User talk:Rif Winfield/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

French ship Ça Ira (1768) and French ship La Couronne (1750)

Hello Rif, I wonder if you could shed some light on the above two ships. Obviously there is some confusion as to which is which. I'm assuming that Couronne of 1750 was lost at some point prior to 1768, at which point the new ship was built with that name, and later went on to be renamed Ca Ira, fight in the Mediterranean, be captured by the British and subsequently accidentally burnt? Can you confirm this? Best, Benea (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but note we are talking about three ships, not two. The first was the 74-gun Couronne of 1749 (this is the one you identify as 1750; in fact, although completed in 1750, she was actually launched in 1749 at Rochefort, so perhaps you could alter that date) which was condemed in (May?) 1766 and broken up in the same year at Brest. The second was the 80-gun ship, begun in August 1766 at Brest, launched in May 1768, and took part in the battle off Ushant in July 1778; she was burnt by accident at Brest in April 1781.

It is the origins of the third ship which are slightly uncertain. This 80-gun ship was 'begun' at Brest in May 1781 and completed there in the same September. This ship was renamed Ca Ira in September 1792, taken by the British in March 1795, and accidentally burnt in April 1796. As four months were obviously not a period in which a new 80-gun ship could be built from scratch, the statement that this ship was "reconstructed" makes perfect sense, and it seems logical that it was from the remaining hull of the ship burnt in April 1781 that the reconstruction took place. However some French sources (Roche, for example) maintain that the 1768 ship was in turn a reconstruction from the 1749 ship. Frankly, while some of the timbers might have found their way into a reconstructed ship, I would suggest that you discount this, but I would recommend that you treat them as three separate ships, just noting that the third ship was built from the remains of the second. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tenders

Mr Winfield, I've been researching John Perkins (Royal Navy officer) and am having trouble finding information regarding the first two ships he commanded. One, the Punch was a tender to at least two flagships on the Jamaica Station HMS Antelope (1703) and HMS Bristol (1775). The other is HMS Endeavour (1775). I have looked through Colledge and your books but can find no reference to them. They do however appear in archives etc. I would like to build wiki pages about them but cannot find the requisite information. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no record anywhere of a vessel called the Punch. I notice that you describe it as a 10-gun schooner, but I cannot trace any mention of it on Admiralty records. If you have such a record, please advise, but I suspect it was originally a non-naval craft, neither owned nor leased by the Royal Navy, although the record of over 300 captures which you mention seems evidence against this. If you have anything further on this, please let me know.
There was certainly a couple of small naval vessels by the name of Endeavour around 1775-81. These were not built for the Navy, but the Endeavour name occurs among the list of vessels obtained in the West Indies during the American War of Independence (many of these, which never left the Caribbean and were only in naval service for a couple of years, or even just a few months) do not feature on Admiralty records except in a casual mention in the letters home from the Admirals in charge of that overseas station; so little information is available for many of these ephemeral vessels that even their existence is uncertain. Certainly there was nothing mentioned for 1775 at all (except for the purchased bark of that name - famous as Capt. Cook's Endeavour, purchased in March 1768 - which was sold by the Navy in March 1775. But it is clearly not this vessel to which you refer). One Endeavour seems to have been a small schooner (no tonnage or dimensions are mentioned) with 14 guns and 45 men, which was taken into service in 1777 in the Leeward Islands under Lieut. Francis Tinsley, and was sold in 1778. Another small vessel, this time noted as a brig, was commissioned in May 1778, again under Tinsley; I surmise that the schooner was sold off because it was worn out, and the brig was purchased and renamed to replace it, with the whole crew transferred across from the schooner. This vessel was subsequently under Lieut. F. Wooldridge (I would hazard a guess that he took over from Tinsley on 1 March 1779, from other evidence), under whose command she sailed 24 June 1779 for Jamaica; I have a note that she was wrecked near Jamaica in a hurricane in October 1780, but was apparently salvaged because her name appears again in early 1781, now commanded by Lieut. John Perkins; she did not last long, in any case, as she was paid off (decommissioned) in February 1781.
In case it helps, Perkins was seemingly not at this time a commissioned officer, as his commission as a Lieutenant is recorded at 25 February 1782. He was made a Commander on 21 June 1797 and was posted (i.e. promoted to Captain) on 6 September 1800. His death is recorded as 27 January 1812. Hope this helps. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've attached below a bunch of links to the London Gazette. There are many others but I didn't want to bore you. The only other references to the Punch and Endeavour I can find are secondary sources talking about them, one letter from Rodney (I have a copy of the original), the Naval Chronicle (I've included a link to the online version) the references in Lady Nugent's journal. I'd just like to find a little more out about his ships. If I can't find direct references to them, could you suggest similar vessels that would have had a comparable draft/armament/complement etc.?
"No. 12104". The London Gazette. 25 July 1780.
"No. 12104". The London Gazette. 25 July 1780.
"No. 12068". The London Gazette. 21 March 1780.
"No. 11982". The London Gazette. 25 May 1779.
"No. 12199". The London Gazette. 16 June 1781.
"No. 12255". The London Gazette. 2 December 1781.
"No. 12018". The London Gazette. 28 September 1779.
Naval Chronicle 27 page 350-351
Naval Chronicle 27 page 352-353
Many thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As there is no record of any characteristics of these vessels in Admiralty sources, their characteristics are unknown. As mentioned earlier, the Endeavour schooner of 1777-78 carried 45 men and 14 guns, and it might be supposed that the brig which took her name in 1778-81 had a similar complement. For details of dimensions, tonnage, etc, you might take as examples any of the small brigs requisitioned/purchased in the late 1770s in the West Indies, which I mention in Chapter 8 of British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792, but to do so would only be guesswork and I strongly urge you not to do so, but simply say "unknown" where appropriate.
Similarly any of the purchased (in Caribbean) schooners mentioned in the appropriate part of Chapter 9 might give a representative idea of the Punch, but here it would be even more guesswork. The data you put into Wikipedia should be definite information, not hypothetical. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's probably not a good idea to make assumptions, so I won't. It is sad that these details have disappeared from history. I will re-read chapter 8 and try and get a better idea of these small vessels. Many thanks. All the best, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be that some of these details exist somewhere among the vast amount of ship's logs (some 60,000 of these are in the records) and perhaps mentioned in letters home from the station Admirals. However, the effort required to comb through them all would be several lifetimes's worth, so it is unlikely to be a productive search. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
My colleague David Hepper has kindly added the following; he "can add little – I have checked the index of the very comprehensive “Naval Documents of the American Revolution” (which covers the years 1775-1778) – and there is no mention of any Punch. Likewise the published Letter Book of Admiral Rodney for the period 1780 – 1782 in the West Indies makes no mention of a Punch.

