Talk:David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty

Where born?

So, was he born in Ireland or Cheshire? (One web page says Howbeck, Cheshire, other Nantwich, Cheshire) Pibwl 16:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...According to [1] he was born in Nantwich, Cheshire. I'm changing. Pibwl 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...I was born in Enniscorthy (Co. Wexford), and I was always told that he was a local. Reading that he was born in Cheshire was confusing, so I thought perhaps the second Earl was born in Wexford; BUT: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/David_Beatty_Beatty "DAVID BEATTY BEATTY, 1ST Earl (1871-), British admiral, was born in Ireland in 1871, the son of Capt. D. L. Beatty, 4th Hussars, of Borodale" Someone really needs to sort this one out authoritatively. See also http://www.new-zealands.com/slaney/history.htm "Admiral Earl Beatty Born at Borodale near Wexford in 1871 and died in London in 1936." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.164.7 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The entry in the Dictionary of National Biography by the editor of The Beatty Papers" has him being born in Cheshire. I'll have a look in Roskill's "intimate biography" later today. Harlsbottom (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Roskill and http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9013970/David-Beatty-1st-Earl-Beatty both list Howbeck. Also local school in Stapeley have a Beatty House as one of their houses in his honour and he is considered a local hero. 86.133.57.180 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In the book the life and papers of Admiral Beatty - which was apparently collected and published at his sons request it also states Howbeck Lodge. Indeed it has a photo of him in the drawing room.

I think we can regard ODNB (which says Howbeck Lodge) as the most authoritive source unless anyone thinks strongly otherwise. Dormskirk (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The ODNB article doesn't mention the fact that Beatty was born out of wedlock, so it's hardly authoritative. But the consensus amongst biographies (his nephew Charles Beatty, Roskill) is that he was born at Howbeck Lodge. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to go with the consensus. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite the circumstances of his birth and parental marriage, his being born in Nantwich area was publicly known locally even during World War I when the Crewe Chronicle carried a story about his "Birthplace", which was then in the process of being demolished as the story was headed (I speak from memory of reading it in 2009) "Admiral Beatty's Birthplace - Looks as if Germans had shelled it"!Cloptonson (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Trenchard

No mention has been made with regard to the clash with Trenchard over the return, or not as it turned out, of the FAA. I understand Beatty threatened to resign over the issue. I think this should be added. Dapi89 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Short comment on this now included under "Postwar career". Dormskirk (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Anecdote"

I removed this recently added section for two reasons. One, being a draft from an archive it's patently original research. There is a published version however. The second point is that the story of Beatty delaying his departure from Rosyth just to pick up a chair is garbage. Take it from someone who has many books about Jutland and has read dozens of accounts of the battle both official and private - not one supports the notion that "the whole fleet had to be drawn up while his talisman was fetched". --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

“ Viva Montgomerie was a friend of Ethel Beatty and recalls in her memoirs that There was a certain armchair which accompanied them everywhere they went, and when the Admiral was leading forth his fleet, en route for his great Battle of Jutland, he discovered that the chair had been left behind. I shall have no luck without it, he said, and the whole fleet had to be drawn up while his talisman was fetched. It was a chair he had looted during his campaign in China and he firmly believed it was haunted by its former owner. Ethel confirmed this, for she told me that she had distinctly seen a Chinese figure sitting in it as she came into the room, and she saw it fade as she drew near. ”

Are you saying that someone, in print, disputes the accuracy of this anecdote? On the face of it you seem to be saying that in your opinion a published reminiscence is incorrect? Sandpiper (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Affair

According to historian Robert Massie, Beatty in 1917-18 escaped from his unhappy marriage to Ethel Field by conducting a torrid affair with Eugenie Godfrey-Faussett. Massie quotes from love letters between the two. See:

Massie, Robert Kinloch (2003). Castles of Steel: Britain Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-40878-0., pp. 750-752.

Sca (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Short comment on this now included under "World War I". Dormskirk (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

David Richard Beatty

I see that his middle name has been removed, although he doesnt appear to have used the middle name in the Navy some primary sources mention it:

• Birth Index for Nantwich district for 1871 Q3 shows "David Richard Beatty"
• 1871 Census of Nantwich district shows "David R Beaty" son of David Longfield Beaty at "Howbeck Villa".
• In the 1881 Census at St Thomas College he is listed as just "David Beatty".
• In the 1891 Census at RN College, Greenwich he is listed as "David Beatty" born Howbeck, Cheshire. All subsequent records that I can see make no mention of a middle name. Not particularly asking for it to be restored but just keeping it here for information. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

