I have a vague memory of having read somewhere that the names of naval ships lost at sea were not reused by the particular navy to which that ship belonged. That is, if the HMS Reliant went down at sea, the Royal Navy would not then ever name another newly commissioned ship Reliant again. Sadly, I can't remember where I read this to double check my facts and I'm having a difficult time phrasing the issue so that Google is in any way helpful. Any military/naval historians who might be able to tell me if I'm inventing a false memory or if this, in fact, was true with, let's say, age of sail navies?
This doesn't happen in the modern Royal Navy, and there are several counter-examples which suggest that it didn't happen before the 20th Century either. The RN has named ships after ships that were lost in the 20th Century. The carrier HMS Invincible had a predecessor, a battlecruiser that exploded and sank at Jutland. Her sister ship, HMS Ark Royal, was named after a carrier sunk by a U-boat during WW2. The destroyers HMS Coventry (with a predecessor sunk in the Mediterranean during WW2) and Sheffield, both sunk by air attack during the Falklands War, had Type 22 Frigates named after them. Several other Type 42 destroyers, including HMS Manchester and HMS York, were named after cruisers sunk in WW2. Before the 20th century, names would also be reused - the second HMS Invincible was sunk in 1801, while the first and third HMS Newcastle would be sunk in storms, in 1703 and 1761 respectively. HMS Resolution, wrecked during the Battle of Quiberon Bay in 1759, had four predecessors sunk, including two by enemy action. This didn't stop the RN giving the name to six further ships. Similarly, HMS Royal Oak, burned by the Dutch during the Raid on the Medway, one of the RN's more embarrassing defeats, would have 7 successors.