HMS Valiant

[Mark Arbour]

I'm happy to use other words like acquisition if you like, but you'll note I very carefully didn't say who stole the marbles as opposed to who bought them afterwards.

 

However, the old (and maybe once valid) argument of the marbles being safer at British Museum definitely sounds hollow when you stand in the new impressive museum built a short distance from Akropolis.

 

In any case, you're quite right about the matter being a question of morals - against the greater might of money and influence.

 

I think it's important to remember that how the relics are taken care of today as opposed to how they were handled in the 19th century are entirely different.  I've been to Athens a couple of times, and I've always found the Acropolis to be a magical place, with or without its original marbles.  And quite frankly, I think Ancient Greek culture is not solely in the possession of the current Greek state and peoples (see: nomadic hordes), so I think it's fair that some of the antiquities are spread around for other descendants of that culture to appreciate. 

[Westie]

I think it's important to remember that how the relics are taken care of today as opposed to how they were handled in the 19th century are entirely different.  I've been to Athens a couple of times, and I've always found the Acropolis to be a magical place, with or without its original marbles.  And quite frankly, I think Ancient Greek culture is not solely in the possession of the current Greek state and peoples (see: nomadic hordes), so I think it's fair that some of the antiquities are spread around for other descendants of that culture to appreciate. 

 

One might also note that while the Acropolis museum has a €5 entry fee, the british museum is free.  Moreover, it is the second most visited museum in the world, second only to the Louvre.  I would suggest this is much more in line with their status as "world" heritage objects.

[Timothy M.]

I actually have faith in Caroline's intelligence and social skills. Therefore I think she'll concede defeat, apologize to Granger and Cavendish, and explain to Granger why she tried to get more influence and support. Hopefully she'll also have learnt not to do these things behind her husband's back and not to jeopardize her reputation again.

 

Once again I got it all wrong and my faith in Caroline was misplaced. Except maybe for the last sentence.

Perhaps I should just stop predicting or guessing in case Mark delights in doing the exact opposite. He does have a history of teasing Tim.

[mmike1969]

“Nothing would make me happier,” he said viciously. “You have killed the love I had for you. Killed it by defying me, by being a slut, and by risking everything!”

All Hail his Majesty Granger, Queen of Drama!

 

Your Majesty, allow me to introduce to you Sir Kettle of the Island Empire of Black.

Edited July 10, 2014 by mmike1969

[Mark Arbour]

I thought George's tactic (the pantry ultimatum) with the Elgins was interesting and apparently successful, at least in the short term. However, I can't help but think that it might have been a bit short sighted, and that he may have ultimately done himself a disservice here. It's going to be a very long voyage and he can't very well refuse to feed them if (when?) they prove recalcitrant to his wishes.

 

 

 

Impunity posted this in the reviews, and I wanted to make a point on it, but I forgot, and you can't edit reviews or responses (grumble grumble grumble). 

 

Granger can't, and wouldn't, refuse to feed the Elgins, but what he can do is refuse to share his table with them.  In essence, that means that they either supplement their stores from their own pocket, or they live on the same fare given to the average seaman.  I suspect that Lady Elgin would really be unhappy if she had to bite into a weevil-filled biscuit.  

 

The officers in the Wardroom (Lieutenants, Major Treadway and his lieutenant, the master, etc.) would buy their own stores as well, and would probably share the expense.  The Gunroom (midshipman, bosun, carpenter, etc) would do the same thing.  So this was not unusual for esteemed or high-ranking passengers, and in fact, it would be expected.  

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

I like that George sent that small but important message to Caroline; giving her some hope after the way he verbally eviscerated her. I know that at it's crux George is more upset about the lying, the deceit and that it happened whilst he was onshore than the actual encounter and normally i'm 110% team Granger. Having said that, I can see why Caroline resents the sexual freedom George has and she doesn't. This is manifesting through her sexual desire to be with men George has been with. Instead of a discreet sexual encounter often, which i'm sure she would be more than capable of having given her connections. I think she has just as much a desire to have sex as George and wants that freedom but went about it in the entirely wrong way. I can't remember when or how she gave her blessing for Granger to sleep with men but clearly while she's "alright" with it in principle. The fact though she has to remain faithful irks her. George can gallivant with anyone nearly and does (not that we're complaining) whilst George (it must feel for her) wants her to remain chaste. This may be because George on some level views her as does society as property, his, but I don't think Caroline's ever really liked the idea of being owned. 

