Mark Arbour Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Didn't know where to put this so I started a whole new topic. The subject of Prize Money came up in Chapter 6, so I thought I'd post the link to the brief Wiki article on it: Prize Money Prize money was the Royal Navy version of "bonuses," and just like those bonuses at AIG, the system got it's share of criticism. It's equivalent in the army would probably be looting. When a ship was captured during wartime, the ship and any cargo was sold and the proceeds split up among Captains and Crews. This could provide officers with huge windfalls, and made a few admirals fabulously wealthy from their share (Admiral Lord Keith, most notedly.) Link to comment
Red_A Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Didn't know where to put this so I started a whole new topic. The subject of Prize Money came up in Chapter 6, so I thought I'd post the link to the brief Wiki article on it: Prize Money In addition to Prize money which is the value of ships delivered to home ports, there was Prize bounty which was the value of ships which went down. This excellant site gives more details. Prize Money Historical Maritime Society I would also recommend HMS Trincomalee The Classic Frigate It has pictures of the inside of the typical "Nelson" Frigate. Finally, I recommend the National Maritime Muisemum Greenwich UK, although not everyone has it on its' doorstep. Link to comment
Enric Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I have a difficulty to believe that the English were having a tekegraph in use already in 1792 or 1793. The French revolutionaries were installing a telegraph sometime around 1792, but afaik it was the first in the world. And it should not have been fully functioning to all difficult places by 1793, rather it took time.... the English were, afaik, not rapid in adopting any of that. In other words, not in those yerars yet, surely. Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 I have a difficulty to believe that the English were having a tekegraph in use already in 1792 or 1793. The French revolutionaries were installing a telegraph sometime around 1792, but afaik it was the first in the world. And it should not have been fully functioning to all difficult places by 1793, rather it took time.... the English were, afaik, not rapid in adopting any of that. In other words, not in those yerars yet, surely. You are absolutely right. Here's a link to the wiki article on semaphores: Semaphores. My bad. You won't see any more semaphores until the mid 1790s. Link to comment
Enric Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I am wondering, how could a severe concussion and loss of blood make someone a bed patient for weeks or even some months ? My reading did not reveal to me of any other wound for George, but I assume severe concussion. and the loss of blood was mentioned in the story. Concussion should imo not impact much (nor long) the functioning of the body - as opposed to brains... However, George's brains were not malfunctioning after a short while. so, why is the story having him something like half-paralyzed ? (I must add that i am no doctor, so my above comment comes from solely some intuitive thoughts of mine, with NO medical qualifications) --- btw, shouldn't the king be knighting the young George for this valor (and spilled blood) ? sons of noblemen tended to get an early knighting in some centuries' tradition... Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted May 16, 2009 Author Share Posted May 16, 2009 I am wondering, how could a severe concussion and loss of blood make someone a bed patient for weeks or even some months ? My reading did not reveal to me of any other wound for George, but I assume severe concussion. and the loss of blood was mentioned in the story. Concussion should imo not impact much (nor long) the functioning of the body - as opposed to brains... However, George's brains were not malfunctioning after a short while. so, why is the story having him something like half-paralyzed ? (I must add that i am no doctor, so my above comment comes from solely some intuitive thoughts of mine, with NO medical qualifications) --- btw, shouldn't the king be knighting the young George for this valor (and spilled blood) ? sons of noblemen tended to get an early knighting in some centuries' tradition... Ah, but I have a doctor on my team and consulted him to make sure that my portrayal of his concussion/wound was realistic. The other thing to remember is the laudanum (opiate) for the pain, which would have made him mazy. It would have been highly unlikely for a mere lieutenant to be knighted at this point, even one as connected as Granger. Link to comment
Enric Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 It would have been highly unlikely for a mere lieutenant to be knighted at this point, even one as connected as Granger. sad. I so much more like the late-medieval centuries when a young, good-looking noble youngster might (easily) have become a dubbed knight at an approximate age of 19 I think the Stuart kings were still in the business of knighting teenagers, sometimes. Even the heterosexual Stuarts, not only James VI & I. So, the blame is upon the Hanoverians a foul lot, for any throne and this George III was not even having a gay son, afaik. bad. Link to comment
