Chronological overview of Captain F.R.M. Crozier's birth date debate

Crozier's memo to Ross from the Antarctic voyage of exploration


Birth date: 17 September––16 August––17 October––Conclusion––The memorandum


Birth date

Sep 17

 
The first possible date was constructed back in the 19th century. In the absence of any original records, the only official document that gives a hint about Captain Crozier's date of birth is a note written by Rev. Shaw who says that the christening took place on 21 September 1797 (ADM 107/49, f. 116; from 1812). The note does not explicitly state the age of the child, so in his article on the subject Campbell suggested that "it was remembered that [Crozier] was a year old when he was baptised" (Campbell, p. 120). The resulting date, September 1796, was used for the memorials and obituaries. Indeed, there exists a short message from Crozier's sister Charlotte, saying, "My dear Brother Frank was born, September 1796, and entered the Navy 1810" (RGS800137). Crozier's first biographer, Fluhmann, trusted this calculation implicitly and came up with a precise date by fetching a 17th from an undated, "almost obliterated" memorandum, written by Crozier during the Antarctic expedition. Subsequently, Sep 17 has been eagerly adopted, despite it being entirely artificial.
 
Note:
Long raises doubts about the certificate's accuracy, seemingly implying that Rev. Shaw compiled it from memory. Was the original parish register already lost in 1812? As for the delayed christening, by the end of the 18th c. it was not particularly unusual. There was apparently a tradition of batch christening several children together as well.

A quote from Fluhmann about Crozier's birth date
Fluhmann, p. 5

Aug 16/17

 
Campbell was the first to point out that Sergeant Cunningham's journal from that same voyage explicitly specifies Aug 16 as Crozier's birthday. In order to explore the discrepancy Campbell secured a photocopy of Crozier's memo and found it "in rather better condition than [Fluhmann] implied, although not every word is legible" (the text has not suffered any damage). The dilemma here is that the dates (recorded and projected) do not fit.

The memo itself is undated, so Campbell attempted to reconstruct the circumstances around which it was penned and concluded "that the ships were at sea in company and that a boat passed between them." He was able to identify such a situation in 1843. Specifically, the ships were in company at sea near the Azores: Cunningham noted on Aug 14 that a "boat from the Erebus came onboard in the evening", and on the 16th, "Wednesday Fine Light & Variable winds & occasionally Calm. Captain & some of the Officers dined onboard the Erebus." (Campbell, pp. 150-151). The Erebus log for the 14th also recorded that a cutter was sent to Terror at 6.5 PM and returned at 7.15 (p. 271; worth noting that Crozier also visited the Erebus on Sunday the 13th, p. 270). In other words, the log corroborates Cunningham's information, that a social event took place on that particular date.
 
Quotes from Erebus log about Terror officers' visit
Erebus log for Aug 16-17 1843 (source | alt)

It's important that the proceedings hinted at in the memorandum definitely rule out the Aug 16 1842 event (at anchor in Port Louis), the one Cunningham dubbed a "birthday," making them two different, documented social occasions. It means one is potentially looking at double the amount of evidence. The earlier years can both be discounted: in 1840 they were anxiously waiting for Erebus to reach Van Diemen's Land (Erebus arrived on Aug 17), in 1841, approaching the Bay of Islands, Aotearoa, though sailing in close company, they were experiencing difficult seas, then anchored off Kororarika. Note that the timing matches the dates when the gatherings could've realistically taken place; it's not possible to infer purely from this that the date didn't have any significance before 1842 – there are no times where Aug 16 was event-free by choice.

Campbell was keen to bind the memo to August and further to the other "birthday" mention, and speculated that the 'wrong' number (compared to Cunningham's date) could've perhaps been a private International Date Line joke between Crozier and Ross since they crossed it previously (incidentally, reporting on two Nov 25s in 1841, J.E. Davis defiantly states, "I shall not change my birthday." Davis, p. 8) Campbell also ventured that perhaps it's not a date at all: Ross and Crozier had been friends since 1821, so "it might refer to the 17th time they had spent it together." Such precision doesn't seem to be typical of their long companionship. In 1855, after the Franklin disaster, Ross was unable to provide the exact details of "where or when" Crozier was born (D8760/F/FEG/1/51).
 
Norie's explanation of sea day
Norie, p. 213
There's also an outside option that the date is a result of Crozier and Ross' colloquial use of the discontinued sea day (or nautical day) reckoning – the sea day lasts from noon to noon, so the evening of the civil 16th would be the 17th. The Royal Navy abolished this reckoning in 1805, but it was still preferred "by many in the merchant service" (Coleman, p. 36) as well as whalers, until completely ended by the Brussels' Conference in 1853. (Dodge indicates that John Ross used sea days, but his example is that of an astronomical day.)
 
