Talk:HMS Royalist (89)/Archive 1

COMPLAINTS ABOUT ANON WIKI EDITORS by National and Govt Security supporters of UK, Texas, DC & Aust.
Much of this article and many other Wikipedia articles on the Cold War RN and RNZN classes and some NZR and USN a few USN articles are written by Robert Miles, a former leader writer and NBR commentator and paid writer for other NZ newspapers in the 1983-1998 period on Transport/ Defence. I have a B.Com and 2 Hon degrees in Political Science(1982) and History(2011). In New Zealand there is a particular view of the Royalist which is both wrong and completly biased. The original short article reflected the radical NZ MFAT view of kiwi diplomats then (1956) and now that the Royalist was a useless orphan pup of no use in mid 1950s warfare, which New Zealand was conned into buying at extortionist cost and then grabbed back by the RN and UK Govt to play a role in the reactionary Suez 1956 operation of a declining Tory government of old blimps and a dubious land grabbing Isreali regime, and that was all heroically withdrawn from by a brave RNZN Captain Phipps following the brilliant impassioned (Woodward / Bernstein) activities of the young brilliant diplomat Frank Corner (our Detective Cousteau) a great diplomat who supposedly was the great defender of the Anzus relationship. Its a huge myth and traversty. The other side of the myth is that in the Royalist, the ordinary NZ ratings and crewman - were subject to appaling conditions and 18C RN discipline in some sort of pointless crapped out useless old RN cruiser. It was surely what they deserved, although bad conditions on the Royalist and the discipline were not out of line with that common on large USN or RN warships of the time as any serving on RN carriers or USN cruisers could have told them, cif HMAS Melbourne Other complaints stem from South Canterbury where I grew up and my parents were school teachers. During the final unsatistactory years of my fathers career, he was very unpopular, teaching English to mid and low streams, notably, 5.6 and 5.7 were very embittered as they never grasped they had zero chance of passing SC English. This largely farmer, former low grade constituency and their other farming and educational, complaints and recycled myths are the reasons for National converting the regional electorates from safe Labour seats to National. Also in the area are the farms once owned by the Elworthy family the former British CDS whose career involved being Number 2 to, Bomber Harris, and in 1963 Air Marshall of the RAF, at the time Curtis Le May was Chief of the USAF. Elworthy and his mates were prominent in the anti nuclear Plains group of NO/SC to opposed the Lange - Clark governments nuclear ship ban. Possibly, I came to the Elworthy, attention when during the lunch break at the Waimate CC in March/ April 1982, I explained my estimate of the probabilty the entire RN task force would be destroyed by, the  the Argentinian Air Force. For the previous six months upon completing my MA, I had been completing a non published draft on the RNZN and RN I calculated that Seacat, Seaslug and 4.5 guns wouldn't take a single modern jet aircraft and the Argentinian pilots would be often like F1 greats Gonzales, Reutemann and Fangio. I was almost right. The opponents of the Royalist the Asian UN MFAT officials like Corner and the former Reserve officer Phipps seem to have little understanding of post WW2 warfare. The twin DP 4 inch manual was useless fro AA postwar while C89 twin channel 5.25s, was still relevant. The Royalist offered effective twin channel 275/ Mk 6 air and surface fire and was a 'prototype' 50/5000 ton cruiser destroyers intended for the post war RN in 1949, cf the RAN or RN Daring destroyers and the Venezuela and Chilean derivatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC) refactored— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.165.138 (talk)  19:44, 20 June 2018

The procurement of the Royalist and its role during Suez and the confrontation, and the desire of Ministry of Foreign Affairs then, MFAT since 2011,nb the current, NZ Ambassador to the US, Tim Grosser to destroy historical truth and realign NZ with the third world and China is a key issue. Published NZ academic work based on the papers, files and letters of NZ Foreign Affairs officials eg,Frank Corner is in complete variance with the view of USN and RN, Naval Historians and Naval architects, I became a 'anon' wiki editor to maintain historical truth for NZ and the western officer class. The ambiguous role of the Elworthy family, in British and NZ and SC is central. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2016


