Sir Lancelot Holland

To the native Swedes I say, you welcomed these British renegades into your nation, you have followed them in whatever grudge, vendetta, or flimsy excuse against GB, or more accurately certain clans and or players within GB, they have used those to lead you into this war, will you win? maybe, wars are so unpredictable, if so, who is left to fight? your neighbours Norge-Danmark, France? Spain who have had a horrendous time from almost everyone including us?, How about the U.S. though you'll be hard put to find an excuse for that, but, I have no doubt that an excuse will be found, the Chinese maybe, it's bit of a sail to get at them, but, hey, they'll be all that's left anyway once you are done with the Dutch, that is, neutrality is no guarantee of survival against those who only want to fight! the Prussians and the Poles who are clearly finding fun and enjoyment without a lot of fuss or drama? It won't be your local, friendly, neighbourhood Russians that's for sure, even British renegades are frightened of something! A very famous Japanese Admiral allegedly said of his nation's folly, he said "I fear all we have done is waken a sleeping giant, and, filled him with a terrible resolve" and he definitely said "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." Vice Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto,. the Battle of Midway was the turning point of the Pacific war, it ended six months to the day of the attack on Pearl Harbour! If you do nothing else, learn from him, he knew his trade, and, the consequences of one foolish act, fortunately for him, he never saw the true consequences of that folly, I think, eventually, you will.

It is not a question of risk/reward at all, it is a question of doing what has to be done to defend a port, if a nation wants to attain victory by sending overwhelming forces believing they cannot lose there is no point in complaining that they are screened out by inferior forces, any attacker who is arrogant enough to think that they will always win using superior ships and mods deserves to be taught differently and this is what is happening here, nothing more, nothing less. It is no different to the fate of Napoleons army when they invaded Russia, the Russian army did not beat Napoleon, Russia's winter beat Napoleon, and it was sound military tactics by the Russians to take advantage of of their Winter to win their war, so it is, with any nation who uses small ships to screen out a superior force, you use what you have to best advantage, sometimes you will win, sometimes you will lose, but as the British like to say, 'all is fair in love and war'. These 'Kamikaze' Screener's get no tangible reward for what they do, unlike the VM's that the overwhelming force would get if they got into the PB and destroyed a fleet incapable of it;s own defence, never mind the port, yet they go out time after time to defend with courage and honour, to the best of their ability, there is I think a great deal of satisfaction among screener's when they know that these great ships of the line also get no reward when they are sent packing by a 'rag tag navy' with inferior mods, perhaps, then, our enemies had better pray that we remain so, for, if we actually 'git gud' as some tell us to do, who knows what we may achieve?

This was, I think, the last large scale Anglo-Spanish battle before the wipe, There had been a number of battles around Mantua during the evening. The results aside these battles were characterised by the relative lack of salt and the conduct of both Spanish and British players was, by and large, courteous, gentlemanly, and, very much typical of sea warfare of this period. I too hope the front-lines system can be refined, such areas would reduce the frustration levels of spending hours seeking action and finding little or none, and, may also reduce the numbers preying on new players around capitals.

The use of the sextant was actually mandatory for all Officers, Midshipmen were taught by the Master to use one, and, it was an important part of the examination for Lieutenant.

Good luck to Snow in the Seven Provinces, now if you could just send over some Gouda and Edam with the Iron shot it would be greatly appreciated!

