"English 'Gentlemen'?" Topic

I think, seriously, that the reputation for veracity of some of the authors quoted in this thread as supporting the 'British plot' story, has been badly damaged by the scrutiny above into their claimed sourcing.

The scrutineers on TMP may or may not have admired Napoleon, but their rigour in pinning down and exposing some really questionable published sourcing claims, should in my view be acknowledged, and applauded- whatever one's personal views of the main character.

I've no reason to think that Tim Clayton's sourcing will contain any of the serious problems this thread has illuminated above in other authors' work. Let's trust and see.

Well, I spoke in jest but it's interesting to see how-

"The best of the many books commemorating next year's 200th anniversary"

"The book may well become the most authoritative account…"

"Tim Clayton's book is the best overview…." (and Simon Heffer should know)

-becomes "widely acclaimed as the best book on the campaign."

But puff is puff and a fella has to pay the bills.

Clayton's Waterloo book is interesting on things like how d'Erlon got his men through the grand battery, but other than in the detail he goes to it did not strike me as adding much new thinking. It was a bit of a 200th anniversary thing IMO.

Clayton says this:

I'm currently developing two major projects: one is a contextual biography of James Gillray and the other is on a book about the British government's campaigns in the first years of the nineteenth century to assassinate Napoleon Bonaparte while fixing in the public mind an image of him as a warmongering, murderous tyrant.

Seeing how Britain was fighting Napoleon who wanted to invade these islands and all that nastiness that came with his army (only second to the Ottomans when it came to ravaging countries and who had a habit of even pillaging in parts of their own…), What does Clayton expect the British to do? Portray him as an all-giving, baby kissing, flower strewing, meadow skipping cherub?

Paul :)

dibble

You should be brave and ask yourself why should the mighty Brits have to fool their own people into believing Napoleon was a monster. The answer is simples, if they let the people decide or find out themselves they might well have welcomed him. Better to create a false image and put the fear of God into them. That way they'll march to their deaths (as they did) thinking they're saving their country. They'll even accept the introduction of Income Tax and all their money going to pay other countries to keep waging war again Napoleon.

Napoleon wasn't perfect, no one in history was or will be. And no one wants him portrayed as a saint either. All the rulers were the same, as I keep saying. He was better at war than all of them, most of the time, but Britain was certainly better at paying people to continue the wars against him. They had to, otherwise their wannabe empire would not have existed.

Those who find and say anything positive about Napoleon, do not for one minute believe he was a perfect or a saint, not do they agree with everything he did. Those that believe such an absurd accusation are only fooling themselves because they can't stand their viewpoints being challenged. They are also ignoring the fact that their own 'heroes' have faults and are certainly not saints and did not go to war against Napoleon for the benefit of their fellow man. More likely the benefit of their own wallets and banks.

The benefit we have today is that we can look at both sides and see through the silly propaganda, something the ordinary folk living the period were unable to do. But for many people, even with this ability, it is still easier to throw the blame for everything on one person or one nation. It is as sad as history repeating itself. Some people never learn, mainly because they don't want to.

It looks this thread may well have run its course. Eyes to the left, nose to the right.

So…if nobody has anything else sensible to say, nothing to acknowledge, for instance, no applause to offer…..?

No? Anybody….?

42flanker

It is quite easy and cheap to put down an author or historian because they dare to show another viewpoint, one that might not agree with their own.

And there is certainly a trend by some sad people to try and put down those who dare to saying something positive about Napoleon. Anyone daring to write something positive or not offering an all negative narrative must obviously be bad authors/historians and are only writing such viewpoints and doing extensive research to pay their bills. Those offering negatives viewpoints don't just write to make money, of course. LOL

And, of course, all those people buying the works of these award winning authors/historians, must obviously know nothing either.

But it really is funny seeing people making their pathetic excuses rather than just accepting that people today can see through the propaganda that is obviously still blinding some and can make their own minds up. To like or dislike Napoleon, is up to the individual. They don't have to agree or disagree with those who obviously can't cope with anything positive being said about the great man or their viewpoints being challenged.

Napoleon is just a man, but what man. He made his place in history and that, no matter what your viewpoint is, will never change. And that's even with losing at Waterloo! LOL

typical of you Gazz' The reputation of the French army and that of the first consul-Emperor went before it and him. if you feel happy for a foreign country to invade, destroy, pillage, rape,murder and cause misery across the country of yours, then that tells us what type of person you are.