 * I see a lot of words, no sources, and a hint of conspiracy theorizing. If you have a point get to it and give reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the basic facts of Lord Elworthy's career are so well known they hardly need sourcing ( his ferocity can also be seen in command of UK occupation forces in the Rhine in the early 1950s in repressing 'iron fist in the velvet glove' shadow unreformed pro Nazi figures and as CDS and his handling of the Northern Ireland situation in 1970-1 at the time of the troubles in Londonderry). Even a decade he powerfully expressed  his hostility to the IRA and their American allies among who he included EMK- who he frequently expressed his distaste in speeeches in Timaru from his first return visits in the 1970s.. in terms of the Royalist the standard texts, RN Naval architects, D K Browns, Post war RN Naval design; Norman Friedman, British Cruisers WW2 and After regard the Royalist as an effectively modernised twin channel warship for air and surface warfare with good sensors and communication if not living quarters for the crew and that was the view of many officers who served on it. Pugsley in his work on the 'Confrontation' describes the Royalist AA as much more effective in exercises than modernised RN postwar cruisers, Newcastle and Birmingham. In Pugsley's view C89 was a warship too complex for NZ Government and Military (who see the issue in employment, trade and internal  political terms). Although Frank Corner is seen as a stalwart establishment diplomat, staunch in his support for Anzus, an entirely opposite interpretation is possible and widely expressed in articles and publication even those sponsored by NZIIA today, that the voice he expressed on the beltway and DC circle was not the real one, and that in fact his work against Operation Muskeeter, and in his  open backing of opposition leader Kirk from 1971, amounted to close to 'treason'. The praise and support Kirk received in the USA in 1973 and the incorporation of HMS Canterbury (ironically after its anti nuclear protest cruise to Muroroa)-  briefly in  a USN West Coast DE squadron in 1974-5 ( until withdrawn by RD Muldoon) was to the Nixon and Ford administration, simply a fingers up to the Whitlam, ALP, Labour government regarded by the Nixon administration, CIA director and ADF as one of the 3 most serious global threats to US security. New Zealand was generally too insignificant to count either way with the US and to a surprising degree NZ defense procurement decisions were made due to subtle and not so subtle pressure from the US/UK to buy equipment ( C89, Canberra B2/20, Orions,Anzac frigates and F-16) that would add and fill gaps in the defense of Australia. To our main allies NZ forces role was just to stand and add to supplement the defense of Australia. While it is dangerous to venture a judgement, but I would say that generally the RNZN museums interpretation of the nations naval history and its key ships and officers was far more partial, person and prejudiced than my interpretation. Their alternative view was somewhat cleaned up for the 75th anniversary in Nov 2016 but still managed to exclude most of the more significant post war RNZN officers in personalities in favour of those, who were caught or declared themselves, too be indulging, too deeply. Fairly obviously I can not provide ,doco sources for my assessment of the ability of the classes my father taught ,as there based on studying IQ records and headmaster assessments and articles, 'left around, seen over the shoulder, found down the back of bookcases and hearing general staff comment' which in total enables a very accurate picture. In terms of the Waimate CC comment the people present at the lunch and morning meal break conversations on the Falklands situation were Wayne Rout-- County Clerk and his mistress former Qantas PR Jane Hewson, Mark Dacombe, Deputy C Clerk ( former CC of Chatham Is and later West Auckland County Clerk, under Harvey in the 21C, many clerks, professional engineers and their assistants and Mr Burridge, Housing Inspector, who drove the fastest Scottish taxi to ever run- every day Timaru to Waimate (30 miles / 50km ) in 18 minutes, 170kmh often on the clock in the Mitshubushi sports car, we were once chased by Alan McCall, former mechanic to Clark, Hume and Ickx and from the 3 mile mark ( out of Timaru the first 7 miles is a switchback fast reverse camber, over the old Volcanic mountain) which rather resembles Clermont Ferrand and Bathurst until it was  realigned after Helen Clark's over the yellow line fast ride from Waimate to the Christchurch  test in 2006 ) and Makikihi  pulling out three minutes on McCall driving a 911. A year after the Falklands war I received  mail from my aunt from Chapel Hill/ Carborro , NC ( she had been married to several MI6and CIA intelligence operatives and professors and her son who was a midshipman ,Sheffield, rt Cdr S. Atkinson ,now Prof Engineering Sydney Uni). Both these family members reported that both the US war college and RAF assessments had been threat the RN task force was likely to be destroyed on the basis of of war games. However my assessment of this was made in April 1982 and was not due to UK media leaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2016


