HMS

Earlier this year, a model of a ship's figurehead was sold at Bonhams in London, after 220 years hidden away from public view, its true significance as an icon of Britain's naval heritage unrecognised. (1) This small yet exquisitely carved limewood and gesso-covered model (Fig. 1) is the design for the full-length figurehead of HMS Queen Charlotte, launched on 15 April 1790 at the Royal Naval Dockyard in Chatham, Kent. She was at the time the second-largest vessel in the British fleet.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Such models are rare. A number of letters in the Admiralty archives suggest that as well as sketches of proposed figureheads, models were also submitted to the Board of the Admiralty for approval. One of the most important survivors is the 1765 model for the figurehead of HMS Victory, in the collection of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich.

Standing just 36 cm high, and carved in the round, the model for the Queen Charlotte's figurehead is a tour de force of the woodcarver's art, although its maker's name is as yet unknown. What is beyond doubt is the remarkable skill the craftsman demonstrates in understanding such an intricate group. Two carvers in particular had the credentials to undertake such an important commission. The first was William Savage, who had been working in the yard at Chatham since 1765, having been brought in to assist Richard and Elizabeth Chichley with the carving of the figurehead for HMS Victory. (2) By 1784, two years after work on the Queen Charlotte had begun, the second possible candidate, George Williams, was also working in the yard; it is possible that the two men collaborated. (3)

During the great age of fighting sail, from the middle of the seventeenth century to the close of the eighteenth century, naval figureheads throughout the great European fleets developed an increasingly sophisticated iconography. Once purely decorative in function, figureheads, and to a lesser extent the whole stern area of a ship, became politicised. Once the decision had been made to commission a new vessel, consideration would have to be given to the naming of the vessel. Since the Queen Charlotte was a first-rate ship of the line a royal connection was almost de rigueur, and the ship was accordingly named after George III's consort. Charlotte was a popular queen, born in 1744 Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the eighth child of a minor German prince, Charles Louis Frederick of Mirow and his wife, Elizabeth Albertina of Saxe-Hildburghausen. By 1782 she had been married for twenty-one years, and was the mother of fifteen children, nine sons and six daughters.

It is fortunate that a number of contemporary images of the Queen Charlotte in various media have survived, illustrating in great detail her remarkable figurehead. These help us to understand the complicated process of the figurehead's design and making. The Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham in Kent was chosen to build this important vessel, seventeen years after HMS Victory had been built and launched there, in 1765. Orders for this new vessel were received at the yard on 12 December 1782, and the keel was laid two-and-a-half years later, in June 1785.

At some time in the intervening period, careful consideration would have been given to the style and subject-matter of the figurehead, which would also play a crucial part in the overall design of the ship. By the time orders and details reached the carvers at Chatham there would be little if any room for ambiguity. Fortunately, the original written specification for this figurehead survives in the Admiralty archives. Although ambitious to the point of being impractical, in many ways it corresponds very well indeed with the surviving maquette, albeit with a few modifications:

Armed with this one-dimensional document, numbering a brief but relatively precise 102 words, the designers would have produced a number of preparatory sketches. The yard's master carver would, by virtue of his lengthy experience in the design and construction of such carvings, be in a position to make his own creative interpretation of this important commission. Certain elements within the design brief were relatively easy to visualise, since figures such as Britannia and Plenty are standard models in the pantheon of personifications of the time, as are Justice, Prudence, Hope and Fortitude. Once their position had been established within the overall group, it would be a matter of establishing the individual attitude of each figure and how one element would interconnect with its neighbour in a cohesive flow.

For the image of the Queen, it was essential that this most important element in the group was correct in every detail. Although it seems likely that the workshop in Chatham would have at its disposal engravings of the Queen, possibly augmented with a plaster bust, no convincing model has yet come to light. What is clear, however, is that care was taken to depict the Queen as she appeared at the time the figurehead was carved (Fig. 5), as her dress and hairstyle are close to Sir Thomas Lawrence's full-length portrait of 1789 (Fig. 6; National Gallery, London). The broad, full face shown in the figurehead is also closely comparable to contemporary portraits.

