DOCSLIB.ORG

'Some Notes on the Raising and Origins of Colonel John Okey's Regiment of Dragoons, March To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Some Notes on the Raising and Origins of Colonel John Okey’s Regiment of Dragoons, March to June, 1645 by Stephen Ede-Borrett This is a sample article, chosen to be representative of the content available in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research (JSAHR). First published in 1921, JSAHR is one of the premier journals of military history. It is published quarterly in March, June, September and December and sent out to all members of the Society. Members also have electronic access to the compete run of issues all the way back to 1921 – a century of scholarship. If you would like to read more articles like this one, why not consider joining us? Membership information can be found on the Society website: https://www.sahr.org.uk/membership.php Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 87 (2009), 206-213 SOME NOTES ON THE RAISING AND ORIGINS OF COLONEL JOHN OKEY'S REGIMENT OF DRAGOONS, MARCH TO JUNE, 1645 Stephen Ede-Borrett In their seminal The Regimental History of Cromwell's Army 1 Charles Firth and Godfrey Davies gave no indication as to the origins of the New Model Army's only Regi- ment of Dragoons, commanded by Colonel John Okey. Considering that work's detailed discussion of the origins of most of the regiments of the New Model, this omission is remarkable, although it may derive from the way that the book was compiled from Firth's notes.2 The purpose of this essay therefore, is to provide for Okey's Regiment the sort of information that Firth and Davies gave for most of the rest of theJSAHR New Model Army.Sample Page The Creation of The New Model Regiment of Dragoons The first mention of the strength of the projected 'New Model Army' on 30 December 1644 gave it an establishment of 16,000 foot, 8,000 horse and 1,500 dragoons.3 However, this was soon revised, and the establishment voted through the House of Commons on 1 1 January 1645 reduced the figures to a more realistic 14,000 foot, 6,000 horse and 1,000 dragoons. In relation to the latter it was specific- ally stated 'That there shall be raised, for this Army, a Thousand Dragoons, to be in Ten Companies.'4 The preliminary list of Colonels for the New Army was passed by the House of Commons on 21 January 1645, although this did not include a Colonel for the Dragoons, nor indeed any mention of a Dragoon Regiment as such. This non- regimenting of dragoon companies was not unusual, and it is probable that during the English Civil Wars more dragoons served in independent companies, or as part of Regiments of Horse, than actually served in established and formalised Regi- ments of Dragoons. For example, the only dragoons known to have been part of the Earl of Essex's Army in 1644, 5 the company of Captain James Abercromy, was an 1 Oxford 1940, 2 volumes. Okey's Dragoons are covered on pp. 291-306. 2 After Sir Charles Firth died in February 1937 the work, already in hand, was finished and brought to publication by Godfrey Davies from Firth's notes. 3 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic > 1644-1645 , p. 205. Cited in The Rise of the New Model Army , Mark Kishlansky, Cambridge 1979, p. 36. 4 Journals of the House of Commons, Volume 4 1644-1646 , London 1802, pp. 16-17. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=23293. The raising of the Army itself is well covered in Chapter 2 of The Rise of the New Model Army. Mark Kishlansky, Cambridge 1979, Chapters 1 and 2 of The New Model Army in England , Ireland and Scotland : Ian Gentles, Oxford 1992 and Cromwell's Soldiers: The Moulding of the New Model Army 1644-1645 : Barry Denton, London (?) 2004. 5 The Army of the Earl of Essex was theoretically Parliament's main 'National Army' from 1 642 until 1645. 206 This content downloaded from 78.148.54.132 on Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:35:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms JOHN GREY'S REGIMENT OF DRAGOONS 207 Independent Company.6 It is also known that the Parliamentary Horse at Naseby that were not part of the New Model Army, 'The Associated Horse', included inte- gral dragoon companies.7 It is likely, therefore, that in the original establishment of the New Model Army it was intended that the ten companies of dragoons would either be attached one to each of the Regiments of Horse,8 or would serve separately as single, un-regimented companies. The creation of a Regiment of Dragoons in the New Model Army can be attributed to Sir Thomas Fairfax. On 1 March 1645, Fairfax wrote to the House of Commons concerning the Army, and amongst his proposals was that the Dragoon companies be formed