 * Hmmm, the politics is all very interesting but this was supposed to be an article about the ship, HMNZS Royalist. Pity it lost its way, as this looks like a very interesting and good looking ship, albeit unfortunately let down by unreliable tired old engines and boilers!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.75.173 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This talk contribution, or retalliatory broadside is by Mr R.F.F. Miles. TBHS 1970-74, Otago university 75-6, Vic Wellington 77-8. Holdiday jobs as Post Office computer installation coder 75-6 and Waterside Commission caretaker 77-8. University of Canterbury 80-81. MA Hons (1982). Employed bu Univeristy Otago Anthropology Dept and its Business Dev as REsearcher for Waitaki Joint Planning Committee re Lower Waitaki Power Dev and 83-85 Timaru Herald as Defence Commnetator and Editorial Writer- key NZ articles re RNZN submarine proposal, Nuclear ships and supported ANzus an nuclear armed ship access as editorial writer. Interviewed for Ministry of Defence Advisory Officer positions 1980 and 3/84 Interviewed by AO Christopher Rosonawoski and Maori Colonel. South position on advice, editors Timaru Herald and interviewed probably on recn, RNZN .Director of PLans on basis or articles opposing RNZN submarine project. Unknown to MOD, I had discussed these issues with a former RNZN Captain and Devonport base Commander, who was having difficulty having his rather naval arguments against the submarine project published, ie I did not think arguing the way Cpt J. Coward, approached these issues, or the RNZN oppositon view that diesel subs would only be of use to defend Cook Straight, were effective or constructive, in any media reality. In the 21C have added several more university degrees in University of Canterbury B.Com(2005) and B.Hons papers in History, supervisor Bennett 2006 accepted degree 2011. I am also the well known Anon editor of much of the Cold War RN/ RNZN cruiser articles for the pre 1975 age and have significantly to articles on post war RN warships and those of other navies, but not in relation to 21C issues or ships other than re OPVs. I am also an extensive contributor on some railway and even a few Rugby subject and slso some USA issues re warships, submarines and some currently relevant' strategic ones, eg Alaska's, 1968 issues


 * The Royalist was modernised as a purely interim ship to provide some real AA/AD capability until the Tiger class cruisers and first batch of 4 County DDGs were completed. The modernisation or facelift was only intended to last 6 years and the RNZN records show the accuracy of the main armament and its fire ocntrol, substantially reducing from 1963. The Dido and Improved Didos were essentially war emergencey cruisers not really suited or offering much crew comfort post war. The Royalist was selected for modernisation because of extra features for communication with the fleet air arm aircraft and the AIO office, intended for the 2nd 4.5 Dido before its loss in 1943. More effective RN/USN missile armed destroyers/guided missile cruisers were not available until the mid 60s for the USN ( these issues are well covered in P. Jones and J. Goldrick. Searching for a Solution. The RAN and the Acquisition of a surface to air missile capability. and the earlier ' Buying the DDGs Reflections of the RAN. 1991. Kangaroo) and 1980 in the UK when SWawolf and Sea Dart became available. The Royalist continued in service not only because of the delay in ordering a third frigate, but becasue of the greater unrelaibility and problems of the Tigers gun armament and becasue the Hull and engiens of HMS Lion has so deteriorated during its long delayed construction, it effectively blew its boilers in 1963 and return to England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2018

Nigel Ish (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Royalist (89). 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/20131212202838/http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii to http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii

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) 11:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Dekhelia
Part of the caption of the 'Seafire' photograph states: "...the Royal Naval Air Station at Dekhelia, Egypt...".

Is this correct? I know of a 'Dekhelia' in Cyprus, but have never heard of a 'Dekhelia' in Egypt. I can find nothing on Wikipedia on an Egyptian Dekhelia, either RASAM (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

With photo captions, I work on the 'what (or who), where and when' principal. So, not knowing the full story on 'Dekhelia', (see above), I did a bit of trawling and found that while most of the information on the internet is indeed about the Dekhelia in Cyprus, (in a variety of spellings), there was a brief mention, in a memoir-driven site, of a Dekhalia near Alexandria in Eygpt.

It just goes to show, one should not always take what one believes at face value.

