The Royal Scots ~~ some thoughts

Everybody knows The Royal Scots, the first regiment of the line, known in earlier times as the Royal Regiment of Foot and nicknamed Pontius Pilatus' bodyguard. Most sources state, correctly, that the regiment was raised in 1633 for French service as Hepburn's Regiment of Foot. The same sources mention, again correctly, that the regiment was raised by a warrant from the Privy Council of Scotland, by authority of the king. Because of this latter aspect, they claim that the regiment was raised for the Scots Establishment (and/or that it was a regiment of the British Army, a royal regiment, etc.). And that because it was a British regiment, it could be recalled by Charles II in 1661 after the Restoration.

These latter qualifications of the regiment are perhaps not fully correct.

First of all, in 1633 there was no such thing as a Scots Establishment. The whole idea of a British Army was still something for the future as well.
Secondly, all regiments for foreign service were raised under a warrant issued by the Privy Council. This way the government had, at least on paper, a little bit of control on recruitment for foreign states (on the numbers and for whom they were recruiting).
Furthermore, at the time of the Restoration the regiment was part of the French Army and its colonel owed his loyalty to the French king. It was the regimental colonel who had a contract with France, not the king of Scotland.

Looking at these considerations the following can be concluded:

Upon the raising of Hepburn's regiment in 1633, its status and position differed not much from that of other (Scots) regiments in foreign service as all were raised by a warrant that allowed recruiting. It was certainly not part of the Scots Establishment or British Army as these did not exist at that time.
The fact that the regiment survived to see the Restoration in 1660-61, that it was placed on the English Establishment and that it would eventually become the first regiment of foot, had more to do with coincidence and luck, than with anything else. That the Restoration proved be a test for the colonel's loyalty (at that time the (future) Earl of Dumbarton, who had to manage the egos of both Charles or Louis, next to looking after his own interests) (and flexibility of his loyalty), it does not imply that the regiment was a British one hired out to France. Next to this, the (positive) attitude of Charles II towards Roman Catholics (Dumbarton was Roman Catholic) at the Restoration was no doubt helpful as well. But this is different from assuming that the regiment was British and henceforth could be recalled by Charles II at will.

The very first army list (1684)

For enthusiasts (read: aficionados) of regimental lineages like the author, Army Lists form a very important source of information. As these lists are, approximately, a directory of the officers serving in the army at a certain point, the history of the regiments can be derived from it. In particular, studying successive editions of army lists can give a neat impression of the expansion of the army in times of war. For example, studying the army lists prior to August 1914, and those of late 1914 and 1915, clearly shows the growth of the army. (The physical size of the army lists tripled also at least between 1914 and 1918.)

That said, it is unfortunate that army lists started to be published regularly from the 1750s onwards. Thus the period between 1660 and 1750 is relatively obscure. This is best observed in the relative void regarding regiments raised for the duration of a war. The British Library has a pdf document available with some more information on army lists.

The very first army list detailing the post-Restoration army was published in 1684, an is known as Nathan Brooks' Army List. Very fortunate this publication is made available at EEBO! Though only detailing the English Establishment (so troops in Scotland and Ireland are not listed), it gives much contemporary information.

Information includes the establishments of the regiments (i.e., the official size of troops and companies), the colour of uniforms, details of colours carried.

For example, the Holland Regiment, commanded by John, the Earl of Mulgrave consists of twelve companies, but does not have a company of grenadiers. It is coated in red (unsure, the text is faded at this point), and lined with a flesh colour. The colour is a red cross, bordered white in a green field.

The page shown next is for the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards, and for the Royal Regiment of Foot (future Royal Scots).



Please contact the author if more information is required or wanted.

Colonel Lillingston of the future Warwickshire Regiment

Anyone with a some knowledge of the older regiments of the British Army will know that several regiments started life in service of a foreign power. Famous are of course The Royal Scots in service of France between 1633 and 1678 (except a few years in England), and The Buffs which originate from regiments formerly in service of the Dutch Republic. Others are the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers and Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers which were both formed late 1674 for Dutch service. This post will discuss this latter regiment, and one of its first colonels in particular.

The regiment was apparently formed 12 December 1673 in England as a volunteer regiment for Dutch service, under command of Sir Walter Vane. Sir Walter was colonel of a regiment raised in 1667, and hold colonelcy of the Holland Regiment (the future Buffs) between 1668 and 1673. He was killed at the Battle of Seneffe 11 August 1674 and was succeeded by colonel Lillingston.

