Fox

There's been a bit of discussion before about authentic flag fabrics. Wool bunting is GoF's fabric of choice, and silk is mentioned in quite a number of period sources. The ideal fabric for a flag is one which combines strength with a light weight, hence the suitability of silk. Never come across a hide flag, but I can't imagine it would be any good - it would just be too dense to fly except in the very strongest of winds. Still, I'd be interested to know where you heard about it.

On the subject of bars in Malta: next time you're there don't forget to raise a glass to the greatest Billy Bones of all, Ollie Reed, who was drinking in a Maltese bar when the great landlord in the sky called last orders.

Apparently my post had too many images for one post so I've split it. Some of the pirates of the Golden Age had extremely interesting flags (if that sort of thing interests you), and if you want to find something different yet authentic you might think about using different colours. George Shelvocke reckoned in 1718 that yellow was the most common colour for pirate flags, and there are certainly examples of red, blue, and white jolly rogers pre-1730, as well as black. As well as the obvious skeletal devices you might also like to think about some of these examples: Bart Roberts: ...... Jean Martel/Captain Kennedy John Phillips Captain Nichols (whose flag I suspect may actually have had the dart going through the heart, like a modern "love" symbol) Phillip Lyne Thomas Cocklyn Bear in mind too that not all pirate flags were "jolly rogers". Many pirates flew national flags, not as false flags, but as a proclamation of nationality in the same way that merchantmen flew them. Roberts, for example, is recorded as having flown a Union flag and a British pennant, as well as an English red ensign. Other pirates are known to have flown Union flags, St. George's crosses and all sorts of other national flags. Also, national flags might be personalized by pirates for their own use, for example: Thomas Anstis Thomas Cocklyn . There is no evidence yet discovered to support the supposed Rackham flag, and it is certainly unique in its device. Perhaps the 20th century inventor of "Rackham's" flag was inspired by Roberts' flag with a cutlass and skull, but I doubt it. More likely, he was inspired by Defoe's fictional "Captain Singleton" whose flag was black with 2 crossed daggers. Hope that helps, let me know if you want anything else. :)

Like a nit-wit I didn't save the email (thought I did, 'parrently not) Chinese flags are something I don't know a massive amount about. There's the well know 19thC example in the NMM, and there's an account of a Cantonese pirate fleet in the early 19thC whose ships flew plain coloured flags (black, red, green, white, and blue IIRC) depending on what squadron they were in. It's a bit late for what you want but I can check out the reference if you want me to. Barbary pirate flags tended to be quite religious in nature. They came in all colours and the most popular device by far seems to have been a crescent, pointing either to the fly or to the top edge of the flag. Many illustrations show variants with different numbers of crescents (1-3 seems the most common) in different arrangements. These flags are Tunisian privateer flags of uncertain date preserved in the Tunis Maritime Museum: ... While this one is copied from a 17thC engraving of the Barbarossa brothers Speaking of Barbarossa, Kheir Ed Din Barbarossa's flag is preserved in the Istanbul Navy Museum. This flag, often mistakenly attributed to Christopher Moody, is sometimes thought to have been a Barbary pirate flag, but I believe that is also erroneous and comes from a mis-translation of the French word "Corsair" Basically, stick with crescents or other Islamic religious symbolism, and bright colours and you can't go far wrong with Barbary flags. One interesting thing about Barbary flags is that quite often they were not rectangular. Swallow tailed flags, and flags with rounded ends were also pretty common.

Personally, if I'm doing anything "boaty" I lose all my superfluous kit. My tricorn is replaced by a thrum cap, I usually ditch my cutlass in favour of an axe... Pirate skills: everyone trying to convince people they are a pirate (whether authentic or fantasy) should have certain skills and knowledge or their portrayal just won't be convincing. Yar, most pirates should have a knowledge of how to fire a cannon or load a pistol, but let's not forget just what kind of a percentage of a pirate's time was spent fighting. Let's take Captain Roberts as an example of one of the "busier" pirates. Roughly speaking he took something like 400 ships in 4 years (IIRC), that's about 2 per week, one every 3-4 days. Even if the whole day were taken up with capturing a ship (which it rarely if ever was probably) that means that for every day spent fighting another 2 or 3 were spent sailing and just living their lives. In reality for most pirates the difference was probably considerably higher, and some pirates probably spent a month sailing for every day fighting. Folks pretending to be pirates should have a rudimentary knowledge of how a sailing ship works, how pirates navigated, how seamen amused themselves and some of the working skills associated with sailing. OK, not everything translates well into land-based events, but I reckon re-enactors should know something of the care, maintenance and use of ropes, period games, the state of the world in whatever year, the relative value of money, that kind of thing.

