Monday, 30 November 2009

Danish Auxiliary Corps in English service

On 30 September 1689 a treaty was signed between London and Copenhagen. This resulted in the employment of part of the Danish Army in English service. The Danish contingent would consist of three regiments of horse, drawn from the regular Danish cavalry regiments. Furthermore, nine regular Danish infantry regiments would each contribute a battalion.

The Danish Corps arrived in England in November 1689 where it took up quarters. In 1690 the corps proceeded to Ireland. En route to England several transports were captured by French privateers. This resulted in the merger of two battalions later, making a total of eight infantry battalions.

After the Treaty of Limerick the Danish Corps went over to the Flanders theater of operations, and had its share in the battles fought there. This included the Battle of Steenkirk in 1692. In 1697, when the Treaty of Rijswijk was signed, the corps was discarded from English service and returned to Denmark, much depleted.

In following posts the various regiments and battalions will be discussed. The author wants to thank Daniel Schorr of Northern Wars for his help.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Precedence - the first rules and directions

Shortly after the Restoration the order of precedence was set down for the first time in a Royal Warrant dated 12 September 1666. Some parts will be quoted here.

The warrant started by explaining why this order of precedence was necessary:

For the preventing of all Questions and Disputes that might arise for or concerning the Ranks of the several Regiments, Troops and Companies which now are or at any time thereafter shall be employed in our Service ( . . . ) We have thought good to issue out these following Rule and Directions.

The first two rules were:

First, as to the Foot, that the Regiment of Guards take place of all other Regiments and the Colonel to be allways reckoned and take place as the first foot Colonel; the General’s Regiment to take place next, the Admiral’s immediately after and all other Regiments and Colonels to take place according to the date of their commissions.

2. As to the Horse, that the three Troops of Guards take place before all others, that the Captains take their rank as eldest Colonels of Horse, the Lieutenants as eldest Majors and the Cornets as eldest Captains of Horse; that the King’s Regiment of Horse take place immediately after the Guards and the Colonel of it to have Precedency immediately after the Captains of the Guards and before all other Colonels of Horse. All other Colonels of Horse to take place according to the date of their commissions.

So, from the above rules we learn that except for the regiments and troops mentioned explicitly, the seniority of a regiment was similar to the seniority of its colonel. Hence, if the colonel died and the colonelcy was bestowed on someone else the regiment might loose its rank!

In 1675 an additional rule was issued related to the precedency of the regiments foot. It stated that the regiments that were not guards took their rank according to the date of raising. In other words, no regiment would loose its rank by the death of its colonel.

This latter rule indicates in the author's opinion that regiments, apart for the regiments of guards, were considered to be more permanent than just being in existence for the duration of a war. From which the rise of a standing army might be observed.

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

Precedence - a matter of seniority

In the 17th Century precedence, also called rank or seniority, was an important aspect of running an army properly. First of all precedence solved the way in what order regiments should be ordering, whether this be on the parade ground, during a march or during a battle. In the latter situation, precedence gave an indication on the experience of the regiment (here the term seniority becomes clear). Usually the senior regiments were positioned on the flanks of the line of battle, with the junior regiments in the middle.

Secondly, precedence, in a way of determining ancienity of a regiment, was a means for regiments, that is its colonel, to claim right for survival when disbandments were announced after a war. Reversely, a more senior regiment may also have more chance of being re-formed in case of a new war.

Obviously, lack of clear precedence was sufficient reason to cause disputes between colonels over their respective seniority. (However, even with clear rules to set precedence, colonels could always find an argument to claim being more senior than the regiment listed one position higher .... )

In a series of posts the concept of precedence as it was regulated in the British Army between 1660 and 1715 will be detailed.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

The regiments from the Earls of Macclesfield

In the post on the confusion on identifying father and son, and who owned which regiment, this post will deal with the regiments.

The later 1st Earl of Macclesfield would command the 1st Troop of Horse Guard, or His Majesty's Own Life Guards, between 17 May 1660 and 16 September 1668.

Late 1677/early 1678 England had switched from a pro-French to an anti-French attitude. As such, England was about to take active part in the Franco - Dutch War, on the side of the Dutch Republic. One of the new regiments levied for this war was Lord Gerard's Regiment of Horse, with the commission for Charles Gerard, who was to become 1st Earl of Macclesfield in 1679, signed 15 February 1678. This regiment was disbanded in January and March 1679.