Enric Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 by the way, I have a recollection that the British royal family are almost midgets (shrimp size at least), i.e shorties. And that they were -at least throughout 1700s and 1800s- prone to be fat - and get bloated when in their middle years So, are these Hanoverians short and fat, in general? Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 by the way,I have a recollection that the British royal family are almost midgets (shrimp size at least), i.e shorties. And that they were -at least throughout 1700s and 1800s- prone to be fat - and get bloated when in their middle years So, are these Hanoverians short and fat, in general? I don't think they were that short, but I really don't know. The only thing I could find on that was info on George IV's weight. From Wiki: George IV is remembered largely for his extravagant lifestyle that contributed to the fashions of the British Regency. By 1797 his weight had reached 17 stone 7 pounds (111 kg or 245 lb),[2] and by 1824 his corset was made for a waist of 50 inches (127 cm).[3] He was a patron of new forms of leisure, style and taste. Link to comment
Enric Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I don't think they were that short, but I really don't know. The only thing I could find on that was info on George IV's weight. From Wiki: today, the elder living generation are midgets. Wills and Harry actually are changing that, they have inherited from their maternal family some height. I am suddenly wondering, has there possibly been -a century ago or so- generations where the brit royals' loss height or, were already the stubby hanoverians also shorties. by the way, George III's uncle (or something like), the butchering duke of Cumberland, was also an immensely fat man. Twenty stones, or something.... For a tall, regal man, the weight of some 110 kg is not even obese. But, for George IV, it made him a bloated puss. which indicates to me that he was not tall. he might have been a shortie even - how about if he were 150 cm tall, and had a waist of 127 cm. I think one point is certain: those Hanoverian princes would not attract very much. Were any Hanoverian in England a gay ? Link to comment
Enric Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 as I recall it, the Spanish monarch was simply 'Catholic Majesty', not 'most catholic'..... My rule of thumb with this whispers to me that the french monarch were 'most christian', while the Spanish and Austrian ones were 'catholic' btw, as I recall, it was 'rey catolico' in spanish.... no 'most' in that, neither - it came from 'los reyes catolicos', the marriedd couple of two reigning kings in spain.... Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 as I recall it,the Spanish monarch was simply 'Catholic Majesty', not 'most catholic'..... My rule of thumb with this whispers to me that the french monarch were 'most christian', while the Spanish and Austrian ones were 'catholic' btw, as I recall, it was 'rey catolico' in spanish.... no 'most' in that, neither - it came from 'los reyes catolicos', the marriedd couple of two reigning kings in spain.... This is how I remember it. The Pope awarded several kings the title of "catholic king", but in a treaty, the Spanish used "most" catholic majesty/king to denote that the King of Spain ranked higher than the others. Some of the others: Treaty Titles Link to comment
paya Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 as I recall it,the Spanish monarch was simply 'Catholic Majesty', not 'most catholic'..... My rule of thumb with this whispers to me that the french monarch were 'most christian', while the Spanish and Austrian ones were 'catholic' btw, as I recall, it was 'rey catolico' in spanish.... no 'most' in that, neither - it came from 'los reyes catolicos', the marriedd couple of two reigning kings in spain.... Maybe it depends who is using the titles. I am sure that the Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabelle of Castille were the Most Catholic Majesties (or sometimes Most Catholic Couple) but I don't know about the Bourbons in Spain. What I wanted to say - if you were a highflown Spaniard general who wants to show off at some English admiral you would certainly use "Most Catholic Majesty" just only to superordinate your King to the British one. But I think it was just a way Spanish diplomats spoke about their King those times. 1 Link to comment
Enric Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 This is how I remember it. The Pope awarded several kings the title of "catholic king", but in a treaty, the Spanish used "most" catholic majesty/king to denote that the King of Spain ranked higher than the others. Some of the others: Treaty Titles Unfortunately, wikipedia cannot be relied upon, about these sort of esoteric details. Too many writers in wikipedia write what they want to believe, not what is attested in sources contemporary to events in question.... instead, observe that the text of this recent treaty, speaks of His Most Christian Majesty of France but at the same text, of His Catholick Majesty of Spain. No 'most' there.... treaty of Paris, 1783 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris763.asp Link to comment
