Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>In "The British Warships in the Age of Sail. >>1714-1792" by Rif Winfield, >> >>HMS Pricess Royal appers in 1781 rated as 98. >> >I'm not sure where. The section on the Barfleur class >gives the 90-gun armament and then says that 8 × 6 >were added from 1778. But Winfield, like Lyon and >unlike Demerliac, does not track individual changes in >armaments. Caruana looked at a data source that most >historians have overlooked: painting contracts. >Since the heavy artillery on warships was owned by the >Ordnance Board (which also supplied artillery to the >army), not the navy, the navy and its personnel were >not responsible for painting them to keep them from >rusting. Instead, the Ordnance Board hired >contractors who were paid by the piece at varrying >rates. Since the guns were supposed to be painted >about twice a year, there were lots of contracts, and >there are frequent records for many ships of what guns >were aboard by number, caliber, and length (the >contractors were paid more to paint a 9-foot >18-pounder than an 8½-foot 18-pounder). Caruana went >through these contracts to determine the ><i>actual,</i> as opposed to the regulation or >establishment, armament of British warships. >Apparently, he found that the eight 6-pounders were >added to three of the Barfleur class before the end of >the American War. He did not mention <i>Princess >Royal</i> as one of the ships for which he found a >record of additional guns on the quarterdeck. It is >possible that he did not find a painting contract for ><i>Princess Royal</i> at all, or that contracts >earlier in the war were for only 90 guns and he did >not find one for the period after the guns were added. > >>Let's see... >> >>In general, for 90' ships, from 1778 the rating grew >>to 98 guns with the addition of 8 guns in QD. In 1782 >>carronades were also added to the Second Rate, but >>without being included in the number of guns at which >>each ship was rated. >> >>HMS Princess Royal was a unit from HMS Barfleur class >>with LD, 28x32pdrs; MD, 30x18pdrs; UD, 30x12pdrs; QD, >>none (8x6pdrs from 1778); FC, 2x9pdrs. All 6 and 9 >>punders replaced by short 12pdrs by AO 3/06/1790. 750 >>Men (738 from 1794). >> >>About the ship, the text says that she was fitted an >>coppered at Chatham in 1782's May. But i think could >>be possible that as the rest of her class from 1778 he >>up her rating up to 98. >> >That's possible. As I mentioned above, Caruana did >not find a record of it, but the records, while >extensive, are not complete, and when a ship first >fitted out the guns came from an ordnance yard and did >not need painting on board for some time. > >>Then, in theory, she must carry 98guns in 1781. > >I would disagree with this conclusion. The >supposition that she might have been armed to the new >orders when she was refitted in 1782 is stronger. >Winfield reports she was commissioned in 1778 and >sailed for North America. She was engaged at the >Battle of Grenada in July 1779. Schomberg lists her >as a 98, but Beatson, whom I think is more reliable, >lists her as a 90. So did Thomas White, <i>Naval >Researches: Or a Candid Inquiry into the Conduct of >Admirals Byron, Graves, Hood and Rodney, in the >Actions off Grenada, Chesapeak, St. Christophers, and >of the Ninth and Twelfth of April, 1782</i> (London: >Whittaker, Treacher, and Arnott, 1830; repr. Boston: >Gregg Press, 1972), and William James, <i>The British >Navy in Adversity</i> (London: Longmans, Green and >Co., 1926), 434. So I think she was <i>not</i> >upgunned in 1778. She did not return home until 1781 >and I doubt that any guns were added to her while she >was in the West Indies in 1779–81, although it might >not have been difficult to lay hands on eight >6-pounders. > >Schomberg lists her as a 98 again in Howe's fleet for >the relief of Gibraltar in the fall of 1782. I can't >find a separate list of that fleet in Beatson. >However, James, 451, calls her a 90 at that time. >French sources, including Lapeyrouse-Bonfils (1845), >Troude (1867), and Chevalier (1877) all have her as a >98, but it is difficult to be sure that they are not >taking the most optimistic (from the point of view of >Franco-Spanish achievement) view of the enemy. In >fact, Troude and Chevalier both call <i>Princess >Royal</i> a "108," including 10 carronades, although >it is not at all certain that she had any. On that >point, Caruana published an official list of >carronades on all ships that had them on July 22, >1782. <i>Princess Royal</i> was in commission then >but not listed. The only 90/98's on the list are ><i>Duke</i> (two 32-pounder carronades, not the >establishment ten 18-pounders) and <i>Prince >George</i> (two 32-pounders, four 18-pounders, four >12-pounders). > ><i>Steel's Naval Remembrancer</i>, published in 1785, >included a list of the British navy as of January 20, >1783. That list rated <i>Princess Royal</i> as a 98. >That might reflect the official rating. Some of the >original 90's were still listed as such, however.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.