Now on to some preliminaries......
Section I: Background
The Sovereign of the Seas
The
Sovereign of the Seas was one of several large, well-decorated warships built in the early seventeenth century. Others included the Danish
Tre Kroner (1606), the English ship
Prince Royal (1610), the Swedish ship
Vasa (1628), Denmark’s
Store Sophie (1627), and the French ship
La Couronne (1636). The
Vasa was built in response to the
Store Sophie, the
Prince Royal (also called the
Royal Prince) was built in response to
Tre Kroner (in fact, the
Prince Royal was likely a copy of
Tre Kroner),
La Couronne was built in response to the
Prince Royal, and the
Sovereign of the Seas was built in response to the
La Courone. This competition among monarchs to own the biggest and most highly decorated vessel caused warships to become symbols of cultural and political power. (Redding 2018) Indeed, King Charles I chose the name
Sovereign of the Seas because of its political connotations. There was an ongoing debate over whether the sea should be open to all. The English considered the English Channel theirs, and the name
Sovereign of the Seas emphasized the point. (Redding 2018) Unfortunately for the King, this ship also had other political connotations.
The
Sovereign was controversial. Some thought it was too expensive. Others thought it was too big. Still others were angered by a new tax that was levied while it was being built, a tax whose purpose, they thought, was to raise money to pay for this ship.
No small amount of this ship’s expense was due to its decorations. The
Sovereign was probably the most richly decorated ship of all time. Its decorations, unlike those of other ships, were gilded. This increased the expense. It was done at the command of the King, who ordered;
“The head with all carved work thereof, and the rails to be all gilt, and no other colour used thereupon but black. The stern and galleries to be gilt with gold and black in the same manner, with the rails on them to be all likewise gilt with gold. The sides to be all carved work, according to the draught, which was presented to his Majesty and that carved work to be all gilt with gold, and all the rails of the sides to be likewise gilt with gold and no other colour to be used on the sides but black. Also, the figures in the upper strake to be altered into badges of carved work answerable to the other strake, that runs fair with it, and to be gilt answerable to the rest.” (Sephton 2011, 37) (Ball and Stephens 2018, 45-46) (Hamilton and Lomas 1987).
The gilding was not limited to the ships’ outside. Thomas Baskerville, who visited the
Sovereign, tells us that “The King’s cabin is richly painted and gilded, and so is the great cabin…” (Baskerville 1893, 277)
Among the
Sovereign’s decorations were its large lanterns. Heywood describes them in a longwindedly entitled brochure “A True Description of His Majesties Royall Ship, Built this Yeare 1637 at Wooll-witch in KENT. To the great glory of our English Nation, and not paraleld in the whole Christian World.” (Heywood 1637) He tells us that “she beareth five Lanthornes, the biggest of which will hold ten persons to stand upright, and without shouldring or pressing one the other.”
[1]
Entering the
Sovereign’s stern lantern was apparently part of the tour given to those who visited it. Thomas Baskerville went inside of it and said “in the lanthorn, that erected in the midst of the stern, I stood upright, it being capacious enough to receive the properest man in England standing upright." (Baskerville 1893, 277) Samuel Pepys, noted diarist and lecher, also went in. His diary entry for Tuesday, April 9, 1661 reads “I put my Lady, Mrs. Turner, Mrs. Hempson, and the two Mrs. Allens into the lantern and I went in and kissed them, demanding it as a fee due to a principall officer…” (Fox 1980, 37).
These decorations, and particularly those that were inboard, may not have impressed the ordinary seamen who crewed the
Sovereign. Experience taught the sailors of several ships that decorations could splinter when hit by enemy artillery, and casualties were the result. It was not unusual for their crews to chop the decorations away before going into battle. The Royal Navy eventually agreed (but only after a long delay), and forbade inboard decorations by the end of the 17th century. (Fox 1980, 36) The Admiralty took further steps to limit outlandish decorations in the early 1700’s by limiting the cost of decorations on a First-Rate ship to £500 (Howard 1979)
Although the decorations caused the
Sovereign to be wildly expensive, this is not the only reason it was controversial. It was larger than any other ship of its time, coming in at 1522 tons as built, with three gun decks and a keel that was 127 feet long. Approximately 2,500 oak trees were felled to build it, and two smaller ships were created from its waste.