Finally, it's important to note a vital distinction: as pieces of information, Aug 16 (the journal and the log) and X 17 (the memo) are not equal. The first one was provided by witnesses of an event that had already happened. The second one was only planned. The event that Crozier called his "birthday" was to take place in the future. There's no confirmation that it actually happened – or if it did, whether it was on the date mentioned. I cannot speak for Campbell, but this would be a very good reason to prefer Cunningham's date to Crozier's. So the absence of an exact fit that seems to emerge looking at the logs etc. does not necessarily invalidate anything. It might simply be an indicator of some not-yet-described situation instead.
 
Campbell's research was generally ignored – perhaps he should've focused not on proving, but on disproving. The journal and the logs show that the memo is definitely not from September.
 

Oct 17


The next and hopefully last turn occurred when Kimmins discovered that Crozier's father, writing in 1810, maintained that his son was born on Oct 17 1796. Is Crozier's father's testimony reliable? Yes. Until shown that he had a reason to conceal the real date of birth, Oct 17 should be treated as Crozier's birth date.
 
The situation is less straightforward when it comes to Crozier's message. Kimmins highlighted the recurrence of the memo's 17th. Long, who also analysed this letter from Crozier's father, didn't attempt to date the Antarctic note. The contents might be a bit difficult to parse, still, this is clearly a situation of two ships sailing north, in company. Going by the facts available at the moment, the note is not from any October either. The ships parted company Oct 4–Oct 24 1839, then were at anchor every year afterwards: moored in the River Derwent, Tasmania Aug 15–Nov 12 1840; the Bay of Islands, Aotearoa, Aug 18–Nov 23 1841; St. Martins Cove at Hermite Island, Cape Horn (not the Falklands) Sep 19–Nov 7 1842.
 
Thus this new evidence from the letter appears to be separate from the testimony in Cunningham's diary and Campbell's interpretation of the memo. Regarding Crozier and Cunningham, there's no doubt that  they were friends. At sea, Crozier spent days with Ross and months with his own officers. Cunningham's 1842 entry could well have been a verbatim recording of some information he received. As Ross really made a fuss of Crozier that day, there was no reason for Cunningham to question what he heard (worth noting that the following year he refrains from identifying the social occasion – it's possible it's been cleared up by then).
 
August 1842: 16th Tuesday Blowing fresh all day.
The Captains birth day [3]: all the Officers of both Ships dined
with him and Spent the evening. Spliced "main brace".

While this August date, or tradition, could've originated, for whatever reason, at any time over the thirty years that passed, the most serious option is that it's very recent: Crozier was posted Aug 16 1841, which he learnt about arriving at the Falklands the following spring. Which would make Aug 16 1842 a birthday of the posting. Let's not forget the context. This is not the home straight situation of August 1843. This is the tragical misery tour of the final overwintering. Inventing a festive occasion would've been a welcome distraction. So it would seem that Cunningham's entry purely provides details about the Antarctic voyage.
 
It leaves the memo. In light of the new testimony, the following alternative paths have opened, namely: a) both Crozier and Cunningham are talking about the same faux birthday; b) the available pieces of evidence refer to three different days, Aug 16 (the journal and the log), Oct 17 (the letter), X 17 (the memo). The difference between the two Aug 16 with their gatherings (even the crew were included in 1842) and the uniform, typical-working-day Oct 17's would point toward option a (by contrast, all St. Patrick days except the 1840 one when they were anxious about Erebus were celebrated; for Ross' birthday they were either separated or on shore, so it's not possible to compare). One way or the other, as the memorandum cannot be tied to October, there's no reason to detach it from the Aug 16 1843 event just yet – and it definitely shouldn't be stamped with a date unsupported by contemporary sources.
 
 

Conclusion

 
Even if one day somebody comes up with a better interpretation and/or dating of the memo, it won't impact Campbell's main contribution: kindling of a doubt. This doubt has inspired people to dig, and eventually led to a concrete answer. The old artificial September date should've been disqualified much sooner – it's a great pity that it's taken decades for the letter to surface. At the same time, it's also a very promising sign, showing that the possibilities are far from exhausted.


The memorandum

 
As transcribed by Campbell (with adjustments and notes)
 
My dear John [a] I send you Do Gin and
a piece of Pork for my birth day (17th)
mind I shall make Inte S L E. [b]

What a noble chance getting such clear
water. [c] I wish we could make a little
more Northg. Intensity ∠ [d] with both
weights and deflectors have encreased
since making Northing. [e] God bless you
 
