Don’t sink the Caroline!

• • 54 Comments

The indefatigable David Silbey has posted Military History Carnival #26 at Cliopatria. The link which inspired this post's title is at Military Times and concerns the fate of HMS Caroline, a light cruiser which was commissioned in 1914 and remains in service as a floating (albeit permanently moored) headquarters and training ship in Belfast. She is due to be decommissioned at the end of this month, and, if no home is found for her, she will be scrapped (admittedly more likely than being sunk, as per my title, though old warships are sometimes turned into artificial reefs and the like). This is a pretty sad end for the last survivor of Jutland, but unfortunately it's about par for Britain when it comes to preserving its naval heritage. The nation which dominated the seas during the eras of the ironclad and the dreadnoughts has none left (bar, quite remarkably, the Royal Navy's first example of the former, HMS Warrior). Britain invented the flat-deck aircraft carrier, but without exception has scrapped or sold off every one it ever built (well, except for those sunk by other causes). There is the odd submarine or cruiser still around from the World Wars period, but very, very few. If Caroline does go down at last -- in the interim she has been offered to the National Museum of the Royal Navy, but funding is still needed -- it will be a crying shame.

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://airminded.org/copyright/.

54 thoughts on “Don’t sink the Caroline!”

  1. Chris Williams

    On the other hand, if you are planning on staying in business, you shouldn't burden yourself with a legacy fleet. HMS Victory and that's your lot.

    In an ideal world, Orkeney Islands council would cough up some of their rather large oil stash for the scrap value, on the basis that a 1914 cruiser would make a great centrepiece for a Museum of the Dreadnought in Scapa Flow, some day or other.

    When I saw the title of this post, I thought it was about another Caroline. Got me worried about international incidents.

  2.

    I don't know, Chris. An international incident might be a bit much to expect these days. I mean, between Prince George and Princess Caroline I lean towards the lady, but they've been kind of eclipsed by Charlie Sheen lately.

  3. Christopher

    Considerable time and expense heeded to restore and say put into something like her Jutland fit. It also raises the question of just how much do you spend on your history? Restoration in the millions with a 10 year (at least) restoration period? So preservation is nice but is it worthwhile with other priorities and for a ship which was not a major player in the battle as well.

  4. Neil Datson

    I yield to nobody in my enthusiasm for poking around in old warships. But . . .

    I take it that the Caroline is now so far from original condition as to be little more than an old hulk. Restoration to original condition would be far too expensive.

    The last time I visited the Warrior (admittedly a long time ago) I found her rather disappointing, for the above reason. Ditto the Cavalier and Gannet at Chatham.

    So while I'd rather the Caroline wasn't broken up, I can't feel any great excitement at the notion of her becoming a museum ship. Far better put the Cumberland straight into dry dock when she gets back from Libya. In another hundred years time even I might find her interesting!

  5. Chris Williams

    There's rather more left of the Caroline than I was expecting - I thought that she had been totally hulked, in the manner of HMS Inconstant, aboard which my father-out-law trained in the 1940s. Inconstant's engines were left in, but not a lot else. Caroline OTOH has engines, mast, upper works, and I think decks.

    Worth saving, I reckon - I can't find any handy petitions to splurge around, so if anyone sees one, give me a shout. Jutland was an event: more Britons fought there than at Trafalgar or Waterloo.

  6.  Post author

    Christopher:

    Of course preservation and restoration would cost a lot of money. But Britain spends a lot on heritage already (sensibly, as it's a major part of the economy); it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that perhaps quite enough stately houses and Roman forts have been preserved by now and perhaps some other important parts of Britain's heritage could be looked after as well.

    And if you can find a more important survivor of Jutland to preserve I'd be quite happy to ditch Caroline in favour of that, if forced to choose.

    Neil:

    As Chris points out, Caroline is a lot more than a hulk. In fact, it's 80% original, including its Parsons turbines -- apparently 'the only in situ First World War turbines in the world'. The armaments and boilers were removed, but otherwise it seems impressively well-preserved already, considering it's been in use for nearly a century.

  7. Christophyer

    Brett
    Indeed Britain spends a lot on heritage but does need to prioritize its spending - funding is not a bottomless pit and Caroline has to be evaluated against other also worthy and historical monuments and artifacts. Unfortunately, a minor survivor of Jutland may not be such an important priority for preservation. Caroline was at Jutland - so what? There has to be some significance and some means of generating interest. Ships don't really do that I'm afraid and it would just be a money eater. Caroline is not as complete as you claim and there is a lot of work to be done to restore the ship to its Jutland state which would be what is needed. The upperworks for example are not original and I believe that the hull has also been modified. So whilst I have no particular wish to see her scrapped if it is going to take money from other projects then I would rather they did so.

  8.

    Indeed Britain spends a lot on heritage

    We've got so much of the stuff lying around. (In a bit of an ecrasez l'infame mood this morning. Bulldoze the lot and turn it into a cite radieuse!)

  10. Ian Brown

    I have never heard of HMS CAROLINE,it is not mentioned when looking at tourist websites for Belfast or Northern Ireland.
    I like old warships but there are only a few I know about,an ex RN carrier would be a great museum.
    I am a big history person but perhaps people should remember that the current Royal Navy is being cuts to bits by our current government and that worries me more than an old ship that many people have never heard off.
    (I thought AIRMINDED would have done a piece on the end of the Harrier and the FAA,the Air League protested,who knew we still had an Air League?)

