Fox

That certainly has similarities with Ignatius Pell, Stede Bonnet's boatswain who obtained a pardon by turning King's Evidence, then a few years later is found in command of his own pirate ship. Hard to give up the game.

[Arnold] Master Grymm, if you have something to add to the class please raise your hand and wait to be asked. Do not leap about in your chair like an excited baboon. Now, perhaps you'd like to explain to the rest of the boys the cause of your ejaculation. [/Arnold]

I suspect that might be a bit of a myth in itself

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. There's evidence of sailors who couldn't swim, but also evidence of sailors who could. I don't believe the inability to swim was a deliberate decision based on the desire to drown more quickly.

What ho Colonials, As some of you are doubtless aware I will shortly be travelling to your shores to present to attendees at the Pirate Parley on the Pamlico (DETAILS HERE) on the subject of 'Pirate Myths and Realities'. Naturally, I have many ideas of things I'd like to talk about. Too many, in fact, so I'd value some input from folks here on the kinds of topics you'd like to be addressed. It's not a reenactment event, so I'd like to steer clear of many of the topics common here in Twill (the debates about bucket boots or earrings for example are, ultimately, of limited specialist interest, for example). So, any thoughts?

Pierce and Andrew Cullen were members of Peter Roche's pirate crew who operated in the waters around Europe for a short period in 1722. There is a chapter about Roche and co in Johnson's General History (which is freely available online).

Ah, that's why, in my original reply, I put the word 'worn' in italics. Pierce Cullen's effects did indeed include boots and spurs, and a pair of 'riding spatterdashes'. They also included items of tack (but no horse) and women's clothing. We can surmise therefore that not everything he was in possession of was for his own seaborne use... (nb. I am not entirely prepared to rule out that Cullen was in fact a horse-riding transvestite, but in that case he probably ought not to be considered typical)

The same can also be said of HMS Stirling Castle. The main point I want to make though is that I'm not convinced that during the GAoP there was anything much to tell between the appearance of seafarers on a warship and seafarers on a priate ship. And THAT is pretty much the main argument for pirates not wearing 'em. They weren't practical, they weren't fashionable, so why would they? I suspect that the folding down had more to do with ease of walking than with the cut of one's breeches, but yes. I'd like to see a period source for that. I suspect it may be a bit of reverse thinking myth. There is certainly evidence of sailors who could swim, and I don't believe many of them gave too much time over to thinking about the practicalities of being washed overboard. This is not to say that the ability to swim was universal, or even that widespread, but I don't think that that was the reason.

Even amongst the poorer classes shoes seem to have been far more common than boots. The Admiralty Slop Contracts throughout the GAoP specify buckled shoes, for example. There are plenty of examples of shoes recovered from shipwrecks, but the two I cited above are the only boots I can think of off the top of my head. Even taking 'boots' in the widest sense, shoes were still more common. Stirling Castle Boot: Vasa Boot: Neither of which are remotely like the typical 'pirate boot':

It's not so much 'no way boots', but 'no way bucket boots of the kind sported by Jack Sparrow et al and popularly associated with pirates'. 'Bucket boots' of the kind worn by Sparrow and co were riding boots, they are completely impractical for any kind of use at sea. Now, in the middle of the 17th century they were also a generally fashionable footwear, but by the end of the century (ie. by the GAoP), were worn pretty much only by those people riding horses, and anyone with any pretence of fashion was wearing shoes. Furthermore, there's virtually no evidence of pirates wearing such boots. Henry Teonge, a naval chaplain in the 1670s, rode from his home to London where he was due to join his ship, and when he reached London sold his horse, saddle, and boots, on the grounds that he no longer needed them. When Ned Low's pirates captured a ship carrying a cargo of horses they had great fun riding about the decks, but suffered lots of falls. They berated the ship's master for not carrying boots as well as horses - ie, they had no riding boots of their own. In short, although boots existed, it is highly unlikely that 'bucket boots' were worn by seamen, including pirates, because: -they are utterly impractical on a ship -they were considerably more expensive than shoes -they were not at all fashionable -there is no evidence of them being worn by pirates -there is actually evidence against them being worn by pirates. -additionally, in terms of reenactors, most of the boots being worn are not authentic copies of 18th century riding boots, so even if the use of riding boots by pirates could be justified (which it can't) then the boots in use are still wrong anyway. There are, of course, various arguments put forward by people who want to wear them anyway. Pirates didn't give a damn about fashion and if they thought they looked cool would have worn them. Unfortunately, we are generally conditioned by the fashions of our peers as to 'what looks cool', so it's unlikely that pirates would have found bucket boots any more 'cool' than the rest of society. It doesn't matter that they were expensive, pirates would just have stolen them. From whom? A handy regiment of cavalry trotting over the Atlantic? We don't have evidence of what every single pirate looked like, so we can't say for certain that they were never worn. True, but we do have a lot of evidence about the clothing of pirates and other seamen and it doesn't include riding boots. Neither does it change the fact that they were expensive, rare, unfashionable and impractical. There is evidence of boots being worn by seafarers. For example, a calf-length boot was recovered from the wreck of the Vasa (1620s, so a bit early), and an ankle-length laced boot was recovered from the wreck of HMS Stirling Castle (1703), and there is evidence of fishermen wearing long boots. But none of those are the 'bucket boots' so beloved of Hollywood and pirate illustrators. Does that answer your question sufficiently?

