Talk:HMS Bounty

Pandora's relation to Bounty
It is not clear how the Pandora is related to the Bounty in this article. 204.65.0.20 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Move back to HMS Bounty
Google gives these statistics for the different versions of Bounty's title:


 * about 212,000 for "HMS Bounty"


 * about 10,400 for "HMAV Bounty"


 * about 776 for "HM Armed Vessel Bounty"

Of these three choices, verifiable contemporary sources are available for the first and third. Many have asserted that "HMAV" is the correct prefix but this appears to be an erroneous assumption dating no earlier than mid twentieth century. If you disagree then please supply some evidence to support your argument.

Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia guidelines also require that names are used in an historically accurate context.

This article is a complete mess at present. The first step to putting it straight is to give it the correct name.

--Petecarney (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll reply both to this and to the comment on my talk page. First of all, my issue was not as much with the move as the way it was done. Moves should be discussed at Requested moves, or at least brought up on the talk page with time for discussion. More important than this, however, is that cut and paste moves are not used, instead we use the "move this page" option. In this case this would involve deletion of the target page to clear way, which is all the more reason why a requested move is necessary. If this seems like unnecessary red tape, there is a reason for it: cut/paste moves do not retain the article history, which is important.
 * As for the correct title, that is certainly something to be discussed. I created this article a little while ago by pulling information pertaining to the ship out of the mutiny on the Bounty article. Noticing the controversy at the bottom of the article as to the correct title, I decided to call it simply "Bounty", which of course needed the disambiguating parentheses. I'm no expert, but at least one source indicates that the ship predates the use of the prefix "HMS". While it is often referred to as "HMS Bounty" today (hence the google hits, which cannot be relied upon as a reliable source) exactly what it was called by contemporaries seems not to be consistent (taking the medical book referred to int he article, for example). It seems the controversy is not so much whether she was "His Majesty's Ship the Bounty" but whether that was ever abbreviated to "HMS" at the time, so moving the article to His Majesty's Ship the Bounty could work, but that seems overly long and convoluted. That it was called "Bounty" is something everyone can agree on, regardless of prefixes, so that is why, for the moment, it is here. I have no strong feelings on the matter; I merely wish that it is first discussed, then, if moved, moved correctly. -R. fiend (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that moves should be done according to the policies. Cutting and pasting should NEVER be used, because it violates GFDL rights.  In particular, it totally violates the rights previous contributors of the cut and pasted material continue to retain.  They are entitled to have their contributions attributed to them.  We do this through the history mechanism.  Cutting and pasting material can make it very difficult, or in the worst cases, impossible, to determine who was the original author of that material.


 * In my opinion we should have articles not only on the original vessel, but also on each of the replicas. In addition to the 1962 and 1984 replicas -- which were meant to be reasonably accurate, there were replicas built for the earlier films.


 * Back in the 1990s I was a member of a mailing list for discussing nautical fiction and nautical history. Several of my correspondents on this list were notable authors of nautical material.  One of my correspondents on that list had done very considerable research on the 1930 replicas.  They were built when real sailing vessels were still in use, or had recently been retired.  I remember that in his research he had found that at least one of those replicas was built around a schooner that had been used as a merchant vessel.  It had new masts added, a false hull added to its real hull, and considerable concrete added as ballast.  A replica of HMS Pandora was also built.  IIRC he found the resting place of these vessels just off Catalina Island.


 * Some might agree that the main information on the replicas shouldn't be in the article on the original vessel, but think that all the replicas should be shoehorned into a single article. I would disagree.  The 1962 vessel, in particular, has had a long history after the film.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that moving the page like that was a wrong step. The article should continue to develop in its present incarnation and I'll put together a complete statement of my arguments for a future name change debate according to the proper protcol. Cheers. --Petecarney (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Returning to a VERY OLD discussion, I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that the correct prefixed name should be HM Sloop Bounty. If this is correct then it might explain the use of HMS, with the 'S" standing for sloop, not ship. This might explain the majority choice of HMS. The Greenwich museum uses HM Sloop Bounty. I'm no expert though, just someone with a niggling doubt that HMShip is wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This proposal is to rename this article to either HM Armed Vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty There has been considerable disagreement over how the Bounty article should be titled. It's well known that this ship had two titles: a "common language" title and a different "commissioned" title, for many purposes used interchangeably.

