|
Post by memeengine on Dec 11, 2014 13:04:28 GMT
Hmmm... ok, so those "wiling" to be a chaplain at sea were "Approved" by the admiralty board and therefore got the appointment..... The Admiralty Regulations refer to the position of Chaplain as being filled by a Clergyman. So that would suggest that the position had to be filled by someone trained within the Church of England clergy, rather than, say, a lay preacher or simply someone with deep religious feelings. Some captains would refuse because of the religion problems at that time, if it was at the time when 'Enery fell out wiv da Vatican sort of thing.....In times of Catholic rule when Protestant had been deposed, or vice versa, religion could be tolerated mildly, but not "Forced upon the men", as I have heard that one captain termed it. So having a mostly Protestant crew and being ordered to carry a catholic?... By the period that is being discussed here (roughly the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars), the government and, therefore the Admiralty, were firmly in the protestant camp. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that a Catholic Chaplain would be appointed at that time. However, from the mix of nationalities serving on Royal Navy ships at the time, it's quite likely that at least a few of the men would be Catholics (and perhaps a handful of other religions). From the point of view of harmony on board, I imagine that they operated a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with regard to a man's beliefs. Being a captain at that time could be considered as sort of being the "Lord" of a small independent island with its own rules under the reign of the king. Some military ships followed strict admiralty rules.... but they all ran slightly different. The extent of the Captain's authority was limited by the Articles of War (which was a collective name for a series of Acts of Parliament covering the legal framework for the Navy) and the Admiralty Regulations. The Captain certainly held a lot of power, especially when on detached service, but he was ultimately accountable to his flag officers and to the Admiralty itself.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 11, 2014 14:11:29 GMT
The regulations regarding chaplains date to the Navy of the English Republic, where they were more or less required to be carried to 'improve the morals of the men'. And yes, the chaplain had to be from the church of England.
Chaplains were unpopular on most ships, owing to them not actually having a function beyond the weekly muster, and just as unpopular it seems with the Admiralty. Many Naval chaplains got themselves into trouble, such as the one who got arrested for chasing his wife though town while both were drunk, very loud and naked. On a ship it seems men disliked Chaplains because sailors swore quite a lot, and tended to feel uneasy and restrained when they were in earshot.
Fleets seem to have carried at least one Chaplain, but on the whole it seems that the decision was down to the Captain as to if one was actually carried.
Schoolmasters didn't need to be capable of doing more than reading, although on line ships it does seem as if most Captains took the trouble to try and find men who had either experience or somewhat better qualifications. Given that Clergy had to be well educated it is actually quite possible that more than a few 'schoolmasters' were really Chaplains using another title.
Religion wasn't an issue for the foremast jack, indeed it seems that sailors were astonishingly liberal in such matters to a point that should shame many today. Officers, or at least commissioned officers, you couldn't be catholic as the oath you look required you to renounce the pope.
As far as Authority on a ship went, things tended to work both ways with the emphasis being on mutual respect. Captains tended to listen to the men, many going as far as to write to the admiralty to try and get them back pay - even admirals were known to do this for old hands. Sailors themselves were much happier with captains who enforced a consistent authority and treated them with respect. The admiralty itself understood this, which is one of the reasons why they tended to listen and do what they could to deal with complaints and requests captains brought to their attention. An example of the way the respect went both ways can be seen from the Spithead mutiny, with one or two exceptions for individual officers the men treated the officers with respect, even saluting them when they came on deck - they just wouldn't follow their orders to make sail. The officers in turn, and the admiralty itself, went out of their way to accommodate the genuine grievances the men had. Such as poor provisions and pitiful wages - both of which they probably agreed with. Although there were practical reasons for not trying the heavy handed approach, the general impression is of an Admiralty who was actually concerned with what the men thought and how they were being treated.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2014 15:50:42 GMT
