"Lobster pots" Topic

Today's post at KeepYourPowderDry goes all geeky and looks at helmet development from the start of the British Civil Wars through to the Restoration.

link

Very interesting article sir! Nice background and explanation.

Thanks Hal. Currently trying to date the use of the term 'lobster' (for both the helmet and Hesilrigge's RoH). Looks like my theory that they are Victorian/Edwardian affectations might be correct.

If anyone is aware of any contemporary usage of the adjective 'lobster'with regard to the helmet or Hesilrigge's RoH then I'd really appreciate it. (Any reference to Haythornthwaite will be treated with the disdain that it deserves 😉)

Lobster, in relation to Hesilrigge's RoH, can be attributed to Lord Byron, so that one is at least a contemporaneous use.

Lobster pot does in fact appear to be a Victorian construct. Along with mortuary sword, and apostles.

Lobster in relation to Hesilrigge's regiment is also used by Clarendon in his history of the rebellion. He attributes it as a name by which the Royalists described them.

Thanks Andrew. I must confess that I always forget that Clarendon was writing in 1647, I tend to associate him as a Victorian (because his history was reprinted in 1888 I think)

Just think of the magnificent Nigel Stock playing him in Cromwell, that should fix it in your mind!

Being across the pond I have access to only the standard commercial books and sources. Just what is wrong with Haythornwaite? His illustrations and explanations seem to pretty much match what I've read, except perhaps for the large number of hats and helms vs. Monmouths and monteros.

Haythornthwaite had many many errors in it when it was written. The illustrations, whilst beautiful, are dreadful, with far too many historical errors (even at the time of publication) – unfortunately lots of figure designers have taken them as gospel.

The book relies too heavily on secondary sources and repeats errors made by original authors.

Unfortunately a lot of lazy authors have picked up Haythornthwaite and repeated many of his 'facts' without checking them. Thus errors have been repeated and repeated and repeated.

Since it was published research has moved on considerably, compounding the issues that the book has (and for this Haythornthwaite can not be blamed).

It is a very inspiring book, just don't believe much that is presented in it. (There are a few good snippets in there, so not all bad).