RASAM (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Sturtivant and Ballance's The Squadrons of The Fleet Air Arm this is the pre-war Alexandria airport. The Fleet Air Arm detachment there during WW2 was initially known as HMS Nile II and was attached to the main RN base in Alexandria (HMS Nile) and later as HMS Grebe. The airfield was handed back to Egypt in 1946.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Gerry Wright. HMNZS Royalist. Compilation -Collection book . A Flawed defense of the discredited Peter Phipps & Frank Corner
This recent glossy NZ publication (2018) republishes various published and unpublished works on the Royalist including part of the wiki article in its 2017 state Wrights editorial view is the Royalist was an ill advised and poor investment given its poor hull condition and cramped crew conditions which had hardly been improved from WW2. Wright claims that there no other ships using the RN DP 5.25 gun, although the RN still had 5 battleships in reserve when Royalist recommissioned in 1956 and it was the following years 1957 Sandys defense review which led to the RN deciding to scrap the last four Dido cruisers it had in reserve HMS Euralyus, Cleopatra, Dido and Bellona and the final RN shore emplacement 5.25 battery remained operational until 1980 with four new single 5.25 mounts for AA and anti ship action being installed as late as 1955 Gibraltar. On 25 March 1955, NZ National MP, Sid Holland was considering purchasing HMS Royalist or HMS Diadem (which was instead sold to Pakistan and transferred after in Mid 1957). Diadem renamed, Babur was given a 18mth refit which far exceeded the estimated cost of 1.5 million dollars (1 million dollars provided by Pakistan and 0.25 million by the UK and 0.25 million US from the MPDA) The huge actual cost of the refit enraged opposition parties in Pakistan. Diadem received a thorough overhaul, a new bridge and light 40mm Mk 5 (3x2) and Mk 7 (8 X1) armament and served in a number of wars with India 1962, 1965 and 1971 the third encounter providing an interesting alternative view to the Falklands and Gulf of how 1950s UK frigates, cruisers and RAF and RN carrier borne aircraft would fare in conflict. It is generally recorded that Diadem was reduced to a training ship in 1961. However Mountbatten (Record Society), RAN CNS correspondence with First Sea Lord) fought with everything to have Diadem enter IPN service as a surface counter to the UK reconstructed Mysore (HMS Nigeria rebuilt to the std if Newfoundland 1952). The Dido AD cruisers were something of the first 'hot' ships and could not really be turned off and like the Royalist could only be briefly refitted and and it had to be half manned, in 1958-61 untilreturned to service as an operational warship. Retired Australian Admiral James Goldrick wrote extensively about the Diadem in his book on the Indian, Pakistan, Ceylon and Bengal Navies and the In terms of warship raiders, it appears the post war Soviet Chapevs and Sverdlovs were partly intended to play a similar role to the WW2 Kreigsmarine, battlecruisers and armoured cruisers like Graf Spee, given the Sverdlov were near 20,000 displacement and had 6 inch armour on their 6 inch triple turrets and belt, no cruiser may have been the answer. The RN view post war however was the expected standard of the Soviet fleet would be low and a pair of 4.5 gunned Daring Destroyers or even a pair of Type 41 diesels with two twin 4.5 inch would have been adequate. Part of the justification for the Royalist was actually that it might be more of a counter to the Sverdlov transferred to Indonesia, INS Irain than British destroyers or the County GMD unarmoured and with only 4.5 guns. The Indonesians did not seem interested in maintaining the Sverdlov in combat capable condition, but it known that in 1964 the Russian Navy did take the cruiser back to Russia for a refit. Royalists modernisation was only expected to cover a lifespan of 6 years. A RN reconstruction, entailed a high grade short remaining life reequipping to fight in WW3 in 1956-1963 with area defence, AA and surface fighting capability. Reconstruction did not necessarily involve reboilering, new drive train and engines, if the existing boilers, hull and engine would last to the ships, planned 20 year life. A 'Life extension extended refit' was a renewal and replacement of a cruisers worn out or obsolete power and weapon systems, and might involve a physical life extension of 5-20 years for lower level patrol and colonial duties,  but without more than point defence AA weapons for the ships own self defence. with L60 twin water cooled bofor, effective with 262 radar to 2 miles. The expected lifespan of a war built Dido or Colony cruiser was no more than 20 years the usual age of their withdrawal and it was to be expected the accuracy of the AA gun alignment in Royalists Mk 6 275 directors would deteriorate from mid 1963 as they did. The real question would have to be why the Holyoake government did not take out another interim lease of a Daring destroyer known to have been recently refitted. Royalist at least looked like a cruiser and was safer than a long low Daring, with an excessive turning circle. The triple Mk 6 inch and twin 4 inch cruiser weapons used by other RN cruisers in the 1950s saw only a few more years service in the RN. The 5.25 turrets were more modern and accurate and required 60 crew per turret cf with 90 for a Mk 23 triple 6. The twin 4inch X1X was obsolete and inaccurate