There were those who were like you but in the past in this country who had a love for the Spanish king in the 16th century, Louis XIV in the 17th, William II, and Hitler in the 20th century.

You want to hate your own but fawn over a barbaric hoard of foreigners, then good for you mate.

Anyway! all the authors mentioned above have no evidence that the British government or Pitt ordered the assassination of Napoleon, or that there was a south-coast training camp for agents.

And as mentioned above! This thread has reached it end.

I'll say no more on this thread about lazy authors and those who are taken in by them.

Take care Gazz! Catch you in another thread. Yeeeeeaaaawwwnnn!

Paul :)

Seneffe, I omitted in my last comment to acknowledge your generous remarks on our work to check the sources under discussion, which were much appreciated.

"For this relief, much thanks…." Over and out.

I hesitate to post here again, but those who have been following the discussion on this thread- (well done!)- may be interested to know what evidence for British-inspired assassination plots appear in Elizabeth Sparrow's book 'Secret Agent: British Agents in France, 1792-1815' – mention in earlier posts here. Here is a report from the Napoleon Series Discussion Forum, where the discussion stumbles on.

"…for those who are curious as to the detail in her book (Secret Agent:British Agents in France, 1792-1815 ) re. assassination attempts made against Bonaparte by Royalists and other opponents to his regime, I can report a few observations.

It is interesting to note that in Chapter 15- 'The Grand Conspiracy' (mentioned by Kevin)- Mrs Sparrow does not describe any projected assassination plan. At one point she refers to Chouans from Jersey joining Cadoudal in England, "men calculated to carry out a coup de main". She does not specify what this might refer to, nor if it was related to a specific plan, but merely comments that two men who wentahead to check out the situation in Paris, St Hiliare and Villeneuve, were both "accused by Paris police of having taken part in Rue Nicaise bomb conspiracy," which curiously empty insinuation doesn't leave us any the wiser.

The word 'assassination' appears only at the very end of the chapter where she describes the letter circulated by Talleyrand to the foreign embassies in Paris denouncing Britain's attempt "to ovethrow the government of France by the assassination of Napoleon Bonaparte." She does not comment as to the truth of the accusation or refer to any evidence offered by the French.

Her conclusion that "It could not be denied that Britain had been involved in the internal affairs of France" is incontravertable. She goes on to mention the British retort, circulated under similar circumstances in London, that denied "with scorn and indignation" the charge, citing in counter-charge the judicial murder of Enghien- "in violation of the Law of Nations," with the added statement- "It is an acknowledged Right of Belligerent owers to avail themselves of any discontents existing in the countries with which they happen to be at war," and citing further the French efforts at subversion in Ireland.

Meanwhile, the word 'murder' appears only in the context of General Pichegru "murdered in his Temple cell …found strangled," and Captain Wright RN the energetic ferryman of agents across the Channel until taken prisoner at sea, who in October 1805 was found dead in his cell with his throat cut from ear to ear, " a closed razor in his hand," his death officially described as suicide but "believed by his friends to be murder."

Mrs Sparrow's footnote references are somewhat opaque. They are mostly archival sources, and are only inserted at the end of long paragraphs so it is not immediately clear which sentence she might be amplifiying. ENDS

So again! No evidence of Pitt/British Government ordering the Assassination of Napoleon. I see now why Brechtel didn't post any sources from the book like he said he would on the other site.

Case closed?

Paul :)

Not proven, at any rate.

dibble

That is the worse (but not unexpected) excuse I have heard against someone who disagrees with your viewpoint. LOL

Your sad statement, and it really is sad, proves that you just can't cope with someone having a different viewpoint and exposes your biased hatred of a historical character and race.

You want to see the French as barbaric because you won't have to question your own viewpoint or those you favour from the period. But I guess that's you and your blinkered way. Same old by the same old.

'hate my own, fawn over a barbaric hoard of foreigners' That is so comical. I guess I joined the BRITISH Army because I er, hate my own? LOL And the wages for the military when I joined at the time were pretty poor, so it wasn't a financial decision, in case some joker tries to suggest that's why I joined. Believe it or not I loved the British Army, still do. But I won't pretend they were always right and never did anything wrong, although the blame is more due to greedy and selfish politicians and businessmen, not the troops who did the dirty work for them.