 

I know this is due to the risk of gossip, patriarchy and pregnancy (again). Having said that there must be a middle ground where Caroline can have her fun too. I know it's George's story but the idea that women don't enjoy sex or want it on the whole as much as men I've always thought was woefully inaccurate. At least buy her a vibrator, they've been in France since 1734 and called the "Tremoussiour" (I know Wikipedia cardinal sin of referencing but it's more of a jest). It really does speak to the whole time period it's set in of course though;  women as irrational, not thinking of the good of the family, wanton and craven to be locked away in a monastery or castle. The way she has treated Granger was wrong but given the inequalities we're dealing with, interpersonally and on a larger scale I understand it. 

[Timothy M.]

But she did have freedom and the trust of her husband to an extent which very few women of that time period would experience. It's one of the reasons I like the Bridgemont series so much. Caroline and Granger were both rational and emotional in a wonderful manner. She accepted his liasons with men and appreciated his promise to avoid other women. He admired her for her cleverness in monetary and political matters and trusted her to manage their estate and maintain their status in life. He condoned her taking lovers as long as it only happened when he was away, and accepted a 'bastard' child as his own.

 

This is why Caroline's behavior is so inexplicable. She's clever and she knows what society is like and what is expected. The rules she has to obey are not imposed by Granger (who himself has to worry even more about being exposed). When he scolds her for mistakes, it's always about lack of judgement and outward propriety. She can be as scheming and naughty and rebellious as she likes, as long as it's done with discretion and for the greater good of their family and not for her personal gratification.

 

When I think how horrified and disgusted Caroline was about Davina's behavior, it's ironic she's so unaware of the similarity to her own selfish and risky conduct.

 

However, I do blame Granger for one thing: we never see him talk about these matters with his wife. It might be because Mark finds it boring to write about (so it happens behind the scenes). Or Granger just assumes Caroline shares his understanding of these aspects (and has learnt from earlier mistakes) and so he need not explain. But in this respect Caroline is all woman: she needs to talk about things and she wants to discuss matters and know what her husband is thinking.

 

Or maybe I'm rambling on as usual without knowing what's really going on. Which I seem to recall promising not to do anymore....

Edited July 11, 2014 by Timothy M.

[BeysJoshersLepton V2]

She does have that freedom but I think the key difference here is that she isn't bisexual as far as we know, I imagine she rationalised it as him being away from women for so long on his voyages. Granger is at least in my mind predominantly gay, having Caroline who he does love in his own way, is a requirement given the time period. I also think the fact he sees her in small doses helps that attraction to her too. The tryst with them is because on some level she is either jealous or (incoming psychobabble analysis) wants to be closer to George by understanding what he loves in these men and why he loves them. The thought that she isn't enough when he's home and how she has seen and heard how these other men love him and would fight to the death for him. Now the first may seem petty, the second an analytic longshot. Both lead to an ego problem. Someone who doesn't feel she's enough, and in all honesty never will be for him. 

 

She accepts his liaisons with men, but he loves men. Where as she has to accept that and not fall in love with another. It's an important distinction because look at how much emphasis has been placed on the bonds and trust that come when Granger loves someone and how hurt he is when he feels spurned. I also think that unless Granger holds an orgy on deck in full view of the fleet he's pretty much exposure risk free considering his own connections and common sense. 

[impunity]

Impunity posted this in the reviews, and I wanted to make a point on it, but I forgot, and you can't edit reviews or responses (grumble grumble grumble). 

 

Granger can't, and wouldn't, refuse to feed the Elgins, but what he can do is refuse to share his table with them.  In essence, that means that they either supplement their stores from their own pocket, or they live on the same fare given to the average seaman.  I suspect that Lady Elgin would really be unhappy if she had to bite into a weevil-filled biscuit.  

 

The officers in the Wardroom (Lieutenants, Major Treadway and his lieutenant, the master, etc.) would buy their own stores as well, and would probably share the expense.  The Gunroom (midshipman, bosun, carpenter, etc) would do the same thing.  So this was not unusual for esteemed or high-ranking passengers, and in fact, it would be expected.  