Another regiment embodied for this war was a regiment of horse commanded by the Duke of Monmouth. Though it was also disbanded after the Treaty of Nijmegen, it appears that the regiment was re-formed in June 1679 during the Covenanter Rebellion, with Lord Gerard, the son of the Lord Gerard above, as colonel. The regiment was disbanded later in 1679.

As has been detailed in the other posting on the Earls of Macclesfield, the son remained loyal to James II whereas the father had to go into exile. In 1688 we see him in command of a new regiment of horse, Lord Brandon's Regiment of Horse, dated 1 October 1688. This regiment was disbanded on 4 January 1689.

In 1694 the son, who had succeeded his father as 2nd Earl of Macclesfield by this time, raised a new regiment The Earl of Macclesfield's Regiment of Horse, dates 16 February 1694. This regiment survived the reductions after the Treaty of Rijswijk, but was finally disbanded in 1712.

Huguenot regiments in British service - part 2

In this article the five regiments of Huguenot refugees in the British Army will be briefly discussed. As has been written in the introductory post, there were three Huguenot regiments of foot, one of horse and one of dragoons.

The regiment of horse was formed about March 1689 with nine troops as a body guard to Friedrich Hermann, the 1st Duke of Schomberg who as also colonel. Schomberg fell during the Battle of the Boyne on 1 July 1690. Henri de Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny and the later Earl of Galway succeeded Schomberg to the colonelcy. However, that seems to have happened only on 15 January 1691.

The origin of the regiment of dragoons is a bit more difficult to trace. According to English sources (Dalton) the regiment was raised 1 October 1695 and its colonel was Armand de Bourbon, Marquis de Miremont. However, in de work by Glozier and Onnekink of 2007, a regiments of dragoons was formed by Miremont as early as 1690 in Switzerland from Huguenot refugees for the Dutch Establishment. It may have been known as Balthazar's Regiment of Dragoons, though may have been called Miremont's from 1690 as well, and was seemingly placed on the English Establishment 1 March 1696. However, the regiment is shown in the Army Estimates for 1696, published in December 1695.

As for the foot, these regiments were all raised 1 April 1689.
The first regiment was commanded by Isaac de Monceau de la Melonière, who retained the colonelcy until the disbandment of the regiment.

The colonel of the second regiment was François du Puy du Cambon. On 12 August 1693 he was succeeded by Comte de Marton, the later Earl of Lifford.

The last regiment was initially commanded by Pierre, Comte de la Caillemotte, a younger brother of Henri, Marquis de Ruvigny. Like Schomberg he met his death at the Boyne, and was succeeded on 16 July 1690 by Pierre de Belcastel. (It is interesting to note that Belcastel raised a regiment of Huguenots on the Dutch Establishment in 1701.)

In late 1698 the five Huguenot regiments appear on the list of forces on the Irish Establishment, having been shipped from Flanders directly to Ireland. This was probably an effort by William III to save them from disbandment. However, since Parliament had decreed that only native regiments were to be retained, the Huguenot regiments were disbanded in March 1699. Officers that had become English subjects were placed on half-pay. Thus ends the story of the Huguenot regiments in English service.

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Huguenot regiments in the British Army

Another interesting aspect of the British Army during the Nine Years' War was the formation of several regiments composed of Huguenot refugees. That is, the regiments were officered by Huguenots, whereas the rank-and-file were cosmopolitan and polyglot. National identity of a regiment referred usually only to the officers.

Huguenot officers had come to England since the Restoration of 1660, the Earl of Feversham being a famous example. However, it was not until the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV in 1685, that saw considerable migration of Huguenots from France.

Most of the Huguenots seem to have migrated into the Dutch Republic, Brandenburg, Switzerland and England. Because of the sympathetic attitude of James II towards Louis XIV, not many seem to have awarded a commission in the army. Quite the opposite was the case with Huguenots going into the Dutch Republic, and many of these accompanied William of Orange to England in 1688. Some served as volunteers, others held commissions in the regiments of the Anglo-Dutch Brigade and a third category consisted of officers in the Dutch Army.

From this pool of officers four regiments of Huguenots were raised in early 1689. These regiments were to be the first foreign units to be formed and included in the British Army. Of these four regiments, one was a regiments of horse under the Duke of Schomberg, and the other three were regiments of foot. A regiment of dragoons was added in 1695.

