It is not uncommon for descriptions to leave out that kind of detail although they could of course be the same colour as the coat.

I think what is useful to note is that our branch of historical hobby is so unforseen that no one in their right mind would have bothered to write down such trivial information at the time (which is so critical to us that it gives us sleepless nights ) as the colours of coat linings, socks, cuffs, ribbons or field signs! We sometimes need to take a look at ourselves... don't you think.. what a bunch we are! Can you imagine the reaction of an infantryman in a 17th army if he was told that in 300 years educated gentlemen were going to be interested in the colour and length of his dirty socks!

If in 300 years humans are still around and their hobbies are as esoteric as our generation's then maybe we should be writing and recording such details as:

Printed circuit board solder-metal splash patterns on solidification

Dress worn by Thai beach massage staff at Phuket's more popular holiday resorts in the period 2011-2014

Floor discolouration rates on SouthWest commuter trains in 2nd class (vinyl finish) after the severe winters of 2009-2010....

Just in the vain hope that we do not affect the slumber patterns of our progeny and theirs

I know that was not VERY helpful Andy but it was inside and had to come out (probably been hanging around in there for about 20 years!)
Sometimes I do wonder about my hobby and me!!

Very funny Barry & its gone at least a bit Viral

Ginger

Really? a bit viral.. where?

Hi Andy,

Some very useful hints as to what symbols the flags might have carried can be found in:

'Le Blanc de France. La construction des signes identitaires pendant les guerres de Religion (1562-1629)' - Denise Turrel (2005)

Although a tad too early for our period (1660-1721), this book describes Huguenot symbolism and the continuous use of it in military dress and flags.

Cheers,

Mats

Just to throw my sixpence in - Remember that the huguenots weren't organized in regiments until after November 1688 until that time they were merely attached to William's "Household".

If I can touch byse with my mate Seán I'll ask him what he has found out from the Jan Wyck painting at Oldbridge House. As part of his work for the OPW he was given unrestricted access to go over every inch of it.

IIRC coats are gris-mêsle - not sure if he mentioned distinctions - and the colours were a white cross on a coloured field, again IIRC a dark (but not Royal) blue.

Will post further once I've had a chat to him.


- Mike.

That's precisely what I was thinking in a - no mention because it's not different enough to mention - kind of way.



LOL, I know exactly what you mean. My own questions arise not because I'm desperate to be absolutely spot-on, 100%, irrefutably, correct, more because I don't want to be absolutely wrong. Does that make sense?

Of course, I can't vouch for anyone else's questions

Thanks for the help everyone, it really is most appreciated.

Andy

Mike,

might have missed something in the thread but what is
OPW?
IIRC? in this context.

The data on flag colours is very significant. Where does that originate?
The reason I am quite excited about that is that in 20 years+ of reading on the subject I have never seen anyone reference anything, anywhere about Huguenot colours. Interested in the 'plain fields' too. Anything is possible I suppose but the development of French flags of the period shows that the older regiments had the simplest flags, and then strange systems of almost hippie psychedelia develop as the army grows through the 1690s - 1700s. Plain blue seems a step out of the pattern but very interesting nonetheless. Were the 3 proprietors senior men in the Bourbon army before exile?


thanks

B

Barry,

the OPW is the Office of Public Works and they effectively run all of the heritage sites in Ireland, one of which is the Boyne Centre at Oldbridge House, for which Seán did all the wall paintings and as a result he was allowed to go over the Jan Wyck with a fine tooth comb.

IIRC (if I remember correctly) because when Seán was doing this work we had long discussions, effectively dissecting the painting section by section to marry it up with what was known historical fact for example who crossed where etc etc.

As I said, I need to talk to him soon and will pick his brains on this.

Yes, many of the senior officers had held high rank in the French army and some in the French/Dutch and French/Dutch/Prussian.

De la Mélonière (for example) was - IIRC etc - a catholic who was married to a protestant and resigned his commission as the Lt.Colonel of the Régiment d'Ànjou before going to Holland and entering William's service.