 

That noneditable review site drives me crazy. I was glad you'd quoted the section of my review that wasn't missing a word.

 

My point was that this is the sort of card one can only play once.

 

 “Excellent.  Then I will give you a choice.  You can either convince her ladyship to join us aboard this evening, or you can meet with my purser, Mr. Andrews, who can advise you as to what you will want to stock. 

 

Having issued this ultimatum, George has now committed to feeding the Elgins (presumably they will elect to take advantage of his generosity) for the duration of the voyage. He has, in effect, made them dependent on his largesse (which I suppose they would have been even if this disagreement had not occurred). Once they are at sea (with no available stores to purchase), and they inevitably misbehave, he can't turn around and refuse to let them share his table or he will end up making them a burden on the Wardroom or letting them starve. Even when they stop somewhere where supplies are available, making them stock their own meals at that point would simply appear churlish.

 

I'm curious, though,  if they had bought their own supplies, would George's chef have been responsible for preparing separate meals for them?  Or would they have been expected to have a chef among their retinue?

[Mark Arbour]

That noneditable review site drives me crazy. I was glad you'd quoted the section of my review that wasn't missing a word.

 

My point was that this is the sort of card one can only play once.

 

 

Having issued this ultimatum, George has now committed to feeding the Elgins (presumably they will elect to take advantage of his generosity) for the duration of the voyage. He has, in effect, made them dependent on his largesse (which I suppose they would have been even if this disagreement had not occurred). Once they are at sea (with no available stores to purchase), and they inevitably misbehave, he can't turn around and refuse to let them share his table or he will end up making them a burden on the Wardroom or letting them starve. Even when they stop somewhere where supplies are available, making them stock their own meals at that point would simply appear churlish.

 

I'm curious, though,  if they had bought their own supplies, would George's chef have been responsible for preparing separate meals for them?  Or would they have been expected to have a chef among their retinue?

 

I'm sure they'll stop along the way, and that makes getting supplies relatively easy for all of them.  I would expect the Elgins to have a steward or two to take care of them, but they probably wouldn't have a chef unless they felt it necessary to take someone with them to serve while they were overseas.

 

I like that George sent that small but important message to Caroline; giving her some hope after the way he verbally eviscerated her. I know that at it's crux George is more upset about the lying, the deceit and that it happened whilst he was onshore than the actual encounter and normally i'm 110% team Granger. Having said that, I can see why Caroline resents the sexual freedom George has and she doesn't. This is manifesting through her sexual desire to be with men George has been with. Instead of a discreet sexual encounter often, which i'm sure she would be more than capable of having given her connections. I think she has just as much a desire to have sex as George and wants that freedom but went about it in the entirely wrong way. I can't remember when or how she gave her blessing for Granger to sleep with men but clearly while she's "alright" with it in principle. The fact though she has to remain faithful irks her. George can gallivant with anyone nearly and does (not that we're complaining) whilst George (it must feel for her) wants her to remain chaste. This may be because George on some level views her as does society as property, his, but I don't think Caroline's ever really liked the idea of being owned. 

 

I know this is due to the risk of gossip, patriarchy and pregnancy (again). Having said that there must be a middle ground where Caroline can have her fun too. I know it's George's story but the idea that women don't enjoy sex or want it on the whole as much as men I've always thought was woefully inaccurate. At least buy her a vibrator, they've been in France since 1734 and called the "Tremoussiour" (I know Wikipedia cardinal sin of referencing but it's more of a jest). It really does speak to the whole time period it's set in of course though;  women as irrational, not thinking of the good of the family, wanton and craven to be locked away in a monastery or castle. The way she has treated Granger was wrong but given the inequalities we're dealing with, interpersonally and on a larger scale I understand it. 

 

I don't think Caroline likes that either.  We don't really know what's at the root of her actions, but I think you've hit on a good part of it with your posts.  I suspect that the biggest issue is the one I've highlighted in bold and underlined.  She's a powerful woman in her own right, and because of her actions, yet she must always be subservient to Granger (or some other man).  That has to be grating.

