Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 1

message: Is Nelson's HMS Victory the current flagship of the Navy? By this, I mean it is comparable with the reference to FS Charles De Gaulle as "the flagship of the French navy"? This Royal Navy link would suggest so, but other Wikipedia pages would suggest that ships like Ark Royal or Dreadnought have served as flagship, which would be inconsistent with Victory maintaining its flag status since Trafalgar. Perhaps, there are multiple fleets, or some other technicality? Could somebody clear this up? --MichaelWest 29 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)
:A flagship is any ship in which an admiral is stationed or "flies his flag". The smallest ship in the Navy could be a flagship if that is where the admiral wants to operate from. HMS Victory is still in commission as the flagship of the admiral for the time being acting as Second Sea Lord in his role as Commander in Chief of the Royal Navy's Home Command (CINCNAVHOME). However, he does not actually work aboard the ship. Dabbler 29 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)
:"Flagship" merely indicates the ship which flies the flag of an admiral commanding a particular naval force. Victory is the flagship of the whole RN, but if you take a look at Order of battle at Jutland for example, you can see that each battleship and battlecruiser squadron had its own flagship. -- Arwel 29 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)
:: It's incorrect to refer to the Victory as being the flagship of the whole RN (being, as it is, the flagship of the Home Command).  If any ship had the claim to this status, it would be the flagship of the Admiral of the Red (pre-1864), or the flagship of the Admiral of the Fleet (1864-1996).  Alternatively, one could consider any ship flying the flag of the Lord High Admiral (HMQ, since 1964) to the true flagship of the fleet.  For example, HMY Britania flew this flag whenever the Queen was on board. --195.166.157.232 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is usually assumed that the current flagship of the British fleet is whichever is the 'active' aircraft carrier of Invincible (paid off), Illustrious and Ark Royal (in refit). So at this point in time would be HMS Illustrious. As a side note however, HMS Victory is one of the flagships as she is the flagship of the Second Sea Lord. JonEastham 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagship 

message: User:Patcat88 just added the following text:
"The Royal Navy also developed a reputation of savagry and inhumane practices such as frequent [[Flagellation|loging] and unconsenting, effectivly kidnapping Impressment. This reached its peak in the 1700s and early 1800s."
I don't think this is particularly relevant. "Inhumane practices" were the norm for armed forces of that time, and have been throughout history. It's only recently (i.e. the past couple of hundred years) that soldiers and sailors have not been punished severely for any minor offence. Also, "impressment" cannot really be called "effectively kidnapping", because it was done fully within the law, and with the full consent of the government. Perhaps some mention of press gangs should be made, but not in this POV way. Proteus 09:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "myth" was that flogging was the only or primary cause of the great mutinies. Have you read any of the excellent naval histories of the period as opposed to fiction? Try NAM Rodger's the Wooden Walls in which he explores the pay and living conditions for seamen in the Georgian Navy very closely. I agree that brutality was the cause of some individual ship's companies mutinying, Hermione for example, but this was the exception rather than the rule. The round robins etc. below were addressing the pay treatment (the army had just got a significant pay raise) and the conditions. As for the press, that was required because the pay and conditions were not very good compared to merchant ships. There were a large number of "career" navy sailors. The mutiny at Spithead was settled without violence or punishment when the admiralty agreed to improve the conditions. 
The mutiny at the Nore was lead by more political leaders who did had revolutionary motives and exploited the seamen's grievances. Again this was not necessarily what the common sailor wanted. Dabbler 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged inhumanity 

message: An anon has added a comment that the Army is "technically older". Is it? I was under the impression that the RN has existed from the time of Alfred the Great, while there wasn't a standing "Army" for a long time after that, as forces were just raised on an ad hoc basis whenever the King wanted troops. I'm ready to be corrected, though... Proteus (Talk) 20:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it from British Army, today's Army is the descendant of Cromwell's creation, thus relatively new. The RN doesn't really have a documented continuous existence from Alfred's time, but there's not a single point where the monarch said "we must create a navy", so Alfred is as good a starting point as any. The Oxford history of the Navy discusses all this, but alas it's back at the library now. The "technically older" is likely to be confusing, it should be deleted or expanded. Stan 21:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is taken from the Royal Navy Web site distinguishing various forces that may be considered a national navy: When the King Charles II came to the throne in 1660 he inherited a huge fleet of 154 ships. This was a permanent professional national force and the beginning of the Royal Navy as we know it today. Charles II was also the first king to maintain a permanent standing army, thus making the modern forces pretty equivalent in age.  Since no national army exisdted until Cromwell and a Navy Royal was definately developed from earlier foundations by Henry VIII I would think the RN can be conisidered more ancient before even going back to Alfred.  Hence I have docked the sentence Dainamo 13:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Offline I'm working on a more comprehensive history article, and it will address some of these issues in more depth. The RN website is poorly worded, because it makes it unclear as to whether Charles inherited the "permanent professional national force" or if he created it from the 154 ships. I think it's hard for moderns to really grasp the idea that entire wars were fought with less planning and preparation that goes into a Saturday pick-up football game... Stan 18:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: What happened in 1692 and 1940? I would have thought the piece needs a sentence or two of explanation here.
:There were no significant defeats for the Royal Navy in 1692 or 1940. I think the author may have had in mind the battle of Beachy Head (1690) and the sinking of Hood and the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in 1941. Gdr 22:33, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
:: 1692 is too early - I think for "supremacy" you really want a date after Trafalgar. 1940 seems a wee bit too early as well. I would have thought the USN overtook the RN later in the war (1942?) after it properly started building up its forces. Wiki-Ed 16:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supremacy 