English sources (Dalton's English Army Lists and Commission Registers, or succession of colonels as found in Army Lists) claim this was Luke Lillingston, the same Lillingston that would raise a regiment in 1705 (eventually becoming the 38th Foot). On the other hand, Dutch sources claim it was a Henry Lillingston that commanded this English regiment in Dutch service. This Henry Lillingston commanded a Cromwellian regiment raised in the late 1650s to serve in Flanders on the French side (during the Franco-Spanish War; Royalist (English) regiments fought on the Spanish side). This claim is supported by C. H. Firth in his article Royalist and Cromwellian Armies in Flanders, 1657-1662 (Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 17, pp. 67-119 (1903)). Firth assumes that Luke was a son of Henry Lillingston, and that Luke served as a junior officer in his father's regiment in 1675. This is supported by an article in De Nederlandsche Leeuw of 1944, (the magazine of the Dutch society for genealogical and arms studies) stating that Luke Lillingston became captain on 19 January 1676, and that he was probably a son of Henry Lillingston who commanded an English regiment entering Dutch service in 1674-75.
Furthermore, a note to Henry Lillingston's commission in Het Staatsche Leger, volume 6, page 255 states he relinquished his command in 1676, and that prince William III awarded him a lifelong pension.

In addition, Luke Lillingston appears as an ensign in the Earl of Mulgrave's Regiment in January 1673. The same regiment in which Henry was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel. This regiment was disbanded in 1674, and it is likely that many officers sought employment on the continent. Luke being an ensign in 1673 makes is not very likely that he became colonel in 1674/75.

Combining all this it appears more likely that it was Henry Lillingston who commanded the English regiment in Dutch service in 1674-75, and not Luke Lillingston as found in many English sources, most notably in histories of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. (This, unless there was another Luke Lillingston not identified yet.)

Addendum: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography contains an entry on Luke Lillingston written by John Childs. This article by Childs confirms the above.

The Battle of the Dunes

Fought 14 June 1658 as part of the Franco-Spanish War, with Royalists fighting in the Spanish army, and a Parliamentarian corps fighting with the French. So, probably this battle can be considered as the last battle of the English Civil War.

In the Digitales Archiv Marburg a nice copper engraving of the battle. The Spanish army is at the top, and the French army at the bottom of the engraving. The English Royalist regiments are on the Spanish right wing in the first line of battle (near 2, who is the Duke of York). Several of the Parliamentarian regiments are on the French left (F, who is Sir William Lockhart), thus facing the Royalists.



Several English regiments fought in this battle, on both sides, which would form the basis of the Restoration Army of 1660-61.

the Stuart Irish Guards

Unknown to many is the existence of a regiment of Irish Guards under the reigns of Charles II and James II. This regiment has no relation to the modern day Irish Guards.

The Stuart regiment was raised on 24 April 1662 in England as a regiment of guards to be placed on the Irish Establishment. It was recruited in England, and composed of English, as it was thought these were loyal. The regiment consisted of twelve companies, including the King's Company. A grenadier company was added in 1684, and by 1688 the regiment was composed of two battalions. In late 1688 one battalion of the guards was shipped to England in anticipation of the invasion of the Prince of Orange. This battalion was disbanded early 1689.

The regiment in Ireland remained loyal to James II and his Jacobite cause. As such, the regiment participated in the battle of the Boyne. As the treaty of Limerick in 1691 the regiment joined James into exile in France. After the peace of Rijswijk in 1697, when the Jacobite army in exile had to be disbanded, the regiment went over into French service in the Brigade Irlandaise.

The colonels of the regiment until 1688 when it joined James II:
Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran, dated 24 April 1662
James Butler, Earl of Ossory (and later 2nd Duke of Ormonde), dated 29 January 1686
William Dorrington, late 1688 when the Earl of Ossory defected to the camp of the Prince of Orange.

Origins of the Grenadier Guards 1656 - 1665

Knowing that the history of the Grenadier Guards is well-paved and that many historians more knowledgeable than the author have shed their light on this subject, it is with great humbleness and care that the author starts this article. However, it seems to the author that there are some parts in the early history that are unclear to him that may need to be recorded for the purpose of discussion and further clarification.

On 16 March 1665 the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards (or the King's Regiment of Foot Guards as it was called then) was formed by the union of two existing regiments of foot guards, both designated as the King's Royal Regiment of Guards.

The first of these was the regiment of guards commanded by John Russell, and was raised 23 November 1660 in London as regiment of guards for the protection of Charles II. It consisted of twelve companies, with 100 men each.

The other regiment was a regiment of guards at Dunkirk commanded by Thomas Wentworth, 5th Lord Wentworth. The origin of this regiment is not very clear. Many sources state that this regiment was formed in 1656 as a bodyguard for Charles II in exile in the Spanish Netherlands. However, in an article on the Royalist and Cromwellian Armies in Flanders 1657 - 1662 by Firth (1903), this should be nuanced a little. The large history of the regiment by Frederick William Hamilton is not very clear on this very early period of the regiment.