What Sir, were the end results of the British Empire? A large part of the Earth owes their political system, the way their military services are run, how their civil services operate to the British. All of the nations under British control were left as functioning nations, aside from the United States, who forged their own path after the war of Independence, even then, their own Constitution was based on Magna Carta, the basis of British law, most were permitted to leave the Empire peacefully becoming part of the Commonwealth of Nations, self governing and mostly prosperous. Yes there were rebellions in India and Africa, yes they were put down with brute force, Spain too utilised brute force to control their Empire in Central and south America, as did France in Africa and Algiers, It is impossible to condemn Great Britain for the use of brute force without also condemning Spain and France, all three of the major European powers were equally guilty in that regard. Great Britain was, in the 19th Century in the forefront of the abolition of slavery, one of the first nations to legally abolish it, £ hundreds of thousands were spent patrolling Africa's ports and Atlantic sea lanes hunting down slave ships, Even the still young United States agreed to cease importing slaves, instead relying on birth numbers to sustain slavery, upon which their economy literally depended. The ill treatment that slaves endured was no different to the treatment of sailors in the Royal Navy and the Army, who, could also be flogged or executed for the most trivial of offenses under the articles of war, so even the 'free' men were treated equally to those who were described as property and chattels under the U.S. Constitution, slavery was never a black and white issue, it was shades of grey with little difference between slave holding and non slave holding nations. Nothing i have said regarding the treatment of freemen or slaves can be considered right or moral by today's standards, but this was the 19th Century and these were the standards and morals of that time, it was done, it cannot be changed to suit a modern perspective, glossing over the cold, hard, realities will not make it all go away, neither is it advisable to cover up the wrongs done by the great European powers or the United States of America, as George Santanta said, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". When the aftermath of the British and Spanish Empires are compared it is clear that Great Britain left her former colonies in a far better shape to survive as nations, it may not have been perfect, but, you only have to look at the revolutionary nature of the Latin American countries compared to Canada within the Continent of the Americas to see that much.

If Naval Action were actually a simulation of 18/19th century warfare with all the stratagems and tactics, a defined set of victory conditions with re-settable default start points then the OP would be correct. However Naval Action is not that, I do not think that was the intent of the Dev's to begin with, more likely their intent was to provide a taste of naval warfare during a period where it has been heavily romanticised in print and on-screen. If I am wrong I am sure Admin will clarify that point of view. In truth naval warfare of the period was tough, if nature did not kill you the enemy would, if not the enemy then your own side may do so for any one of the infractions of the articles of war, it was fought with values that today are obsolete, yet the basic rules have not changed in centuries, from England it took months to get ships on station in the Caribbean, often remaining there for several years at a time, we are fortunate that we don't have to go to the India or Africa stations, and god forbid the Far East stations! How does one take such circumstances and convert them to a playable game that entertains, remains vibrant and close to the conditions of the time? Where fleets could, and, did pass each other without being seen, where the weather could and did make combat extremely difficult causing more losses than combat, where battles ended in stalemate more often than not, and, big fleet actions were rare, Naval Action sees more battles in a week than most Napoleonic Sailors did in a lifetime, even though some of those lives were short and brutal, we have ships that are close to their real life counterparts, with concessions made for play-ability, we do not fight in conditions that are close to those which navy's had to face in the day in terms of weather, or, regulation, if we did the game would be far too frustrating to play, and, at the end of the day, it is a game not a war simulation.

The common locations for magazines was below the waterline on the Orlop deck, logically close to the centre of the ship so that all cannons could be served in a similar time-frame. There may have been exceptions of course, and, it was not uncommon for powder bags to kept close to the guns for immediate use, (just as small caliber ammunition would be stored on deck in lockers as ready-use until rounds arrived from the 4 or 5 inch magazines). Later turreted ships would find the Cordite and shell rooms beneath the Barbettes below the waterline for easy flooding in the event of fire, The X turret magazine aboard Hood actually went far enough forward as to have been almost under the Captains day cabin and the Admiral's quarters and was the Magazine that exploded first, examination of the wreck suggests that the resulting fire went forward below decks without setting off Y magazine (which was further aft) venting above decks forward of the Mainmast where the explosion appeared to take place from the Prince of Wales viewpoint. True magazine explosions were very uncommon in the Napoleonic era, the best known example being the French 1st rate L'Orient at the Battle of the Nile, while the fire aboard L'Orient started aft, and low down in the hull, British gunfire spread the fire both forward and to the upper decks, the initial fire may well have been kept under control and away from the magazine were the fire not targeted by British ships. The introduction of Cordite, which tended to destabilize over time, and, required a temperature controlled environment meant a severe rise in magazine detonations even when not in action like HMS Vanguard in 1917, It is quite possible that USS Maine may also have been due to a coal bunker fire setting off a powder magazine, like Bretagne the Maine's loss was controversial, and what actually happened in Havana may never be truly resolved. The French Battleship Bretagne, IJNS Yamato, USS Arizona, HMS Barham and HMS Hood are all well known, documented, magazine explosions due to combat as were the British Battle-cruisers at Jutland. The Loss of the Bretagne was particularly controversial, since her loss at Oran, caused by Force H, a British Battle Squadron, created a great deal of bad feeling between France and Great Britain, ironically HMS Hood, which was Admiral Somerville's flagship at Oran, shared her fate less than a year later near the Denmark Straits. Many lesser known ships also suffered the same fate. Overall it does appear that magazine protection and ammunition handling procedures were better in 18th and most of the 19th century than they were in 20th century before the introduction of Cordite in 1889 as the shell propellant of choice.

