Help support TMP

"English 'Gentlemen'?" Topic

208 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

Featured Profile Article

Editor Julia's 2015 Christmas Project

Editor Julia would like your support for a special project.

12,030 hits since 17 Nov 2017
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 

dibble21 Nov 2017 6:23 a.m. PST

von Winterfeldt

I can take dibble seriouly – regarding context and knowledge, he isn't also in my view not at all anti – Napoleon

Up to Egypt afaic, he's a Great personality and leader of men 'a good wine'. After that, as with wine, he's gets sour. After 1815, sugar is added to make it/him, more palatable.

So at the beginning I admired him. At the end, I felt sorry for him. In between, Kevin is right! I'm virulently against.

I don't think that all that Ken posts is wrong because he is a Napoleon apologist! I let the vast amount of what he posts go without comment, and on a few occasions I agree with him. But, though he doesn't like it' I'll always refute anything he posts that I don't agree with.

Paul :)

dibble21 Nov 2017 6:46 a.m. PST


How would you know as you don't have the book and you haven't read it?

It was published in the mid 1990's If evidence was there, 'which there isn't' You and your ilk would have been quoting the evidence every time something like this comes up.

I posted the relevant passage from the book, which is supporting evidence, regarding Pitt and the Romsey training camp. If you don't agree, it is up to you to provide contrary information.

Where is the order by the British government or Pitt to assassinate Napoleon?

Setting up training camps for exiles for both agents and combatants has been going on since Elizabethan times.

I see you dropped the 's' in 'camps' unlike the last time you used the plural….

That you won't or can't is indicative of your interest or skill in historical inquiry.

Unlike you Kevin, I don't pretend to know everything about the Napoleonic wars. I question so called facts. I also don't need to prevaricate about bringing sources and accounts (Most regular posters on this and other sites know this) to the discussion if there are any. Shame that on this occasion, you can't.

You can prevaricate all you like Kevin 'as you are still doing' but you will not deflect me from asking: "Where is the order by the British government or Pitt to assassinate Napoleon?"

PS. You are looking in the wrong place for any tenuous British person's involvement in this matter. An individual yes, but not the British government and not Pitt

The use of your fantastic historical researching skill should be used to find the answers.

Paul :)

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP21 Nov 2017 8:27 a.m. PST

"Where is the order by the British government or Pitt to assassinate Napoleon?"

Do you actually believe that it would be in writing?

42flanker21 Nov 2017 8:50 a.m. PST

Point of order. There was no guerrilla training camp at Romsey. There were no guerilla training camps, period. It is an anachronistic phrase that Horricks cooked up for effect, as part of his cartoonish sketch of Cadaudal.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP21 Nov 2017 11:22 a.m. PST

Really? Your are incorrect.

The British government supported the Bourbon exiles in Great Britain and the Bourbons were behind the assassination attempts on Napoleon.

One of those, Cadoudal, ran a training camp for 'conspirators and guerillas' at Romsey in England. After England declared war on France in May, 1803, English money was funneled to Cadoudal by way of William Windham. The Comte d'Artois was the Bourbon in touch with Windham and Cadoudal.

This is explained very well in Vincent Cronin's biography of Napoleon.

You can also look in the correspondence of Lord Liverpool if you're interested. That is one of Cronin's sources.

dibble21 Nov 2017 1:53 p.m. PST


Do you actually believe that it would be in writing?

The Earth is flat. Do you honestly think the scientists would put it in writing?….

So you have no evidence. None at all. I'm not surprised really as you have a track record in this respect.

And you have a nerve to post: "That you won't or can't is indicative of your interest or skill in historical inquiry.'

Andrew Roberts (Another batty Nappy fawner) thought he had 'evidence' by saying that what a certain minister said about abducting Napoleon was really a euphemism for assassination….

Did Cronin find evidence of the British government or Pitt ordering Napoleon's assassination? The answer is NO!

Paul :)

42flanker21 Nov 2017 2:03 p.m. PST

Cronin refers to the subject in a single sentence, more or less as you quote him (which Horricks copied pretty much verbatim) but it is fairly clear that his reference to "a training camp for conspirators and guerrillas" is something of an exaggeration.

There were communities of French emigré and Royalist soldiers and sailors in various towns along the south coast of England, focussed on Southampton. Romsey just inland was one such town, where about a hundred French refugees had been living since 1793. It was there in 1802 that a party of Breton soldiers, survivors of the Chouan debâcle, were granted residence after being shipped to the mainland from the Channel Islands where they had first sought refuge.

Rather than a training camp, it is clear from Cadoudal's biographer Lenotre, that we simply find a group of refugees billeted in a small country town, and rather than guerilla training, we see experienced soldiers, kicking their heels in exile, waiting in frustration for a chance to return to France and strike back against the Republican regime.

Cadoudal wasn't running anything in Romsey. Staying at a discreet distance from London, he was working to drum up British support for his cause, visiting his compatriots when he could. Meanwhile, the main problem in Romsey was boredom. Cadoudal wrote to Pierre Guillemot, his contact in Romsey, advising the men to 'keep themselves busy.' Hardly the most sophisticated training regime.

He recommended they go riding as often as possible: "Faites monter constamment à cheval les hommes propres à notre entreprise, — le coup essentiel — qu'ils galopent vivement; qu'ils sautent les fossés ; qu'ils se chargent… Je crois que le bois entre Romsey et Winchester est propre à vos cavalcades…"

Cadoudal had a plan to kidnap Napoleon that relied on tackling the Consul's mounted ecort and the Bretons had limited equestrian skills. In the autumn of 1803, when he finally left for France to liaise with other opponents of the regime, Cadoudal was still trying to impress on the men they only had one more month to acquire the skills to take on trained cavalrymen: "Eduquez-les de manière que, dans un mois, ils puissent lutter contre un homme à cheval."

Fortunately for the men left behind, the plan was never put into practice. Only a handful ever made it across the Channel.

They had at least been provided with smart new uniforms while in Guernsey. Red coats with yellow facings, white waistcoats and brown pantaloons. Apparently they didn't care for the buttons, though. They had been stamped with the British Royal Crown.

