‘ B e r e f t o f a l l H u m a n H e l p ? ’ 1:
Scottish Widows during the
T h i r t y Ye a r s ’ Wa r ( 1 6 1 8 - 1 6 4 8 )
Steve Murdoch and Kathrin Zickermann
1
Introduction
SCOTTISH SOLDIERS and officers contributed heavily to the Dutch and
Scandinavian armies during the Thirty Years’ War: estimates state that over
50,000 Scots aided the anti-Habsburg forces alone throughout the conflict.2
In light of the war’s high attrition rate, it is surprising that we know little
about the fate of the soldiers’ dependants. In her 2003 monograph, Alexia
Grosjean noted that the field of military widows and children of fallen soldiers
remained a rather under-researched topic.3 With reference to the Swedish
case, Grosjean’s work was followed by several other contributions on women
and warfare which focussed on Scandinavian case studies; Mary Beth Ailes
looked at ‘War, Widows and State Formation’ in Sweden while Siobhan Talbot
explored ‘Scottish Women and the Scandinavian Wars’ in general.4 More
recently, there have been some significant contributions to the field, regarding
both ‘widows’ and ‘women in warfare’ in other early-seventeenth-century
theatres.5 However, a detailed analysis of the particular group comprising
Scottish widows and based on their surviving correspondence is missing.
The present article seeks to close this gap by analysing a number of case
studies which flag up the differences in the financial settlements available
to Scottish widows based in the Dutch Republic and Swedish Empire. The
1
2
3
4
5
114
The Swedish National Archives (Riksarkivet), Oxenstiernska samlingen (OS), E724.
Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 22 July 1633.
Murdoch (ed) 2001, 19-20.
Grosjean 2003a, 145. Some work has been done in this area in more general studies of
widowhood. See Wiesner 2000.
Ailes 2006, 17-34; Talbott 2007, 102-127.
For example Lynn 2008; Sjöberg 2011, 204-216; Hacker and Vining (eds) 2012. See also
Worthen 2017.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
comparison reveals the extent to which these women were cared for through
private provision (for example through stipulations made in wills) against
any available institutional support. Most importantly, it also investigates
what happened when such mechanisms failed and women had to rely on
their own agency and/or their deceased husbands’ social networks.
Wills
It is not surprising that Scottish soldiers sought to provide for their
wives and children after their death, particularly given the nature of their
profession. Personal testimony and legal documentation from enlisted men
clearly reveals their concern for the women in their lives, be it their mothers,
sisters, wives or daughters.6 Leendert Grim (Graham), a common soldier in
Colonel William Brog’s company, made a joint will with his wife Christina
Bruce in December 1635, after five years of marriage. Both were named as sole
beneficiaries in the event of the other’s death.7 It made no difference to some
men if their wives were Scottish or Dutch as evidenced when another Scot in
Brog’s regiment, Conrad Been and his Dutch wife Aelken Wilbortsdochter,
also named each other as sole universal heirs.8 However, the cases of children
inheriting instead of their mothers can also be seen in the testaments of
common soldiers. Colonel Brog’s trumpeter, John Thomas Maxwell, specified
that his wife, Jannet Maxwell, would become his universal beneficiary, but
only if he died childless.9 Others had a different view, such as the Dutch East
India Company (VOC) musketeer David ‘Vloeker’ in 1622. He stipulated that
his children could inherit, but only after his wife had died.10
In a recent survey of over 150 Scottish testaments located in Rotterdam,
it was found that the majority, some 64%, were made by common sailors and
soldiers serving either in the European or Asian theatres (albeit not all during
the Thirty Years’ War).11 There was little difference found in the patterns of ‘heir
naming’ between the soldiers and sailors of the VOC and those of the Scots
Brigade, with the exception that the Brigade wives appeared to be based in the
6
7
8
9
10
11
For transcriptions of one such corpus from a common soldier who served in both the Dutch
Republic and Sweden see Grosjean, Murdoch and Talbott 2015, 76-101.
Gemeentearchief Rotterdam (GAR) – Notarial Archive (ONA). Testament 14/12/1635
Inventarisnummer 195. Aktennummer 231/44s; Grim (Graham) married Bruce in Delft, 15
September 1630. See Maclean 1976, 250.
GAR ONA, Testament 13/05/1631. Inventarisnummer 108. Aktennummer 157/275;
Coenraat Been married widow Aeltgen Willeborts in Rotterdam 25 June 1628. Maclean
1976, 249.
GAR ONA, Testament 08/01/1633. Inventarisnummer 129. Aktennummer 3/19.
Murdoch 2012, 40.
Murdoch 2012, 38-57 & 46 (for the statistical data).