[JimCarter]

I was so excited I almost had an orgasm when I thought we were going to have one of Mark's awesome ship to ship battles.  When he left us hanging, I could only find the Elgin bitch's discomfort as a satisfaction. 

[ricky]

Ya but you'll have to admit, that was almost as good.

[JimCarter]

I think KARMA is one way the universe has to justify the wrongs of the world, but most we don't really get to enjoy it when karma bites someone in the ass.  She seems to be one miserable bitch to be around,  but I'm doubtful that those that she has made the most miserable have been able to enjoy her getting her pay back. 

[Daddydavek]

The Lady Elgin seems to be provoking a gradually stronger response from Granger.  I'm betting that she eventually appreciates the gravity of her errant ways with perhaps some slight instruction from her husband.  Perhaps she will serve one purpose however, and that is to make Granger appreciate Carolyn for never being boorish.  

[ricky]

A brilliant Battle. I like it better when Granger is getting into the mix. And it's nice that he got richer without firing a single shot himself. Speaking of which, I have a question that I am sure one of our experts can enlighten me on.

 

At the end of a battle, they are sitting with a butt load of loaded cannons when the command to cease fire arrives. Since these cannon are not breached then how do they empty the round? It can't sit there because of many reasons. The powder may get wet for one and the powder is very corrosive for another. So how do they dislodge the contents?

 

Now back to the story. One thing that puzzled me. In the letter to Caroline, he asked that half the prize money be set aside for his personal use.  I found that quite odd. I mean it's not likely she would rush to invest it and even if she did, surely assets could be liquidated for cash to sate his desires. So I had to wonder if that was a snub to Caroline. Or even a vague threat. I could see no other reason  for it. Any thoughts?

 

Well done Mark. This is a beautiful example of why I tell people you are the best author I have ever read and why it shines so brightly as the truth.

[Timothy M.]

Now back to the story. One thing that puzzled me. In the letter to Caroline, he asked that half the prize money be set aside for his personal use.  I found that quite odd. I mean it's not likely she would rush to invest it and even if she did, surely assets could be liquidated for cash to sate his desires. So I had to wonder if that was a snub to Caroline. Or even a vague threat. I could see no other reason  for it. Any thoughts?

 

Yes I have exactly the same feeling. Granger is telling her he has plans of his own and he is not telling her what they are, because he doesn't trust her anymore. It will also be a test of her obedience: if she does as told, he's won, if she rebels and invests the money 'because I know better', he'll have to take even firmer measures.

[Westie]

On a slightly different note.... Greenwich and the river thames are hosting a "Tall ships" festival in September.  I will of course post pics to my gallery here, but there will be replica ships of the line ready to tour if anyone happens to be in or around London....

[ricky]

On a slightly different note.... Greenwich and the river thames are hosting a "Tall ships" festival in September.  I will of course post pics to my gallery here, but there will be replica ships of the line ready to tour if anyone happens to be in or around London....

Oh just twist the knife why don't ya. I can't help that I/we live across the great muddy pond. You're going to have to do the deed for us now that you've mentioned it. Better get a larger SD card for that camera. And we'll want to see those replica midshipmen and lieutenants too. And while you're at it we'd like to see some of your seamen. Wait, that didn't come out right. Or maybe it did.

[Daddydavek]

Mark's reply to my review of the latest chapter discloses some poetic license regarding the character of Ambassador Walpole and indicates he was not so inept as portrayed in the story.   As interesting as that may be, I find that even the best people have bad days and make mistakes.  So while the portrayal may be somewhat out of character, it was interesting and besides who wants to be predictable all the time????

[JimCarter]

I found Warp-hole (my poetic license} to be the typical asshole that told the bitch that he would straighten that pompous asshole captain out.  Instead Granger handed him his head told him to get the hell off his ship.  We have all seen those paper pushers that thought they were a lot more powerful and important that anyone else does. 

Edited August 8, 2014 by JimCarter

[ricky]

Loved both of the last two chapters. Glad the hag is going to be deposited soon though. They need another good battle to get us back in the mood of shipboard life.

[Timothy M.]

They still have the whole Mediterranean Sea to sail before Granger can unload the Elgins on the poor Ottomans.