William, those kids weren't lost, they were exploring... The question of longitude is an interesting one. It is generally accepted that Harrison solved the problem in about 1760 (after decades of trying), but mostly overlooked is an interesting earlier attempt to use watches to overcome the problem of latitude. Almost a century before Harrison's success a scientist and mathemetician named Christiaan Huygens approached Prince Rupert, a former pirate and now English Admiral with two watches which he believed could keep reliable time at sea. Rupert sent the two watches to sea with his former piratical comrade Sir Robert Holmes. On October 21st 1663 Holmes' report ("An Account of the Going of Two Watches at Sea from 28th April to 4th September 1663") was presented to the Royal Society by Sir Robert Moray. Details suggest that the results were encouraging and that the watches were more reliable at sea than any previously tried. A second experiment was arranged. In 1664 Holmes again took the watches to sea. He possibly trusted the watches too much, for on more than one occasion he used them to correct his own navigational calculations, and those of his officers - despite the fact that the watches had been up to half an hour wrong on the first voyage. However, after about 6 weeks spent crossing the Atlantic, Holmes' reliance on the watches brought him up to his correct landfall. On Holmes' return to England he praised the watches greatly and Huygens was delighted. The members of the Royal Society were informed of Holmes' success and... well, no mention of the first useable (if not perfect) sea-chronometer seems to have ben made again. For some reason or another the experiments were dropped and it wasn't until Sir Cloudesly Shovell's navigational disaster in 1707 that the Royal Navy again began to seriously think about longitudinal navigation. IMHO, the tragedy of Anson's voyage could probably have been avoided by better supplies, but it is doubtful whether the few days lost because of Anson's navigational errors (which were a sign of the times, not the man) would have made much difference to the health of the crews when compared to the many many days lost because of contrary winds and currents. Better navigation (which was not available) would not have saved many lives, but better supplies (which were available) would have made a huge difference. Nonetheless, the story of Anson's voyage does illustrate very neatly some of the potential pitfalls of pre-Harrison navigation.

Is that not the scientific term for the pleasant feeling of well being you get when you sit on the toilet seat and discover it's already warm?

In the West Country of England, where the "pirate accent" really originated (long story involving an actor from Dorset playing a pirate from Bristol in a popular Disney film I believe) conversations cannot be held with just the word "arr". However, if you add the word "umm" to your vocabulary then you should have no problem finding out most things from the natives. "Umm" can be any question you care to ask, depending on intonation, inflection and associated body language. For example, if you hold out a bunch of keys to a farmer and say "umm" with a questioning inflection he will instantly understand that you are asking if the keys belong to him. "Arr" can be any answer you care to give, depending on the same conditions as "umm". Given the same example, if the farmer looks down slightly and says "arr" in a clipped and abrupt manner then the keys are not his. On the other hand, if he makes eye contact, smiles with one side of his mouth and emits a more protracted "arr" then you can be assured he is very grateful to you for finding his keys, and he probably can't get into his outdoor privy without them. Conversely, "umm" can also be more or less any answer, with the additional condition that the question asked was "arr?" and not "umm?". "Arr" can therefore also be used to ask almost any question. For example, "Arr?" said in a brisk manner with a slight raise in note toward the end usually means "How are you today?". A non-committal, almost grunted "umm", possibly with a slight tilting of the head to one side, would mean "Not so bad thanks, my corns have cleared up at last but I think my missus has found out I'm screwing the barmaid with the big norks from the Lamb and Flag." You guys probably think I'm joking. I'm really not. Personally, I think my favourite word, as much for its sound as its meaning is: dasypygal (da-si-PYE-gul) adj. Having hairy buttocks. I would wear those new hipsters, but I think I'm a bit dasypygal to get away with it

My suggestion would be to work damn hard at plugging the first book. With proven sales statistics you're far more likely to find an agent willing to take your second book on.

Charles Harris was also recorded as having a blue flag at his trial...

Now THAT I am in complete agreement with! There's holes in the ground, holes in the theories, bottomless pits that people keep throwing their money down... any number of flippin' holes

First off, I have a really odd tolerance to alcohol. I recall on one occasion drinking 17 pints, then walking home and starting on the port. Couple of my mates got hungry so I whipped up an omelette, didn't burn it, did the washing up and went to bed only just the wrong side of sober. On other occasions I've puked and passed out after 5. Some nights I can really handle my alcyhole, some nights I really can't. When I get drunk I go one of two ways. I philosophise deeply for an hour or two and then want nothing more than to go to bed. OR I get filled with bravado. Not your usual macho bravado, but a kind of stupid, daft bravado. Suddenly, someone needs to direct traffic, and I am the man to stand in the dual-carriage way and do it. If I need to be sick I'll deliberately go off to find the highest possible point I can to do it from. That kind of thing. If I get drunk on wine I feel like I become the world's greatest lover, but I'm probably more akin to Pepe le Pew. This is why I don't get drunk all that often... birthdays, Christmas, days with the letter "y" in their name...

As far as I know, little or no truth in the skull and cross bones being the signal for an infected ship. It was a pretty universal symbol of death and mortality (hence the use of it by pirates), so it's possible it was used to signify a plague ship, but it certainly wasn't universal. The use of a yellow flag for plague ships (technically, it just means the ship is in quarantine - might be flown if there's a particularly bad outbreak of athlete's foot or wind) certainly doesn't date back to the golden age. I don't know if it stems from the "I" flag, it might, it might not - 19th century flags ain't something I know a huge amount about.

I was going to resist this, but I just can't. Petee, please provide examples of this proof. Patrick, the article in NQG to which you are referring was a very well written article, but it started from the view-point that everything written about the money pit was true, the authors made no attempt to question whether or not that was in fact the case. Hitman, thanks for that, nice article.

Billy, I've emailed (as you requested) let me know if you don't get it for any reason.

A mate of mine is Irish (that is; born in Ireland, not your wishy-washy watered down "my great great grandfather came from Kilkenny" American Irish), but he lived and worked in the States for about 20 years. He summed it up rather nicely to me when he said: "The difference between an Englishman and an American is that an Englishman think 100 miles is a long way, but an American thinks 100 years is a long time."

The very finest caps in the world are made (IMHO) by Kirsty Buckland who has a website HERE. They're not the cheapest, but not over-priced either considering they are all knitted from hand-spun, hand-dyed 100%wool. Ms Buckland is generally acknowledged as being an international authority on knitted hats and her work is absolutely superb - you won't find a better hat. Of course, shipping from England might be an issue if you want it by Christmas.

I have a plan! If the patrons of this fine establishment got together, pooled our resources and the "faithers" amongst us enthused and waxed lyrical to any wealthy businessmen they know it should be a doddle to raise the cash. Let's buy Oak Island, have a bit of a dig around and if we find anything whatsoever I'll admit what an ass I am. That's possibly taking it a bit far, but it's probably a good summary. I can agree to that, but, and this it my whole point, nobody has yet posted any evidence in favour of there really being a money pit on Oak Island. If and when someone does, I'd gladly continue the debate, until then I'm going to have a little snooze...

Once upon a time I had long hair and a long beard (which I occasionally used to put into two spikes), all you could see of my face was my eyes. Then I cut my hair short and trimmed the beard back to a goatee with a magnificent moustache. Then, alas, the moustache had to go when my ex and my mother combined to tell me that a moustache that covers your lower lip when your mouth is closed is not only unhygienic (yeah, I got food in it - a lot), but also hadn't been fashionable since 1860. Now, Vixen doesn't much like my beard (actually it's my moustache she objects to, it irritates her when we're kissing), but when I was in a crash a couple of years back they shaved me in hospital and she realised that I look like I'm 14 under the facial hair, so now she grudgingly allows a neat trimmed goatee and tache (but I still hanker after a moustache I can suck when I'm thinking).

The point has been made that one of the reasons people volunteered for the navy, despite being able to get better money in the merchant ships, was that the significantly larger crews meant that each man had to do less work. On merchantmen the crews were kept to the minimum possible so everyone had to work hard, but in naval ships the crews were as large as possible so the same amount of work was shared around many more hands. Presumably the same would be true of a well manned pirate ship. Still, there's no doubt about it, they were tougher men than you or I.

Petee, I'm really not sure that going to Oak Island and looking at the mass of holes there would determine whether any oak platforms had been discovered in 1795 or not. This is my point about Oak Island summed up entirely. Believe nothing without questioning why you believe it. I questioned the Oak Island myth and discovered a whole load of bloody great glaring holes (and not the kind you find in the earth). I can't bring myself to believe that anyone who has really questioned the Oak Island tale could still believe in it. If you have questioned it, examined the actual evidence, and still believe in it then fair play, I really admire your incredible faith. By the way, did I mention the Holy Grail is buried in my garden, if you could just lend me a hundred dollars I could dig it up and we'd both be rich... Enigma, I can't say I've ever really looked into Cocos Island particularly (I've certainly not given it the time I've given to Oak Island) so I'm not really in a position to pass judgement. What I will say is that the stories of buried treasure connected with Cocos are more plausible (perhaps "less implausible" would be a better way of putting it) than those put forward for Oak Island. Good luck with the backstaff, I'd offer to share my experiences of making them, but I suspect that wouldn't please you, so I won't. (Incidentally, I used to live just round the corner from the place the guy who invented backstaffs lived...oh the views!...)

Kaizoku, I take your point. I do believe that men have landed on the moon because a: there is some reasonable evidence that it happened, and b: the people saying that someone has landed on the moon are in fact the people who actually did it. If, on the other hand, we'd never seen that famous footage, or heard Armstrong and Aldrin giving interviews etc, and then in about 2020 somebody said "Hey, in 1969 two guys walked on the moon, now we're trying to raise money to do it again so please send your donations to..." then I (and everyone else) would be somewhat more suspicious. Nobody would believe it, so why do people find the existence of the Oak Island pit so believable? If you check my earlier posts you'll see my stance is very clear. There might well be a "Money Pit", and there might well be a fabulous treasure, but the argument is equally good that that there is a fabulous treasure in my garden. There is absolutely as much evidence for either supposition. I'm not trying to prove the existence or non-existence of the pit, I'm trying to prove that a belief in the existence of the pit has no basis whatsoever in fact. Without the existence of the oak platforms etc what else is there to indicate the existence of the money pit? Since the existence of the oak platforms is highly suspicious at best it really does call into doubt the whole existence of a deep pit at all. I don't believe that there's anything at the bottom of the money pit for the simple reason that I don't believe there is, or ever was, a money pit as such.

I believe that in severe cases anyone found carrying a candle in the powder room might suffer death by explosion. ...or decapitation Apparently having women aboard is unlucky

I wasn't aware that this was a pi$$ing contest. That's about my thought The thing is, there's not usually a right or wrong answer with the kind of minutae that gets discussed here. OK, somebody might say "they didn't have checked shirts" and I would prove 'em wrong by quoting ASC sources, but on the whole there's no cut and dry answer. So, no, I don't recall anyone having "bested" me as such - people have changed my opinion by producing good sources and sensible conlusion based thereon, and I hope I've changed other peoples' opinions in the same manner. Occasionally I've admitted being wrong when someone's come up with something that I'd never even heard of, more often I've done it to myself (see this message from another board for example). The other thing, and I'd really recommend this to anyone who feels they get into too many arguments, is just not to post unless you're pretty damn sure you can support your argument with facts. If it's a topic about which I don't know much I'll just leave it alone. But, as Enigma says, it's not a contest. If I thought it was I'd stop posting. Having said that, as long as others keep arguing then I will too. My opinion is based entirely on the facts and evidence (or lack total thereof) in this particular case. The opposing opinion is based on romance and wishful thinking (Seriously, show me some actual evidence that anyone ever found oak platforms etc and I'll change my opinion in an instant). You can't argue against opinions, but if you disagree with them you can try to change them with facts and evidence. When someone produces some I'll change mine, until then I'll just continue to giggle behind my hands at credulous folks who believe everything they are told without questioning it. Enigma, my opinion is based on the evidence, what's yours based on?

Rummy, Nancy's the name of my all time favourite female pirate, nice one! Oh, I'm Ed. Not particularly exciting but my middle name IS Theophilus so it kind of makes up for it