Tartan Jack

It was OFFICIALLY adopted to replace the separate national flags completely in 1707 with the Act of Union. Previously, t had been used in connection to Royal stuff that was part of both nations. Up till 1707, English ships and Englishmen use the white flag with the red Latin cross, centered vertically and horizontally as the St George Flag, while the Scottish ships and Scots used the blue flag with a large white "X" which is a St Andrew's Cross (AKA St Andrews Flag). After 1707, All ships of England and Scotland would use the Union flag rather than their former national flags.

The Union Flag of 1707 looked like:

The modern variation added the "red cross of St Patrick" for Ireland, based on a white flag with a red "X" claimed to have been used by the Irish, The origin of the white/red "St Patrick Flag" is hotly debated. The Irish cross is offset to let Scotland's white cross have the "place of prominence" of being on the top of the canton corner. So, the top hoist-side corner should have the red on the bottom of the white.

Also, of interest, is that the original Union flag description was vague as to which cross was on top, so many Scots had the Scottish white cross over the English red cross . . .

It remains a point of contention to some Scots. The percentage is also a matter of debate.

On that matter, one is reminded that MUCH involving England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales is hotly debated. Even simple stuff can be debated more than those outside it think makes any sense. History is revised and rewritten by all sides for each's own advantage. Unfortunately, such hides and make the truth (what really happened) harder and harder to decipher.

And of course, "hella" originated from the streets of San Francisco in the Hunters Point neighborhood in the 20th century. It is commonly used in place of "really" or "very" when describing something. (What?)

Hella is an abrreviation of "Helleva"/"Hell of a" but has now expanded into usage where such isn't quite a literal replacement. A common usage is Hellaflush for wheel (rim/tire combos) fit very flush to the wheel well lip. You see it on decals on the back of said vehicle even.

Pirate Brethren isn't, as a group, very active anymore. BUT, the info on their site is a treasure trove.

You'll also recognize a LOT of the same names on here are there (esp. in Capt Twill).

The little Adventure ketch in at Charles Towne Landing in Charleston, SC is a replica of a1690s small, slow trading vessel It is amazingly accurate and actually does float on the waters of the Ashley River, though moored for tourist visits.

This is more pirate prey than predator, as it would be VERY slow and is more designed to be easy to handle by a small crew on trips between Charleston and Barbados or Charleston and other American colonial cities.

Thanks.

I've read mostly on the Scottish politics of the time, mainly Campbell of Argyle and Graham or Montrose. That's my weakness here.

Thanks. I was wondering about Wyndham Gallery and Ormonde. Royal Fortune, I wasn't sure if it was a Jacobite reference or THEMSELVES as a new royalty of the sea.

Morgan made use of his former underlings to capture those that didn't yield, such as James "Jamie Boy" Waring in hunting down Capts.Billy Leech, for example.

Oh yeah, that is the plot of The Black Swan of 1942 and has little accurate in it . . .

But, still one the very best pirate films ever made!

While I know little about Jacobitism (I have read wiki and "kiddnapped" ) I know that pirates and jacobites are related. Mist the man (propably) behind GHOP was a jacobite...I think that there is a study of jacobite pirates made by some historian...

(Foxe wrote a FINE article about it and Colin Woodward's "Republic of Pirates" make a significant deal of it)

Just a note . . . these names have HUGE Jacobite significance for the particular period immediately following the failed Jacobite Rebellion of 1715.

'

Fine, to be going on with:

Fancy, Henry Every,

Adventure Galley, Kidd,

Speaker, John Bowen

Mocha, Robert Culliford

Golden Fleece, Joseph Bannister

Rising Sun, Thomas Cocklyn

Bird/Wyndham Galley, Thomas Cocklyn

Whydah, Sam Bellamy

Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard

King James, Howell Davis

Ormonde, Howell Davis

New King James, Howell Davis

Royal Fortune (several of), Bart Roberts

Fancy, Edward England

King James, Edward England

Flying King, Edward England

Victory, John Taylor

Cassandra, John Taylor

Nuestra Senora del Cabo, Oliver la Buse

Eagle Galley, Richard Worley

Merry Christmas, Ned Low

Bonetta, Major Penner

While a number are the original ship name before capture

(I find the ship names, in themselves fascinating)

Right, Foxe, He would make an amazing movie better than a screen writer could make up . . . and ALL TRUE!

What I WANT to be reading:

Jolly Rogers: The Pirate Banner by E. T. Fox (The extraterrestrial red rodent)

At it's core the problem is people who have "toys" that actually aren't toys and they have little notion of the real damage their "toys" can actually do. They see the toys, at the core, as props and not weapons.

That's great!

And if I remember right, that's a police car, not an ambulance. The UK police cars are painted/marked VERY different than the US ones.