And just because you don't want to find fault with the nation you obviously 'fawn' over, doesn't mean the truth should not be exposed or debated or that everyone should pretend they were always the good guys, because they certainly were not. I know it hurts for people like you to hear this but you just have to learn to accept it. You probably want the negative things about the country you 'fawn' over kept quiet, can't have people asking questions, can we?

And as for 'If you feel happy for a foreign country to invade, destroy, pillage, rape, murder and cause misery'. No, of course not, that's why I mentioned the British atrocities at Copenhagen and San Sebastian etc. And of course, we must not forget India. Should we think that you are okay with them? Both sides of the story must be told, not just one side because it makes you feel better. It makes all the enemies always wrong. LOL And it was very interesting you did not argue my point about many of the wars (and therefore deaths and atrocities) would not have occurred had Britain not paid for the various nations to keep waging war.

You really do need to look to your own before you start throwing out negatives about other nations and historical characters. As the saying goes, those that live in glass houses…LOL

Anyway, all you Anti-Nappers should be thankful for Napoleon. Without him and the historical period named after him, the other historical characters of the period would have faded away long ago as people of no significance. Now they can cling to the Napoleonic Wars and Waterloo and say we were there, we existed.

Chapeaux pour vous mon ami!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Gazzola

I refer you 'and your mates', to my last post as well as other posts on the subject of Copenhagen, Badajoz, etc.

But anyway, 'on topic' there is no proof of Pitt and the British Government ordering the assassination. And there were no 'training camps' for French agents on the south coast either….Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary as your mate doesn't…

:)

Gazzola has no choice but to blur the issue. The topic is dead and buried I think.

Let us not be confused- Chivalry title or not, upbringing or not, wealth or not, Being a gentleman is a way of behavior.

Gentlemanly behavior is not a subjecet of debate. It is expected.

But the definition of what a 'gentleman' is may differ from country to country, and from time period to time period.

It may or may not be based on behavior, but on social class and the possession of wealth, depending on the nation and period.

Today it is a way of behavior, usually.

One must hope so Kevin.

Agree completely.

Now that the vulgar uproar, ad hominem comments, and general nonsense is perhaps over on the subject, I believe the following facts are obvious if the material has been read or can be seen:

-the Bourbons were attempting, more than once, to murder Napoleon.

-the British government supported and financed the Bourbon efforts against Napoleon and his government.

-the Bourbons were quartered and sheltered in England/Great Britain.

-Pitt founded the British intelligence service beginning in ca 1793.

-Even after being out of office, Pitt knew of and supported the British and Bourbon efforts against France from his post as Warden of the Cinque Ports.

-the Royal Navy was involved in the intelligence operations against the French government and supported the Bourbons by landing their agents in France on multiple occasions.

That being said, it would be interesting to see the reactions of those here who steadfastly refuse to believe that the British government was attempting to assassinate Napoleon by supporting the Bourbons, would believe sources of that nature (secondary) if the roles were reversed. That is, if the six secondary sources listed were stating the Napoleon was involved in assassination attempts against Pitt or his ministers, those here who are virulently opposed to the facts posted here, would be in firm agreement with any secondary source that stated Napoleon wanted Pitt or his ministers assassinated.

Just simple role and source reversal.

"The British provided support, funding, and a training site for French royalists to train to overthrow Napoleon's government and to assassinate Napoleon."
"Pitt supported the training camps for royalists"
"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"
And so on.
We are not going to be offered any viable primary source support for these assertions?
And we are moving on to another list of assertions?

=================

OK …..

Conspiration d'Hanriot : Jacobin
Conspiration des poignards : Jacobin
Attentat de la rue Saint-Nicaise : Chouan
Affaire de Pichegru : Chouan (Cadoudal), Royalist (d'Artois), Jacobin (Moreau)
Friedrich Staps : German nationalist

"the Bourbons were attempting, more than once, to murder Napoleon"

So far, I think all we have seen with actual references to primary sources is that the comte d'Artois was aware that Cadoudal and Pichegru were attempting to organize a coup agianst Bonaparte and were seeking Moreau's support. I am thinking that does not get us to the quoted assertion. So, Mr. Brechtel, can you offer any primary source evidence for your assertion? I am not looking for a Bourbon's knowledge of one atttempted coup, but the Boubons (plural), more than once, attempting an assassination.

