EVELYN TIDMAN Author

JULIAN vs GREGORIAN CALENDARS - HISTORICAL RESEARCH

9/19/2016

Doing research for one of my novels, I looked for a calendar for 1664 on line and found one and used it to put days of the week to dates. Then I came across some information which gave me a day and date for that year, and guess what? It did not tally with the online calendar. Why?

It took a while (the cogs turn slowly sometimes) for the penny to drop. The calendar changed in 1752 from Julian to Gregorian. Could that be the reason?

It took some digging, but eventually I found a Julian calendar. If you want to know, it is here: http://5ko.free.fr/en/jul.php?y=1644 . Sure enough the dates and days tallied with the historical record.

So why the change from Julian to Gregorian?

It is all to do with the sun. The Julian calendar, which had been in use since Julius Caesar for whom it has been named, did not properly reflect the actual time it takes the Earth to circle the sun. The Julian calendar had a formula which included a leap year every four years. It meant that eventually the vernal equinox and the winter solstice did not occur on the right date. The Gregorian calendar brought it all back into line.

Pope Gregory XIII (hence the name Gregorian, of course!) issued a papal bull in 1582 decreeing that ten days should be dropped when changing to the new calendar. But not every country adopted the new calendar immediately. While France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Austria and Germany (Catholic states) changed in 1582-3, other countries took longer, Turkey, for example waiting until 1926/27. And the longer they waited to change, the more days had to be dropped to bring it into line with the Gregorian Calendar. Britain and most areas of the US and Canada changed in 1752 and had to drop 11 days, while the Turks in 1926/7 had to drop 13 days.

Why the discrepancy? It takes the Earth approximately 365.242189 days to circle the Sun. That is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 45 seconds. If we did not have a leap year every four years, we would lose almost six hours off our calendar each year. After 100 years, we would be out by 24 days. Notice the word almost. Almost six hours. Not six whole hours. Therefore, a leap year is not every four years. To identify a leap year, therefore, the year must be divisible by 4. If, however, the year can be evenly divided by 100, it is not a leap year, unless it can also be evenly divided by 400, then it is a leap year. So the year 2000 and 2400 are leap years. 1800, 1900, 2200, 2300 and 2500 are not leap years. Got it?

My thanks to John Chapman on Facebook who drew my attention to the following:
“1750 ran from 25 March to 24 March, 365 days
1751 ran from 25 March to 31 December, 282 days
1752 ran from 1 January to 31 December, 354 days (it should have been a leap year but, the 29 Feb. and 11 days from the 3 to 13 September were missed out to bring the calendar back in line with the Sun).
1753 ran from 1 January to 31 December, 365 days.
The US was still British at the time so it is the same. Other countries in Europe changed their calendar from the Julian to Gregorian on different dates - some earlier - some later.”

He further added:
“ The tax year in Britain used to start on Lady Day(25th March) When they changed it they didn't dare shorten the tax year which is why the UK's tax year starts on 6th April now.”

Prior to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1582, New year was considered to be 25th March, or as my friend John says above, Lady Day. This has led to great confusion about dates. In the 17th and 18th centuries, dates recorded between 1st January and 24th March were often written thus: 22nd February, 1642/3. If there was no second figure there could be confusion over whether the date was actually in 1642 or 1643 as we view it. This is particularly true of dates of birth or death, leaving one wondering if the person were actually 89 or 90 years old when they died! It took a long while, probably until the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1752, for people to make the change properly.

So when you ask Google what day of the week for a certain date, if it is before 1752 beware. They are probably using the Gregorian calendar. Though why anyone would want to know what it should have been according to the Gregorian calendar is beyond me. Don’t we want to know how the people at the time viewed it? That means looking at the Julian calendar.

Now I have some corrections to make in my work!

Evelyn Tidman is the author of four historical novels.
REBELLION, Roger L'Estrange and the Kent Petition is out now on Amazon.
Also in PRINT

2 Comments

Political Prisoners in the English Civil War

8/3/2016

1 Comment

Roger L'Estrange

Researching for my third novel in the Roger L’Estrange Adventures trilogy, I came across some writings of Roger regarding his arrest, trial and sentence for what the Parliamentarians called treason, which not only prompted a correction of For the King, but also some research into the history of what happened to political prisoners in 1644.

Research-wise I could find almost nothing at all. The details of what happened to Royalists the government wanted to make an example of are scant at the pre-trial stage.

This is what I discovered from Roger’s writings.

Roger L’Estrange (third son of Sir Hamon L’Estrange of Norfolk the one-time governor of King’s Lynn) had a commission from the King to subjugate the town of King’s Lynn for the King. He was betrayed, the commission was discovered, and he was arrested just outside Lynn and spent a few days in the gaol in King’s Lynn before being sent to London. In his own words, he says: ‘I was guarded to London. First to the Earl of Manchester, next to Derby House, and then to the Lower House, and thence (by order) transmitted to the City Court Martial for the trial.’