into a Regiment. The Commons debated the letter that same day and referred the matter back to Fairfax for farther consideration,9 but he must have stood by his resolution, for two days later the Commons 'Resolved, &c. That the Dragooners shall be formed into a Regiment. The Colonel and Officers of the Dragoons JSAHRwere all reported; Sample and approved.'10 Page The Origins of the Officers of the New Model Army Dragoons John Lilburne's Regiment of Dragoons of the Earl of Manchester's Army of the Eastern Association appears to have provided the nucleus of the new regiment and supplied it with its Major and three of its Captains, as well as their companies. It also provided the soldiers of the Colonel's company, but not the new regiment's Colonel.11 By comparison only one Captain can, with certainty, be traced who served in James Holborne's Regiment of Dragoons of Sir William Waller's Army,12 namely Captain William Turpin. Waller's army did, however, provide several other officers, including the Colonel, though none of them had previously served as dra- goons. These were Okey, Farre and Skirmager and, possibly, Woggan.13 As we have seen, the 1 644 establishment of the Horse of Essex's Army had included only one Company of Dragoons, Captain James Abercomy's.14 This company had been almost 6 Although it sometimes stated as being attached to the Earl of Essex' Regiment of Horse this is probably a confusion with Captain Jeremiah Abercromy's Company of Dragoons which was part of the Regiment but which appears to have been converted to full Horse around May 1644. 1 Naseby: The Decisive Campaign , Glenn Foard, Guildford 1995, p. 208. The Regiment was the Midland Association unit of Colonel John Fiennes. 8 Initially the Army was only to have ten Regiment of Horse, each of 600 men. The eleventh Regi- ment, Rossiter's, was not part of the first establishment. 9 Journals of the House of Commons , Volume 4 1644-1646 , London 1802, pp. 65-66. 10 Journals of The House of Commons, Volume 4 1644-1646 , London 1802, pp. 66-7. http://www.british-history.ac. uk/report.asp?compid=23336. 11 In an English Civil War regiment each Field Officer was also a company commander and com- panies were titled from the officer who commanded them. 12 This Regiment had been Sir William Waller's Own Regiment of Dragoons until c. July 1644 when its colonelcy had been passed to major General James Holborne. 13 The Regimental History of CromwelVs Army , volume 7, C. H. Firth & G. Davies, London 1940, p. 291. The source for this statement however is Ludlow whose published memoirs are now known to be notoriously unreliable. Laurence Spring's The Regiments of Sir William Waller's Southern Association^ London 2007, lists no officer of this name as ever serving under Waller. 14 Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army during the Great Civil War , Richard Symons (C. E. Long Ed.), London 1859, p. 73. This content downloaded from 78.148.54.132 on Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:35:57 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 208 ARMY HISTORICAL RESEARCH wiped out in the operations covering the final phase of the escape of Balfour's Horse from the Royalist encirclement at Lostwithiel.15 Thus Essex's Army had neither officers nor soldiers to contribute to the New Model dragoons.16 It is clear that the majority of the officers of Okey's new Regiment came from the old Armies and this can be demonstrated from the two contemporary lists of the Regiment's 'original' officers. The first list is that passed by the House of Lords on 18 March 1645, 17 in agreement with the proposals of the House of Commons. The second is that given by Joshua Sprigge at the back of his book Anglia Rediviva™. These two lists differ considerably as shown by a comparison of Tables 1 and 2. Between this original list and the later, Sprigge, list a 50% change in officer personnel is evident. Most of the changes appear to have been made in order to introduce officers experienced in the Dragoon branch. TABLE 1. The JSAHROńgins of the Officers Sample of Okey's Regiment Page (Journals of the House of Lords List) Rank Name Pre New Model Army of previous Rank and Regiment service 19 Col John Okey Maj, Haselrige's Horse20 W Maj William Gwilliams Capt, Waller's Horse21 W Capt John Farmer22 Unknown23 Capt Butler Unknown24 Capt Christopher Mercer Capt, Lilburne's Dragoons25 EA Capt Daniel Abbots Capt, Lilburne's Dragoons26 EA Capt Larken Unknown Capt Ralph Farre Lt, Haselrige's Horse27 W Capt Bulkham Unknown Capt Tobias Bridge Capt, Lilburne's Dragoons28 EA 15 Lostwithiel 1644: The Campaign and the Battle , Stephen Ede-Borrett, Farnham 2004, pp.
Recommended publications
  • LANSDOWN BATTLE and CAMPAIGN Lansdown Hill 5Th July