The Articles of War, which governs daily conduct and behavior in combat, parts of which are read at Sunday Services and at punishment, Port Admiral's or Fleet admiral's instructions (ROE) signal's, Provision's, Ships, and Captain's logs were all part of ships 'library'. I would think that such a book would have to be optional as many people would not want to spend a lot of time on paperwork in a game, those who like to keep a record of where they are going, have been, weather and action reports, or prices, profit and loss what is sold and bought where, would, probably like a log, although, most of the information can be found elsewhere. The idea is good and would bring a touch of authenticity to 'life' at sea for those who have the time and inclination to keep a log.

Privateering at least in the beginning was something of a grey area legally speaking especially where the British were concerned. The likes of Raleigh, Drake, Hawkins, and Frobisher were Officers of the very new Royal Navy in time of war, in times of peace they were known to have operated under letters of Marque signed by Queen Elizabeth I, when it is considered that Pirates were outlaws operating without Letters of Marque and the fact that Queen Elizabeth maintained that they were Royal Navy Officers the claims of Piracy by His Most Catholic Majesty King Philip of Spain may well have credibility for as RN officers they would have been committing an act of war, or, an act of piracy if they did not have letters of Marque! For game purposes however, if you accept that the nations are permanently at war with each other (or all trying to beat GB, depending on your viewpoint lol) then Naval Captains cannot hold a letter of Marque, the Pirates, who in truth should not be a nation per se, (I think a number of Pirates may well prefer a form of Bretheren of the sea, with it's own rules, and, with Letters of Marque as well they could become a unique faction as opposed to a 'Nation'), however, should be able operate under Letters of marque from any nation who chooses to hire them giving them a veneer of legitimacy. There should I think be a time limit on Letters of Marque, perhaps a month with an option to renegotiate a re-issuance of the Letter. This allows the Pirates to change allegiances should they desire to do so. As far as I can tell, under the current Mechanics players under Letters of Marque would be ineligible to enter PB's on behalf of their sponsors, but, nothing restricts them from Screening operations or any other mission that they could legitimately carry out as Pirates.

¿Cometió Villeneuve errores en Trafalgar? Sí, ciertamente lo hizo, no conozco a ningún Oficial en ninguna fuerza militar, de ninguna era que no haya cometido errores, Raglan, Lord Chelmsford, Custer, incluso Wellington, Montgomery y Rommel cometieron errores, ninguno de esos oficiales fue calificado como cobarde por sus errores ¿Era grosero o simplemente arrogante? ¡Más de uno de los oficiales de arriba era más que creíble! Personalmente creo que ambos rasgos son malas cualidades en cualquier persona, sin importarles los oficiales de Flag. Una opinión formada a través de la experiencia y, como cualquier opinión, no necesariamente lo hace un hecho. No digo que tu opinión sea errónea, como tampoco la mía, es solo eso, una opinión. Nuestro Nelson, excelente como era, también era arrogante, su arrogancia debería haberlo visto en los tribunales de guerra en más de una ocasión por desobediencia voluntaria, particularmente después de Copenhague. Negarse a navegar bajo órdenes es Mutiny, del mismo modo que las tripulaciones de HMS Rodney y HMS Hood se amotinaron en 1936 en Invergordon, o, peor aún, podrían interpretarse como cobardías en virtud de los Artículos de Guerra de todas las naciones, una ofensa capital bajo ley militar

Siempre he tenido el mayor respeto por el Almirante Villeneuve, él también podría ser creativo, lo hizo, antes de que Trafalgar no solo rompiera lo que era un bloqueo muy efectivo, sino que lo hizo dos veces, la primera vez incluso llevando a Nelson al Caribe y de regreso a España sin Nelson nunca viendo su flota. Lo más triste de todo fue la forma en que lo trataron después de Trafalgar, ya que lo obligaron a emprender un curso de acción que sabía que no estaba bien aconsejado, sabiendo que en pocos días se le relevaría de su mando y que se le trataría tan mal. por Napoleón Bonaparte por seguir sus órdenes. Realmente siento simpatía por él, un oficial valiente e ingenioso que cumplió con su deber. A diferencia de algunos de mis propios compatriotas, opino que tanto la Armada francesa como la española lucharon bien, con coraje y honor.

