This article has not yet been rated 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 / South Pacific / British / European / World War II C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force European military history task force World War II task force New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Part of the caption of the 'Seafire' photograph states: "...the Royal Naval Air Station at Dekhelia, Egypt...".

Is this correct? I know of a 'Dekhelia' in Cyprus, but have never heard of a 'Dekhelia' in Egypt. I can find nothing on Wikipedia on an Egyptian Dekhelia, either RASAM (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With photo captions, I work on the 'what (or who), where and when' principal. So, not knowing the full story on 'Dekhelia', (see above), I did a bit of trawling and found that while most of the information on the internet is indeed about the Dekhelia in Cyprus, (in a variety of spellings), there was a brief mention, in a memoir-driven site, of a Dekhalia near Alexandria in Eygpt.

It just goes to show, one should not always take what one believes at face value.

RASAM (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article and other Wikipedia articles on the Cold War RN and RNZN classes and some NZR and USN a few USN articles are written by R Miles, a former leader writer and NBR commentator and paid writer for other NZ newspapers in the 1983-1998 period on Transport/ Defence. I have a B.Com and 2 Hon degrees in Political Science(1982) and History(2011).I also wrote a number of academic papers for NZIIA, International Review on the 'Nuclear Visitors', Irish defence Option, Indonesia's Military, SWedish defence and the RNZNs post 1945 Frigate Procurement Policy. These International Review articles and book reviews were seen in Australia in the late 1980s as the only authorative NZ work on the issue, if not in the US/NZ. There is a NZ view of Royalist which is both wrong and completly biased. The original, wikipedia short article reflected the radical NZ MFAT view of kiwi diplomats then (1956) and now that the Royalist was a useless orphan pup of no use in mid 1950s warfare, which New Zealand was conned into buying at extortionist cost and then grabbed back by the RN and UK Govt to play a role in the reactionary Suez 1956 operation of a declining Tory government of old blimps and a dubious land grabbing Isreali regime, and that was all heroically withdrawn from by a brave RNZN Captain Phipps following the brilliant impassioned (Woodward / Bernstein) activities of the young brilliant diplomat Frank Corner (our Detective Cousteau) a great diplomat who supposedly was the great defender of the Anzus relationship. Its a huge myth and traversty. The other side of the myth is that in the Royalist, the ordinary NZ ratings and crewman - were subject to appaling conditions and 18C RN discipline in some sort of cast off RN cruiser of dubious value. In reality conditions for ordinary sailors were appalling on many commonwealth ships of the time partiuclarly modernised WW2 legacy aircraft carriers and cruisers, nb of the light fleets, HMS Melbourne and HMCS Bonaventure and a number of incidents ( sabotage???) on RN aircraft carriers in 1953 for eg HMS Indomitable reflected this.

The opponents of the Royalist the Asian UN MFAT officials like Corner and the former Reserve officer Phipps seem to have little understanding of post WW2 warfare. The twin DP 4 inch manual was useless fro AA postwar while C89 twin channel 5.25s, was still relevant. The Royalist offered effective twin channel 275/ Mk 6 air and surface fire and was a 'prototype' 50/5000 ton cruiser destroyers intended for the post war RN in 1949, cf the RAN or RN Daring destroyers and the Venezuela and Chilean derivatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC) refactored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.165.138 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2018[reply]

The procurement of the Royalist and its role during Suez and the confrontation, and the desire of Ministry of Foreign Affairs then, MFAT since 2011,nb the current, NZ Ambassador to the US, Tim Grosser to destroy historical truth and realign NZ with the third world and China is a key issue. Published NZ academic work based on the papers, files and letters of NZ Foreign Affairs officials eg,Frank Corner is in complete variance with the view of USN and RN, Naval Historians and Naval architects, I became a 'anon' wiki editor to maintain historical truth for NZ and the western officer class. The ambiguous role of the Elworthy family, in British and NZ and SC is central.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2016