Historical sources attest authentic short forms of each:


 * The common language title: "HMS" -  Bradley, Barrow.


 * The commissioned title: "HM Armed Vessel" -  Edwards, Flinders (both referring to armed vessels other than Bounty, ie. Supply and Porpoise).

The prefix "HMAV" has popularly been attached to Bounty in recent years but it does not occur in any of the well known historical sources:


 * eg. Bligh, Rutter(Court-Martial), Rutter(Turbulent Journey),Rutter(Bounty Log), Mackaness,

or any other authentic source that I know of, but it was used erroneously in the film The Bounty and was used in the twentieth century for some specialised transport ships but these were Army Vessels, not Armed Vessels. I have found a couple instances of "HMAV" in early 19th century records, for other ships but not enough to suggest any real currency. I have not found any use in connection to Bounty dating prior to WW2, therefore I feel it should be deprecated, - but perhaps someone knows of a source I have overlooked?

Maritime museums generally prefer "HMS" while "HM Armed Vessel" has been favoured by some academics eg. C Knight, Greg Dening.

In short "HMS Bounty" and "HM Armed Vessel" both meet the criteria for historically accurate article titles but "HMAV Bounty" does not.

If we rely on Google then "HMS" wins by a big margin so the naming conventions suggest the article name should be "HMS Bounty". However one idea would be to employ both historical short titles by using "HM Armed Vessel" as the article's title and "HMS" as the subject of the first sentence, eg.

HM Armed Vessel Bounty

HMS Bounty, the scene of a celebrated mutiny in 1789, was originally a merchant sailing ship the Bethia, purchased by the British Admiralty, then modified and commissioned as His Majesty's Armed Vessel the Bounty for a botanical mission to the Pacific Ocean.

This may seem a convoluted way of doing things but it might be a way to satisfy all parties without resorting to ugly fence-sitting. It might be more conventional, but to my mind less elegant, to say "HM Armed Vessel Bounty also known as HMS Bounty..." or "HMS Bounty also known as HM Armed Vessel Bounty...". The style guide does allow for different forms between title and first sentence. "HMAV" should be mentioned in context of the film and the replica, but preferably not in the lead without distinguishing it from the more historically attested titles.