The Royalist and Dido conversions were considered prototype cruiser destroyers by the RN in 1949 and the late 1940s view in Britain was that anti sub frigates and minesweepers should be all the Navy required. Given the immediate requirements of the Korean war and the UK Treasury restricting any cruiser to 370O ton dimensions of he USS Mitcher the HMS Royalist conversion was a rare major surface warship that could go forward after the success of the similar update of  USS Juneau in a unique and rather too succesful USN conversion in 1951 with modern AA  radar for 12 5inch guns  and 14 twin 3/50 the Juneau outshooting the USS Worchester and early Terrier ships. The decade of problems with Sea Slug and Terrier/Tartar in the USA meant the AA success on test against Jet drones of the Royalist/ Juneau made them a very unwanted development which the RN & USN wanted out of the way. The Royalist was successful against multiple meteor jet drones while Seaslug managed comparable performance tests against slower  Firefly drones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggest you break it down into short specific issues with room to discuss each. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

== Wikipedia the last moment in history were some 'objective' historical truth can argued, collected or assembled before a combination of mass education and sanitinised electronic recorded and accessed articles and data allow only the accepted post war interpretation. ==

I do not think HMS Royalist can be reduced to a second rate enthusiast naval enthusiast type article about WW2 cruisers with a brief afterlife At the very least it represents like the 1946 USS Juneau a interim ' cruiser destroyer ' and in Royalist case a part chain including the 1951 Mk 3 Dido 4.5 design and the 1962 County GMD Like USS Juneau as re-equipped in 1951-2, Royalist represents the last comprehensive gun AA ship that works. My view is that the rebuilt Royalist was seen as an AA flak ship as were the 3 Tiger class cruisers not as conventional or flagship cruisers The late WW2 RN conception of aircraft carriers and battleships was very much as AA flak ships and in many ways their heavy 4.5/5.25 AA guns were their greatest value rather than the battleship guns or rather ineffective Sea Venom, Sea Fury, Wyvern, Attacker or even Scimitar strike aircraft. In 1957 the Sandys report justified the Tigers as intermim, AA fleet escorts until the County class and other new GM destroyers were developed. The French De Grasse, US Worchester and Mitcher ckass DL class were AA escorts. It could be argued that the article on HMS Royalist should be three articles. HMS Royalist development as a RN Bellona cruiser and its conversion as a AW/AD ship for the RN in 1944 and its reconstruction in 1955-56 for the role (2) The transfer to the RNZN and its controversial and ambiguous role in the lead up and actual, Suez war in 1956 and the ambiguous role of NZ, Australia, UK, France and Israel in Operation Musketeer. Australia had RAN officers and men aboard key RN warships during the invasion and gun actions of HMS Newfoundland. Robert Menzies like NZ PM Holland instructed Australian diplomats to vote with the UK, FR and Israel against the UN call for a ceasefire at the start of the invasion of Port Said and the canal area. The only 5 votes in dissent. (3) The Royalists controversial post Suez service in the RNZN 1957-1966 which involved a whole series of deployments in support of UK/RN interventions, port visits with many incidents without any real direct supervision and control from Wellington, MOD or the NZ Government. The Royalist service career indicative that direction of the ship in peace and war outside NZ was delegated to New Zealand's allies and indicated  Wellington lacked much genuine strategic planning command or control.

In terms of sourcing I would make a number of points. I am well aware that military and naval writing is governed by the rejection of synthesis the creation of new unreleased facts by logical deduction from known facts, numerical details or other info. The question of when what is known, obvious or data becomes synthesis or when small run, private, enthusiast, museum or retired officer publication becomes more than self publication and usable secondary sources are all arguable and depends on context and the national source. NZ being particularly unusual combining major military and naval activity with a small book market. . I do not see the critique of my work as entirely in good faith as in NZ a small country if that, there is always an excessive interest in confining debate and qualification to the narrow trade or profession. To comment critically on Rugby if one is not an All Black is heresy and to comment on the RNZN if not a naval architect or naval officer is seen as proof of ignorance, irrelevant, time wasting and probably communist sympathies. To bear the surname, 'Miles' has I discovered when I was about 40 various connotations in Australasia based on some Australian communist party leader of 80 years ago. Strangely I only realised in the last few years that was why everybody in Auckland and the NZ Army assumed I was far left. I thought most of the Miles, Fancourt, Heywood, Harris and McDonald names were fairly right wing business and political names, but apparently maternal ancestors count for little in the NZ heartland 101.98.49.10 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * forgive me but none of this is a reason for us to make the changes you want, and reads very much like a wp:forum post. I would also add that is hard to follow this wall of text as it seems to have an odd...syntax. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. This isn't reason for the changes. Your comment "My view is that the rebuilt Royalist was seen as an AA flak ship ..." is a giveaway that want you want to add is original research. Wikipedia is not the place for this, you need a reliable secondary source. That is the way Wikipedia works; critiquing contributions is not the same as censorship. Zawed (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Talkpage conduct
IP editor, you need to read Talk page guidelines. Especially taking note of instructions against editing other users comments.