I wonder how folks would feel if HE hot out of a po-po car at a stop . . .

(Oh, and I DO NOT mean to be read that the New Providence folks didn't do bad things. My point was that they didn't do robbery, death, and destruction for the fun of it. I think they would have felt a need to justify every "sinful act" (as they would have said then, as well as now) as a necessary evil or justifiable vengeance for acts committed against themselves or their friends. Just look at Blackbeard's attitude toward Boston due to their execution of the survivors of the shipwreck of his friend Bellamy's crew OR Robert's attitude toward the islands or Barbados and Maritinique (the ABH and AMH on his flag) and his first act as a pirate captain-> a death dealing avenge raid on the town that killed Capt. Davis. his predecessor.)

As my edit is gone . . . I meant to say "1691" rather then "1695" as the start of the broader dates.

The 2 wars are important factors as to WHY the sailors were so well trained in combat tactics and techniques, as well as their grudge against those whom they served as privateers and in the Royal Navy, but left them jobless, shipless, and destitute at the end of hostilities. Also of note would be the Yamasee War in the Carolinas and Georgia and Jacobite issues culminating the the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715-> both of which play into the politics and atmosphere of that area (the Carribean and the American colonies especially) and the larger "British" empire/kingdom. The broader dates are relevant in what lead up to the 1715 pirate explosion, the openness to piracy as a real option (the success of the Rounders), the fears, conditions, and scope they operated in, as well as the aftermath on the following decades as it reverted to a strictly criminal activity on one hand and the fiction that birthed the popular myth on the other.

When in non-first-person portrayal (when teaching, rather than acting in-period), I've used all that. It is ALL relevant.

I'd even say both date sets are relevant and accurate from a certain perspective. I could easily argue either, depending on situation and context.

Still, the popular image conjured up by the term "Golden Age of Piracy" is rooted squarely in the 1715-1725 events, people, and personalities-> even though some names (such as Captain Kidd, for example- who I'd argue wasn't actually a so much a pirate as a failed privateer- and Morgan -who saw himself as more a privateer and royal mercenary) are certainly from the earlier Rounder and Buccanner periods.

As you can tell, I see the era of pirates as several sub eras:

- Buccanners

- Rounders (Pirate Round pirates, St Mary's and Madagascar)

- New-Providence/Flying Gang (the "classic pirate era")

- Lowther/Low (criminal element takes over)

Later stuff (everything post 1730-ish, well before the American Revolution), which more often was smuggling more than actual piracy.

In THAT sense, you could even expand the Golden Age of Piracy from 1630-ish to 1730-ish with several markedly distinct sub-sets within that larger period. If one uses that HUGE hundred-year period as the GAoP, then I'd make a distinction of 1715-1724 as the "Classic Age" of piracy/pirates.

Plus . . .

The Asian (Chinese, Japanese -Wakou-, and Korean) and the Med/Barbary pirates are another element that we have completely failed to consider/include. The Barbaries extended from the Crusades until the 1800s- when the US Navy took then on head-on. Either are MUCH longer than the popularly imagined "Golden Age" stuff was in the Americas and Indian Ocean. But, those are seldom included, mentioned, or even thought of when discussing "pirates." To the "popular imagination,"Pirates" remains the stuff related to the the Americas from generally 1630-1730-ish and most specifically 1715-1724.

The politically related impact of the rash of organized piracy in the aftermath (the time following the official peace and suddenly unemployed sailors) of the Queen Anne's War (War of Spanish Succession) is a major "starting point" for the brief period most think of as "the pirate era" -for the reasons Foxe mentioned above. The "Pirate Round" era was certainly a famous round of piracy, which had an end at the beginning of the War, so that could be called the "prequel" to the GAoP (if you will). It was after the burgeoning pirates were kicked out of Jamaica (following the raids on the Spanish recovery camps from the Hurricane treasure fleet disaster) that the "Golden Age" really kicked off. It was in high-tide until Woodes Rogers kicked/brought "peace through pardons" to New Providence, which then fractured the organization as many pirates when peacefully into the night or even became pirate hunters. The pirates where then forced to a period of complete roving (and crewmen moving between crews of a group or gang of pirates), which framed a central part of the "pirate image" captured by later writers.

The death of Roberts spelled the beginning of the end (IF that of Blackbeard and a wide number of others in 1718 didn't already) of "classic piracy," which then concluded with the end of that same loosely knit and VERY interconnected band in 1724, as Foxe noted.