Creo que hubo, y de hecho, todavía hay una marcada diferencia entre las doctrinas civil y militar, también hay áreas donde las dos doctrinas se superponen. Por ejemplo, en las circunstancias correctas, tanto los civiles como los militares son capaces de actos de valentía, pero ambos están sujetos a fallas en la moral a pesar del adoctrinamiento en el estilo de vida militar, principalmente, creo, porque la naturaleza humana es lo que es. No sé si la Armada española presionó a los civiles para que entraran en servicio, la Real Armada ciertamente sacó a la gente de las calles para prestar servicio involuntariamente a bordo de los barcos, por lo que ambas doctrinas habrían estado trabajando a bordo del barco al mismo tiempo. Sin embargo, las dificultades de la vida en el mar y la dura disciplina habrían asegurado que la mayoría de los hombres lucharan cuando llegara el momento. El almirante Villeneuve, al igual que Nelson, también habría informado a sus capitanes y, de hecho, al almirante español y sus capitanes sobre lo que esperaba que sucediera, y expuso sus planes para la próxima batalla. Sin embargo, no se les habría dicho a las tripulaciones, lo que hasta cierto punto habría afectado a los hombres, ya que los humanos tienden a temer lo desconocido. La Historia no dice si el Almirante Villeneuve envió algún tipo de señal para elevar la moral como la que espera la Inglaterra de Nelson, o tal vez la doctrina naval francesa puede no haber permitido esto. ¿La doctrina militar hace que los hombres luchen más duro? No estoy seguro de que así sea, después de todo, los Corsarios y Piratas tenían mucho más que perder, si perdían y eran capturados, morirían de todos modos. Los soldados y los marineros militares luchan porque se les enseña a hacerlo, los civiles solo lucharán para sobrevivir, y solo si las circunstancias los obligan a hacerlo, pero cuando luchan, aparte de la falta de entrenamiento y disciplina, hay poca diferencia entre los dos grupos. Mis disculpas si hay errores, el español no es mi idioma nativo y confío en el traductor de Google.

Clearly the revolution was far more complex event than how it is portrayed, at least in British schools. By comparison Great Britain's attempt at republicanism post civil war(s) was a failure, which, led to our current Constitutional Monarchy. Charles I was an absolute Monarch who believed he reigned by divine right, whether Louis XVI believed the same, or not, I do not know, but, as monarchs they held similar traits and took a similar path to their trials and executions. I took you're advice and read a little deeper into the 'old regime', and I think barely scratched the surface of how things were during the reign of the House of Bourbon, it is strange how the histories of France and England are so similar at different times, maybe the French and the English people have more in common that we realise, or care to admit.

Why not have a rating system for crafter's similar to the promotional system? For instance a Crafter can build entry level ships that cater to new and junior players, Shipwrights who build for mid level players and Master Shipwrights who build high end PVP and PB ships to the highest standard. Each level crafts all ships but craft better ships as their rate gets higher, and, can get higher profits by using better materials. These shipwrights could be supplied by traders and ordnance manufacturers of a matching level all of whom can also sell their products to the Admiralty or privately in the shops as well. This would put high value cargo's as well as general trade on the Open Water, offer an incentive for more genuine piracy when Pirates intercept then sell onward or use those cargo's and introduce more realistic commerce warfare by naval forces bringing the game more in line with the functions of pirates, privateers, raiders and navy's while increasing the value of the ports where they operate.

What I should have said was that the similarity was there before the revolution, certainly; the fact that many of the aristocratic families left France before, during and after the Revolution would have had a devastating effect on both the Army and the Navy, at least, until new Officers could be trained and gained experience. I note with interest your figures regarding the Aristocracy at the time of the revolution, here in England we are taught about this era from a British perspective, which, naturally differs from that of the French people, for example the involvement of the Clergy is not mentioned in British history lessons taught in schools, so if I appear to have misconceptions about what happened during a very turbulent time in French history I am happy to stand corrected. I do wonder that if M. Robespierre and his fellow revolutionaries were alive today and could see that the privileged still hold power in every nation, would they ask themselves, if it was all worth while? I do think that the Revolution benefited the French people in many ways, but, that the cost was tragically high among both the Aristocracy and the Citizenry, as is the case with all revolutions.