Maybe this is why they've sent Lord Elgin to a Moslem country ? They know his wife will have to be secluded or whenever he deals with the local powers or goes out in public, which would not be the case in Christian countries.

[Westie]

They still have the whole Mediterranean Sea to sail before Granger can unload the Elgins on the poor Ottomans.

Maybe this is why they've sent Lord Elgin to a Moslem country ? They know his wife will have to be secluded or whenever he deals with the local powers or goes out in public, which would not be the case in Christian countries.

 

As a matter of fact, the Ottomans had a tradition of tolerance.  Christians - although second class citizens - were free to practice openly.  Women were much more liberalised in this period.  Lady Elgin would not have had to take a veil. 

 

---------------------------------------------

So I thought I would talk a little – while the forum is quiet – about some aspects of shipboard life that you might find interesting.  This particular post is inspired by some of the comments about “feeding the Elgins” while on board.  The first thing to note is that we should separate the supplies “of His Majesty” – that is, the navy supplies to feed the general ships population – from the stores personal to the officers.  It might be surprising to some just how much “personal” food and drink was brought aboard by even the most junior of officers.

 

The Elgin’s are guests of His Majesty, not of Granger, and so Elgin should really have thought about his own stores long before the voyage if he did not want to survive on the basic (by aristocratic standards) rations supplied by the Admiralty.

 

First of all, we should talk about drink.  Sailors could – and did – drink prodigious amounts of alcohol.  Not just the grog, but wine, beer and improvised poteen on longer voyages were freely available.  It is a misconception that sailors were punished for drinking; they were only punished for being drunk – which is very different to what we might call a “light buzz” today.

 

The purser would keep stocks of beer, cheap fortified wine (stores better than normal wine) and spirits that would be purchased by the men and drunk in all manner of ways.  Most importantly, they would be used as additives to the water to remove any foul taste.

 

The quality of the spirits would go up the more senior you were.  We know that in 1761, Captain Clements of the Argo stocked up his cellar in an Italian port with a huge array of drinks for his table.  He bought Messina, Port, Cyprus, Champagne, Burgundy, Claret, Frontenac, Montepulciano, Florence, Malvasia, Rum and Beer.  In total, there were over six hundred gallons owned by the Captain – though one should note that some of this would be for private trade with other officers and with the purser.

 

Spirits and wines were stored in traditional units, the largest being the “tun” (252 American gallons, or 210 imperial gallons), broken down into “pipe” (or “butt”) at a half tun, a “puncheon” at a third of a tun, a “hogshead” at a quarter, a “tierce” at a sixth, a “barrel” at an eighth, and a “rundlet” at one fourteenth of a tun.  Sixty litre demijohns were also common.

 

Contrary to what novels will tell you – even Patrick O’Brien made this mistake – there was no “official” issue of grog in the Royal Navy.  It was used by many captains to ensure loyalty and popularity with the crew, and as a means for discipline (by depriving grog from rule-breakers), but this store would not have been paid for by the Admiralty.  The admiralty supplied beer only.

We then come onto food, which is often portrayed as being dire.  While that might be true by modern standards, it’s actually quite far from being accurate in the period we are looking at.  Most poor people would very rarely have eaten meat, and when they did it would have been relatively cheap meat.  On a ship, your weekly rations were very good. 

 

You had a daily ration 1lb of bread and a gallon of beer.  If you think about it, this is a huge quantity.  You ate meat for days per week (alternating beef and pork).  Meat days were Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.  You had Oatmeal (1 pint), butter (2 ounces) and cheese (4 ounces) on your none meat days.  Finally, you had pease (middle English, the vegetable “pea”), usually made into a pottage of some kind on four days a week, in the amount of one half pint.

 

By any standards, to have 4 pounds of meat in a single week is a lot.  This would be supplemented by the purser, who from (some) profits in his wheeler dealing would provide also fresh fruit and vegetables when in port also.  Beef and pork were salted and placed into large casks, but there would also be additional livestock on board.  This would be managed by the purser, but would often be owned by the captain, other officers, or even by seamen themselves who would club together in groups.  It was not even unusual for the men to bring aboard a personal hen, using the eggs as barter with the shipboard cook, officers, or purser.

