Disappointed

Dear Sir,

Having been associated from the beginning with English Civil War Notes and Queries I am rather disappointed by the first issue of its 18th Century cousin.

The trend in ECW NAQ has over the years been towards longer and more authoritative articles all embodying the fruits of at least fairly original research and notable for seldom if ever shrinking from controversy. In 18CMNAQ by contrast this policy appears to have been in large part abandoned with well-researched articles trimmed down savagely in order to find room for a review of a board-game, a distinctly tired article and wargame scenario for Zenta based upon only two rather basic secondary sources and a positively moronic article on Glenshiel written by a booby without the wit even to check which (if either) of the maps taken from the two ladybird books consulted, was the more accurate. Where is the original and exciting new research for which Partisan Press is to justly famed?

ECW NAQ has always been popular with wargamers without descending to these depths. Surely it is not expecting too much of wargamers to construct their own scenarios given the basic information without inflicting upon them highly subjective "Army Lists" keyed to one particular set of rules. (apart from anything else classing highlanders as fanatic swordsmen after discussing their reluctance to fight at all hardly inspires confidence in the judgement of the writer or the accuracy of his proposed scenario).

Away with this rubbish, this half-baked dross, let us have a lesser number of longer, well researched articles in the best Partisan Press tradition. The material is certainly to hand so there is no need to descend to the second rate - English Civil War Notes and Queries has proved that. The present mix comprising issue number 1 is not I fear calculated to inspire or attract articles of the calibre which we ought to expect and I for one hope to see a radical alteration in editorial policy with issue no. 2.

Yours in hope

Stuart Reid, North Shields, Northumberland.

Editor: I'm sorry you were disappointed by the contents of issue #1 of 18CMN&Q, but I think Dave and I were justified in the selection of articles for it. You must beer in mind that the audience this book is targeted at is a different one to that for ECWN&Q. 18CMN&Q, as are your own works from Partizan Press, are sold primarily to wargamers through wargames shops and at wargames conventions. Without the wargaming public I'm sure Partizan Press would not be in the position it is today. The members of the re-enactment societies are only a small fraction of the reading/buying public. Reviews of GOOD boardgames, and wargame scenarios that give you enough information to set up and play a game are what wargamers want -- or, at least, the ones I know tell me so. The way that a large number of writers of so-called wargaming articles serve up some potted history and dismiss the wargaming element in one or two patronising paragraphs tacked on as an afterthought is resented by a large number (myself included), which is why we are trying to do something different. We may fail, but we will at least try. (I hastily add, I exempt Pete Berry from this, as he is busily playtesting a set of rules for this period, following on from his Forlorn Hope set for the mid-seventeenth century).

With regard to the savage trimming of well researched articles, the Hessen-Kassel piece was supplied by the author in two parts, and we held the wargaming section of Narva over to the next issue in an attempt to hold the gaming side of things to a reasonable level, thus enabling us to fit in another small non-wargaming pie.

L'audace! Toujours l'audace! Encore l'audace!

I'm sure Stuart is going to find that we are not going to be strangers to controversy in this magazine either. I would like to mention that Stuart has written some excellent articles for recent issues of Arqubusier on Montrose's generalship, Highlanders, and the Scots Royalist cavalry - superb pieces of work, and I look forward to seeing his Scots Royalist Armies 1639-46 (as soon as Dave gets round to sending me a copy, hint hint), which is available from Partizan Press for £ 5.45, as is Killickrankie 1699 (same price).

Yours unapologetically,

The Editor

Now on to the controversy: Sedgemoor flags, described in John Tincey's article last issue:

Dear Gareth,

Many thanks for the premier issue of 18th Century Notes A Queries - I hope that it is a great success.

It is good to see an article on James II's Army - the early English & Scots Armies are too often neglected and deserve more study. Perhaps, however, I might make the following comments:

1. The two regiments of Foot-Guards

The new colours mentioned by Mr. Tincey were certainly issued before James' coronation on April 23rd 1695 and so would have been carried at Sedgemoor. Sandford (who was Lancaster Herald-at-Arms and so very aware of such things) states "And thus they appeared at His Majesties Coronation", and goes on to describe the new issue.

2. His Majesty's Horse Guards (now the Life Guards)

Firstly we should beware of anachronistic titles like "The Life Guards", although that was their unofficial title.

It is very tempting to state that the Horse Grenadiers attached to each troop carried the Guidon and the Gentlemen of the Troop carried the cornet - tempting, nest, tidy and wrong.

The Guidon is first mentioned in a Royal Warrant of 2nd August 1673 whereas the Horse Grenadiers were not added to each troop until 1678. Likewise the Regiments of Life Guards continued to carry both a cornet and a guidon long after the Horse Grenadiers had been disbanded.