Mike the Analyst21 Nov 2017 4:51 p.m. PST

Let's see San Sebastian occurred towards the end of the Second Hundred Years War. For the previous 150 years the Rules of War set down a basic standard for besieged cities. To preserve life and property the besieged commander could surrender at any point up when a practical breach had been made in the walls. The terms that the besieged received largely depended when in the process surrender occurred.
The defenders were expected to put up some resistance. After that they could surrender with honour.
Early on they were permitted to leave with full honours, including keeping flags and weapons.
Later surrender resulted in surrendering colours and then colours and arms.
Once a breach was made and the attackers had to storm the breach all the rules went away. The attacker was given a few days to vent it's anger. Didn't matter who the town belong to.
This basic principal kept sieges reasonable civilised from the end of the 30 Years War until the Napoleonic period.
What changed? The French commanders had an opportunity to surrender and they didn't do the correct thing. It's unfortunate the Spaniards suffered, but the rules were clearly understood.

Now I thought Napoleon threatened to shoot governors of a fortress that surrendered before the first attempt to storm the place so who was acting against the norms and customs of war?

Ruchel22 Nov 2017 7:20 a.m. PST


Your comments about the concepts of "Gentlemen" and "Chivalry" are very impressive and enlightening. I am quite interested in these matters (I have studied deeply the concept of Chivalry in ancient Indian culture and in Islamic spiritual traditions). My interest includes the modern approaches to "Chivalry", especially concerning ethical and spiritual attitudes (avoiding the importance of money and material richness), so your comments are rather informative.

And when I was a young man, I was a fervent admirer of Jane Austen's works. Nowadays I prefer mystical writers such as Blake.

Well done. Thank you.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP23 Nov 2017 12:30 p.m. PST

Perhaps these might be useful in studying the assassination plots against Napoleon:




42flanker23 Nov 2017 1:57 p.m. PST

'The Cavalry Lance (Weapon)'? – not especially.

'Georges Cadoudal et La chouannerie' by Georges Cadoudal (1887)' This is a sympathetic portrait of the Chouan leader, hardly surprising since the author was his nephew. He goes at some length to explain how Cadoudal was not implicated in the failed bomb attack on Napoleon.

Cadoudal neveu lists the names of the 50 Bretons Cadoudal oncle brought with him to England in 1802. The letter he wrote to Guillemot re. riding practice is reproduced in full in the Appendices.

Otherwise, there is no mention of Romsey, or of any form of training camp, 'guerilla' or otherwise.

As Cadoudal departed for France on his final mission, ostensibly to kidnap Bonaparte, the author emphasises: 'En lui remettant cette valeur, Pitt lui fait recommandé d'éviter frapper mortellement Bonaparte. S'il fait possible de l'avoir vivant, on devait l'envoyer en Angleterre… ' (p.296)

Notices sur Georges Cadoudal et le Morbihan pendant la revolution par Joseph Cadoudal (1829)

This, being a considerably shorter book, has less detail but the author is equally sympathetic (the clue might be in the name) and again emphasises Cadoudal's intention to mount an honorable attack, soldier to soldier, on the company of chasseurs escorting Bonaparte, prior to capturing the aspiring usurper (to be exiled to St Helena!) and placing the rightful King on the throne of France.

While he was in England, Cadoudal, promoted Lieutenant General by Monsieur, received a maintenance of a guinea per day from the British government which he found difficulty spending, since he had simple tastes, but his table manners and speech improved noticably during his time in London.

No reference to Romsey or a guerilla training camp.

Is the material that you had in mind?

Le Breton25 Nov 2017 5:08 a.m. PST

I think 42flanker got in ahead of me ….

I found exactly what he found.

Here are Mr. Horrock's assertions, for which he offers no source citations:

1988 : In flight with the eagle: a guide to Napoleon's elite, by Raymond Horricks, page 207:
'…. the emigres' would-be assassin Georges Cadoudal .… the British-backed agent who had returned to France [in 1804] to organize yet another attempt on Napoleon's life .… had been running the royalists' guerilla training camp at Romsey – which Pitt had agreed to finance."

1982 : Marshal Ney: the romance and the real, by Raymond Horricks, page 57:
"But English government money financed [Cadoudal's] Romsey camp, finding its way to him via 'Fighting' William Windham, a close friend of Pitt's"

However, the passages from Horrock's are almost word for word transciptions of equally un-sourced passages from the Cronin biograpghy of Napoléon
See :
Napoleon : an intimate biography
Vincent Cronin
NY: Morrow, 1972
pages 224 et seq.


First one might note that Pitt's ministries ended 14 March 1801 and began 10 May 1804. For his final attempt on Napoléon's life, Cadoudal landed on 23 August 1803. Nor was Wyndam in government at this time (nor on particularly good terms with Pitt).

I have found reference to the ennumeration of 48 French officers housed in Romsey, most (royalist) survivors of the Quiberon landing in 1795. Nearby, there were 71 captured (revolutionary) French naval officers and petty officers. No disucssion of "training camps".
See :
French Emigration to Great Britain in Response to the French Revolution
Juliette Reboul
Berlin : Springer, 2017
page 174

The same from the memoirs of one of the French royalist emigrés resident at Romsey.
See :
Pierre du Pontavice : Gentilhomme breton, missionnaire méthodiste et pasteur réformé, notice composée sur des documents en partie inédits
Matthieu Lelièvre
Paris : Librairie Évangélique, 1904
Chapitre premier

In the standard (and admittedly hagiographic) biography of Cadoudal, he is said to have visited Romsey to try to gain supporters for his last mission. There is no mention of his staying there, any kind of training camp or anything like what Cronin (and later Horrocks) asssert.
See :
Georges Cadoudal
G. Lenotre
Paris : Grasset, 1929
pages 156 et seq.


Philippe d'Auvergne, a British naval officer from Jersey, is generally considered the key point of contact for espionage and counter-revolutionary agitation by the British – a more likely person for this job than the PRime Minister!
Based in Jesery where he might be said to have been Cadoudal's handler, d'Auvergne's operation was shut down after the Peace of Ameins and he was placed in non-activity on half-pay.
See :


Can you offer any source support that might help to see the assertions of Horrocks and Cronin as anything more than anti-British fantasies?

von Winterfeldt25 Nov 2017 12:10 p.m. PST

great research and information, I recommend to copy and paste brechtel will without any doubt, in case he deems to see fit, bring up Cronin fantasies up in the future, regardless how well refuted they had been.

42flanker25 Nov 2017 1:44 p.m. PST

"Just the facts, ma'am"

Le Breton25 Nov 2017 3:00 p.m. PST


100% agreed. 150% agreed!

Actually, I think that "just the facts" does more to memorialize and honor the people of the era than anything else. For the great and famous and also everyone else – if we learn as much as possibe of what really happened, then we remember them, not some story made up after the fact.