It was not uncommon for large vessels to have small craft, usually cutters or schooners, attached to them as tenders, but they were never commissioned as HM ships, and are poorly recorded, often being local craft hired for a few weeks.

As to the Endeavour – it was used as a name for several small brigs in the West Indies. The Endeavour that Perkins commanded dates from February 1782. Letter from Admiral Rodney, at Barbados, dated 21 February 1782, states that he has taken into service a small local trading schooner, for use of supplying water to the Fleet. He gives her details as American built, 60 feet (keel) x 20 feet x 9 feet 6 inches 118 tons; for use of a water vessel, capable of carrying 230-260 puncheons. (source: Rodney Letter Book, vol.1 page 229-230).

Perkins was appointed to command her – I suspect the date of his being commissioned as a Lieutenant coincides with the Endeavour being taken into service.

It seems that it did not stay as a watering vessel for long, as in May 1782 Rodney ordered Perkins to reconnoitre the island of St Domingo “...making all the Observations you shall with safety be able to do on the strength of the Place the number and Force of their ships...” (source: Rodney Letter Book vol.2 page 745).

A letter by Rodney of 11 July 1782 to Perkins praises him for his “...gallant behaviour in taking the French sloop with so many Officers onboard her, and by your many services to His Majesty and the Publick, I have made it incumbent on me to reward them, by making you Master and Commander, and put the schooner under your command upon the establishment of a Sloop of War....and hope you will have an opportunity of exerting yourself in the Service of your King and Country with as much applause now your are her captain, as when you was only her Lieutenant and Commander” (source: Rodney Letter Book, volume 1 page 490).

This ‘local acting’ rank was not confirmed by the Admiralty, and he officially remained a Lieutenant. The Endeavour, 12 guns, Perkins commanding, is listed at Jamaica in September 1782, which is the last mention I can find of her; she was probably sold off soon after this.

Incidentally, checking the lists for 1793, I note that 'wiki' misses one of his commands. In ADM.8/69 he is listed as commanding the Spitfire schooner between July 1793 and February 1794."

I'm indebted to David for his comments. Hope this helps. Rif Winfield (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the information. I really appreciate it. I have been researching Perkins for a very long time. I think I'm one of the few that has. I very much appreciate your efforts and those of your colleague. I understand how very busy you both must be. I have made some notes and will investigate further. Kind regards, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I look forward to seeing the changed article in due course. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Hi Rif, having just read another of your new articles, I've set the wp:Autopatrolled flag on your account. Thanks for all the work you do here. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas McNamara Russell

Hi there.

I'm rewriting the above in my sandbox. It currently says he commanded the HMS Hussar of 20-guns in 1781 until at least 1783. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't seem to have the correct ship and I currently don't have access to your book as my house is being redecorated. If you have time could you clarify which Hussar it was? All of my sources just say 20-gun 6th rate. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

His command was the ship now listed on the Hussar disambiguation page as the "fourth Hussar", i.e. the ex-American (Massachusetts State Navy, not Continental Navy) Protector which was built in 1779 as a 26-gun ship but was captured by the Roebuck and Medea on 5 May 1780 and put into service with the RN (classed as a Sixth Rate of 20 guns and 160 men). There is as yet no page created for this Hussar but you may of course like to set one up. She served in American waters but finally arrived in the UK at Deptford on 3 June 1783 and paid off in July; she was sold (for £1,540) on 14 August 1783. (incidentally, I've just reversed the order of the "third" and "fourth" Hussars on the disambiguation page as the galley mentioned was captured in 1778, two years before the Protector)

I'm not sure when Russell assumed command but believe it was in 1781 (his promotion to Captain was dated 7 May 1781, but that was for his appointment to the Bedford and I'm unsure how long he was nominally in command of her - probably just a few days), and I believe that he then remained in command of Hussar until she was paid off in 1783. I'm not sure who commanded this ship from 1780 until Russell took over. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I shall write up the page as soon as I can find your book amongst the pots of paint. All the best, Ian Corneredmouse (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

HMS Pembroke

Hi Rif, something interesting came to my attention recently, the rewrite of HMS Pembroke (1694), which according to this source, did not founder in 1711, but instead was sold and became a Spanish man of war. I wonder if you have found corroborating details for this in your recent book? Your 1603-1714 book briefly mentions her as foundering. Best, Benea (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still my belief that she foundered after her recapture in 1711, but in view of the Babor website entry I'll see what further info I can find. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As per my email to you, I think that the new information on the Babor website is probably correct, although I cannot be certain as no corrororating details exist on accessible Admiralty records. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Population census of Nigeria 2006