message: Is the Royal Navy still larger than that of France? If so, is this likely to change in the near future, given the recent wave of spending cuts? Also, history seems to miss out entire First World War, 19th Century, etc. Ashley Pomeroy 09:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it the link to History of the Royal Navy wasn't prominent enough? :-) Stan 04:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigness 

message: Does the Lord High Admiral (ie. the Sovereign, since 1964 anyway) have an official naval uniform with insignia, etc? I've never seen it, though surely there must be something the Lord High Admiral can wear which says "I am the Lord High Admiral"!
David.
::I've found out myself - the answer is no, the Lord High Admiral would wear the same uniform as an Admiral of the Fleet.
::"There has never been any insignia used to distinguish the Lord High Admiral, as the office was almost always in commission after the introduction of rank insignia. The Duke of Clarence, later King William IV, held the office 1827-28, but did not wear any distinctive insignia. He had already been Admiral of the Fleet, and continued to wear the appropriate insignia for this rank."
::Source (see bottom)
:: Technical speaking, the position of "Lord High Admiral" is an office (one of the Great Offices of State), and not a rank.  As such, it's not really correct to talk of it having a uniform in the same way as actual naval ranks --195.166.157.232 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord High Admiral - uniform 

message: Why isn't there a section on naval ranks, like there is for the british army?--80.47.20.68 20:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks 

message: There is List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, First Lord of the Admiralty and List of senior officers of the Royal Navy all of which have significant overlaps and even errors.  I thought this was the best place to bring it to your attention but don't really know how best to merge these.  Also the successession box for these admirals usually point to [[Admiralty] or somewhere else when they probably should point to one of these lists. MeltBanana 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Admirals et al. 

message: The BBC reports here http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4761130&news=1&bbwm=1 that the last Sea Harrier sorties have been flown from Illustrious and that the aircraft will be formally withdrawn. This will require the updating of the Sea Harrier page, and of course the main Royal Navy page as this makes reference to the carriers flying FA.2s. Emoscopes 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Harrier Withdrawl 

message: Please trim down the images in the article, there are far too many, and it causes formating problems as well as loading time issues. --Barberio 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second this, many of the images achieve little except making the article larger, and are anyway available on the article of the relevant ship Emoscopes Talk 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I took the opertunity to move the layout of the page around. Making sure that any lists stay at the bottom of the article. (And deleting one that had it's own article) --Barberio 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Images! 

message: Shouldn't there be some kind of Royal Navy (disambiguation) for other Royal Navies?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which other Royal Navies are there? --Barberio 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the first section on this discussion page, there are things like the Royal Australian Navy and also the Dutch Navy which is the Royal Netherlands Navy but also works as the Royal Navy when referred to in Dutch. JonEastham 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In English other royal navies are all qualified with an additional adjective. The British one is not. Wiki-Ed 09:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No disambig? 

message: I am removing the words Battle Honours from the timeline of the Royal Navy provided here. The reason for this is that the Royal Navy awards official battle honours to ships in a  very specific way, (which I am researching now, and will hopefully write an artice on in the near future). The battle honours awarded by the Royal Navy have very strict titles and awards, (see HMS Invincible for an example), and they do not correlate to the list here.--Jackyd101 07:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Honours 

message: Hi everyone, I've added two new articles for insignia, they're now in the Royal Navy template. There's some good diagrams of rank/rate insignia on the Royal Navy's website, not too sure about the copyright issues for taking the pictures though. Maybe it would be worth expanding the articles to include uniforms and other insignia (I know I get confused by all the different branch badges and the titles that go with them - an article on this would be really helpful). 
Also, I've started adding ship's badges to the articles on individual ships - if you can find pictures of any more badges on the internet, it would be helpful if you could add them to the :Category:Royal Navy Ship's Badges page and put them up on the corresponding ships' pages. Thanks, Sharkbait784 15:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a number of publications of RN Ships' badges. (Badges and Battle Honours of H.M. Ships, Lt. Cdr. K. V. Burns D.S.M. R.N., Maritime Books, 1986 / The A to Z of Royal Naval Ships' Badges 1919 - 1989, vols' I & II, B. J. Wilkinson, T. P. Stopford, D. Taylor, Neptune Books, 1987 ). These state categorically that the official imprints of  ships badges are Crown Copyright and property of the MoD. Wikipedia has been denied permission to use anything Crown Copyrighted by the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. I therefore think it is unlikely that such a project to collect ships badges and reproduce them on wikipedia would be legal, unless they were self made and / or we had permission to use a reproduction. Emoscopes Talk 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insignia, Uniforms and Ship's Badges

message: There seems to be no mention of what tends here to be called "the Armiralty". I've added mention of its privatisation to the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service page which seemed well out of date.
Also, since the Royal Navy in the 21st century page can be a useful expansion on the topic, why isn't it linked at the relevant section with a see main? ..dave souza, talk 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admiralty and Royal Navy in the 21st century

message: Have added Citation needed tag to the text about the nicknames of the royal navy and sailors. I would suggest these names be looked into properly, especially the bit that talks about names used in Portsmouth. This is because I have been living in Portsmouth for 3 yrs and also work in the Naval base, along with having several friends who are part of the Royal Navy and have never heard any of these used. JonEastham 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matelot is a very old term, the source of the slang may be dated, plus traditions change. GraemeLeggett 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: More appropriately referenced Rick Jolly, and removed the amazon sales link (WP:EL).  Got to say I'm surprised to hear of someone working in the dockyard and never having heard Matelot, the Mob, Royal or Skate (although not in the context mentioned).  I aded a fact tag to Skate as I've never seen that explanation.ALR 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: “Covey Crump”  (Commander A. Covey-Crump, RN) being the authority on Naval Slang - certain alteration edits have been made. Mousescribe 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang Terms