King Charles’ proposal to build a ship so big horrified the Masters of Trinity House. They had previously thought that the 3-decked
Prince Royal was a mistake, and were even less happy about yet another 3-decker. Their opinion was that “neither can the art or wit of man build a ship well conditioned and fit for service with three tier of ordnance.” (Fox 1980, 33) They continued by saying;
"There is no port in the Kingdome that can harbour this shipp. The wild sea must bee her port, her anchors and cables her safety; if either fayle, the shipp must perish, the King lose his jewel, four or five hundred man must die, and perhaps some great and noble peer" (cited in (McKay 2020, 286)
The Masters were not alone in their feelings about large ships. The English had long known that smaller ships were more maneuverable and, under the reign of Elizabeth I, no warship over 800 tons was built. The Newton Manuscript (Barker 1994) written in about 1600 and copied by Isaac Newton, expands on the benefits of smaller ships:
“the fittest ships for war are ships of 4, 6 and 6 hundred tunns ffor ships of these burdens will be nimble to work with & will be able to give both their sides of ordinance to the greater ships once & to carry as good ordinance & then there may be two ships built to ye charge of one so great ship & yet one of these small ships able to do better service at most times then (sic) such great ships of so huge bigness & be able to pass in or out to any harbor with less danger on any sudden occasion, as it doth often times happen.”
The author of the Newton Manuscript had such disdain for large ships that he continued by saying:
“I know by experience that for those parts as in other seas, never make any ship longer than 110 foot by the keel nor broader then (sic) 40 foot
[2] nor to draw more water than 18 foot. A ship of this proportion is the biggest that can be made, & to be fit for service ffor being of greater proportion it doth make them so great of burden that their masts yards sailes cables ankers & tackling wch must be answerable unto ye burthen to be so great & boysterous that it doth require great charge much help & long time to work with: by wch means they are oftentimes subject to greater danger of shipwrack. Wheras lesser ships are more free & yet better of service at most times.”
The
Sovereign of the Seas exceeded all three dimensions mentioned by the Newton Manuscript’s author. It was not unique in this. It was part of a trend in English warships that continued until they essentially returned to the concept of the Elizabethan “race-built” galleon by introducing the frigate in the 1640’s. (Fox 1980)
The
Sovereign’s large size allowed it to be heavily armed. It carried 102 guns (Caruna 1994, 63), making it the first ship in the English navy to carry more than 100 of them. It was originally planned to carry 90, but King Charles changed it while inspecting the ship on December 7, 1637. (Calendar of State Papers 18 Dec 1637) The addition appears to be impulsive. It happened two months after it was launched, and at about the time it was already being armed. Its guns were made of bronze, partly because the process of manufacturing guns made of iron had not yet been worked out. Also, bronze did not rust in the presence of sea water. Bronze was expensive. The guns’ expense increased because they were decorated. Each gun was inscribed with the initials “CR” which stands for
Carolus Rex or “King Charles,” and “the [Tudor] rose and crown, the scepter and tridents, the anchor and cable, and a compartment under the rose and crown with this inscription: “Carolus Edgari sceptrum stabilivit aquarum” (Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1638), which translates as “Charles has firmly grasped Edgar's scepter of the seas.”
The large number of guns on the
Sovereign did not convince everyone that it would be an effective warship. The Masters of Trinity House were among them. They noted that the “aim must be for three tier of ordnance.” There were, in their minds, only two outcomes to this, and both were bad. The first was that the lowest tier would be “so low that in every gale of wind the ports must be shut in, or else the ship will be in great danger, or sink, as the Mary Rose in King Henry the VIII’s time at Portsmouth.” Alternatively, the lowest tier could be laid at “5 or 5 ½ foot”
[3] and, in this case, “must the third tier lie at a height as not to be serviceable, nay this third tier will rather endanger the quality of the ship (as the too high building hath in some of the kings’ ships lately built, made them unfit for any good service.”