    I think years ago the armed forces decided that they should concentrate on their actual job of defending us and in general leave nostalgia to charity? obviously we have the Battle Of Britain flight and so on but I think that in general they don't try to run a nostalgia operation in the armed forces?

    The writer claims to work at the National Museum Of The Royal Navy,is this in Portsmouth? is this what it is called? I am a military/naval museum fan and have hardly heard of it? do they have a marketing department?

    I live in Edinburgh but unless the person who mentions LEITH means the former Royal Yacht I don't know of any former RN ships?
    One thing that always mad me laugh about the Brittania was that when it was a Royal Yacht and people questioned how much it cost its defenders always said it was actually a hospital ship equipped to go anywhere in the world and ready to cope with and climate,but when the Falklands war happened (following cuts in the RN don't forget) the same spokesmen said it was not suitable for its role as a hospital ship.)

  11. Chris Williams

    Ian, HMS Caroline is still in commission, hence not a tourist attraction. I don't think that there's any future in asking the MoD to pay for her either: DCMS ought to pick up the tab for this one, one way or another. Buying her for scrap value then putting her in mothballs would be a cheap short-term solution to the problem.

  12.  Post author

    Christopher:

    It's the only survivor of Jutland. That alone makes it significant. What more do you want? Yes, it's only a minor survivor, because everything more significant has been scrapped. There is nothing else left to preserve.

    I'll cop to not knowing how accurate the 80% figure is; that comes from the Military Times post, the author of which is Dominic Tweddle, head of the NMRN. I'm assuming he knows his stuff.

    Alex:

    Futurist!

    Ian:

    I don't often comment on contemporary matters such as operations, force levels, etc, as my few early forays into that area convinced me I'm not cut out for the job! But I can recommend James Daly's Daly History Blog for excellent commentary on such matters, especially where the RN is concerned. His post on the Harrier's last flight is here. (And I for one did know the Air League was still around, as they kindly hosted me at their offices for a couple of days to look through their archives :)

    On the National Museum of the Royal Navy, I hadn't heard of it either but it's fairly new, founded in 2009 as an umbrella organisation to run the RN's museums: Portsmouth, the National Submarine Museum and the museums for the FAA and the Marines. So it's not surprising that it's not very well known. As I noted above, the author of the piece in question doesn't just work for the NMRN, he runs it.

  14. Christopher Amano-Langtree

    Hi Brett
    Many thanks and yes we are OK. We live in Tokyo and so were very lucky.
    Christopher

  15. Christopher Amano-Langtree

    I am not a believer in the theory that because something is the last of its kind it should be preserved. To my mind the more pertinant questions are - is it significant? Will it add something new? Will it be cost effective by which I mean will it generate interest and not take money from other pieces of history that would be worth preserving. Presence at a battle doesn't actually confer a need to preserve that artifact especially if other sources cover things effectively. Jutland, whilst a hugely significant battle is not one of the defining moments of English history. Caroline played a small and insignificant role in the battle. So there has to be another reason to spend a lot of money on preservation, restoration and upkeep to the detrement of other artifacts which are just as if not more historically significant. Belfast already gives an idea of what life must have been like on a warship and the Naval Armaments Museum allows people to understand the armament used on these ships. The IWM's Jutland coverage is accurate and there are enough books written for people to get an idea of what it was like to be at the battle. As for the question of cost effectiveness - once again we have to assume that it won't. People don't visit ships to the same extent as they do for other museums and museum pieces. The British have a low interest in their naval heritage sad to say. Belfast is adequate for those who wish to explore it so with Cavalier being rather superfluous. Rather preseving the experience of the trenches is more relevant to a lot of people. So sorry Brett but here I cannot see any need to preserve Caroline and maybe restore her to her former state.

  16. Chris Williams

    Glad to hear you're OK, Christopher.

    And now, the case for the defence:

    Any successful preservation project has to be able to attract a number of different interest groups in order to work. In no particular order Caroline offers the following:
    1. A WW1 light cruiser, which was designed to perform a very different role to Belfast - scouting for the fleet rather than having an important capability as a detached unit
    2. A WW1 RN ship of any kind. hence a great centrepiece for any 1914-1918 material which the various national collections have on this period. IWM has a trench, but no director tower - why not?
    3. The chance to explore the age of the ironclad, which dominated popular consciousness between 1870 and about 1940. "we want eight and we won't wait'.
    4. Something outside London. Given the salience of Rosyth, Faslane, the Clyde and Scapa Flow in the RN experience, there's a good argument for a preserved warship somewhere north of a line running Bristol - London.
    5. A place to remember Jutland, still the biggest (in terms of participants) sea battle ever fought. In twenty years time, says the back of my envelope, half a million Britons will have an ancestor who was in that battle. That's some of your visitor pool, right there. Get moving and we can make the centenary.
    6. Somewhere interesting that schools can send pupils who are doing war. I doubt that that this will ever go out of fashion.
    I agree that we don't need another half-arsed war museum - I hang out with people in the museums sector, and there is a very good argument for concentration over dispersal (Jellicoe would understand). But put Caroline anywhere north of Liverpool, and you could run a very good centre round her.