The regulations regarding chaplains date to the Navy of the English Republic, where they were more or less required to be carried to 'improve the morals of the men'. And yes, the chaplain had to be from the church of England. Chaplains were unpopular on most ships, owing to them not actually having a function beyond the weekly muster, and just as unpopular it seems with the Admiralty. Many Naval chaplains got themselves into trouble, such as the one who got arrested for chasing his wife though town while both were drunk, very loud and naked. On a ship it seems men disliked Chaplains because sailors swore quite a lot, and tended to feel uneasy and restrained when they were in earshot. Fleets seem to have carried at least one Chaplain, but on the whole it seems that the decision was down to the Captain as to if one was actually carried. Schoolmasters didn't need to be capable of doing more than reading, although on line ships it does seem as if most Captains took the trouble to try and find men who had either experience or somewhat better qualifications. Given that Clergy had to be well educated it is actually quite possible that more than a few 'schoolmasters' were really Chaplains using another title. Religion wasn't an issue for the foremast jack, indeed it seems that sailors were astonishingly liberal in such matters to a point that should shame many today. Officers, or at least commissioned officers, you couldn't be catholic as the oath you look required you to renounce the pope. As far as Authority on a ship went, things tended to work both ways with the emphasis being on mutual respect. Captains tended to listen to the men, many going as far as to write to the admiralty to try and get them back pay - even admirals were known to do this for old hands. Sailors themselves were much happier with captains who enforced a consistent authority and treated them with respect. The admiralty itself understood this, which is one of the reasons why they tended to listen and do what they could to deal with complaints and requests captains brought to their attention. An example of the way the respect went both ways can be seen from the Spithead mutiny, with one or two exceptions for individual officers the men treated the officers with respect, even saluting them when they came on deck - they just wouldn't follow their orders to make sail. The officers in turn, and the admiralty itself, went out of their way to accommodate the genuine grievances the men had. Such as poor provisions and pitiful wages - both of which they probably agreed with. Although there were practical reasons for not trying the heavy handed approach, the general impression is of an Admiralty who was actually concerned with what the men thought and how they were being treated. among those practical reasons being that Captains who stepped over the line ran the risk of being invited to walk home?
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Dec 11, 2014 19:30:43 GMT
Schoolmasters didn't need to be capable of doing more than reading, although on line ships it does seem as if most Captains took the trouble to try and find men who had either experience or somewhat better qualifications. Given that Clergy had to be well educated it is actually quite possible that more than a few 'schoolmasters' were really Chaplains using another title. The Admiralty Regulations required that the Schoolmaster be examined by the "Masters, Wardens and Assistants of Trinity House" and be certified by them to denote that the schoolmaster was "skilled in the theory and practice of the art of navigation and qualified to teach the youth therein". Only when he was in possession of the certificate (and another testifying to his sobriety) would he be granted a warrant to serve as Schoolmaster on one of HM's ships. While it was possible that you might find an experienced naval Chaplain who could pass that examination, and thus qualify officially for both positions, I don't imagine that it was all that common. Even with a Schoolmaster on the ship, the Chaplains were required to teach the young gentlemen and boys the scriptures and church catechism, and give them guidance on spiritual matters. Rather amusingly, the regulations stated that, in leading the Lord's Day service, the Chaplain should "adapt his discourses to the capacity of his hearers and their situation", which I imagine is advice to dumb it down for the less educated among the crew.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 12, 2014 8:03:17 GMT
I suppose I should have clarified my sarcasm there a bit better. The thing about being religious, the church changed sides several times, preachers and clergy were a hazardous choice of career, priest holes in private houses were common, and going down on the wrong knee when the King/Queen decided to change religion was a head loosing offence.
Yes it was "Firmly" set that many of the "Congregation" were now church of England... Protestant... But not all of them agreed with that... its a historic family thing.... As far as the Captain was concerned, he often didnt ask and didnt care what knee you went down on or which direction you laid your prayer mat (Yes indeed many has Islamist sailors on board?..) as long as you did your job. The rest of the crew worked on a "We aint bothered" and never actually got around to being even remotely interested in a mans private affairs, if they didnt say, no one cared. As long as you did your job.... But in high seas, dont care if you are atheist, your goi8ng to be praying to someone aint you?..."Just in case"... I have been in rough weather on the seas north of Scotland.... It is quite a thing, if you have not experienced it, I cant describe it. Seeing the bow of the ship UNDERwater..... broon trooser time..... Being on the ship and experiencing g-force as it fights back to the surface... thats like being in an express elevator going sideways and up at the same time. The figure of 8 roll... dont care who you are, get into that, its the strongest stomach that doest re-chew last weeks breakfast. In one storm, I swear I tasted Christmas Dinner, and that was in April.
And humour?... well, there was I walking along a deck with a sea of pale English faces trying to aim over the side... I say to my mate who is as nutty as me, "I fancy a nice soft fried egg for breakfast, greasy bacon, and..." You have to be quick..... And you have to be sure the insults behind you dont start to catch up with you.....
But the galley was nice and quiet that day. [We had taken some spare parts from one side of the country to another by Royal Navy, cheaper and easier than by road, some of the crew were new, and our own RAF type guys were not as used to seafaring as perhaps I was?...]
|
|