After the end of Nine Years' War the debate on which regiments were to be retaining upon the establishments was started. Unfortunately, the outcome was that the establishments, the regiments, should be composed of native soldiers only and meant the dismissal of all foreign regiments. As a results the Huguenot regiments were disbanded in Ireland in March 1699, officers that were naturalized English being placed on half - pay.

Matthew Glozier. The Huguenot Soldiers of William of Orange and the Glorious Revolutions of 1688. Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, England. 2002.
Matthew Glozier and David Onnekink. War, Religion and Service. Huguenot Soldiering, 1685 - 1713. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, England, 2007.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

Dutch regiments in English service: Foot

After the post on the various regiments of Dutch Guards in English service, the foot regiments will be considered next.

Thee regiments of foot were placed onto the English Establishment between 1 January 1689 and 31 December 1697. Like most English regiments, they were known by the names of their colonels and were the usual one-battalion regiments.

Regiment Brandenburg
Raised 1 January 1673 and maintained by Holland. Colonel: Albrecht Frederik, Prince of Brandenburg since 16 June 1687.

Regiment Nassau - Saarbrücken
Raised 22 December 1664 and maintained by Zeeland. Colonels: Walrad, Count of Nassau - Saarbrücken, since 1 December 1680, until 6 August 1701 when Reinier Vincent van der Beke became colonel.

Regiment Carlson
Raised 28 April 1672 and maintained by Overijssel. Colonels:
Gustaaf Carlson, Count of Bornig 24 June 1683
Hans Wolf van Groben 1689? -- his name appears in the Army Estimates until 1693
Lodewijk Frederik van Auer 1693? -- mentioned first in the Army Estimates for the year 1694
Ernst Lodewijk van Wilcke 5 Nov 1695

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Dutch regiments in English service: Guards

Following an earlier posting on Dutch regiments on the English Establishment, this post will discuss the Dutch regiments of guards (cavalry and infantry) that were in English service.

For each regiment a short lineage is given, mostly focusing on the period it was on the English Establishment. As Dutch regiments were maintained by different provinces (comparable to the different establishments of England, Scotland and Wales), this has been given as well. Dutch titles and names have been used for the regiments, with an English translation given between brackets.

Gardes du Corps van Zijne Majesteit (Life Guards)
This corps was raised on 30 April 1599 as a Troop of Horse (vaan (guidon) in Dutch). In 1665 it was redesignated as Gardes du Corps van Zijne Majesteit. In 1705 the troop was converted into a normal troop of horse. The corps was in English pay between 21 December 1688 and 25 March 1699; in the Dutch Republic it was maintained by the province of Zeeland. The colonel of the corps during its service in English pay was Hendrik, Graaf (Count) van Nassau - Ouwerkerk (since 11 March 1672, until 18 October 1708).

When on the English Establishment the corps was ranked as the 4th Troop of Life Guards.

Regiment Gardes te Paard (Horse Guards)
This regiment was raised 16 August 1672, and was maintained by Holland. It was in English pay between 21 December 1688 and 25 March 1699. Though normally not known by the name of colonel, like other corps of guards, in English accounts the regiment is often referred to as Portland's Horse after the colonel Hans Willem, Baron Bentinck, Earl of Portland (since 5 Augustus 1674). On 7 August 1701 Henry de Massue, Marquis de Ruvigny, Earl of Galway became colonel.

Regiment Gardes Dragonders van Zijne Majesteit (Dragoon Guards)
Raised 8 February 1672, and most likely maintained by Holland. Initially raised as a normal regiment of dragoons, the regiment was renamed as Regiment Gardes Dragonders in 1676. It was in English pay between 1 January 1689 and 11 October 1698. During the period of interest the colonel of the regiment was William III, Prince of Orange, but it was of course not known by that name. However, like the Regiment Gardes te Paard, the regiment was known between 1689 and 1698 as Eppinger's Dragoons, after its colonel - commandant Abraham van Eppinger (since 2 April 1679).