  17.  Post author

    Yes, glad you're okay, Christopher! Chris has made the case for the defence better than I could. I'd just add that it's already part of the Core Collection of the National Historic Fleet, so the argument for its significance has already been made. A couple of other significances, if you believe Wikipedia: the aforementioned Parsons turbines (non-geared, later ships of the class had superior geared turbines) and its build time, 9 months from laying the keel to launch, apparently still the record for any 'significant warship'.

  18. Neil Datson

    While not quarrelling with any of the above points, I'll also point out that the Caroline was an early representative of a fairly important group of warships.

    The Arethusa class and C classes of WWI were fairly numerous. Being oil-fired, they broke with previous designs. They were heavily involved in what fighting there was in the North Sea. In general they were successful ships. Some of the later C class ships were converted to A-A cruisers and consequently played a front-line role in WWII.

    Caroline's role at Jutland wasn't of great significance, but then very few ships played a role of great significance there. But the C classes, taken as a whole, were not insignificant ships.

  19.

    Somewhat to my own surprise, I find myself agreeing with the naysayers on this. If HMS Belfast had not been preserved I think there'd be a stronger case for saving Caroline, but the differences between the two are of degree rather than kind. It would be nice to have both, but I don't see any compelling reason for it when so many more urgent heritage causes are vying for funds too.

  20.

    I've been following this thread with a degree of incredulity.

    While we can't save 'everything' - for a nation founded on maritime power, Britain's representation of 20th Century ships (from the Dreadnought arms race to the 1950s being the last hurrah, I'd read it) is lamentably small, and is better listed by what's missing than what's preserved. For that reason alone, a veteran of Jutland - at worst a non-event that defined the negative strategy of 'a fleet in being' is worth preserving - certainly over another &$#T#^ stately home.

    I'm no naval expert, and taking that level of knowledge, Belfast, famous as a W.W.II cruiser, does not do as an acceptable substitute for a Great War cruiser. It's hard enough getting Britons to understand there were two 'world wars' and their role in it without conflating them.

    The recently lost chance of preserving the last W.W.II era British carrier is just another step in the long list of missed opportunities for preservation. As to the costs, they are stunning. But it is more a historical oddity that the spread of blue-rinse / retired Colonel ghettoes of the National Trust 'work' while Britain's maritime history has failed to leverage that kind of politico-economic advantage. Nowhere in the UK is far from the coast, yet most ship preservation sites are badly run to a second-rate standard as both history and tourist attractions - even compared to the aviation ones. What would Nelson and Fisher think?

  21. Christopher

    Fisher would probably have said 'Scrap them all' - he had no interest in sentiment but rather focused on the modern, particularly speed and hitting power. Nelson probably the same. I am a naval historian so understand that the difference between Belfast and Caroline is actually very small. Nothing Caroline offers can be defined as unique from Belfast. There is also a wider strategic question of just what will engage the interest of the general public. Preserving Caroline just because it is Caroline is not really an option - it has to offer something that will allow people to relate to the period in question. In the UK ships do not do that as the same extent as stately homes (and before you disparage these you need to remember that they and their occupants touched more people than ships did). Knowing something of preservation and the costs involved in ship preservation I can tell you that to restore and then maintain Caroline to the standard needed would be extremely expensive and time consuming. If a wealthy private benefactor can be found that would be good but otherwise one is going to spend a lot of money on one thing which will not attract many visitors. History is not about one event (in this case the Battle of Jutland) but many and whilst Jutland was a great victory if any ship was to be preserved it should have been Warspite. These events often have more or equal significance. Just a final note about a fleet in being - this is a small fleet which ties up a larger fleet not a major fleet like the Grand Fleet which controls an ocean.

  22.

    Can't see anything there not to argue with, to be honest - I'm just mildly surprised by naval historian(s) taking a casual approach to the hardware. But then I've a suspicion that too much paper and libraries and too little dedication to using the artefacts is a general issue with (many) historians. Just my opinion as a non-historian (but I do have one at home...) seeing who goes through museums and the real places and things and wondering where the historians are.

    Only thing to clarify is that I don't 'disparage' the stately homes of old England; despite a slightly flippant remark - I've been through a lot and worked in one, and bluntly, it's unarguable that more are preserved than there's any justification for - many with significantly less relevance to anything than any extant ex-RN ship. They also suck cash at a remarkable rate - arguing as to which is more expensive is predicated on the values and methodologies of preservations choices and options - again a tipped playing field.

    The status and role of the RN and merchant marine and the families is as important in the history of the UK as the social import of the stately homes. For crying out loud, the British Empire was built on the RN and Merchant Marine!

    Most of the UK's population can draw a line to ancestors in the navies, and while one might prove more relating to those 'in service' (or the tiny percent who owned the houses) not so little as to ignore. The focus on the importance of the stately home over the navies says more about current mainstream acceptabilities of history and civilian class systems than it does their involvement and effects on their lives and the development of the British Empire. In the specific, a couple of my relatives were RAN, one in the RAAF but none I'm aware of had any involvement with the kind of houses that get preserved, except as tourists...

    You (as a naval historian) may see no difference of import between Caroline and Belfast; as an interested observer, I'd say the social and military historical differences between their careers and the naval experiences of their crews are significantly different as the former slips from our 'living memory' and as - more - vital than any technical or design elements. Standing in Belfast and talking about direct experience of Jutland would be absurd, trust me, as someone who show the general public the actual chopper that flew into Long Tan, the 'real thing' has an import, whether it's main or peripheral to the event. Caroline can offer that material to a good guide and the public can surprise in their ability to relate to that direct link, however unorigional the ship may be, or poorly presented.

