DOCSLIB.ORG

George I Slides 3 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

23/12/2020 Hanover in 1714- 1727. Brunswick Wolfenbüttel claimed by George in 1701 near the start of the Great Northern War and Bremen and Verden acquired from Sweden in 1719 towards the end of the war. George’s brother Ernest was Bishop of Osnabruck 1715-1728 1 2 Ernest Augustus, George’s youngest brother and closest supporter who fought with him at Neerwinden in 1693 and served in the War of the Spanish Succession at the siege of Lille in Melusine von der Schulenburg 1667-1743, Sophia von Platen 1675-1725, wife of Baron 1708. In 1709 he heard Handel’s Agrippina in Venice and persuaded him to move to Hanover. Duchess of Munster (1716), Duchess of Johann von Kielmansegge (married 1701, When George succeeded in 1714 he acted as regent in Hanover and guardian of Prince Kendal (1719) and Princess of Eberstein died 1717), Countess of Leinster (1721) and Frederick. He succeeded as Bishop of Osnabruck in 1715. He visited England in 1716 when he (1723). “The Scarecrow”, “The Maypole” or Countess of Darlington (1722). “The was made Duke of York and in 1718 to be invested as a KG. “The Goose”. George’s mistress. Elephant and Castle”. George’s half-sister. 3 4 Lionel Sackville who informed George he had succeeded and carried the sceptre at the Coronation and was created Groom of the Stole. He was created Duke of Dorset in 1720 and became Lord Steward in 1725 in Walpole’s Government. He also served in George II’s administrations Britannia offering George the crown by John Vanderbank Print by Michiel van der Gucht 5 6 1 23/12/2020 The Peregrine and other royal vessels off Greenwich by Jan Griffier I c 1710. Griffier came to London from Holland c 1708 and died here in 1718 where his sons Jan II and Robert continued to paint. 7 8 View of London from Greenwich by Peter Tillemans c 1730. Born in Flanders, Tillemans settled in England in 1708 and became one of the founders of a school of sporting art but also painted landscapes. George wanted to arrive at Harwich and travel quietly to London but was View of London from Greenwich by Jan Griffier I persuaded to arrive at Greenwich in order for crowds to gather to see him. 9 10 Charles II block Greenwich Painted Hall Greenwich 11 12 2 23/12/2020 Song from Thomas D’Urfey’s Pills To Purge The Melancholy Thornhill’s Sketch for George I’s Arrival at Greenwich 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 23/12/2020 Thornhill’s sketches for the murals 19 20 George and family in the Painted Hall Greenwich Naval College by James Thornhill 21 22 Arrival at St James’s 1714 After 2 days at Greenwich George and his son processed to London London had a population of about 600,000 compared to 10,000 in Hanover. London had caught with 206 coaches in a journey that took several hours along streets lined with crowds up Paris and would soon over take it. Britain had a population of 8.6m compared to France 20m. estimated at 1.5 million eager to see the new king. 23 24 4 23/12/2020 Jan Griffier View of London across from Lambeth Palace View of London from Horseferry by Jan Griffier I 1710 25 26 Medal celebrating Naval Supremacy by John Croker Medal celebrating George’s arrival in 1714 by John Croker Great Seal Medal by Ehrenreich Hannibal 1714 27 28 Medal by John Croker Medal by Nicolaus Seelander 1714 Jean Dassier George by Fountaine 1725 29 30 5 23/12/2020 Hans Sloane’s portrait of George on a walnut shell, British Museum Bust by Le Marchand, V&A Bust by Nost, V&A 31 32 Snuff Box by John Croker, BM Follower of Christian Friedrich Zincke Bernard Lens 33 34 David Le Marchand 1720 Terracotta by Rysbrack, NPG Studio of Kneller 1718 35 36 6 23/12/2020 Ludolf Lafontaine c 1727 Rysbrack, Courtauld Institute 37 38 John Vanderbank 1726 John Vanderbank 39 40 41 42 7 23/12/2020 Subscription for set of portraits 43 44 Prince Frederick in 1714 by Zincke and 1720 Unknown artist George and Caroline as Prince and Princess of Wales 1716 by Kneller. George travelled with his father and Caroline joined them 45 46 Princess Anne in 1714 and 1727 by Zincke. In 1723 she was one of 99 princesses considered as a Princess Amelia in 1714 and 1730 by Zincke bride for Louis XV. 47 48 8 23/12/2020 Princess Caroline in 1730 by Zincke Prince William 1730 by Zincke Princess Mary 1731 by Zincke Princess Louise 1739 by Bernard Lens 49 50 Dutch broadsheet on Coronation French broadsheet on Coronation 51 52 Westminster Hall by Hollar Westminster Abbey by