Elaborating on my previous post, copies of the comments on John McKay's book are provided here:
In the acknowledgements to his book, Sovereign of the Seas 1637, John McKay thanks me for advising him on the ship's design. What he does not say is that he rejected most of what I told him, did not ask me about many subjects on which I could have offered help, and I most definitely do not want readers to think that I endorse the results.
He commits a gross error in giving an English warship of 1637 a square-tuck stern. A round tuck was adopted by English shipwrights by at least 1616, with a period of transition earlier. By 1620-23, when Sir Henry Mainwaring compiled his Seaman's Dictionary, the stern timbers and planking near the waterline in English ships were already called "buttocks" because of their convex shape. There are about a dozen careful stern view drawings and paintings by marine artists, especially Willem van de Velde the Elder, of English ships built or rebuilt in or before 1637, and one draft. All show round tucks, none square. Mr. McKay goes so far as to claim that master shipwright Sir Anthony Deane shows square tucks in his designs around 1670. They in fact show nothing whatever of the shape of their sterns. Deane's large ships all had normal round tucks as shown by numerous drawings, paintings, and dockyard models. Mr. McKay's authority for the square stern is the portrait of shipwright Peter Pett (who built the Sovereign to his father Phineas's design) attributed to Sir Peter Lely. This shows conflicting evidence; it has the knuckles of a square stern, but the stern planking is curved as in a round tuck. In square-tuck ships, the planking is dead straight and diagonal. Mr. McKay ignores the carvings design superimposed on the above-water draft by Peter Pett in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, which he reproduces. This clearly shows shading at the lower corner of the stern, proving a round tuck. Why would one accept the ambiguous evidence of a Dutch portrait painter with no marine art to his credit over that of the shipwright who built the vessel? There is in fact an anachronistic painting in the National Maritime Museum, London, by Jacob Knyff portraying the ship as she appeared in the 1650s (royal arms and insignia removed); it shows a round tuck.
This book not only shows a square stern, but a bizarre square stern in which the flat portion extends below the waterline almost to the keel. This would absolutely ensure a rough, turbulent flow of water to the rudder, which would thereby be rendered quite useless. The rudder itself has problems. Its head extends partly into a huge hole in the counter as in the 18th century, and the tiller enters the hull beneath the upper deck rather than beneath the middle deck as it should. There is no sign of a sweep for the tiller and no gooseneck. From the text, the author seems not to understand that the whipstaff slid THROUGH the rowle right to its end, which is why the helm could swing 20 degrees.
The next major mistake is the falls (abrupt step-downs) in the decks. These had been condemned by the Naval Reform Commission of 1618. The designer's dimensions list for the Sovereign unequivocally states, "All the decks flush fore and aft," and Peter Pett's draft at Boston shows them flush. Why would Mr. McKay ignore direct evidence from the designer and the builder? The author is swayed by a drawing by Van de Velde the Elder showing the middle deck ports under the quarter-gallery lower than the others. Though Mr. McKay supposes this was an early drawing, it was actually made in the mid-1670s, as shown by the little bridge therein which is first mentioned at that time as running to the landing stage at the ship's mooring off Gillingham. The drawing is a copy of the decorations and features in the famous Payne engraving, superimposed on the hull Van de Velde saw in the 1670s (it is actually a cut-out pasted in over his original). That it is copied from Payne is proven by both sharing the same curious mistake: the grating over the halfdeck extends only part way up the door in the quarterdeck bulkhead. People under the grating would have had to crawl around on hands and knees, or duck-walk. The explanation is that John Payne, as known from a documentary source, drew the ship in drydock well before her launching. The grating was undoubtedly still under construction, resting on sawhorses or some such, and had not yet been raised into position. The reason for the differing height of the middle deck gunports in the Van de Velde version is that in the ship's rebuilding in 1659-60, the decks had been re-laid about 18 inches higher at the side than in the original, and the draft increased by some three feet. With the quarter-gallery thereby becoming lower relative to the deck, gunports could no longer fit under them. Two Van de Velde drawings of the Sovereign in 1673 and a painting of 1678 formerly at Lowther Castle show that there were NO middle deck gunports under the gallery after 1660. For Van de Velde to show them there as in the Payne engraving, he had to place them lower than the other ports which had been raised.