3. The Queen Consort's Regiment of Foot

Here Mr Tincey's description is drawn from The James II Colour Book (a source he does not mention!) in Windsor Castle. This is a contemporary, and probably official, illustrated manuscript of the Colours, Standards, and Guidons of James II's Army. It is undated but from internal evidence can be pretty certainly stated to have been made around July 1686 - or approximately one year after Sedgemoor.

In 1684 the Regiment's colours are described as "...a Red Crosse in a Yellow Feild, bordered White, with Rays, as that of the Admiral's, with her Royal Highnesses Cypher in the Center." That is very similar to Mr Tincey's illustration of the Colours of the Queen Dowager's but with the appropriate central monogram.

It seems likely that these were the colours that the Regiment carried at Sedgemoor although, at present, there is no information as to the date of issue of the new colours.

I hope that these notes are of use to devotees of this period.

Regards,

Stephen Ede-Barrett, Peterborough.

John Tincey replies:

Mr Barrett raises a number of questions and I shall try to answer them in turn. However I would first like to point out that the article was reproduced from my 1985 Partisan Press book Arnica of the Sedgemoor Campaign and that a second edition is now in preparation. The flag drawings were skilfully executed by Chris Gill based on my research. And to to Mr Barrett's observations.

1. I entirely agree that the Foot Guards carried their new standards at Sedgemoor. Mr Barrett seems to have misread this part of the article. The point was that some units had to change their flags as these had included the monarch's initials in their designs and other units changed their Gags due to internal reorganisation. These reorganisations do not appear to have come into effect by the time of Sedgemoor to the old flags may have remained while the sub-units retained their old designations. I made the point that as the Guard's flags did contain the king's initials they would have been changed before the Coronation and the battle.

2. Mr Barrett is correct that one must beware anachronistic titles. Walton's History of the British Standing Away 1660 - 1700 page 6, has to extensive foot-note on the titles of this unit demonstrating that the name "H.M.'s Life-Guard of Horse" was used as early as 4 February 1661; "Life-Guard of Horse" in an order of April 1661; "Life-Guards" by Brooks in 1684 and elsewhere throughout the period. I do not therefore see that this falls within the meaning of an anachronism.

Mr Barrett says that the "Life Guards continued to carry both a cornet and a guidon long after the Horse Grenadiers had been disbanded." However, C.C.P. Lawson in A History of the Uniforms of the British Army Vol. I page 152 says that the two flags were carried up to 1787 and that "in the troops of Horst Grenadiers a guidon was also carried up to their disbandment in 1787. In his own book writing on the Cornets and Guidons of the Life Guards Mr Barrett says, "It is likely that the guidon was for use by the Horse Grenadiers." Lawson also mentions the 1673 Warrant, but dates it to 1674. Lawson gives no source and nor does Mr Barrett.

What then is the answer? In Brooks' list of 1684 the Cornet and Guidon (i.e. the officers who carried the flags) are listed as members of the main troop. The Horse Grenadiers have no such officer. Lawson may therefore be right that both cornet and guidon belonged to the main troop.

3. I did not mention the "Colour Book" in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle as a source as although I have seen it I have not had the opportunity to study it in detail. I therefore was forced to rely upon extracts published in Lawson (which was listed in the Bibliography of the book) who incidentally believed that the flag in question and therefore the "Colour Book" dated from 1685, the year of Sedgemoor.

In 1684 Nathan Brooks reported the flag of the Duchess of York and Albany's Regiment. At the Coronation in early 1685 this lady became Queen and her regiment became the Queen Consort's regiment. Since the regiment's flap described by Brooks and those in the Colour Book are so very different something must have caused the change. Charles Trelawney remained Colonel throughout the period, therefore it could be that Mary of Modena's elevation from Duchess to Queen caused the change in which case it would have occurred in early 1685 before Sedgemoor.

In his own book, Mr. Barrett chose to reproduce the some flag as I and by a pure coincidence his reproduction contains a remarkable number of the small errors that Chris Gill made in his original drawing of this flag. For this drawing of this flag Mr Barrett appears to draw his information from the Colour Book (a source he does not mention!). The description of the regimental colours of 1684 (tbe source of which Mr Barrett does not mention in his letter!) comes from Nathan Brooks A General and Compleat List Military... which is kept in the British Library Manuscripts Room (Additional MSS 10123 09-40), but was reproduced by the Journal of t1lic Society for Army Historical Research in the inter war years.

All of the above conjecture is in fact fruitless as in his book Mr Barrett states that the flags under discussion were, "issued in the Spring of 1686," Since he would hardly have stated this as a fact without contemporary evidence it is singularly unfortunate that he did not quote his source in his book or in his letter, thus ending the controversy. Unfortunately Mr. Barrett appears to have forgotten about the existence of this valuable piece of evidence since the publication of his book.