I see a lot of words, no sources, and a hint of conspiracy theorizing. If you have a point get to it and give reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Corner was seen as a stalwart establishment diplomat, staunch in his support for Anzus (-a retired diplomat, chosen by the Lange Government to enquire into certain issues subseqent to the Anzus, ship visit debacle in 1985), an alternative view is now, expressed in articles and publication even those sponsored by NZIIA today, that the voice he expressed on the beltway and DC circle was not the real one, and that in fact his work against Operation Muskeeter, and in his open backing of opposition leader Kirk from 1971, amounted to close to a beytrayal of the previous Holyoake government and its staunch pro American public viewpoint. The praise and support Kirk received in the USA in 1973 and the incorporation of HMS Canterbury (ironically after its anti nuclear protest cruise to Muroroa)- briefly in a USN West Coast DE squadron in 1974-5 ( until withdrawn by NZ) was to the Nixon and Ford administration, simply a reflection of NZ's realitive invisibilty and insignificance in Washington, DC and view by the Nixon administration that Wellington cold be played off against Canberra. Corner and Kirks sharp response and complaint re Linebacker and the Haipong harbour mining being seen as only local politics, compared to the provication of similar comment by Whitlam, ALP, Labour government regarded by the Nixon administration, CIA director and ADF as one of the 3 most serious global threats to US security. ^[1] New Zealand was generally too insignificant to count either way with the US and to a surprising degree NZ defense procurement decisions were made due to subtle and not so subtle pressure from the US/UK to buy equipment ( C89, Canberra B2/20, Orions,Anzac frigates and F-16) that would add and fill gaps in the defense of Australia. To our main allies NZ forces role was just to stand and add to supplement the defense of Australia. While it is dangerous to venture a judgement, but I would say that generally the RNZN museums interpretation of the nations naval history and its key ships and officers, is as contestable as the writers.

Hmmm, the politics is all very interesting but this was supposed to be an article about the ship, HMNZS Royalist. Pity it lost its way, as this looks like a very interesting and good looking ship, albeit unfortunately let down by unreliable tired old engines and boilers!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.75.173 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This talk contribution, or retalliatory broadside is by Mr R.F.F. Miles. TBHS 1970-74, Otago university 75-6, Vic Wellington 77-8. Holdiday jobs as Post Office computer installation coder 75-6 and Waterside Commission caretaker 77-8. University of Canterbury 80-81. MA Hons (1982). Employed by Univeristy Otago Anthropology Dept and its Business Development Dept and local County and Borough Councils, for work in Waimate and North Otago for the Waitaki Joint Planning Committee re Lower Waitaki Power Canal Plan and its implications and 83-85 Timaru Herald as Defence Commnetator and Editorial Writer- key NZ articles re RNZN submarine proposal, Nuclear ships and supported ANzus an nuclear armed ship access as editorial writer. Interviewed for Ministry of Defence Advisory Officer positions 1980 and 3/84 Interviewed by AO Christopher Rosonawoski and Maori Colonel. South position on advice, editors Timaru Herald and interviewed probably on recn, RNZN .Director of PLans on basis or articles opposing RNZN submarine project. Unknown to MOD, I had discussed these issues with a former RNZN Captain and Devonport base Commander.

The Royalist was modernised as a purely interim ship to provide some real AA/AD capability until the Tiger class cruisers and first batch of 4 County DDGs were completed. The modernisation or facelift was only intended to last 6 years and the RNZN records show the accuracy of the main armament and its fire ocntrol, substantially reducing from 1963. The Dido and Improved Didos were essentially war emergencey cruisers not really suited or offering much crew comfort post war. The Royalist was selected for modernisation because of extra features for communication with the fleet air arm aircraft and the AIO office, intended for the 2nd 4.5 Dido before its loss in 1943. More effective RN/USN missile armed destroyers/guided missile cruisers were not available until the mid 60s for the USN ( these issues are well covered in P. Jones and J. Goldrick. Searching for a Solution. The RAN and the Acquisition of a surface to air missile capability. and the earlier ' Buying the DDGs Reflections of the RAN. 1991. Kangaroo) and 1980 in the UK when SWawolf and Sea Dart became available. The Royalist continued in service not only because of the delay in ordering a third frigate, but becasue of the greater unrelaibility and problems of the Tigers gun armament and becasue the Hull and engiens of HMS Lion has so deteriorated during its long delayed construction, it effectively blew its boilers in 1963 and return to England.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.175.44 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2018

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Royalist (89). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212202838/http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii to http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]