Royal Caroline Anatomy of a Ship book says, Rigging terminate at Fighting Top?

[Azzoun]

I'm hoping someone can assist, I've looked in several books and similar models of the Royal Caroline and I'm a bit lost now.   The below resources is the Anatomy of a Ship for the Royal Caroline.   Per the review of the deck, none of the lines indicated on the fighting tops belay at the deck level.  How would these lines belay at these locations on the fighting top?   For context, the some descriptions of the lines shown belayed at the fighting tops are topgallant cluelines (X36's), topgallant parrels (X33's), course leechlines (X18's), topgallant halyards (X31's), and Topgallant Lifts (X32's).   Any diagrams or thoughts you may have would be very helpful in understanding how these lines terminate here.   Thanks in advance!  

Joshua 

[allanyed]

Hi Azoun

 

I checked with the few sources and found two detailed belaying point drawings and text descriptions, including one for 1742 which may be somewhat appropriate for Royal Caroline 1750.   I cannot post these due to copyrights but they are in the book Masting and Rigging by Lees.   None of the lines you name terminate in the tops in his description of the belaying points of every line.   Looking at close ups of a number of photos of the tops of several contemporary models I could find only one line secured in the tops on one model, and it was secured to a topmast shroud deadeye.   I could not tell what line this was though.  This is not to say this is absolute for RC 1750.   The Anatomy of the Ship series is terrific in many ways, but as with any modern source, specific items should be checked against contemporary sources whenever possible.  For example, looking at the deck plans the cross pieces of the jeer bitts seem to be too long  when checked against one of the contemporary drawings at RMG and there may not have been belaying pins in the cross pieces in 1750 as these came into more common use closer to the end of the century.   There is no indication on the contemporary drawings that there were pin rails on the bulwarks on the RC.   There were a total of six timberheads and no pins on the rail at the break of the forecastle on the contemporary drawing, but only four timberheads on the drawing you posted.  Of course it is possible there were pins that were not shown on the contemporary drawings, but I THINK pins on this rail would be unusual before about 1785.

 

Regarding the topgallant yard parrel, it was fitted the same way as the topsail yard parrel until about 1805.  Unlike the lower yard parrels which had the lines leading to the deck, these had two eyes which were seized together on the foreside of the yard.  From Lees' Masting and Rigging, page 84 The parrel ropes, after reeving through the ribs and trucks, were taken round abaft the mast and from there, one was taken over the top of the yard, the other below; they were then both taken round the yard and lead over the ribs in the grooves provided, round the yard by the ends with eyes spliced in, and so on until the ropes were used up; and the ropes frapped together.  He makes no mention of the ropes leading to the tops or anywhere else.  Again, this may not be appropriate in every case, including RC1750.

 

RC drawing  from 1749: https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/459288.html 

Four high definition RC drawings after she was renamed Royal Charlotte in 1761 can be found on page 2 of the Wikicommons site https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ship_plans_of_the_Royal_Museums_Greenwich

 

There are differences in the contemporary deck drawings and the drawing you show from the AOS book.   Note the hatches on the main deck and the stairs to the QD as examples.   I would trust the contemporary sources before AOS, but Bellabarba and Osculati may have had other contemporary sources.   Out of curiosity, does the AOS book reference any of these drawings or other contemporary sources?   Just wondering if one or more of these drawings were used and if they were, why the AOS drawings did not necessarily follow them.

 

Allan 

[Gregory]

Petersson does show some belaying on the tops.

 

 

He shows some pins on the rail at the rear of the top and some cleats on the shrouds.

 

Of course, Petersson is looking at a model, so there is no confirmation this was actual practice..

[DelF]

Hi Joshua

 

Allan raises some interesting points

2 hours ago, allanyed said:

Out of curiosity, does the AOS book reference any of these drawings or other contemporary sources? 

To quote from the text of the book "Anyone who starts trying to reconstruct (in the sense of faithfully reproducing) a ship no longer in existence would be at a serious disadvantage without a general plan. Our problem was the opposite; three plans of Royal Caroline are in existence, all reliable, but not in complete agreement". The plans they cite are from the NMM and Frederick af Chapman's Architectura Navalis Mercatoria. They also studied contemporary paintings and made extensive use of experts, especially James Lees. I won't go in to more details - suffice to say they did their homework and they explain the conclusions they reached from the various contemporary sources.

 

Interestingly, Lees does have several of the lines Joshua mentions terminating in the tops. For example the topgallant lift "was taken to the lower top where it was made fast to a deadeye or cleat". Similarly with the cluelines, although he doesn't specify how they were made fast. Another option, cited in The Fully Framed Model Vol IV by David Antscherl, was for lines to belay on shroud cleats in the lower tops. 

