Talk:Prince of Wales (1786 ship)

Name
Given all the ships at HMS Prince of Wales, perhaps the title should be Prince of Wales (1786 ship)? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)b


 * It's not an HMS as it was never commissioned into the Royal Navy - it was a private craft hired by the Government for this voyage and returned to private ownership once it left Australia. So we cannot list it among the HMS Prince of Wales vessels.


 * The ships naming convention mandates the standard Wikipedia naming conventions for civilian craft like this. So we could legitimately call it Prince of Wales (1786 ship) (ie not HMS) if you prefer. But arguably this might be unnecessary specificity, as no other civilian ships of this name currently have Wikipedia articles so it wouldn't be clear what we were differentiating it from. Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In passing the article should make clear it was not a naval vessel - give me a little while and I'll add it in. Euryalus (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I know it wasn't an HMS, just that "Prince of Wales (ship)" seems a bit ambiguous to me as those would also technically be "Prince of Wales (ship)". I can see both sides of that argument though. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, re-reading your comment it was clear what you meant but I didn't understand it. I'll still add to the article that it was a hired ship, as this is relevant to its voyages.I don't really mind either way re name - either (1786 ship) or just (ship) is fine by me and there's precedent on both sides. I'll ask at WP:SHIPS and if no one had a strong view, will move the page to (1786 ship) for clarity.Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations on a DYK! Amandajm (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of males brought aboard in May 1787
There is a ship)&diff=623829223&oldid=608695836 disagreement over the number of male prisoners brought aboard Prince of Wales in May 1787 after the Scarborough mutiny. I have restored the number to two, based on the source in the article, which relevantly reads -
 * "Captain Shea had the two ringleaders transferred to Sirius where they were lashed and sent to the Prince of Wales to be heavily ironed and subject to the discipline of Lieutenants Davey and Timins." (Moore p48).

That seems pretty clear. I note there is always scope for some dispute on numbers with the First Fleet, given there is not even an entirely reliable record of the total number of transportees. However we have a scholarly source for two males brought aboard after the mutiny - if there's a case to be put for one it would be great if a source was provided, so that we would discuss it further here. Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, also a primary source from Sergeant James Scott's journal: "Sunday 20th: The Commadore Ordd 2 Male Convicts from the Scarbr,o Transpt on Bd the Prince of Wales As the was, the Ring leaders of a Number that intended to Rise & take the Ship."
 * Euryalus (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ships called 'Prince of Wales'
I've added a hatnote to the, ahem, disambiguation page listing all the Royal Navy ships of this name. It occurs to me that the name of this article should most likely be changed - perhaps it might be Prince of Wales (Australian ship) or something of that sort. The current name seems to me to be somewhat misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This vessel must at the very least be renamed "Prince of Wales (1786 ship)". Seven other vessels named Prince of Wales sailed for the British East India Company alone. Renaming this article would free up the general name "Prince of Wales (ship)" for a disambig page for these vessels, and perhaps even more.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Move article to "Prince of Wales (1786 ship)" and create disambiguation page (Ship Index) for Prince of Wales (ship). Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

GAR requested
I read this article and found some areas that feel more like research notes than a Wikipedia article (especially "Origins" and remarks about surprise that it is or is not in Lloyd's register further down). These appear to be sections that have been added or modified significantly since it was promoted to GA. Could someone familiar with either the topic or the GA criteria please have a look at it? Pinging major contributors:. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for the ping. Took this through GA some time ago, but since then is been extensively edited by Acad Ronin, who is probably our foremost expert on the pre-19C Lloyds Register and the East India Trading Company. The Register records are a great source, but they often have annoying gaps, and records of private vessels are pretty poor throughout the entire period.


 * To advance the Review, I'll give my original parts of the article a copy edit for style (my original prose is from some years ago), and also move some of the more speculative bits to this page for discussion. This is principally in the "Origins" section, as you note above; the conclusions are probably accurate, but absent clearer sources they might come across as original research.

For discussion #1: origin accounts
To kick off the Review, I've brought the following paragraph here for discussion:


 * It is possible to reconcile these accounts somewhat. There is no mention of Prince of Wales in Lloyd's Register until 1787, when she appears in the supplemental pages as being of 300 tons (bm), launched in 1779 at Sidmouth, with master J. Mason, and owner John Mather. The reconciliation between the two origins may rest in the notation that she had been almost totally rebuilt in 1786. It is therefore quite reasonable to suppose that she was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and rebuilt at Rotherhithe in 1786.

The conclusion seems reasonable, but it seems to be based on an interpretation of likelihood, and not a direct secondary source. Absent a secondary source reconciling the two accounts, suggest we may have to leave both accounts in the article but without an explanation for why they differ. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

For discussion #2: Hannibal
Lloyd's Register is a reliable source. It records that a contemporaneous vessel in Mather's ownership was renamed from Prince of Wales to Hannibal.

The entry in Lloyd's Register, however, adds further confusion of a different sort. It reports that in 1786 Prince of Wales had been named Hannibal. The situation is more complex than that. If one works back from 1787, the only thing that is clear is that vessels have been bought, disposed of, and renamed.

What appears to have occurred is a mixing of records and a confusion of names. One may conjecture that one vessel was the South Carolina-built slaver Heart of Oak, launched in 1762, repaired in 1784, of 310 tons (bm), and renamed Hannibal in 1786. The other was the West Indiaman Hannibal, Sidmouth-built, launched in 1779, not yet rebuilt, and of 300 tons (bm), and eventually renamed Prince of Wales. Unfortunately, Lloyd's Register for 1785 is not readily available on-line. Furthermore, in 1784, although J. Mather apparently owned 17 vessels, including Heart of Oak, none was built in Sidmouth in 1779. Nor is there any other vessel listed built in Sidmouth in 1779. Full resolution of the issue may have to await primary research.

Questions :
 * Should this be mentioned in the "Origins" section, and if so, in how much detail?
 * Supporting documentation is understandably a bit limited. To what extent should we seek to interpret the data?

Opinions(all other views extremely welcome) :


 * We should certainly include a reference to this vessel and name change in the article. However the full enunciation of the theory (with table) seems a bit too detailed for this article section. I've temporarily converted it into a single sentence, and brought the bulk here for discussion. Please revert if there's disagreement with this temporary change.
 * I think we risk running into original research: I entirely agree with Acad Ronin's conclusions in developing this theory (and again, he's our leading expert on Lloyd's Register), but as he says, the records are too fragmentary to form a solid conclusion on whether Mather's 1787 Hannibal is the same vessel as Prince of Wales, which is otherwise a fairly common vessel name for the time. as above, contrary views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince of Wales (1786 ship). 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/20130418033700/http://da-academy.org/AfricanstoDominica.pdf to http://da-academy.org/AfricanstoDominica.pdf

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) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)