Naval Biographical Database



As with any such project, I have had to make use of a number of conventions in the building of this database.  If they should appear idiosyncratic - mea culpa.  They represent the way I have built and continue to populate the database.  Many items are only relevant (and make sense) to those with access to the live database, but are included here for those who seek a deeper understanding of what I am doing.

Admiral of the Fleet

I have yet to determine when this term was routinely applied.  The appointment for the senior man was normally as 'Admiral and Commander in Chief of the Fleet'.  In most such appointments, no rank was given in the preamble but as late as 1705, Sir Cloudesly Shovell was appointed as such, as an Admiral of the White.  I have entered these early appointments as 'Commander in Chief, Fleet', noting the actual wording of the appointment elsewhere.



Normally denotes the term 'appoint...' has been used, or the absence of the term 'Commission' or 'Warrant' in the relevant preamble.  Generically it has been used for Commissions, Warrants and Drafts.


 Brackets '[....]'

Indicates editorial comment



Commission or Warrant Officers, regardless of rank, appointed to command a ship; i.e. those referred to as 'the Captain' at the primary conning position.  In many of the early sources (and Commission books), the terms 'Captain of' and 'Commander of' are used interchangeably - invariably entered as 'Captain of' for records of this period.


Commissioning of ships

See 'Ships' below.



Dates are displayed in a standard way with one exception. To avoid the confusion and mistakes which often accompany earlier dates, these are displayed in the pre-1752 format but sorted as if the modern date had been entered.  Thus, for example,  the display is 17 Mar 1742/3 but the sort is based on 17 Mar 1743.  Most reports provide the full dates but, in some instances, short dates (giving the year only) are specified. 


Master dates

When conflicting dates are found in the sources, all are recorded but I choose one as the 'master'.  If subsequent better information is received, it is a simple matter to update the 'master' if appropriate.


Uncertain dates

Many early Warrant appointments give useful information about the current or previous appointment. Unless the actual dates are available from other sources, I have used the following convention which obviously has a bearing on some discharge dates:

  • Individual currently serving in one appointment has a new warrant to the next.  Month and year of warrant used for the discharge date from current appointment.

  • Individual noted as 'late of' or 'formerly of' ship - the terms were used interchangeably.  The year only of the new warrant used for discharge date from previous appointment unless other information to hand suggests otherwise.

In a slightly different context, when dates are encountered indicating the individual is 'in post' , the date is recorded as found but noted 'I' (for in post), rather than 'E' (for entry) or 'D' (for discharge).  Used extensively, but not exclusively, for Standing Warrant Officers.  To avoid confusion, such dates do not appear in standard reports.  


    Dimensions of ships

See 'Ships' below.


Names (people)

I have an inbuilt system which allows me to differentiate between two individuals of the same name.  Additionally, for ease of search, the system tracks the earliest and latest record held for each individual.  Thus for example, instead of being faced with multiple entries of ‘John Smith', a typical search might show ‘John Smith, 1717-1746'.   Although great care is taken at entry, mistakes can happen and, just as likely, even primary sources can be mistaken or misleading.  It is therefore entirely possible to end up with an appointment attributed to the wrong man - a simple matter to rectify by the change of one number.

Equally John Smith and John Smythe may turn out to be the same person - and how is duplication avoided?  The answer is that there is no totally foolproof system but I record differences of spelling of a specific name as they are encountered in the sources.  Thus a search for John Smythe might show two individuals, neither of which fit the bill.  A search of alternatives will give a pointer to a John Smith sometimes spelt Smythe if such a spelling has been encountered.  I tend to use the spelling in common use at the start of a man's career as the 'master' spelling.   Thus, for example, Admiral Allen, whose ODNB entry demands the spelling ‘Allin', is entered ‘Allen' with the alternative ‘Allin'.  A similar system helps with the quick identification of titled individuals (usually entered under the family name) and aliases.  I remain flexible and change the 'master' if subsequent entries indicate that an alternative spelling is in more common use.


Linking records

In many instances, either the source or other pointers make the connection between successive appointments easy.  In other circumstances, connections are not nearly so obvious without much deeper research, which would only serve to slow the input process.  When I have considered it reasonable or safe to do so, I have linked some such entries, inserting a suitable note ('link tbc'), but make no claim to infallibility.  If further information comes to hand clarifying the matter, it is a simple process to update the record.  


Names of ships

See 'Ships' below.



Changes in the name of various post-holders has been endemic for many centuries.  In the interests of avoiding fragmentation of entries, these have simplified where possible without losing track of the actual titles. Thus, the 'Secretary of the Admiralty', whose title alternated between 'Secretary' and 'First Secretary' throughout the 18th Century, will be headed 'Secretary of the Admiralty', with the actual title being recorded on the database but not shown in standard reports.



Up to French Revolutionary War, the routine entry of rank for appointments of Commission Officers has only proved necessary by exception.  The 1790's saw the introduction of promotion of individuals without a corresponding appointment, and from this period, rank will be routinely entered. 

Exceptions in the earlier period include:

  • Captains of ships have rank noted as  'Cdr' when actual commission appoints the individual as 'Master & Commander' or 'Commander' - either were used (in specific circumstances) from 1746.

  • Actual rank used in the appointment of  'Midshipman Extra' - (Captain & Lieutenant noted).

  • Entries encountered when the 'Captain' is noted as a 'Lieutenant' or a 'Master'.

Additionally when early commissions for Lieutenants note the individual as 'Mr' rather than 'Lt', the intention is to note first appointment as a 'Lieutenant', and 'Mr' is recorded but not, obviously, as a rank.