Another element unique to this period is "self-proclaimed-pirates" who weren't out-and-out criminals (I'd say that the Low/Lowther group WERE and would have been such regardless of the era). Many of the captains and crewmen of the "New Providence"-related group -which called THEMSELVES "The Flying Gang" (THEY even thought of themselves as an interconnected group)- probably would have been "honest men" if given the free opportunity and if the Royal Navy and civilian merchantmen had been less "cruel" in their policies. Such is shown at how many became pardoned so easily trough the period, even if the pull of relatively easy money and a more "carefree" lifestyle beckoned then back, after they had experienced it.

Even Roberts own famed statement reflects this: "A merry Life and a short one, shall be my Motto."

The focus of the Flying Gang was more self-sufficient living and a "merry life," as opposed to a back-breaking one with little joyful benefit as almost a slave of one's debt they could never repay thanks to the poor wage of a sailor. (This is the root of the "gentleman pirate," "good pirate," and "honest man turned pirate" motif that captured writers and that fuels pirate fiction from 1720 through today. Of note is that the first "pro-pirate" writing appeared DURING the "Golden Age" itself, not many years or decades later- as is almost always/VASTLY the case when dangerous men are "glorified" into heroes.

In contrast, pirates of other periods tend to fall into 2 camps:

1) "We are legitimate citizens of our country" (even if that country isn't the one of their birth), where the sailors were more of mercenaries than true pirates or thought they were on legitimate missions on behalf of that country- whether the country thought so or not. The Buccaneers were certainly of this camp, as were many of the "Rounders."

2) Out-and-our criminals and/or sadists in it JUST for the money (to get rich) and/or for the sheer joy or rape, pillage, torture, and murder. The Low/Lowther camp was in this group almost to-a-man.

So, the "tight" dates would be 1715-1724, for the New Providence-related band.

The "looser" dates would be 1695-1724, if you include the "Rounders" in the GAoP (as most tend to). Rounders include FAMOUS pirates such as Every/Avery, Kidd, Tew, and so forth. The debate here is if the Rounders are of the same group in spirit and mentality as the Flying Gang members.

In my personal research, I lean toward the narrower dates for period-accuracy- but also keep and ear/eye out for the wider dates- as it's interesting info.

My overall tendency is to THINK of the "Flying Gang" period AS the Golden Age of Piracy . . .

Accurate or not.

DAMNATION!!!!

Missed it! I thought it was more in summer.

HAM NITE! I want to make a banner now....

I want to make the crossed ham flag.

Me too.

I was surprised at the mix of intellectual whimsy (as expected from the Wallace and Gromit folks), the nod to "pirate" films and lore, and the actual historical references. This is one I WILL buy when it comes out on DVD and look forward to seeing all the subtle stuff I missed in the theater.

If you haven't seen it, DO!

In the American Revolution AKA "AmRev" (or American War" for British POV), the terms in the Colonies were: Patriots (what called themselves), Rebels (what the Redcoats and those supporting the Crown/Parliament), or Whigs for those who supported American Independence and Loyalists or Tories for those that remained loyal to the Crown.

The terms "Whigs" and "Tories" then quickly vanished from the American political vocabulary and other terms appeared, while those 2 remain in British politics for MUCH longer after the war.

Side note: Many (all?) of the Redcoat/British units who fought in the war have refused to utilize battle honours from the American War in their appropriate places, such as tags/banners hanging from their unit flags that show the wars fought. The ones where I read the reason said that "it wasn't an war against an enemy, but ourselves" and therefore not really something they were proud of having fought or the like.

If I may "toss in" a note on painting in a design . . .

A while back, I spent too much time trying to find out what kind of paint was used on flags. It turned out to be a resin-based paint that is now illegal due to chemical leach involved that is now considered a hazardous material. Further research showed that the dangerous resin was replaced with a MUCH safer and more stable plastic medium, to create acrylic paint. From that time on, the resin paint vanished and acrylic became the "standard" one used in flags and all resin-paint applications.

I was, then, recommended by a number of flag experts and historical preservation/experts to use acrylic as the best and most accurate substitute and to AVOID enamels completely in a period-correct flag. The acrylic look, feel, and wear is supposed to be IDENTICAL to actual-period-correct resin paint, but much easier to use, safer, actually available, and so forth.

I was surprised at that response and reaction . . . but it came from a number of independent and knowledgeable sources.

So, if/when I make my period-correct flags, I plan to do any painted stuff using acrylic.

