Nelson & His World

An article here from The Times of a few weeks ago about the bosun of the ill-fated Mary Rose - a little out of period, but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 024230.ece

Note the slippery journalism: the headline announces he's 'the man who sank the Mary Rose'; the article says he is 'thought to have' done so. The caption under the picture says he 'could have played a part' in the sinking.

There was also a piece in yesterday's edition on the skeleton of the ship's dog which is to go on display soon but I can't at the moment locate it.

P.S. Aha! Found it!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 057543.ece

Anna,

I had never heard of the Mary Rose's bosun before, although obviously she had one, but to then claim that he was responsible for the ship's sinking is, I think, a bit much! But then that's newspapers for you, as I mentioned on another thread.

I'm not saying that he didn't have a part to play in the drama, but there were several other circumstances which also had a bearing, such as: a) the fact that there was heavy weather at the time; b) the ship is thought to have been turning at the time she went down and thus was overwhelmed; c) the ship was overloaded with men (I believe she took on more troops before she put to sea) many of whom it was recorded by her captain were foriegn, didn't speak English and were 'unruly'; d) She was going out to oppose the French who were attacking Portsmouth at the time – so her gunports would have been open to effect that, unwise though that may have been.

Thus I think the ship's sinking was a probably a mixture of all these things (and at this date in time we are not likely to get to the real truth) and not the fault of one man who, even if he had acted as he should, would probably not have been able to affect the outcome.