Guarded to London

The City Court-Martial was held in the Guildhall in London.

The House of Lords conducted their business at Derby House which was in Cannon Row, London. In his Vindication From the Calumnies of a Malitious [sic] Party in Kent . . . (1649) Roger tells us that the Earl of Thanet sent the Kent Petitioners a letter ‘with a declaration in one hand and conditions in the other, (from Derby House).’ The Kent Petitioners replied not only to Lord Thanet, but also ‘To the Right Honourable, the Commissioners at DERBY HOUSE’ and addressed them as ‘My Lords.’

So was Derby House the seat of the House of Lords? Or did both Houses meet there? Certainly Roger says he was sent to ‘Derby House and then to the Lower House’ which must refer to the Commons.

Why was Roger sent to Derby House and the Lower House? Roger gives us a clue in his Truth and Loyalty Vindicated . . . (1662) where he speaks of an order to the Court Martial regarding him: It is this day Ordered by the Lords and Commons that Roger L’Estrange be referred to the Commissioners for Martial Law, and to be speedily proceeded against, according to the proceedings of Martial Law, for being taken with a Commission from the King for the delivering of the Town of Lynn to the King and endeavouring accordingly to do it. John Brown.

The order from Parliament

The Earl of Manchester

Evidently, both the Lords and the Commons heard the charge against Roger, and ordered the trial accordingly.

And Lord Manchester? What had he got to do with it?

Perhaps Roger stayed with him in his London house, for Manchester was in London at that time, having fallen foul of Cromwell who had charged Manchester with neglect and incompetence in the prosecution of the war. Also, Manchester had been the commander of the besieging armies at King’s Lynn a year previously. Perhaps Manchester’s views on the prisoner were required before he went before the Houses. Roger also tells us that after the verdict he was taken to Newgate. So where was he before the trial? The obvious answer is with Lord Manchester. As a not-yet-convicted nobleman, perhaps they accorded him that dignity.

Whatever the case, Roger went to trial by court-martial. He tells us that there was a President of the Court, in this case, Sir John Corbet; a Judge-Advocate, Sir John Mills; and Commissioners who retired to Weavers-Hall to consider the verdict.
The outcome was a foregone conclusion, the court having been instructed to find him guilty of espionage and treason.

If anyone has further information on these things, I would be interested to learn about it.

UPDATE: Further research has led me to the Lords and Commons Journals for 1644/5. They both sat in Derby House, it seems. Roger first went to Lord Manchester who sent him to the House of Lords with a recommendation of court martial, who then sent him to the Commons, agreeing that he stand trial by court martial. The Commons also agreed, so Roger went to trial by Court Martial.

1 Comment

The Impostor Prince

5/26/2016

0 Comments

Matthew Carter entered the darkness which was Captain Forstall’s house, and was shown into a small wainscotted room. In a large chair placed across one corner, a young man sat with his hands on the arms.

‘Your Highness, Mr. Matthew Carter,’ the lackey announced him grandly.

Just in case it was the prince, for he found it difficult to see in the darkness, Matthew made a leg and a low bow to the youth who sat in state on the chair. Rising from his bow, Matthew’s eyes, now adjusted to the change from bright sunlight to the dim room, looked at the young man in front of him. Instantly he knew that the handsome young man with the light brown hair, looking more regal than the King himself, was not the Prince of Wales.

‘Mr. Carter, is it?’ the youth asked in condescending accents. He stood up and extended a hand for Matthew to kiss, which Matthew ignored.

Outrage surged through Matthew. ‘You are an impostor!’ he shouted out, forgetting his orders to continue quietly and report back to his Colonels. ‘You are not the Prince of Wales!’

The ‘prince’ stared at him, shocked, then, regaining his composure said imperiously, ‘Who is this fellow?’

‘Were you the Prince, you would not need to ask,’ Matthew retorted. ‘The real prince knows me, and I know him.’

The ‘prince’ made an exaggerated yawn. ‘This is so tiresome. First that man the other day and now this fellow.’

‘You look nothing like the Prince!’ Righteous anger made Matthew reckless, and he could not help but bellow. He shook off Captain Forstall’s restraining hand from his arm. ‘’Tis well known that the prince is over six feet tall. You, sir, are not five feet ten inches. The prince has black hair and eyes, and you have brown. I do not know what your game is, but I know for a fact you are not the Prince.’

When the ‘prince’ did not reply, Captain Forstall retorted uncertainly, ‘You are mistaken, sir.’

The ‘prince’ sat down again, imperiously waving Matthew away. ‘Captain, remove this fellow from my presence,’ he said with another flick of his hand.