    Had the preservationists taken the position offered above of lacking originality and size of task and cost, we'd not have SS Great Britain in preservation, for one.

    I agree Warspite should've been preserved - but it wasn't and I'm sure there were some of the same kind of views expressed above stated at the time. If we had a better option than Caroline from Jutland, I'd support it. We have to work with the best we have left, and if we ditched all the minor peripheral items from the British Museum, it'd be a poor collection. We don't even know who was the man in the Sutton Hoo ship. There's no HMCS Sackville equivalent from the Battle of the Atlantic in Britain, and the British are, IMHO, significantly poorer lacking such a solid anchor to connect to that real experience and massive sacrifice.

    (Given the current state of the UK's finances and the RN I'd suggest both Fisher and Nelson might've been grateful for anything from history to add to the numbers. More ships in preservation, better managed, and publicised, as part of UK Heritage Co Ltd would have had an effect on support for the RN in the current situation - something any Sea Lord should appreciate.)

    I understand ship preservation is a tough ask, and talking recently to a national collection large artefact curator he said categorically ships are the hardest to preserve. Locally, HMVS Cerberus is in a parlous state as a disintegrating breakwater, and is arguably of greater import in rare technicality than Caroline, and is probably in need of greater cash - and definitely less likely to get it. The figure for recovering and preserving Cerberus is eyewatering - could it be done? With a significant push and restructuring of the approach, it must be possible - sadly very unlikely.

    The important bit -
    Whatever our values and needs, one thing is for certain - those values and needs of the future will be different. If we let Caroline go, it can't be retrieved in the future, and it is utterly arrogant of us to decided that our descendants have no entitlement to the last ship from Jutland.

    I think the above discussion says more about academic historian's values than it actually does about the value of Caroline as an object worthy or not for preservation. Credit to Brett for taking the opening position, though.

  23.

    PS! I realise the above is rather ~um~ long and ~ah~ unequivocal. I do see the points made, and certainly have revised my thinking as we go. As Brett knows (poor chap) there's usually a dose of irony in my polemics and more than a little challenge poking at actually reasonable positions and roles, such as historians...

    I guess some of this is because I suppose I'm a preservationist rather than an unqualified historian, as I strongly believe that the artefacts (as archaeologists demonstrate far better than me) tell a different, more 'primary' story to that of primary historical sources. Both text and thing can be perverted or misinterpreted, but with care, I do think the 'thing' is more likely honest and unbiased at base. We need both, of course, but if we discard the 'things', no amount of writing will substitute. Your mileage may vary...

  25. Christopher Amano-Langtree

    The problem is the thing itself can be perverted or misinterpreted as well. A restoration can be inaccurate or plain wrong and preservation is full of these. I am a naval historian but I am also very knowledgeable about what will interest and engage non-historians. Caroline is not likely to do so and even Cerberus might not (significant though she definitely is). If you take a look at the historical dramas on television you will rapidly see how little is filmed about the sea compared with stately homes. About the only thing you can guarantee interest in is battleships and we all know how many of these there are in the UK.
    You have to understand that in an ideal world Caroline would be preserved but this isn't an ideal world and there have to be priorities. These have to be along the lines of how many people will be engaged by the artifact in question. The more people are engaged the more can be spent on it. Large artifacts are more difficult to preserve and I am sure you are aware of the organistions who set out to create a replica of an aircraft and how they scale back their plans. Being realistic about what can be preserved and what will help historical understanding the best is important. There is nothing that Caroline can offer which the layman can obtain from other sources - this has to be understood. If an Udvar-Hazy emerges to preserve Caroline that would be great but the photographic and written record would be enough for anyone interested in the topic.

  26.

    Thanks Chris, Christopher.

    Before I go further, I do hope you and yours continue to be safe in the terrible situation Japan faces.

    I think you may well have the future predicted accurately, but there's a counter-argument nevertheless. I'm always wary of 'having to understand' - in this case it's a cart before the horse argument.

    When someone offered a TV programme about archaeology, it was a fact that "most people aren't interested", but the stunning success of Time Team has shown that you can interest people in such a (previously) obscure topic, and unarguably has raised the profile and understanding of archaeology globally (with a US spinoff and high viewing figures of the original here in Australia); has involved more people in the area and shown that when presented properly a topic well presented can engage. If they can do it for pots in holes in the ground - increasing the volume of research, qualified archeologists and papers published directly attributable to a TV programme, what could be done for any other topic, such as aviation or the marine history of Britain?

    The problem for Britain's maritime history is not that it's a specialist, uninteresting subject not relevent to the majority of the people, but that it hasn't been tackled in this - or similar ways.

    It is clearly an historian's argument that an artifact (such as a ship) can be fully understood from documentation alone. Sorry, I'm afraid that "standing on the deck that was at..." has a resonance, however emotionally simple and un-academic that will engage the lay person in a manner that photos, plans and text cannot. (That, in a nutshell, is why heritage tourism exists despite the offers of virtual reality.)

    It is also an historian's argument that preservation can (as it does) 'pervert' the 'story' an artifact can tell. But the Sutton Hoo helmet is a classic example how the original material, when stripped of inadequate interpretation (always a distinction that can be made) can tell a completely different story to what was once thought correct.

