Westie

Interestingly, during this period of history, she more than likely wouldn't have had one. The figurehead fell out of favour in the very late 1790s and would only experience a renaissance after the Napoleonic wars ended. That return would be brief though.... the last British battle-ship to hold one was launched in 1884

How do you know he's huge? I must have missed that part

Anyone interested in a more.... rigorous.... account of HMS Indefactigable might be interested in http://indefatigable1797.wordpress.com which is (surprisingly) written by two delightful ladies. I say, surprisingly, because it is not one of those subjects that would usually interest the fairer sex. I'm not saying this is perfect, but they go to an awful lot of trouble to present a huge body of research on the ship and crew as it was in 1797. West

I would be inclined to agree with you if we were talking the golden age of Plymouth, when it was overseen by Edmund Drummer, but by 1790's there was a huge amount of corruption in the Royal Dockyards. This would not be rectified until Earl St Vincent's "Commission of Enquiry" in 1802. By contrast, the private dockyards now had access to better wood and facilities, and were more efficient. Though yes, there was a tendency in places to try and cut corners, to save money, which at times lead to issues - it should be noted that again, this reputation is a hangover from an earlier era (though following the resurgance of the royal Dockyards in 1804 onwards, corrupt private dockyards would again become rampant). HMS Agamemnon is a case in point. On the face of it, so many refits does look bad. But it should be noted that even at the Battle of Ushant, this ship was badly damaged. Botched repair on top of botched repair (at Chatham dockyard) is not the fault of the original construction yard, even if they get the blame. Nor is it the dockyards fault when the ship had poor quality repair at Gibraltar (limited access to quality wood), or when the ship is sailed into rocks. It's my own personal view that the original dockyard gets some bad press for a ship that was badly treated and badly repaired time and again.

I would suggest that the performance had much to do with the method of construction and the years of service. Indeed you are right that the HMS Indefatigable did not see service. She was built NOT at one of the Navy dockyards, but at Bucklers Hard by Henry Adams. This is the shipyard and builder that also built HMS Agamemnon (Nelson's favourate ship). It was build from the best of the New Forest timber, which was cut in the same place it was felled. This made for incredibly strong beams, that had not been damaged in either transport or by the harsh saltwater before treatment at Portsmouth. The other consideration is that the ship was coppered almost immediately, and preserved very well in the 10 years she lay in dry dock. Both HMS Anson and Magnanime saw active service before being converted. Both ships were launched uncoppered - the coppering being added in the conversion process. Anson and Magnanime were built at Plymouth and Deptford respectfully - both of these being state dockyards, which were of a lower quality. They used different woods - Plymouth used wood that was from Dartmoor, or imported from further afield, for which they had very little control of the quality. Deptford used Oak from the Royal Forests at Epping and Windsor, which was of better quality but badly warehoused. So I think there were very clear differences in ship quality at the time of conversion. That is not of course to minimise the other issues that were mentioned that would have had a big impact also. West

I found O'Brian much harder to read, while they are good books, the writing is not, in my opinion, particularly engaging. There are also a lot of (acknowledged) errors in the books that just jar me the wrong way. If we are doing recommendations, I think people might be pleasantly surprised if they were to read "Ramage" and it's successors, and of course not forgetting the "Bothilo" series. IF the Navy isn't quite your thing, you can fantasize about an army uniform instead by reading Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe" series - the books are more engaging than the TV series, though again, with some errors that some (i.e. me) might find infuriating. For those of you who might consider reading the Flashman novels, they are entertaining enough, but a lot of straight conquests and more cowardice than heroics. Julian Stockwin also writes the "Kydd" series of Novels. What is interesting about that is that it starts with the hero being a "pressed man" rather than an officer. These are more modern (first one was published in 2001) and one might find them easier to read than some of the others I have mentioned. Those are the one's I am aware of for this period. "Historical fiction" is an incredibly exciting genre, and there are many books from both earlier and later periods that are just as exciting. Of course, without the man on man action we also enjoy with Granger, these books are informative, engaging and exciting, without actually being pulse-racing

Not relevant to the story (but a bit relevant to the series)... I've been thinking for a while that it's nearly 20 years since I first read C. S. Forrester's hornblower series, and I had been dismayed to learn that my set had been lost in various house moves. Now, I have a marked preference for physical books which is why I don't own a Kindle, and so today I went to my nearest "Waterstones" bookshop and bought the first two books in the series. Now, I live in central london, and therefore my nearest bookshop is actually the largest of the chain at Picadilly, central London. Being in a "Granger" sort of mood, I walked a small detour to go via St James' Palace, Carlton Terrace (the site of Carlton House) and then up to the shop. On my way back, I decided to stroll down via Trafalgar square and that phallic monument to one of our Heroes - Nelson's Column. These real places that have always stirred my heart are now extra awesome for associations with this series. So now, since I have a week to wait for the next Granger chapter, I think I will settle for the next best thing and read the first Hornblower. Moreover, as next weekend I am in Paris (my birthday present from Paya), I might just spend more time reliving Granger's exploits by researching some of the characters we met there in the last book. Oh, the weekend of a history geek...