Excuse haste as I like not to
detain boat
FRMCrozier
 
Notes:
a––Who is the addressee? If the note is indeed from 1843, that would eliminate Fluhmann's John Sibbald, the only Erebus officer by that name, who had transferred to Terror in August 1842. Campbell guessed that Crozier meant to write "James" – the hurried note is inscribed "Captain Ross, Erebus" on verso (not evident from the archive's digital materials!). However, there exist other memos from Crozier to "John", and the tone and content of those messages seem to make Ross the only possible recipient, so "John" must have been intentional (more on "John").
A quote from Erebus log
Erebus log for Aug 16 1842 (source)
b––Campbell: either Internal Supply Ledger Expenditure or "that observations needed to be made on 'S & E' headings"; first one more likely.
c––Campbell wonders whether "clear water" could mean "unobstructed by ice" and undo his theory. It is indeed a standard term for ice-free sailing, f.ex., in Parry's Explanation of Technical Terms (Parry, p. xvii): "Clear Water. – The sea unincumbered by ice." Despite quoting the relevant entries from that week in August 1843, Campbell doesn't discuss the fact that Cunningham complains about "Making little or No progress." Which actually tallies with Crozier's "I wish we could make a little more Northg." Moreover, they never encountered ice in August (or October for that matter). Could "clear water" mean "calm water" in this instance? Or perhaps it's simply "clear weather"?
d––The line should perhaps be read as "Intensity [inclination angle]".
e––Campbell: "weights and deflectors" – referring to the magnetic field measuring apparatus, "since making Northing" – likely, entering the Northern hemisphere, "intensity increases away from the terrestrial magnetic equator".
 
 
Campbell's footnote (p. 120)
 
[3] The Crozier Monument in Church Square, Banbridge, Northern Ireland, gives his date of birth as September 1796. Fluhman, Second in Command, p. 5, quotes a note from Crozier to Lieutenant Sibbald: 'Dear John: I send for … and a p….d of pork for my birthday (17th)' and assumes the date is likely to be correct. DNB gives 17 September 1796 quoting Fluhman as authority. The certificate of Crozier's baptism with his passing certificate for Lieutenant, TNAADM107/49, f.116, states that he was baptised on 21 September 1797. It would seem possible that when the monument in Banbridge was erected it was remembered that he was a year old when he was baptised and dated it accordingly. The note May Fluhman quotes, SPRIMS 248/364/13;D, is in fact addressed on the verso to Captain Ross and would appear, from the remainder of the contents, to have been written on 14 August 1843 to accompany some stores sent to Erebus for a party Ross gave on 16 August for Crozier and some of his officers. See Campbell, The date of birth of Captain F.R.M. Crozier R.N., in Polar Record, Vol 45, Number 232, January 2009, pp. 83–4.

Campbell's references:
  1. Crozier, F.R.M. no date. Memorandum to J.C. Ross 14 August 1843(?). Cambridge: Scott Polar Research Institute MS 248/364/13;D
  2. Cunningham, W.K. 1839–1843. Journal. Belfast: Public Record Office of Northern Ireland D869
  3. Fluhmann, M. 1976. Second in command: a biography of Captain Francis Crozier, R.N., F.R.S., F.R.A.S. Yellowknife: Government of the Northwest Territories
  4. The National Archives. F.R.M. Crozier, papers relating to examination for Lieutenant in 1817. London: The National Archives ADM 107/49 f. 116

Sources:
  1. Campbell, R.J., The date of birth of Captain F.R.M. Crozier R.N., in: Polar Record, Volume 45, Issue 1, January 2009, pp. 83-84 (link)
  2. Campbell, Richard, The Voyage of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror to the Southern and Antarctic Regions. Captain James Clark Ross, R.N. 1839–1843. The Journal of Sergeant William K. Cunningham, R.M. of HMS Terror, Part 2, in: The Journal of the Hakluyt Society, April 2009 (link)
  3. Coleman, George, Lunar and Nautical Tables, Arranged and Adapted for Determining (by the Various Methods) the Latitude at Sea, 1846
  4. Crozier, Charlotte, Miscellaneous papers relating to Crozier's naval career, RGS800137, Royal Geographical Society (link) – thank you Allegra Rosenberg
  5. Davis, J.E., A Letter from the Antarctic by J.E. Davis, 1901 (link)
  6. Dodge, Ernest, The Polar Rosses: John and James Clark Ross and Their Explorations, 1973
  7. Fluhmann, M., Second in Command: a Biography of Captain Francis Crozier, R.N., F.R.S., F.R.A.S., 1976
  8. Kimmins, Olga, The Man of Many Birthdays (link)
  9. Log of the Erebus, by C.F. Tucker, 1 Jan 1843 to 23 Sep 1843, ADM55, Log 52, The National Archives (record | online)
  10. Long, Alison, A note relating to the birth date of Captain Francis Rawdon Moira Crozier R.N., F.R.S., F.R.A.S., in: Polar Record, Volume 58, 2022, e24 (link)
  11. Norie, John William, A New and Complete Epitome of Practical Navigation, Containing all Necessary Instruction for Keeping a Ship's Reckoning at Sea, 1817
  12. Parry, William Edward, Journal of a Voyage for the Discovery of a North-west Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific: Performed in the Years 1819-20, in His Majesty's Ships Hecla and Griper, 1821 (link)
  13. Ross, James Clark, Letters from members of the Ross family to Eleanor Isabella Franklin, later Gell, D8760/F/FEG/1/51, Derbyshire Record Office (link) – thank you Olga Kimmins