 

I hope you found this little sidebar interesting.  I have a few more ideas for bits of info as we go along.  I would like to talk about the crew at some point, and in particular personal servants – for example, we see a lot of Winkler as Granger’s steward, but what we don’t see are the minions who report to Winkler.

 

Anyway… Wishing you all a happy Sunday.

West

Edited August 10, 2014 by Westie

[impunity]

 

 

You had a daily ration 1lb of bread and a gallon of beer.  If you think about it, this is a huge quantity.  You ate meat for days per week (alternating beef and pork).  Meat days were Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.  You had Oatmeal (1 pint), butter (2 ounces) and cheese (4 ounces) on your none meat days.  Finally, you had pease (middle English, the vegetable “pea”), usually made into a pottage of some kind on four days a week, in the amount of one half pint.

 

 

 

Thank you for starting a very interesting discussion.

 

I'm pretty sure the beer would have been small beer which was beer with very low alcohol content drunk for the purpose of hydration as water was considered unsafe to drink (George's iron casks notwithstanding). My nice husband, who tends to know these things, estimated the alcohol content of small beer at around 1.5%.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

 

Later (Wikipedia says after the Napoleonic wars) there was a ration (tot) of rum. This practice was abolished in 1970 due to safety concerns. In 1756 Navy regulations required adding small quantities of lemon or lime juice to the ration, to prevent scurvy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_ration

[Westie]

Thank you for starting a very interesting discussion.

 

I'm pretty sure the beer would have been small beer which was beer with very low alcohol content drunk for the purpose of hydration as water was considered unsafe to drink (George's iron casks notwithstanding). My nice husband, who tends to know these things, estimated the alcohol content of small beer at around 1.5%.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

 

Later (Wikipedia says after the Napoleonic wars) there was a ration (tot) of rum. This practice was abolished in 1970 due to safety concerns. In 1756 Navy regulations required adding small quantities of lemon or lime juice to the ration, to prevent scurvy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_ration

 

On the question of the "Small Beer"... it actually depended on the length of the voyage, who the purser was and his skill.  If you can imagine that a ship can get very hot, and caskets are porous.  Alcohol continually evaporates from the caskets, and so in the course of a voyage the alcohol content would reduce by as much as two thirds.  In the case of a 1.5% beer, this would drop below the threshold after which beer would spoil at sea after around 3 months.  

 

Small beer in the English use of the word is actually a by-product of making very strong beers, and in fact could be much stronger than 1.5%.

 

With regards to the Rum Ration.... I would like to review wikipedia's sources.  The reason I say this is that I believe the article there to be almost entirely inaccurate.  My sources in this are the incomparable Daniel Baugh in "British Naval Administration" and N. A. M. Rodgers in his pamphlet "Food and Drink in the Royal Navy" and "The Wooden World" (which I have mentioned here before).  The British Royal Navy had a BEER ration.  In chapter II, Section F of the Wooden World, N. A. M. Rodger is categorical... "They did not 'splice the mainbrace' in the fashion beloved of novelists, for there was no official issue of spirits in the Navy".**

 

The only exception was on long voyages, where beer ran out and was unavailable for purchase.  There was also an exception during certain wars when supply lines were short (such as the Napoleonic wars), but this was not standard and the Navy stores show only beer in ledgers.  This inaccuracy seems to be endemic even in scholarly articles on the internet - however it rises from a misconception.  That said, what WAS common on ships was a subscription, via the purser, to a daily tot.  This was a private arrangement and was not a navy ration

 

In 1970 the United Kingdom government banned all spirits from ships (with a few exceptions).  The day the ban came into force became known as the "Black Tot Day" and has perhaps exacerbated the idea that the Navy directly supplied rum to soldiers.

 

West

 

** A note on Sources.  Daniel Baugh is considered the definitive expert on British Naval History, and in addition to his publishing credits, was a professor at both Princeton and Cornell Universities (a pedigree JP Crampton might be proud of ).

 

N. A. M. Rodger was the Assistant Keeper of the Public Records office, Honorary Secretary of the Navy Records Society and a Trustee of the Maritime Museum at Greenwich.  He is the author of the acclaimed book "The Admiralty".