here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial registers

[edit]
Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleet Roll of Honour (1939-1945) in Hull Minster
Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleet Roll of Honour (1939-1945) in Winchester Cathedral

Brief note on the printed copies of the registers. Some libraries hold these. The Caird Library at the National Maritime Museum has a printed register of the Tower Hill Memorial compiled in 1928. That is nine volumes. Later printings are (presumably) updates to the names and numbers. It would be nice to get a photo of that somehow. There would have been a similar official CWGC register published for the WW2 memorial, but it seems that for the Merchant Seamen of WW2 there were other registers produced as well. See here for details of the 'ROLL OF HONOUR OF THE MERCHANT NAVY AND FISHING FLEETS 1939-1945'. A copy of this is on HQS Wellington (HQS Wellington is the headquarters ship of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners) and is described as 'Three red-bound books with the Merchant Navy badge in a glazed case with commemorative metal plaque'. There are copies at St Paul's Cathedral and Winchester Cathedral. If those are on public display (quite likely) it may be possible to photograph them. Volumes I and II cover the names listed on the Tower Hill Memorial (Merchant Seamen's Memorial) and Volumes II is similar memorials elsewhere. The Winchester Cathedral copy can be seen here. We have this photo, but it is not great (you really need a view looking down on the covers, which is difficult as the books tend to be open at a page). Carcharoth (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tracked down the War Memorials Register entries for the three copies mentioned above of the WW2 Merchant Navy Roll of Honour (produced by the Ministry of Transport) plus the one in the photo (Hull) and have also found two more (Liverpool and Newcastle): Winchester, Hull, Liverpool, HQS Wellington, St Paul's Cathedral, Newcastle. Going back to one of the original links above, there is also a copy in Southampton at the Master Mariners' Club (based at the Royal British Legion). This was clearly acquired at a later date. Some ended up elsewhere later (the one that was presented to the National Union of Seamen ended up in an auction house sale of maritime history books). Each set would have had an inscription stating: "Presented to <...> by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, <date>" (typical dates are 1958 and 1959). Somewhere in the government archives (if the records were kept) will be a listing of how many sets of these volumes where produced and who they were distributed to. There will have been sets distributed abroad as well (national libraries in Singapore and Australia have copies). I think the limit of what can be said in this article is that these volumes were produced, and to give a few (non-exhaustive) examples of current memorials (with entries in the IWM War Memorials Register) that were built to house and display these volumes. I will try and track down photos of the Liverpool and Newcastle ones (on public display in churches) and see if photos of the ones in St Paul's (who may not allow photography) and HQS Wellington can be sourced. Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CWGC memorial registers are at Trinity House. A picture of this building could be included. The WW2 rolls of honour were presented to some organisations at ceremonies by the Minister for Transport Harold Watkinson. See Fairplay International Shipping Journal, volume 190, page 554. There was also a ceremony at Buckingham Palace in March 1958. See also page 3 of the Mercantile Marine Service Association's Annual Report for 1959. The Queen was presented with the roll of honour in her capacity as Master of the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets. Might have been reported in newspapers as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the registers of the names on the Tower Hill memorials, it's certainly worth noting that they were produced and maybe a few words about where they were distributed (including the copy held at Trinity House because of its proximity and obvious relevance) but I'm not sure we need to say much more than that. The article is already quite long and I think it's important to keep it focused on this one (pair of) memorial(s). Other memorials deserve to be covered, but that's not what this article is for. We could easily create a home for it in a new article or list about commemorations of the Merchant Navy or include information about memorials in the main article Merchant Navy (United Kingdom). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Am noting here the material removed, as it was a fair bit of work (and the information I pulled together there is not anywhere else in Wikipedia) so will probably want to try and retrieve that at some point. For now, I think there is more relevance than is immediately apparent (the direct relevance is the presence of the WW2 names on this memorial being reproduced in the first two volumes of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (MoTCA) 3-volume roll of honour - that is a direct link between this memorial and all the locations around the country that have these rolls of honour). The production of memorial registers and their distribution was a big deal at the time, and this memorial differs from others in that it is in part covered by this 3-volume set produced by the Ministry of Transport, rather than the IWGC or a military organisation. I doubt that will be the case for any of the other CWGC memorials (and the third volume covering the other memorials bearing merchant navy losses and the merchant seamen with known graves handily illustrates that point). It is all part and parcel of the change in emphasis from the Mercantile Marine to the Merchant Navy. The issuing of a specific memorial scroll and medal illustrates the difference of this civilian organisation from the military branches (it is probably worth introducing the word 'civilian' in the lead to make sure readers realise this early on in the article, as some will take the reference to a 'navy' and to 'officers' to be military references). It is unfortunate that the current sources don't really pick up on these various aspects, though there is a mention in Boorman (page 149) of another of the (MoTCA) rolls of honour (in Aberdeen). Possibly Trinity House has more than just the standard CWGC registers (the modern ones) and might have the nicely bound ones still around. It should be relatively easy to visit and enquire at the same time as visiting to see the CWGC registers. Final point is that there is a regular service (the 'Shipping Festival Service') at Winchester Cathedral: [1], [2]. That is indeed a bit tangential, but a good example of how one of those rolls of honour was incorporated into existing remembrance traditions. I will try and find sources suitable to putting some of this material in another article. Carcharoth (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly noting here that an Aberdeen copy of the WW2 Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets roll of honour is at the (very impressive) Memorial Court at Aberdeen Art Gallery and Museum. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It all definitely belongs somewhere. There could be scope for an article about memorials dedicated to the Merchant Navy but at the very least the main article deserves a "memorials" section. Boorman (For Your Tomorrow) covers various WWII Merchant Navy memorials on pages 73 to 75. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medal and memorial scroll