Wenceslaus Hollar c 1670 53 54 9 23/12/2020 Coronation print from the Royal Collection German broadsheet on the Coronation 55 56 Charles Talbot Duke of Shrewsbury, as Lord Coronation details George’s Coronation Declaration Chamberlain he read the king’s declaration at the coronation 57 58 Archbishop Tenison by Robert White. He was Former mistress of James II, Catherine Sedley the last Archbishop to ask at a coronation if the Countess of Dorchester, replied “Does the old people accepted their new king fool think we will say no?” Studio of Godfrey Kneller Studio of Godfrey Kneller 59 60 10 23/12/2020 Print by Jacob Gole Print by John Faber 61 62 Coronation Medal by John Croker Coronation Medal by Nicolaus Seelander 63 64 Henry Sacheverell by Thomas Gibson 1710 The Sacheverell riots Drinking the Health of Dr Sacheverell 65 66 11 23/12/2020 Passed in 1714 it came into force in 1715 and remained in force till 1967 when other legislation took over Tudor House in Tewkesbury with surviving door showing axe marks made in the Coronation Riot 67 68 Robert Walpole 1st E of Oxford studio of J B Charles Spencer Earl of Sunderland, Ld Lt of James Earl Stanhope by Godfrey Kneller, SoS Charles Viscount Townshend, SoS (N) 1714-16 st van Loo 1740, Paymaster 1714-15 & 1720- Ireland 1714-17, Ld Privy Seal 1715-16, SoS (N) (S) 1714-16, SoS (N) 1716-17 & 1718-21, 1 & 1721-7, Ld Lt of Ireland 1717, Ld President st 21, Chancellor 1715-17 & 1721-7, 1st Ld 1717-18, 1 Ld 1718-21, Ld President 1718-19, Ld & Chancellor 1717-18, died 1721 1720-2. died 1722 1721-7 69 70 Houses of Commons and Lords by Peter Tillemans 1708-1714 George in the House of Lords 71 72 12 23/12/2020 King’s Speech to Parliament 1715 John Churchill Duke of Marlborough by Enoch Charles Montagu Earl of Halifax had served Seeman c 1716. Queen Anne’s chief minister William III in various Treasury posts and until 1711 he spent 1712-14 in exile on the George made him First Lord of the Treasury Continent when George restored him to favour 1714-1715 as Master of the Ordnance 1714-1722 73 74 Charles Seymour Duke of Somerset held posts Charles Talbot Duke of Shrewsbury had served under Charles II, James II William III and Anne. William III as Secretary of Sate and was William Cavendish Duke of Devonshire by appointed 1st Lord on Queen Anne’s deathbed. Thomas Wharton Marquess of Wharton had On her death he master minded with served William III and Anne despite her dislike Kneller, Lord Steward under Anne 1707-10 Shrewsbury and Argyll, George’s succession He retained the post for a month after and reappointed by George 1714-16. He George’s arrival but was Lord Chamberlain of him, and fell after the 1710 Election. and was made Master of the Horse 1714-15 George made him Lord Privy Seal 1714-15 also served as Lord President 1716-17 and 1714-15 1725-9 75 76 John Campbell Duke of Argyll who served John Erskine Earl of Mar served Anne as under Marlborough at Ramillies, Oudenarde Secretary of State for Scotland but was Daniel Finch Earl of Nottingham by Jonathan Edward Russell Earl of Orford, an experienced and Malplaquet and played a major role in dismissed by George days after his arrival. He Richardson. George initially wanted a balanced naval commander, had served as 1st Lord of securing the Hanoverian succession. He led led the Jacobite forces during the 15 and fled cabinet so appointed a leading Tory as Lord the Admiralty for William and Anne and held the Government troops against the Jacobites to France in 1716 where he remained at the President it again 1714-17 in 1715 and was a minister from 1721. Pretender’s court 77 78 13 23/12/2020 James Francis Edward Stuart “The Old Pretender” recognised as James VIII and III by his Jacobite supporters and Louis XIV on the death of his father in 1701. Robert Harley Earl of Oxford by Jonathan Henry St John Viscount Bolingbroke c 1712 Richardson 1710 held high office under Anne was the leading Tory at the end of Anne’s but fell from grace shortly before her death. reign. He supported the Jacobite Rebellion He retired from politics but was imprisoned for in 1715 and fled to France. He was pardoned Jacobite sympathies 1715-17 but later in 1723 with the help of George’s mistress resumed his seat in the Lords. but initially excluded from the Lords. 79 80 Louis XIV of France who had to renounce his support for the Old Pretender under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.
Recommended publications
  • Jacobite Political Argument in England, 1714-1766