    LANSDOWN BATTLE and CAMPAIGN Lansdown Hill 5Th July

    LANSDOWN BATTLE AND CAMPAIGN Information from The UK Battlefields Resource Centre Provided by The Battlefields Trust http://battlefieldstrust.com/ Report compiled by: Glenn Foard: 29/05/2004 Site visit: 21/05/2004 Lansdown Hill 5th July 1643 By late May 1643 Sir William Waller’s army, based around Bath, was parliament’s main defence against the advance out of the South West of a royalist army under Sir Ralph Hopton. After several probing moves to the south and east of the city, the armies finally engaged on the 5th July. Waller had taken a commanding position on Lansdown Hill. He sent troops forward to skirmish with the royalist cavalry detachments and finally forced the royalists to deploy and then to engage. After initial success on Tog Hill, a mile or more to the north, his forces were eventually forced to retreat. Now Hopton took the initiative and made direct and flanking attacks up the steep slopes of Lansdown Hill. Despite heavy losses amongst the regiments of horse and foot in the centre, under musket and artillery fire, the royalists finally gained a foothold on the scarp edge. Repeated cavalry charges failed to dislodge them and Waller was finally forced to retire, as he was outflanked by attacks through the woods on either side. He retreated a few hundred yards to the cover of a wall across the narrowest point of the plateau. As darkness fell the fire-fight continued. Neither army would move from the cover they had found and both armies contemplated retreat. Late that night, under the cover of darkness, it was the parliamentarians who abandoned their position.
  • Sir William and Lady Ann Brockman of Beachborough, Newington by Hythe

    Sir William and Lady Ann Brockman of Beachborough, Newington by Hythe

    http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society SIR WILLIAM AND LADY ANN BROCKMAN OF BEACHBOROUGH, NEWINGTON BY HYTHE. A ROYALIST FAMILY'S EXPERIENCE OF THE CIVIL WAR GILES DRAKE-BROCKMAN A brief note in the 1931 volume ofArchaeologia Cantiana describes how a collection of papers belonging to the Brockman family of Beachborough, Newington by Hythe, had come to light and been presented to the British Library-.1 Tlie most illustrious member of this family was Sir William Brockman (1595-1654). Sir William had attended the Middle Temple in London (although it is not known if he qualified as a lawyer) and went on to hold a significant position in county society in Kent including being appointed Sheriff in 1642 (but see below). However he is best known for the noble part he played on the Royalist side in the Battle of Maidstone in 1648. In fact. Sir William's involvement in hostilities against Parliament had begun much earlier, soon after the Civil War broke out. The king had raised his standard at Nottingham and formally declared war against the Parliamentarians on 22 August 1642. The first b a t t l e took place at Edgehill in September 1642 with the Royalists gaining victory. However, when the king's anny advanced on London it was met by a large defence force and in mid-November the king withdrew to Oxford. It was at this point that Brockman endeavoured to raise a rebellion against Parliament in Kent. He was sent a commission of array by the king at Oxford while the earl of Tlianet was despatched with a regiment through Sussex to support Mm.
  • The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets the Tower Was the Seat of Royal

    The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets the Tower Was the Seat of Royal

    The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets The Tower was the seat of Royal power, in addition to being the Sovereign’s oldest palace, it was the holding prison for competitors and threats, and the custodian of the Sovereign’s monopoly of armed force until the consolidation of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich in 1805. As such, the Tower Hamlets’ traditional provision of its citizens as a loyal garrison to the Tower was strategically significant, as its possession and protection influenced national history. Possession of the Tower conserved a foothold in the capital, even for a sovereign who had lost control of the City or Westminster. As such, the loyalty of the Constable and his garrison throughout the medieval, Tudor and Stuart eras was critical to a sovereign’s (and from 1642 to 1660, Parliament’s) power-base. The ancient Ossulstone Hundred of the County of Middlesex was that bordering the City to the north and east. With the expansion of the City in the later Medieval period, Ossulstone was divided into four divisions; the Tower Division, also known as Tower Hamlets. The Tower Hamlets were the military jurisdiction of the Constable of the Tower, separate from the lieutenancy powers of the remainder of Middlesex. Accordingly, the Tower Hamlets were sometimes referred to as a county-within-a-county. The Constable, with the ex- officio appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Tower Hamlets, held the right to call upon citizens of the Tower Hamlets to fulfil garrison guard duty at the Tower. Early references of the unique responsibility of the Tower Hamlets during the reign of Bloody Mary show that in 1554 the Privy Council ordered Sir Richard Southwell and Sir Arthur Darcye to muster the men of the Tower Hamlets "whiche owe their service to the Towre, and to give commaundement that they may be in aredynes for the defence of the same”1.
  • Bills of Attainder