    "What will we know tomorrow?" If we dispense casually with original artifacts, and rely on historians alone for history, a lot less than we might.

    "If you take a look at the historical dramas on television you will rapidly see how little is filmed about the sea compared with stately homes. About the only thing you can guarantee interest in is battleships and we all know how many of these there are in the UK."
    Can't agree with any of that. Taking the UK - Programmes exclusively on stately homes? Very few. The UK has recently run a series on trawlermen. In Australia we have some silly programme on the RAN; something that it's notable the UK could - but doesn't do. If we can they could. Programmes featuring stately homes as part of history or society - indeed many; but much of that could be doing more for the maritime if there were, say, a lobby group or stronger maritime heritage advocacy. Battleships only? Rubbish. Carriers, destroyers, subs all have certain cachets; oddities like kayaks or adventures like the St Nazaire Raid (a recent UK TV programme, by the way, as there was a BBC one on carrier HMS Ark Royal's discovery) all have mileage. Oh, I do agree there's no battleships preserved in the UK, but that's more reason to preserve a step-down of a cruiser, not less.

    I agree that there's an exponential challenge issue with size and complexity, and ships are a nightmare to restore. But aviation sets precedents. If a bunch of enthusiasts (the Canadian Warplane Heritage) in Canada can restore and fly a Lancaster bomber (offering a very few opportunities to fly in it) that's an answer to the requirement for numbers involved, or the support available can be limited, but effective. The most complex 'warbird' restoration in history, and a running catastrophe curve of funding is the Avro Vulcan XH558. As a vintage aircraft pilot once said in a lecture about managing rotary engines, I'd suggest that aviation and maritime restoration has the same comparison - "different, not difficult."

    But there's something fundamentally unsound in the marine preservation 'movement in the UK, as shown by the (temporary, one hopes) closure of the Windermere Steamboat Museum. The issue is not just that it closed, but that a volunteer supported museum managing small, fun passenger launches (in fresh water, with tea and biccies) in one of Britain's major tourist destinations couldn't work. Why not? I don't know, but it's not the boats that were the problem.

    We could argue for months about the differences and difficulties that marine preservation faces. Nothing is achieved by that approach. What is achieved is by ruthlessly stealing others' good ideas and practical methods and making the enterprise a success or having a damn good go. That's how the Trireme replica Olympias was created, by a naval historian and a naval architect, with the direct result of proving many academic views about the capability of ancient Greece flat wrong (- even with a flawed replica).

    I make no claim to being an historian. But one fact stands out like a sore thumb to me. In tourism, preservation and advocacy - which I suggest results in poor public interest and support, rather than stemming from it - Britain (historically, and currently, a maritime nation) is notably below par in the maritime aspect of 'Heritage GB Ltd' compared to any other heritage and technology peer, and (proportionately) also as measured globally. That should be a call for action by marine historians and those committed, rather than bromides about not being 'the ideal world'. I agree that choices and funding are issues, but I would flatly state (in my experienced opinion) too much is spent on stately homes and too little on some other areas, including the marine.

    Yes, you've guessed right, I think you are flat wrong in claiming to be "knowledgeable about what will interest and engage non-historians". As a volunteer guide, I'm continually caught by surprise at the nature, depth or diversity of public interest. (The same applied when I was a professional museum guard in the UK.) Generalise on responses, yes, but failure to 'sell' any human enterprise to people is more to do with the approach or presenter than the topic.

    If there was as viable a route to supporting Cerberus as there is to supporting the RAAF Museum, I might be spending some or all of my time, money and advocacy there.

    It's the methodology, not the topic.

    Oops! Another essay.

  27. Christopher Amano-Langtree

    It doesn't actually work that way I'm afraid. Yes time team was a success but not because there was no interest. There is a lot of interest in the past but not so much in boats. Despite what you might feel the interest in ships does not go much beyond battleships. I know - I'm a participant in this field. Let us suppose that Caroline is preserved - as what? A static ship and how do you get the real experience of being on a cruiser in the North Sea? You don't and that is the experience you need to bring people in. A working ship - even more expensive than a static dispaly with a crew needed. This is a non starter. It is all very well to talk about stealing ideas but unless you have a moving ship you cannot recreate the actual experience. Given that is the situation you only need one example and that is Belfast. Others are superfluous luxuries and we need to realise this - given the cost and size of the preserved ships it just doesn't work. I am sorry to be so blunt but you don't understand the market or the interest level in ships. One cannot generate interest because the interest isn't there. Yes the people you meet will be knowledgeable and interested but they are there for that reason. You have to reach all the others who do not come and you have to get their interest. It doesn't happen and it won't happen soon. Maybe at some time in the past it would have been possible but not now and any attempt to preserve Caroline woudl be preservation for preservations sake not as a practical exercise. It would take resources away from other just as worthy historical artifacts which would engage people more. The reason the Windermere steam museum failed was lack of interest nothing more, nothing less. So I do appreciate your passion and commitment and that of the people you meet but I am able to step back and take a big view. The market isn't there.

  28.

    The 'moving / non moving' argument is paralleled by static and active aircraft museums - with peakier costs (and documentation requirement) and significant artefact risk in the flying of historic aircraft. Both, static and active presentation of aircraft has a role to play in understanding, as do the the huge variety of active and static ships in preservation.