    Jacobite Political Argument in England, 1714-1766

    JACOBITE POLITICAL ARGUMENT IN ENGLAND, 1714-1766 by Paul Chapman Gonville and Caius College November 1983 A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in the University of Cambridge Paul Michael CHAPMAN Copyright © Paul Michael Chapman 1983 Second edition London: The Jacobite Studies Trust, 2013 [Please note that the pagination of this work differs slightly from the original of 1983, and reference should therefore be made to the second edition of 2013 in quotations giving page numbers. The original text has otherwise been preserved.] 1 Jacobite Political Argument in England, 1714-1766 By Paul Michael Chapman By the production of political propaganda Jacobites were able to reach Englishmen more directly than by plots and parliamentary opposition. The thesis demonstrates the need to reappraise assessments of the balance of political ideas current in England in the years immediately after the 1715 rebellion. Disproportionate attention has been accorded the small group of whig “Commonwealthsmen” or republicans, and the new “Country” opposition created by Lord Bolingbroke, with its famous literary coterie including pope, Swift, and Gay. The publications of these groups were outnumbered by Jacobite works. The Jacobite printer Nathaniel Mist produced a newspaper which, at least throughout the 1720s, was as popular as the most successful organs of these other opposition groups; neither could rival the flood of cheap Jacobite broadsheets and ballads which came onto the market between 1714 and 1724. Study of the arguments put forward to justify a Stuart restoration reveals the diversity of Jacobite support. A majority used the traditional tory tenets of non-resistance and hereditary right of succession in order to condemn the revolution of 1688.
  • Edmund Burke and the Common Law Tradition Reconsidered

    Edmund Burke and the Common Law Tradition Reconsidered

    イギリス哲学研究 第 33 号（2010 年） Edmund Burke and the Common Law Tradition Reconsidered Sora Sato Introduction: John Pocock’s ‘Edmund Burke and the Ancient Constitution’ In The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (first published in 1957, reissued in 1987), J.G.A. Pocock argues: Every one of Burke’s cardinal points, as just enumerated, can be found in Hale rebuking Hobbes, in Coke rebuking James I, or in Davies rebuking the partisans of written law;... From what sources Burke derived it, and with what elements of eighteenth-century thought and his own genius he enriched it, are questions for the specialist; but that Burke’s philosophy is in great measure a revitalization of the concept of custom and the common-law tradition may be safely asserted as part of the present study’s contentions.（1） In his essay entitled ‘Burke and the Ancient Constitution’, （2） Pocock repeats his argument that Burke’s traditionalism should be understood in the context of the common law tradition, and also that Burke was aware of this tradition. At the end of this essay he also writes: in order to explain Burke’s traditionalism, there is no need to suppose more than his continued employment and highly developed understanding of certain concepts which came from the common law (as he [Burke] recognized) and were generally in use ＊ This essay is largely based upon the present author’s MSc dissertation submitted to University of Edinburgh in August 2009. I would like to thank Professors Thomas Ahnert, Harry Dickinson, Tamotsu Nishizawa, Kenji Fujii and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments.
  • Unica Salus (1721): a Jacobite Medal and Its Context’, the Georgian Group Journal, Vol