Also No legal threats to make sure you don't misrepresent your intent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

IP read wp:or wp:v wp:npa and wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the article, edit history and our colleagues talk page. I think he (?) is going to take a lot of coaxing to follow wiki conventions. I think it is worth the effort because I think he (?) could become rather good at this once he calms down. Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, much of the time when the IP editor in question does give sources that can be verified, if you check the edit, then the source does not back up the claims they place on the citation. Their edits need to be individually checked in detail to see whether they are backed up by the sources if the sources are verifiable, to remove the sweeping original research which they are prone to, to remove undue digressions and to turn them into coherent and succinct writing. The article is in an extremely poor condition owing to the efforts of this editor, and I suspect WP:TNT is probably the way forward here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And they are accusing other editors (i.e. me) of slander in the long post above. This does not seem to indicate that they are interested in collaboration with others in "their wiki articles".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Slander violates wp:nlt, maybe this now needs to go to wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to try, but there will be a lot of sub-editing along the way- if only to deal with the overloading of the text with commas. I personally disagree on the article quality - everything up to Post war reconstruction is good enough. And I'm prepared to reconstruct the reconstruction section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty poor conduct by the IP (spouting off about having four degrees to justify why their opinion should trump others is very telling, let alone the name calling). This seems to be a very clear case of WP:OWN to me. Zawed (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more wall of text on the talk archive page. In fairness the IP editor has indicated in some edit summaries that they have accessibility issues " I am technically blind", "draft reflected time and very poor eyesight et al". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem is they seem to be shifting IP's, so they may not have seen any of it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

C. Bell
Who the hell is C bell? Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Christopher Bell is a major Anglo Canadian naval historian whose book on Churchill and Seapower (2013) OUP. Oxford is a major somewhat revisionist work on Churchills long controversial influence on the Royal Navy as first civilian sea lord and Britsh PM in 1940-45 and 1951-55. In terms of the period HMs Royalist was under reconstruction in 1953-56 and the earlier development of the view of Churchill and the British Treasury and MOD that the post war RN would have to be reduced to the least important of the British services, Bell strongly reviews the case. 'Churchill and Seapower' comprehensively reviews the strong advocacy of cabinet minister Sandys, Swinton and Brooke often supported by Churchill which led to the Radical defense reviews of 1953/4 and the transfer of Royalist to the RNZN. It was strongly argued Britain should reduce the 2 new large carriers Ark Royal and Eagle to reserve or downgrade to defensive, escort, carriers with only a/s aircraft and Sea Vixen fighters and abandon the nuclear strike tactical and strategic role which the Supermarine Scimitar and Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft were being developed. Churchill and most of his cabinet judged the cost and risk of these projects and that of building new aircraft carriers and indeed new cruisers was too high. Bell outlines the strong and coherent arguments, Churchill repeatedly made against the new carriers and the RNs strike aircraft projects. The new ships were hopelessly vulnerable to the emerging new guided missiles and jet aircraft bombers and like the cruisers represented a concentrated vulnerability and perfect bullseye for the enemy that would be taken by shore based aircraft in one shot. This is confirmed by other witness's like Lord Hailsham first lord in 1956. In fact Bell is rather too generous to Churchill from the RN perspective who was even more strongly opposed to the carriers and the RN in 1954, than Bell admits. On Guy Fawkes day 1954, WSJ Churchill, in his last performance in 6 hours effectively scuttled the plans for 2 new 35,000 ton carriers and 4 Minotaur 17,000 ton carriers substituting the completion and reconstruction of, two small medium carriers, Hms Hermes and Victorious and the 3 ageing Tiger class cruisers and furthur delayed any major frigate construction. While the Ark Royal was allowed to enter service as a full strike carrier, in 2/1955 Churchill had so delayed the project hat the Ark Royal basically had to be rebuilt with half its parts replaced before effectively entering service in 1962 and was never really satisfactory. The Scimitar was the disaster he suspected and while the Buccaneer was successfully developed by the time the effective S2 version appeared in 1967 the carriers were being scrapped or converted into commando carriers
 * YOu might make your case easier if you did not insist on walls of text that seem to contain a lot of irrelevant information not related to the topic. I assume you mean this person https://www.dal.ca/faculty/arts/history/faculty-staff/our-faculty/christopher-bell.html, yes I think he is an RS. But you need to read wp:cite, and wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not helpful that the IP editor edits their previous posts, rather than adding in response. Is this a case where refactoring is acceptable? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The need to remove Graeme Leggett and Nigel Ish as a wikipedia editor
This article has essentially been written by me since 2011.