(Oh, and I have a bit of a flag obsession . . . )

Fine, to be going on with:

Fancy, Henry Every,

Adventure Galley, Kidd,

Speaker, John Bowen

Mocha, Robert Culliford

Golden Fleece, Joseph Bannister

Rising Sun, Thomas Cocklyn

Bird/Wyndham Galley, Thomas Cocklyn

Whydah, Sam Bellamy

Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard

King James, Howell Davis

Ormonde, Howell Davis

New King James, Howell Davis

Royal Fortune (several of), Bart Roberts

Fancy, Edward England

King James, Edward England

Flying King, Edward England

Victory, John Taylor

Cassandra, John Taylor

Nuestra Senora del Cabo, Oliver la Buse

Eagle Galley, Richard Worley

Merry Christmas, Ned Low

Bonetta, Major Penner

I think the question of preponderance is related to the pirates' location. Pirates in the Caribbean and on the American seaboard sometimes chose sloops because of their sailing qualities and shallow draft which was useful in the various keys and inlets. However, I think it was more to do with the fact that sloops were pretty common in that area anyway. If you cross the Atlantic to the African coast, or go further and into the Indian Ocean, there were fewer sloops operating in general and more large ships such as slavers and Indiamen. The pirates in these regions followed the general trend and chose ships over sloops.

I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, it's a simple matter of what was available: in the Americas there were some ships and loads of sloops, elsewhere there were more ships than sloops. Secondly, if the merchant ships you (as a pirate) are hunting are likely to be small sloops with a couple of guns then using a large sloop with eight guns puts you at an advantage, but once you cross the Atlantic and start trying to capture large square riggers with 20 guns, your sloop starts to look a bit small and vulnerable...

I believe that many of those bahama pirates in 1715-1718 used often sloops since they were good in shallow waters (and were easily available and easy to get) that there in the bahamas were but in longer voyage I would chose brigantine or frigate or slaver.

In sloops cannon ports are low and in real Atlantic storm they are not in good....sloops were small so i would not dare cross oceans whith so puny vessel

But . . .

Sloops DID sail back and forth across the Atlantic, sometimes several times- one right after the next.

The problem is that we think of "pirate ship" as all huge warships, not a mix of small vessels up to big ones. What we have gone through is a pendulum of ideas. In novels and, later, films from the latter 1700s through the 20th century, pirate vessels are shown almost universally as "big ships." So, historians began to point out that about half (or "most," "majority," etc) were actually smaller vessels of 6-12 guns- often described as "sloops." Then that got OVERstated into "almost all were actually sloops" . . . Foxe and others are now trying to balance that statement.

"Ships" was a wide-range of sizes of vessels, but larger than a "sloop." The line between a sloop and ship even got fuzzy . . .

Many were likely smaller 100-footer-ish merchantmen, rather than "flagship" sized vessels like the QAR (approx. 200 feet, if I recall properly- which was big at the time).

Sloops were oft 40-100 feet long and ships were 100-ish to 250-ish (I'm sure the experts could put better parameters on that).

In analogy, I'd say sloops were like "pick-up trucks" and ships were like "rigs/lorries" in function and size. Even then, there is a gray area between them in the middle-weight range. (Would that be a fair and reasonably accurate analogy?)

As this thread just keeps going . . .

I'll toss in this one observation:

By reading the sources and the modern interpretations of them, I get the impression that pirates looked something like Americans at Highland games- meaning that they wore an odd hodge-podge of socio-economic garment styles at the same time. I see guys in kilts, "Prince Charlie" jackets (a kilt tails-tux jacket) with hiking boots and a t-shirt and a (non-uasable) plank-fur sporran. It is an odd mixture of styles that would work perfectly fine on their own, and each with a VERY appropriate situation. The hiking boots, simple, usable sporran, and t-shirt are perfectly at home at the games, while a tux-level "Prince Charlie" garb is a bit "overdressed"- basically someone wearing a tux to a baseball or football game. Yet, at a formal dinner (as often proceeds or follows the games), the tux-type garb is PERFECT, while the hiking boots are rather underdressed for the occasion.

How that impact pirates is this: I have a feeling that they would wear a mix of worn "seaman" garb with the finery all mixed together and rather at stylistic odds. If I ever get a "nice coat," I plan to wear it with my blood-stained slops (real blood thanks to the hand-cut at Paynestown a couple years ago) . . . just for kicks- or some other mixed style.

I do think they would purposefully "up their wardrobe" when given the chance, but probably would do so like a "red neck at New York society gathering" (you get the idea, and remember I like where "red neck" is a common and "good" thing)- some ODD mix of jeans, t-shirt, diamonds, pearls, and some very expensive jacket/dress.

Greetings!

Sorry I haven't been around much since the Adventure Alliance's Parley back in August. Life and work have made thing stupid busy.

But, I look forward to reconnecting to my old friends.

(Also, finally remembered how my log-in was typed)

Slainte,

John "Tartan Jack" Wages of South Carolina

Thanks, Sterling. I guess it's older than I had realized. I was thing AmRev-era. Glad to hear otherwise.

Cooking and period food isn't something I know much about. -Always learning.

I'd heard/read from many sources of an American Rev/Napoleanic period origin of pickling.

I am VERY glad to know it's older than that.