=================

"-the British government supported and financed the Bourbon efforts against Napoleon and his government."
Well, not quite this has been shown. How about :
"-the British government supported and financed the Bourbons, and the Bourbons made efforts against Napoleon and his government."
By the way, why wouldn't they? I would suppose that the Bourbons and the British thought that Bonaparte was not the legitimate ruler of France.

=================

"-the Bourbons were quartered and sheltered in England/Great Britain."
how about :
"-a Bourbon was quartered and sheltered in Scotland/Great Britain."
I know of one : the comte d'Artois and his mistress lived in Edinburg during the Consulate. Were there any others?
The comte d'Artois later moved to London, where he was joined by the comte de Provence in late 1807.

=================

"-Pitt founded the British intelligence service beginning in ca 1793."

In a formal sense, no :
The Directorate of Military Intelligence dates its roots to the fonding of the Department of Topography & Statistics in 1854.
The Naval Intelligence Division created originally as a part of the Admiralty War Staff in 1912.
The Secret Service Bureau was founded in 1909 jointly by the Admiralty and the War Office.

In an informal sense, "intelligence" operations pre-dated Pitt. Spying might be the second oldest profession.
The Arnold/André affair should be familiar to any American.

=================

"-Even after being out of office, Pitt knew of and supported the British and Bourbon efforts against France from his post as Warden of the Cinque Ports."
Possibly true. However, I do not recall seeing any primary source evidence for this assertion. Mr. Brechtel, do you have any?

=================

"-the Royal Navy was involved in the intelligence operations against the French government and supported the Bourbons by landing their agents in France on multiple occasions."
I would think them derelict in their duty if the Royal Navy failed to do thusly. Although I think that ascribig ot the Navy a separate or unique policy decision to "support the Boubons" is going a bit far. It was the policy of the elected governments and the British crown to support the legitimate rulers of France, the Bourbons. The Navy did not make such foreign policy decisions.

=================

" if the six secondary sources listed were stating the Napoleon was involved in assassination"

I don't think you got to six. I think you brought us Cronin – a hack – and 4 parrots quoting him or each other.
If someone offered a hack and his flock of parrots, without viable primary sources, to accuse Napoléon – then I would have exactly the same issues.

Actually I really do have them with regard to the murder of the duc d'Enghien. I think it is clear that Napoléon ordered the kidnapping and trial by a kangaroo court military tribunal which could be expected to order his execution. But I really do not know if the swift imposition of this sentence was by the direct order of Napoléon, a comment like "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?", or Savary's own bloodthirsty zeal. Ferdinand of Spain was merely kidhapped, forced to abdicate and confined incommunicado – but not lined up against a wall and shot. So perhaps the blood of d'Enghien was not on Napoléon's hands, as he later claimed.

"-Pitt founded the British intelligence service beginning in ca 1793."

In a formal sense, no :
The Directorate of Military Intelligence dates its roots to the fonding of the Department of Topography & Statistics in 1854.
The Naval Intelligence Division created originally as a part of the Admiralty War Staff in 1912.
The Secret Service Bureau was founded in 1909 jointly by the Admiralty and the War Office.

In an informal sense, "intelligence" operations pre-dated Pitt. Spying might be the second oldest profession.
The Arnold/André affair should be familiar to any American.

Elizabeth I's Francis Walsingham, Robert and William Cecil were the precursors of all the modern intelligent agencies which predates this little episode by 250 years. Their feats are well documented.

Paul :)

"-Even after being out of office, Pitt knew of and supported the British and Bourbon efforts against France from his post as Warden of the Cinque Ports."

I think we wil have to give this one a "no".
Warden of the Cinque Ports was by this time a sinecure. It had no actual or active duties whatsoever. It entotled the incumbent to no role in government or administration …. but he did geta nice residence in Deal, as well as a stem of income.

"A sinecure is, for the most part, produced by lapse of time and change of circumstances in a country. Thus, for example, the office of lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, which, by a recent report made to parliament, it has been proposed to abolish in England, is a sinecure. …. "

The National Register – Volume 3, 1817
page 321
link

The prior incumbent before Pitt in the position, Lord North, was appointed in 1778, while serving as prime minister. He held it until his death. During his tenure as Warden, he was Home Secretary in the Fox/North coalition, then blind, entered the House of Lords. He lived in Oxfordshire, and I could find no record that he ever even visted any of the 5 Ports.