The Masters’ opinions were not unfounded. The original
Sovereign did not sail well, and this may have been part of the reason it was not used in battle until about 15 years after its launch, and only after it had been modified to make it more stable. We can therefore think of the
Sovereign as two ships. (Redding 2018)The first was the original ship, which was more of an attraction meant to symbolize power and prestige than a warship. James Sephton may have best described the original ship’s purpose by saying “As she rode majestically in her moorings in the element for which she was designed, her colossal size and rich adornment must surely have created a focus of attention to all those who could travel to visit her or view her from a distance.” (Sephton 2011, 44) (Redding 2018) The focus of the present thread is on this version of the
Sovereign. To repeat; this ship was never used in battle.
The second ship that was the
Sovereign was the
Sovereign ship modified, beginning in 1651, to be a functional warship. When used as such, it was an effective vessel. For example, it successfully fought off 20 ships in 1652, and sank one of them with a single broadside. (Sephton 2011, 146) Nevertheless, it was not used in battle as frequently as other ships. Part of this was because it had “embarrassingly short range” guns, and part was because large ships were not maneuverable. (Redding 2018) The fact that it was expensive to put this ship to sea may have also been a consideration. Putting it to sea meant a large crew had to be paid and fed. It meant that the ship had to be stocked with shot and gunpowder. These things were expensive. Putting it to sea also increased the wear and tear on this ship, particularly if it encountered rough seas. This would increase its maintenance costs. Although ships that were laid up were more prone to rot, ships at sea required repairs of their rudders, masts and yards, capstans, knees, beams, scuppers, hearths, and more. Because of all this wear and tear, ships of this era spent about half of their lifetimes undergoing repair. (Endsor 2020). This was also expensive. Putting the
Sovereign into battle had the potential to be even more expensive than usual. It increased the possibility that its gilded decorations would be damaged, and they would have to be repaired or replaced.
The
Sovereign cost £40,833 8s. 1½d., not including the cost of its ordnance, which cost an additional £24,753 8s. 8d. Contrary to common belief, and although it was built during the time of a “ship tax” levied by King Charles I, the
Sovereign’s funding did not come from this tax. The ship tax was levied on a county-by-county basis in which each county paid for one ship. No single county could afford the
Sovereign of the Seas so its funding came from royal funds. (Redding 2018)
Although this may be true, perception is often more important than reality, and contemporary perception was different. Diarist John Evelyn wrote in his diary in 1641:
On the 19th of July,
[4] we made a short excursion to Rochester, and having seen the cathedral went to Chatham to see the Royal Sovereign, a glorious vessel of burden lately built there, being for defense and ornament, the richest that ever spread cloth before the wind. She carried an hundred brass cannon, and was 1,200 tons; a rare sailer, the work of the famous Phineas Pett, inventor of the frigate-fashion of building, to this day practiced. But what is to be deplored as to this vessel is, that it cost his Majesty the affections of his subjects, perverted by the malcontent of great ones, who took occasion to quarrel for his having raised a very slight tax for the building of this, and equipping the rest of the navy, without an act of Parliament; though, by the suffrages of the major part of the Judges the King might legally do in times of imminent danger, of which his Majesty was best apprised. But this not satisfying a jealous party, it was condemned as unprecedented, and not justifiable as to the Royal prerogative; and, accordingly, the Judges were removed out of their places, fined, and imprisoned.” (Evelyn 1901, 48)
Regardless of who is correct, the ship tax had previously been imposed only on coastal towns. King Charles extended it inland. He did so in a series of three writs that began in August of 1635. This tax played a part in causing the English Civil war, which resulted in King Charles losing his crown and his head.
The Puritans fought against King Charles in this war, and the
Sovereign of the Seas must have been something of a public relations disaster with them. The gilding of this ship almost certainly angered them. They must have also been angered by the color black. Contrary to today’s contemporary films, the Puritans considered this color officious, not plain enough, and never wore it. (Fischer 1989, pg 140) Besides, black dye was expensive, and it faded quickly. The Puritans wore the “sadd colors,” which were earth tones, chosen because they were subdued. (Fischer 1989, pg 140) It seems likely that King Charles would be aware of the impact that the ornamentation and color of his ship would have upon the them.