For those of you of a more "investigative" nature, You got a picture here of a ship that most assuredly IS NOT the HMS Valiant. You got a bigger clue about the next book than you bargained for, me thinks.

My only comment at the end of this relates to something Arbour said right back in the depths of time. The quote can be found in this thread here WTF?! What kind of person gives us a gift, and then snatches it back ! Bah But.... in all seriousness, I would say that this is Mark's best story by far, and that if Robbie was taken from us, then it was done in an exceptionally good way. This book of CAP wasn't just writing. This was - in every sense of the word - literature.

To be fair, I wasn't beating up on Jeremy. I was just challenging the assertion that certain (small) events HAVE to happen as they did in the real world. And actually, to stick up for him a little, you guys don't see what goes on in the background for this story. I hope I wont get into trouble with Mark for saying, but Jeremy provides (usually within an hour or so of a draft) incredibly detailed feedback on every chapter of the series. If he sometimes seems really invested in the story, that's just because it's in his nature to do so. But when it comes down to it, we have an author who is so stubborn it would be easier to drag escorial to New York with a horse cart than to move him from something if he has set his sight on it. What you see here IS Mark's fiction, but you can't really rib Jeremy too hard when he gets invested in areas of the story that he helped Mark shape. What you do have to remember is that when Jeremy gives his opinion, and Mark says "thanks, but I'm going the other way" - that's the end of the matter. It rarely spills out into the forum here. I think Jeremy does a really great job of being so engaged here, wile having some foreknowledge that he never gives away.

Still, the insurance industry's PDC (potential damage cost) estimate is considerably lower than 2000 and 2007, despite there being more water and more to come. The PDC figure has been shown to be about 90% accurate historically, so there is some wiggle room, but at the moment I would be inclined to say that although things are bad, the environment agency doesn't deserve the bad press they are getting.

Why? There are certain things Mark can't change, because he builds CAP within the "real world framework". So, He isn't going to have George Bush change his mind on the war on terror, for example, because that would completely change the dynamic of the post 9/11 world. HOWEVER, what would it matter, REALLY, if Johnny Weir just.... doesn't win. I mean, its some figure skating contest, that matters not one jot the overall direction of the world in the last 20 years. Example from Mark's other books - Bridgemont. Mark has George Granger play a critical role in the Battle of Cape St Vincent. Its completely fictional, and doesn't change the outcome of the historical fact. But it deviated pretty markedly from historical accuracy all the same, but does so without changing the world. Example in CAP - Stef invests in google. Now in the real world, that didnt happen, and Stef's investment isn't going to change the eventual outcome, but his name is now in there as one of the original google "winners". The way I see it, Mark can easily have JJ kick Johnny Weir's ass for the fun and hell of it, and it wont make any difference to the overall world. Not to sound too "Doctor Who" about it, but there are the big things that become fixed points in time. But little things can be changed without changing the world. I'm sorry, but who won a certain figure skating contest in what year? It's SUCH A LITTLE THING.

Also, let's not forget that these floods are in fact our fault; because of gay marriage. That's what one UKIP councillor stated anyway.... no joke

Two interesting things:firstly these are the worst storms since records began, yet the damage is actually less (in financial terms) than the floods in 2007 and 2000. So I think the critics is actually unfair on the environment agency who are controlling less property damage with much more water. Second interesting thing is that today the Thames measured it's highest cubic water flow ever.

Not usually in mine, to be honest. I work in software development (as a manager) for online gaming, sports betting and casinos. It's usually pretty exciting to be honest!

IN case anyone is interested, I will point out that FRIDAY is the 217th Anniversary of the Battle of Cape St Vincent. It is also, as a matter of interest, the birthday of one Christopher Latham Sholes, who invented the typewriter.... such invention leading (via the computer keyboard) to Mark WRITING about the battle of Cape St Vincent. This history Mini-Digest was brought to you by Westie, and the complete boredom of his current working day.