After Pitt's tenure, the next incumbent was Lord Liverpool, holding the position from 1806 to 1828, the year of his demise. He was the prime minister during this period.

Breton, you are perhaps forgetting Roberts and Sparrow (who, added to Cronin, Lloyd, Horlicks and Pocock, do make six); the one was found lamentably wanting in the sources department, you may recall, and the other reported nothing concrete about murder or assassination – except by agents of the French regime. Perhaps we should add De la Huerta to the list, as well. His citations were anatomised by you with surgical precision.

As far as the Royal Navy being 'involved in intelligence operations,' well, as Breton points out, why wouldn't the principal element of Britain's defence forces be acting against the enemy? However, these operations in fact amounted to a handful of officers operating a few small vessels, frequently side-stepping the chain of command, and at times against express orders of high command. Montagu, tne one junior admiral promoting Foreign office schemes, was fired.

The presence of the various members of Sydney Smith's family at Walmer Castle is referred to by Sparrow but who they reported to in government, if anyone, is not clear and their relationship to Pitt beyond physical proximity is not detailed.

Even if Pitt was privy to some of Smith's schemes, one is inclined to say, "So what?" He was estranged from Aldington during that time and remained aloof from the administration. Pitt's main contribution to Britain's defence during his period out of office appears to have been as the very active Colonel of the Cinque Ports Volunteers, a corps he raised- and proposed to lead in action, should the need arise. Fortunately, that didn't prove necessary.

I did count de la Huerta, but not Roberts and Sparrow.
The latter two did not make Brechtel's assertions about "training camps" and British assassinations.
So final score would be suported assertions nil, hacks 1, parrots 4, and 2 not-out (or left-on-base).

=============

"[Pitt] was estranged from Aldington during that time and remained aloof from the administration."
Exactly – Pitt was out of government and being Warden of the Cinque Ports was not some kind of active appointment. So, whatever his "support", it could be no more than his personal opinion.

Sparrow, no, but Roberts does allude to "direct British government involvement in the 1804 plot to murder Napoleon" and asserts that "Plots to 'abduct' Napoleon at this time were transparent covers for his assassination"- without any supporting evidence, as we have seen.

In addition, Sparrow does seem to hint at a tentative connection between the Chouan advance party in 1803 and the Rue St Nicaise attack of 1800, for reasons she does not expand on, but fails to follow it through.

Be that as it may (I should have that phrase tattooed over my heart), the inaccuracies and airy generalisations you have pinpointed, intermixed with successive truisms and statements of the bleeding obvious, do not amount to a persuasive argument. Indeed, I am not entirely sure if any point was being made at all.

Sorry, Kevin, but you've proven nothing. Your sources don't back up your assertions. You may be correct, but your sources simply don't support your position.

If you haven't read the books, and then checked the authors' source material, then that 'conclusion' is just a little premature.

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with you.

Have you checked the authors' source material Kevin? Or are you taking their claims at face value, which is your usual MO?

Kevin –

It's clear that you haven't read the materials either.

This is a theme with you that goes something like this:

You make an assertion; someone asks for sources; you tell them to read X; they read X and find out that you haven't read X and call you on it; you repeat the assertion saying that those who did the research clearly don't know what they are talking about and 'the bottom line is…"

I've been lurking and occassionally posting here and elsewhere for nearly 20 years and I've seen this story play out many times where it follows roughly what I outlined above. I'm not sure you have ever been wrong or gainsaid in that time. Even Dave Hollins conceded that there were some holes in his Marengo narrative when confronted by new and credible evidence. As you like to say, that's part of the process of historical inquiry.

There is nothing wrong with only researching in English, just be honest about it so the reader knows the context and your limitations.

I have all six of the books referred to in my library. How else do you suppose I posted quotations from them on this site?

Further, how do you think I looked up their references and mentioned them on this site.

And I have been honest about what I have found. You are posting nonsense.

And, yes, I'm taking the authors' claims at face value which is why I posted what I found. No one here has posted enough information to refute them. All six are basically stating the same thing on the subject.

Have I looked at their source material? No, as I haven't access to them. If you really want to refute them, shouldn't you find their source material and take a look at it?

So, perhaps you two ought to do a little reading…?

I think I must agree with Kevin.

Um, no. You made the assertion, got challenged and didn't like what folks who had actually read the source material found. I have made no assertions and it's no incumbent upon me to prove or disprove anything. Sorry, old stick, but it's up to you…

Indeed it is.