    With care, it is possible to establish seniority from records never intended to collect such information.   The following conventions have been used for data entry in seniority lists:



    As noted in Rank above.   In ADM6 series (the Commission and Warrant Books) 'Mr' in front of the name is used to denote first appointment as a Lieutenant.   Such a notation is usually absent in the confirmation of local commissions.


      local confirmed

    Used to note that the first commission or warrant was given locally.  It also infers that the commission or warrant was subsequently confirmed, although some clerks may have applied this otherwise - see 'local ? confimed' below.  Very occasionally, Mr (see above) was used as well and, if so, this is also recorded.


      local ? confirmed

    It appears from some records (e.g. ADM106/2896 Succession Records) that there is a world of difference between 'confirmed' and 'order for payment'.  When the latter is encountered, this notation is used unless confirmatory information comes to hand.



    For Warrant Officers (and Yard Officers), ADM6 series uses the words 'of good testimony' to indicate first warrant. Such an indication is not used for local warrants and the notations above are used here.  Infrequently, the words 'of very good testimony' are used.



      Commissioning of ships

In the period covered to date, ship commissions or commissioning dates are seldom related to the appointment of the Commanding Officer.  Likewise the term 'paid off' does not necessarily imply 'decommissioned'.   Ships appeared to commission on first use, recommission on change in status (e.g. 'recommissioned as fireship'), and decommission when taken out of service (e.g. put out of commission at ...).  To date I have used the term generically, but avoided use in the specific sense unless so noted in the primary source.

From the mid 19th Century, Navy Lists routinely note commissioning dates indicating a change in use of the term and, today, we seem to use and misuse it in a rather different way.  We refer to the current commission, but 're-dedicate' rather than 'recommission'.   Research continues.


      Dimensions of ships

From the start of the chosen period (1660), rebuilds caused significant changes to a ship's dimensions.  Most rebuild measurements are recorded but only the initial figures are shown in standard reports.

The Manuscript Navy List series, running from 1757 to the 1870's, replaced an earlier less detailed series.  Compiled in the Surveyor's Office, it has been taken as the source of dimensions for the period.  The measurements are routinely recorded in red and/or black ink.  The former indicate provisional figures, either as taken off the draught or recorded in the water on capture &c.  The latter appear to be the actual figures recorded by the professional dockyard officers, possibly with the ship out of the water.  When available, the black figures are recorded; 'R' or 'B' being used to differentiate. If, as sometimes happens, two sets of black figures are available, the most up-to-date have been taken. 


      Names of ships

Ship identification is by no means straightforward, particularly with multiple use of the same name. Some cases are simple enough and easily resolved, such as PORTSMOUTH and PORTSMOUTH (Sloop), but others are more elusive.  I have therefore included two dates after the ship name.  The first indicates when built, hired, purchased or taken.  The second indicates end of useful life, normally break-up, loss or sale. Occasionally when a ship lingers without change of name after the introduction of a new ship of the same name, an arbitrary end date is used to ease data entry.

Change of use, such as from 1st to 2nd rate, or 'cutter' to 'sloop', is not changed in the title (but is recorded in the ship 'milestone').

The spelling of ship names was by no means consistent during the period covered to date.  For example, I have noted the name 'Kingfisher' and 'Kingsfisher' used indiscriminately to record the same hull.  A 'master' spelling is chosen but as with people - see above - I do change this if subsequent entries suggest an alternative was in more frequent use.

To date all ships entered have been in RN use, and the 'HMS' prefix is considered superfluous.  Future entries of Merchant or Ships of other navies will require some suitable 'differencing'.


      Rebuilding of ships

    The current vogue for recording (and indexing) 'rebuilds' as new ships is not tenable for this detailed work as Warrant Officers continued to be appointed, and it is an absolute necessity to identify the precise ship and date.  Although the ship may not have physically existed, she remained on the List of the Navy.



Sources are stored under such generic headings as Primary Manuscript and Secondary Printed.  A 'short' title, hopefully self-explanatory, is used in standard reports - see 'abbreviations' for detail. In many instances, when the whole source has been entered it is only necessary to record the source and folio/page.  In other instances, more detail has been recorded when, for example, an isolated list is encountered in a ‘multi-subject' source.  This additional information can be made available but does not appear in the standard reports.

For certain serial publications it is more practicable to enter edition rather than page information.  A typical case might be information about a ship extracted from a Navy List. In this instance, the edition and year are recorded, e.g. 01/18 for January edition, 1818, the century being obvious from the event date.  Likewise, entries from paybooks normally refer to the line number rather than source page.

For some users, the difference between MS and MSS (for Manuscript and Manuscripts) is important. Here, where the key requirement is to identify the sources as clearly as possible, I have stuck rigidly to the convention used by the holder of the original documents. 

Some manuscripts contain page numbers within alphabetical sections. Thus 'p.c8' indicates 'page 8' within the alphabetical section 'c'.

I am frequently presented with the results of family research, often carried out to a high standard.  Sometimes this work even includes copies of original manuscripts but lacks any note of the source(s).  Very occasionally,  I have included such material in the data-base (with the source noted as 'FR' for 'Family Research'. Such information should be treated with the normal caveats.



Normally the formal appointment of a Warrant Officer.  There were other uses, such as the warrant authorising some Commander-in-Chief to hold Courts Martial, or the grant of a professional qualification.  This is not a straightforward area and research continues. Use is normally self-apparent from the context.


Master rate

The use of the term 'Master' , such as in the title 'Master Shipwright', has a connotation entirely lacking in the early warrants for sea-going appointments. Thus for example, the term 'Gunner' and 'Master Gunner' is used interchangeably, and would be entered on the database as 'Master Gunner'.

             © CHD 2017