    Again your suggestion of only one level of presentation being worthwhile isn't true. All interpretations of the past are partial and compromised. Trench experiences don't tend to knock off the visitors. I suppose we have different acceptable ideas of those compromises, and I'd suggest these are but two of the options - not some fixed standard.

    You may indeed be a qualified historian and able to state that "I don't understand" but as a journalist experienced both the practical and theory of the heritage sector, aiming to communicate the state of play rather than opinion, I need convincing by argument and evidence (not just status) and I'm not convinced. I'd also suggest that maybe, therefore, it might be worth examining how well you are achieving your public outreach from academia here.

    Your statement that the museum visitors I've referred to were attending because of a prior interest is wrong. The heritage sector, as we both know, has to compete and make a major effort at outreach, and the vast majority of visitors are casual - looking to be engaged, or sometimes just stay out of the rain. (I was not referring to the specialist visitor at any stage.) Most visitors have arrived due to being 'pulled' by PR and marketing, and can be retained, return or recommend their experience by how good it is. As sarcastically touched on previously, Britain has 'too much' heritage. However I don't think a reduction to just the American-friendly golden triangle of London, Stratford and Blenheim would serve anyone well. The argument is where and how we divert that interest and finance to. You may be right that Caroline does not fall into any worthwhile bracket - the fact that we are having this discussion shows others don't agree.

    I actually agree that it would be "preservation for preservations sake", but to a degree all human endeavour beyond the nasty, brutal and short is as inessential. I'd just argue that it's worth making the effort, and I accept a good case can be put - as you have - for the reverse.

    I think we differ in I don't feel there's a strategy of appropriate funding to appropriate heritage causes, but that a degree of it is manipulated by heritage fashion, politics (location, of course) and other factors nothing to do with long-term historical merit. I also don't trust anyone or body to set that agenda, but feel historians, preservationists and journalists have a role to play in influencing these decisions. You may well be right (and are likely to see the disposal of Caroline) and experienced, negative advice has a role, but those that wish to attempt what they believe is worthwhile should I suggest be given support to try. Too much "it's not worth it" heads in the direction of heritage version of Martin Niemöller's poem.

    Incidentally, I'm interested in your evidence for the statement regarding Windermere's museum. My understanding, from private discussion with members of the local tourism bodies and organisations, was not due to a lack of interest.

    Overall though, I guess we'll agree to differ. But I do feel it's been (as ever on Brett's blog) a thought provoking and educational discussion. Always more to learn. Stay safe,

    Regards,

  29. Christopher

    There is a misconception here - a historian is not necessarily disconnected from the general environment around them whilst a preservationist might be. It is never wise to generalise in these situations. I am not in academia though - I am a real world businessman who trained as a historian. However, there has to be a realisation that funds and resources are limited and that there must be a setting of priorities. As you note this is to some extent influenced by fashion but it does have to be taken into account. The preserved item has to have some utility and the more utility it has the more worthy of preservation it is. One has to be hard headed here and ask what is Caroline? If for example diverting funds to preserve her means that several major archaeological excavations have to be cancelled then she is not worth preserving. I suspect that in these times extra money would not be forthcoming and money for preservation would have to come from other worthy projects. Not enough is known about Roman Britain for example and even now funds for research into this field are limited. I mention this as an example of an important aspect of British history which could be affected. Taking your example of Cerberus, you yourself note that Cerberus would cost a fortune to preserve and that funds have not been easy to get. Cerberus is more worthy or preservation than Caroline (but this is in the domain of the Australian Government) but cannot generate the interest needed. People generally are not interested in ships - that is the sad reality.
    You raise the question of long term historical merit but does Caroline really fall within this category - the argument I see for preserving her is that she is the last of her kind. This is an emotional rather than a hard headed argument and a potentially expensive emotional argument at that. If you want Caroline to be preserved then you have to come up with some much more substantial arguments focusing on utility and engagement and why it is so important to divert funds from other priorities and worthy preservation cases. So far I haven't seen one such justifiable argument. Everything Caroline offers can be obtained elsewhere and whilst it would be nice to have that concentrated in one place it is not essential. The setting of priorities is often a cruel process but with limited resources it has to be done.

  30.

    Thanks Christopher. Most of that I think are fair points, but of course I'll debate some!

    The argument of 'limited funds' and that they have to be diverted from other heritage items isn't something that is actually shown. Specialist business can - and is - tapped for specialist support at cost, or gifted. Volunteer labour (sometimes expert) affects the manpower costs, and as the Vulcan has shown in the UK (much as I have reservations) a mix of mass fund-raising and benefactors has pulled money to a specific cause the givers felt worthwhile. There's no evidence that cash was diverted from other heritage opportunities, despite the argument being advanced there. As a businessman myself the limited funding argument is a civil service's 'externally set budget to cover fixed costs' view. The UK's current cash in heritage is vast compared to what it was in the 1960s, and would amaze those working back then. (It's financially bad times right now, of course.)

    I'd agree there are aspects of British history that need better funding - the relatively well covered and documented Romans is not it, though.

    "People generally are not interested in ships - that is the sad reality." From a naval historian, that's a shocking statement, and I just don't agree. One has to wonder what motivates you out of bed, or whether too much public interest might spoil a preferably-private field. Certainly any specialisation or enthusiasm needs its evangelism tempered with a sense of proportion, but your unqualified statement is demonstrably false by the fact that there is ship preservation, people do visit them, and chose to try to make a difference. I've visited ships in preservation all over the world, and I've never had them to myself, the other visitors being everything from general tourists to other specialists.