Hi there. Please don't change the official population figure from this article without citing a reliable verifiable source as you did with this edit. The population figure in the article is well sourced, and the source is from the National Bureau of Statistics of Nigeria. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Dear Amsaim, Please note I took the official 2006 Census figures from NBS of Nigeria. The difference lies in deciding which area you take the figures for from the official NBS figures. Lagos (i.e. the metropolitan city of Lagos) is not the same as Lagos State. The article wrongly quoted the population of the whole of Lagos State, rather than the population of the 16 LGAs which make up Metropolitan Lagos (7,937,932). Not only is the figure of 7,937,932 taken from the NBS official figures, it is actually confirmed within the body of the article itself, as the total of the LGA populations for Metropolitan Lagos, thus creating a conflict within the article and confusion for the reader. The population of 9,013,534 for Lagos State is of course shown in the separate article for that administrative entity, which is where it rightly belongs, but the article on the (metropolitan) city itself should only quote the population of that area, which is officially recognised as the 16 LGAs. The footnote reference in the databox was actually correct, and cites the correct verifiable source; it refered to the correct population of 7,937,932 - it's just the figure which was misquoted! The footnote actually says that "Summing the 16 LGAs making up Metropolitan Lagos (Agege, Ajeromi-Ifelodun, Alimosho, Amuwo-Odofin, Apapa, Eti-Osa, Ifako-Ijaiye, Ikeja, Kosofe, Lagos Island, Lagos Mainland, Mushin, Ojo, Oshodi-Isolo, Shomolu, Surulere)", but then went on to quote, not this summed-up total (7,937,932), but the total of the 20 LGAs comprising Lagos State. The population figure of 7,937,932 (and the area in sq,km to which it refers) should thus be reinstated. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Combatant-class sloops of 1804

Rif, I note that the List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy does not include the Combatant-class sloops of 1804. I assume they came between the Cruizer class and the Seagull class - but am I missing something? Shem (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

  • Frankly, I had not got around to including the flush-decked ship sloops in the article - not only the 3 Combatant class vessels, but also the preceding Dasher, Echo, Osprey and Bermuda classes, and a few other one-offs. I have now amended the article to include these all. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, Rif - that was quick, and incredibly comprehensive. Thanks. Shem (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm just adding in the post-1815 sloops (sailing and paddle-driven) now to complete the series. I think it might to sensible, however, to split the 1788-1815 sloops into separate sections for (a) ship-rigged and (b) brig-rigged; what do you think? Rif Winfield (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
While it make make internal sense to split the list, I would suggest that ships are easy to find within the current arrangement, and that therefore it might not be worth the effort. Great work, Rif. Shem (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ship naming discussion

Rif, you may want to contribute at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Total_opposition. Shem (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Shem. I have done so. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Daring

Rif, if you tell me your reference for HMS Lance (1914) being called Daring before launch, I'll get it into the appropriate articles. Yours, Shem (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

  • It's in a variety of published sources, including Colledge, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921, and various other volumes. Most particularly I have it in the collected Thornycroft papers which I have in my home (although those are primary rather than published sources, of course). The reason, in case you haven't remembered, is that all the destroyers of the 1912-1913 Construction Programme were renamed on 30 September 1913 to give them all names starting with the letter "L". Among them the two ships on order from Thornycroft, originally named Daring and Dragon, became the Lance and Lookout respectively. But all the rest of the destroyers in that year's Programme also received new "L" names at the same time. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Rif - thanks. I'll dig around in Conways. By the way, your talkpage is getting a bit big. Would you like me to archive it for you? Just ask - I'd be delighted to help. Shem (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer - but not yet, please. If the original names of the other 1912-13 Programme destroyers need inserting in the same way as the Lance (I've not checked this), then perhaps you could deal with the others similarly. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Laforey class destroyer (1913) has them all, but the ship indices generally don't (I suppose they don't appear in Colledge), and the individual ship articles don't tend to mention it. I'm afraid it's not high enough up my priority list at the moment, and I'm a bit short of time. I'll make a note of it and get round to it when I get a chance. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Noted. I'll happily leave it to you, when your time allows. By the way, have you yet seen my own newly-published First Rate (released by Seaforth this month) and if so do you like it? Best wishes! Rif Winfield (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Monarch

Rif, the National Maritime Museum says that HMS Monarch was Adm. Byng's flagship,[1] aboard which he was executed. I have not seen that elsewhere. Do you know if Monarch was his flagship? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Monarch was never Byng's flagship although it was certainly the ship on which he was executed on 14 March 1757. I'm afraid the NMM have it wrong! At the time of the Action off Minorca (20 May 1756) his flagship was the 90-gun Ramillies On 4 June (the irony is obvious!) Byng was promoted from Vice-Admiral to Admiral of the Blue. Reinforcements joined Byng's fleet when he reached Gibraltar on 19 June, and he began preparation to return to Minorca, but on 3 July orders reached him at Gibraltar to return home. He reached Spithead on 26 July and was placed under arrest. After several months confinement at Greenwich, his trial took place aboard the St George from 27 December to 27 January 1757, at the end of which sentence was pronounced and Byng transferred at that time to the Monarch in the same harbour. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspected as much, but the NMM is, well, the NMN. Thanks for looking into this. Kablammo (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll try to talk the NMM into correcting the website. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
More pages with same or similar text: [2], [3]. Kablammo (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Noted; I have raised the issue. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comus class corvette and Calypso class corvette