David Beatty and Ernest King and handkerchiefs

Hello all-

FADM Ernest King, USN, wore a breast pocket handkerchief under his ribbons (true). My reference says it was "worn in emulation of [his] erstwhile joint commander, the jaunty, publicity-fond, and lauded British Admiral David Beatty," following WWI, and King did it in spite of his anglophobia. Adjectives aside ☺ , I can't find a picture of Beatty and a handkerchief. Can anyone comment? Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete sentences

As it stands, the last sentence of the section "First Sea Lord" is obviously incomplete - "Without his strong leadership events like the Invergordon Mutiny of 1931 might have been seen." Seeen as what? Perhaps the original writer would like to add a completion? Cenedi (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an incomplete sentence, although as somebody has tried to remove it obviously reads that way to at least two people, even though there is actually nothing grammatically wrong with it. It's a near direct quote of the views of Stephen Roskill, a well-regarded naval historian. It means that in his view defence cuts might have caused unrest on the lower decks as there was in protest at pay cuts at Invergordon in 1931.Paulturtle (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Just refreshing my memory of some material I added to Mountbatten's biog last autumn, over half his annual intake of young officers had to leave the Royal Navy at this time. The cuts of the early 1920s were very deep indeed.Paulturtle (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have discovered another apparent incomplete sentence in the Assessment section, third point, on signals in that there may be a missing word of words between "Although" and "encountered":

Although Beatty was supposed as a fast armoured scout and report to Jellicoe the exact position of the German ships he encountered, or to keep in contact with the German fleet while he retreated to the main British Grand Fleet, he failed to do so.Cloptonson (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write that section but I've sorted it anyway. Amazing how the eye glazes over these things.Paulturtle (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Assessment" section

The "Assessment" section mentions that there's a debate between supporters of Beatty and Jellico, but all I see is criticism of Beatty. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Beatty, so most of the discussion is of his handling of the battlecruisers at Jutland, with a mention that people were disappointed at Jellicoe's failure to win a decisive victory. The "debate", such as it was, was in the interwar period and was accompanied by some disreputable behaviour on Beatty's part, more so than in fact is discussed here. By and large historians have long since agreed that Jellicoe handled the Grand Fleet cautiously and well, and that Beatty's record left a bit to be desired.Paulturtle (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

For those who take an interest in these things, "The Unfinished Battle", a recent book about Jutland by Jellicoe's grandson Nicholas, discusses the controversy of the inter-war period. I haven't had a chance to read it yet.Paulturtle (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

. There is also the issue of Beatty's handling of the Grand Fleet, once he took over command from Jellicoe. One of Jellicoe's hallmarks was his refusal to take less than the full available strength of the Grand Fleet to sea. Knowing that control of the North Sea, and with it the blockade of the Central Powers, depended upon the superiority of the Grand Fleet against the High Seas Fleet, Jellicoe was determined never to give the Germans the opportunity they looked for and provoked from the beginning of the Great War—the chance to pare down the Grand Fleet's numerical superiority by bringing smaller forces to action and destroying them.

Beatty, by contrast, agreed to the same pressure from HM Government and reduced the size, strength, and composition of forces despatched into the North Sea. Only appalling weather saved him from having one of his inferior squadrons caught by the High Seas Fleet in March 1918, off Norway.

Lastly, it is fair to note that Beatty's determination to bring the German Scouting Fleet to battle was responsible for Jutland, which was a German defeat in every sense naval officers and strategists understand. While the Grand Fleet—and his own BCF—paid a steep price for that victory, they could pay it. Beatty made a number of mistakes, but he also took two absolutely crucial decisions correctly—he did not loose touch with the enemy, however poor his signals discipline remained; and he brought the whole of the High Seas Fleet onto the guns of the Grand Fleet, just as he and Jellicoe had planned. That is a rare accomplishment, and deserves mention. Ranya (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"