42flanker25 Nov 2017 3:48 p.m. PST

"This is the West, Senator. When the legend becomes-.."
Oh, somebody shoot me, please.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP25 Nov 2017 3:54 p.m. PST

Material from The French are Coming by Peter Lloyd and The Terror Before Trafalgar by Tom Pocock contain evidence that not only were the royalists and assassination attempts financed by Great Britain, but high-level people in the British government were involved, whether or not they were presently in the government when their participation in the conspiracies too place. This includes William Pitt, Lord Whitworth, William Wickham, and William Windham, not to mention involvement by the Royal Navy and various British subjects employed in the intelligence business.

And information from these two volumes backs up the related material in Vincent Cronin's biography of Napoleon as well as Horrick's book.

From The French Are Coming: The Invasion Scare 1803-1805 by Peter Lloyd, 44:

‘One August night in 1803, a squat, barrel-chested Breton was secretly put shore from the Royal Navy brig ‘Vincejo' at the foot of the cliffs near Biville, between Dieppe and Treport. His name was Cadoudal, but he was more commonly known as Georges. The name already possessed a fearful significance for Napoleon. Georges was the agent of the Comte d'Artois, the younger brother of the executed Louis XVI and presently ensconced at Holyrood House on a British pension. His mission was financed by British secret service funds and its objective was to draw together royalists and Jacobins in a conspiracy to ‘kidnap' the First Consul and restore the Monarchy. However, there is little doubt that it was, in fact, an assassination plot; Georges was a ruthless and dedicated killer who had come within an ace of blowing up Napoleon's coach in a Paris street on Christmas Eve, 1800. In the view of monarchist Europe, Napoleon was a parvenu: his regime had no legitimacy, and the code of behavior between rulers simply did not apply in dealing with him; even so, complicity in such thuggery shows how the invasion threat had lent a paranoid intensity to British fear and loathing of the Corsican Ogre.'

From The Terror Before Trafalgar: Nelson, Napoleon, and the Secret War by Tom Pocock:

Lord Whitworth became the first British ambassador to France after the Peace of Amiens was signed. ‘But Whitworth, also secretly, had charge of a key element in the British intelligence network established by William Wickham, who was ostensibly head of the Aliens Office in Whitehall. Both Whitworth's first secretary and his private secretary were experienced intelligence officers, skilled and discreet in watching, listening, and enquiring.': 56-57.

‘Throughout the months preceding the attentat the British government-Windham, and even Pitt-had been involved in financing French dissidents and helping transport them to and fro across the Channel.': 68.

‘Georges [Cadoudal]…predicts that Bonaparte will be cut off before two months, though he professes not specifically to know of such intention, seems to thing such a course of proceeding legitimate and has thrown out the idea to Pitt as he has before to me. Not necessary to say that no countenance was given to it.': 68; an extract from Windham's diary.

‘A month later he recorded a conversation with Pichegru, who ‘talked of a design to cut off Bonaparte by assassination and of the general instability of the government, to which latter opinion I felt inclined to assent. On the other hand, having before expressed my opinion, I did not now say anything.' A few days later a third dissident, Chevalier de Bruslart, ‘made wild proposals of carrying off, or cutting off, Bonaparte, to which I pointedly declared that a British minister could give no countenance.' Soon afterwards both Frenchmen returned to France taking with them large sums in British gold, leaving Windham and others well aware of their intentions.': 68.

‘There were soon to be more mysterious arrivals in France. On the night of 23 August 1`803 a darkened sloop glided towards the cliffs of Normandy ten miles east of Dieppe. She was commanded by Captain Wright and engaged on ‘a secret and delicate service.' On a rising tide she closed the shore and a light gleamed from the cliffs 300 feet above the sea. A boat was lowered, seamen pulled on muffled oars and passengers scrambled ashore on sands below an unobtrusive fold in the cliffs. The place, half a mile from the farming village of Biville, was well known to smugglers for it was a deep cleft running inland, rising steeply to where they had cut a path through the sandy soil to the fields above, from which it was as obscured as from the sea. A rope had been lowered down the path, where it rose most steeply, to help one of the arrivals, a corpulent, powerfully built man, and at the top a horse was held ready for him so that he could ride, while the others walked with their guides, to a safe house, the remote farm of La Poterie. This was Georges Cadoudal, the conspirator of the attentat in the Rue Nicaise, on his way back to Paris.': 106-107.

‘Another resident of Walmer Castle privy to much clandestine activity was a tall, thin, ungainly man of forty-two with a pointed nose and a receding chin and the complexion of a drinker. This was William Pitt, the former Prime Minister and promoter of secret operations, still privy to the twin approaches in the prosecution of the war: the broadsword of national defense and the stiletto of espionage, subversion and perhaps assassination…Pitt, as Prime Minister, had been aware of the plans to assassinate Bonaparte in 1800, which had so nearly succeeded, but had been careful to distance himself from direct involvement. Now Georges Cadoudal was, he knew, to attempt an even more ambitious coup: the assassination or abduction of the First Consul followed by the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.: 110-111.

‘[Cadoudal], a heavily built, red-haired Breton aged thirty-two, had been a counter-revolutionary since 1793, commanding Chouan insurgents as a royalist general in north-western France; after escaping to England, he had organized a training camp for guerillas in Hampshire and planned the abortive attempt on the First Consul's life in December 1800.': 130

Neither of these volumes used Cronin or Horricks as a reference, Pocock's book being published after both Cronin and Horricks, Lloyd's being published after Cronin's only.

It should also be noted that all four authors are British.

As a postscript, has anyone read any or all of the four references referred to here?

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP25 Nov 2017 3:56 p.m. PST

great research and information, I recommend to copy and paste brechtel will without any doubt, in case he deems to see fit, bring up Cronin fantasies up in the future, regardless how well refuted they had been.

I do hope that you realize that I have backed up Cronin's material, and I can assure you that he has not written fantasy.

If you actually believe that nonsense, perhaps you should attempt to write something significant on your own?

dibble25 Nov 2017 4:34 p.m. PST

So you have been squirrelling around?

And I see that you have no evidence that the British government or Pitt ordered the assassination of Napoleon.

Please post Cronin's 'evidence' in this matter, I have his book and he brings no evidence at all regarding the above accusation by you!

Paul :)

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP25 Nov 2017 5:32 p.m. PST

As shown, Pitt knew about it and supported it. Pocock's book is quite interesting on the subject of British support for the Bourbons attempts against Napoleon.

42flanker25 Nov 2017 5:45 p.m. PST

The bulk of that material is recycled plus 'colour.'