The issue over the Royalist in NZ is was a cruiser capability obsolete in 1955. And if relevant was Britain just using NZ to pay for supplementary RN capability. The Navy board which viewed the RNZN as a cruiser navy as it had been a cruiser station for its 20C role as a RN division. A cruiser by definition was a significant, sustainable multi channel warship capable of surveillance, interception and destruction of  surface, shore and air targets, for long range patrol and presence off SE Asia and around the South Pacific. Captain Phipps, diplomats like Frank Corner and numerous critics argued the Type 12 frigate was the obvious replacement for cruisers in 1955. However The T12 frigates had not been tried or tested in 1955 and were too prove, woefully lacking in range. There usefulness as convoy or fleet escorts of aircraft carriers seemed questionable as it seemed highly unlikely that in the age of deterrence, war would last long enough for military, fuel or food supply convoys, too get through or be useful. RN plans to build new aircraft carriers was rejected in 1954 and Hms Hermes was expected to be the last carrier, completed in 1959. Tiger was expected to be the last cruiser. The need for new units faster than HMAS Melbourne or HMCS Bonaventure was unclear in 1955. Cruiser capability did not require a 5.25 gunned cruiser. The major problems with the Royalist, lack of space and overmanning could have been partially overcome if the NZ Government and RNZN insisted on modification in March 1955, the rebuilt cruiser had been delivered in 1956 with 3 rather than 4 main turrets and more bunk accommodation, recreation and staff rooms fitted in the removed turret (req, 60/70 men and 210 ton removed). Mathew Wright in his book on the RNZN notes that Black Prince and Bellona were already so overweight by 1946 to be marginal in terms of acceptability stability and in 1943 the RN put forward a cruiser programme of cruisers with just (rejected by the UK Government) 3 twin 5.25 turret in a 7000 ton light cruiser hull follow  and in late 1943 and early 1944, confirming in the eyes of most Admirals and the RN Designers and Constructiors Lillycrap and Goodall, a naval programme of 5 N2 cruisers with 4 twin Vanguard 5.25 in a exact 8000 ton  Fiji size box, with more armour, space and fuel. The programme was apparoved by 24/25 leading RN admirals but rejected by First Lord Cunningham and the PM on grounds of lack of surface fighting power snf priority of Destroyers and Frigates. The RNZN have questioned my competence and qualifications to write NZ naval history. WW2 showed the Tasman and Sth pacific, distance could only be covered by the RNZAF and RAAF. I have always supported the RNZAF Orion and P-8 MPA strike reconnaissance and and a/s squadron as the first requirement for NZ defense and contributing to protecting Pacific shipping and communications. I opposed the Collins submarine project which the RNZN was party to in 1983-5 in the project definition stage. The RAN Collins was a disarmament project. The ANU and AFJ advice of Hugh White and Toohey; former Government advisors of Australian sec of Defense. A view shared by Australian Labour Prime Ministers, Rudd and Keating. that Australia should rely on 12 diesel submarines and the good faith of China.. This policy precluded effective defense and deterrence. In essence the Anzac frigates, were gold plated coastguard cutters. The official record and wikipedia article Anzac-class frigates is incorrect in stating the Anzacs allowed the RAN/RNZN to replace and replicate the capabilities of the Type 12  and Leander class. The Anzacs only preserve platforms to maintain RNZN/ RAN officer career structures and command opportunty. The Anzac is not a cold water global  anti submarine frigate and was never designed for carrier task groups. The Anzacs only continues the communication intercept, EW, LRAW of the Dido cruisers and Leander and is far inferior to the P8 Posiedon as an AD platform to control RAN/ USN F-18/ JSF the essential function post 1950 of a cruisre in the USN or Hms Royalist. My main work on the Anzac frigate debate, 4 articles for NBR in 1989 for which I was paid is largely unrecorded in most 21C databases see P. Greener work on the Anzac frigate, and  A-4/F-16 decision, which cites only a 1983 NBR article and obscure booklet. . Greener degrades me to a 'impassioned' advocate of the RN Castle class OPV. I actually suggested the USCG Bear cutter in 1983/85 NBR articles and later the French Navy, Nivose class, Tahiti based OPVs with 100mm gun. I also mentioned the Irish P31 design in several NZIIA International Reviews articles. I did not support the OPV version of the M class or a Type 21 second hand purchase in 1989-91, ' Rogernomics' trade credits for a Dutch M OPV would not have been arranged by Treasury or continued by a following National Government and the Type 21 (probably the only realistic alternative balancing costs, politics and the RNZN view) was ridiculed by  RN Admirals as lacking space for towed sonar and backup systems and Seawolf missiles and only (2) 50km range  radars, 1006/992  and exposed wiring hubs. I had relevant  qualifications, A Canterbury 2/2  MA awarded in 1982, BA (Hons) 2011; a BCom in accountancy and  publications on the RNZN for NZ International Review under the editorship of Ian McGibbon,National Business Review under Colin James and Nevil Gibson and as a leader writer for the Timaru Herald working at their office, ie I was more than a contract employee in 1984-5 and wrote leaders on the Anzus, nuclear ship and political issues under ed, M.Vance and B.Appelby, previously journalists for Sydney and London papers