Please say what you think of this or propose an alternative solution - even to leave it as it is. I hope as many editors as possible to take the time to contribute to this discussion with the goal of reaching a durable consensus. --Petecarney (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy says to use the most common unambiguous name, and that is clearly HMS Bounty in this case - so that should be the title. All other names should be mentioned and explained in the text though. Knepflerle (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * HMS Bounty seems to be the most common name for the ship, including when mentioned on TV and in movies. I support moving it to that.  TJ   Spyke   17:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Most people know of the Bounty from "Mutiny of the Bounty" and have never heard of "HMS Bounty" - to argue that "HMS Bounty" is better known than "Bounty" is patently absurd.  The current title is perfect: it accurately  identifies the most common name by which the article topic is known ("Bounty") and appropriately disambiguates it from other uses of that name by indicating that this Bounty is the ship.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well. Broadly, it is our policy not to use pre-nominals for ships where there is doubt in the matter. There certainly is doubt here. If we must do, I would prefer 'HMS' to 'HMAV' (did anyone ever use the abbreviation HMAV???) The Land (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support the move to HMS Bounty. Im my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience this is the name the ship is best known with. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support move from present title. Prefer HMAV Bounty. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support moving to HMS Bounty as per the usual ship naming conventions. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support moving to HMS Bounty per WP:NC-SHIPS, with the proviso that the other names are mentioned in the lead and are also redirects. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:NC-SHIPS supports any prefix. It says "Do not make up a ship prefix for a navy that did not use one" and it is fairly clear that the Royal Navy at the time did not contract "His Majesty's Ship" to "HMS". So the guidelines indicate we should keep the article where it is. The Land (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this part of WP:NC-SHIPS (which supports my comment above)?"However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice"
 * — Bellhalla (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now WP editors are renaming historic ships? How could anyone propose or support such a blatant violation of WP:OR?  Unbelievable.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What original research? The prefix is not part of the ship's name, so there is no renaming going on there, and as was already mentioned, it is almost universal for historians to apply the HMS prefix back through history, so it would just be following established practice; to me it would suggest that renaming the article as proposed is the correct thing to do. Martocticvs (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, there are some references to "HMS Bounty" out there, but they are hardly numerous enough to claim that that this the most common name, or more common than just "Bounty".
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 3,800,000 for "Bounty" ship
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 3,520,000 for "Bounty" ship -HMS
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 197,000 for "HMS Bounty".
 * It's not even close. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support to HMS Bounty. 'H.M.S.' came into use at the end of the 18th century as far as I am aware (and the term His/Her Majesty's Ship dating from sometime after the Restoration in 1660); but HMS is applied universally to Royal Navy ships certainly as far back as 1660, and usually earlier even than that. Another consideration is that people are aware that Bounty was British, and British ships have HMS before the name - so I would suggest that people would be more expectant of finding information about Bounty at HMS Bounty than elsewhere. Martocticvs (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support And ensure that there are redirects in place, mentions on relevant disambig pages and all alternative names for this ship are in bold in the lead section. Additionally, the other two "Bounty's" included in this article should be broken out to articles of their own. --Brad (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the vessel was called to as "His Majesty's Ship Bounty" but contemporaries did not shorten "His Majesty's ship" to HMV, then why not move to it "His Majesty's Ship Bounty"? I don't have any strong opinions on where this is moved, if it is moved at all, but we should be able to reach some sort of consensus. As for separate articles on the replicas, that doesn't seem to be standard practice here, as far as I can tell. -R. fiend (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the topic of this article was not "HMS Bounty". It was not "His Majesty's Ship Bounty".  It was "Bounty", and that's what the title of this article should reflect (dabbed as necessary), not some convoluted name designed to not reflect the name of the topic, but to conform to some convention.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the sources regarding the above discussion:

The Royal Naval Museum says here that "The earliest example of the abbreviation [HMS] being used is in 1789..." So the use of HMS in the copy of Bligh's letter from the Cape of Good Hope dated 20th December 1789 (one month before Bounty was burned) preserved in William Bradley's journal could be original. Alternatively the abbreviation could be the work of the copyist.

Sir John Barrow's 1831 book "The Eventful History of the Mutiny and Piratical Seizure of H.M.S. Bounty: Its Cause and Consequences" might be considered a bit late for the "Bounty era" but it was the standard text before the Nordhoff & Hall's 1932 novelisation. As secretary of the Admiralty (from 1804 to 1845) Barrow was hugely influential and was able to interview a few elderly survivors of Bounty's crew. "H.M.S. Bounty" is only used in the title, just "Bounty" in the text. --Petecarney (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems not generally appreciated is that, in the era of sail, the term "ship" had a far more restricted meaning than it does nowadays, when every decked vessel afloat is called a ship. To the 18th century mariner, and certainly for the Royal Navy officially of that era, the term "ship" specifically meant a three-masted vessel, square rigged on the fore and main masts. Everything else was NOT a ship. Thus a British vessel of war might be a ship (if carrying a ship rig on three masts), or a brig or ketch or other appropriate term (if two masted), etc. Thus a brig, for example, was technically "His Majesty's Brig", not "His Majesty's Ship". However, the designation HMS is now so engrained in the public mind that I think we would have real difficulty is deviating fromn that abbreviation. For Wiki-purposes, I think we should stick with HMS.

