> DScribr Wrote:
> > You may be correct as the Ship was well-built,
> > had an experienced crew, etc.
> Actually, I believe it was Gibbons who reported
> the vessel was sound, not I. :) No matter, I'm
> just being tongue-in-cheek. :)
> This is one his errors: the vessel was deemed
> 'relatively' sound, but Gibbons did not make a
> complete review of the Register (I have). To be in
> the best possible category, she would need to be
> 'First Description of the First Class'. There are
> very specific provisions required to return a
> vessel to this status after they have reached or
> passed the 'honeymoon' stage. She was not.
> Furthermore, Gibbons did not account for the
> divisions between how a vessel was categorized for
> 'soundness', rather only reports the condition of
> the hull, but forgoes the context of
> how the stores are faring. Thus, the
> hull was of the 'Second Description of the
> First Class' (seen as AE1 in the Register),
> however the stores were not surveyed.
> Gibbons also fails to note the most recent
> 'repairs' were in 1837, so about a year at sea
> with no surveys nor repairs.
> There is much more in the above. Taken together,
> Whichelo was NOT a competent Captain, so although
> she may have had an experienced crew ... how does
> that saying go?
> > My thinking, (speculation) was that she was
> > overloaded to begin with, and IF the
> > (along w/ other cargo) was on deck, she
> > been top-heavy. (Not sure if it's accurate, but
> > I've read that she reported problems w/
> > load....in Malta, IIRC.)
> Single-deck vessel. No chance in Hades it was
> topside. She also had a draw at load of 14ft.
> And sorry to ask - so much processing and
> reviewing - but have you got more on that possible
> shifting report in/from Malta? Was this only a
> suggestion by a board member, or is there an
> actual extant report cited?
> > Rouge wave maybe???
> Or just plain old bad seamanship?
> Or ... shiver me timbers ... she never sank. :)
> > (I knew that she was only built there.)
> Strange too that he says on one page she was
> carrying from/to Quebec, but says different on
> another page.
> > Plz enlighten me, (us) regarding the other
> > errors.
> Umm ... my hands are kind of tied on that at the
> moment. All apologies to yourself and other
> members. Will try to follow more here and present
> what I can.
No apologies necessary, and thanks for the info you gave.
There are so many discrepencies in the available info, and the first link in the OP is no exception. I've read of several departure dates from Alex, and this link, (below) differs from Gibbons, who states that the Beatrice left Alex in Autumn:
...."In 1824, Rev. Josiah Forshall (1795-1863) was appointed Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Museum. In a letter to Forshall from British Consul Patrick Campbell, written in Alexandria and dated 2nd July 1838, the following, passage occurs: “I beg to inform you that the sarcophagus taken by Colonel Vyse out of the 3d. Pyramid at Ghizeh, and which in your letter to Viscount Palmerston of 7th February last you requested His Lordship to instruct me to send to England, has this day been embarked on board of the English ship the Beatrice, bound for Liverpool and London ... .”
And in same link, ..."From Lloyd’s List we know that on 20th September 1838, Beatrice left Alexandria’s harbour, ultimately bound for Liverpool...."
I did find this info there as well, "....These sturdy vessels had U-shaped hulls which maximised their cargo carrying capacity. The largest snows could be up to one thousand tons, although the Beatrice was small, at 224 tons. Built in Quebec in 1827, her overall length was 87 feet 9 inches and her breadth 24 feet 2 inches. The hold had a depth of 15 feet 1 inch. Carvel-built (the planks of the hull fitted to the ship’s frames with no overlap, giving the ship smooth sides), she was square-rigged, squaresterned, had a standing bowsprit, sham quarter galleries and the bust of a woman for a figurehead. In 1830, she had been registered to the Port of London. Lloyd’s Register for 1838 and records show her stated voyage was between Liverpool and Alexandria....."
(We do know another mast was added, etc.)
I had read an unsubstantiated report somewhere on the I-net of the shifting load problems, and will try to dig it up.
Campbell's Chamber roof blocks are Tura Limestone until proven otherwise.
THE Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber IS Authentic, as are ALL other RC's Glyphs, until proven otherwise.
"This Forgery 'theory' has more holes than a sieve basket."