The framing shown by Mr. McKay is nothing like that of a 17th-century ship. He shows huge gaps between floors and first futtocks. For what these should be like, I recommend Richard Endsor's new book, The Master Shipwright's Secrets. This shows that the floors and first futtocks were bolted together at the frame bend stations, timbers between laid in loose, and the density of framing almost solid in the lower parts of the hull, and drastically reduced in the upper portions. This Mr. McKay could have known even from the preserved framing of the Tudor ship Mary Rose.
There are many other errors. There are no chocks at the timber heads. The riders are of 18th-century form, extended upwards by complex scarfs which weren't used for these in the 17th century. Mr. McKay shows the main pumps as brake pumps, though large English ships used chain pumps by at least the early 1620s. He shows a triple crab capstan with holes for bars on all levels, whereas English three-deckers had two double jeer capstans operated only from the upper level, and no belowdecks spindle. The position deep in the hold shown for the cook-room is improbable. If not in the forecastle or on the second deck below the forecastle, it would have been on a platform laid on false beams beneath the gundeck under the waist. Mr. McKay seems not to realize that the term "orlop" before the mid-1660s meant the gundeck. Below the orlop/gundeck, big English ships before the 1660s had heavy "false beams" supporting a series of platforms which were not a continuous deck.
Then there are the guns. Mr. McKay misunderstands the Sovereign's "drake" guns. In these the whole bore was not tapered as he supposes, but just the chamber. It was designed for small charges, so that a thin-walled weapon could fire a large-caliber ball for the gun weight. Drakes had a very short range and a violent recoil. The cannon-of-seven fired a shot weighing 42 pounds, not 60 as he says, and was in use in the Royal Navy until the mid-1780s. He also shows four-truck gun carriages, while the carriages made for the Sovereign were all drake carriages with "whole trucks and half trucks;" that is, semi-circular skids at the rear end to slow the ferocious recoil. Also, a dedicated train tackle (he indicates two per gun) was not issued to British sea gunners until the second half of the 18th century.
Even the ship's history is incomplete. Mr McKay omits three great actions in which the Sovereign took a major part: Solebay and the two Schooneveld battles, in the last of which the Sovereign was the fleet flagship for the first time. It is also untrue that Robert Lee, who rebuilt the ship in 1684-85, said her original timbers had never been changed. He said the SHAPE of the original timbers had not been changed.
Overall, this book is characterized by draftsmanship of marvelous quality, and many may buy it for that reason alone. But Mr. McKay's research was doomed by a lack of understanding of the context of his sources, and of Early Stuart shipbuilding practices. Thus, any modellists who attempt to recreate the Sovereign of the Seas based on this book are going to get badly inaccurate results.
Frank L Fox
When I first found out that this book would be published I was really enthused about it and eager to purchase it. One look at the dust jacket on Amazon, however, immediately made me skeptical. I'll explain why shortly. In spite of my misgivings I ordered the book. I had owned some of the author's previous works and admired their quality. His drafting skill is world class and I assumed that there would be drawings that would make it worth the buy. There are many excellent drawings of the ship's carvings that I like. And, as usual, all the drawings are beautifully done. Having said that I'll now move on to the bad news.
The stern on his reconstruction is an absolute joke. I'm a ship model builder and I've been researching this ship for a long time. Throughout this research I've had the help of experts who are unquestioned authorities on the seventeenth century royal navy. I'll take opinions from people like that any day. They've devoted their lives to this and can access information that few people are even aware of. That includes the author of this book. I can assure you that my opinions about this ship are the same as theirs.