Hello again. May I impose on you once more, this time for your view on classification of this group of vessels of the Victorian navy? The discussion is at Talk:C class corvette. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My dear Rif, the judgement of Solomon is eagerly awaited at Talk:C class corvette; please guide us (!). Yours, Shem (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"And the King <Solomon> said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the <class> in two . . . ?? It looks like my view is in danger!
On a related note, should either of you have an interest in the current state of HMS Calypso, these photographs [4] [5] may interest you. Kablammo (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Then the king answered and said, Give her the living <class>, and in no wise slay it.
I remember the photos from the edits I did in October 2009 - and it still amazes me quite how many ships remain visible on Google Earth - see HMS Vixen (1865) and HMQS Gayundah for a couple of good examples. Shem (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention HMVS Cerberus. Perhaps one of Wiki's obsessive catergorizers could make us a category or list that is actually useful!
Nice place Rif has here. Do you know where he keeps the strong waters? I could go for a wee drop. Kablammo (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Just help yourself - the single malt is in the drinks cabinet behind you. If we hang about here drinking his scotch, Rif's bound to be back soon. I say, would you mind passing me a glass? Shem (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
My regrets, I have actually been away for the past couple of weeks (and off-line completely) - even I am allowed to take time off! So I have responded re the corvette issue on that page. Regards, Rif
Thanks for resolving this. Shem and I considered having a nice pleasant edit war, but found it more convivial to take advantage of your hospitality here while you were elsewhere.
I have one more question about these ships, and have e-mailed you. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, will respond when it's received here (where it hasn't arrived as yet). However, having looked at the (5 so far) individual ship articles on Comus and Calypso class corvettes, I have changed my mind about the desirability of having a 'dab' article entitled "C class corvette"; I previously thought that it would not matter, but having read the articles on individual ships, I am now absolutely convinced that retaining any reference to "C class corvette" would be positively misleading and should be avoided. I have made clear on the Talk:C class corvette that the Admiralty clearly classified these eleven corvettes as two classes - the Comus class and the Calypso class. It is clear whence the references to "C class corvette" arose and they form an object lesson in how with the best of intention (assuming laziness can be counted as a best intention) an unofficial coining of a phrase can lead to unintended and completely erroneous conclusions. Clearly the use of the term was first a casual coining of a term to encompass the "Comus" and "Calypso" classes together; the fact that all eleven ships' names shared an initial letter doubtless gave rise to the practice.
However, this has patently led to an entirely logical but totally incorrect assumption on someone's part that, if the eleven ships were a "C class", then that class would have to be divided into sub-classes for the nine Comus and the two Calypso class vessels! Of course, this was not so and there was never any official recognition of such sub-classes (in retrospect, I suppose that it is possible to regard the first six and the following three corvettes of the Comus class as forming two sub-groups or sub-classes of that class; but that would have to be recognised as entirely a 21st century convenience/assumption) and the Comus and Calypso designs were clearly counted by the Navy as distinct classes (the fact that the latter was a development from the former does not change that).
I should therefore by most relieved if someone would go through all these articles and remove all references and links to "C class corvette", to avoid future misunderstandings. I know this is pedantic, but I have seen all sorts of perfectly understandable but absolutely incorrect assumptions being derived from such mis-labelling.
Perhaps it is also worth recording that there was no 19th century recognition of any RN class of warship as being defined by a single initial letter. That practice only arose with the new submarines in the 1900s (and then only because these were numbered rather than given individual names), and then adapted in 1912 when they were retrospectively applied to all the destroyers surviving at that date from the 1794-1912 period (note it would be wrong to apply these 1912 classifications to any of the TBDs or destroyers which had been lost or scrapped prior to 1912; and especially wrong to apply the "A" class designation to the first six [26-knotter] TBDs of 1793, none of which survied by 1912). Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Rif, I have sent the e-mail linked to your userpage through the Wikipedia system. Let me know if there is another address.
I do not dispute that "C class" was not an official designation-- you would know that much better than I (and I, for one, value and respect the contributions of experts to Wikipedia). The term however had some currency in the late nineteenth century:
and (most compellingly)
I used the term because it was used in the literature; it was not my invention. Because it was used (even if informally), I think we need to acknowledge that here, for the benefit of readers who come across that usage and come to Wikipedia for further information.
Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not think that it was you who coined the term; I know it appears unofficially (even the First Lord, Lord George Hamilton, was only making an unofficial reference in Parliament and not being prescriptive about the class name) in various places. Perhaps the best solution is to include - in both Comus class corvette and Calypso class corvette articles - a statement that "the unofficial term "C class corvette" to describe both the Comus and Calypso class vessels was used in some contemporary references, but was not used by the Admiralty who officially listed these vessels as two distinct classes".I have safely received the re-sent message by email, and will reply soonest. For future reference, please note my email is sailing.navy@btinternet.com. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. We may not even need even that in the class or individual articles, as C class corvette no longer redirects to any of them. Kablammo (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Opal (1875)

Rif, could you please have a look at HMS Opal (1875)? She doesn't appear in List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, and I don't have your work to hand. Thanks, Shem (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The six Emerald class corvettes appear to have been omitted or perhaps deleted by accident (I don't know which). I have now inserted them into List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy. Perhaps someone will start the required article for Emerald class corvette which I will then add to? Sorry about delay in response; I've been abroad for past 15 days. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't mention it Rif; we'll get round to these articles in time. Thanks for your help. Shem (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Packets

Rif, where in the lists of ship type (for example, List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy) should we be putting the paddle packets like HMS Coromandel (1855). There isn't even a category for them at the moment. Shem (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a considerable number of categories which are not listed, including most ancillary vessels, fleet support vessels, tugs, motor propelled small vessels (MLs, MTBs, MGBs - not forgetting SGBs and Steam TBs), naval yachts, transports, hulks, etc. For some of these there are specific entries, but they are not fitted into the main pages dealing, for example, with Royal Naval ship types. It would seem logical that those vessels whose primary designed function was to act as message carriers should be grouped together, from the large paddle packets down to the advice boats. However, as this is a wide-ranging matter relating to many categories of specialised naval vessel, perhaps it should be referred for a wider discussion. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