    I agree there's demonstrably less than desired interest in ships but to see public interest at a fixed level - or even as absent - rather than looking at how it can be raised isn't a credible position for someone in the area. We should be debating how much interest would be needed to be raised to save Caroline in what form where, and then, you would probably be right not enough for a minimum achievement. But quitting before a start?

    "So far I haven't seen one such justifiable argument." The 'last ship from Jutland' is an argument that even suits as basic a requirement as a newspaper headline. It may not be good enough for you, but it's good enough for the head of Britain's Director-General of the National Museum of the Royal Navy. He would, wouldn't he, but then that's maybe why you and he are where you are. I hope he gets some traction.

    'Give the cash to the Romans or anyone else' isn't much of a battle cry for a naval advocate. Like your expert view on Caroline's lack of significance, in my field I don't think the Avro Vulcan is either particularly significant, particularly worth funding, nor a good 'bang for your buck' given the restrictions it has to fly under and its poor serviceability. However I can respect that others feel differently, to the degree they have got it flying and kept it so, for longer than I though possible. All credit. Human endeavour is an amazing thing and rarely deserves 'don't bother'.

    I would suggest that the issue is both size and cost, as we agree, and advocacy.

    Given that the general public can demonstrably be interested in anything from junk like reality TV, upward to anything you care to think of, I'd suggest funding and support shortfalls have more to do with poor advocacy from a field that under-performs compared to its peers. Maybe it needs better advocates.

    Regards,

  31. Christopher

    If of course the British government were to find extra funds to save the Caroline then the argument of limited funds would indeed be irrelevant. However, if this money is not available and as it is going to be very difficult for the government to justify such allocation given the defence cuts they are making then the money for Caroline's preservation has to come from elsewhere. You note the example of the Vulcan and here you just prove my point. Money could be found to fund it from interested parties. Udvar-Hazy was prepared to build a museum for the US National Aircraft collection with money from his own fortune. People are interested in aircraft to the extent that they will part with lots of money to preserve examples of them. The same does not hold with ships and here I should qualify - you might indeed find interest in ships but it is relative and is not in the same league as planes, cars or even steam trains (though this is not as great as it was).
    It is more an approach of fighting the battles you can win not every battle it is possible to fight. The last ship from Jutland - yes but we scrapped the most famous survivor of the battle years ago. The last ship from Jutland is another emotional argument, it is the last therefore it must be saved. Any argument for saving Caroline needs to have a much more rational basis because it needs to compete with other demands on funding. Do you know any rich businessman who might be prepared to part with his cash to save the ship? Because that is what it's going to need.
    Finally, you might be shocked by it but the fact that people are not generally interested in ships is the reality. It has been like that for many, many years. People are interested in cars and aeroplanes more than in ships. Interest in ships and the navy has always been a more specialist area and that is despite a lot of fine quality work on the topic. I agree it is sad but it is the reality and different advocacy isn't going to change this.

  32.

    "Finally, you might be shocked by it but the fact that people are not generally interested in ships is the reality."
    You keep restating the point, but I've seen reality aboard real ships with real other people.

    Certainly it's fair comment that the interest may be lower than for other forms of transport and heritage, and inadequate for the needs of maritime preservation, but to claim it doesn't exist at all is demonstrable rubbish.

    Pleased to have visited the floating harbour crane in Wellington, NZ's harbour recently, and excited to see the ships - including the SS Jeremiah O'Brien in San Francisco in a little while. And so on. I prefer my reality to yours - it's got more ships in it.

    Regards,

  33. Christopher

    Note I said that 'people are not GENERALLY interested in ships". There is a qualification in the statement and recognition of this is missing from your post. Of course, there is some interest in ships but compared to other attractions and artifacts it is minor. Books about ships do not sell in anywhere the same numbers as books about aeroplanes and if I were to hazard a guess as to why I would suggest that the sheer impersonal nature of a ship is a big factor. So you might indeed prefer your reality but you have to remember that it is a minority and somewhat esoteric interest. This is a major issue if you wish to preserve a ship.

  34. Chris Williams

    I really can't get the 'people are not interested in ships' line. Yes they are - look at the maritime museums in Greenwich, Liverpool and Falmouth. Now, 'ships are too expensive to keep relative to the footfall they attract' might be line worth taking. But houses and cathedrals are also pretty expensive to keep, and there are hundreds of these.

    Nor am I convinced by the argument that professional historians have nothing to learn from walk-around artefacts. This might be true for RN cruisers (among the best documented of ships) so long as you are a historian of warship construction, but speaking as a professional historian who is a historian of control rooms, actually being able stand there and work out where they could put the phones (etc) is useful.

    Interest in a subject is not a fixed resource to be quarried - it's something that can be developed, and strange large bits of steel are one way of developing this. Here's an example in an airminded context, of my old mate Lisa, who i can assure you had no interest in the bomber offensive twenty years ago, describing how she got interested in it through looking at old artefacts:
    http://yorkstories.co.uk/war/ww2/where_airmen_sleep.htm

  35. Chris Williams

    PS In 2010 more people (2,419k) visited the National Maritime Museum than the Tower of London (2.414k). The Merseyside Maritime Museum got 1,027k visitors: the sixth most popular attraction outside London. The IWM proper only got 1,069k: IWM Duxford was the highest-place specialist 'air' museum at 399k (though the Science Museum did get 2,751k). 240k people visited HMS Belfast - at about a tenner a time.