That Royalists, both in exiled and in France, were funded by the British is not in doubt. I'm not sure why this should be thought the enemy of Britain since 1793, the Convention ordering its troops in 1794 to kill all British troops that fell into French hands (fortunately ignored, although emigré p.o.w's were slaughtered), and had not Bonaparte declared his intention to bring about the downfall of Britain?

All the exerpts you quote show representatives of British government disavowing assassination, with only inuendo on the part of the author to contradict those statements.

Evidently some of the regime's opponents were out to kill Bonaparte. However, Cadoudal'implication in the Rue Nicaise is stated in the material quoted but there is no evidence to indicate how this was.

Repeating the phrase "a training camp for guerillas in Hampshire," does not conjure such an establishement into existence.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP25 Nov 2017 5:48 p.m. PST

I've given four sources for the involvement in the British government to assassinate or overthrow Napoleon as First Consul.

Constant denial in the face of evidence given by authors who have done their homework is ludicrous.

What should be done, historically speaking, if you disagree is to provide evidence that contradicts what has been presented.

So far, no one has done that.

If any of you were actually intellectually curios on the subject, you would get hold of the references presented and read them.

If not, then the point is moot. Please continue to deny what has been presented without any evidence to support your repeated denials.

dibble25 Nov 2017 7:52 p.m. PST


Please continue to deny what has been presented without any evidence to support your repeated denials.

Same old Kevin! You made the claim that the British government and Pitt ordered the assassination of Napoleon. It's for you to show proof. That proof isn't there and you know it! As for the 'proof' that you give, It's just heresay and more unsubstantiated padding by authors who have no evidence either.

You have a nerve to belittle people over their historical knowledge whilst at the same time, show little or no evidence that you have anything but a brain full of myth and hearsay.

This is a pattern that you have a habit of repeating. indeed, it's scattered throughout your web-site postings

42flanker26 Nov 2017 2:39 a.m. PST

Perhaps Brechtel will forgive me for pointing out that what he has provided are not 'sources', but books.

They are books of popular history; 'secondary sources' if you will, but an entirely different beast; in this instance with a considerable degree of novelistic colour. More importantly, once has stripped away the 'writing' we find that not one of them demonstrates any basis for the following assertion:

"The British provided support, funding, and a training site for French royalists to train to overthrow Napoleon's government and to assassinate Napoleon.'

(I highlight the key term to avoid misunderstanding)

During a predictably grumpy discussion on British hypocrisy over the exile of Napoleon to St Helena, I felt it necessary to point out that Brechtel's statement (see above) was not true. This prompted the retort:

"Really? You are incorrect."

Perhaps Brechtel had forgotten that his own error in this regard had been pointed out to him previously in a discussion elsewhere, where he had asserted:

"The British government provided funding for training camps* for the Bourbon supporters in order for them to assassinate Napoleon." (*Note the plural)

Be that as it may, he insists, quoting Cronin, that "Cadoudal, ran a training camp for 'conspirators and guerillas' at Romsey in England."

I believe that Breton and I, together have demonstrated that the sources Brechtel subsequently cited do not, in fact, provide any basis for his assertion, originating as it would seem with Cronin, that there was such an establishment at Romsey or anywhere else. Moreover, the evidence indicates this factoid was simply an embroidery of the facts on the part of Cronin.

Pocock, like Horlicks, was clearly parroting Cronin when he wrote: ‘[Cadoudal], a heavily built, red-haired Breton aged thirty-two… had organized a training camp for guerillas in Hampshire."

Ironically, Cronin, Lloyd and Pocock all rely heavily on Lenôtre's biography of Cadoudal for much of their detail but nowhere does Lenôtre provide justification for this wholly anachronistic, unfounded assertion

I, for one, do not question that successive British governments sought to subvert the Republican and Consular regimes in France. That is not at issue; any more than French plans to promote rebellion in Ireland, or to invade England.

By the way, guerrilla, is spelt with two 'r's.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP26 Nov 2017 5:42 a.m. PST

If you're really interested, then I would suggest that you take a look at the source material for each volume, especially the Liverpool Papers which contain letters from British agents in Munich and Stuttgart. This is information is contained in Cronin's notes, page 461.

For Pocock you can check Lord Granville's correspondence, Joseph's Farington's diaries, William Windham's papers, among other primary accounts.

There is nothing wrong with using credible secondary source material, especially if it relies on excellent primary source evidence, which both Cronin and Pocock do.

Lenotre's biography does not appear in the bibliographies of Lloyd, Pocock, or Horricks, nor is it in the notes provided by Cronin. Where did you come up with that 'information'?

It seems to me that you and others cannot accept the fact that the British government of the time was involved in the plots to murder Napoleon, a recognized head of state by his own people.

Have you read the four books in question? I've asked that before, but there is no answer.

Your 'exercise in semantics' and spelling is recognized but it is somewhat ridiculous as it proves or supports nothing of importance. I didn't realize this was a spelling exercise.

Again, have you read the books in question?

Lastly, if you can, supply supporting evidence for your position. I've done that, and you, and the others, have not. Repeatedly condemning a point of view without evidence is worthless, historically, though it might make you feel better.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP26 Nov 2017 5:53 a.m. PST

By the way, guerrilla, is spelt with two 'r's.

According the Webster's Dictionary, the term is spelled both ways, with one 'r' or two.

Le Breton26 Nov 2017 6:58 a.m. PST

Thank you, 42flanker – I could not have said it better.

"successive British governments sought to subvert the Republican and Consular regimes in France."
Of course they did. I even linked the bio of the man assigned to work with the emigrés in this regard – an office who whose assgnment was ended and whowas put on half-pay after the Peace of Ameins.


These various modern English-language popular histories that do not use footnotes like to accuse the British, and particulary the Royal Navy Captain John Wesley Wright of the Vincejoof having landed the emigrés.

As it turns out, Captian Wright commanded at different vessel at that time, the Vincejo was laid up for repairs in Chatham, and the accusation of Captain Wright's involvement masks what are probably a series of war crimes committed by the French.

The story of Captain Wright and the Vencejo (or Vincejo) arose into public record at the trial of Moreau. Wright had been captured when becalmed in Quiberon Bay in 1804, after a sharp action. Recognized as a former lieutenant of Sir Sidney Smith, he was suspected of involvement with Cadoudal by the prefect of Morbihan (a former adjudant général during the Egyptian campaign) and sent to Paris for interrogation. Cadoudal and the other emigrés testified that they did not know Captian Wright. The Captain, noting his status as a prisoner of war, refused to answer any questions (except Name, Rank and Arm of Service). He also demanded treatment for a wound in his thigh which was being witheld in order to coerce his confession. He then passed out. His nephew, a 14-year ship's boy serving in the Vencejo, was also interogated and answered with the same "coolness and firmness", despite threats of torture.