Captain Forstall grabbed Matthew’s upper arm and force-marched him outside.

‘I am not mistaken,’ Matthew insisted desperately, turning to Forstall. ‘I know the prince well. I can assure you, captain, this is not he. You have an impostor here. The real prince is darker, and much taller, being over two yards high. He has his mother the Queen’s dark looks. Everyone knows these things.’

Captain Forstall fixed his eyes on Matthew. ‘If you do not desist in this, sir, I shall call upon the Mayor to lock you up.’ Yet Matthew saw a flicker of doubt cross his face.

He pressed his advantage. ‘Like you did poor Sir Thomas Dishington?’ Matthew shook his head. ‘You have been duped, all of you. He has taken your money and your hospitality and left you with nothing.’

‘Be gone, sir!’ Captain Forstall bellowed. It was a bitter thing to be told one had wasted good money on a mere impostor.

From REBELLION. Out now on Kindle. TO ORDER, CLICK HERE
Paperback to follow.

0 Comments

Surviving the Blitz

2/13/2016

4 Comments

An exchange on Facebook made me think of my mother and the stories she told me about her time during the war.

As kids growing up in the fifties, it seemed to us that every conversation began with the phrase 'In the war . . .' We kids would roll our eyes. Of course, we did not really understand that just a few years previously, the war had been the major event in their lives, one they never quite recovered from.

My parents lived in London. Or rather my mother did. My father was doing his bit in the RAF in India. More about him on another occasion. For that reason, my mother, Joan, lived with her in-laws, my grandparents, Bob and Emma, in Walthamstow, London. Never let it be said, but my mother actually hated Emma with a passion. As a result when the sirens went off, she refused to go into the bomb shelter in the garden with them. She spent the bombing raids sitting under the stairs. Night after night the Germans would come, regular as clockwork, saturating London with the bombs. Demoralising? I'll say. 'We didn't get any sleep for days on end,' Mum said. And in the morning it was a matter of seeing which houses had been hit.

Mum worked on the buses as a 'clippie' or conductress, responsible for taking the money and dishing out tickets. Every evening, before the raids started, the red trolley buses would be packed to overflowing with people heading for the underground railway stations. Every morning they would bring them home again, buses packed with people who all 'stank to high heaven' from their night in the shelters, so that she would throw all the windows in the bus open, no matter what the weather.

On the night the Germans 'set the whole of London ablaze' Mum said she had never seen anything like it. All London appeared to be on fire. At that time, the buses left Walthamstow bus depot packed with the usual customers for the underground stations, and she said: 'It was very bad that night. A lot of bmbs. There were three buses, and we were the last one. The bus in the middle got a direct hit.' Everyone on that bus was killed. 'We had to turn back that time,' she said.

On another occasion, having finished her shift, she had two choices, whether to walk home, rather a trek, or to wait for the bus. She was tired, so she decided to wait for the bus. In the queue, as she and several other people waited, they heard the familiar drone of the 'buzz-bombs' as they came over. They were OK when you could still hear the noise, but when they stopped . . . everyone hit the deck, and the bomb flew not twelve feet above them, and hit a warehouse a short distance away. Exactly where Mum would have been if she had walked. They felt the shock in the air from the explosion.
How glad am I that she decided to take the bus that day!

My mother, Joan.

Bombed bus, 1940

4 Comments

Snippet from my work in progress

10/20/2015

0 Comments

‘Fairfax has a competent trained and well-disciplined army. We have a new-raised and undisciplined body of raw men!’
Hales supported him, but his voice was drowned in the sudden uproar. In the end it was a downright mutiny.
‘Mister L’Estrange, I must ask you to leave this council,’ Peyton ordered. ‘You are not a Kent man, and this has nothing to do with you!’
‘Nothing to do with me?’ Roger repeated blankly. Mister L’Estrange? What had happened to Colonel L’Estrange? After all he had done for them! If it had not been for his guidance and intervention, the petition would have expired for lack of support. He had breathed life into it, shown them how to promote it. Now they did not want him. ‘I am a King’s man!’ he announced hotly. ‘Since this thing began I have fought for the King. I was at Edgehill and Newark. I was sentenced to death for my part in . . .’
‘Mister L’Estrange! Please leave.’
Roger thumped the table in front of him. ‘Surely you must see that this will not succeed. You. Will. All. Be. Killed!’ He had to bellow the last bit, for their voices joined in protest against him.
The mayor ordered the guards. ‘Leave us, sir!’
His patience at an end, Roger stood up, hurt and angry. Without another word, he walked out. Let them get on with it then. They will find out.
When the council broke up, Hales came to him in the taproom. Staring moodily into his ale, Roger had been considering his next move. By no means ready to accept defeat, even if the petition should fail, he thought about joining the royalists in Essex. There just had to be some way of saving the King from prison.
‘Ah, there you are, Roger.’
Seeing the expression on Hales’ face, Roger’s insides contracted. ‘Tell me.’
Hales sat down with him and rested his forearm on the table, absently drawing his thumbnail along the cracked grain of the table.
Roger waited patiently, for clearly Hales had something to say, and he did not want to say it. But at last he prompted: ‘Ned?’
Hales took a steadying breath and then glanced at Roger, before looking away again, like he could not meet his eyes. ‘They are saying—they are saying that L’Estrange is a traitor and should be excluded from the council.’
Roger stared at Hales in hurt silence. How many times had he been called a traitor during this business? He ought to be used to it by now.
Hales said: ‘I defended you.’ Roger put his hand on Hales’ forearm. ‘Didn’t make any difference, though.’
‘There is no remedy but patience, my friend,’ Roger told him.

