Dalrymple-Hamilton's continued employment after damaging ships supports the interpretation that patronage alone cannot explain his career. The Royal Navy had long experience accommodating connected officers by keeping them under supervision, diverting them into other duties, or limiting how far they advanced. Independent destroyer command exposed an officer's judgment directly and gave senior leaders repeated chances to remove someone unreliable. Patterns of sea commands and staff appointments suggest which future responsibilities an officer was being prepared to hold. Dalrymple-Hamilton's record is interpreted as preparation for a destroyer force, an overseas station, and eventually a British regional command such as Scotland, rather than the First Sea Lord's role.
Notable Point · 32:24-38:09
Why family connections do not explain repeated independent command
The Royal Navy could protect a well-connected but weak officer without entrusting him with small ships, so Dalrymple-Hamilton's repeated destroyer commands point to tested ability.