I think in this respect the composition of the Officer corps of the French Navy was in fact little different from that of the the Royal Navy, an Officer would either be of the aristocracy, or, if not, like Nelson (who was the son of a Norfolk Parson) have patronage from an Officer who was from the aristocracy. That the French, as a nation rebelled against their lawful government and the subsequent terror that followed is no surprise, given the conditions that the common man lived under, indeed, there was always the fear that it could happen in Great Britain too. It was I think more that the fear of the same happening in Great Britain (The regicide of Charles Stuart, King Charles I, after the British civil wars ensured that fear would be always present) that made the Napoleonic wars different to the preceding wars between France and England which were more territorial in nature. While both France and America learned how to live without a monarchy, Great Britain's republican experiment died with Oliver Cromwell, leading to the restoration of King Charles II and a constitutional monarchy. While Napoleon Bonaparte was one of great Generals of his age, his lack of understanding of Naval warfare placed him at a severe disadvantage, as his relationship with Admiral Villeneuve showed, and, may also of contributed to the performance of the French Navy during the Napoleonic era, neither would he be the last national leader to find himself in that position. It should also be remembered that around the same time the still new United States Navy adopted meritocracy in their Officer Corps, that a common man could command troops/sailors effectively without privilege or wealth (although patronage was still an element, backing from a Governor or Senator for scholarships was a requirement at West Point in it's early days, ironically, two of West Point's worst students went on to world wide fame, U.S. Grant became President and G.A. Custer became the youngest General in the Union Army) was an untried concept that sent shock waves throughout the old world.

Strangely the Royal Navy tended to do the reverse, when Grey's were introduced, and, even as late as WWII, Light Admiralty grey was used in the Mediterranean Sea and Dark Admiralty grey in the North Atlantic Ocean, there was also a Buff/White scheme in the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea for a while which may of had more to do with reflecting heat than camouflage, Grey was adopted in times of war, the Camouflage Schemes for WWI and WWII were more to break up outlines than for concealment, however, neither Prince of Wales's nor Repulse's camouflage prevented their sinking by Japanese Navy/Army Air Forces. Certainly visually spotting a Light Grey ship in fog is very difficult unless at very short ranges, it is probable that the RN now use a Light to Medium grey rather than the older Dark Grey, as the Dark grey may have been easier to see in fog due to tonal contrast. It is certain though that ship colours, especially in the RN were more to do with expense in the 18th century, dull colours like Black and dark blue were cheaper than White or Yellow, Nelson's choice of a Light Pink for his original checkerboard pattern may very well have been due to the expense of Yellow paint in that period and the fact that Captain's paid for the upkeep of their commands, they would generally purchase whatever colour was cheapest in a given location, (although Pellew could definitely afford more elaborate paints having earned in excess of £2 million in prize money) it may also be likely that the pigments for Blues Reds and Yellows may have been cheaper and more readily available in Continental Europe and the Continental Americas than in Great Britain, which, may also explain why Trincomalee and other Indian built ships were Black and White.

A considerable amount of thought goes into the name of any ship, generally it is what the owner wishes to say about their ship. Naval ships tend to fall into categories, names that reflect power or traits, like Indefatigueable, or, Terror, famous people like Tromp, Jean d'Arc or Nelson the USN have even had a USS Sir Winston Churchill, it is a rarity for any nation to honour foreign leaders in this way, Classic names from ancient Greece and Rome like Dido, Andromeda and Leander, Mars, Neptune, the Royal Navy even had an entire class of Corvettes named for flowers! Often nations share names too Concord/ Concorde, the lists are long and distinguished with battle honours that date back centuries, giving character and a sense of pride in the ship. a ships name is important, they often inspire affectionate nicknames like Anteelopee for Antelope or Cherry'B' for Charybdis or national pride like Hood, Ark Royal, Enterprise, or, Foch and Clemenceau. The big question is really not can it be done, it can, but would there be sufficient space for such a database, and of course the names themselves.

Perhaps it may be an early attempt at the elegant counter sterns that graced the later cruisers, were the beam narrower it probably would have looked better than it did. I think she has the look of a merchantman about her, not that it is a bad thing, and, her hull form may also have been more practical for the Baltic sea or the North sea where she would logically of operated. If Hohlenberg also designed merchant ships it may well influence my view that the class has a mercantile look about them, from the short biography it would seem that he was certainly a 'radical' designer. That the Venus (I) was operated by Royal Navy on stations as far afield as the American, Leeward, and, East Indies stations as well as the more logical North Sea station suggests that the class may have had some good sea keeping qualities as well, perhaps then, the good standing that Christian VII enjoyed in British service is due in part to these Frigates, a lack of beauty I think can be overlooked if the ships were both practical and capable of good service where ever they were expected to serve, these Frigates certainly appear to be that.

Yes, indeed, Sadly Essex became a Prison hulk, an unfortunate end for many captured ships that fought so well. However L'Unité was in many respects very different, she went on to not only serve France with courage and honour (as indeed the Essex did for the United States) but also for the Royal Navy as HMS Surprise, I would actually like to see L'Unité under her own French colours with her original armament in game, both ships were unique and should in my opinion be represented.

In general terms, I have long believed that French builds were often better than British builds, certainly in regard to sea-keeping qualities, and, yes, there was a great deal of hype about "Britannia's wooden walls and Iron men", (the term wooden walls coming from the Greek Navy way back around the time of Thermopylae and Salamis in 480 BC), It was, I think, more to do with the way the British trained their Navy, the after effects of the the French Revolution, with the following "Terror" as the French so eloquently describe it, also contributed to Britain's mastery of the seas, although it was a very slow process, than the quality, or, number of ships that the Royal Navy deployed. Likewise the Spanish also built some outstanding ships, again, often better than British builds, yet, for whatever reasons, and despite their apparently strong alliance with France were unable to bring the numerically inferior Royal Navy to submission. That said, one only has to look at the difficulties that the Royal Navy had fighting the the very new United States Navy, clearly, there were factors in play that seem to be lost in the mists of history. I rather suspect that the alliance with Portugal and Naples, with the neutrality of Venice ( if indeed, they were neutral) also had a good deal to do with how events unfolded in the Mediterranean at least. It certainly was not by British efforts alone that we achieved domination of virtually every Ocean.

I must admit, I too, am mystified by the lack of chasers aboard USS Essex, The after battle reports from Valparaiso specifically mention the use of 12lb chasers by the USS Essex, indeed it is apparent that the bulk of her defence was due to those very chasers since most of the battle was conducted outside the range of her Carronades. It is also clear that the British Admiralty also authorised the use of chasers aboard her after her capture.

Every Navy has had their glamour ships, Victory, L' Redoubtable, Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad , renowned names that struck a chord with people of their nations, the ships that Officers aspired to command, but so few were able to do so. For the bulk of every navy it was the Frigates that were the mistress of the seas, more economical than the Lineships, they fought in many of the famous battles, and, more than a few lesser known ones too, patrolled endlessly, they were the ultimate in blockading ships, equally at home in Blue waters, or, inshore, wherever there was trouble you'd find a frigate, yet, there was never really enough of them to go around. While looking at something almost completely unrelated I came across this: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-powerful-frigates-of-the-british-royal-navy/ There is, of course, nothing wrong with desiring to sail one the great ships of the line, as a group we can work our way through the small ships and sail some of the most prestigious ships in Naval history, perhaps, without much thought about the Frigates, the Jack of all trades, the true mistress of the seas. Perhaps, as a group we should make more use of them than we do, after all every famous Captain and Admiral all served their time aboard them, and, without them Cockburn, Pellew, even Nelson would not have been the Officers of great renown that they became.

My Lords of the Admiralty are actually Admirals of the Fleet, this enables any Sea Lord to hold seniority or parity with the Admirals under their command, with the exception of the First Sea Lord who is a political appointee, he may be a serving Officer, or, a politician, Sir Winston Churchill held the position twice during his political career. If a Sea Lord is actually a Lord in his own right, (a member of the Peerage) then he also holds a seat in the House of Lords, as does any Officer who is a member of the Peerage. The Sea Lords are titles, not ranks, in the same way that FONAC (Flag Officer Naval Air Command) or FOST (Flag Officer Sea Training) are.