[edit]

This may be the wrong place for this, but the relatives of every person named on this memorial (referring to the WWI memorial here) was entitled to the Mercantile Marine War Medal and would have been sent the Mercantile Marine memorial scroll. I tried to find a free image of a medal of one of those named on this memorial, but failed. This may all be better suited to a WWI section of the Merchant Navy (United Kingdom), but mention it here in case it may be worth including in a footnote of some sort (the wording on the scroll for example). Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ensign flag

[edit]

One final note (I am going to be away from the keyboard for a bit now!) is that the Red Ensign is flown permanently over the memorial site. I am not sure when this flagpole was installed, as it is in the WW2 section. The flag is visible in this photo (already in article). I think this should be mentioned somehow. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about this. It's not mentioned in any of the sources (probably because it's such a minor detail it could go unnoticed), but it's not original research because it can easily be verified through photos or by visiting the site. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of articles

[edit]

Might be of use:

The latter link includes a photo from high up in one of the buildings on the north side (probably 10 Trinity Square), so if it is possible to get a photo like that, it would help show the whole site and its layout clearly. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: in case you missed this earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another article is here. "Merchant Navy service is sunk by Council’s refusal to waive red tape". This cancellation of a full-scale official centenary event should be included, IMO. (The original Times article is behind a paywall, and I can't find any other newspaper articles on this.) Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I'm ambivalent about. The photo is nice but there's no important detail there that isn't in the article already. The second seems too trivial. The third I agree merits inclusion, and I've added a couple of sentences on it to the "later history" section. The Times has lowered its tone since the last time I read it; the tone of that article wouldn't be out of place in a red top! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard record of Gosling speech (December 1926)

[edit]

This may be of use: the Hansard record of the speech by Harry Gosling that started the process for the Mercantile Marine Memorial Act: MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL. HC Deb 07 December 1926 vol 200 cc1923-5. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and HL Deb 17 May 1927 vol 67 cc266-9, the reading of May 1927 in the House of Lords. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Casualties :) - Who's covered

[edit]

Today's my day at the WWI Forgotten Wrecks project so it reminded me of an earlier conversation :) and I thought I'd post it here so others can see it. This is simply FYI, rather than suggestions for changes.

Using the SS Algarve as an example, sunk in 1917 by UB-38 with 23 dead. 10 were Chinese who appear on the Hong Kong Memorial. The other 11 civilians are listed on the Tower Hill Memorial; this includes 8 Brits of one form or another, a Mexican, a Chilean and a Spaniard. The two RNVR gunners who operated the 12 pounder are listed on the RN Plymouth Memorial.

So for WWI, Tower Hill includes anyone who isn't covered elsewhere who died on a merchant ship or fishing vessel, regardless of nationality and wasn't in the Navy.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's complicated! I wonder if there's a way to distil that into one easily parsed sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is :) but let me check something first.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, further update; for WWI (not sure re WWII), the Tower Hill Memorial excludes deaths not considered 'war-related' ie collision. This causes a couple of problems; first, by the latter part of the war, most merchant ships carried a somewhat pointless 12 pounder, manned by two RN ratings, who went on the RN memorial regardless. So crew of 24 merchant navy seamen plus 2 RN all lost following a collision, only the 2 would be on a memorial. Second, a ship I'm researching for the Forgotten WWI Wrecks project; it was damaged by a mine, one person killed - they're on the Tower Hill memorial. Travelling at reduced speed (due to the mine damage), without lights and with channel markers removed due to the war, it collided with another ship, sank and eight crew members died as a result. They're not on the Tower Hill memorial. Conclusion; to paraphrase Chief Brodie, we're gonna need a bigger 'easily parsed sentence.'

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Merchant Navy Memorial

[edit]

Currently, The Merchant Navy Memorial is labelled the Tower Hill Memorial which, in fact, is that alongside, marking the former site of public execution . The Mercantile Marine Memorial Act of 1927 and the Merchant Navy Memorial Act of 1952, linked by HM King George V's 1928 announcement renaming the Mercantile Marine as the Merchant Navy, combine to give The Merchant Navy Memorial its true name. The 1952 Act even states that the 1927 Act should be considered as part of the Merchant Navy Memorial Act by that name.

The significance of The Memorial and of the sacrifice of those commemorated is lost by being denied its proper title, something felt all the stronger by their relatives and former fellow crewmembers. At the 1955 unveiling, such as the IWGC admission tickets for the 16,000 who attended; the Court Circular; 'The Radio Times' announcements of the live BBC-TV and Light Programme coverage and various newsreel reports, all referred to The Merchant Navy Memorial.

I therefore propose amending the Wikipedia page to restore the proper title. LtVen (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LtVen, the CWCG refers to it (the WWI memorial and WWII memorial together) as the Tower Hill Memorial. The proper names of both memorials are in the introduction in bold and anyone searching for those titles will be redirected here, likewise with Merchant Navy Memorial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tower_Hill_Memorial&oldid=1218243892"