This is an idea for an alternate history that I've been considering recently, and I was wondering if anyone with some knowledge of the Civil War or naval matters might be able to help me out.
Parliament had been pushing to get one of its supporters appointed as Lord High Admiral of the fleet, and when the Earl of Northumberland announced he was too ill to command the fleet at sea in March 1642 it led to parliament nominating the Earl of Warwick to be his successor. The King on the other hand wanted to appoint Sir John Pennington, and parliament responded by getting the Earl of Northumberland to confirm Warwick as his successor on the 4th April. Faced with what was essentially a fait accompli, King Charles then refused to accept the concessionary olive branch offered by parliament to have Sir George Carteret, a prominent and well-known royalist, promoted to the rank of Vice-Admiral of the Fleet. Without any high ranking officers to protect them, a number of royalist captains were promptly replaced by men the Earl of Warwick considered to be politically reliable to himself and to Parliament. The end result of this is that the King lost control of the Navy at the start of July 1642 when his attempt to dismiss the Earl of Warwick as Lord High Admiral failed and parliament also appointed him as the new Admiral of the Fleet.
My question is, if better council prevails and the King agrees to accept Warwick's appointment on the condition that Admiral Carteret becomes the second highest ranking officer in the fleet, how might this affect royalist fortunes in the Civil War. I am not saying that the greater majority of the fleet will side with the king as many royalists have been discharged from their duties by July, but in OTL there were at least three officers (Captain Slingsby, Captain Wake and Captain Foxe) who effectively mutinied after the Earl of Warwick's takeover of the fleet and declared themselves royalists and three more (Rear Admiral Mennes, Captain Burley and Captain Fogge) who badly wavered in their support for Parliament at this crucial juncture and initially sided with the royalist element within the fleet.
These officers and their ships could provide the basis for a royalist fleet, which would more than likely head north for Yorkshire where the King is forming the first regiments for his army and preparing to besiege Hull during June and early July. The appearance of a royalist squadron in the River Humber outside the city would prevent reinforcements from being sent from London and also sever the garrisons only source of provisions; those sent across the river from Lincolnshire. Colonel John Hotham could under such circumstances be forced into surrendering Hull to the royalists, and this would greatly alter the struggle between the Viscount Fairfax and the Earl of Newcastle over the county of Yorkshire. It would also give Queen Henrietta Maria a safe haven to land weapons, ammunition and other supplies destined for the Kings army. Ultimately without a major port or a naval dockyard this royalist squadron would play less of a role after 1642 by a lack of proper maintenance and repairs, but the initial effects could be very interesting.
Your thoughts on this?
Any problems, issues, suggestions etc would be very welcome