Ever-increasing likely? Not really. Polls consistently point to a "No" vote for independence by some margin (YouGov currently 36% YES, 49% NO, with the rest undecided). Personally, as an Englishman, I wish I had a vote. I would vote to give them independence. The rest of the UK would be better off (financially) without them and quite frankly, I would very much like to consider the deep fried mars-bar a foreign food, and not a home grown staple.

Firstly, it is important to note that there is actually no legal impediment to the head of government being from the house of Lords. There is similarly, no legal requirement for the Head of Government to be even a member of the house of commons. But as in all things British, it is not that simple. In Granger's era, the Houses of Parliament were broadly even in their power. The house of Lords and the House of Commons were equals, both being able to introduce all forms of legislation. Economically, the power of the nation was in the hands of the aristocracy, and so the reality was the the Lords had the balance of power. In that respect, the Prime Minister could sit in either house. He also had to have the confidence of the King, and be able to command a majority in Parliament. The requirement to command a majority though was more about being able to effectively pass legislation on behalf of the King. So what we are talking about here is two different roles; the Prime Minister then served an executive sovereign, today he serves a constitutional monarchy. The King would set broad initiatives and requirements, and the Prime Minister would get what he could through parliament, He was also Parliament's man in the cabinet, whose job it was to nudge the King away from foolish policy, and to accept the Will of Parliament when it was contrary to his own. As the commons grew more powerful, and more activist, it did become more important to have the confidence of the commons than the Lords. The Lords also saw themselves as "above" the commons, with a role to guide them, and to clip their more dangerous legislation. Increasingly the Lords was becoming a house dedicated to the revision of laws proposed by the Commons. This makes sense because, the commons being more reformist, they flooded the Lords with legislation that it would never have occurred to the aristocracy to raise. An uneasy truce existed right up until 1911, when the house of Lords refused the pass the governments budget (actually, this is a way more complicated subject, so I'm compressing it down). The Prime Minister at the time introduced the Parliament act, reducing the power of the House of Lords so that they didn't have any authority over "money bills" and could not delay legislation more than 1 year. The Prime Minister, with a renewed electoral mandate, threatened to create hundreds of new peers if the law did not pass, thus ensuring that it WOULD pass one way or another. So from 1911, the supremacy of the commons was asserted. By 1923, George V considered that the requirements of the times meant that he had not option but to appoint from the commons. Similarly, in 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister because Lord Halifax felt that he couldn't accept the job becuase he sat in the House of Lords. By the 1960's, legislation has been introduced to allow a hereditary peer to "disclaim his peerage" for his own lifetime (but his son would inherit the title on death). Alec Douglas Home did indeed disclaim his peerage in order to return to the commons and become Prime Minister. After he stepped down, he was swiftly granted a "life peerage" to return him to the Lords. Now however, times have changed again. Hereditary Peers no longer sit in the House of Lords, and so there is no need to disclaim a title in order to take a seat in the House of Commons. A Duke, or Earl, or anything else, can stand for Parliament now without any problem. So back to the question, back then, the Duke of Portland could happily exercise the office of First Lord of the Treasury (and thus Prime Minister) from the much comfier red seats in the House of Lords.

No, the substantive holder of a title could not hold a seat in the House of Commons while holding a seat in the Lords. A bit like not being a senator while also a congressman. On the titles, there are two things here. The first is the legal entitlement to use a subsidiary title - this entitlement is absolute and cannot be taken away by anyone. HOWEVER, at a lower level, such as a Viscount, the rules are governed by family tradition, as opposed to the law of the land. A family was actually free to choose forms of address within certain strict confines, and I believe that "Lord Ryde" would have been one such occasion. There are actually many examples through history of this happening. Peers could also technically choose their courtesy titles for children in any form. For example, the Duke of Lennox is also the Duke of Gordon, the Dukedom of Gordon being the most junior, and therefor the "senior subsidiary title". However the Eldest son uses the Earldom of March instead, because of a family tradition.