DragonFire Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Hehe, I never thought I would use this forum but I feel I have to. Vacation - I'm English and we very rarely use this Americanism now, let alone in the 1700's. We still refer to it as holidays. Pants - Again a very different meaning in the UK, pants here are underwear. That word would never have been used to describe trousers or the breeches Naval officers wore at the time! Sorry, but every time I read vacation it made me cringe. 1 Link to comment
Nephylim Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Hehe, I never thought I would use this forum but I feel I have to. Vacation - I'm English and we very rarely use this Americanism now let alone in the 1700's. we still refer to it as holidays. Pants - Again a very different meaning in the UK, pants here are underwear. That word would never have been used to describe trousers or the breeches Naval officers wore at the time! Sorry, but every time I read vacation it made me cringe. Hehe I was only commenting to someone yesterday that a lot of the writing on here is very American. Not that this is a criticism in any way.. it is because a lot of the writers are American. The thing is that I tend to pick up things easily and I am finding a lot of Americanisms are creeping into my own writing. I was wondering whether to allow it or to actively seek to avoid it. I guess I'll just see how it goes. Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share Posted June 29, 2009 Hehe, I never thought I would use this forum but I feel I have to. Vacation - I'm English and we very rarely use this Americanism now, let alone in the 1700's. We still refer to it as holidays. Pants - Again a very different meaning in the UK, pants here are underwear. That word would never have been used to describe trousers or the breeches Naval officers wore at the time! Sorry, but every time I read vacation it made me cringe. Very good points. I'll try to remember to use holiday instead, and to only use "pants" to describe the reaction after the trousers come off. 1 Link to comment
Enric Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Minorca changed hands -iirc- a few times. IS it really in British hands in early 1790s ??? (I have a nagging feeling that Spain had received it back already earlier..... which -if true- would mean it cannot be in british hands) Edited June 30, 2009 by Enric Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Minorca changed hands -iirc- a few times.IS it really in British hands in early 1790s ??? (I have a nagging feeling that Spain had received it back already earlier..... which -if true- would mean it cannot be in british hands) You are correct. Minorca was a British possession from 1708 until 1783, when it was returned to Spain under the Treaty of Paris. At the time of the story, the island was in Spanish hands, so I may have some historical anachronisms, but Port Mahon was the primary base of naval operations near Toulon. Since Spain was allied with England, the port was available for Royal Navy use. When Spain changed sides, the British lost Minorca and actually left the Mediterranean for a time. Then in 1798 the British recaptured it. In 1802 the Treaty of Amiens permanently restored it to Spain. 1 Link to comment
Sir Galahad Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Very good points. I'll try to remember to use holiday instead, and to only use "pants" to describe the reaction after the trousers come off. I thought kneeling was the natural reaction when trousers came off! 1 Link to comment
Mark Arbour Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 I thought kneeling was the natural reaction when trousers came off! It's a sequence thing, kneeling and panting vs. panting and kneeling. 1 Link to comment
Sir Galahad Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 It's a sequence thing, kneeling and panting vs. panting and kneeling. I see, well thank you for clearing up that technical point for me! 1 Link to comment
Enric Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) http://fr.wikipedia....off_de_Kerlessy admiral Honore de Trogoff he was a Breton. this would fit somewhat good to the alliance with the Britannic Majesty. Edited July 4, 2009 by Enric Link to comment
Enric Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 commodore Edward Pellew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pellew,_1st_Viscount_Exmouth had a twin sister who was married with a Finnish nobleman: http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00444080&tree=LEO and Pellew's nephew(s) were Finnish Link to comment
Enric Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 a couple of years earlier, knight Sidney Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sidney_Smith had been fighting in Finland, the famous 1790 battle of Ruotsinsalmi actually, he was pretty young: only some ten years older than Georgie and Smith's knighthood came from the knighting made by Swedish king - as reward for his naval services, e.g that 1790 Link to comment
Recommended Posts