The
Sovereign was launched on October 14, 1637. “Launched” does not mean that the ship was finished at this time. It was unarmed when launched. In fact, its guns weren’t even proved until the spring of 1638 (Sephton 2011, 05) Its rigging was also not completed until about the same time. (Sephton 2011, 43)
On “2d February, 1696.
[5] John Evelyn wrote in his diary “An extraordinary wet season, though temperate as to cold. The ‘Royal Sovereign’ man- of-war burned at Chatham. It was built in 1637, and having given occasion to the levy of ship money was perhaps the cause of all the after troubles to this day.” (Evelyn 1901, 356). Prevailing thinking is that the fire was accidently set, caused perhaps by a keeper who negligently left a candle burning his cabin, or a drunken watchman who knocked over a lantern.
References
Ball, Nick, and Simons Stephens. 2018.
Navy Board Ship Models. Barnsley (UK): Seaforth Publishing.
Barker, Richard. 1994. "A Manuscript on Shipbuilding, Circa 1600, Copied by Newton."
The Mariner's Mirror. 80 16-29.
Baskerville, Thomas. 1893.
Thomas Baskerville's Journeys in England. Vol. 2, in
The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, by Historical Manuscripts Commission, 263-314. Londand.
Calendar of State Papers Domestic. 1638.
Charles I, 1637-8. Vols. 387, April 1-17. Edited by John Bruce. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1869. London: British History Online, Charles i - volume 387 April 1-17. Accessed June 20, 2020. British History Online,
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1637-8/pp341-369.
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic. 18 Dec 1637.
Charles I. Vol. SP 18/374 No. 20.
Caruna, Adrian B. 1994.
The History of English Sea Ordnance, 1523-1875, Vol 1. Rotherfield, England: Jean Boudroit Publications.
Endsor, Richard. 2020.
The Master Shipwright's Secrets. New York: Osprey Publishing.
Evelyn, John. 1901.
The Diary of John Evelyn. Edited by William Bray. Vols. 2 (1665-1706). 2 vols. New York and London: M. Walter Dunn.
Evelyn, John. 1901.
The Diary of John Evelyn. Vols. 1 (1629-1664), edited by William Bray. New York and London: M. Walter Dunne.
Fischer, David Hackett. 1989.
Albion's Seed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Frank. 1980.
Great Ships. London: Conway Maritime Press.
Hamilton, William Douglas, and Sophie Crawford Lomas, 1987. "Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I 1625 - 49, Addena." (Her Majesty's Stationery Office) 525-528.
Heywood, Thomas. 1637.
A True Description of His Majesties Royall Ship, Built this Yeare 1637 at Wooll-witch in Kent. To the great glory of the English Nation and not paraleld in the whole Christian World. London: John Oakes.
Howard, Frank. 1979.
Sailing Ships of War 1400 - 1860. New York: Mayflower.
McKay, John. 2020.
Sovereign of the Seas 1637. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Seaforth Publishing.
Redding, Benjamin W.D. 2018. "A Ship 'For Which Great Neptune Raves': The Sovereign of the Seas, La Couronne, and the Seventeenth Century International Competition over Warship Design."
The Mariner' Mirror. 104: 402-422.
Sephton, James. 2011.
The Sovereign of the Seas. Stroud: Amberly Publishing.
[1]Heywood’s leaflet was printed in 1637 by Iohn Okes, for Iohn Aston. This was before buildings had street numbers, so it was “to bee sold at his shop in Cat-eaten streete at the signe of the Buls-head.
[2] Despite the admonishments, the author of the Newton Manuscript tables data for ships with keels that are 120 feet long, and whose breadths range from 40 to 44 feet.
[3] We will later see that the
Sovereign’s ports were five feet above the water.
[4] This date is expressed in terms of the Julian calendar. In terms of our present calendar, the Gregorian calendar, it is July 9.
[5] This date is a Julian calendar date. When expressed in terms of our current Gregorian calendar, the date is Sunday, February 12, 1696. Evelyn’s entry date suggest that he may not have heard about the fire for about two weeks. The
Sovereign had actually burned in mid-January.
).
