A peacetime carrier loss could unlock replacement funding during rearmament

Would Parliament fund new carriers if the Royal Navy lost several older carriers during the 1930s?

Yes; Britain was already rearming, and an obvious carrier gap would likely win approval for replacement hulls.

The hypothetical loss creates a visible capability gap that is easier to fund than an abstract future requirement. The treaty-era fleet produced surprisingly few conveniently timed losses, and 1932-33 is identified as an especially useful replacement window before the war. Parliament would probably approve replacement carriers rather than accept a permanently smaller fleet. In this reading, 'peace for our time' meant buying time while rearmament accelerated. A documented ship loss could therefore turn replacement from an optional program into an immediate commitment.