According to this source Charles II started to form an army in 1656 after he had signed a treaty with Spain in the latter's war with France. Royalist forces would side with Spain, and Cromwellian forces with France. One of the regiments that started to formed in 1656 was a regiment called the King's Own Regiment and was commanded by Henry Wilmot, 1st Earl of Rochester. It was to be composed of English only (other regiments were composed exclusively of Scots and Irish). Furthermore, in late 1657 a regiment of guards started to form, to be roled as a bodyguard similar to that of the body of horse guards already in existence. This foot guard was to be given to Thomas Wentworth.

Recruiting for both English regiments did go slowly. Also, the earl of Rochester fell ill, and would die in early 1658. Probably it was by late 1657 that the two English regiments in being were merged into a single regiments of guards commanded by said Wentworth. Other sources say that Wentworth succeeded to the command of Rochester's regiment in 1658.

After the restoration with regiment was retained in Dunkirk, and on 26 August 1660 it was formally placed on the establishment of Dunkirk when Wentworth received his commission as colonel of the King's Regiment of Guards at Dunkirk. This may mark the official entry of the regiment as part of the (new) British Army. In November 1662 the regiment returned to England (when Dunkirk was sold to France), and on 17 November 1662 it was mustered as part of the English Establishment. The strength of the regiment was also twelve companies with 100 men each.

A little more than two years later both regiments were merged into a large regiment of 24 companies, with John Russell assuming command of the regiment.

Origins of the Queen's Royal Regiment

The website of the Queen's Royal Surrey Regiment is one of the better and more extensive regimental websites. A great deal of the website is devoted to the history of the regiment, and provides a good basis to compile a lineage of the Tangier Regiment, which would later became the 2nd Regiment of Foot and eventually, in 1881, the Queen's Royal Regiment, the county regiment for West Surrey.

The origin of this regiment is found in a variety of regiments with a most varying pedigree:
1. the original Tangier Regiment was raised in 1661 in England after the restoration and was intended to garrison Tangier.
2. former Parliamentary regiments. These regiments were raised in 1657 for service in Flanders alongside France in France's with Spain. Three regiments would eventually merge into the Tangier Regiment mentioned above: the regiments from Lord Rutherford (the later Earl of Teviot), Sir Robert Harley, and Roger Alsop (but in 1661 Viscount Falkland may be colonel). By 1663 these four regiments (the original Tangier Regiment and the three ex-Parliamentary regiments) had merged into one English regiment. In 1668 it would merge with the former Irish regiment at Tangier (see next) as a single regiment.
3. former Royalist Irish regiments. These regiments were raised in the 1650s from Irish regiments already in foreign service (the author has not been able yet to find more on this), which joined Charles II army in the late 1650s. This army would serve alongside Spain. Two of these regiments would go to Tangier in late 1661: the regiments of Lewis Farrell and John Fitzgerald. In 1663 these two merged into one Irish regiment. In 1668 the regiment merged with the English regiment at Tangier (see above).

From the above it become clear that no less than six regiments contributed to the pedigree of the Tangier Regiment of 1668, which would become famous as the Queen's Royal Regiment.

Mystery regiments of 1662

In Dalton's English Army Lists and Commission Register one will find several regiments raised in 1662 that have no clear context that justifies their formation. Also the dates of disbandment or disembodiment is unclear. This unlike the regiments raised for the Second and Third Anglo - Dutch Wars in 1667 and 1672/73, respectively.

The regiments were formed on 1 September 1662, and there seemed to be three regiments of horse, and two of foot. In the Calendar of State Papers Domestic a little is found, most notably the commissions to the five colonels in September 1662. The foot seem to disappear, but for the horse some bits are found during 1666.

Earl of Cleveland's Regiment of Horse
Cleveland got colonelcy of an old Parliamentary regiment of foot in 1660 during the restoration.

Earl of Lindsey's Regiment of Horse

Earl of Northampton's Regiment of Horse
Like Cleveland, Northampton gained the colonelcy of a Parliamentary regiment of foot in 1660.

Earl of Craven's Regiment of Foot
Commanded at the same time an English regiment in Dutch service. In 1670 Craven would assume command of the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards.

Sir William Killigrew's Regiment of Foot
Commanded at the same time an English regiment in Dutch service. In 1664 Killigrew would be colonel of the first marine regiment in the British Army.

To the author some questions come to mind:

1. To what reason were these regiment levied? The Restoration period is not characterized by deliberate raising of regiments, unless there was a war.
2. May the raising of these regiment relate to suspected uprisings, like the Venner riots in early 1661?
3. Are things being overlooked, and are these regiments simply regiments of militia?

The authors looks forward any discussion related to these regiments.

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.

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.