BTW Quick plug - A friend of mine, Kjeld Galster, has written a book on the Danish contingent in Ireland (so it brings the gap left after Danaher & Simms fully up to date). It'll be published by Four Courts Press in March. I helped him with a chunck of the research and have proof read the finished article and can heartily recommend it. I think it retails at about € 45.

Apologies for the giganto-link (tm) below, my tech-fu has failed:

http://books.google.at/books?id=uC7TWCD ... &q&f=false

Anyway, this book was mentioned in a thread waaaay back. There's a whole chapter on the Huguenots in Ireland, part of which mentions the Jan van Wyck picture where the blue field and semée of fleurs-de-lis is referenced.

That's where I got it from.

Andy

Great link Andy. I just spent 30 minutes reading through some of the text which is packed with interesting and question provoking data.

Jan Wyck was a contemporary artist and was in Ireland at the time of the campaigns - that would substantiate to an extent, ANYTHING he painted. On the flip side of that argument, painters are known often for using license, so the blue flags thing with fleur de lys is not for me anyway, a match winner but rather a good 'lead'.

Mike, not trying to poke or be controversial but I noticed that activities which you had credited Mackay with at Aughrim are being laid at Ruvigny's door in the text of the book. Is this in your view Huguenot bias to 'big' up their contribution to the campaigns?

I also noticed a reference to 200 Hueguenot officers as casualties somewhere in a single siege action or breach assault. Couldn't find it again when I skimmed back but 200 officers seems a helluva lot of officers for such a small contingent relatively speaking. Again, maybe an issue of interpretation about what exactly an officer is but that is what is fascinating about this period...

As I said, loads of stuff to ponder but the road always seems to have just one more twist...

I can't claim resposibility for the link Barry. Günter posted it to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2250

back in the day.

Andy

Barry,

will wruite at length later (assuming I get a chance tonight), but you'll probably find that the Huguenot account was written long after Mackay had bitten the bullet.

The bit about 200 Huguenot officers does have some truth in it as almost all of those who joned William'S household had resigned French commissions and thus Lts etc were serving as privates, a bit like reformadoes of the ECW.

- Mike.

Thanks for that Mike. I have an interest in Mackay not just because he is Scots but because Killiecrankie seems to be one(significant) blot on an otherwise fairly successful career and he seems to have been a competent and brave officer of principle.. not a universal quality in a period saturated with chancers

I agree - Mackay's only screw up was at K. and that has been overhyped by the beatification of Dundee. And if we're honest he was the driving force behind the victory at Aughrim and none other, even though Württemberg did play a decisive role.

That said, you are only really ever known for your mistakes - James only really fouled up at the Boyne and yet - and people will moan at this - if his plan for the reinforcement of Scotland in 1689 had have been followed (with the benefit of hindsight), William's reign would have been a short one indeed. England wouldn't have become a catholic state but would have still become a constitutional monarchy albeit one with no Hanoverian influence.

- Mike.

Do you have Buchan's biog of Mackay ?

Barry,

finally got my hands on the hi res sections of Maas and Wyck's paintings of the Boyne.

And so:

a) Huguenots are weaing gris-mêle coats with what seem to be grey breeches and white stockings. There seems to be a hint of medium blue where in a later time one would expect turbacks to be, so this may be an indication of facing colour for at least one regiment. It would also not be to off base to assume that all three battalions had the same distinctions - The French practice was white/grey coat with red distinctions unless the proprietor paid for something else.

NB Wyck shows buff leather cross-belts etc, Maas shows none.

b) There are two sorts of colours in the images:

Colonel's colour white cross of St Denis - edged gold - on a white field.

Other's white cross of St Denis on a blue field (the diagonally opposite cantons may have different shades e.g. Upper Left/Lower Right dark blue, others mid blue, but this can be merely a question of age etc.

On the unit colours there are gold devices, but I dobut if these would be fleurs de lis (i.e. Louis XIVs device).

Hope this helps.

- Mike.