Don't hold your breath

Why thankyou Living on the wrong side of the Pond, I haven't seen a paper copy yet (though I have a PDF version). Hope you enjoy it (For the record, in the non-electronic world I'm just plain ol' 'Fox' without an 'e')

Neither am I particularly convinced that clergy were 'unlucky' at sea, at least in the GAoP. The real reason that the captain so often officiated at funerals and Sunday services was simply that many ships didn't carry ministers, and this was probably more to do with the unnecessary cost than anything else. If you can shave your merchant ship crew down to half a dozen men to save on wages, are you really going to employ a minister?

I think that Treasure Island and Empire of Blue Water probably count more as entertainment than history.

IIRC the laws concerning what constituted a 'legal' marriage had to be re-codified after the GAoP (1750s?) because there were so many loopholes and ambiguities. That said, in all the thousands of pages of primary and secondary source material I've read I've never come across an example of it actually happening, so it's probably either a later-than-GAoP practice, or a myth.

Define hair queues. If you mean, effectively, a pony tail, then yes, there are probably GAoP era references (though I struggle off the top of my head). If you mean the solid pony tail, usually black, seen on all self-respecting sailors in old movies (as implied in the original post), then they seem very much to be a later fashion.

Certainly, I have no problem with anyone portraying a Chinese pirate or Victorian sailor wearing a queue. But in the original post you asked about a very specific hair style (short queue wrapped in black), and the correct way to obtain it. All of the advice (and good advice it is too) has been based on a later period interpretation. It may well be that there isn't a 'correct' GAoP way of doing it.

I hate to pee on cornflakes, but can anyone point me to a picture or reference to a GAoP era sailor (or other) with queued hair?

Regardless of whether it was written by Johnson or Defoe this is the most authentic pirate book ever! I love it. Authentic in what sense? 'Authetic', as in, was written by a chronological contemporary of the pirates it describes: certainly, and although there are numerous other books also written at the right time (and in some cases written by people actually involved in piracy as participants or victims), Johnson's is just about the fullest. 'Authentic', as in, is filled with accurate accounts of the pirates it describes: that's a whole other debate! In a general sense, some chapters are better than others, some are very good, some are most definitely not. For some chapters it seems likely that Johnson was able to interview credible witnesses - particularly the chapters on Davis, Roberts, Anstis, Phillips, and Lowther. For other chapters, such as Bonnet's and possibly Low's, Johnson appears to have bee working mostly from previously published material such as trial reports and newspaper articles. Some chapters - those on Vane, Rackham, Bonny, and Read, for example - he was probably using a mix of common gossip, newspapers, and his own imagination. Some chapters are highly inaccurate (Every's), others are filled with fictional events and people (Misson, Tew). And, of course, the jury's still out on several chapters.

I believe the sequel was called "Pizzas of Eight". Adam, nice work. How much is a seam rubber going to set me back? (Also, if you want to drum up some trade, may I recommend http://www.ukpiratebrotherhood.co.uk/forum)

They were perhaps hampered by lack of dockyard facilities, but were probably assisted by the lack of Government red-tape and form-filling...

Bummer! They must have just taken it off - it was available when I posted the link... Sorry for getting your hopes up.

I don't if this has/will air in the States. The True Story: Pirates of the Caribbean It's one of a series of documentaries looking at the facts behind big movies, in this case, PotC.

You, sir, are an erudite man of taste and wisdom. Jack - spot on with the flags.

I can't help wondering whether the revolver apparently designed by Prince Rupert in the 1660s or 70s was of a similar design.