Also read: Calendar of state papers Domestic series Charles I. 1641-3. (1887) pp 114-19. September 30th London.:- "I suppose you have understood of the loss of the Royal Merchant coming into our road, which is the greatest that has ever been sustained in one ship, being worth 400,000L at least. The Merchants of Antwerp will be the greatest losers, for she had in her belonging to them 300,000L in bullion, if so be, the Infant Cardinal lose not upon it Flanders, for want of money to pay the soldiers"
The king of Spain had hired the Merchant Royall for 4 years before she sank. His last order was sending money to the Infant cardinal in Antwerp whom was defending the Kings interests in the Spanish Netherlands. Thus the merchant royal was carrying an army's wages in bullion from Cadiz when she sailed. It has always been reported that it was merchants who sent the money but merchants don't wage war on land. This was the Spanish Crown clandestinely sending the money on a neutral British ship. Thus it was all very hush hush-otherwise England would be properly brought into a war with France it could well do without. England had a tentative treaty with Spain at this time. It was signed in 1630. Our relations with France, however, have always been tense but in 1641 we were tolerating each other. France had its wars at home with Spain and Holland to fight- and we had our civil conflict, the 3 nations war, which started in 1639 and this was immediately superseded by the -Cromwell & parliament v King Charles I civil conflict. - therefore neither country wanted or needed another war to fight. Thus this transfer of money must have been a secretive affair yet it was reported to be merchants money on the move to hide the reality of it being a war chest, so the merchants tale is highly likely to be a cover story put about by Spain and perhaps perpetuated by Captain Limbrey to his crew until he finally reached home. Had the ship not sunk then no one would have been any the wiser. Carrying money for others was quite normal and many captains would perform such a task as it was very lucrative- as they gained a percentage of what was being carried. So the ship sailed from Cadiz with its 'secret' cargo and although supposedly having been repaired, once out in the Bay of Biscay the Merchant Royal was soon found to be leaking badly. Thus the narrative above tells the story of her demise.
Captain Limbry is down as being the sole owner of Merchant Royal, which is not unusual but I would rather suspect a possible shared ownership as was the case with most ships operating at the time; with the Crown being a possible partner here. She was built at Deptford and launched in 1627. Her name- 'Royal' Merchant -suggests a possible link to the Crown. This ship does not appear on lists in the East India Company so she may have been in a trading company that was set up by Charles I to rival the East India Company- whom the king despised. The new company was run by William Courteen whom owned his own ships but the venture ended in failure. Courteen died and by the mid 1640's the Kings idea of becoming bigger than the EIC had all but ended in failure with that death. The king of England part owned a few of the ships in the failing venture and it is possible the 'Royal' Merchant may have been one of those ships and it was he who hired it out to the Spanish King. However, I have some other proof to back this up but it needs further confirmation. But I must conjecture that anything bearing such a title usually has to have the crowns seal of approval or was owned, or part owned, by the Crown.
Did the eventual loss of the Merchant Royal in 1641 spell the end of the Monarchs interest in foreign trade? I think so. Couple the loss with the Kings mind being elsewhere due to his self inflicted civil wars, is it any wonder his venture utterly failed- leaving the East India company free to trade without any further serious home opposition and our King hiring out his assets to others. The King had been very troublesome to the EIC as any Englishman wanting to trade around the world- were beholden to their Monarch to negotiate trading routes with other nations leaders for them. Charles actually made the EIC apply for a licence for every ship that sailed and this too had been costly for the home grown merchants. Our King could be very difficult in this regard as he knew that, if his own company was handled correctly, he could be the biggest trader himself so why make things easy for any potential rivals. Thus trading in the early 17th century was problematic for independent companies and the king charged dearly for his services to any such rivalry. However, Charles I, being a tyrannical monarch, he brought civil unrest and thus with it his own inevitable downfall. So in looking for possible owners of the original treasure- a hunter will have to look closer into the ships background to know who is likely going to come out of the woodwork claiming ownership of vessel or its treasure. The Spanish Crown is an inevitability but they can only claim if a positive ID of the wreck is found.. Not so much the English crown as owning the ship is not the treasure itself and ownership of the vessel itself would need to be proven by the English Crown in order to make a claim on it or its contents like bronze guns etc. Captain Limbreys decedents may claim a small percentage as he was to be paid for carrying the money and he also had his own money on board. Again any claimant would need to know there is a positive ID on the wreck site.
The value of the ships treasure today is around £1billion in gold and jewels, which is not to be sniffed at but its nowhere near the amount reported in most newspapers and articles of today. She is on the top of my list of wrecks to find hereabouts and im constantly looking for more evidence as to her final position. I have my search area mapped based on the evidence I have found. I am a wreck hunter with 18 new wrecks under my belt, all found on a very small budget, and my thoughts and ideas on the Merchant Royal are, possibly, more valid than anyone elses-in my opinion.. I have already put numerous 17th century variables and historic realities and research onto my chart and have come up with a viable place to start the search-and it differs greatly from where the Odessey team were looking. I believe I know why they failed but this I have been keeping to myself.
