Posted by Ken on January 07, 1998 at 13:22:44:
In response to some more questions abou the dear colonel!, written by Caroline on January 07, 1998 at 10:13:09
] Ken, we have occasionally speculated on whether Col. FitzStudmuffi-, er, Fitzwilliam,was, in fact a member of one of the househiold regiments, and never went to war at all, or whether he wasn't infantry but cavalry. Would you like to run with that idea, and see what you can turn up?
] Also, is the Rothenbrg book at Bookserve ( I couldn't get though to find out),and is it worth putting in the bibliography ? and if it is....well, you know what I want from you, don't you?
Both the Rothenberg & the Chandler are at bookserve, though the former is ppbk. As to worth, I dunno. The emphasis is on the French; the book as a whole is very informative. But it isn't a sort of "daily life" book, which would be even more useful to the readership here, I should think.
As for the Col., things are slow here today so maybe I'll do a little web-crawling. My guess is not one of the Household units; positions would have been rare in those, and I can't see merely the younger son of an earl getting one (-: Given that he has all the time in the world, yet is conscientious, it's a little hard to square with him being in the Regulars at war at all. But maybe this is the Peace, or after Waterloo. What I'd have in mind is to try to determine what regiments went to war, how old/aristocratic their commanders were, etc. I don't have any resources like that lying around, unfortunately. But the web might.
Oh yes, I have seen a reference to a Lord Fitzwilliam in the army at this time (-:
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.