    Bills of Attainder

    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
  • Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early-Seventeenth Century Norwich Fiona WILLIAMSON Singapore Management University, Fwilliamson@Smu.Edu.Sg

    Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early-Seventeenth Century Norwich Fiona WILLIAMSON Singapore Management University, [email protected]

    Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School of Social Sciences School of Social Sciences 2-2015 Drinking houses, popular politics and the middling sorts in early-seventeenth century norwich Fiona WILLIAMSON Singapore Management University, [email protected] Elizabeth SOUTHARD DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research Part of the Political History Commons, and the Social History Commons Citation WILLIAMSON, Fiona, & SOUTHARD, Elizabeth.(2015). Drinking houses, popular politics and the middling sorts in early- seventeenth century norwich. Cultural and Social History, 12(1), 9-26. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2652 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Social Sciences at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School of Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Cultural and Social History Published in CulturalThe and Journal Social History, of the Social History Society Vol. 12 Issue 1, February 2015, DOI 10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 page 9-26 ISSN: 1478-0038 (Print) 1478-0046 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfcs20 Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early Seventeenth-Century Norwich Fiona Williamson & Elizabeth Southard To cite this article: Fiona Williamson & Elizabeth Southard (2015) Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early Seventeenth-Century Norwich, Cultural and Social History, 12:1, 9-26, DOI: 10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 Published online: 01 May 2015.
  • Witches and Witchcraft in Ely

    Witches and Witchcraft in Ely

    Witches and Witchcraft in Ely A HISTORY Francis Young Printed for the author by Cambridge Print Solutions Cambridge, 2013 Published by Francis Young © Francis Young 2013 Francis Young has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. francisyoung.wordpress.com ISBN 978-0-9926404-0-8 Table of Contents Introduction 1 1. Hereward and the Witch 3 2. A Necromancer in the Lady Chapel 5 3. Witchcraft and the Reformation 9 4. Witchfinders in Ely 11 5. Witchcraft in Ely in Modern Times 15 Notes 20 Introduction The Cambridgeshire Fens are one of the last places in England where traditional belief in witchcraft was widespread. Until as late as the mid-twentieth century, Fenland communities were isolated, and their inhabitants were more vulnerable to environmental illnesses, such as malaria, than the rest of the population. A hard life, geographical isolation, close-knit communities and mistrust of outsiders may all have contributed to the Fenlanders’ abiding belief in the power of witchcraft. Ely’s place in the history of English witchcraft is a special one. As the cathedral city at the heart of the Fens, under the independent jurisdiction of the Bishop, Ely was the place where anyone locally accused of witchcraft would be brought to trial. The city was the hub from which John Stearne completed the last stage of Matthew Hopkins’s infamous witch-hunt in the 1640s, and Ely was the scene for the (quite literal) downfall of the first ‘witch’ to appear in English history.
  • St Catherine's College Oxford

