The politics of management and design
in Shaping the Royal Navy
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact for pricing options.


If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

The Royal Sovereign linked contemporary imperial politics with Britain's naval past and ongoing questions about ship design. The management of ship design, construction and repair by naval officers ensured that the authority of naval architects remained limited in the Royal Dockyards. Engineering science, and in particular the engineering science of naval architecture, was a young profession with practitioners who were explicitly concerned with their 'social mobility on both personal and professional levels'. The events between the launch of the Devastation and that of the Royal Sovereign had highlighted the potential for further uses of engineering knowledge. The design of the Royal Sovereign met with heavy criticism from the pen of former Chief Constructor Edward James Reed. Philip Colomb, who was one of the most vocal members of the historical school in the Royal Navy, believed that the Royal Sovereign was a sailor's ship.

Shaping the Royal Navy

Technology, authority and naval architecture, c.1830 –1906


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 30 6 0
Full Text Views 27 0 0
PDF Downloads 22 0 0