Talk:Mary Rose

History
English Navy
Name	Mary Rose
Namesake	The sister of Henry VIII
Launched	1510
Homeport	Portsmouth, England
General characteristics in the English navy
Displacement	500 tons (700 after 1536)
Length	89 feet
Beam	39 feet
Propulsion	sail
Crew	200 sailors, 185 soldiers, and 30 gunners
Armament	78 guns (91 after an upgrade in 1536)

Ships Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Shipwrecks B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Museums B‑class Mid‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Mary Rose appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know
- ... that when the English 16th century carrack Mary Rose of Henry VIII's royal navy sank in 1545 (event pictured) it became a Tudor era time capsule?
A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/January.

Wikipedia

Captain

There's no link for the captain, George Carew - is Op. Deo. working on this?--shtove 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 1512

The comment about the battle on 10 August 1512 is wrong. No french ships were captured, and the english fleet should be 25, at least 25 warships anyway. After the battle the English scoured the nearby coastline and captured a few dozen ships, raided ashore etc. i think they later came back and repeated the process, but this wasn't during the battle, and the ships captured were likely small merchant vessels. SpookyMulder 12:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length

Now that this is a pretty long and thorough article, shouldn't the request for expansion be removed? Hyperman 42 18:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guns

Can someone more knowledgeable on the subject please clarify how a ship can have 91 guns and 30 gunners? TDIPete 09:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question - I thought at first the answer was going to be that the numbers of crew came from before the refit that increased her guns, but the 30 gunners comes from the Mary Rose official website and is apparently the figure recorded in 1545. Presumably the answer is that each gunner was in charge of more than one gun team. Viv Hamilton 09:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely that the answer is that both sides of the ship didn't have to be manned at the same time. The Mary Rose was built in a time of broadside gunnery and sailing vessels that were extremely slow in maneuvering. Unless she was actually surrounded, there would be no point in manning all 91 guns at the same time. Also, guns of the time had a very slow rate of fire and needed to cool off between shots so they wouldn't blow up on its gun crew. For comparison, the maximum rate of fire of the 24-pounders of Vasa was a mere 10 shots/hour.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement ideas

The article on the Vasa recently made Featured Article status, so editors looking to improve this article may want to look to it for ideas. Johntex\^talk 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from elsewhere

“

The Mary Rose was one of the many ships used in battle during the time of Henry and it was his favourite ship. The Mary Rose was named after Henry's younger sister. It took a year for her to be completed. She was built in Portsmouth, England. She was one of the earliest purposely-built warships to serve in the English Navy. She was sunk in the Solent. It was thought that she was sunk during the war against the French fleet on July 19, 1545. It is also possible that Henry was flattering his mistress, Mary Boleyn, sister of Anne, when he selected the name of the Mary Rose. Mary Boleyn was a member of the court before the arrival of her sister Anne. She had become Henry's mistress while he was still married to Queen Catherine. Mary Boleyn gave birth to three children, the first two children were often attributed to Henry at the time although they bore the name Carey, the surname of Mary's first husband. However, it is strongly unlikely that they were Henry's progeny, or even accepted as his, seeing as he never recognized them, as he did Henry Fitzroy. Given how important it was to the king to prove that he was able to produce sons, if he had been at all sure that the Carey children were really his, he would have acknowledged them as such.

”

Can you encorporate any of this? --Secisek (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible info box

Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad - I reduced the flag size to something more consistent, though it isn't really the best one to use - I might knock up a more appropriate Tudor ensign at some point. What is your source for the information? Martocticvs (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant article?

From the Toronto Star, Aug. 2 2008 - "New theory emerges on Mary Rose sinking: B.C. criminologist says teeth, bones of sailors point to Spanish crew aboard English warship" 86.136.248.48 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting theory, but a very new one (and a few flaws in it as it's reported are immediately obvious - being of Spanish origin does not unnecessarily mean that a sailor could not understand English, or even that this was the cause of the gun ports being left open). According to the article, this theory is due to be published in a journal, where it will presumably be reviewed by experts in the field, and will qualify as a Reliable source. I'd suggest waiting for this to happen, so we can see how best to incorporate any new information, rather than jumping a gun and being seen to promote controversial or potentially flawed new theories. Benea (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a programme on TV about this the other day - typically for a TV programme it was promoted as being the true explanation but it can't be given too much weight until there are several other pieces of information that could point to the same conclusion. Once it is published though I do think it merits inclusion as one possible explanation of what occurred. Martocticvs (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunk by French cannonfire?