REBELLION Roger L'Estrange and the Kent Petition
Out Now on Kindle TO ORDER, CLICK HERE
Available soon in Paperback.

0 Comments

Why Did Parliament Ban Christmas?

10/12/2015

0 Comments

On 25th December, 1647 the ruling Parliamentary party in England banned Christmas, provoked a riot in Canterbury, Kent which quickly spread as far as London. In turn this led to the second English Civil War, the subject of my soon-to-be released book Save The King. Many who supported the ban could not understand why the people had reacted so strongly. After all, did they not read their Bible? In attempt to get the common people on side, they set about educating the masses on the matter, and when that didn't work, they used legislation.

What, though, lay behind this religious zeal? What exactly did they think was wrong with Christmas? After all, it's celebrating the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ—isn't it?

Actually, no. In the first place, Jesus was not born on 25th December. The Bible is silent on his birth date, but indicates that it could well have been around the beginning of October. So how did 25th December become the celebration of Christ's birth?

There is no record in the Bible of anyone celebrating Jesus' birthday. In fact, Jews and first century Christians viewed the celebrating of birthdays as pagan. Two people are mentioned in the Bible as celebrating birthdays—one was Pharaoh in the time of Joseph, when he had the baker hanged, and the other was Herod when John the Baptist was beheaded. Both of them were pagan, and on both occasions someone was executed. Plainly then, the Bible is not the source of Christmas or any birthday celebrations.

In the fourth century AD Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome wanted to unify the empire. The biggest divisive influence was religion. If he could unify all these different factions under one religion, much of the discord would disappear. Long story short, he made Christianity the state religion. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD the different Christian factions argued about doctrine: Was Jesus God? Casting the deciding vote, Constantine the Great decided he was, and the beginning of the Trinity doctrine came into being, although it was another one hundred years before the Holy Spirit became a person and, the so-called third person of the Trinity. At around the same time, other doctrines came into Christianity, and among them the celebrating of Christ’s birthday.

As it happened, the pagan Romans, used to celebrating their own birthdays and those of the gods they worshipped, already had a feast on 25th December. Called the Saturnalia, it was associated with the birthday of the god Mithras, the sun god. It was a great feast day in Rome, people got drunk, had parties, gave each other presents, and did many of the things we associate with Christmas. They had a high old time of it. And the feast went on for days. They were a bit miffed at losing the best celebration of the year. So, wishing to keep everyone on side, Constantine changed the feast to the celebration of Christ’s birthday, but kept all the customs.

So what? you may say. As long as one is celebrating Christ’s birthday, God must be pleased. Honouring Christ cannot be wrong. Besides, that was seventeen hundred years ago. Nobody bothers about that now. Furthermore, the churches take the lead in the celebration.

2 Peter 3:8 says: ‘One day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.’ While seventeen hundred years may seem so long ago as to be outside of human memory, God still sees it. To Him, it was yesterday. He knows that the celebration originally honoured pagan gods. How does He feel about that? Well, what does the Bible say?

At certain times in their history the Jews mixed worship of God with the worship of pagan gods. God was furious with them, to the point of destroying the nation in 607 BC when the Babylonians laid siege to Jerusalem, ultimately flattening it and killing most of the inhabitants. Survivors were taken into exile. Why? Jeremiah 44:2-5 tells us: “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says, ‘You have seen all the calamity that I brought on Jerusalem and on all the cities of Judah, and today they are in ruins, without an inhabitant. 3 It is because of the evil things that they did to offend me by going and making sacrifices and serving other gods whom they had not known, neither you nor your forefathers. 4 I kept sending all my servants the prophets to you, sending them again and again, saying: “Please do not do this detestable thing that I hate.” 5 But they did not listen or incline their ear to turn back from their evil by not making sacrifices to other gods. 6 So my wrath and my anger were poured out and burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, and they became a ruin and a wasteland, as they are today.’

