This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Shipwrecks Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Lady Elizabeth (1879) Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed! Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Still adding more information Discuss desired additions -None

Brian Lavery's usually exceedingly reliable book might be mis-referenced or incorrect here - According to a letter from the Navy Board to the Admiralty Secretary, dated 18 November 1746, the Ramillies would not be completed "till the end of the next year". This can only refer to this ship as the next Ramillies would not be ordered until 1759 to lines drawn by Sir Thomas Slade. Citation for the letter: Daniel Baugh (ed), Naval Administration, 1715-1750, Naval Records Society Vol. 120 (London, 1977), p.231 ~2026-66068-1 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-66068-1 Thanks for spotting that. There's some contemporary newspaper mentions which suggest it may have taken even longer than that -

• Sherborne Mercury, reported as from London, 18 December 1744: "The Ramillies and the Union, both 90 Gun Ships, which have been deem'd unfit for Service above twenty Years, are order'd to be rebuilt with all Expedition; as are the following Sloops, viz. the Happy, Grampus, Saltash and Cruizer, to carry 20 Guns each."
• Ipswich Journal, 26 November 1748: "The Ramillies, a 90 Gun Ship, which has been Seven Years in Building, is order'd to be launch'd the 24th of this Month at Portsmouth."
• Dublin Journal, 21 February 1749 ("extract of a letter from Gosport, Feb 9"): "Yesterday being the Day appointed for launching the Ramillies, a Second Rate of Ninety Guns, early in the. Morning the Standard of England, likewise the Union, St. George's Colours, and a Jack, were hoisted on Board ; about half an Hour after Twelve she was launched, in Presence of a great Number of Spectators; who expressed: their utmost Satisfaction, it being as fine a Launch as ever was seen, there not being the least Stop or Obstruction, which redounds greatly to the Honour and Judgment of Mr. Lock the Builder; she was launched into the Harbour from the said Slip, the St. George was, and as she appears in the Water, is thought as compleat a built Ship as any in the Navy."

[I am a little unclear as to what "the said Slip, the St George was" refers to, though]

I'll update the article accordingly. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that this confirms 8th February as the launching date, which was the same day given in Lavery - just a few years out! Wonder if there was a transcription error somewhere along the way. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]