HMS Monsieur (1780)

Hi Rif, I took a break from finding London Gazette citations for existing articles and did an article on Monsieur. However, I don't have your volume that precedes the 1793-1817 one, so I am missing lots of info, especially her fate. Any additions would be welcome. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Will look at this and amend/add as appropriate. However, I suggest that if you expect to write numbers on articles on 1714-1792 vessels, investing in a copy of my volume covering that period would be advantageous. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rif, Many thanks for the quick response. I have no plans to write on the vessels pre-1793, at least not yet. I just got caught up with Monsieur because of her name after she showed up in another article I was working on. It somehow struck me as a trifle silly, though why I should think that given some other French and Royal Navy ship names I don't know. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine. One further improvement you might care to make to the Monsieur page might be to insert a section on her French (privateer) career into the databox. Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rif, I added the section to the databox. Unfortunately, I don't know what flag to put in as she was a privateer, not a naval vessel. Also, on what page or pages is the info about Monsieur on in your book? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure of Wikipedia protocols here, but imagine a French flag would be appropriate to the section on "Career (French)", even if she was a privateer rather than a Marine Royale vessel. The Monsieur entry is on page 220 of my 1714-1792 volume. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Rif. I have put in in-line cites to your book and the pre-revolutionary naval ensign. I don't know if the naval ensign is appropriate, and it is a little boring, being just a field of white, but I am unsure what else, if anything, would be appropriate. The post-Revolutionary flags clearly would not. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is correct. There was, of course, no standard flag for privateers of any national origin; in fact, although we usually refer to French, British, Dutch or whatever privateers, as they were by definition commercial undertakings they owed little to any state, not even the one which might have issued a Letter of Marque; in fact, a Jolly Rodger might be thought the most appropriate! However, I think that the pre-revolutionary French ensign is probably the best choice. Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

HMS Zebra (1780)

Hi Rif, do you happen to have any info re the size of the mortars Zebra carried after her conversion? I looked in your 1793-1815 book and didn't see the info. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's quoted there at the foot of page 375. Each of these conversions from sloops (as far as I can check) was fitted with one 13-inch and one 10-inch mortar, also retaining a defensive armament of carronades (plus a couple of 6pdrs as chase weapons). Rif Winfield (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Found it. Thanks. Have added the info to the Zebra article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Noted, but have altered the guns carried as a bomb to 2 x 6pdrs and 8 carronades. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

HMS Orestes

Rif

Would you mind checking HMS Orestes? I'm not convinced about the second one down (1803) - either it's wrong, or it's missing from List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, or it was captured (which is not what the article says). Thanks, Shem (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There were a considerable number of mercantile ship sloops purchased by the Navy Board during this period. The Orestes was one of a batch of 20 new (or newish) ships purchased during 1803-1804. I have now added this batch into List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, but of course there was a variety of other similar vessels purchased at odd dates during the war. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, I'm in your debt, as ever. Shem (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gun-brigs

As you will note, the List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy does not include the gun-brigs of under 200 tons burthen, which constituted a type quite distinct from the brig-sloops. Apart from the differences in size, the gun-brigs were initially designed for coastal operations (although they subsequently were adapted for sea-going service) and were Lieutenants' commands rather than Commanders' commands. Their omission from the aforementioned List is quite deliberate on my part. At present the term "gun-brig" automatically redirects the reader to the article on brigs. I think a separate article is called for (in which I will happily insert complete lists of the various classes of gun-brigs). Can you put in the framework for such an article, and remove the erroneous re-direct? If so, I shall then happily edit this to fill out a complete article. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Should the gun-brigs of the Royal Navy not be listed at List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy? If I read you right, you would like me to create an article called "Gun-brig", and then to fix the redirect. What I suggest instead is that we work on the article in user space (here, at User:Rif_Winfield/Gun-brig), and then move it to article space when it's ready for publishing. At that point I'll fix the redirect. Shem (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif - just checking that we shouldn't just put a few lines in at gunboat and redirect to there. Let me know. Shem (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
While there were vessels rated as gunboats during the Napoleonic Wars (and these can certainly be added into List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy), the gun-brig was a distinct type of warship which was introduced in 1793 and then developed until 1812; after the latter date no more were added (the Mohawk captured in January 1813 from the USN was a late addition). I think they were distinct enough to warrant separate treatment, although I accept your suggestion to develop the article in user space at User:Rif_Winfield/Gun-brig. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif - were there any non-RN gun-brigs? Shem (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The particular term was a specific one used by the RN. Of course, other navies also had small brig-rigged vessels for inshore or coastal work, but they didn't use this particular terminology for them. The French "brick-canonnière" was generally similar, and indeed could be assumed to be a translation. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, It's certainly ready to go into article space, even if it's not quite finished. You can do this yourself in future, by the way, just by clicking the down arrow just to the left of the search box at the top right corner. I'm assuming that all the ship names should be in italics, and I'll go ahead and do that. A couple of further questions for you:
Yours, Shem (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. There is no distinction between "gun-brig" and "gunbrig", but for convenience I think we should stick rigidly to the former (with the hyphen), although you may need to put in a redirect from "gunbrig" to cater for those article (existing or future) whose author doesn't include a hyphen. But please ensure you take out the existing redirect from "gun-brig" to "brig".
I agree with your suggested title and redirect, although I am trying to put in a little more than simply a list of names, as you will see from those sections of the article that I have completed with tables. You will need to include links in those articles dealing with categories of RN vessels (e.g. into the sidebar for List of ships of the Royal Navy, and any others you can think of). Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, quite happy with the title "gun-brig" vs "gunbrig" - it makes, as you say, little difference, and so we'll go with your call. Clearly there's still work going on with the article, so I'll hold off on the move for a moment or two. While you're filling in the gaps, I'll use what little time I have to work on the links and even the Wiktionary definition. I'll call you in to check them in due course, where necessary. No problem with the links - but I'll need to wait until the article is in article space. After all, Wikipedia:Wikipedia can wait!
On another note, have you thought about using {{HMS|Assault|1787|2}} instead of [[HMS Assault (1797)|''Assault'']]? It's quicker, easier and less prone to error. You can just cut and paste a whole list of {{HMS|||2}} lines and then enter names and dates. Works for me! Shem (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have considered it; but I think that the format I'm using - although it takes slightly longer - gives me more control over what will actually appear. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Shem, if it was you who block-edited "GB No." into "Gunboat No.", kindly desist - that would be an error. See my note under Talk:HMS_Crash_(1797). I have corrected the article back to read "GB No." throughout. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, it was me. Sorry. Probably worth putting a note in the next to say exactly that - I'll crack on and get it done. Shem (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! I've finished adding tables for now, and will complete the other sections when the article is in place. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, I've moved it and now need to sort out the various links. Please be patient with me while I find the time. Shem (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


