"Kings life guard of foot colors?" Topic

Looking at you here timmo!

ok just about to start painting some 28mm figs for the kings life guard of foot circa '43-44

any ideas lads?

Im thinking madder red tunic, monteros and breeches (as per Oxford refit)

madder red (but possible blue?????) coat facing colours

earthy colours for stockings- but may be madder red again?

all in all a rather smart looking, relatively uniform looking

any one any other suggestions?

cheers in advance

Chas
charlesjsingleton@yahoo.co.uk

Doubt whether 'facing' colours- which were just turnbacks showing the coat lining, were anything other than just plain unbleached linen. The same for the hose which were essentially a short lived expendable item that would be replaced as cheaply as possible.
Kings Lifeguard were outfitted in red as far as we know, 'red' could cover a wide range of shades so is open to a reasonable range of shades and tones.

Would this be 1543-44 or 1643-1644 by any chance?

The Sealed Knot tradition is dark red coats, trousers and Monteros.

If it were 1543-44 they would be the Queens Lifeguard as there was no king then!

The Sealed Knot is wrong Shagnasty, the only justification for that colour (which would have been called murrey or burgundy, not red) was Peter Young's (SK founder) whimsy that there had to be a sort of royal red to distinguish them as a 'royal' regiment from the common regiments, a distinction which its C.O. clung to as long as he could,much to the amusement of the rest of the SK.
Which is even odder when you consider the original Lifeguard was composed mainly of cheshire(and derbyshire?) miners.

My knowledge was based exclusively on photos but I wouldn't have argued with Brigadier Young in any event. I'm given to understand that dyes were highly variable in those days. I can't wait to tell the Texas Aggies that their school colors are murrey and white.

but I wouldn't have argued with Brigadier Young in any event

He was a good historian not a clothes or costume expert and he made up the royal red aspect in the face of the only evidence which just mentions red. Costume research for the period has come a very long way indeed since the late sixties when 'Strangers in Oxford' was written.Indeed the original costume,made in burgundy velvet and cordurouy, was only meant to be a publicity stunt to promote the book,but it persisted through the proper formation of the first modern reenactment society and various revisions to the material and coat pattern used with no more research being applied to the actual colour as it was a way of introducing the newer more accurate coats subtly without insisting the whole regiment did it at once, so it has more to do with SK history than actual history.No one would suggest that the original coats were made in cordurouy or that the whole regiment wore pink sashes and red football socks, but that what PY started with.
While the shade may be disputed the colour worn by SK Kings Lifeguard is so removed from what is deemed to be red as to move it into another colour description entirely, in this case – Murrey,Burgundy,Maroon or other now defunct terms for this range of colours, if it were originally these colour shades the text would say this and not red

ta Monstro

err, the 'brig' had a very strong agenda and view point when he wrote alot of stuff,and although wrote the foundations upon which alot of modern civil war history is now based (his references and regimental breakdowns are priceless) he was very baised

SK stuff is usually the kiss of death- avoid

think Ill go the route of various shades

Since you asked…

link

Top figure would do fine for KLG.

Refit in 1643 probably worn out by 1644 but the all red suit ie coat and breeches plus montero is attractive so I'd go for it. I'd do some in grey breeches to mix in. Officers in their own coat colours for contrast and interest (maybe blue or black). Stockings in off whites and greys – natural wool colours though I think the inner stockings were finer so maybe lighter.

Personally I wouldn't do blue facings. I'm not saying they didn't have them its just I've never seen reference to royalist coat lined blue but I have Parliamentry ones so its possible royalist coats weren't lined with blue. I've gone for either red or white lining.

Great information and makes perfect sense, thanks. I'd equip my pikemen in full pike armour. If anyone would be so equipped, surely it would be the King's Lifeguard assuming they took advantage of the Tower and other Royal armouries while they still could.

The royal army was based in Oxford and didn't have access to the tower which was held by Parliament.
The royalist army was always underfunded and quite ragged at times, the KG was a hastily put together regiment and its disputed its pikemen may never have worn any form of armour at all.

The Kings army was raised in Nottingham well away from the Tower and I'm sure the KLG was recruited in the north of England. There's nothing to suggest it was an elite unit, more a regular unit with a fancy name IMHO. I echo the thoughts that the Royalist army and indeed Parliaments, particularly later in the war, may have worn very little armour although its nice to have some figures so attired.

They were all ragged … in fact in early 1643 and again in early 1644, the main Parliamentarian armies were worse dressed than their counterparts in Oxford.

Go with red

use monteroes

and mix armour with none.

I am a Parliamentarian nut but cannot understand why Rupert's are not more modelled: a far better history.

Sorry,Monstro,but in 1543-4 Henry VIII was on the English throne (reigned 1509-1547).

Sorry,Monstro,but in 1543-4 Henry VIII was on the English throne (reigned 1509-1547).

oops, so he was, I'm getting the date of birth mixed up with the date as queen.