Regiment Gardes te Voet van Zijne Majesteit (Foot Guards)
This regiment consisted during the Nine Years' War of three battalions. The first battalion was raised 2 January 1599 as Regiment van Nassau. The second battalion was formed 19 August 1672 as Regiment Gardes te Voet. On 12 June 1674 the two regiments were combined as Regiment Gardes te Voet, with Hendrik Trajectinus, Count of Solms as colonel. A third battalion was formed at the same time as well. In 1702 the regiment was re-designated as Regiment Hollandsche Gardes. Other colonels were Ferdinand Willem, Duke of Würtemberg - Teck (1 September 1693) and Walrad, Count of Nassau - Ottweiler (12 June 1701).

The regiment was in English pay between 1 January 1689 and 25 March 1699, and in the republic maintained by Holland. In England the regiment was known as Blue Guards, because of the uniform. On the English Establishment, the regiment was ranked as the 3rd regiment of foot guards.

late 1688 Irish Regiments

When the invasion of William of Orange seemed unavoidable, James II ordered several of regiments on the Irish Establishment to England by October 1688. In January 1689 when James II had fled to France and William of Orange was in power, these regiments underwent rigorous re-forms.

Roughly speaking this meant that the Protestant soldiers of the regiments were merged into Lord Forbes's Regiment, which contained the highest proportion of Protestants, and was retained on the establishment. All other regiments were disbanded, with the Catholics soldier being removed from the army. The regiments listed next were the ones that came to England.

one battalion of the Regiment of Irish Foot Guards
Under command of William Dorrington. Formed in 1662 in England for the Irish Establishment. This battalion was disbanded in January 1689.

Richard Hamilton's Regiment of Dragoons
formed in 1685 in England for the Irish Establishment. Disbanded 6 January 1689.

Lord Forbes's Regiment of Foot
formed in 1684 from independent companies in Ireland - formation may have started already in the early 1670s. It was the only regiment of the Irish Establishment from James II that was retained, and became famous as the Royal Regiment of Ireland. This Lord Forbes's was Arthur Forbes, the later 2nd Earl of Forbes. He succeeded his father to the colonelcy of the regiment in 1686; his father was of course Arthur, the 1st Earl of Granard.

Anthony Hamilton's Regiment of Foot
formed in the same manner as Lord Forbes's Regiment. It was disbanded 7 January 1689.

Roger McElligott's Regiment of Foot
formed in March 1688. This was an Irish regiment composed of Roman Catholics and partially officered by officers that had left their regiment in the English and Scots Regiments in service of Dutch Republic. It was in pay of the Louis XIV. An English and Scots regiment were formed in the same manner. Regiment was disbanded 8 January 1689.

To replace the regiments gone over to England, the Earl of Tyrconnell set forth to raise new regiments. They were formed in November 1688. Little is known about these regiments, and the author is grateful for the help of John Childs and Harman Murtagh in identifying and providing information on these regiment. These regiment were formed from Catholics so they all adhered to James II and had their share in the Williamite War of 1689 - 1691.

William Dongan's Regiment of Dragoons
This was William Dongan, 1st Earl of Limerick. Most likely survived until the Treaty of Limerick.

The Earl of Antrim's Regiment of Foot
This was Alexander McDonnell, 3rd Earl of Antrim.This regiment was ordered late 1688 to garrison Londonderry, but found the gates closed. Like Dongan's Dragoons, the regiment was disbanded only after the Treaty of Limerick.

The Earl of Tyrone's Regiment of Foot
Richard Power (le Poer), 1st Earl of Tyrone. Surrendered in 1690 at Cork.

The Earl of Clanricarde's Regiment of Foot
Richard Bourke (Burke), 8th Earl of Clanricarde. The regiment surrendered in 1691 at Galway.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

Dutch Regiments on the English Establishment

One overlooked aspect of the army of William III during the Nine Years' War, is that quite a few Dutch regiments were placed on the English Establishment in 1689 to relieve pressure on the Dutch exchequer. Most of the regiments had accompanied William III, then William of Orange, in November 1688 as part of his invasion force. These regiments stayed in England in 1689 to maintain law and order, as the English regiments were either in Flanders, Ireland or being re-formed following the Revolution. In 1690 these regiments went to Ireland with William III, to participate in that theater of war.

Following the Treaty of Rijswijk in 1697 these regiments were returned to the Dutch Establishment, the last going by 1699. (I have not checked this but there may be another reason. William III did not trust the English regiments, that is the officer corps, so he may have placed the Dutch regiments on the English Establishment as some sort of safeguard.)