Rif, I've removed the C S Forester quote from Cruizer-class brig. Do you think it's appropriate to include it in List of gun-brigs of the Royal Navy? Shem (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
While the Forester quote belongs better in the gun-brig article than in that dealing with the Cruizer class brig-sloops, I always felt C. S. Forester was being a little unfair; the gun-brigs performed sterling service during these wars (travelling further and performing in a wide range of conditions than they had been designed to do); they had never been intended to be convoy escorts for more than coastwise operations, were not designed for open-sea operations (no wonder they rolled!) and were certainly not comparable in strength (nor in complement of men carried) to the US brig-sloops. In this they were more equivalent in function to the Coastal Forces motor vessels of WW2 than to the sloops of the Napoleonic period. You could quote me on this if you wish. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is to quote Forester, and also balance his view - after all, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, noting both viewpoints. I'll do it in due course. Shem (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I've compared them to the Flower Class corvettes rather than the CF motor vessels - please change this is if you think I've got it wrong. Shem (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Shem, I was thinking of putting together (at some future time) a book on the gun-brigs for (commercial) publication, and you might treat my remark as a quote from a draft (yet-to-be-published) book by me. I'll accept the comparison with the Flower Class corvettes as a valid one. Thanks for all your help on this. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, thanks for the offer of quoting your-yet-to-be-published work, but I don't think the community will let me get away with that; if we leave it as it is, I'll change it to quote you when you go to print. No need to thank me for helping - I just hope I haven't been too much of a hindrance. Good luck with the book. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As a final structural chance, I have now inserted extra descriptive sections at the start of the article and relegated the individual classes to sub-sections. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, may I congratulate you on a splendid article? I'm sure as the years go by we'll fill in a good number of the red links with some fascinating stories. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rif, Many thanks for this. I have done some light editing, and have added in some minor links. Will you be adding the captures post-1803 (pp.348-350 from your 1793-1815 book)? Articles for some of the vessels such as Brev Drageren exist. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I shall add in the 1803-1813 prizes at some point. Thanks for the links, but please leave the word "class" with a capital "C" where it is used as a proper noun, i.e. where is refers to a specific named class. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rif, Roger, wilco. I am going to be off-line until well into Jan, so in the meantime, let me wish you the best for Xmas and a Happy New Year. Reagards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Warmly reciprocated! Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, on mature reflection I think the second and third paragraphs probably belong under a section called "Historical evaluation", or the like. If you think this enhances the article (it makes the intro stand alone) then I'll go ahead and make the change. Shem (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll go along with that provided you leave the two as separate sub-sections under your section heading of "Historical evaluation". Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Rif, I'll go ahead and make the change - if you don't like it, or want to do it differently, just revert it or put it right. Shem (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Rif, would you be happy to let me archive this page? If nothing else, for my own benefit - with my slow connection, it takes me ages to load up the full thing. I would look something like this when I've done it. Shem (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer (again!). At the moment there are 94 items on my talkpage, and my intention was to let this reach 100 before archiving (is it possible to do this and allow precisely 25 items per archive page?), or can you archive the first 75 for me on 3 archive pages, leaving the remainder on my current talkpage? Archiving is currently an unknown factor for me, I'm afraid. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Rif, no trouble; 25 items per page it is. Shem (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Atkinson

Hi Rif, Quite by chance I discovered that Thomas Atkinson (Master of the Victory at Trafalgar) doesn't have an article. I probably have enough information to put together a short stub but am wondering whether he is notable enough. Nelson described him as "the best Master in the Royal Navy", but you can't be notable by association. Nor can I find multiple sources (another criterion). What do you think? Is he worth an article or not?--Ykraps (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW Have you any idea what has happened to Benea? He's not edited since September.

I see no reason why Thomas Atkinson should be denied an article, if you can find enough information concerning him to make it worthwhile. As regards Benea, I've heard nothing but will email him to see if he's OK. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll put something together later (as I have to go to work shortly).--Ykraps (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have created an article on Thomas Atkinson here. I am afraid that it doesn't contain many sources which could be a problem if someone challenges his notability, so if you have any ideas where I might find additional sources I would be grateful. You can also feedback on the article here if you prefer. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All I can suggest is a visit to the Caird Library at the NMM in Greenwich and/or the National Archives (formerly PRO) at Kew; before embarking on this, might I suggest a phone call to the Caird Library to acquaint them with your search and ask their advice - but make sure you ask for someone senior enough to know where you might track down data, as I gather there is now a number of junior staff who do not have as much experience/knowledge as some of those who have retired. Thomas Atkinson was never a commissioned officer (as some Masters became), so will not appear in any Directory or Bibliography of naval officers, as far as I am aware. Have a Happy Christmas! Rif

(talk) 10:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a long, frustrating call so I might leave it until the new year. Merry Christmas--Ykraps (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Class or class?

Rif, the style at Wikipedia is for ship classes to use "class" rather than "Class" in the situation you're changing. That's why {{sclass}} is written that way. If you want to change the style, go via Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), rather than trying to change the style in a single article-that just creates work for both of us. I know you don't take differences of opinion to heart, and that we're both trying to improve the encyclopaedia, so please whole-heartedly believe me when I wish you a very merry Christmas indeed. Yours, Shem (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rif, for future reference, the specific guidelines on naming classes are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Ship_class_articles, where you'll see, among others, "Ohio class". Shem (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a complication in that the word "class" did not have the same meaning in the Age of Sail as it does now. The word "class" to a 17th/early 18th century naval officer would have been equivalent to our modern use of the word "type", so that - for example, it would have been used in such terminology as "the 74-gun class" or "the 36-gun class". It did not then equate to a group of vessels all built to a common design (although most modern authors have used it in that sense in recent decades). Rif Winfield (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fine for the 17th century, but here at Wikipedia the principle is: Wikipedia:Use modern language. Shem (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and the words 'design' and 'class' are "modern language"; but we have to remember that we are talking about 1800 classifications, which do not of course have any equivalents in current use. Rif.

Talk: Thomas Bladen Capel

Hi Rif, Hope you had a good Christmas. Could you visit Talk:Thomas Bladen Capel and give your opinion on some conflicting information? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Incidentally, I've not had any response to my email to Benea (Ben Eacott), so cannot judge what has happened to him. Happy New Year! Rif Winfield (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and a Happy New Year to you too.--Ykraps (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

George Johnstone Hope - Thomas Atkinson

Hi Rif. Your knowledge has proved to be very useful in the past and I'm hoping it may prove to be so again. I am currently adding references to George Johnstone Hope but have come across a section that I don't have information for. I have left a message on the article's talk page here, if you'd like to take a look. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do so. Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sorry if I'm starting to be a bit of a pain but there is also an issue with the Thomas Atkinson (naval officer) article regarding the whereabouts of HMS Emerald and the battle of Cape St Vincent. Please see the talk page if you feel inclined to do so, or if you know of anyone else who might have an opinion, I could pester them instead. :) --Ykraps (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Noted, I have replied in the same place explaining that Emerald was in Lagos Bay at the time, but not present at the Battle. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have deleted that bit from the article. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rating system of the Royal Navy

Rif, if you've got time, please have a look at Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy#End_of_the_Rating_System. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a few matters I'd question here. As you may know, I re-wrote much of this article a year or two ago, taking the origins of the Rating system back to 1603 from the later Pepysian changes (which, important though they were, they were only tidying up a system introduced at the very start of the 17th century), but I didn't touch the section on "The End of the Rating System". For a start, the contributor seems to think that there was a difference between the rank of Captain, and that of Post Captain; there wasn't (everyone who "made post" was on a single scale of seniority as a Captain, until such time as they reached flag rank), and "Post Captain" is just a long-format way of writing Captain, so that needs to come out altogether. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The section was added this week by an editor with more enthusiasm than knowledge. I considered deleting it entirely, but will refrain from doing so if you wish to re-write it to match the same standard as the rest of the article. Just let me know on this page. Shem (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I did think that this section was not present when I last revised the article, but couldn't be certain! I don't have time to re-write the section myself, but if you will do so, restricting it to what you believe to be true (and deleting the above-mentioned erroneous statement about Captain v Post Captain), I'll happily check it over later. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Rif, thanks. I've edited the stuff down to what I know to be correct, which doesn't frankly leave very much. In particular, it would be useful to know when ships stopped being referred to by rate. Some sources suggest ships were later rated by number of crew, but give no details. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the section on 1856 changes, which I inserted into this article some time ago and which already gives the details you are asking about; certainly the reversion to a classification based mainly on the number of men dates from 1856. Although I cannot remember exactly in which year the rating system was finally abolished, it had really creased to have any relevence by 1860. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Rif - I think the article works well enough as it stands. I'll be more careful to read fully before asking dumb questions in future! Shem (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions re Charlotte and Saint Lucia

Hi Rif, I have just done articles on both Charlotte and Saint Lucia. First, as far as Charlotte is concerned, can you point me to any published source that discusses her capture? She struck to a vessel that was her only a little larger than her, and that might have had a smaller broadside, and after taking only one casualty. I would have thought that John Thicknesse, her captain, would have been dismissed the service for that, but apparently he went on to become an admiral. Second, you have Saint Lucia capturing the French privateer Recompense. All I have been able to find in the London Gazette is a letter from the captain of Cyane reporting the capture of Recompense. His letter is on the same page as that from Conway Shipley of Saint Lucia reporting the captures of Furet and Bijou. Was Saint Lucia in company with Cyane, or in sight?. Also, can you point me to any published source on the capture of Saint Lucia. I have not been able to find a source that gives the casualty figures. Given that they must have amounted to over a quarter of her crew, I would have thought that some popular account must exist. Lastly, the mentions of her capture give her captain as The Honourable M. de Courcy. You don't mention him, so are those reports in error? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Apart from my own book, I would recommend David Hepper's British Warship Losses in the Age of Sail 1650-1859 (Jean Boudriot Publications 1994, ISBN 09487864-303); in my opinion, a much more reliable and well-researched book than Gosset's Lost Ships of the Royal Navy. It includes descriptions of the actions in which each ship was lost, based on the official reports of the court-martial which automatically followed each loss of a British ship, however non-culpable was her commander.
Your article gives the wrong year to the capture of the Charlotte - it should be 16.10.1798; this schooner was the second HMS Charlotte to be lost under the command of Lieut. John Thicknesse - he'd also commanded the brig of the same name when she was wrecked in December 1797; as you say, neither loss seemed to dampen his career prospects, as he was promoted Commander on 29 January 1800; but it is untrue that he later reached flag rank. He retired (with the rank of Captain being awarded on retirement) on 10 September 1840. Some books (see reference to William James below) claim early 1799 as the Charlotte loss date, which error I attribute to delay in the news reaching London.
David Hepper also confirms (again, from the official court-martial) that Charles Gordon was in command of the St Lucia when she was captured on 29.3.1807 by the Vengeance and Friponne. There does appear to be some confusion in the records, including the published books such as William James's and Laird Clowes's (although the latter was largely sourced from the former). Of course, just because something was published does not guarantee accuracy (and this applies to a lot of 'popular' accounts of naval history, including contemporary ones); in this case, the official records leave room for doubt, but after careful study I believe that Gordon was in command at the time; his biographical data refers to the loss of the St Lucia under his command. De Courcy died in 1814 (don't confuse him with his father, who had the same name, and went on to reach flag rank later). Rif Winfield (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rif, Thanks for the Hepper ref. I have arranged to borrow it. However, as far as Charlotte is concerned, your book has Thickness replacing Williams in 1799, and explicitly gives the date of her capture as 16 October 1799. Also, the only other Charlotte you mention is a second, and later, schooner under that name. You don't list a brig by that name. Was she a brig that was renamed? You have Williams taking command of the second schooner Charlotte, purchased in 1800 and wrecked in 1801.
I'll fix the Gordon/De Courcy issue. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, further research since my book was published had led me to correct that date to 16.10.1798 (ambiguities in the records). Naval biographies now show Thicknesse as appointed to command of the Charlotte brig on 11.8.1797 and to the Charlotte schooner on 16.3.1798; and later (as a Lieutenant, not in command) to the 98-gun Queen on 16.11.1798. The Charlotte of 1797 seems to have been an 8-gun brig (no further details are known) purchased locally in the West Indies during 1797, but is omitted from Admiralty records, having only lasted 4 months because being cast away.
Regarding Thicknesse's judgement, he was completely exonerated for any responsibility for the wreck of the brig in December 1797. As regards the action of 16.10.1798, the Charlotte was opposed not only by the 12-gun Enfant Prodigue, but also by a second, smaller schooner as well as two large armed launches; while only one man aboard was wounded, she has suffered considerable damage before surrendering; her main boom topping left and all the braces had been shot away; one gun had been dismounted and two others disabled by broken breeches, leaving her with only 5 guns to continue the action. Surrounded by the enemy and unable to manoevre, Thicknesse was forced to surrender, and was again subsequently cleared by the court-martial of any fault. Rif Winfield 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rif, Thanks for the info. As you saw, I have incorporated it in the various articles. However, not surprisingly given what appears to be the state of the official records, some confusion still survive.
First, when Charlotte captured the Esle Andemening in September 1798, her commander apparently was still Williams, though you have Thickness being appointed on 16 March. Is it possible that he was appointed but did not take up the position until October?
Second, you have Saint Lucia capturing the French privateer Recompense. All I have been able to find in the London Gazette is a letter from the captain of Cyane reporting the capture of Recompense. His letter is on the same page as that from Conway Shipley of Saint Lucia reporting the captures of Furet and Bijou. Was Saint Lucia in company with Cyane, or in sight?. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rif, thanks for the pointer to Hepper. The borrowed copy has arrived and I am starting to incorporate the info in it into ship articles. It really is a trove of detailed info re some losses. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I can only confirm that the records I have seen confirm that Thicknesse was appointed on 16.3.1798 as mentioned above. I cannot imagine that he would fail to take up the command for several months, so I must query the accuracy of the report (you don't indicate its source) suggesting Williams was still in command in September 1798. David Hepper has made a detailed study of the prizes taken and may be able to help further. I'm sure he would appreciate your praise for his book on losses too, so I am forwarding this exchange to him to see what if anything he can add. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rif, thanks for getting back to me, and for passing on the query to Hepper. The info comes from the letter from Admiral Henry Harvey, reporting the capture of the Esle Andemening as reproduced in the London Gazette. The reference appended to that paragraph in the article on Charlotte links directly to the relevant page of the Gazette. By the way, I was pleased to have found five vessels taken into the Royal Navy on 14 December 1814 that didn't make it into the Admiralty's records. They were the five American gunboats captured at the Battle of Lake Borgne, which the British renamed Ambush, Firebrand, Destruction, Harlequin and Eagle. All were still in service until about June 1815, but were probably disposed off in Bermuda shortly thereafter. They show up in an announcement in the London Gazette for prize money for their capture, and in some other documents, one of which I am still tracking down. I have added them to the disambiguation pages for the names. Lastly, any info Santa Lucia and Recompense vs. Cyane and Recompense? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Just discovered today your response of 2nd February, which is why I didn't reply earlier - sorry. I don't have access to London Gazette pages beyond 1805, so would welcome further details. I have no further info re the final sentence of your posting. I don't know if David Hepper has been in contact with you, but he might be able to help. I shall send you his email address via your email (I don't think he'd like it posted here). Rif Winfield (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rif, No worries. I was just concerned that you were off-Wiki permanently. People do disappear, burnt-out, other business, etc. I have sent you some London Gazette pages and will contact David Hepper directly. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Thanks for gazette pages, safely received. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rif_Winfield/Archive_4&oldid=864129177"