Talk:First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff

message: Is this article really a stub?  Perhaps not a complete article.... but a stub?  Seems worse the article has 3 stub notices Wendell 06:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: DP Kilfeather Des Desk1 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture 

message: Hi, Im trying to write a start class biography for all the first sea lords. So far I have done:
* First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Roger Backhouse
* First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Henry Jackson
* First Sea Lord Admiral Lord Walter Kerr
* First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Charles Madden
* First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Frederick Field
Anyone interested in working with me and we could share the workload/ideas etc? LordHarris 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles 

message: Hi, I have created a first sea lord template and added it to all of the First Sea lord articles.
I have also categorised the first sea lords but may have missed a few off. Please add if missing. Other new articles include:
* First Sea Lord Admiral Varyl Begg
*  First Sea Lord Sir Rhoderick McGrigor, LordHarris 19:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Articles, a template and a category

message: Does 1SL have a flagship, as 2SL has HMS Victory? --172.142.135.74 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am aware of. In times of war a 1st sea lord has taken to sea aboard a ship but this hasnt happended since the first world war. Because of its mainly strategic and planning role the 1st sea lord is based at admiralty. LordHarris 10:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagship? 

message: Where does the term First naval Lord come from? Reading the article it refers to the First Sea Lord as the job position title, except in one place. What is the story here as I have never heard of the First Naval Lord until I came to this page. Dabbler (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First Naval Lord?

message: The introduction of this article says nothing about which navy the lord belongs to.  I believe this is an oversight. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first line mentions (and links to) the Royal Navy which is understood to be the British navy as no other navy uses the term Royal Navy without a national qualifier in English. The Royal Navy is also mentioned in the second paragraph. Dabbler (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  which navy? 

message: For whatever it's worth, my copy of British Political Facts 1900-1968 by David Butler and Jennie Freeman (Macmillan 1969,  Library of Congress Catalogue Card No. 67-27323, page 268) in its chapter about "Armed Forces", gives "Chief of the Naval Staff" until 1914 (Prince Louis of Battenberg, 1912-14) and lists Lord Fisher as the First Sea Lord in 1914. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title in 1914? 

message: What happened in 1964, during David Luce's term as 1SL?  The list is broken at that point, for no apparent reason.  Rojomoke (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No response, so I've removed the break and amalgamated the lists  Rojomoke (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Then I research the article history, and work out that the Board of Admiralty (not to be confused with the Admiralty Board) was abolished in that year.  I've incorporated that fact into the text.  Rojomoke (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1964 