    Unica Salus (1721): a Jacobite Medal and Its Context’, the Georgian Group Journal, Vol

    Neil Guthrie, ‘Unica Salus (1721): a Jacobite medal and its context’, The Georgian Group Journal, Vol. XV, 2006, pp. 88–120 TEXT © THE AUTHORS 2006 UNICA SALUS ( ): A JACOBITE MEDAL AND ITS CONTEXT NEIL GUTHRIE You see the des’prate state of our Affairs, supplied Cardinal Prince Henry Benedict with And Heav’ns protecting Pow’rs are deaf to Pray’rs. medals to commemorate the death in of his The passive Gods behold the Greeks defile elder brother, Prince Charles Edward, and the Their Temples, and abandon to the Spoil Their own Abodes: we feeble few conspire Hamerani name appears in the Stuart account books To save a sinking Town, involved in Fire. as late as (although in both cases the work may actually have been undertaken by a junior partner John Dryden The Second Book of the Æneis , lines – from outside the family). Medals were an important component of the Jacobite propaganda campaign, used to commemorate major events like births, marriages and deaths, but also THE MEDAL to convey particular messages aimed at discrediting In , the Jacobite court-in-exile, by this point the Hanoverians and enlisting support for the located in Rome, issued a medal in silver, bronze, legitimist cause. They would have been given to pewter and lead versions (Fig. ). The medal was hangers-on in Rome and sent to the courts of Europe, probably struck by Ottone Hamerani ( – ), but were more importantly entrusted to a network of or perhaps by his elder brother, Ermenegildo couriers and spies for distribution in Britain. A secret ( – ). The Hamerani brothers were members shipment of , Jacobite medals landed in Kent in of a family of medallists, originally from Bavaria , which gives an idea of the magnitude of this line (where the surname was Hameran), who began to of attack in the war of information, perhaps at its work at the papal mint in Rome in the early s.
  • (1678-1751), Was One of the Most Significant

    (1678-1751), Was One of the Most Significant

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Newcastle University E-Prints 1 ON THE CHARACTER OF A GREAT PATRIOT: A NEW ESSAY BY BOLINGBROKE WORD COUNT: WITH NOTES 11,190; WITHOUT NOTES 8829 Henry St John, first Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751), was one of the most significant polemicists and political thinkers of the first half of the eighteenth century. The canon of Bolingbroke’s political writings has been relatively stable ever since the posthumous appearance of his collected Works in 1754, edited, according to Bolingbroke’s friend David Mallet, “from the manuscripts delivered to me by his executors, without the smallest addition or alteration.”1 Simon Varey identified and edited Bolingbroke’s contributions to The Craftsman back in 1982, while Adrian Lashmore-Davies has recently collected his Unpublished Letters (2013), including some significant and previously unknown reflections on contemporary political debate.2 Outside the correspondence, no substantial works have been added to the canon in recent years. In this article we present and attribute to 1 British Library (hereafter BL), Add. MS 4948.A, fol. 1r. On the publication of Bolingbroke’s Works, see Sandro Jung, David Mallet, Anglo-Scot: Poetry, Patronage, and Politics in the Age of Union (Newark, 2008), 137-45; John C. Riely, “Chesterfield, Mallet, and the Publication of Bolingbroke’s Works,” The Review of English Studies 25 (1974): 61-5. 2 Henry St John, Lord Bolingbroke, Contributions to the Craftsman, ed. Simon Varey (Oxford, 1982), hereafter Contributions; The Unpublished Letters of Henry St John, First Viscount Bolingbroke, ed. Adrian Lashmore- Davies, 5 vols.
  • Archibald Hutcheson's Reputation As an Economic