This is what the Parliamentary Puritans saw. During the Reformation, the Puritans, the Separatists who emigrated to New England, the Non-conformists et al, all searched for religious truth. The Bible had now become available in English and they could come out from under Catholic dogma. Religious doctrine was hotly debated in taverns and drinking houses. It was the topic of conversation. It did not take long for them to realise that Christmas was not only not a Biblical doctrine, but worse, had its roots in the worship of false gods. The Pilgrim Fathers, the subject of another of my books One Small Candle also did not celebrate Christmas because of its pagan origins.

What about today? Many people simply do not care what God thinks. Others do not believe in him at all, and yet others are just taken along with Christmas because everyone does it, or because it is romantic, like a fairy-tale. ‘It’s for the children’, they say. Or, ‘It’s a time of family gathering.’ A magical time. Yet there are other wonderful things to do with children besides telling them untruths about a so-called Santa Claus. And why do we need a special day to give presents? Are presents not acceptable at any time, far more so because they are given out of love, rather than from a sense of duty? Families can get together to have a good time at any time, and parties can take place at any time. Why does it have to be linked with a religious holiday?

Others are religious, and think they are honouring Christ by celebrating his birthday. Yet does it honour Christ to carry on a pagan celebration, just changing the name? If Jesus had wanted people to celebrate his birth, would he not have told them to do so? On the other hand, he wanted them to commemorate his death, telling his disciples: ‘Keep doing this in remembrance of me.’ He said nothing at all about his birth. Furthermore, the Bible gives a date for his death. Not so his birth.

Sadly, for many today, materialism and having a good time have assumed far more importance than any religious celebration. Worse, many of those who are alone at that time of year feel left out and lonely, as they are excluded from the general jollity. None of it brings honour to God or Christ.

Perhaps Cromwell was right after all.

0 Comments

A ban on Christmas Triggers the Second English Civil War

5/18/2015

0 Comments

Parliament thought at the end of 1647, when King Charles was imprisoned in Carisbrook Castle on the Isle of Wight, that God had given them the victory and the civil war was over. However, while Parliament appeared to have won the war, they had not won the battle for people’s hearts. In many counties, such as Kent, Surrey, Essex and, of course Scotland, the population groaned under what they saw as the tyranny of Parliament. The newly-modelled army—what we call the New Model Army—were viewed as the bully-boys of Parliament, demanding taxes and riding roughshod over any rebellion ‘with violence’. The royalist gentry and nobility suffered as estates became subject to sequestration and fines were imposed on their properties because of their allegiance to the King. Some never recovered.

The final straw came at Christmas 1647. In a wave of religious fervour, Parliament saw fit to ban the celebration of Christmas altogether, calling it a ‘pagan superstition’. In Canterbury, the mayor, one Michael Page, with the backing of the Kent Committee (the body ruling Kent and subject to Parliament) had a proclamation read in the streets that no shops were to be closed on 25th December (a Saturday that year), everyone was to treat it as a normal day, and the usual Saturday market, should still go ahead. No ‘plum broth’ or other Christmas food was to be prepared or eaten, no ‘herbs’ to be hung up in houses or windows.

According to Matthew Carter’s eyewitness account, on the said day, 25th December 1647, ‘many gentlemen and others of meaner rank . . . being religiously disposed to the service of Almighty God, according to the liturgy and orders of the church of England (a heinous offence in those times of reformation) met at St. Andrews Church in the High Street where the reverend Mr. Allday . . . preached a sermon suitable to the day.’

This triggered a noisy, disorderly protest outside the church by the ‘new saints’ as Carter calls them, making tumults in the streets and particularly beneath the church windows in an effort to drown out the sermon. The protest grew. Michael Page of Canterbury (‘a person knave enough, and I think, as much fool, as appears by his conduct’) attempted to persuade shop-keepers and other businesses to open for the day, and to order people to remove the ‘herbs’ from doors and windows, but to no avail. There was no market either, which enraged him further. One tradesman told the mayor what he could do with his decrees and mayor Page punched him in the face for his pains.

This triggered a full-scale revolt. The people of Canterbury rose up almost to a man and, grabbing the mayor, threw him in the ‘kennel’ that is the open sewer channel that ran down the middle of the street. He narrowly escaped with his life. In a separate incident, another man was killed.

The tumult escalated into full-blown riots lasting two or three days, unsettling the whole of Kent. Certain leading gentry of the city, notably Sir William Mann and Mr. Francis Lovelace together with the alderman of the city Mr. Avery Savine (Sabine) managed to quieten things down.

A month later, an ungrateful Parliament at the instigation of the affronted mayor, sent Colonel Huson and his regiment of foot to Canterbury to seize the ‘ringleaders.’ As a result they threw Sir William Mann, Francis Lovelace, Avery Savine and Dudley Wiles along with several other gentlemen into in Leeds Castle (near Maidstone, not in Yorkshire!) for two months. Some of them suffered extreme starvation, before they were mercifully released.