Under instructions of général Savary of the gendarmerie d'élite, Wright and the Vencejo were nonetheless found culpable in the landing of the emigrés, transferred to military prison and denied the status of a prisoner of war. He was later reported by the French to have committed suicide while in captivity on 27 October 1805, distraught over the defeat of general Mack at Ulm (and one supposes not sufficiently cheered by Trafalgar). An inquiry after the wars indicated murder, but no charges were brought.


Admiralty records that show that the Vincejo arrived at Sheerness on 6 april 1803 and was taken out of service and moved to Chatham for repairs, which were completed in February 1804. Captain Wright was appointed her commander in September 1803 (per Winfield) or November 1803 (per Clowes). Cadoudal and the emigrés had been landed 19-23 August.

See :
British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates.
Rif Winfield
Barnsley South Yorkshire : Seaforth Publishing, 2008
pages 288-289

The Royal Navy : a history from the earliest times to the present, Vol 5
William Laid Clowes, et al
London : Sampson Low, Marston and Company, 1897


When Brechtel blindly re-tells the stories from these four modern biased popular un-sourced books passing themselves off as "history", perhaps because he just agrees with their biases, he not only misleads us as to what actually happened, but he robs from a true hero, Captain Wright, the honor and esteem that future generations do owe him.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP26 Nov 2017 11:16 a.m. PST

Have you read the four books referenced?

And, although you disparage the works referenced, you most certainly have no provided any evidence that they are incorrect.

You're a great one to disparage what you don't agree with and are seemingly unaware of the continued errors that you make both historically and factually.

I suggest that you should realize that Sidney Smith was a bit-player in the period and a shameless self-promoter. Anything said by him, especially about himself, should be taken with a substantial salt pill.

Regarding references, the use of Wikipedia is a non-starter and is too frequently unreliable. It cannot be used as a reference in middle or high school, nor in college or grad school. The use of it on this forum does not accurately support any thesis or idea.

You have also clearly demonstrated that you are not familiar with the works I have cited and you have disparaged. Both Pocock's and Lloyd's books most clearly use endnotes, and Cronin's volume, while it does not, contains thorough notes by chapter citing the references used by the author.

So, you are definitely wrong again.

And disparaging secondary works while using Wikipedia as a source is somewhat hypocritical is it not? Especially as Wikipedia is a very poor tertiary source.

Le Breton26 Nov 2017 1:34 p.m. PST

Horrocks (1982) : "English government money financed [Cadoudal's] Romsey camp, finding its way to him via 'Fighting' William Windham, a close friend of Pitt's"

Horrocks (1988) : "[T]he emigres' would-be assassin Georges Cadoudal .… the British-backed agent who had returned to France [in 1804] to organize yet another attempt on Napoleon's life .… had been running the royalists' guerilla training camp at Romsey – which Pitt had agreed to finance."

Cronin (1971) : "Cadoudal directed a training camp for conspirators and guerillas at Romsey".

This stuff is un-sourced in these three popular modern English-language works. If anyone can find it somehow indirectly sourced in end-notes or bibliography, please let us know. On the other hand, quoted above are two detailed biographies of Cadoudal, an ethnographer's study of the emigré French in England, and the memoirs of a French resident at Romsey. According to them, there was no training camp at Romsey nor did Cadoudal ever direct any such camp anywhere. So, the stuff Brechtel quoted to us is false and wrong. Actually, I can't find any mention of a "training camp" at Romsey before Cronin. Cadoudal certainly visited the emigrés there to try to recruit them, and the false passports he later used for his team listed Romsey. But making this into a "guerilla training camp" seems to have been a fantasy of Cronin's creation. If Brechtel or anyone else can show otherwise, I would be quite interested.


Lloyd (1991) : "a squat, barrel-chested Breton was secretly put shore from the Royal Navy brig ‘Vincejo' at the foot of the cliffs near Biville, "

Pocock (2005) : "a darkened sloop glided towards the cliffs of Normandy ten miles east of Dieppe. She was commanded by Captain Wright and engaged on a secret and delicate service."

Cronin (1971) : "Cadoudal and four embarked on the Spanish brig El Vancejo at Hastings …. English commander Captain Wright"

The case of Captain Wright was a cause célèbre in the era and thereafter. There are hundreds of references to his innocence and murder – and to his actions as a British spy. So Cronin did not invent this one. As it turns out, général Savary, and perhaps général Julien, invented it. Julien was made a commandant of the Légion d'honneur for his rôle.
One might have believed one side or the other about the involvement of Captain Wright and the Vincejo until the opening of the Admiralty archives near the beginning of the 20th century. Both major redactions of these archives concur : the Vincejo was laid up in repair at Chatham and Wright commanded another vessel on another station in Auugst 1803. He was innocent.
Cronin, Pocock and Llyod could have very easily checked these facts, if they had any interest in publishing the truth. But the sensational involvement of the Royal Navy in espionage was too "interesting" to ignore – so they re-printed French propaganda instead of doing historical research. And Brechtel did the same to us.


"And disparaging secondary works while using Wikipedia as a source is somewhat hypocritical is it not?"

I linked 2 bios – as introductions to the peope whose names I mentioned. I did not use Wikipedia as a "source" for anything.
I am not disparaging these modern seondary popular English language works.
I am disparaging Brechtel and anyone else who would take what they write as in any way informative about actual historical events without fact-checking them.
In the present examples, what Brechtel quoted from them was just plain wrong – a little detail that does not seem very interesting to him.


" Both Pocock's and Lloyd's books most clearly use endnotes, and Cronin's volume, while it does not, contains thorough notes by chapter citing the references used by the author.
So, you are definitely wrong again."

Actually, nothing in any of those bears upon the two topics under discussion here : camp at Romsey, rôle of the Vincejo and Captain Wright. I suppose you did not read the books, eh?

If I am wrong, "definitely wrong", please show me my error.

Le Breton26 Nov 2017 2:39 p.m. PST

"Have you read the four books"
"You're a great one to disparage what you don't agree with "
"unaware of the continued errors that you make both historically and factually"
"you should realize that Sidney Smith was a bit-player"
"You have also clearly demonstrated that you are not familiar with the works"
"you are definitely wrong again"
"[Your] disparaging secondary works while using Wikipedia as a source is somewhat hypocritical is it not"

I take it that questioning you about the source support for your assertions is an ad hominiem attack against you, and that your comments above directed at me are not. Am I correct?