The Dutch regiments placed on the English Establishment were:
1. a troop of life guards, which became the nominal 4th Troop of Life Guards, after the three existing troops.
2. a regiment of horse guards. Because this regiment was clad in blue, the existing (English) Royal Regiment of Horse, also clad in blue, adopted the nickname "Oxford Blues" after it colonel, the 20th Earl of Oxford.
3. a regiment of guard dragoons (Garde Dragonders in Dutch)
4. 10 regiments of horse
5. a regiment of foot guards consisting of three battalions. This regiment became the nominal 3rd Regiment of Foot Guards, ranking after the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards.
6. three regiments of foot

A future article will detail the regiments.

Second battalions of regiments in 1678

It was common practice in the advent of war to increase the military establishment. This could be achieved by raising new regiments, by adding companies to existing regiments, and by increasing the establishment of companies in existing regiments. This latter approach resembles best the idea to have a regular cadre force in peace time, which is used to build a new army in time of war.

Though England was at war with the Dutch Republic between 1672 and 1674 (Third Anglo - Dutch War, part of the larger Franco - Dutch War), the anti-Dutch feelings had changed into a pro-Dutch by 1677. There may be several reasons for this. One might be the marriage between William of Orange (future King William III (II)) and Mary Stuart (daughter of the future King James II (VII)). Also, the idea of a fellow protestant nation being conquered by a catholic nation (France) was not welcomed very much, which added to the general anti-Catholic sentiments in England.

Hence, England decided early 1678 to take the side of the Dutch Republic in their fight against France and the establishment of the army for greatly increased.

Apart for a dozen newly raised regiments, we also see the creation of second battalions to existing regiments. These second battalions should not be regarded as the implementation of second battalions in the later 18th Century, which had a full complement of regimental officers and staff. These 1678 implementations were first and foremost an increase of the regimental establishment by adding so many new companies, such that the regiment had the number of companies of two regiments, but without an additional lieutenant-colonel or major. However, a 2nd Adjutant seems to have been appointed. This, combined with references that the regiment was indeed split into two (battalions) for operations may be enough to conclude that these regiments were indeed multi-battalion regiments. Though in embryonic form of course, and the regiments should be viewed as large regiments with many companies that were subdivided, and not as a regiment with multiple battalions as we know it from later periods.

Only four regiments, at least on the English Establishment seem to have formed an additional battalion. The formation of the additional companies, and thus battalion, happened in January and February 1678. In early 1679 the augmentations were disbanded. These four regiments were:

Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards
Formed 1650 in Parliamentary Army, and taken onto the establishment in 1661. Ranked after the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards.

The Lord High Admiral's Regiment
Formed late 1664 as a marine regiment, and was the highest ranking English regiment.

The Holland Regiment
Formed 1665, see this blog on the regiment's formation; ranked after the Admiral's Regiment.

The Duke of Monmouth's Regiment
Formed 1672 for French service as the Royal English Regiment, and returned early 1678 to England and placed 10 Feb 1678 on the English Establishment. In 1678 it is most likely that this regiment ranked immediately after the Holland Regiment. The first, original, battalion was styled Old Battalion, as it originated directly from the 1672 regiment. The second battalion was styled New Battalion. Though disbanded in early 1679, the regiment seems to have been re-formed in June 1679 following the Covenanter Rebellion.

The 1st Regiment of Foot Guards, the Grenadier Guards, already had a complement of 20+ companies. It is interesting to note that it were the highest ranking regiments on the English Establishment that were "elevated" to a larger complement of companies. The regiment of the Earl of Dumbarton, the Royal Regiment, seems to be on a complement equivalent to two battalions since the early 1670s, when in service of France and recruiting for the forthcoming war with the Dutch Republic. There was also a large regiment on the Irish Establishment, Thomas Dongan's, with a complement of 21 companies in 1678. This regiment was also formed for French service in 1671 and returned in 1678.

Monday, 16 November 2009

formation of the Holland Regiment in 1665

The events leading to the formation of The Holland Regiment on 31 May 1665 is often surrounded with incomplete or incorrect detail.

In 1664 there were four English and three Scots regiments in service of the Dutch States - General. These regiments are the descendants of the English and Scots companies that came to the aid of the Dutch in their fight against Spain in 1572 (the Eighty Years' War). Initially companies were hired as independent units, which were occasionally grouped into formations which were called regiments. These regiments constituted more a grouping of companies than a real regiment with regimental officers. However, before the end of the 16th century the first long-standing English and Scots regiments are a fact. The number of regiments increased gradually, so eventually we find reference to the English and Scots Brigades.

