Mary Rose, a war grave?

[Chris aka divingchef]

Just something to think about folk.
The Mary Rose was a Crown warship, so why was she not given protection under the war grave legislation?

[paul_c]

becase she sank before a set date iirc its before 1914.

[Richard Mason]

Commonsense tells me it's not.

Was it involved in a war at the time? If I remember rightly they were doing a review for Henry VIII when she sank. Same as digging up the remains of troops from the Wars of The Roses - whilst the remains are due respect, I don't think you'd ever take the extra leap in cases such as that.

[PeteM]

Was it involved in a war at the time? If I remember rightly they were doing a review for Henry VIII when she sank.

Fighting the French who were attempting to invade.

Same as digging up the remains of troops from the Wars of The Roses - whilst the remains are due respect, I don't think you'd ever take the extra leap in cases such as that.

I think the line is very subjective. IIRC First world war can be a war grave but Boer war cannot despite being only shortly before.

[MattS]

The Mary Rose gained protection under the Protection of Wreck Act 1973, which protects historic sites. Prior to the act the group excavating the site, which included Southsea BSAC, attempted to gain some superficial protection for the site by leasing the seabed. The Protection of Military Remains Act came in later in 1986.

As far as I know the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does not protect sites as such. It's aim is to commemorate the lives of servicemen lost in military conflict since it's inception. Which it does by way of establishing war cemeteries and memorials, often on or near the sites of major battles.

[Eddie Clamp]

From on high:

Technically there's no offical term for marine war grave like there is for the Commonwealth War graves you find around the world, and the Mary Rose falls outside the critieria for the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. See the relevant bits of the legislation below:


(3) The Secretary of State shall not designate a vessel as a vessel to which this

Act applies unless it appears to him—

(a) that the vessel sank or was stranded on or after 4th August 1914; and



(4) The Secretary of State shall not designate any area as a controlled site in

respect of any remains of an aircraft vessel which has crashed, sunk or been

stranded unless it appears to him—

(a) that less than two hundred years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding.

HTH

[Mark Papp]

Just something to think about folk.
The Mary Rose was a Crown warship, so why was she not given protection under the war grave legislation?I assume you're referring to the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.

This was enacted but ignored, with no wrecks being designated until a furore caused by a journalist in 2000 or 2001.

The act stated that "less than 200 years must have passed since the sinking or stranding" for a wreck to be designated, so the Mary Rose was well outside the scope of the act.

Human remains were found on the Mary Rose and each find was considered and dealt with sensitively.

As an aside, technically a "war grave" is a designated place that can be tended by the War Graves Commission, so shipwrecks have never counted as such, hence the requirement for an act that recognised their importance.

All the above comes from my recollection of dealing with stuff about a decade ago, so I'm a bit foggy but I think I'm right.

[mikecsmith]

Fighting the French who were attempting to invade.



I think the line is very subjective. IIRC First world war can be a war grave but Boer war cannot despite being only shortly before.

Bit of a misnomer that the Mary Rose was fighting the French. It sank during a battle but didn't engage any French ships. The current theory is the refit of the ship adjusted its COG, this coupled with the large number of troops on its deck and open gun ports caused the ship to tilt whilst turning and the open gun ports dipped below the waterline leading it to flood within minutes and sink.

Supposed to be writing a paper on slave shipwrecks at the moment but using this to procrastinate ;)

[fcatarina18]

I went to see Mary Rose in Porsmouth and it was truly astonishing how well preserved she had been kept after so many years.
I stronly suggest going to see the museum.

PS:
If you are keen on marine biology could you have a look at my fundraising page?
www.justgiving.com/Fatima-Da-Luz

Thank you

[Chris aka divingchef]

I went to see Mary Rose in Porsmouth and it was truly astonishing how well preserved she had been kept after so many years.
I stronly suggest going to see the museum.

Thank you

A good suggestion but be aware that the hull will not be open to the public for a couple of years.

[Chris aka divingchef]

Bit of a misnomer that the Mary Rose was fighting the French. It sank during a battle but didn't engage any French ships. The current theory is the refit of the ship adjusted its COG, this coupled with the large number of troops on its deck and open gun ports caused the ship to tilt whilst turning and the open gun ports dipped below the waterline leading it to flood within minutes and sink.

Supposed to be writing a paper on slave shipwrecks at the moment but using this to procrastinate ;)

And evidence suggests that it was crewed by Spanish sailors from a ship that put into Falmouth. The isotopes collected from the teeth enamel strongly suggests that some of the crew came from the Mediterranean area. It was unlikely to have carried many soldiers as the decks where covered by netting that had been coated with pitch and sand to avoid cutting and boarding. The open gun ports suggest that it was or had fired a round.

[Chris aka divingchef]

Well here is something different
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12473958

[GerryB]

Sadly I had the chance to dive the Mary Rose whilst it was still on the sea bed when it was being raised but declined the offer :( , always regretted that but I did go to the exebition at Portsmouth very interesting

[Chris aka divingchef]

Thanks for the replies.
I’m envious of all that dived her and were involved in her recovery and subsequent restoration.
I started this thread after hearing a piece on Radio 4 and was interested in what divers had to say. As a maritime archaeologist, my main objective is to make heritage available to everyone, but without intervention this would not be possible.

[mandarintree]

Can someone kindly explain why the Mary Rose is referred to as a war zone?

Thanks!

[mandarintree]

Can someone kindly explain why the Mary Rose is referred to as a war zone?

Thanks!

[Eddie Clamp]

Can someone kindly explain why the Mary Rose is referred to as a war zone?
Thanks!

War grave as it says on the lid :p .

Although as a shift superviser on her for a while it appeared that we were being bombed by volunteer divers ;) . And very lovely they were too :)

Are you spamming? :rolleyes:

[Mark Papp]

War grave as it says on the lid :p .

Although as a shift superviser on her for a while it appeared that we were being bombed by volunteer divers ;) . And very lovely they were too :)Well, technically, it's not a war grave, though it could be a military maritime grave, if it were to be designated as such.

However, I believe diving prohibition would be a result of archaeological legislation.