42flanker26 Nov 2017 3:09 p.m. PST

There is nothing wrong with using credible secondary source material

Indeed. There is nothing wrong. It is simply not persuasive when it recycles other secondary sources, or strays into fiction to give atmosphere. Perhaps that doesn't bother you.

What you decry as ‘semantics'- a strange use of the word- is in fact textual analysis, a valuable tool in assessing authenticity and gauging accuracy, particularly when secondary authors recycle each other's material. To include the opinion of other authors as illustrative comment or analysis is one thing, for a historian to paraphrase another author's poorly or unresearched assumptions or embroidering of facts, claiming some spurious authority, is lazy and dishonest.

Some here may be shocked to learn that I have not read those four books, as you rightly surmise, that is to say not in their entirety (although I am not sure why I need to in this instance since you, after all, clearly have and could surely enlighten us). However, if I did, would I find hitherto undisclosed evidence of "guerilla training camps"? Presumably not, or you would have presented it by now.

You also invite us to read the source materials cited in these authors' footnotes. I take it you have yet to examine that material yourself, otherwise, as with the main text, you would be providing us with any evidence they contain which proves your assertion. If you haven't, on what basis, exactly, do you think they will provide corroborative evidence for the question at issue?

(Which, in case we forget, is the presence of "guerilla training camps", in England)

Lenotre's biography does not appear in the bibliographies of Lloyd, Pocock, or Horricks, nor is it in the notes provided by Cronin. Where did you come up with that 'information'?

For my better understanding, when you type what I believe are called ‘scare quotes' around words, are we meant to imagine you are tutting or sneering? It seems to be an expression of contempt. I find it distracting and would like to be clear how I should read this.

Be that as it may, the earliest references to Cadoudal's arrival off Biville and ascent of a cleft in the cliffs comes from Joseph Cadoudal (1829). The description by Louis Georges de Cadoudal was not published until late in his life, in 1887. They may both be family folklore but from where would an account of the landing in Normandy and ascent of the cliffs come except those close to the participants, whence all subsequent accounts must logically flow? Lenôtre evidently drew on them.

However, to contradict my earlier assertion entirely, Lloyd's reference to a sandy beach and cleft cut in sandy soil is interesting, contrasting as it does with Lanôtre's reference to a narrow, stony beach and a rocky cliff, and given that the shore at Biville-sur-mer does appear to be composed bare chalk outcrops below towering cliffs of chalk. Curious.

It seems to me that you and others cannot accept the fact that the British government of the time was involved in the plots to murder Napoleon, a recognized head of state by his own people.

You keep harping on this point. I and Breton, at least, have stated several times now that we accept there was subversion being practiced on both sides of the channel. I am unable to feign outrage that it should have been the case. It is a fact of history. I hope I am able to maintain a degree of objectivity, which as you know is a fairly important element in the historical method you extol so regularly.

I am touched that you looked up 'guerrilla' in the dictionary.

Le Breton26 Nov 2017 6:20 p.m. PST


Thank you again. If I had not been so often truant during my mis-spent youth, I might be able to express myself as well as you do.

I lived about 100 km south of Biville for some of that youth, and did more sailing than studying. There is at least some shelving along the whole area and some beach to land on at low tide except during a bad storm. The cliffs themselves have various gaps either from fresh water erosion or collapse into the sea. It is not too hard to find a way over the cliffs.

About the exact location of the landing ….

"Le débarquement de Cadoudal en 1803" youth
Jean Gaillard
La Tradition : revue générale des contes, légendes, chants, usages, traditions et arts populaires
éds. Émile Blémont et Henry Carnoy

It seems to me that they were at the valleuse de Parfonval


By the way, I am American, but I lived in France for a good part of my life, served with the French infanterie de la marine and to this day own a home in Brittany. My wife's company develops technolgy to assist in medical services delivery in under-served rural parts of France. So, if I have any bias, it is pro-French.

I think that real historical investigation, and not colorful myths, does *more* honor to the memory of the First Empire – a memory which I greatly admire in many ways.

As 42flanker said, "Just the facts, ma'am".

42flanker26 Nov 2017 6:31 p.m. PST

Remarkable sleuthing, Breton. And I couldnt find anything like that detail. My g**gle algorhythms are sclerotic and braindamaged. Or may be you are simply more persistent than I am.

No time to read now. A demain
Thanks for the compliment but it seems to me you express yourself pretty well.

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP26 Nov 2017 7:54 p.m. PST


Thank you. I've been off with family and just saw your comments. I'm glad they were of use to someone. Blake has always been a favorite of mine… Only complaint was that he painted in watercolors and they weren't nearly vivid enough for his voice.

Being a gentleman isn't easy. Just look at where this thread has gone. I am sure the British thought they were acting as gentlemen and Napoleon did not.

42flanker29 Nov 2017 9:12 a.m. PST

I finally got round to reading the 'Traditions' article (a great resource). As I read it, I thought Gaillard opted for the southerly of the two access routes, 'Val Herbert' , below Penly, as recounted in the local pamphlet by Bouteiller (1898)- although I confess I found it hard to follow the thread of his analyis up until that point.

It is interesting that successive parties did not all land at the same spot; the landing of December 1803 opting for the northerly access, up 'Parfonval' to Neuvillette, as you say.

I find it intriguing that the passage that Gaillard quotes from Thiers' 'Histoire du Consulat (1845), describing the landing and route up the cliffs, is virtually identical to that of Cadoudal neveu from 1887. Given that Cadoudal wholly rejects the republican Thiers' negative interpetation of ‘Georges' actions and motives, it seems unlikely he would have plagiarised Thiers so closely. I assume that there must be an earlier source that they were both drawing on. However, it is interesting that Gaillard dismisses Thiers account as "more or less fantastical" without noting the similar account in Cadoudal neveu.

Be that as it may, there are sufficient contradictory and innaccurate elements in Lloyd's 1991 account to make one wonder what sources he was drawing on. Cronin's 1971 account, full of errors thought it might be, is too brief.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Nov 2017 10:06 a.m. PST

Thiers is not a reliable resource.

dibble29 Nov 2017 2:08 p.m. PST

Well there's a modern coffee-pot calling an old camp-kettle black!

Paul :)

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Nov 2017 3:40 p.m. PST

Are you now giving us a self-portrait?

Le Breton29 Nov 2017 4:33 p.m. PST

"Thiers is not a reliable resource."
Thank you, Brechtel. I am so glad that you have told us that. Otherwise we might have wasted time critically reading, examining and testing the information found in this pile of unreliable garbage. Sure looks like that Thiers guy wasted lots of his time too, writing so much unreiable stuff. At least we were saved from it by your instruction.

--- Salon de Mil huit cent vingt-deux, ou collection des articles insérés au Constitutionnel, sur l'exposition de cette année, Paris, Maradan, 1822. 5 lithographies hors-texte.
--- Les Pyrénées et le Midi de la France, pendant les mois de novembre et décembre 1822, Paris, Ponthieu, 1823.
--- Histoire de la Révolution française, Paris, Lecointre et Durey, 1823-27 (10 volumes).
--- Law et son système de finance, Paris, 1826.
--- La Monarchie de 1830, par A. Thiers, député des Bouches-du-Rhône, Paris, Alexandre Mesnier, 1831.
--- Histoire de la Révolution Française. Précédée d'un Précis de l'histoire de France, par M. Michelet, Bruxelles, Société des bibliophiles belges, 1841 (2 volumes).
--- Rapport de M. Thiers sur la loi d'instruction secondaire fait au nom de la Commission de la Chambre des députés dans la séance du 13 juillet 1844, Paris, Paulin, 1844.
--- Histoire du Consulat et l'Empire faisant suite à l'Histoire de la Révolution française, Paris, Paulin (volumes 1 à 16) – Paulin, Lheureux et Cie (volumes 17 & 18) – Lheureux et Cie (volumes 19 & 20), 1845-62. 74 planches gravées sur acier par Eugène Beyer, T. Doherty, Charles Geoffroy, Paul Girardet, Tony Goutière, Jean-Jacques Outhwaite, etc., d'après Horace Vernet, Karl Girardet, Eugène Charpentier, etc.
--- De la Propriété, Paris, Paulin, Lheureux et Cie, 1848 (réédition : Paris, Éditions du Trident, 2011).
--- De la propriété. Édition augmentée des Discours sur le droit au travail et sur le crédit foncier, Bruxelles, Méline, Cans et Compagnie, 1848.
--- Du communisme, Paris, Paulin, Lheureux et Cie, 1849.
--- Rapport général présenté par M. Thiers au nom de la Commission de l'Assistance et de la Prévoyance Publiques. Dans la séance du 26 janvier 1850, Paris, Paulin, Lheureux et Cie, 1850.
--- De l'Assistance et de la prévoyances publiques. Bruxelles: Gand et Leipzig, 1850.
--- Histoire de Law, Paris, Michel Lévy frères, 1858.
--- Discours de M. Thiers député de la Seine sur l'expédition du Mexique prononcés dans la discussion de l'adresse au corps législatif, Paris, Lheureux et Cie, 1864.
--- Discours de M. Thiers député de la Seine sur les finances prononcés au corps législatif dans la discussion du budget – Séances de 2 et 6 juin, Paris, Lheureux et Cie, 1865.
--- Histoire de la Révolution française, Paris, Furne, 1865 (2 volumes). Illustrations par Yan' Dargent.
--- Discours de M. Thiers député de la Seine sur la politique extérieure de la France spécialement en ce qui concerne l'Allemagne et l'Italie prononcés au corps législatif dans les séances des 14 & 18 mars 1867, Paris, Lheureux et Cie, 1867.
--- Déposition dans l'enquête ouverte sur les banques et la circulation fiduciaire, Paris, 1867.
--- Discours prononcés au corps législatif (janvier et février 1868) par M. Thiers sur la liberté de la Presse, Tours et Paris, 1868.
--- De la propriété. Nouvelle édition augmentée d'un choix de maximes et pensées extraites de L'histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire, Paris, 1868.
--- Discussion du projet de loi relatif à un emprunt de 2 milliards. Séance du 20 juin 1871. Discours de M. A. Thiers, Paris, Imprimerie et Librairie du Journal Officiel, Wittersheim, 1871.
--- Déposition sur le 18 mars, Paris, 1872.
--- Histoire de la révolution du 4 septembre et de l'insurrection du 18 mars : dépositions de M. Thiers devant les commissions d'enquête parlementaire, Paris, 1873.
--- Manifeste de M. Thiers aux électeurs du IXe arrondissement de Paris, Paris, Marpon et E. Flammarion, 1877.
--- Discours parlementaires (1830-1877), publiés par M. Calmon, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1879-1883 (15 volumes).
--- Notes et souvenirs de M. Thiers. 1848. Révolution du 24 février, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1902.
--- Notes et Souvenirs – Voyage diplomatique. Proposition d'un Armistice. – Préliminaires de la Paix. Présidence de la République, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1903.
Occupation et libération du territoire 1871-1873 – Correspondances, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1903.
--- Discours prononcé à l'Académie Française par M. Thiers pour la réception de M. Stendhal et recueilli par André Billy, Paris, Éditions du Trianon, 1932. Frontispice gravé par Joseph Hémard.
--- La Révolution de 1848 d'après un récit de M.Thiers. Paris, 1896.
--- Correspondences de 1841 à 1865. M. Thiers à Mme Thiers et à Mme Dosne: Mme Dosme à M. Thiers. Paris: Calmann Lévy, 1900.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP29 Nov 2017 6:31 p.m. PST

To continue the 'discussion' of the British and Bourbon attempts to murder Napoleon as First Consul:

From The Great Conspiracy: Britain's Secret War Against Revolutionary France 1794-1805 by Carlos de la Huerta, 167:

'Georges [Cadoudal], meanwhile, was preparing to quit London where he had been residing at 6 New Bond Street under the pseudonym Legros. It had been made clear to him by the former Prime Minister William Pitt that England would readily support and finance his operations against Napoleon on the understanding that Napoleon would not suffer the pain of death but instead be taken prisoner and conveyed to England where Royal Navy vessels would be waiting to transfer him to the distant island of St Helena in the Atlantic. Whether Pitt had really set these preconditions is doubtful. After all, it is quite curious why the two Chouans selected to be the advance guard to Paris were the very same who were evidently complicit in the rue Nicaise bomb attack. Indeed, La Haye St Hilaire, otherwise known as Raoul or Doisson, had been personally selected by Lord Addington himself as the best constituted among the Chouan leaders to carry out the coup de main.'

dibble30 Nov 2017 2:22 a.m. PST

Are you now giving us a self-portrait?

Nah! A snapshot. I don't drink coffee.

So you can post an excerpt from one book but not the others you have 'said' you have read.

Even your last shows no evidence of British government or Pitt ordering the assassination of Napoleon. all it is is a quote from the historian, as do all the rest of those you have highlighted.

If you have Andrew Robert's book, then I suggest you post what he says on the matter. A full set looks good even if it has no 'basis' to display it on.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2017 3:36 a.m. PST

But all three authors quoted used the relevant primary source material for the quoted sections in their books.

If you're actually interested, then look up the source material.

The British government and Pitt were involved in financing and supporting the assassination attempts on Napoleon.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2017 3:52 a.m. PST

So you can post an excerpt from one book but not the others you have 'said' you have read.
Even your last shows no evidence of British government or Pitt ordering the assassination of Napoleon. all it is is a quote from the historian, as do all the rest of those you have highlighted.

I've posted material from three books that agree on the British government supporting the assassination plots against Napoleon and plotting with the Bourbons to do so.

Are you saying that secondary sources cannot be used? Perhaps you should take a look at the books, the endnotes contained in them and the source material they used to come up with their evidence and conclusions.

It is quite apparent that the British government bankrolled the assassination attempts.

Instead of making snarky comments perhaps you should point out evidence that would be contrary to what those three authors have discovered and concluded. Just denying it does not negate what they have found.

And if you wish to discuss the books at length, all three are in my library and I am more than willing to discuss them, and the conclusions they contain (based on the evidence they have found in primary source material from those officials of the British government at the time) with you.

If not, all you're doing is chasing windmills.

dibble30 Nov 2017 4:39 a.m. PST

Hold on there! You are the one asserting something that has no solid evidence. It's for you to bring that evidence to the discussion, not quotes from historians quoting other historians who probably lifted their versions from Cronin.

Like I said on the other site, I will read the books (Apart from Horrick as the passage has already been shown to be lifted from Cronin) and I will post any, 'and I mean any' evidence of Pitt and/or the government sanctioning the assassination of Napoleon. You know that I'm pretty thorough with my evidence, so you can be assured that it will be laid out for all to read.

based on the evidence they have found in primary source material from those officials of the British government at the time

if those historians have based their quotes on those papers, what were they? what paper or letter Quotes the British government (or Pitt) ordering the assassination of Napoleon?

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2017 4:54 a.m. PST

How do you know that Horricks 'lifted' his material from Cronin, especially if you haven't read the book?

I don't believe one iota that you are 'thorough' with your 'evidence' historically. You have repeatedly used only 'evidence' that supports your 'point of view' and ignore other material.

Further, you refuse to read material recommended to you and make unsupported accusations about authors that you haven't read, as you have here against Horricks.

If you are actually interested in the subject, and I do not believe that you are, you will read the material mentioned and referred to and look up their sources. All you are doing as far as I am concerned is taking an extremely prejudiced view of this issue so that the British cannot be blamed for anything. Your extreme nationalism is definitely showing and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you take personal offense at anything that tends, from your viewpoint, to put the British in a bad light.

And that is nothing but absolute nonsense. It most certainly is not history.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2017 5:08 a.m. PST

From Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts, pages 333-334:

'Wright next landed General Charles Pichegru, the former Brienne instructor, French Revolutionary War hero, and Jacobin-turned-royalist, along with seven co-conspirators at Bivelle on January 16, 1804, and returned to Walmer Castle in Kent, where British naval intelligence was based. Wright was acting under the orders of Admiral Lord Keith, commander-in-chief of the North Sea Fleet, who reported to Admiral Early St Vincent, the First Sea Lord. St Vincent's own orders from Lord Hawkesbury were that it was 'of the utmost importance that Captain Wright should be involved in the fullest latitude.' Other documents, including one from Keith specifying that Wright 'is employed on a secret and delicate service', connect the British government intimately with the Cadoudal conspiracy, at the highest levels of both. Further evidence of direct British government involvement in the 1804 plot to murder Napoleon lies in several letters, the first written on June 22, 1803, from a Mr Walter Spencer to Lord Castlereagh, a senior British cabinet minister, asking for the repayment of L150 for himself and L1,000 for Michelle de Bonneuil, a royalist plotter with several identities who is known to have met Louis XVIII's brother the Comte d'Artois (the future King Charles X) in Edinburgh during the Amiens peace. Spencer said the money had been advanced 'relative to a political intrigue planned by Lord Castlereagh to abduct Bonaparte in 1803', which was co-ordinated by Mr Liston, the British envoy to The Hague. (Plots to 'abduct' Napoleon at this time were transparent covers for his assassination.) Although there is nothing directly incriminating from the government side in the exchange-as might be expected-George Holford, a member of parliament who was Castlereagh's closest friend in politics, wrote to Spencer saying that if he would 'take the trouble of calling in Downing Street his Lordship will see him upon it.' This would hardly have been the case if Spencer had been a crank.'

It should also be known and understood that Pitt while out of office was 'in residence' at Walmer Castle in Kent as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and undoubtedly knew what operations were being conducted from there, unless he was both deaf and dumb or just plain stupid.

von Winterfeldt30 Nov 2017 6:00 a.m. PST

Brechtl's choise of rating is obvious, if an author is benign and as pro propanda as Boney himself, and fits his opinion, he/she is reliable, if critical to Boney it is unreliable.

Old wrongly proven myths, such as Cronin's – e.g. assement of the memoires of Thiebault – are brought up repeatedly – the refutatuons of this myhts by the thesis of Jackson L. Sigler are conveniently ignored.

A transparent line of argumentation as displayed by Le Breton or 42flanker help to make ones own opinion or conclusion, Brehtel likes to dictated his opinion as the ultimate judgment.

Brechtel198 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2017 8:11 a.m. PST

You could not be more mistaken on all counts.

42flanker30 Nov 2017 8:27 a.m. PST

I'm not quite sure how to interpret your reference to a 'discussion' (Do your inverted commas suggest that something short of reasoned debate is taking place?) but amid Señor de la Huerta's speculative observations, the absence of any reference to "guerilla training camps" is certainly refreshing.

42flanker30 Nov 2017 8:45 a.m. PST

The concordance between Horlick's text and that of Cronin, from twenty years earlier, is transparent.

Here, in the now familiar passages, the former has clearly edited down the latter's description:
[C] 'George Cadoudal, a squat, red-haired Breton peasant of immense strength_Goliath to his friends- with a bull neck, broken nose, red sideburns, and one grey eye bigger than the other.'
[H]'The squat, bull necked Breton, (only just over five foot tall) with red hair and a scarred broken nose'

[C]'Cadoudal ran a training camp for conspirators and guerrillas at Romsey.'
[H]'Had been running the Royalist guerrilla training camp at Romsey'

Gratifyingly, the independent-minded Andrew Roberts did not fall into the same trap and describes the 'squat' Chouan leader, ('only just over five foot tall') as 'The tall and burly Cadoudal.'

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5