The only problem I have with this is the period 1649-1660, the period of the Commonwealth Navy and Protectorate Navy. Wiki-authors have continued to designate these ships of this period as "HMS", when the one certainty is that they definitely were not "His Majesty's" Ships! Rif Winfield (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fryer
Fryer was never 'demoted'. He was master when the Bounty sailed, and he was still master when the mutiny occurred. Christian was named Acting Lieutenant so that Bligh could split the crew into three watches, thus providing them with more time for rest. Christian had been named Acting Lieutenant before, on HMS Eurydice. There was ill-will between Fryer and Bligh, to be sure, but it did not arise because Fryer was 'demoted'. James Galloway (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Map


A new map of the Bountys last voyage is available - it is used in Peter Heywood with a key in the caption, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg;' 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good and informative map. So informative, in fact, that it provides information about Bligh's open-boat journey to Coupang, an event that is not covered in the article. Since Bligh's fate immediately following the mutiny is of note and relevant to the article, as well as covered in this map, I have added a short account of it to the article's text. A2soup (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-discovery of Pitcairn's Island
This article claims that HMS Blossom arrived in Pitcairn's island in 1825 However the following appears in Wikipedia under the heading "Mayhew Folger"

>Rediscovery of the Pitcairn Islands

>Mayhew Folger captained the ship Topaz that left Boston on April 5, 1807 hunting for seals. They rediscovered the Pitcairn Islands on February 6, 1808. Only one of the original HMS Bounty mutineers, Alexander Smith, whose real name was >John Adams, was still alive. The Topaz remained at the island for only ten hours.

And, in the "Wyeth Edition" of the "Bounty Trilogy" by Nordoff and Hall published by Grosset & Dunlap the American seal hunting ship Topaz was the ship that first arrived at Pitcairn's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.157.30 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone has access to the sources spoken of (but not properly referenced) about Folger's discovery of the Bounty survivors in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayhew_Folger#Rediscovery_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands then please add them to the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Map Coordinates?
If the Bounty remains are in Bounty Bay of Pitcairn, shouldn't the location coordinates in the upper right be something like "-25.068|-130.095" rather than "47|45|S|179|03|E" which is some three thousand miles from Pitcairn? HowardMorland (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discovery of wreck
Surely the wreck was discovered before January 1957? It was shown in the 1935 documentary "Pitcairn Island Today", narrated by Carey Wilson. (92.10.128.201 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

Prefix "controversy"
I have deleted and moved here the following section, as I cannot see there is a "controversy" as such, the section looks to be original research at least in part, seems to be a matter of general application rather than specific to this ship, and it is trivial. Kablammo (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this info is why I personally came here because I'd heard of the "controversy" over the prefix. So... thanks? I think it's relevant, even if not especially important, information. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ship prefix controversy
The Bounty was never referred to by the prefixes HMS or HMAV while in service. The abbreviation HMS came into common use only around the 1790s.

Although she was ship-rigged, and commonly referred to as a ship, in the formal vocabulary of the Admiralty the Bounty was not called a ship because she was unrated. Equally, there was no organisation formally called the Admiralty - that name is a colloquialism for "The Commissioners for Executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain and Ireland, etc.".

In the transcript of the 1792 trial of the ten crewmen returned in HMS Pandora (1779) the Bounty is referred to as His Majesty's Ship "Bounty" or His Majesty's Armed Vessel "Bounty" three times each, and twice as His Majesty's Armed Vessel the "Bounty".

In the drawings for the 1787 conversion she is referred to as the "Bounty Armed Transport".

The contents page of the Bounty's medical book is inscribed "His Britannic Majesty's Ship Bounty: Spithead 29th December 1787".

The title of William Bligh's 1792 account of the mutiny refers to "His Majesty's Ship the Bounty".

Sir John Barrow's 1831 publication refers to "H.M.S. Bounty".

Academic institutions such as Britain's National Archives, National Maritime Museum, Royal Naval Museum, and Australia's State Library of New South Wales generally use "HMS".

Links
Thanks for the link to cuff links. Very relevant and informative. Sca (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Heywood and Morrison were loyalists, not mutineers
In the crew list section, in the column that identifies crew as loyalist or mutineer, Peter Heywood and James Morrison are listed as mutineers. This is not true. All the witnesses agree they were unarmed during the mutiny.