 

Joshua, I think it's safe to suggest that you can adopt whichever of these methods works for you. Rigging on ships of the period, whilst highly specified in some respects (eg size of lines) was fluid in others, and would often be adjusted according to the preferences of individual captains. It's also worth noting that Royal Caroline had a big shortage of belaying points, given her unusual deck arrangement, which is why she makes so much use of pin rails in the lower shrouds. Keeping lines in the tops would have helped in that regard.

 

Finally, I didn't fit all the lines you mention in my model of the ship as I felt including sail handling lines in a bare sticks model would have been over the top. No hard and fast rules on that of course, and in fact I included all these lines on my last model of HMS Speedy. I didn't keep a log of Caroline  unfortunately, but here's a link to the gallery images.

 

Hope this helps and good luck with your build.

 

Derek

[davyboy]

Hi Gregory,as Peterssons book was based on the model of HMS Melampus a 36 gun 18 pounder frigate of 1785 (?) it's not really relevant to the original  question on the rigging of HMS Royal Caroline of 1750. Many rigging improvements appeared in that 35 year time period. Just saying.

 

Dave 

[Gregory]

What improvements do you think might be evident with regard to the original question regarding belaying points?

 

Lees often quotes practices that didn't change much over periods of 35 years and more.

[davyboy]

I can't make any comments at the moment as I'm currently on holiday thus having no access to my literature. However as you appear to be a fount of knowledge perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you know or think you know. Tschuss.

[Gregory]

19 minutes ago, davyboy said:

I can't make any comments at the moment as I'm currently on holiday thus having no access to my literature. However as you appear to be a fount of knowledge perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you know or think you know. Tschuss.

The information I provided from Petersson  was an effort to answer a question.  There was no claim of reliability, just a possibility.

 

 

However, a reply from Delf appears to add some credibility to the information.

3 hours ago, DelF said:

Interestingly, Lees does have several of the lines Joshua mentions terminating in the tops. For example the topgallant lift "was taken to the lower top where it was made fast to a deadeye or cleat". Similarly with the cluelines, although he doesn't specify how they were made fast. Another option, cited in The Fully Framed Model Vol IV by David Antscherl, was for lines to belay on shroud cleats in the lower tops. 

 

Which I have added to my fount of knowledge..

 

I will look forward to your input when you return from holiday and can check your references...

Edited August 19, 2021 by Gregory

[allanyed]

Hopefully this will be seen as a calming reply rather than a smart aleck comment which has no place here at MSW.  This is more of a food for thought response, not a dyed in the wool absolute final answer.

 

 Yes there were sometimes lines secured in the tops.  Yes they were secured to cleats or directly to the deadeyes in some cases.   Yes, rigging varied over time periods, some shorter, some longer.  Yes captains sometimes changed belay points to their own liking. 

 

The drawing from AOS shows what may be tiny cleats but I THINK more likely these are eyebolts.    Based on Lees' formulas for dimensions of the tops and a beam of the RC at 24' 7", the top of the main mast should be athwartships 10' 9 1/2" or so.   IF these were cleats, they would be only about 3.5" long so pretty much useless.  IF they are eyebolts,  to what purpose?  Perhaps they were for lead blocks such as those on the sketches H30/1 and H30/2 at the deck but it does answer where the lines were belayed.  I considered that maybe they were supposed to be the clevis pins for lead blocks that hang below the tops but the lines that are in question would not have lead blocks below the tops.    

 

Cheers everybody.

 

Allan

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by allanyed

[Gregory]

( Alan, just saw your comments.   Thanks for the additional input. )

 

Here is a quick quote from Lees regarding some of the belaying points in question..

Page 97 of my copy regarding topgallant bowlines and bowline bridals.

 

 

After 1773 ( Melumpus ) they were still belayed to the fore top, but blocks that were used previously are omitted.

So that is the change/improvement that would have been made since 1750 ( Royal Caroline ).

 

As to the question of whether lines were belayed at the tops, this reference says they were, and there was no change in that regard between 1750 and 1785.

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Gregory

[Mark P]

Good Evening Gentlemen;

 

One point which arises when discussing the belaying points of the rigging on Royal Caroline is the use of pin rails. As Allan mentions above, there is nothing to indicate that these were present on the bulwarks. However, the drawing which posted showing the plans received with the kit clearly shows a pin rail fitted to the shrouds. One thing I can vouch for is that this is a genuine contemporary detail, and can be seen in several paintings of the ship at different stages of her career. Unfortunately, they are not always shown on the same masts, or on all masts, although I suspect that this is artistic licence, and it would be safe to fit them to all masts, in my opinion. This is not to say that other lines did not belay in the tops, as discussed above; but it is certain that some lines, which on later ships would have come down to the pin rail in the bulwarks, actually belayed to a pin rack in the shrouds.

 

See below an excerpt from the actual painting which is used as the frontispiece of the AOTS book in black and white. A pin rack is quite clear on the mizen; there is also one on the main shrouds, although it looks as though it is a rail fitted to the side of the deckhouse roof. This is an illusion, as other paintings make clear.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P