The _Sovereign of the Seas_ in Fig. 61, reproduced from an engraving
in the British Museum, after the picture by Van der Velde, owes her
design to Pett also. The reader will see how much nearer his craft
approaches to the old wooden walls of the eighteenth century. Built
in 1637, this vessel was for the next generation the admiration and
envy of foreign nations. Like the _Prince Royal_ at a later date,
she was cut down in 1652 to a two-decker, having been found somewhat
crank. But as originally constructed, the _Sovereign of the Seas_ was
a three-decker—the first of her kind—and her measurements, probably
taken on the gun-deck, were: 169 feet 9 inches long, by 48 feet 4
inches beam, the depth of her hold being 19 feet 4 inches. She had
a tonnage of 1683 burthen, and her anchor weighed 60 cwt. Designed
by one member of the Pett family, Phineas, she was built under the
supervision of Peter Pett. In 1684 she was practically rebuilt and
then renamed the _Royal Sovereign_, but twelve years later had the
misfortune to be burnt accidentally at Chatham, yet not before
she had done excellent service under Blake and others during the
seventeenth century wars. Notice in the illustration that instead
of the rare use of the topgallant at the main, she carries them on
all three masts: further still, observe the fact that by now royals
have come into use for the first time. The fore and main have them
stowed with yards lowered.[96] Originally the _Sovereign of the Seas_
had four masts. She carried over 100 guns; had a figurehead; and the
beak-head, though somewhat similar to that of the _Prince Royal_,
is placed lower, while the length of the ship is proportionately
greater, and the original tubby appearance of the _Prince Royal_
is improved upon. There is a medal of the time of Charles I.,
commemorating the Declaration of Parliament of 1642. On one side is
shown a conventionalised design of this or a similar ship, showing
both topgallants and royals, the latter stowed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account