    St Catherine's College Oxford

    MESSAGES The Year St Catherine’s College . Oxford 2013 ST CATHERINE’S COLLEGE 2013/75 MESSAGES Master and Fellows 2013 MASTER Susan C Cooper, MA (BA Richard M Berry, MA, DPhil Bart B van Es (BA, MPhil, Angela B Brueggemann, Gordon Gancz, BM BCh, MA Collby Maine, PhD California) Tutor in Physics PhD Camb) DPhil (BSc St Olaf, MSc Fellow by Special Election Professor Roger W Professor of Experimental Reader in Condensed Tutor in English Iowa) College Doctor Ainsworth, MA, DPhil, Physics Matter Physics Senior Tutor Fellow by Special Election in FRAeS Biological Sciences Geneviève A D M Peter R Franklin, MA (BA, Ashok I Handa, MA (MB BS Tommaso Pizzari, MA (BSc Wellcome Trust Career Helleringer (Maîtrise FELLOWS DPhil York) Lond), FRCS Aberd, PhD Shef) Development Fellow ESSEC, JD Columbia, Maîtrise Tutor in Music Fellow by Special Election in Tutor in Zoology Sciences Po, Maîtrise, Richard J Parish, MA, DPhil Professor of Music Medicine James E Thomson, MChem, Doctorat Paris-I Panthéon- (BA Newc) Reader in Surgery Byron W Byrne, MA, DPhil DPhil Sorbonne, Maîtrise Paris-II Tutor in French John Charles Smith, MA Tutor for Graduates (BCom, BEng Western Fellow by Special Election in Panthéon-Assas) Philip Spencer Fellow Tutor in French Linguistics Australia) Chemistry Fellow by Special Election Professor of French President of the Senior James L Bennett, MA (BA Tutor in Engineering Science in Law (Leave H14) Common Room Reading) Tutor for Admissions Andrew J Bunker, MA, DPhil Leverhulme Trust Early Fellow by Special Election Tutor in Physics
  • 47. Battle of Cheriton

    47. Battle of Cheriton

    THE BATTLE OF CHERITON by Peter Hoggarth. The battle of Cheriton, or "Cheriton Fight", is our most important local battle. It took place on 29th March 1644 during the English Civil war between Charles I and Parliament. Although not as well known as the important Civil War battles of Naseby and Marston Moor, some historians regard it as the turning point in the Civil War. Before Cheriton the Royalists were generally on the offensive; after Cheriton they had adopted a defensive posture. Hampshire occupied an important strategic position between the rival forces. Generally speaking the west and north of England supported the Royalists whilst the east and most of the Midlands supported Parliament. In the south the counties to the west of Hampshire were largely Royalist and Sussex, Kent and Surrey were largely for Parliament. Some isolated towns, including ports, held out in hostile territory. The King's headquarters were at Oxford, and those of Parliament were based in London. The town commanders who were to face each other at Cheriton were Lord Hopton for the King and Sir William Waller for Parliament. Friends as young men they had taken different sides in the Civil War. Hopton had beaten Waller at Roundway Down near Devizes and at Lansdown near Bath, whilst Waller had been victorious at Alton. Both were anxious to "tangle" again. In September 1643 Lord Hopton was directed by the king to take a new army from the west of England to secure Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire and then to advance on London. The main Royalist army would move from Oxford to London and Parliament would be trapped in what we would now call a pincer movement.
  • Date Ellingham Kirby Cane

    Date Ellingham Kirby Cane

    Date Ellingham Kirby Cane 1642 James Clarke was overseer of the poor. Civil War Norfolk, together with Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire and the Isle of Ely were linked together under the Parliamentarian forces for mutual defence in December 1642 (the Eastern Association), from which Oliver Cromwell raised the nucleus of his New Model Army. Parliament rejected from their livings any minister suspected of Catholic and/or Royalist sympathies. Since ours stayed in post, one assumes they kept their heads down. Iconoclasts were busy destroying any image of saints, angels or the Trinity. Maybe this is when the bishop in Ellingham lost his nose and the angel on his crosier. 1643 Lowestoft, was then a small herring fishing town (population about 1,500) without a harbour, though sizable vessels could anchor off shore. The houses were on the cliff top. Yarmouth was a Parliamentary town; Lowestoft seems not to have had strong attachment either way. Informants told Cromwell, then at Norwich with 5 troops of Eastern Association forces, that there were Royalists fortifying at Lowestoft. He set out the next morning, probably at dawn, so would have arrived about noon and drew up, together with a force from Great Yarmouth that had cannon. The resistance which Lowestoft presented was to block roads in (except where they had placed 3 cannon dragged up from the battery at Ness point and placed at the top of Rant Score to cover the market place and High Street) and put a chain across to stop a cavalry charge. Cromwell ordered the town to give up the strangers, town and army or take the consequences.
  • Cromwelliana

