HMS Eagle? Maybe ...

HMS Formidable? Possibly …

HMS Death Star? Almost certainly not.

We can’t tell you what the names of the Navy’s future aircraft carriers will be. No one can – the Royal Navy think tank which comes up with suggestions will not address the issue until the ships have been ordered, and as yet they are just plans and graphics.

But the Ships’ Names and Badges Committee (SNBC) has ruled out a couple of suggestions – so whoever proposed HMS Millennium Falcon and HMS Death Star will be disappointed.

The naming of warships is a potential minefield, as Capt Chris Page, the Head of the Naval Historical Branch, is all too aware.

The committee, which meets on an ad hoc basis usually three or four times a year, represents a range of experience within the Navy, and members are co-opted in when their input is pertinent; for submarine names a representative of Rear Admiral Submarines would play a part, for example.

The permanent members are Capt Page (representing the Controller of the Navy), the senior Regional Naval Officer, and the Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, who acts as the Naval adviser on heraldry. The Admiralty Librarian is the secretary.

“Ship’s names are very carefully considered – they are not just the whims of passers-by,” said Capt Page.

“We will consider all names that are provided to us, within certain constraints.”

The list of considerations is comprehensive. Among the many considerations in the selection of a shortlist of names for Royal Navy or RFA ships are:
• Has it a strong RN tradition, and does it have many Battle Honours?
• Does it have a particular association with a type of ship? A survey ship would not be named Royal Oak, or a destroyer HMS Prince of Wales, for example.
• Are there enough usable names for the class of ship? An X-ray Class of 50 would prove difficult to fill.
• Does a name have a strong civic affiliation?
• Is there sufficient gap between the paying-off of the previous ship and the name being considered again?
• Does the name have an unhappy history – Thetis or Affray, for example.
• Is the name liable to mispronunciation or corruption into an ‘unfortunate’ nickname?
• Does the name have a different or unfortunate meaning in other countries?
• Does the name have strong links with other navies? Perth, Vampire and Vendetta have connections with the Australians.
• Has the popular meaning of the name changed over time?
• Is the name in current use elsewhere in the Navy? HMS Drake and HMS Nelson would thus be ruled out.

The procedure followed is well-established. The Controller, in discussion with the First Sea Lord and the Admiralty Board, provides the SNBC with a theme, which may be a simple one such as a letter (such as the Type 45 D-class – not, incidentally, the Daring-class), or a more specific one, such as the Duke-class.

“The Controller or the First Sea Lord may lay down criteria, like including place names, or no place names, or admirals,” said Capt Page.

“I will get a steer from the First Sea Lord via the Controller, saying the theme for the class is this, and he might prefer certain sorts of names are not proposed.

“The SNBC meets and will, by the time we meet, have a huge list of names – probably 150 names in the D-class, for example.”

These are whittled down to perhaps one name and one reserve for each ship, which are passed on to the Controller, then to the First Sea Lord (who may consult with colleagues, such as Second Sea Lord and Commander-in-Chief Fleet) before being submitted via defence ministers to the Queen for final approval.

Only when the Queen has agreed the names can they be announced, so the SNBC is merely the first step in that process.

Such is the interest in names that there is always a degree of lobbying – some quite insistent.

“The SNBC is under pressure from several cities and counties to provide names of that place,” said Capt Page.

“There is a city or town affiliation for every ship, and if it is a good one for both ship and town then that would tend to receive more favourable consideration than another with a town which is less careful of its affiliations.”

Petitions regularly wing their way to First Sea Lord, pointing out the benefits of having a ship of this or that name – in Capt Page’s time, there have been major lobbies for Coventry, Formidable, Rodney, Euryalus and Dorsetshire, among others.

“If a ship has got an association you can be pretty sure it will tend, if it can, to lobby. And we are more than amenable,” said Capt Page.

“I welcome any suggestions, because although we are very thorough, it may be a name that we have not got in the frame.

“We have had very outlandish names suggested, but not many. HMS Millennium Falcon and HMS Death Star were two examples.

“We get occasional spotters who write to us, but mostly we get serious and well-argued lobbying from cities and counties.

“Most of the people who write in with silly suggestions write in with tongue firmly in cheek.

“If people get as far as writing to us they usually have an axe to grind, and often they are from an organisation which thought they did well in the war and think they haven’t been sufficiently recognised.”

There has been no commercial lobbying, and Capt Page believes that will remain the case.

But the passage of time can lead to hard decisions being made, as certain names fall out of favour.
Colonial connotations mean HMS Bombay or HMS Uganda are unlikely to find favour today, as are names which do not chime with the image of the Navy as a force for good – which weighs against HMS Terrible or HMS Devastation.

“Some names are not Jack-proof – there are dozens of these,” said Capt Page.
“Even great names like Diomede; no one knows how to pronounce it, and it gets lumbered with ‘Dimweed’, although that in itself is not necessarily a strong enough reason to reject a name.”

Archaic names like Queen Regent or Faerie are not supported, and if the name exists in another navy it could cause confusion.

Such is the treasure house of Admiralty names that it would be rare for a new name to be created.

“There are so many good traditional names that we would recommend a completely new name only if it had a particular resonance,” said Capt Page.

“Sadly, I cannot see us having an HMS Pansy again. Chrysanthemum, too, and Gloxinia – ships of a class that had a very hard and successful war, but they are not likely to be used again in the near future.”

But by following the guidelines, impatient ship-spotters can get a fair idea of the names in the frame for the new carriers.

They are likely to include previous monarchs, members of the Royal Family, Formidable, Inflexible, Indefatigable, Ark Royal, Hermes, Indomitable, Eagle, and other typical aircraft carrier and capital ship names.

Understandably, certain names will never get as far as a final shortlist, for various reasons.

These may include HMS Karl Marx (politically sensitive, and foreign-sounding); HMS BAE Systems (commercial lobbying is unheard of); HMS Duff (ex-Captain-class frigate with a name which has modern connotations of uselessness, beside being the name of Homer Simpson’s favourite beer); HMS Pansy (too nice); HMS Cockchafer (large grey-brown beetles are unlikely to inspire much favour in the Naval fraternity); HMS Fubbs (strangely-named royal yacht of 1682); HMS Infernal (too doom-laden); HMS Morris Dance (not sufficiently doom-laden); HMS John & Sarah (followed by HMS Kev & Shazza?); HMS Tiny (a member of the Cheerful-class); HMS Negro (World War I M-class destroyer); HMS Psyche (rather too close to Psycho); and HMS Pert (just think of the cap tallies ...)

4 If you wish to suggest a name for a future Royal Navy ship, write to the Chairman of the Ships’ Names and Badges Committee (Head of the Naval Historic Branch), 3-5 Great Scotland Yard, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HW.