Could Keith Windham have been a Dissenter?

[luzula]

In a way, this research is pointless because I'm 100% sure that Keith Windham is not interested in being a Dissenter--he seems to be a default Anglican who is not interested in religion. But I had written a line in a fic where the question arises (though it was not actually necessary for the plot). Then garonne noted that Keith could only really be an Anglican because that was required of all state officials, including military officers (or, well, they had to take Anglican communion once a year, at least). But I suspected that this would not be true because Keith is in a Scottish regiment.

It was surprisingly difficult to find information on this online, though now I see that if I had only used the right search terms, I would have found it--but of course the right search terms were part of what I didn't know. But finally in the article 'The Realities of Toleration: Army Chaplaincy, Religious Politics and Scottish military experience, c. 1690 to 1763', by Xiang Wei (2023), I found the answer. I could not get hold of it online by myself, and I bless the university library for never asking why someone in the math department would want to read such an article (is this in fact part of their professional code?).

So in the 17th century Restoration, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism was imposed on the whole of Britain, and required of all state officials. Then in the Glorious Revolution the Presbyterian Kirk gained ascendancy in Scotland, so that all officials had to be Presbyterian there. But in 1712, the Toleration Act changed this (but only in Scotland!), so that it was okay for government officials to be either Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Anglican (and perhaps further Protestant denominations, I don't know how far it stretched). Not only that, the Patronage Act also opened the door for army chaplains not to be Presbyterian (because lay patrons could appoint ministers and they didn't have to appointed by the local congregations, which the Presbyterian Kirk wanted). Of course, there was controversy about this, with the Kirk wanting to gain control over the appointment of army chaplains--but over the course of the 18th century, the army increasingly controlled such appointments. Scotland having toleration but Ireland and England not having it caused some problems when regiments moved across borders. For example, there was an incident where a Presbyterian army chaplain was fired when his regiment was deployed to Ireland. He tried to fight this legally, but lost.

Anyway, there you go, I was right! Keith could have been Presbyterian, or probably some sort of Dissenter, if he had wanted to. Some of his colleagues probably are.

Comments

[muccamukk]

That's interesting, so I guess it's further somewhat likely that Keith's peers cared about religion more than ordinary? If that was the only place some of them could serve.

[luzula]

Yeah, I wondered about that, actually--could it have been the case that some English officers who were Dissenters purchased commissions in Scottish regiments just so they could practice their religion?

[muccamukk]

I assume that if people were willing to move to France to be in the army and practice their religion at the same time, at least some of them would be willing to move to Scotland!

[regshoe]

That is very interesting (and how helpful of your university library :D )!

I would have said Keith specifically is obviously not a Dissenter on grounds of class—he's an upper-class Englishman and they are nearly all (at least nominally) Anglican with the few exceptions being Catholics rather than Dissenters. But that's a generalisation, and of course the cross-border situation is very complicated, and it's interesting to hear about what would have been the background of Keith's regiment (where most of the officers are presumably Scottish).

I wonder if there were English Presbyterians who got commissions in Scottish regiments because they were allowed to there? Although again I would imagine there were very few English Presbyterians belonging to the officer class/otherwise in a position to become officers in the first place.

[luzula]

Yeah, of course the class aspect is interesting--I guess it's not a coincidence that it's Scotland and not England that got the Toleration Act, given that the upper classes in Scotland were disproportionately Episcopalian and they didn't want to be barred from state jobs!

[regshoe]

Heh, true! Although weren't there a few difficulties around Scottish Episcopalians given the strong association with Jacobitism? (and the post-'45 official suppression of Episcopalianism—I imagine any Episcopalian officers must have been kept away from that).

[garonne]

How cool that you managed to find that article!

I have difficulty imagining Keith as a Dissenter, I guess because of his class background. But I did actually spend a little time trying to figure out whether his father had been in a Scottish or English regiment, thinking that if Keith were somehow a Dissenter, it would surely be by birth rather than by conviction. But we don't seem to have any information about exactly what regiment his father was in, as far as I know? It looks like the Royal Scots were at Malplaquet, so that could fit...

[luzula]

I have difficulty imagining Keith as a Dissenter, I guess because of his class background.
Me too! But I just got stuck on the issue of whether it would have been possible or not. *g*

I don't think his father was in the Royal Scots; I think canon would have remarked on it if he were. Also, there's this line: Or had she found him useful, like Lord Orkney, who, when Keith was a mere boy, had promised the pair of colours in the Royal Scots which had saved his mother so much trouble and expense—and had deprived him of any choice in the matter of a regiment. That makes it sound like Keith had no prior relationship at all to the Royal Scots. (But also, it was a prestigious regiment! I don't see why Keith would be displeased with it...unless he had wanted to go into his father's old regiment, perhaps. I can see that.)

[garonne]

and had deprived him of any choice in the matter of a regiment.

Yeah, good point. I missed that, but that's really not something you say about someone who ended up in a regiment that he had an obvious preference for. In fact it kinda seems to imply that he is not in his father's regiment.