However, their freedom was short-lived. In May 1648 the mayor again prevailed on Parliament and these same men were summoned to stand trial by a special court of oyer and terminer (which just means a specially assembled court) at Canterbury Castle. Men from throughout Kent made up the grand jury, hand picked because of their supposed loyalty to Parliament. The judges, serjeant-at-law John Wild and serjeant-at-law William Steele had also been chosen because of their record of faithfulness to Parliament and their merciless (meaning cruel) zeal. In short, it was a court stacked against the defendants. The grand jury had a mandate to bring in a verdict of billa vera that is, a true bill, or case proven.

Ruins of Canterbury Castle, Kent. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Mann, Lovelace, Savine and Wiles were the first to be tried. But when the jury brought in their verdict, they announced ignoramus. No that does not mean they thought the defendants were idiots, but rather comes from the Latin, meaning ‘ignorant’. In other words, the jury could not pronounce a billa vera because they were ignorant of whether the men were guilty of treason or not.

The judges sent them out again. Again, they brought in ignoramus. The court erupted with joy. The judges refused to acquit the defendants, however, until they had heard Parliament’s view on the matter, intending to bring in a second trial. But before they could do anything, a message came that the royalists had suffered a great defeat at St. Fagons near Cardiff. One of the court officials said to the jury: ‘Had we had this news before, we would have made you have found something else than an ignoramus.’ The grand jury spokesman replied: ‘Sir, neither your news, nor your threatening words, should have compelled us to give in a verdict upon another man’s life contrary to the result of our consciences!’

So the defendants were set at liberty again, but the gentlemen of the jury were so incensed that they met together and drew up a petition, which they intended to take to London, asking Parliament to release the King from prison and to have a dialogue with him on the governance of the country. Also to disband the hated newly-modelled army. It was printed and distributed throughout the county in order to gain signatures. There was an endorsement on the back: All copies of the petition to be taken to Rochester on Monday, 29th May, and that all who intended to accompany the petition to London to meet at Blackheath the following morning by 9.00 am.

The petition fuelled the people’s dissatisfaction with Parliament’s rule, and as it gained pace, Parliament acted, issuing a notice of antiprotest on 16th May 1648, to be read in all churches on Whitsunday, 21st May 1648. They sent armies into Kent to stamp out any signs of protest. The men of Kent responded and assembled themselves into armies, joined by disaffected cavaliers from all over England. The rebellion began to spread. A similar petition raised in Surrey was taken to London, but the leaders there were hasty in their actions, not gaining enough support and not waiting for Kent, and they were massacred. The county of Essex rose up in sympathy, as did many in London.

As the protests spread, Parliament got the wind up. In a desperate attempt to squash the petition, they sent none other than Thomas, Lord Fairfax and his troops to Kent. By this time the Cavaliers had a formidable army. Fairfax did not attack the royalist army at Rochester, now under the leadership of the Earl of Norwich, for they were numbering ten thousand, and he would have been out-numbered. Instead, he surprised the garrison at Maidstone, where three thousand royalists under Sir John Mayne put up a gallant defence for hours, a battle fought street by street.

Thomas, Lord Fairfax. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Lord Norwich, with the rest of the cavalier army remained in Rochester in a state of indecisiveness, despite the pleas of some of his officers, and as a result Maidstone was lost.

So the petition did not reach Parliament after all.

Some of the Royalist army travelled to Colchester in Essex where the Parliamentarians laid siege, and eventually Colchester capitulated, effectively ending the rebellion once and for all.

REBELLION, Roger L'Estrange and the Kent Petition out now on Amazon. Click HERE for Kindle and HERE for Print

FOR THE KING Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn which is available on Amazon. Click HERE to buy

0 Comments

My first ever BOOK SIGNING

3/14/2015

0 Comments

To other writers, those more experienced in this sort of thing, a book signing might seem fairly run-of-the-mill. To me it was an EVENT! The first time ever. Because I have not thought to have my books printed before, I have missed out on local sales. But FOR THE KING is of local interest, as well as for wider audiences, so I decided to go for it. It's certainly been a learning curve!

Armed with boxes of books and a pen I set off with faithful hubby in tow this morning to the Hunstanton Tourist Information Centre who had organised the event. Power to their elbow! When I arrived, the table was nicely set out, with a cloth, and a copy of my book on a stand with a label: 'Book of the Month!', and a rolling flashing sign advertising: 'Book Signing 11.00 - 1.' Big thanks to Angie and her team for organising it all. All I had to do was turn up!

So we sat and we waited, being a bit early, and believe it or not, people came in to buy. And not just FOR THE KING which is the book the Tourist Info are selling (because it is local history) but one lady took all three of my books!