    Data from: http://www.alva.org.uk/visitor_statistics/

    Now, this list might not be exahustive: it's ALVA figures not MLA or DCMS. Hendon doesn't feature, for example.

    The RN Museum in Portsmouth, featuring HMS Victory, got 182k visitors in 2008-9, says their annual accounts:
    http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/documents/0809finalaccounts.pdf

    But it suggests that there's a revenue stream which HMS Caroline could tap, and that generally, quite a few people are interested in ships.

  36. Christopher

    You prove my point - how many more houses and cathedrals are there than maritime museums and how many more visitors do they attract?

    It is nice that we have maritime museums to preserve our heritage but they are not as well patronised as other museums and artifacts. It is true that historians can learn a lot from large walk around artifacts but they are not essential (a little imagination is all that is needed). Even then any extra knowledge is usually peripheral. But walk around artifacts do not need to be on large preserved ships - the Museum of Naval Armaments in Portsmouth shows what can be done with a bit of thought.

    Interest is a funny beast though - it tends to develop natural levels and then stay static or gradually decline. People switch interests but there comes a level where you cannot really increase it. New people will get interested at about the same rate as people lose interest. You mention Lisa and the bomber offensive but I would say this - Lisa got interested in the bomber offensive NOT the Atlantic convoys.

  37. Chris Williams

    Christopher, York had little to do with the Western Approaches, hence the dearth of Atlantic convoy stuff within flaneuse-range.

    I really can't see how you can draw the conclusion that maritime museums 'are not as well patronised as other museums and artifacts' from the data I've presented above. The NMM got more visitors than every AVLA attraction except the British Museum, the Tate Modern, the National Gallery, the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum and the V&A. More than any church (St Paul's 1.8 million, Westminster Abbey 1.4 million), castle (Tower 2.4m, Edinburgh Castle 1.2m) or historic house (Chatsworth 716k, Hampton Court 550k). People. are. interested. in. ships.

    The more I see of this, the more confident I feel that, given a few million quid off the DCMS or the HLF for a refit, HMS Caroline could be made the centrepiece of a maritime museum which could be run as a going concern.

  38. Christopher

    The argument is disingenuous - people may be interested in maritime museums but not necessarily in ships. There is a difference - we are talking about preserving a cruiser for people to climb over not a nice warm museum with lots of different exhibits. How many people visited Cavalier? And Belfast's figures are actually down 8% so raw numbers don't tell the whole story. And then the question needs to be asked - how many visit through genuine interest rather than just part of the tour? However, if we look at the sheer number of museums above HMS Belfast we have an idea of how ships as an artifact are eclipsed by other museums.

  39. Chris Williams

    Although I remain convinced that mine are better, I accept that there are arguments on both sides of the issue, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I think that it might be best to agree to differ at this point.

  42.  Post author

    Another update: the National Museum of the Royal Navy is still looking for a home for Caroline (presumably it can't find the funds itself to have it at Portsmouth?) It's been getting in touch with various suitable places, and it seems that Cardiff, Swansea and Edinburgh have expressed an interest.

  43. Chris Williams

    I hope Edinburgh gets her - there's a very strong connection between the east coast of Scotland and the RN in the first half of the twentieth century, what with Rosyth, Cromarty and Scapa Flow.

    By the way, since last commenting on this thread, I've visited the National Maritime Museum's Falmouth site, and damn fine it is too. Airminded link: HMS Argus was moored outside it. Aussie link: HMAS Manoora was moored next to it.

  44.  Post author

    It already has an airminded link -- as in I've been there and blogged about it! Have they not put the blue plaque up yet?

    What was Manoora doing there? She was decommissioned in August. Maybe something to do with her replacement Choules, ex-RFA Largs Bay which was undergoing refit at Falmouth over the summer -- equipment being transferred or something?

  45. Chris Williams

    Oooh, the shame - you're right, it was 'Largs Bay' in Falmouth. But the quay was full of RAN guys with 'Manoora' flashes on their shoulders.

  47.

    Information that will probably tickle readers of this blog: currently (well, as of last week) in Falmouth docks is the drilling rig Seajacks Kraken (sister ship to the Seajacks Leviathan). A disappointing lack of tentacles, mind.

    (PS Alas, the Deltic-powered minesweepers that were there last year have now been refurbished and sent to the Lithuanian navy.)

    (PPS Chris W: If you're ever in the area again, let me know - I'm based locally, and Falmouth has some excellent real ale pubs...)

  50.

    Meanwhile, this just in:
    HMS Caroline – the last surviving warship from the greatest battle ever fought in European waters – will be preserved for the nation in her native Belfast – and hopefully returned to her Great War glory."
    ...
    "Veterans’ minister Mark Francois said given her history, Caroline had to be saved – hence the decision to donate her to the museum.

    “This is one of the most historic fighting ships in the world, one which played a role in a battle which was decisive in the outcome of World War 1,” he said. “It was critical that the ship was preserved and made accessible to the public.”

    https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/6065

    Good news, big challenge still.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *