I have been rereading Hornblower saga. I have a few questions, although I am sorry if they are stupid or too vague. I woul be happy if you answer even only one question!
How highly service in the navy was regarded at that time? To where would a young man from a rich aristocratic family more likely to be sent: in the navy or army? Why would they go in the navy at all, because to me very bad food, cramped living conditions and salt water every living moment sounds like its own kind of hell.
How high on the social ladder were captains? If such a captain was not from a rich and influential family, with whom he could hope to befriend on the shore: a priest, or a judge, or someone from gentry?
Could a retired captain live on a half salary? Where did all those captains go after being discharged at the end of the war?
By marrying Hornblower did Barbara Wellesley commit a major faux pas? A daughter of an earl married a son of a vilage doctor, yes, a captain, yes, recently knighted and probably a national hero, but son of a doctor non the less. It is one thing for Mr. Rochester to marry his daughter's governess, it is another thing if the roles would be reversed.
What was the difference between being knighted and given Order of the Bath and being made baron? To me they all belong to nobility.
Was there a tight, interconnected and intermarried officer class with several generations of those who served in the navy like it was with lots of professions in civil sector?
I know that the character of Hornblower was based on many real life examples, but aside from Nelson and Coghlan I could not find anyone that did not come from aristocratic family or gentry. Was it that hard to make such career for a boy with no background?
If a captain from the early 19 century was magically transported to a modern ship like the newly built HMS Queen Elizabeth, would anything be familiar to him aside from rank names? Any traditions, customs or rules?
Thank you!
(7) "Noble" in the UK had a firm legal definition. It was a holder by creation or inheritance of one of the titles of duke, marquess, earl, viscount, or baron. (On occasion, there could be a female holder.) They could sit in the House of Lords, could not be members of the House of Commons, and could be tried only by the House of Lords (except due to complications during the systems of Scottish or Irish representative peers, and a small number of abortive life peers). Someone who did not hold such a title was not noble. In particular, although the wife and certain children of noblemen had courtesy titles, they were commoners.
A knighthood was not hereditary. (Let me pass over baronetcies, a sort of hereditary knighthood -- they were not noble.) A knighthood was not one of the five titles. It was a mark of social distinction, but it was not noble.
Someone could be created a plain knight (I actually don't know whether this was done circa 1800; it certainly could be done much earlier). There were also a few orders of knighthood: the Garter, the Thistle, the Bath, ... He could be created one of them. Certainly the Garter was extremely prestigious (inter alia it was limited in numbers). I don't know about the Bath.
(4) Does anyone know whether her being a widow would have been a factor, especially the widow of a rear admiral? Her brothers were extremely prominent too. Gillingham's The Wars of the Roses is for a much much earlier period, I admit, but he writes "it was a fact of life, and accepted as such, that a dowager duchess might occasionally stoop to marry an attractive man" (Jacquetta, dowager duchess of Bedford, and Richard Woodville). I don't know whether such a factor still existed by 1800.
Aristocratic families would be less likely to send sons to the navy. In the army, you could buy a commission so your status was congruent with your family's wealth. This was an honorable position for non-first sons. The navy was more favored by people with less money, since promotion was largely based on merit. So you could rise to admiral in theory even without any money. But still, good families of the landed gentry did send their sons to the navy.
And it wasn't a pure meritocracy. Officers had to be educated and know how to read, plus there was a certain amount of money and connections they would need. The lower classes wouldn't be officer track. Those of officer track would be sent to sea as midshipmen, at a young age. This was kind of like an apprentice position. It helped to have connections to get a good place, and it helped to have connections to advance a midshipman via a commission.
Jane Austen came from a respectable family, father was clergy, but they didn't have any money to spare. Several of her brothers went into the navy and 2 rose to become admirals. Her later books had a lot about the navy in them. She wrote about a family where several generations were in the navy--it was like the family business. Living on half-pay was impoverishing in those books. And talented boys had trouble getting an officer's commission without assistance from influential officers.
Status of those in the navy in the 18th century wasn't great, but once the Napoleonic wars kicked in, their status went up a lot. Because sailors got to keep a significant percentage of the value of any enemy ship they seized, this meant that some officers became very wealthy. Some looked down on these men as upstarts, but at the end of the day, the navy guys had the money and, occasionally, the titles.