HI There. I've had quite a busy few weeks, and since you haven't been around for it (Where have you BEEN?), I thought I'd update you here. Last time we spoke, i think I was looking at completing a major client software upgrade, and so I will start of from there. The awesome thing about this particular client is that their offices are back in my home region, which means I get to see my family. The terrible thing about this client is.... well, everything else. Everything that could have gone wrong with this software upgrade, DID and quite frankly, 90% of the issues were on the client's side. But after a very stressful 2 days working 18 hours each day, I managed to calm things to the point that I could spend the weekend with my family. Paya arrived up on the train on the Friday, and we spent the Saturday getting drunk with my Dad and his fiancée, and then spent Sunday with Mum and my Grandma, before visiting my Brother and his kids. I love my nephew and nieces to bits, but I sure am glad that I live 200 miles away. I can handle an hour or two, but then the noise starts to get to me. Not so much from the kids, but from the adults. I can;t stand the "baby talk" some adults do with children. Especially when it starts getting loud, high pitched and squealy. We got the train down to London that evening, because the next day I was flying out to Belgrade. Regular readers will know that I go to Belgrade quite often, and I dislike the trip with a passion. That said, the food is AWESOME and I get to drink on the company dime, so it's not too bad. This time, was even better, because the Serbian National Carrier - JAT Airways - has been rebranded as AirSerbia and has a partnership with Ethiad. JAT was the last bastion of communism. The stewardesses looked like matrons in a 1950's hospital and they cared about your comfort and convenience about the same as the commandant of a military prison cares about the comfort and convenience of his inmates. Now though, airSerbia has lovely, attractive stewardesses and some young stewards that, while not hunky, would only take a couple of beers to look great, and in the meantime, it's better than a 60 year old matron with a moustache. Serbia was bitterly cold, with freezing rain and a particularly bad landing at Belgrade airport, so I was very glad later in the week when I got back. I managed to have a nice relaxing weekend with Paya, which was good because the event of the YEAR for my industry was to take place the following week (which brings us up to the week just gone) To anyone who has never been to a software trade fair, it can be a little bit daunting. The industry parlance though is "junket", because there isn't much work involved and lots of freebies. Firstly, vendors are attaching you with free gifts on their stands (pens, notebooks, letter openers, chocolates etc). If they think they have the prospect of a "sale" the gifts get bigger. If you actually ahve the ability to cut them a cheque right there, they will bribe incentive-ise this with iPad's, iPhones, Laptops, trips to Vegas etc etc. In the evenings there are parties, but being a male dominated industry, the biggest party of the year this time flew in 400 models from Israel and Eastern Europe. I say "models", but it's the job of these vendors to keep people happy, and so, I'm sure much more went on. Luckily, I escaped that party this year. Which brings us to this weekend. Paya and I enjoyed a trip to the Tower of London yesterday. We also splurged and booked a 5* hotel in Paris for my Birthday at the start of March. And today is a cooking day, and I'm experimenting by making Poached Partridge and Pears. I'm very much looking forward to two relaxing week's of relative calm before I'm next shoved, kicking and screaming, to Belgrade for yet another company junket. West

Wow. I've not been active here for a while, but I was very surprised at some of the comments and reviews. I knew people here could get very "involved" and agitated, but I never imagined such.... Nastiness. Not to mention of course, that it's FREE fiction.

Sorry for the late reply. I spent much of yesterday at the Tower of London (not on Charges, but a pleasure visit). We saw the crown Jewels for the hundredth time and then we had a meal at the restaurant, and had a wonder around the precinct. We have a "historic royal palaces" membership (hand's up if you're surprised), and it allows us to visit the Tower, Hampton Court, Banquesting House and Kensington Palace free of charge Anyway, onto the subject at hand, refusals are not made public usually. The last one we know about for certain is that Winston Churchill turned down the title of Duke of London. However, there is a reference in the Ffarington Papers, that a member of the Horrocks family was offered the Marquessate of Preston, but turned it down because he had been elected to Parliament and didn't want to give up his seat. Preston is indeed from the word meaning "Priest Town". There is a settlement about 5 miles south called "Leyland" and it literally is the "Land of the Leity". Just one of the many geeky things I find interesting

