‘Woke nonsense’: AUKUS blamed for renaming of HMS Agincourt

Don’t mention the Hundred Years’ War: Britain’s Labour government has been attacked by the defence establishment for decision to rename submarine.

A former NATO commander has said that the renaming of the yet-to-be-launched HMS Agincourt is French payback for the AUKUS submarine deal between Australia, UK and USA

The UK government has been accused of “craven political correctness” after it approved a Royal Navy request to change the name of HMS Agincourt to avoid offending the French.

In 2018, the Astute-class submarine became the fleet’s sixth vessel to be named after the 1415 English victory over the French during the Hundred Years’ War.

The decision to rename it has been described as “sacrilege” by former Conservative defence secretaries.

In a social media post late on Sunday evening, the Royal Navy announced that the ship would be renamed HMS Achilles, subject to approval by King Charles. It added that the decision was made “in light of the 80th anniversaries this year of VE and VJ Day”, when many French and British troops fought alongside each other.

Of the name Achilles, the Royal Navy added: “Six ships have previously borne the name, earning six battle honours, including the River Plate and Okinawa.”

It was reported in January last year that the Conservative government had blocked a request from the navy to change the name of HMS Agincourt. A Ministry of Defence source called the proposal “ridiculous”.

Grant Shapps, who was defence secretary when the initial proposals were said to have been blocked, reacted angrily to the change on Monday.

Former British defence secretary Grant Shapps, right, originally blocked the proposal to rename HMS Agincourt Picture: AFP

“Renaming the HMS Agincourt is nothing short of sacrilege,” he said. “This submarine carries a name that honours a defining moment in British history. Under Labour, woke nonsense is being put ahead of tradition and our armed forces’ proud heritage.”

Sir Gavin Williamson, the former defence secretary, who announced the name of HMS Agincourt in 2018, said: “What next, HMS Dreadnought to HMS Fear All, HMS Victory to HMS Defeat? We should take pride in our history, not be embarrassed.”

Led by Henry V, an English and Welsh army of about 11,000 men, most of them archers, defeated a French army of between 20,000 and 30,000 men in the Battle of Agincourt.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former NATO commander, told Times Radio that the decision to rename the submarine was “craven political correctness and ideology gone mad”.

“I don’t see the French renaming the Gare d’Austerlitz to avoid upsetting the Germans. And I’m now concerned that we might lose Waterloo and Trafalgar Square,” he said, adding that admirals would be “seething” about the change. “You don’t rename ships once they start getting built.”

Parry suggested that the French had pushed for the change as “payback” for the AUKUS deal, in which Australia pulled out of a $90bn submarine pact with France to sign another deal with the UK and the US.

Lord Ricketts, a former head of the Foreign Office, said at the time that the AUKUS deal had “humiliated” the French.

The ship previously had the in-work name of HMS Ajax before HMS Agincourt was announced. Ship names are decided by a committee of senior members of the Royal Navy who work under the direction of the controller of the navy. Their recommendation is sent to the board who can accept or reject the advice before passing it on to the secretary of state. If approved by the defence secretary, the name will then go to the King and is rarely changed once it has royal sign-off.

The 97m ship is still under construction in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, and is expected to enter service as the last of the seven Astute-class boats late next year. It will eventually carry a crew of 98 and hold up to 38 weapons, including Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes.

In a statement, the Royal Navy said: “We are proud of our nation’s rich military history and the many famous battles that the Royal Navy has played a part in. This process began under the previous government and any changes would be announced publicly in the usual way. A committee considers potential ships names based on historical information and potential civic affiliations.”

The Times