[FIGURES 5-6 OMITTED]

The ship's designers would determine the overall size of the bow area available to the carver. Weight would be a decisive factor: it was seen as imperative for the stability of the vessel that weight around the bow area should be reduced wherever possible by the judicial use of acceptable open space between the principal elements. As well as the Admiralty specifications, two other important secondary documents have survived, both showing how this conceptual design was transformed into a visual image. The first is a monochrome line drawing (Fig. 4), now in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, which accompanied the specification. Showing the larboard side of the figurehead, the drawing is typical of other examples of figurehead designs in its simple, almost naive quality of draughtmanship.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The second drawing, which appears to be by a different hand, is a full-colour sketch that shows the starboard side of the figurehead (Fig. 2). Now in the collection of the Corporation of the Hull Trinity House, it may derive from a yet undiscovered Admiralty draught for the starboard side, and was possibly made as a guide to the yard's team of painters for the full-size figurehead, once the main carving work was finished. It is notable that the artist has devoted a great deal of attention to the detail of the Queen's costume.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

A number of interesting comparisons can be made between the specification, the two drawings and the maquette, showing the transition from design to the finished carving. As we study the maquette, we see 'Her Majesty in her robes'. The Queen is portrayed in her full state coronation robes, 'standing erect': she appears to be just about to step off the bow on the crest of a wave, her robes elegantly flowing away from her open-necked dress (Figs. 3 and 7). In her left hand she carries the sceptre of state; in her right the orb. Unfortunately, in the maquette both arms and these accessories are missing. Protruding limbs on full-size figureheads were extremely vulnerable to damage and loss at sea. To assist easy repair of such damage, exposed and vulnerable elements, such as arms and legs, were constructed in such a way that they could be removed and unshipped from the main body of the figurehead. Such elements could also be stowed away by the ship's carpenter and his team in a safe location on the ship at times of danger, just before a battle, for example, or if bad weather threatened.

[FIGURES 3 & 7 OMITTED]

As indicated in the Admiralty specification, and as seen on both drawings, the Queen stands 'under a canopy with two doves thereon, which is supported by two boys, the emblems of peace, one holding a dove, the other a palm branch'. On the maquette the top part of this canopy as well as the two small doves and boy supporters are missing. About two-thirds of the canopy behind the Queen remains, with a series of small breaking waves, topped with a small round peg. Presumably the two boy supporters were an integral part of the lost canopy top and used the small breaking waves as a base.

As we move further down the figurehead, elements of national iconography come to the fore: 'on the starboard side is Britannia sitting on a lion and presenting a laurel'. The traditional representation of Britannia had been set in the reign of Charles II, when Miss Stewart, later the Duchess of Richmond, was depicted as Britannia in the form of a female warrior, wearing a plumed helmet, sitting on a globe and leaning with one arm on a shield, while in the other hand grasping a spear. However, on the figurehead Britannia has been given a much softer, almost benevolent aspect, without shield, helmet or military costume. Moreover, instead of Britannia sitting on a lion, as indicated in the Admiralty draught and colour drawing, the lion appears almost to be languishing at the Queen's feet, emerging from beneath the rich folds of the canopy and benignly looking up towards her.

This fundamental change to the design suggests that it was decided there was insufficient room at the bottom of the structure for both the lion and a seated Britannia, and, as we have seen in other elements of the design, practicality would have to overrule aesthetic considerations. On the opposite side of the sculpture is 'Plenty sitting on a seahorse offering the produce of the sea and land'. Plenty is a mirror-image of her sister Britannia on the starboard side. Her right hand, which is missing, may well have held a cornucopia of some kind, overflowing with 'the produce of the sea and land'. Again, on this larboard side we see a notable change from the Admiralty specification in that Plenty is not sitting on a seahorse, in harmony with the lion on the starboard side. Instead, the sea-horse looks upwards towards the figure of the Queen from underneath the canopy.

The time and expense taken to produce this maquette may indicate that it was made to be presented to the King and Queen for their approval. If so, this would have been the responsibility of the Chief Surveyor to the Navy, Sir John Henslow, who held this office from 1774 to 1806. Once the royal approval was given, the model seems to have been kept, perhaps as a perquisite, by Henslow, in whose family it descended until the sale earlier this year.

Once approval had been given, carving on the full-size figurehead would begin in earnest, bringing together a large number of trades within the yard. HMS Queen Charlotte's figurehead can in many ways be seen as the culmination of an art form and tradition that from this point on would go into a steady decline. Never again would a figurehead of such complexity and sophistication grace the bow of a British warship of this size. In his book Old Ship Figureheads and Sterns (1925), L.G. Carr Laughton writes that 'when figureheads had fallen from their ancient glory, men regretted this one in particular, as being the most handsome that was ever put into a ship'. (5)

The service life of HMS Queen Charlotte would be all too short, her end pointless. With three great gun decks, she had a formidable array of firepower, with 100 guns, thirty 32-pounders, thirty 24-pounders, thirty-four 12-pounders and fourteen 32-pounder carronades, serving a crew of 891 officers and men. As the flagship of Admiral Lord Howe, she played an important part in the early stages of the war with France. One of the first sea battles of the war took place between the British channel fleet under the command of Howe, and the French fleet under Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse, off Ushant on 1 June 1794. This encounter has gone down in the annals of the service as the 'Battle of the Glorious First of June'. HMS Queen Charlotte played a pivotal part in the action.

The ship is dramatically depicted in Philippe-Jacques de Loutherbourg's monumental painting Lord Howe's Victory, also known as The Battle of the First of June 1794 (Fig. 8), painted one year after the battle, in 1795. (6) When the Queen Charlotte returned to England, De Loutherbourg made a sketch of her, to ensure accuracy of detail. (7) In the painting, he shows the larboard side of the figurehead: the Queen is clearly seen with one of the boy supporters of the canopy, watching imperiously as the great battle unfolds. She survived to fight again, and in 1795 saw action against a smaller French fleet, culminating in the capture of three ships of the Line. Five years later, in 1800, as flagship of Vice-Admiral Lord Keith, HMS Queen Charlotte was off Capri, when, at about twenty past six in the morning, a fire was discovered near the front bulk-head of the admiral's cabin. (8) It was soon out of control, despite the heroic work of both officers and men, and almost two-thirds of the crew perished with the ship. With it went one of the most enigmatic figureheads to grace the bow of a British warship; but at least the Queen Charlotte did not have to suffer the ignominy of a breaker's yard, her carvings ripped from one another by unfeeling workmen.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

At the Bonhams sale the model figurehead was bought (for 50,000 [pounds sterling]) by the Historic Dockyard, Chatham, Kent. It is hoped that in the near future this magnificent carving will be placed on public display, for the first time in over 200 years, to tell the story of a great warship built within the walls of the Chatham dockyard.

(1) The model was Lot 28 in 'Nelson and the Royal Navy 1750 1815', Bonhams, London, 5 July 2005.

(2) William Savage worked in the naval dockyards at Chatham and Sheerness as a master carver between 1765 and 1783, and as such would have been responsible for a number of carvers and assistants within the yard: see P.N. Thomas, British Figurehead and Ship Carvers, Wolvemampton, 1995, p. 98.

(3) George Williams worked in the Chatham Naval Dockyard in Kent between 1784 and 1834: see P.N. Thomas, op. cit., p. 101. By 1834 George Williams was beginning to suffer hardship with the downturn in carved work commissioned by the Admiralty, being forced to write the following letter (National Archives, Kew, ADM 87/3 Letter Number 255), dated 5 February 1834: 'Sirs.I most humbly beg your pardon for troubling you but I am impel'd by necessity to state my case to you in the hope of relief. Yr.Hon'ble Board shortly after superannuating me on 24 [pounds sterling] a year, a sum too small to subsist on, gave me an order (th Nov 1832) for to do whatever carve work might be wanting in future in the Dockyard, Chatham to assist me which I have done till lately, (it being done in Rotherhithe) and for want of which work I am in the greatest distress, not being able to obtain the common necessities of life and support self and family by my utmost exertions. I beg to state that I have performed carve work at the Dockyard, Chatham ever since 9th March 1784 and have ever given satisfaction to the respective officers under whom I have been employed, I now most humbly beg y'r Hon'ble Board will permit me to do whatever carve work is wanting here and I'll assure them, be the price what it may, that it can be done for, in a workmanlike manner by any person in Town or Rotherhithe, I will do it for the same price as I most earnestly wish to support myself and family the rest of my days. In full reliance on your favour which shall be most gratefully acknowledged, I beg to subscribe myself.

Your most obedient and very humble servant.

George Williams

(4) This specification was first published in L.G. Carr Laughton, Old Ship Figureheads and Sterns, with which are associated Galleries, Hancing-pieces, Catheads and Divers other Matters that Concern the 'Grace and Countenance' of Old Sailing Ships, London, 1925, p. 81, but Carr Laughton gives no source. It has been published also in Peter Norton, Ships' Figureheads, Newton Abbot, 1976, but again no source is given, and one must assume that Norton took his information from Cart Laughton's book. The original specification is presumably in the Admiralty archives in the National Archives at Kew, but cannot currently be traced.

(5) Carr Laughton, op. cit., p. 90.

(6) Lord Howe's Victory was commissioned as an engraving prolect. The painting passed into the Royal Collection, and was sent to Greenwich Hospital in 1829.

(7) The drawing is in the British Museum. It is reproduced in Nicholas Tracy, Nelson's Battles: The Art of Victory in the Age of Sail, London, 1996. p 89.

(8) An account of the loss of HMS Queen Charlotte was wdtten by one of the survivors, John Baird, the ship's carpenter, and published in The Naval Chronicle, 17 March 1800.

Richard Hunter is an independent figurehead historian who works for institutional and private clients around the world. www.figureheads.co.uk. For information on the Historic Dockyard, Chatham, visit www.chdt.org.uk

COPYRIGHT 2005 Apollo Magazine Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group