Again, it was probably a bit Vague from me there. So, you will notice that when there are Dukes of places, they are Dukes of York, Sussex, Edinburgh, Devonshire, Lancaster,Northumberland and so on. These are BIG places. There has never been a "Duke of Hebden Bridge" (a delightful little village famous for it's Lesbian community - no, I'm not joking). So When you come to make titles for a fictional book, that is nonetheless set within a non-fictional "world", you have a number of things to consider. The first is that a Duke is usually of a very large town or county. The problem with that is that most of the big towns and counties are already taken. And the story being set in an Aristocratic Golden Age, our hero George is more than likely going to meet these Dukes. So you can't create a fictional Duke where there was already a contemporary one. Problem 2 is that if you try and MAKE UP a Dukedom, you need to be sure it wont clash with any other titles. You can't have a Duke of Exeter, because there is a Marquess of Exeter - and the King being in the habit of addressing his courtiers by their title, when he says "ah, good to see you Exeter", you wouldn't know who he meant. So while all the BIG places already have Dukes, if you were to look at all the places NEARLY big enough to get away with it, you undoubtedly find that they already have a Marquess, or an Earl, or a Viscount. So... why not just make him the Duke of Hebden Bridge? Well, apart from the obvious (that you don't want george's father to become the patron of Lesbianism), to give him such a small designation would be tantamount to an insult. So in the end you resurrect an extinct Dukedom because it's the only realistic option. Down to the Marquessate, you find similar issues. Preston itself is quite a ... well, dump, to be honest. In modern times at least. But back in 1799 it was a thriving centre of the industrial revolution. Small towns are suddenly becoming important. Manchester was a village just 200 years previously, and was by this time big enough for a "Duke of Manchester" to be created without insult. Preston was the birthplace of Richard Arkwright, who revolutionised "spinning" of cotton and virtually invented the modern factory concept. Weaving was previously a cottage industry. Preston, much like Liverpool and Manchester, sat on a river and was accessible by sea (Manchester only via the Ship Canal). The town built up a thriving cotton trade with its own transport links. it never became as big as Manchester or Liverpool, but it did become an economic powerhouse of the time. It also attracted a lot of poverty too, and so in 1854, when one Charles Dickens came to stay at the Old Bull public house, it prompted him to write the novel "Hard Times". In 1799, it seemed likely that given their stronger economic power, more and more titles would be linked to these industrial towns. Preston stands out because the Marquessate of Preston was actually offered in 1802, but was turned down by the recipient. Hence why no Marquess of Preston exists today and why it could be used so easily in the story. Haverleigh was slightly different. You need a market town (a few hundred people at most) to attach a Baronage to. Geography plays a huge part here because assuming that the barony was the first title granted, it may have even been where the family originally came from. Those options are largely in the south of England. So... that's it. Nothing specific, but a few historic "generalisations" that meant these two places fit fairly well.

George's own arms would be similar to his father, but differenced to show he is a younger son of a Duke, and also to account for his own title and achievements. I think he would keep the Granger thistles and the Bridgemont blue, but also add something from his father in law's crest also. Coat's of arms are issues and approved by the College of arms in London, which is headed by the rather grandly titled "Garter King of Arms". He is one of the lowest paid officers of the state, with a salary of £49 a year.

This is a BIG question that you are asking here. And I spent some time wondering how I can answer this best without having to give a seminar on heraldry. Firstly we should consider the name "Granger". This is an old English name and derives from an occupation, much like "Mercer" or "Smith". A Granger (or Grainger) was a manorial bailiff, managing the Grains, stores and rents on the farm estates. I would imagine that a particular "Granger" at one point became rather successful in his role, maybe bought a few freeholds for himself and (in the same way as the Earls Spencer) made money from wool production. In terms of a coat of arms, we certainly know one colour - that's going to be Bridgemont Blue, which I think would be a variation of the Azure or Purpure tincture common in heraldry, although my suspicion is that this would be the background colour appropriated for flags, banners and standards. We know that the shield would have a coronet on top. As an Earl, there would be Eight Pearls and Eight Strawberry leaves (5 only visible in a 2 dimensional drawing though) on the coronet. As a Duke, the coronet would now have just the eight strawberry leaves (no pearls). As a Knight, he would have on his full arms a helmet of armour. As to what is emblazoned on the shield, it would depend on when the arms were commissioned. While armorial bearings go to the Name, they can be changed or amended when new titles come along. So, when the title "Earl of Bridgemont" was created, I would suggest that the arms would have been changed to reflect that and add something of the new title. Certainly then, "Bridgemont" is a classical candidate for "canting", which is a form of Heraldic "pun" or play on words. I would imagine a representation of a bridge between two mountains (literally, the "mount bridge"). It is possible that upon his marriage, the Earl would have also included some form of arms to represent his marriage, and so there may also be an inclusion of lammert yellow as the field on which the mountains rest would be a nice touch. Historical forms of "Granger" arms have included a golden thistle, and so I would suggest Three golden thistles, on a field of Bridgemont blue, to sit below the bridge motif. Overlaying the shild, would be the circlet of the Order of the Garter, bearing the motto "Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense" There would also be the family motto of some kind, but I can't remember if we have been told what the Granger family motto is. As an aristocrat, he would have "supporters" at either side of his shield (often lions, unicorns, dolphins or some other animal). I would imagine the that the Earl would have lions or griffins, in either the pure rampant or the combatant positions. I've tried to make this as simple as possible, but actually there are millions of variations and I don't know enough about Mark's fictional "Granger History" to make anything more than the educated guesses above. This really is an incredibly complex subject, but in terms of the questions previously asked, I think the fair rule to stick to is "blood is thicker than titles".