This is repeated twice, but neither of those mentions, nor the "Assessment" section, mention that the 'something wrong' was almost certainly the result of Beatty and Jellicoe's own actions. In the aftermath of Dogger Bank, Beatty criticised rate of fire and Jellicoe had ordered his captains to take whatever measures would increase their rate of fire (as more shells fired would result in more hits, even if accuracy was not improved). In several ships, including those lost, this had taken the form of removing the flashproof scuttles from the ammunition lobbies and removing propellant charges from their protective cases, in direct contravention to ammunition handling regulations. When Invincible, Indefatigable and Queen Mary took penetrating turret hits this meant the flash progressed unhindered to their magazines, at which point they blew up. However, Beatty's flag captain, Chatfield, had refused to allow this on his ship, Lion, which therefore did not explode when Q turret took similar damage, giving time for Q's magazine to be flooded before the flash-fire that occurred some 30 minutes later. Immediately post action, Beatty and Jellicoe ordered that these measures were to be reversed on any ship which had carried them out, without admitting the actions had been done at their instigation. Beatty was therefore aware, as early as the day after the battle, that the problem resulted from his and Jellicoe's own orders, but then spent the rest of his career furthering the proposition that the design of the ships was at fault and that they had instead been lost to plunging fire penetrating their deck armour (DNC pointed out that if this was the case there would be evidence of it in the other ships hit, and there was not). As First Sea Lord, Jellicoe suppressed reports from both DNO and DNC identifying the departure from magazine regulations as the fault, a process continued by Beatty when he replaced Jellicoe. There are extensive discussions of this in both D K Brown's "Grand Fleet", and Norman Friedman's "British Battleships". Friedman points out that Beatty's continued insistence while C in C Grand Fleet that the problem was plunging fire, and his insistence on design changes to the Hood class as a result, likely cost the Royal Navy Hood's three sisterships, with effects cascading all the way through to WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.122.84 (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I should like to see the authority upon which Admiral Jellicoe's supposed order to ignore magazine safety is based, as this is not supported by any record or letters of which I am aware in the Public Record, and is contrary to the Fighting Instructions issued by Admiral Jellicoe to the Grand Fleet.

The orders to improve rate-of-fire over accuracy-of-fire were, so far as I have ever read in the Official History, Vice-Admiral Beatty's. Jellicoe wrote often to Beatty lamenting the poor state of the Battle Cruisers' gunnery, and Beatty did not dispute the assessment. Both commanders wanted to get more practice in for the BCF, which is what led to the "swap" of 5BS with 3BCS prior to Jutland.

There is no evidence I am aware of that Admiral Jellicoe suppressed any documents, full stop. Admiral Beatty certainly suppressed the original Official History of the action at Jutland, but even he did not tamper with the source records upon which that narrative was drawn. This is a very strong statement, contrary to established fact, and requires citation of primary documents.

Finally, the conclusion that the loss of the Battle Cruisers was solely down to poor magazine safety fails to note that hits by German shells precipitated their explosive demise. There is ample, reliable evidence that German heavy shells defeated the armour protection of all of the Battle Cruisers damaged or destroyed at Jutland. German shells penetrated the turret roof of 'Q' turret on Lion with nearly cataclysmic results of exactly the same kind. Moreover, it was plunging fire which destroyed the three Battle Cruisers, and nearly destroyed Lion. The argument was not about whether or not plunging fire struck the ships and led to their loss, it was about whether or not those hits would have led to their loss without the appalling lack of magazine safety; that is, whether or not the German shells actually defeated the ships' protection, or whether that protection was compromised by the culture of speed that led to the poor magazine discipline.

Ranya (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox flags

I have removed the infobox flags per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Per the edit history for this article flags have previously been removed by other editors for the same reason on 10 June 2016 and 2 August 2017. Other articles may still have flags but just because they are still included elsewhere (in breach of the guideline) does not mean they should be inserted here. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dormskirk: Here is the thing though, this isn't even exclusive to British commanders as there are other commanders with allegiances to different nations, though I'm still waiting for consensus from other editors to express their views for general consensus on this matter. - SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abraham, B.S.: Please feel free to express a view as I think you have also previously contributed to this article. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This problem is indeed widespread and the solution is simple: remove the flags whenever we find them. It appears to be common amongst a certain group of editors who love putting in extra add-ons for emphasis. Bolding certaain words and adding foreign language translations are other common traits. What other wiki sites do has no bearing on the decision here. The flags should go, they serve no purpose except adding clutter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: Not only does your logic violate several MOS' but also will cause major edit wars sitewide, not to mention a overall waste of trying to remove something used by thousands of articles. - SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Dormskirk. Consensus has already been reached on this topic and is expressed in WP:INFOBOXFLAG, WP:ICON and WP:III. The community, in general, agreed some time ago that flags should not be used in infoboxes. Roger 8 Roger's suggestion here is a sound one that complies with MoS and is highly unlikely to cause mass edit wars. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abraham, B.S.: Its still a waste to hunt down a minor revision for thousands of articles just because you don't like them in articles. And as Roger 8 Roger put it, there are editors who use them and will likely argue otherwise and all attempts of removing flagicons that were there prior resulted in edit wars from what I've seen from other historical articles. - SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45: It is not a case "don't like them". This has been considered at length before and the consensus which is documented in the guidance at WP:INFOBOXFLAG, WP:ICON and WP:III is clear. As for editors who start edit wars, that is a matter for admins, but my understanding is that such editors are liable to be blocked from editing wikipedia. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)