    Archibald Hutcheson's Reputation As an Economic

    ARCHIBALD HUTCHESON’S REPUTATION AS AN ECONOMIC THINKER: HIS PAMPHLETS, THE NATIONAL DEBT AND THE SOUTH SEA BUBBLE Helen Julia Paul, Ph.D. Economics Division University of Southampton, England Archibald Hutcheson M.P. (c. 1 659-1740) was a British politician who opposed the South Sea Company’s scheme to offer holders of British government debt its own shares in exchange for their claims on the state. Hutcheson proposed an alternative scheme to pay off the entire debt by increasing taxes on land. Despite Hutcheson’s opposition to the South Sea conversion scheme, it went ahead, to be followed by the South Sea Bubble and then the bursting of the bubble with the crash of the London stock market in 1720. Scholar Richard Dale has argued that Hutcheson predicted the crash by using sophisticated financial techniques. Refuting Dale’s view, this article argues that Hutcheson’s posthumous reputation as a savant is undeserved. A prolific writer ofpamphlets on financial matters, British parliamentary member Archibald Hutcheson was a particularly vocal and early critic of the South Sea Company, which had formed in 1711 to trade with Spanish-held America.’ Hutcheson especially opposed the South Sea Company’s scheme to offer holders of British government debt its own shares in exchange for their claims on the state.2 Despite Hutcheson’s criticisms of the plan, the South Sea Company forged ahead with the conversion scheme, and shares in South Sea stock rose precipitously as the stock became the subject of massive public speculation. According to some sources, South Sea shares at their height were trading at approximately eight times their par value.3 Then, in 1720, the stock plummeted, and morality tales afterwards focused on the story of the stock as a “bubble” which eventually had to burst.
  • I Queen Anne's Upbringing, Education, and Their Impact

    I Queen Anne's Upbringing, Education, and Their Impact

    QUEEN ANNE’S UPBRINGING, EDUCATION, AND THEIR IMPACT ON HER REIGN AND INFLUENCE OVER THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND A Thesis submitted by Troy A. Heffernan, BA, MA For the award of Doctor of Philosophy 2017 I ABSTRACT Three hundred years of historical study has shaped current understandings of Queen Anne, but little has been written about the influence she believed she held in shaping England’s politics and religion, or how both shaped her actions as Queen and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This thesis begins by examining the implications of Anne’s unremarkable place in the line of succession. It assesses why the Catholic suspicions surrounding her father and uncle (James, Duke of York and King Charles II) unexpectedly shaped the approach of a future queen regnant to her sovereignty. An evaluation of Anne’s upbringing and beliefs concerning the Church’s role in government and society establishes that her political and religious views were defined before and during James II’s reign, leading up to the 1688 Revolution, and continued to mature throughout William III’s rule. The consequence of the political landscape she inherited, and her education and beliefs, is that she was destined to face conflict with the Whig-majority in the House of Lords and Whig-sympathetic bishops in the episcopate. After Anne became queen, she attempted to protect the Church by increasing its voting influence in Parliament and the episcopate by filling the episcopal bench with Tory-sympathetic bishops who shared her vision. She was nonetheless often defeated by her inability to combat the Whiggish strength in Parliament and influence in the episcopate that had grown during William’s reign, but Anne adapted and she represents a new expression of monarchical rule with minimal royal prerogative or authority.
  • James Blair Historical Review, Volume 3