As said, in 1664 there were four English and three Scots regiments in Dutch service. However, tension was growing between the Dutch Republic and England and on 4 March 1665 [NS] England declared war on the Dutch Republic. The next day the States - General decided to disband the seven regiments, which had 53 companies between them of which 32 English and 21 Scots. From these disbanded companies, four Dutch national regiments were to be formed with 42 companies. Officers thus discharged were enabled to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic and become Dutch officers, or could choose to leave for England. The four new regiments were formed by commissions dated 20 March 1665.

Most of the English officers refused to take the oath, and opted to return to England. In Knight (1905) (reference see below) a list of officers taking or refusing the oath is given. Though not complete, it is an interesting list. Of the colonels and lieutenant-colonels, three out of four refused to take the oath, but for the majors, captains, lieutenant and ensigns the ratio seems to be more fifty-fifty. The general impression from most literature that the English refused to take the oath en masse should be nuanced a little.

Of the three Scots regiments, only a small handful refused to take the oath. Amongst them no colonels or lieutenant-colonels.

Upon return in England it took a while before Charles II decided to put the experienced officers to good use. And finally on 31 May 1665 he issued a commission to Robert Sidney to be colonel of The Holland Regiment consisting of six companies. Except for one officer, all officers in the new regiment had previously been in Dutch service.

The reorganisation of the seven regiments into four Dutch regiments can be summed up as follows:
1. the three Scots regiments were converted into three Dutch regiments, under the same colonels.
2. the four English regiments were replaced by one single Dutch regiment under Thomas Dolman.

The regiments in 1664:
The four English regiments:
* Lord Craven's Regiment. William, Lord Craven was the future 1st Earl of Craven who commanded the Coldstream Regiment of Guards from 1670 until 1689. He refused to take the oath.
* Thomas Dolman's Regiment. Dolman took the oath and commanded a new Dutch regiment from 1665 until 1672. In 1676 he became colonel of the 2nd English Regiment in Dutch service
* Sir William Killigrew's Regiment. Refused to take the oath. Was appointed colonel of the Lord High Admiral's Regiment on 5 November 1664.
* Robert Sidney's Regiment. Refused, and became the first colonel of the Holland Regiment.

The three Scots regiments:
* Walter Scott's Regiment
* Johan Kirkpatrick's Regiment
* Louis Erskine's Regiment

Recommended literature: Captain H.R.KNIGHT, Historical Records of The Buffs, East Kent Regiment, 3rd Foot, formerly designated The Holland Regiment and Prince of Denmark's Regiment. Volume 1 1572-1704. Gale & Polden, London, 1905. Available online via

talking about Colonels -- the Earls of Macclesfield

Tracing colonels to regiments can be a real challenge, and establishing who is the correct colonel can be even more daunting. Especially when references and biographies are not very clear.

For example consider the various regiments of horse commanded by Charles, Lord Gerard, also known the Earl of Macclesfield with Viscount Brandon being a subsidiary title. Actually, there were two Lord Gerards who held colonelcy of a regiment horse. One being the father, the 1st Earl, and the other being the son, the 2nd Earl.

In 1678 we find Lord Gerard's Regiment of Horse raised in anticipation of the coming war with France. This is the father, and the son was lieutenant - colonel in the regiment.

In 1679 we have another regiment by this name, but this one was commanded by the son. This was the same regiment as the Duke of Monmouth's Regiment of Horse formed in 1678, and disbanded after the Treaty of Nijmegen. The 1679 re-formation was instigated by the Covenanter Rebellion.
The regiment could trace its history back to a regiment of horse in French service as part of the British Brigade in French Service between 1672 and 1678.

Furthermore, in 1688 we find another regiment of horse under the name of Lord Gerard. Dalton (English Army Lists, v.2 p.178) claims, by means of a footnote, that it is the father who commanded this regiment. However, this is strange as Lord Gerard, the 1st Earl, was outlawed by James II in 1685 because he was to involved in the plots by the Duke of Monmouth. Consequently he fled to the continent, and returned in 1688 with William III.

Would this be one of a anomalies of the British Army (outlawed but still able to get a colonelcy), or did Dalton make an error?