message: Surely Michael Boyce should be in as Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, rather than Admiral Lord Boyce, as that was his title at the time he was in the position?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.132.82 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Boyce 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Sea Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531070445/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/the-rn-today/organisation/*/changeNav/00h004001001/outputFormat/print/ to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/training-and-people/the-rn-today/organisation/*/changeNav/00h004001001/outputFormat/print/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi I am currently reading my copy of Nicholas A. M. Rodger, (1979) The Admiralty (offices of state), T. Dalton, Lavenham,  . In chapter 3 page 34 he lists for the Board of Admiralty (1689-1702) 6 officers classed as Senior Naval Lords. In chapter 4 pages 51-52 he lists for the Board of Admiralty (1709-1770) 24 officers classed as Senior Naval Lords.  
The supporting foot notes state: "The position of Senior Naval Lord generally became recognized during this period though often naval officers held office for largely political reasons. Although if a Naval Lord was serving as First Lord they would obviously be the senior naval officer present".
In chapter 5 page 69 he lists for the Board of Admiralty (1770-1815) with 17 officers now called First Naval Lord beginning with Augustus Harvey later Earl of Bristol 2nd February 1770 to 12 April 1775 for the Board of Admiralty for the period (1815-1827) chapter 6 page 91 he lists a further 3 officers classed as First Naval Lord.
The start date for first naval lord in this article is 1828 is there any reason for this discrepancy? Throughout the whole book up to the modern First Sea Lord he only lists each board of admiralty with the most Senior Naval/First Naval/First Sea/ Lords together with that of the First Lord of Admiralty no other naval lords are listed and the Secretary to the Admiralty. He says he is treating these officers though titles has changed name over the period from 1689 to 1964 as the same so the actual formation date begins with Admiral Arthur Herbert on the 8th March 1689. Any thoughts anyone?--Navops47 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - The lead to the article states that "the concept of a professional "First Naval Lord" was introduced in 1805". If this is correct, then I certainly think it would be appropriate to expand the table to include First Naval Lords back to 1805. Dormskirk (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I have added the First Naval Lords from 1805 to 1828. I don't believe it is necessary to go back any further: for the first time, in 1805, specific functions were assigned to each of the 'Naval' Lords, so before then the Senior Naval Lord had no more responsibility than a more junior Naval Lord. Dormskirk (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi many thanks for your amendments my only concern is that we should really reflect the correct titles assigned (as they were generally known during those periods) to individual the flag officers recorded present at meetings of the Board Admiralty per the official papers of the Admiralty Records Office and Library held at the National Archives which the author has used in compiling his book (to be fairly balanced). A possible suggestion in my view is that the Sea Lord articles should be separate anyway as they are very different roles from those of the earlier 1st to 4th Naval Lords and the 1SL did not get full operational control of the fleet until the creation of his additional office of (CofNS), the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty usually issued fleet orders from the First Lord by passing the 1SL, Bonnell and Curren (2015), it was one of the reasons I took out the Controllers of the Navy up 1831 from the Third Sea Lord page and created Comptroller of the Navy (Navy Board), the roles were very different prior to 1831 he dealt with Finance and superintended the Navy Board, after that date it moved into managing the materiel side of the Navy. It would also allow for the identification of the title 1st Naval Lord to go back to the correct dates with an explanation of the differences in the history section e.g. professional versus non professional and link e.g. for the succeeding articles see: what do you think? kind regards.--Navops47 (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi - I don't think, just because the roles evolved, that is a reason to move the earlier First Naval Lords to a new article. I agree with what you have done with your split of  Controllers of the Navy up 1831 into a new article. However if we are going to include First Naval Lords before 1805 then this is the place to do it. The biographical articles should be written first rather than just providing a list of names that do not link to anywhere. I might try and write a few more biographical articles to the extent they do not already exist. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed I will check from the lists I have to and cross reference if with have the biographical on here will post in this section.--Navops47 (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I have now added the lists and crossed checked we have the biographies for all in the lists from Nicholas Rodgers Books where they are source chapter and pages given earlier in this topic.--Navops47 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sainty J. C. list http://www.british-history.ac.uk/office-holders/vol4/pp18-31 from 8 March, 1689 - Herbert, A. (N); Carbery, Earl of; Warton, Sir M.; Lee, Sir T.; Chicheley, Sir J. (N); Lowther, Sir J.; Sacheverell, W. (C 66/3325). Rodgers book lists identifies who was the Senior Naval/First Naval Lord present at each Board of Admiralty meeting Sainty does not make that identification just that the member was a naval officer (N) in this example.--Navops47 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fantastic job btw have expanded the history section and tweeked the lede a bit the first 6 senior naval lords are listed on page 34 of Rodgers book the remaining listed on pages 51-52, First Naval Lords listed from page 69.--Navops47 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies the remaining SNL's are on both page 51 and 52.--Navops47 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tweaked the referencing. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi they are correct now good job.--Navops47 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks for your help. Dormskirk (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding dates for this office and predecessors are wrong 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Last sentence in the lead,  is unclear. It suggests that there's a ship of the line, which belongs to a Lord Nelson, and that the ship is called both "Horatio" and "HMS Victory". Not sure if this is true. Perhaps it needs rephrasing or a change in punctuation. — Kpalion(talk) 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tweaked it a bit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horatio, Lord Nelson's ship of the line, HMS Victory