    Cromwelliana

    CROMWELLIANA Published by The Cromwell Association, a registered charity, this Cromwelliana annual journal of Civil War and Cromwellian studies contains articles, book reviews, a bibliography and other comments, contributions and III Series papers. Details of availability and prices of both this edition and previous editions of Cromwelliana are available on our website: The Journal of www.olivercromwell.org. The 2018 Cromwelliana Cromwell Association The Cr The omwell Association omwell No 1 ‘promoting our understanding of the 17th century’ 2018 The Cromwell Association The Cromwell Museum 01480 708008 Grammar School Walk President: Professor PETER GAUNT, PhD, FRHistS Huntingdon www.cromwellmuseum.org PE29 3LF Vice Presidents: PAT BARNES Rt Hon FRANK DOBSON, PC Rt Hon STEPHEN DORRELL, PC The Cromwell Museum is in the former Huntingdon Grammar School Dr PATRICK LITTLE, PhD, FRHistS where Cromwell received his early education. The Cromwell Trust and Professor JOHN MORRILL, DPhil, FBA, FRHistS Museum are dedicated to preserving and communicating the assets, legacy Rt Hon the LORD NASEBY, PC and times of Oliver Cromwell. In addition to the permanent collection the Dr STEPHEN K. ROBERTS, PhD, FSA, FRHistS museum has a programme of changing temporary exhibitions and activities. Professor BLAIR WORDEN, FBA Opening times Chairman: JOHN GOLDSMITH Honorary Secretary: JOHN NEWLAND April – October Honorary Treasurer: GEOFFREY BUSH Membership Officer PAUL ROBBINS 11.00am – 3.30pm, Tuesday – Sunday The Cromwell Association was formed in 1937 and is a registered charity (reg no. November – March 1132954). The purpose of the Association is to advance the education of the public 1.30pm – 3.30pm, Tuesday – Sunday (11.00am – 3.30pm Saturday) in both the life and legacy of Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), politician, soldier and statesman, and the wider history of the seventeenth century.
  • The Church of All Saints Eastchurch in Shepey Robertson

    The Church of All Saints Eastchurch in Shepey Robertson

    http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society ( 374 ) THE OHUBOH OE ALL SAINTS, EASTOHUBCH IN SHEPEY. BY CANON SOOTT ROBERTSON. THE Church of All Saints at Eastchurch has especial interest for antiquaries and students of architecture, because the date of its erection is known. During the ninth year of King Henry VI,* in . November 1431, the chief parishioner, William Cheyne, esquire, of Shirland, obtained the King's license (needful to override the law of mortmain) to give three roods of land, to the Patronsf of East- church Eectory, in order that a new parish church might thereon be built. The soil of Shepey, being London clay, affords no enduring foundation for any edifice. Houses and churches erected on it are in continual peril from the subsidence of the soil; their walls crack in all directions, unless artificial foundations are deeply and solidly laid before any building is commenced. The royal license granted to William Cheyne mentions the fact that the old church at East- church had gone to ruin " by reason of the sudden weakness of the foundation." Consequently, before the Abbot of Boxley began to build a new church, upon the fresh site given by "William Cheyne, he caused deep and solid foundations of chalk to be laid. Wherever a wall was to stand, a wide trench was dug, some feet deep, and it was filled with solid blocks of chalk, brought from the mainland of Kent; thus firm foundations were obtained. Still further to support the walls, diagonal buttresses were constructed at every angle of the building; and three porches (north, south, and west) were erected, with diagonal buttresses at each of their angles; affording much additional support to the walls and to the western tower.
  • Peterboroughcaav2 New2017.Indd

    Peterboroughcaav2 New2017.Indd

    PETERBOROUGH CITY CENTRE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL & MANAGEMENT PLAN July 2017 3 © Beacon Planning Ltd 2017 This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Beacon Planning Limited’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Beacon Planning Limited’s client. Beacon Planning Limited accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Beacon Planning Limited. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. Beacon Planning Ltd 8 Quy Court, Colliers Lane Stow-cum-Quy CAMBRIDGE CB25 9AU T 01223 810990 www.beaconplanning.co.uk 4 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Summary of Special Interest 2 3.0 Planning Policy Context: Conservation Areas 3 4.0 Assessment of Special Interest 5 Context & Setting 5 Topography & Landscape 5 History & Archaeology 6 City landmarks 13 Building materials and types 14 Public realm 17 Key views and vistas 18 Contribution of trees and open spaces 19 Key uses 20 5.0 Character Areas 23 Character Area 1: Bridge Street and Long Causeway 25 Character Area 2: Cowgate 31 Character Area 3: Priestgate 35 Character Area 4: Westgate 39 Character Area 5: Cathedral