A new theory: BBC News | Mary Rose 'sunk by French cannon' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.149.42 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. — Aldaron • T/C 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update assistance

I've been working on a major update of this article for a few months now and I have been tinkering with it at a sub-page of mine that can be found at user:Peter Isotalo/novelties. The reason for my not doing the editing in article space is because I've wanted to submit it as a DYK. There's also the matter of waiting for a possible image donation from the Mary Rose Trust that is in the works. Anticipating that the update will be realized within a few weeks, I'm inviting anyone who's interested in improving the quality of the update (and to share DYK credits) to freely edit the above mentioned draft.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The principle DYK update has now been implemented. A request will soon be placed at T:TDYK to have this article featured either on January 3 or 4 (not decided which is best yet) to coincide with a press release about an image donation from the Mary Rose Trust. The images themselves will be uploaded just before the press release on January 3 and will be inserted into this and other articles just after. For more info and discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Scheduling a DYK date.

And help with improving the article in time for the press release is of course greatly appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought an article had to be of featured status before main-page exposure. Perhaps they make exceptions. Tony (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be featured on the main page rather than Featured. The article's undergone a five-fold expansion so will be in the DYK section. Unfortunately, I don't see a way of getting the article through FAC in time for 4 January. Nev1 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a few copy-edit queries

I'm embarrassed to say that I wasn't quite sure what "broadside" meant. Know I know from having followed the link. While the link needs to be retained, it could have a brief glossing on the spot. Or not, since it might clutter what is otherwise a neat few sentences there. I don't know.

I removed "extant", but if it's desirable to stress the concept of the survival of that kind of knowledge (i.e., we're lucky, or it's rare), maybe reinstate.

I removed "precise" because of the repetition of ise ise, even though pronounced differently: "The precise cause of the demise". But I don't know whether it's necessary for the meaning.

Repetition needs to be watched; I know this only too well from my own writing. Why won't someone help to build a bot or script that flags close repetitions of non-grammatical words? I've asked. :-)

"In 1978, the newly formed Mary Rose Trust began the process of fully excavating and then raising the hull. In the last step of one of the most complex and expensive projects in the history of maritime archaeology the wreck of the Mary Rose was raised in October 1982." It seemed repetitive, so I removed "and then raising" (which was my wording anyway, to replace "followed by ...". I hope I haven't mangled it.

It's gotta be in BrEng, by the rules. I presume you prefer "ize", which is permissible but less common.

Not sure "musical instruments" deserves a link, unless there's a section-link that is more specific to ships, or a daughter article: "to the history of musical instruments". Musical instruments is a common term.

"Remained" and "remnant" are cognate; I'm trying to think of how to reword that to avoid the rep. Remnant is kind of nice.

Link to "Spain" is too common: I've made it more specific, which is acceptable: "Spain#Imperial_Spain".

"War had broken in 1508"—those few sentences don't make it clear who was at war with whom. The readers shouldn't have to hit the Cambria link to find out who was conspiring against Venice. If the League initilly included France, the ", but" is OK; if it didn't, "... and ..." is better.

"England had close economic ties with Spain through its possessions in the Low Countries and the young Henry" I guess "its" is clear enough.

I've taken out "the young" except on its first occurrence. Tony (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Tony. Those all seemed like relevant points and I've tried to amend all of them. Let me know if anything still seems unclear.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks needing disambiguation

The Dablinks tool shows currently 22 links from this article to disambiguation pages. --Una Smith (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Only divider and pontoon remain, and I'm not entirely sure what to do with them. Neither has dedicated articles to the meanings referred to here.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two now dealt with. --Una Smith (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He he

(*Channels Beavis and Butt-head* He he, bollock dagger, he he.) No, seriously, what a fantastic article. I've gone through and made a few edits, mostly for British English spelling. Very impressed indeed: well done all. 86.148.48.248 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]