I'll deal with the square tuck McKay favors first. For those not familiar with the term it refers to the area immediately below the wing transom. This is also sometimes called the main transom. I've included a picture of an actual square tuck on a 4th rate ship of about 1691. Ships of this size and smaller sometimes had these tucks but larger ships never. You can clearly see the planking on the tuck. The author comes to his conclusion about the square tuck on the Sovereign on some rather flimsy evidence. There is a well known painting which includes a view of the stern of this ship. This picture is the only evidence of any kind that supposedly shows a square tuck. The problem is that it's impossible to tell what it really means. I've attached an enlargement of the picture so you can follow me. At first glance it does look as if it shows a square tuck. On further inspection, however, you'll notice that the planking on the tuck is curved. And the curves of the plank are angled exactly the way they would be for a round tuck. A square tuck would have straight planks just as they are on the 4th rate model. It's hard to say what's going on here. The artist may have been confused about what he was looking at. Who knows? What I do know is this. This painting is worthless as proof of anything because it seems to show two different things for the same area. Of course McKay has taken care of this little problem by simply making the planks straight on his reconstruction drawing taken from the painting. The evidence for a round tuck is pretty straightforward. The preliminary draft for the ship has this area shaded in a way which clearly means rounded. McKay seems to think that the round tuck was something unusual at the time when the Sovereign was built but there are several pictures of large ships built between 1623 and the year she was launched and they all have round tucks. From that period and to the end of the century there are no pictures and no models of large ships with anything but round tucks. None. That includes the Sovereign. It would appear that during that time the round tuck had become the standard for 3rd rate ships and above. It's hardly likely that they would have backslid and put an outmoded stern on a ship of this importance. Especially since it happened to be the king's pet project. And one more thing to finish this subject. Not only does McKay give the ship a square tuck but he continues the flat stern all the way down to the keel! Neither I nor anyone I've talked to about this has ever seen such a stern on any seventeenth century English ship. Possibly he could explain how a clean run of water would get to the rudder.
The second item I totally disagree with are the falls in the decks. I believe that he primarily bases his deck fall theory on the Van de Velde drawing that was done somewhere around 1661. The drawing is obviously based to a great extent on the Payne print which was done right after the launch of the ship. The two aftermost middle deck gun ports in this drawing are well below the others. The ship was launched in 1637 and had documented rebuilds in 1651 and 1659-1660. The deck heights were definitely altered in the last one. So the artist couldn't have ever actually seen it in its original form and that's what we're concerned with here. Obviously, the drawing cannot be considered a reliable source of information for the ship in its early form. This one drawing is the only indication of anything but flush decks in any visual representation of the ship. All other drawings starting from the original draft and going on to the last ones later in its career show flush decks. The preponderance of the evidence is definitely in favor of flush decks. And one more thing. The biggest English ship before the Sovereign was the Prince Royal which launched in 1610 and it also was designed by Phineas Pett. It did have deck falls but these were deemed unnecessary by a 1618 commission and the ship was given flush decks in a 1623 alteration.
And now we turn our attention once more to the stern painting that McKay has such great faith in. This rendition of the stern is far from perfect but I'm simply going to concentrate on one of them because I know it caused what I and the experts consider a massive blunder. In the painting the rudder head is shown as being above the middle deck chase ports. From this McKay has brought the tiller in directly below the upper deck beams and has the whipstaff on the upper deck. I challenge him or anyone else to show me a picture or a contemporary model of a large seventeenth century ship with that arrangement. The rudder head and tiller are always just under the middle deck on a three decker and under the upper deck on a two decker. No exceptions. All other depictions of the Sovereign where this is visible have it entering in the standard position. I wouldn't trust the stern painting for anything other than the carvings. I definitely wouldn't even consider trying to get deck placements from it. One thing that has to be kept in mind when dealing with this vessel is that it was a pioneer in size, armament and the sheer scale of its ornamentation but in other respects it probably adhered to the standards in place when it was built.
The last thing I'll mention is this. All the juggling he's done with the stern area and the decks has led to the quarter galleries being out of whack. If you look at his isometric drawing of the stern and the adjacent quarter gallery you can easily see that the gallery doesn't line up with the stern well at all. The upper stern windows are way above their counterparts on the gallery. The aftermost window on the gallery should line up with its partner on the stern. This holds true for everything that exists on both the galleries and the stern. This is the case for every model and picture of the period. Everything was always in perfect alignment. And to repeat something I said earlier - this was the king's baby. Does anyone really think that these decorative elements would not have been in perfect harmony? The shipwrights would have done whatever they had to do to make sure it all was in perfect order. All you have to do is use your head on this one.
I'll finish by saying that when I drew my plan for my model it took very little effort to make everything line up properly with flush decks. Starting 20' in front of the mizzen I gradually increased the gap between the upper main wale and the lower channel wale to get an additional 10" at the stern. I did the same between the upper channel wale and the wale above it. This was frequently done all through this period and is mentioned in a well known manuscript. When I laid in the gallery after doing this everything in this area lined up with the stern. The horizontal carving panels under the quarter gallery windows match up right on the money with their stern counterparts and so do the windows. And, yes, all the chase gun ports are in the correct positions.
One thing I'm absolutely sure of is that none of his arguments in his book will influence me to alter in any way what I'm doing with my model.
Charles Aldridge