Heywood and his friend George Stewart had expressed their intention to go into the launch and went below decks to get things to take into the boat, when Charles Churchill called out "keep them below", and subsequently Matthew Thompson went and stood guard over them. They were not allowed back up until the launch was already rowing away. Apart from Heywood's own testimony, this is confirmed by William Cole and William Purcell.

James Morrison had been obediently following Cole's orders throughout the mutiny. As the men were getting into the launch, Bligh called out that there were too many. In response to this, Morrison asked Cole permission to stay onboard, and Cole granted it to him, shaking his hand and telling him "Good luck, my boy, I will do you justice if I make it back to England." Cole confirmed this in his own testimony. John Fryer also defended Morrison, claiming that he had asked Morrison to stay onboard in hopes that he would organize a retaking of the ship.

Morrison, Heywood and Stewart had made plans while at Tubuai to steal one of the ship's boats and escape back to Tahiti (where they would have a better chance of being rescued), but they deemed this infeasible.

It is true that Morrison and Heywood were found guilty at the Court Martial (though later acquitted), but this is for two reasons: 1) Bligh did not include them in his list of innocent people (Byrne, Coleman, McIntosh and Norman), and so by omission implied that they were mutineers. However, this is because he did not know Cole had given Morrison permission to remain onboard, and had not seen Heywood and Stewart express their intention to get into the launch and then get held below deck after going down to get items. 2) John Hallett, alone among the 7 Bounty witnesses who testified at the Court Martial, expressed his opinion that Heywood and Morrison were mutineers, but he based this solely on his interpretation of their countenances and the dubious claim that he saw Morrison holding a gun after the loyalists had been cast adrift, as they were rowing away; he agreed that Morrison was not armed during the mutiny itself. However, as Morrison pointed out, it would make no sense for him to grab a gun once the loyalists had already been cast adrift, rather than during the mutiny itself.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Bounty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103212933/http://home.comcast.net/~maclark661/Pitcairn/Slide7.htm to http://home.comcast.net/~maclark661/Pitcairn/Slide7.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026041631/http://home.comcast.net/~maclark661/Pitcairn/Slide25.htm to http://home.comcast.net/~maclark661/Pitcairn/Slide25.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Re "Mission Log" section
The entry for April 9 reads "Entered Magellan Strait". The Bounty never attempted to do so, as Bligh's orders were to pass via Cape Horn, which he was attempting on that date. In fact his own account, in "A Voyage to the South Sea Undertaken by Command of His Majesty for the Purpose of Conveying the Breadfruit Tree to the West Indies in His Majesty's Ship The Bounty (etc.)" reads: "On the 9th at noon we were in latitude 59 degrees 31 minutes south and our longitude 76 degrees 58 minutes west, which is farther to the west than we had yet been." He got beaten back by westerly storms and huge seas and never made it as far west again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelpj (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * i too find this section seems to be inaccurate, the log also says
 * 2 May: Bounty launch castaways flee Tofua after being attacked by natives
 * 28 May: Landfall on a small island north of New Hebrides. Named "Restoration Island" by Captain Bligh
 * 30–31 May: Bounty launch transits to a second nearby island, named "Sunday Island"
 * 1–2 June: Bounty launch transits forty two miles to a third island, named "Turtle Island"
 * 3 June: Bounty launch sails into the open ocean towards Australia


 * first of all the islands to the north of "New Hebrides" (or Vanuatu as it is now known) are called the Banks Islands and were not first discovered by (i believe Cook first saw them) but WERE explored by and named by Captain William Bligh, Restoration Island however is off the coast of Australia and is not part of this chain he would have hit that AFTER hitting these islands (i am assuming that Sunday and Turtle islands are supposed to be part of Banks Islands), so any ideas as to what the islands in question are? because i myself find this strange


 * Tony Spike (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"HMAS"
although this abbreviation is shown in the photograph from Pitcairn Island, I believe it is incorrect. Bounty is HMS or HMAV, His Majesty's Armed Vessel. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)