I decided in 2011 to write wikipedia aricles to counter this complete destruction of historical truth by the NZ National Key government, which removed NZ Foreign sercie officers not compatible with the new third world/ Chinese alignment ad imposed a freeze on officer pay and halved RNZN fuel allocation, violated the basic requirement, post ANZUS to maintain a serious officer core to  allow  resumption of a credible defense relationship with the USA.

I attended TBHS 1970-74, Otago and Victoria University 1975-8 and worked for the post office 1975-6, Waterside Commission 77-8, Waimate CC and OUP 1982 (on the planning of the proposed hydro scheme) and as largely full time editorial writer, at the Timaru Herald 1984-5. I have wrote on RNZN issues for the NZIIA under Ian McGibbon and was interviewed for several MOD A0 positions, 1980/84. Met RNZN planning officers Ian Bradley, Robert Martin, Dick Ryan and was interviewed, in 1984 by MOD. I entered journalism after getting a 2/2 MA (1982 Cant) concerned over the state of the railways and the lack of a defense policy under Muldoon. I was opposed to the Navy and Railways being used as an employment sink for the unemployable and regarded anarchy and lack of discipline in the Navy as a defence problem in 1983. Reducing crew numbers from 250 on a T12 Leander to 170 on an Anzac or Type 21, did not resolve the problem.

My father Alan Miles and Fred Miles, were normal Kiwis and Australians of their generation, Cpt FF Miles (Gloucester Regiment) slandered beyond belief in SJ Harper, book. A tall sportsman, non military he served 4 yrs in France and Salonika. Both actually attended Balliol in 1913-13,19-20 and 49-50 and served as officers in WW1 and WW2 in the Gloucester Regiment and in Alan Miles case presumably as a RNZN/RN War service Reserve Officer on HMS Kledive, Hunt destroyers and in New York on prep planning of the Sth France invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.67.34 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC) In terms of my family. It is not difficult to confirm that Alan Miles was at Balliol in 1949-50 was nominated for a Rhodes Scholarship (1946) and a lecturer, Vic Uni, Wellington, 1948-49. My mother was one of his Hons students. On my fathers death in 1981, I examined his papers, re the offer of a permanent commission in the RNZN and the offer of Balliol in 1950, to return to the college for 3 weeks to compile a bibl, to complete a B.Lit.


 * I did leave a note on the IP editors talk page User talk:115.188.67.34 offering solutions to any issues they had with my editing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To the IP editor, this talk page relates to the ship. Much of what is on this talk page relates to unrelated defence policy, procurement and your personal credentials. None of this goes towards improving the article. Zawed (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article and the talk page are not your personal blog and you do not own them. This is not the place to discuss your family history or your own views on New Zealand history. If you want to do that then do it somewhere else - there are lots of forums out there where such rantings will welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

2024 Copyediting
I'm describing my logic here before this may become an issue. I hope others would read over this article as well.

I have just copyedited the article, and removed more than half of its prose. A vast majority of the article was a mix of irrelevant, unsupported, biased, hard-to-read, or otherwise unencyclopedic content as the article repeatedly described unnecessary ideas in-depth. For context, this is what the un-copyedited article looked like. While some information could be appropriate for other articles, most of it did not relate to Royalist. GGOTCC (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your copy editing efforts here, it is appreciated. It is something I wanted to do myself, but I couldn't pluck up the mental fortitude to deal with it. FWIW, I agree with your assessment regarding the removed material. The majority, if not all, of said material was added by an IP user who could not edit appropriately, effectively and collaboratively. Now the article has been pared back, hopefully it will easier to deal with any inappropriate additions. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)