Talk:John Lawford

KCB
I think we may need to look at the reason for the appointemnt as KCB again, merely lists him among a group of appointemtns made to mark Victoria's coronation. David Underdown (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but that doesn't mean that the reason he was appointed to the order was not because of Copenhagen. He was appointed in the coronation batch, but Nicolas is explicit that it was a reward for Copenhagen. Several other captains at Copenhagen (George Murray (Royal Navy officer), Thomas Foley (Royal Navy officer), Thomas Fremantle (Royal Navy officer), Sir Thomas Thompson, 1st Baronet, Sir Graham Hamond, 2nd Baronet, James Brisbane and those are just the ones we have articles on) received entry to the various levels of the order of the Bath during their lifetime, and they and others collected other awards for their instances of good service throught the wars, but specifically not for Copenhagen. The matter was hotly debated at the time, and heated letters were exchanged on the subject of the awards of honours and medals between Nelson, Jervis and Melville. Some particulars on the long and drawn out process are 'On the extension of the Order of the Bath in 1815, additional mortification awaited such of the surviving captains as had commanded ships under Lord Nelson at Copenhagen and who had not had subsequent opportunity of gaining distinction, by not finding themselves included in the extensive nominations then made to the order. In February 1828, they presented a Memorial to the Duke of Clarence...praying his Royal Highness to obtain for them the Medals which they conceived themselves entitled to, and also, the ranks of knights commander of the Bath...' [reference is then made to those captains who had fought at the Glorious First of June, Nile, Trafalgar, St Vincent, etc, all of whom were at least companions of the Bath]. The application is considered but rejected. The request was again made in 1830 on the accession of William IV, but again is turned down. Nicolas then writes "Medals for Copenhagen, were, consequently, never given; and only one of the Captains who were in that battle lived to receive an honorary reward specifically for his gallantry on that occasion - namely, Admiral John Lawford, who was made a Knight Commander of the Bath in August 1838.'" Other captains, like Samuel Sutton never received any honours during their lifetime, having died before the decision was made to recognise Copenhagen. In short while captains in other notable battles and engagements had received honours, medals and places on the list of the general appointments to the chivalric orders, those at Copenhagen did not. Lawford was the only captain who lived long enough to receive the award, made in the batch submitted for Victoria's coronation. Benea (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (response to User:Victuallers) - No the Gazette is not wrong, but it does not tell the full story. It does not list the reasons why any of those made knights of the bath appear in that list, as it was not intended to, it merely states that they were. I have however on explained in detail how the source used explicitly refers to the reason for Lawford's nomination for the award was made because of Copenhagen. The coronation of a new monarch was generally used as an opportunity to expand the order, and potential candidates to receive the honour were drawn up for consideration. Naval victories of the period often brought admission to the order for the captains and commanders involved, but Copenhagen did not, despite repeated requests from the officers involved, in 1828 and 1830. It was not until the late 1830s that the decision to recognise Copenhagen was made, by which time Lawford was the last surviving captain remaining unhonoured, as he had not been able to find other actions or areas to distinguish himself in. Lawford's name finally gets on the list, and he finally receives an honour at the next general expansion of the order, which happens to be to mark the coronation in 1838. The Gazette simply supports the fact that Lawford receives the award, it does not invalidate the original hook. Benea (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your full explanation ... it convinces me. Now I think about it they might give someone famous today an honour and its only really public knowledge as to why they got it. Thx again Victuallers (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry for the extremely long winded spiel. It suddenly occurred to me how I could have explained it better. Suppose a man carries out a brave action under fire. He's awarded the Victoria Cross, and he receives it in the Queen's Birthday Honours. The investiture he receives it at, and the thing he did to get it are two separate things. Similarly Lawford's action that got him the KCB was Copenhagen, but he receives it in the Queen's Coronation Honours. Benea (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear
The last two sentences of the intro are:

"He received further promotions throughout his long life, and the award of the KCB for his actions at Copenhagen, the only captain who fought at the battle to receive any honours related to it. He died three years later at the age of 86, having by then spent 65 years serving the navy."

It took me a while to understand what the intended meaning probably is. As it stands now my first interpretation was this: Something happened to him, the only captain who fought at this battle. Three years later, namely after this battle, he died. Which is clearly contradictory to his death date. The intended meaning probably is: He received some honours, and here some trivia info. Three years later, namely after receiving these honors, he died. There is no date given for when he received his honors, further promoting this misconception.

I suggest a change similar to this:

"He received further promotions throughout his long life, and as the only captain who fought at the battle of Copenhagen to receive any honours related to it, he was awarded the KCB in [insert correct date]. He died three years later etc."

Now the parts logically belonging together stand next to each other. 2003:CA:A745:2834:E84E:E918:B44D:CF70 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)