Here the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography proved to give a hint that solved the problem. We read for the 2nd Earl of Macclesfield:

"He was sentenced to death on 28 November, but was reprieved, released
(January 1687), and pardoned (31 August 1687). He then vigorously
supported James II's policies, especially over the dispensing power,
was granted his father's forfeited estates as a result, and in 1688
even took the field for James, having been restored in October to the
position of colonel of Lord Gerard's horse that he had briefly held in

It seems that it was the son who was colonel of the 1688 regiment of horse, and not the father.

The son would in 1694 succeed his father to the earldom as the 2nd Earl. In 1694 the 2nd Earl would command a new regiment of horse, until his death in 1701. The regiment would survive until the close of the War of Spanish Succession.

The Restoration Army -- preliminaries

Thus, the new project was born and moving around existing material gave me quickly a substantial number of pages. But, was that what I wanted? In the previous inception the lineage book I took the present day regiments as basis, and derived everything from there. So, 17th century regiments that existed for a short period were hidden in somewhere in a chapter covering all such regiments.

However, in the scope of the army of the Restoration, these regiments played a far more important role and should be dealt with as such! Also the whole concept of separate establishments for England, Scotland and Ireland would be lacking in the first try, it would be mentioned of course, which would render the second try incomplete.

Looking at these issues the project is subdivided into chapters which cover the Household Cavalry, the cavalry, the guards and the infantry. Each chapter is sub-divided into three section covering the three establishments. A separate chapter listing the regimental colonels should ease finding the correct regiment.

In der Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister

Or in plain English: less is more

It turned out that my initial plan to write a monograph on the lineages of British Regiments and Corps from 1660 to present day was overly ambitious. The problem was not the lack of sources to cover everything so some extend, see the Frederick book, nor the lack of motivation.

The main problem was found in the wide variety of topics to be detailed and covered. Above all, I wanted to cover all topics in considerable detail and provide ample references and notes in case information was lacking or incomplete. Also, Frederick had many details missing, and, unfortunately, proved to be incorrect on more than a few instances. (Which does not mean his work can't be considered a monumental work of reference.)

To name but a few topics:

1. The regular regiments. Well, this should be pretty well document one might say. It is, to a certain extend and in particularly true for the post Marlborough period. The earlier period, say from 1660 to 1714, is documented, but the reader should be careful. Also, the standing army was increased, and decreased, depending on the event of wars (Anglo - Dutch Wars, wars with France), and these regiments are far less easy to follow.
2. The militia. A study in itself.
3. Yeomanry
4. Territorial Force and Territorial Army. Movement / re-location of units and sub-units can be a little tricky to follow.
5. Home Guard
6. Did I forget any?

So, covering and managing all these topics and trying to understand all meant I had to change focus often not allowing myself to research a period or topic deeply. Also the problem "were shall I start today" was prevalent. Hence I opted to get rid of 90% of the work and focus on a specific part.

Probably not the most original, but describing the Army of the Restoration seemed to me an ideal starting point. After some thinking, I have chosen to cover the period 1660, when Charles II was restored to the throne, until 1714, when Queen Anne died and the War of Spanish Succession had just been fought. Though not entirely correct, it could be called the Army of the Stuarts as well.

Some news about the lineage book

It has been a long time since I last posted something. Though, I have certainly not stayed idle. On the contrary!

Though the lineage book is still far from finished, and I doubt whether it will ever be, I have practiced a lot with formatting and layouting. After the, first, initial step into Corel Ventura, I have decided to put everything into OpenOffice. This worked very fine, and the mechanism in OO to have separate documents glued together into a large document works remarkably well. Also cross-referencing seemed to be ok, and I even managed to introduce macros.

However, there were still some issues I didn't like:
1. First the project with 1500+ pages tended to become a little heavy for OO
2. Managing the layout of various parts proved to be a little tricky in my opinion (or just due to lack of experience)

So, I opted to go back to from where I started: LaTeX. Though I have not yet reached the 1500+ border, I trust that LaTeX is capable of handling this. (My biggest worry is what a pdf reader like acroread is going to do with it ...)

In LaTeX I have the benefits of:
1. separate documents for specific subjects merged into a meta-document
2. typing text is just like programming, so using macros is similar to writing a function
3. partly because of this "programming" like style, changing layout is fairly easy

A drawback of LaTeX may be that it is not widely used by non-science community.