Remain a Gentileman.

that is the man who usually accuses others to be intelectually dishonest.

What happened to the Christmas spirit?… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Well, Armand, it's not everybody picks a fight on Christmas Eve…

Armand-well said. You, Sir are a Gentleman.

It is obvious that the nation which burned innocent farms and homes in the Chesapeake, would have no trouble in killing a successful enemy general.

(hey, if there is a 4 page fight going on, there is no way that I can't at least make a token effort to get involved!)

Or conducting the terror bombing of civilians in an unprovoked attack upon a neutral nation, as well as devastating the land of an ally.

Are we talking about France now. or Spain. Or the US.

Ah-'Groundhog Day': it comes round again so soon, doesn't it!

Are we talking about France now. or Spain. Or the US.

Great Britain: Torres Vedras, Copenhagen, and we can also talk about British naval operations in 1813-1814 along the Chesapeake.

Or, you could talk about the original topic, where, once again, your attempted ‘intellectual bullying' hasn't worked again, your sources have been revealed as very suspect, again, and now you are attempting ‘whataboutisms' to divert the thread away from your failures, again.

Give it up, mate, it's not worth it. As your snapping puppy Gazz would no doubt say, ‘Lol'

John

We can make more topics, new threads, for the "whatabouts".

One thread could be :
War to the Knife : Iberia against Britain

I know little of the Peninsular War, and would be happy to learn all about the heinous depradations of the British, the stripping of whole provinces of foodstuffs, the official and unofficial exacations of tributes and ransoms, the execution of prisoners, the sieges of cities held essentially only by civilians, the bandit and rape gangs of British deserters, the robbery of religious sacred objects, the desecration of churches turned into stbales …. and the violent reaction of the local people rising up as partisans and bandits to resist the British, torturing British prisoners in hideous ways, their women and children taking up arms, trying to drive the evil anti-Christ British from their soil …. wow, that would be so interesting.

Oh wait, all that was the French, not the British, right?

The Peninsula is so confusing …. I should just stick to Russian stuff.

Hmm. If I remember the Independent Companies of foreigners were made up of FRENCH army POWs. …. possibly they were just carrying on how they thought was normal.

And the US troops invading Canada were perfect little angels I'm sure who definitely didn't burn down any Canadian towns called York or Newark or robbed any Canadian villagers. Or left Canadian women and babies to die in the snow.

But either way, even if the British soldiers were reducing the world to ashes (didn't French citizens prefer them to their own soldiers?) that still doesn't change the fact that the sources you quoted were found to be basing their claims on sources that don't say what they say they said. People went out and read them, and if anything they leave the idea in tatters. Thankfully the better historians of TMP are not intimidated! Humble me I'm just a miniature painter and wargamer but it's fascinating to read. These kamikaze threads are my favourite.

And even if you had ACTUAL proof of an assissination attempt why would that be a bad thing? Kill Boney in 1806 and I guess a million soldiers and 2-3 million civilians live.
We tried it with Rommel.
US tried it with Castro and a Japanese admiral. And numerous Native American chiefs under flags of truce/ in the middle of peace treaty talks… maybe we should have settled it the American way, invited him over for a chat and then axe him in the back of the head while he sips his tea. Didn't your guys shoot an unarmed Bin Laden in the face, after killing a daughter in law of his…. those in glass houses…

So even if you could prove it it would mean only they had some grand fore sight and vision, and that they were at war. But since all we have are some spurious, almost sensationalist claims from authors who it seems didn't read/understand the sources they claim to have used. Then it's a bit of a muchness really to be claiming it.
Still. Highly entertaining though. So keep at it. In another page or too Gazzola will come back and foam at the mouth I suppose, claiming some "anti Napoléon" conspiracy. All adding to the comedy value but still not changing the salient facts.

You made a claim. (Britain tried to assassinate Boney/Britain has training camps for royalist soldiers)
You backed it up with sources.
People checked the sources and then checked THEIR sources and find … nothing that can support your initial claims … and at best you have Britain let a few scattered emigres stay in England, and that some Britons may have gone out on a limb to help them… but there is nothing like what was suggested at the start.

Merry Christmas!

Ha-Ha-Ha… you make me laught 1968billsfan !!

Thanks for your kindly words mon ami le Grande Quartier General!! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand