<P> The most common explanation for the sinking among modern historians is that the ship was unstable for a number of reasons . When a strong gust of wind hit the sails at a critical moment, the open gunports proved fatal, the ship flooded and quickly foundered . Coates offered a variant of this hypothesis, which explains why a ship which served for several decades without sinking, and which even fought in actions in the rough seas off Brittany, unexpectedly foundered: the ship had accumulated additional weight over the years in service and finally become unseaworthy . That the ship was turning after firing all the cannons on one side has been questioned by Marsden after examination of guns recovered in both the 19th and 20th centuries; guns from both sides were found still loaded . This has been interpreted to mean that something else could have gone wrong since it is assumed that an experienced crew would not have failed to secure the gunports before making a potentially risky turn . </P> <P> The most recent surveys of the ship indicate that the ship was modified late in her career and have lent support to the idea that the Mary Rose was altered too much to be properly seaworthy . Marsden has suggested that the weight of additional heavy guns would have increased her draught so much that the waterline was less than one metre (c. 3 feet) from the gunports on the main deck . </P> <P> Peter Carew's claim of insubordination has been given support by James Watt, former Medical Director - General of the Royal Navy, based on records of an epidemic of dysentery in Portsmouth which could have rendered the crew incapable of handling the ship properly, while historian Richard Barker has suggested that the crew actually knew that the ship was an accident waiting to happen, at which they balked and refused to follow orders . Marsden has noted that the Carew biography is in some details inconsistent with the sequence of events reported by both French and English eyewitnesses . It also reports that there were 700 men on board, an unusually high number . The distance in time to the event it describes may mean that it was embellished to add a dramatic touch . The report of French galleys sinking the Mary Rose as stated by Martin du Bellay has been described as "the account of a courtesan" by naval historian Maurice de Brossard . Du Bellay and his two brothers were close to king Francis I and du Bellay had much to gain from portraying the sinking as a French victory . English sources, even if biased, would have nothing to gain from portraying the sinking as the result of crew incompetence rather than conceding to a victory to the much - feared gun galleys . </P> <P> Dominic Fontana, a geographer at the University of Portsmouth, has voiced support for du Bellay's version of the sinking based on the battle as it is depicted in the Cowdray Engraving, and modern GIS analysis of the modern scene of the battle . By plotting the fleets and calculating the conjectured final manoeuvres of the Mary Rose, Fontana reached the conclusion that the ship had been hit low in the hull by the galleys and was destabilised after taking in water . He has interpreted the final heading of the ship straight due north as a failed attempt to reach the shallows at Spitbank only a few hundred metres away . This theory has been given partial support by Alexzandra Hildred, one of the experts who has worked with the Mary Rose, though she has suggested that the close proximity to Spitbank could also indicate that the sinking occurred while trying to make a hard turn to avoid running aground . </P>

Who was on the mary rose when it sank