The editor of the local free paper also came in and took photos, and some info, and there will be another article in the Hunstanton Town and Around paper next month. Result!

As if that was not enough, I switched on the computer this afternoon, and discovered a beautiful new five-star review for FOR THE KING.

Happy day!

0 Comments

Historical Research: Some Challenges of Reading Old Texts

1/19/2015

3 Comments

A page from Roger L'Estrange's 'Vindication'

A large part of our work as historical writers is research. Original documents when they come into our possession are like treasures to be enjoyed. But deciphering them can sometimes be quite a headache.

Beginning my current work in progress, an as yet unnamed sequel to For the King, or if you like, the further adventures of Roger L’Estrange, I was delighted to discover a booklet written (and printed) by Roger himself in 1649. It's amazing what you can find on Amazon! So, filled with excitement, I sent for it. But no 'look inside' here! So I was not quite sure what I was getting.

When it arrived, I realised I had set myself a task and a half. It is a facsimile copy of the original. but the print is also smudged, badly so in places. In other places it is so faded as to be unreadable, and all but impossible to guess the words. Odd spots or blots also turn up on it. But then, it is from an original copy, so one must expect these things.

The type itself is sometimes ordinary size, sometimes small, sometimes capitals, sometimes italics. Colons and semi-colons turn up almost every couple of words and in places where a comma or full stop would have done the job. Some sentences are incredibly long, so that I lose the thread. Words we no longer use send me to the on-line dictionary. But even the good old Oxford English Dictionary was confounded by 'accompt', which I guess from the context means something like 'account'. However that doesn't seem to fit the context in this sentence: 'Upon this Accompt, I haftened back, and gave this Iffue to the difpute'. The nearest the dictionary came to that was a French word meaning 'deposit', which could, at a stretch, fit the context.

Add to that, Roger was a Latin scholar (he knew five or six languages) and so the text is liberally peppered with Latin sayings. If anyone can tell me what 'Stultorum Bethl'em; Nebulonum, Regia Bridewell: Vtrum [Utrum?] barum mavis, Ingrediare, licet' means, I shall be eternally grateful.

As if that were not enough, as you probably noticed from a quote above, most of the lower case Ss are Fs, upper case Us are Vs, and some times the Ws are VV. Strange spellings too. Such as ‘phancie’ (fancy) and ‘neceffitie’ (necessity). I puzzled over a word, which looked like ‘falure’ (and so I thought it was ‘failure’ which did not fit the context) only to discover it was ‘salute’! The lower case Ts are so small and smudged, they often look like Rs.

Old fashioned terms come into it. Anyone know what ‘oyer and terminer’ is? No? Well, it’s a legal term, I discovered, regarding a specially appointed court. And the same court jury returned a verdict of ‘ignoramus’. No, that does not mean the defendant was an idiot! It comes from ‘ignorant’, literally, ‘we don’t know’, or the case 'not proven'. May Google be forever blessed!

When I am trying to pick out the facts and events, it makes the job much harder, so I’ve decided the only recourse is to type it out in full, with modern spelling and modern punctuation, so that I can make sense of it.

I was fortunate. Roger had this booklet printed. Handwritten documents are a bigger challenge, and I feel for those writers dealing with them. Yet at the same time, I rejoice. For there is nothing quite like getting your eyes on original documents.

FOR THE KING Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn is OUT NOW!
Available on Kindle and print
CLICK HERE TO BUY

3 Comments

The English Aristocracy

1/9/2015

1 Comment

Researching my new novel (not yet named) and also FOR THE KING, both taking place in the seventeenth century, I was surprised to discover that events were governed largely by the aristocracy or 'gentry' as Roger L'Estrange refers to them, he being a member of that class himself! He uses phrases such as: '. . . Rochester, more particularly prepared, by the prudence and example of the gentry there engaged . . .' and '. . .your soldiery was so zealous and your gentry so cautious . . .' It set me thinking about the aristocracy, and their role in England during the seventeenth century.

Today, in a largely classless society, the term 'aristocracy' or 'nobility' has little meaning. Dukes, lords and knights have little to do with the lives of ordinary people. Indeed, many view the position of the aristocracy - a privileged few who have inherited, wealth, lands and titles - as vastly unfair, and particularly so historically when the rest of the population lived in poverty. However, during the first world war, and also to some extend in the second, many of the officers in the armed forces were from the nobility.

To us it seems archaic. Why should someone born to privilege be considered able to command a battalion when a member of the lower orders were not? What exactly is it that makes the aristocracy different?

To find the answer we need to go back in history to the feudal system where European aristocracy had its roots.

The word 'aristocracy' comes from the Greek, the product of the thinking of philosophers Plato and Aristotle. It literally means 'rule of the few best' that is the morally and intellectually superior governing the interests of the entire population.