This wreck is further off shore than I am used to going- but as I said before- its just a matter of finances and then weather opportunities. I have the time, experience and the where-with-all, its just the finances. So, without help, this search has only ever been performed in fits and starts. My wife once asked me- 'what I'd be doing if she wasn't here?' My answer was obvious and immediate- "At sea spending all our money searching for the Merchant Royal." -She wasn't in the least bit shocked.
A couple of stories regarding this wreck that came to light over the years and one of them was quite amusing-. The first was when an old 17th c bronze gun was trawled up south of Scilly. Many years ago I was shown images of this gun and told by the fisherman where it came from- he hoping it was from the Merchant Royal and that I would go out there and dive the spot- but at the time I was running around in a small Humber inflatable boat. I wasn't so sure about the gun as it looked to me to be in very poor condition and very sea worn for a gun reputed as found well off shore. The spot it was said to come from does kinda fall within the range of where I think the ship will be found but only within the track we would take out towards the actual search area. I'm sure we will cover it just in case there is something of interest there. We will of course encounter many wrecks, but there's no harm surveying places where something was reported to be. It just funny how some fishermen know this wreck is out there and will use it to get divers involved if they snag there gear on something.
Another, more amusing story happened regarding this wreck back in 2019. Two fishermen trawled up an anchor in their nets. (see above image) They posted it up on facebook and on seeing it, I jokingly commented under the picture that it could be off the Merchant royal. I was so obviously joking but they seem to have taken me seriously. This was because someone got paranoid and deleted the original facebook post. Then someone I knew, Mark Milburn, went to the press and the crazy story of the Merchant royal being found circulated in the press thereafter. Mark was like that, he couldn't wait to get himself in the media and who could blame him, it was just another tool to he used in promoting his business. The found anchor and my flippant comment being the only evidence of the whole silly tale- the media are at fault- as they should have scrutinised it in more detail but not one of them bothered to. Why let facts get in the way of selling news I suppose. The anchor is old but looks continental in design to me. It looks like the kind of anchor carried on early 18thc dutch vessels. I'd date it to no earlier than 1720. The closest to an English anchor of the period of the Merchant Royal would be a Sutherland- which was redesigned 50 years after the /Merchant Royal was lost but the Sutherland anchor was based upon the best features of those earlier English successful designs. Sutherland really just beefed it up. Therefore, the chances of the anchor pictured above being from the fabled treasure wreck are highly remote to zero, in my opinion. But the press know how the public love a good treasure shipwreck tale and thus ran with the story on very scant evidence indeed. It was my fault tho, I shouldn't have mentioned the ship in my joke comment to the fishermen on facebook in the first place. The place they found the anchor is still worth a visit though, as numerous Dutch East Indiamen are lost in these waters and if the one this anchor came from was sailing outward bound toward the east, then it too could be laden with treasure. If on the return journey, then her cargo could include Chinese porcelain but both scenarios are only based upon if the anchor is from an East Indiaman. There were many dutch cargo vessels plying these waters throughout the 17th and early 18th centuries; and the vast majority of those carried nothing of interest at all. All will be encountered on my or any search I'm sure of that.
I have another question regarding the Merchant Royal. Why wouldn't Limbrey talk to anyone about this incident once he returned to Ratcliffe Cross?. He seems to have taken the story to his grave and thus far no one else seems to have talked about it either. As a result, there is very little evidence around to tell us much more today about this loss in the uk. I believe that Limbrey kept quiet because he knew that by transporting this war chest-he was aiding the Spanish war effort against France. And if the Merchant Royal was indeed a 'Kings ship' then Charles was sending money to fight his own in-laws. His wife-Henrietta Maria, being the daughter of the King of France makes the whole incident very odd indeed. I am still exploring this to get the full story. As for the money aboard the ship, there should still be a trail of it in correspondences existing between the Infant Cardinal and the Spanish Crown regarding requests for the money to be sent; and 'maybe' also responses as to its failure to arrive. I say- Maybe- as the Infant Cardinal died shortly after in 1641 with a lot of controversy then surrounding his demise. Was he murdered? Poisoned even? Its funny how the conflict in question ended shortly after the Merchant Royal sank.- After all- the soldiers in Flanders never got paid!!
The Merchant Royal is referred to as a Galleon, a poor slow lumbering Spanish design of ship and not the kind of thing one would expect to be built in an English shipyard when we had so much better designs around at the time. However the 1641 they used as the image of her does seem to have the high fore and stern castles of the old Spanish Galleon design- which is something quite regular before England designed the sleeker type of vessels we built in the 1630's & 40's onwards as shown immediately above. Therefore I am not sure of exactly what kind of ship she was but a British sleeker take on the high full bellied galleon design is likely. Possibly being a 'Kings ship' -Was she primarily built for trade? or for war? The two designs can be very different. All these questions need answering. Hopefully our search for this shipwreck will reveal all. Rest assured I am always working on this project. Someones got to do it!
Below is the above original narrative of the whole voyage transcribed in full.
Sad Newes of the seas.
That Sayling is an art that is not to be undervalued by any,
is confest; that Kingdomes and Countries are inri∣ched thereby; that what other
lands yeeld, this hath i• by this art as well as they; that by this art gold and
silver is conveyed unto us from the Indies, fine Silks and Sattins from another
climate, spices and fragrant smels from an∣other climate, and this by
interchange, which this art benefits both Kingdomes, Nations, and Coun∣tries,
and this by that famous admired art of Sailing, and brought to passe, now let
us leave this art so worthy of prayse, and looke a while on an object of
sorrow, and waile our brothers losses as our owne.
The Royall Merchant (or Merchant Royall) some foure yeares
since sailed out of this land as a ship hired here for the King of Spains
imployment in the West India, she sayled out in company with other ships, but
when come into Cales the Captain was by some opposition like to be put by, and
was a while dismissed, so that giving over his hopes of the West India
imployment, received fraught, and from Cales sayled into the Mediterranean unto
the Island of Majorcke, one of the King of Spaines Islands: in the meane, or
about the time, S. Galleons being bound for the West India, one of the (ships)
a small fire was whole burned downe with the water, and loosed from her cables,
did her selfe discharge all her brasse Ordnance, and burned 3 dayes and 3
nights under Pountal, most part of the goods were ashore, not yet loaden
aboord; in place of which Galleon this Royall Merchant was thought (as being a
ship they might command, and of great burthen) to bee a fit vessell to take
aboord the first Galleons goods or loading; a Mandate from the King of Spaine
commanded this Royall Merchant from her Majorck voyage to make sayle for Cales
with all expedition, and to stand in place of the burned Galleon, tooke aboard
her goods, and sayled with the other 7. Galleons in company into the West or
Spanish Indies: the Kings commands obey'd, they proceed, and this English ship
caried most of the best Spanish governours, commanders, and gentry, whereby it
redounded great benefit unto the very meanest of the English, both in sayling
thither, traffiquing there, and fraughted richly home with great numbers of
rich passengers, which with rich fraught made the English a great voyage. Some
dangers they past, but safely arived in Cales, where they continued afore they
could prepare themselves for England at least 7. or 8. months, at end of which
they disimbogu'd for England in company of Captaine Legend of Dover, in the
Do∣ver Merchant, a lusty stout ship of 400. tunnes, and 28. cast peeces of
Ordnance; they sayled together, the Royall Merchant in stresse of foule weather
sprung a leake in the bottome of the ship, to that the saylers were forced to
tend the pumpe day and night: Captaine Legend not liking Captaine Lim∣bryes
course, with joynt consent shaped another course some pount in variation, so
that they did not absolutely part suddenly, but glide sidingly from each other night
came on, and foule weather, they plyed their two chaine pumps, in midst of
which labour both the pumpe chaines broke at once, and fell into the Wells, so
that before they could any way recover and mend the chaines, they bad got 4.
foot water in the hold. They labour at their pumps with great strength, but
could not prevaile over what was got in, but did keepe her in that e∣state, nor
more nor lesse diminishing.
They being overlaboured could hardly pumpe more to any
purpose; some of the Sea-men to the number of 30. got into the long boat, cut
her off, and called to the Captaine to save himselfe, he re∣fused it, and would
have a Merchant, his passenger, to save himselfe, he answered hee had lived
long in Spaine, and with great trouble got up 10000. pound, and now would stay
by it, for his life hee valued not, the Captaine answered him it was all one
whether he went in the boate or no, for they were in no better estate then
those left aboord, having in the boat no oares, masts, sailes, or any thing to
keepe the boate afar the Sea, and must needs perish undoubtedly: being thus in
despaire they espied a light at which they shot off 30. piece of ordnance, it
prooved to bee Captaine Legend who on consideration of the Royall Merchants
distresse returned to helpe them; they observing their danger and the ship
sinking, sent forth then long boate, which at divers times saved the men, but
durst not come neare the ship, so that the men to save their lives were faine
to sling themselves in tackles, and so swing from the sinking ship into the
boate, who caught hold of their cloathes with their boate hooks; the Captaine
was the last, who would not forsake her untill shee was sunke even unto her
Cook-roome ports, and then got into the boate: 7. men that went downe on the lower
deck, (or orlope) to breake up a chest of gold, never came up the ship suncke
so fast on them. This ship was 700. tuns, 36. cast peeces of ordnance, 80.
seamen, besides passengers, she had in her 300000. pound in ready boloigne,
100000. pound in gold, and as much value in Iewels, besides each mans
adven∣ture, and the whole Cargason, or rich lading of the ship, all which was
sunke in the sea, nothing saved. The Captaine on his landing repaired to his
house and family, with a hankercher about his neck, and will not be seene or
spoken with (as yet) by any his griefe is so great: his name is Captaine Iohn
Limbry living neere Ratcliffe Crosse.
FINIS.
Shipman head Bryher Island saturday when it had calmed down a bit.
