A few years ago, I had a spirited debate with an English representative 
of the Spode Company (and a collector of 19th century Spode) about the 
use of the term Queensware on the Hudson's Bay Company inventories at 
Fort Vancouver. From the ca. 1829-1860 period, HBC clerk's recorded the 
ceramics as either "E'ware" (earthenware) or as "Queensware". He 
pointed out that properly, "Queensware" was produced by Wedgwood, due 
to the honours bestowed upon him by Queen Charlotte (as pointed out 
below). This gentleman was quite confused by the HBC clerks referring 
to Spode as "Queensware." The HBC had a nearly monopolistic contract 
with the Spode (Copeland & Garrett and W.T. Copeland firms) between ca. 
1836-1847, so it is safe to assume that the clerks were not referring 
to Wedgwood.

Additionally, the archaeological evidence confirms the near lack of 
Wedgwood transfer printed wares at the site, and the near ubiquitous 
presence of Spode transfer printed wares. It would seem that this 
further confirms George Miller's observation that the term Queensware 
was used as a generic term for earthenwares during the early to mid 
19th century period, even by "proper" English clerks of the Honourable 
Company itself.

Robert Cromwell, Ph.D.
Archaeologist
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site
612 E. Reserve Street
Vancouver, WA  98661

On Mar 15, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Irena Jurakic wrote:

> Hi there, my 5 cents worth:
>
> Ron,
>
> THe term "Queensware" historically belongs to J. Wedgewood, who in 
> 1765 had
> refined creamware to a lighter/whiter form that could now be sold in 
> white or
> enamelled.  His patent of 1765 - "Queensware" - refers to the honour he
> bestowed upon his royal patron Queen Charlotte.
>
>
> I think past this point , the term trickles down and becomes a generic 
> reference
> by other manufacturers and archaeologists.  But much like "mochaware", 
> which
> too is generic now, it originally had a very , very specific 
> definition.
>
>
> irena
>