In England during the Middle Ages, the King owned the whole country. However, as one man, he could not govern the whole lot on his own. So he conferred land or 'manors' on certain ones known as 'barons' or lords. Hence the term 'lord of the manor'. Each baron had to swear allegiance to the King, to fight for him, raise an army for him, and also pay him rent for his manor. He also gave the king advice, thus helping him to govern.

In turn the barons had knights and fiefs and gave them manors. The knights supported and served the lords and fought for them for between forty and sixty days a year. Beneath the knights were the serfs or villeins the ordinary people, who served the knights, worked the land, paid rent in money and kind to the knights, and the men of which served as soldiers when required. In turn the peasants were allowed land to live on and work, and were given firewood from the common and grazing rights and so on.

The landowner was responsible for his people, particularly for law and order, the dispensing of justice. In times of famine, the landowner should see that his people survived. He was also the justice of the peace. It was a practical system which seemed to work when the 'lord' was a fair and just man. If he were not, then of course it was open to abuse.

This system of government continued through the centuries and the King continued to grant lands and new titles to men who had assisted him. By the seventeenth century, the system had evolved into the government of the land, the aristocracy having the right to sit in the House of Lords in Parliament. However, just as formerly, each 'lord' was responsible for his people. In my book FOR THE KING when Sir Hamon L'Estrange was arrested on the count of treason and paraded before the people of King's Lynn for them to choose whether to send him to stand trial, or for them to declare for the King they said:
‘What be you thinking, Tom Gurlin? Send Sir ’Ammon to Wisbech? Sir ’Ammon whose succoured us in distress, fed our children when we lacked bread? We hin’t that lacking in gratitude. Our little’uns hin’t going to blush with shame in remembrance of this day!’ Whilst the speech (Norfolk dialect) is fictional, the sentiments are recorded history. It shows how ordinary people viewed their 'lords'.

In times of war, the common people looked to their 'lords' for direction and protection. During the English Civil War, when the New Model Army under Cromwell used violence to keep people in order, the people looked to their 'lords' to solve the problem. They trusted them to lead them into battle, and viewed them as men educated for that very task. In turn their gentry directed them, but also fed, armed and clothed them, and paid them wages out of their own pockets, compensating them for their loss of earnings while on the campaign.

Where the common people did not have the contacts, nor the understanding of the politics going on at the top, the aristocracy did. They were at the forefront of policies, of law-making, and they knew each other. A network of the nobility stretched across the land strengthened by marriage ties. Common people accepted that they did not have the education, nor the contacts to understand politics or laws. They left that to the nobility who were educated for the job. Which is why such schools as Eton and Harrow came into being, and why only the sons of the gentry could get into University. One of the favoured subjects of education was Law. The aristocracy knew how the system worked.

Of course, no society is perfect. And the nobility under the feudal system were far from perfect. But when decent men acted honourably towards their people, society benefited.

But the English Civil War challenged the old order. With the murder of the King, England changed forever, and began the march to the political system we have today. When a jumped-up commoner called Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector instead of the King, it changed the role of the monarchy and aristocracy. Today with education to the highest level is available to every person in the land, the role of the aristocracy has been eroded, has become out-dated. The Lord of the Manor no longer has any control over the common people. Unless, of course, he happens to be a member of the government . . .

FOR THE KING
Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn
Join in the action of this swashbuckling adventure!

1643 and a town in Norfolk becomes the focus of Parliament when the people declare for the King. When each side views the other as traitors fit for execution, who can you trust?

Drama in a town under pressure, surrounded by a brutal enemy.
Danger from false friends as well as enemies.
Adventure as Roger risks his life to rescue the town.
Romance as Royalist Roger finds forbidden love with Puritan Ruth.

OUT NOW ON KINDLE AND IN PRINT!
CLICK HERE TO BUY

1 Comment

<<Previous

Author

Evelyn Tidman, the author of REBELLION, Roger L'Estrange and the Kent Petition, the second in the Roger L'Estrange series; FOR THE KING, Roger L'Estrange and the Siege of King's Lynn, the first in the Roger L'Estrange series based on a true story of the English Civil War, GENTLEMAN OF FORTUNE, The Adventures of Bartholomew Roberts, Pirate. a historical swashbuckling romance; and ONE SMALL CANDLE The Story of William Bradford and the Pilgrim Fathers. All based on true stories.

JULIAN vs GREGORIAN CALENDARS - HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Political Prisoners in the English Civil War

The Impostor Prince

Surviving the Blitz

Snippet from my work in progress

Why Did Parliament Ban Christmas?

A ban on Christmas Triggers the Second English Civil War

My first ever BOOK SIGNING

Historical Research: Some Challenges of Reading Old Texts

The English Aristocracy

Author

Archives

Categories

Author

Archives

Categories

Historical Fiction News - Sign up for our newsletter