    James Blair Historical Review, Volume 3

    James Blair Historical Review Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 1 2012 James Blair Historical Review, Volume 3 Chris Phillibert College of William and Mary, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/jbhr Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Phillibert, Chris (2012) "James Blair Historical Review, Volume 3," James Blair Historical Review: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/jbhr/vol3/iss1/1 This Journal is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in James Blair Historical Review by an authorized editor of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Phillibert: JBHR, Vol. 3 The James Blair Historical Review ~ 2012 III Volume TTHEHE JJAMESAMES BBLAIRLAIR HHISTORICALISTORICAL RREVIEWEVIEW VVOLUMEOLUME IIIIII ~~ 2012201 Published by W&M ScholarWorks, 2012 1 James Blair Historical Review, Vol. 3 [2012], Iss. 1, Art. 1 https://scholarworks.wm.edu/jbhr/vol3/iss1/1 2 The James Blair Historical Review EDITORIAL BOARD Kyra Zemanick, Editor-in-Chief Andrew Frantz, Managing Editor Andrew Fickley, Submissions Editor Mason Watson, Layout Editor Caitlin Patterson, Business Manager Diana Ohanian, Publicity Manager Alex Hopkins, Publicity Manager PEER REVIEWERS James Blake Taylor Feenstra Tracy Jenkins Paul Burgess Grant Gill Camille Lorei Ciara Cryst Abby Gomulkiewicz Molly Michie Stephen D’Alessio Lauren Greene Mira Nair Ashley Deluce Stephen Hurley Emily Patterson Chase Hopkins Amy Schaffman FACULTY ADVISOR Dr. Hiroshi Kitamura Online: In addition to this printed issue, the James Blair Historical Review can also be accessed online at www.wm.edu/as/history/under- graduateprogram/The-James-Blair-Historical-Review/index.php.
  • Downloaded from Manchesterhive.Com at 10/01/2021 11:30:13AM Via Free Access

    Downloaded from Manchesterhive.Com at 10/01/2021 11:30:13AM Via Free Access

    Republican politics after 1714 6 . Sapere aude: ‘commonwealth’ politics under George I, 1714–22 n the night of 1 March 1710, London was convulsed by rioting crowds. ODuring the course of the evening dissenting meeting-houses were attacked and destroyed, lords, earls and bishops were insulted and affronted in the streets, and many citizens were beaten, assaulted and even killed. Any who refused to join in with the chant of ‘High Church and Sacheverell’ were ‘knocked down’ by armed and increasingly violent men.1 Abigail Harley writing to Edward Harley in Oxford the day after the tumult, commented that ‘now we hear nothing but drums’.2 The cause of all this disorder was a conflict over whether Christian culture was determined by men of reason and toleration, or men of God and authority. The Whig prosecution defended the Erastian principle, ‘by which all ecclesiastical jurisdiction … is made subject to the civil power’, and reinforced its commitment to Protestant civil liberties by prose- cuting the High Church clergyman Henry Sacheverell.3 Toland was intimate with many of the leading actors in the public trial. Despite Sacheverell’s conviction, his reputation as a defender of ‘the church in danger’ set the scene for the triumph of the Tory party that was swept to power in the following General Election. Clerical politics was civil politics under another name. Toland saw the trial as a critical moment in the republican war against priestcraft. In a number of works published between 1710 and 1714 he struggled to establish the dangers of such clericalism to public virtue, addressing much of the argument to the Hanoverian court.
  • Download (443Kb)

    Download (443Kb)

    University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap This paper is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our policy information available from the repository home page for further information. To see the final version of this paper please visit the publisher’s website. Access to the published version may require a subscription. Author(s): MARK KNIGHTS Article Title: Introduction: The View from 1710 Year of publication: 2012 Link to published article: http;//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-0206.2011.00284.x Publisher statement: : ‘The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com’. Introduction: The view from 1710 Mark Knights Abstract: The essays in this volume, planned to mark the tercentenary of the impeachment of Dr Henry Sacheverell on 23 March 1710, reassess the importance of his trial. Sacheverell’s attack on the revolution of 1688, and the principles which underpinned it, allows us to question how far, twenty years later, a Whig revolution had prevailed. The essays suggest that the revolution continued to be contested; that in 1710 the High Church Tory vision temporarily triumphed; that the flood of print showed the importance of religious dispute in shaping the public sphere; that the debate over Sacheverell connected Westminster and the public, not just in England but also in Ireland; that there was an important disagreement between High and Low Church about how to respond
  • Royal East Kent Regiment)

    Royal East Kent Regiment)

    Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) The Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment), formerly the 2 Origin of “The Buffs” 3rd Regiment of Foot, was a line infantry regiment of the British Army. It had a history dating back to 1572 and The 3rd Regiment’s nickname of “The Buffs” is said to was one of the oldest regiments in the British Army, being have originated in its use of protective buff coats—made third in order of precedence (ranked as the 3rd Regiment of soft leather— during service in the Netherlands in the of the line). The regiment provided distinguished service 17th century. Later they adopted buff-coloured facings over a period of almost four hundred years accumulating and waistcoats as uniform distinctions and wore equip- one hundred and sixteen battle honours. In 1881 under ment of natural buff leather rather than pipe-clayed the the Childers Reforms it was known as the Buffs (East customary white. Kent Regiment) and later, on 3 June 1935, was renamed the Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment). The name of “The Old Buffs” originated during the Battle of Dettingen in 1743, when the 31st (Huntingdonshire) In 1961 it was amalgamated with the Queen’s Own Royal Regiment of Foot marched past King George II and onto West Kent Regiment to form the Queen’s Own Buffs, the battlefield with great spirit. Mistaking them for the The Royal Kent Regiment which was later merged, on 3rd due to their similar buff facings, the sovereign called 31 December 1966, with the Queen’s Royal Surrey Regi- out, “Bravo, Buffs! Bravo!".
  • The Jacobite Rebellion of 1719: Revenge and Regrets by PJ Klinger

    The Jacobite Rebellion of 1719: Revenge and Regrets by PJ Klinger

    The Jacobite Rebellion of 1719: Revenge and Regrets by PJ Klinger October, 2013 Director of Thesis: Dr. Jonathan Reid Major Department: History The Jacobite Rebellion of 1719 was an ambitious failed attempt by Spain and the Jacobites to restore the exiled Stuart king James III to the British throne. Because of its failure, the 1719 rebellion has received little attention from scholars. This thesis examines the Jacobite Rebellion of 1719 and the roles that Spain and the Jacobites had during this rebellion and creates a full narrative of the planning and execution of the rebellion. In examining these roles this thesis traces the origins of the rebellion, determines fault for the rebellion’s failure, and for the first time reconstructs the weather that played a pivotal role in the failure of the rebellion. This thesis argues that the 1719 rebellion was in fact a significant Jacobite rebellion that could have potentially shifted the balance of power in Europe during the early eighteenth century had it not been for the intervention of the weather. The Jacobite Rebellion of 1719: Revenge and Regrets A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History by PJ Klinger October, 2013 © PJ Klinger 2013 The Jacobite Rebellion of 1719: Revenge and Regrets by PJ Klinger APPROVED BY: DIRECTOR OF THESIS:______________________________________________________ Dr. Jonathan Reid COMMITTEE MEMBER:_____________________________________________________ Dr. Richard Hernandez COMMITTEE MEMBER: _____________________________________________________ Dr. Timothy Jenks COMMITTEE MEMBER: _____________________________________________________ Dr. Tom Rickenbach CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY:______________________________________________________________ Dr.
  • The Background to the Sacheverel Riots

    The Background to the Sacheverel Riots

    The Background to the Sacheverell Riots of 1714 and 1715 in Birmingham and the Sutton Coldfield Connection By Roy Billingham Henry Sacheverell, by Thomas Gibson, c.1710 In the autumn of 1714 the townsfolk of Sutton Coldfield were witnesses to an event that occurred at their parish church that was symptomatic of the religious and political passions which were rife at this period both in the Midlands and elsewhere in Britain. Jacobitism was like a smouldering fuse that burnt for many years creating social unrest and threatening mayhem, and Sutton Coldfield played a minor role in this state of affairs in the Midlands. Queen Anne had recently died and the Nation was facing up to the Hanoverian succession that was bitterly opposed by many sections of society who were either in favour of a hereditary royal succession or were against the imposition of a foreign king. However, it perhaps will help our understanding of these turbulent events if we consider the elements of British history that contributed to this situation. Following the controversial ‘warming-pan’ birth of James Francis Edward Stuart in 1688 to Mary of Modena, James II’s second wife and a Catholic whose babies had previously either miscarried or died in infancy, and after receiving a written invitation from four Whig lords and three Tories, the Calvinist William III of Orange landed at Brixham on November 5, 1688, with the intention of dethroning the unpopular and despotic Catholic King James II. William and his army marched on London and James II fled to France. William agreed eventually to accept the crown jointly with his wife Mary Stuart in May 1689.