115
Northern Studies, vol. 50
Dutch Republic, while those of the VOC recruits were often based in Scotland.12
The Rotterdam archives also reveal that legal declarations including notarial
records of obligation (schuldbekentenis) and powers of attorney (machtiging)
were employed to ensure that debts were cleared before the residue of wealth
and belongings were returned to heirs either in Rotterdam or Scotland.13
High-ranking officers in Swedish service also left wills to ensure their
wives and children would be cared for. General Sir James Spens of Wormiston
drafted his in 1631. In it he was careful to protect his son and heir from his
first marriage, William Spens, and all his rights to the main Spens barony of
Orreholm, in Västergötland, including the manor and the moveable goods
therein. But he was equally emphatic about the lands that should pass to
his second wife, Margaret Forrat, including 15 farms and the country manor
house at Ala, in Uppland, and that these were to remain in the possession
of his wife so long as she remained unmarried. Ten of the farms had to be
given up upon any remarriage, after which they would pass to her son Axel,
though she was to maintain the estate at Ala until her death. His daughters
from his first marriage to Agnes Durie, Isobel, Elizabeth and Cecilia, having
already had ‘sufficient dowries’ were nevertheless granted specific gifts of
money and movables, but Spens was categorical that, through his will, the
rights of Margaret Forrat were protected from any claim by his children
against her estates. To guarantee this he made Axel and Gabriel Oxenstierna,
the guardians and protectors of all his children from both marriages.14
While James Spens made provision for his children should Margaret
Forrat remarry, his daughter Isobel’s husband was more emphatic. Major
General James Ramsay used his will to positively urge his wife, Isobel Spens,
to remarry another husband from an established family for the sake of their
child.15 For whatever reason, she chose not to take another husband. Whilst
the practice of remarriage was common in Scotland and in Europe as a whole,
it was extremely common among the widows of the soldiering class with some
50% of the marriages in the Scots-Dutch brigade involving already widowed
women.16
As Winifred Coutts has amply demonstrated, in addition to wills, there
were also pre-nuptial marriage contracts for those of certain social strata
in Scotland, which gave some form of social security, especially as they
12
13
14
15
16
116
Murdoch 2012, 37-38 & 40.
Murdoch 2012, 39.
National Records of Scotland (NRS), GD334/109 The Will of Sir James Spens of Wormiston
(copy), 31 May 1631.
Spens 1983, 36-37. For more information on James Ramsay, see Grosjean 2004.
Glozier 2001, 136.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
were legally enforced and upheld by the law.17 Even in the cases of women
abandoned by their husbands, we find legal recourse to ensure claims upon
their estate both before and after they died. The case of Mary Haynes, the
estranged wife of the alleged bigamist Colonel Robert Monro of Foulis, is
instructive in this regard as she not only got a settlement through the Scottish
courts in 1627 while Monro was still alive, but also continued to receive her
entitlement from his heirs after he died abroad in Swedish service.18
Institutional Support and Royal Interventions
It is not possible to say how many soldiers made wills in the first place
or how many widows were covered by pre-nuptial marriage contracts. Nor
do we know if the majority of wills included sufficient property or money
to provide widows with lifelong pensions. It is, however, evident, and not
surprising, that not all widows could fall back on private income left to them
by their husbands and therefore had to look for other means of support,
including sponsors to bring their case to the attention of the appropriate
authorities.
In a military context, some widows could rely on support from local
civic authorities and even interventions by their own monarch, particularly
if the men died in the king’s service. The British and Irish expeditionary
forces that participated in the Stuart campaigns against Spain and France in
the 1620s experienced a number of maritime disasters. This saw the wrecking
of three ships in one incident alone in 1625, leaving some 227 widows and
orphans who were still being supported by the City of Dover some four years
later.19 Among those lost was Leith skipper David Gardiner whose ship Gift
of God had been pressed into royal service for the wars. With the support of
Charles I, his widow, Euphemia, petitioned the Lords of Admiralty on behalf
of herself and her ‘six fatherless children’, interestingly, not for a pension, but
for Gardiner’s quarter share of the ship’s value.20 Other widows had to rely on
the aid of relatives. The ill-fated 1627 Ile de Ré campaign left still more Scottish
women in mourning. Sir William Cunningham died at the head of a troop of
horse and when his father petitioned for compensation, the widows of others
17
18
19
20
Coutts 1999, 176-186,
Highland Council Archive Service, GD93/201. Contract between Colonel Robert Monro
of Obstell and Hector Monro of Foulis, 20 September 1639. The document mentions the
obligation both to Mary Haynes and her daughter, Elizabeth, from 1634.
The National Archives (TNA), State Papers (SP) 16/530, f.44. Petition of the Mayor, Jurats,
and Commonalty of Dover, 26 March 1629.
TNA, SP16/304, f.104. Petition of Euphemia, widow of David Gardiner, 17 December 1635.
117
Northern Studies, vol. 50
killed among Cunningham’s troops were specifically included.21 Coupled
with Winifred Coutt’s case study on the expectations of domestic widows, it
is clear from these examples that widows were being supported in a number
of additional ways domestically, from civic charity to royal intervention
depending on the merits of the case under scrutiny.
The situation of widows who lived in the Dutch Republic differed to
those who did not leave their home country. From the start of the Eighty
Years’ War in 1568, Scots were found in the Dutch Republic in a number
of capacities, both civilian and military. In the former sphere, the support
structures for widows has long been understood, particularly in relation to
the widows of the legally defined ‘Scottish nation’, located at the Scottish
staple port of Veere in Zeeland.22 In the military, too, there was support. For
example, some provision was available from the Dutch Council of War for
widows and children of men who had achieved the rank of captain or above.
However, there was no consistency in what was granted, and sometimes
lower ranks also benefited. In 1621 four widows of Scottish officers received
a life pension from the Council of War. The amounts received varied. The
widow of Captain John Balfour obtained an annual payment of 50 guilders
(£5), whilst the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Caluart, Barbara Bruce, and the
widow of Captain Strachan, Agnes Kirkpatrick, received 200 guilders each
highlighting that rank was not the defining factor for the amount awarded.23
As regards Kirkpatrick, later records reveal that she was still receiving the
same pension in 1650.24 The children of nine families also received a pension,
with the amount per child ranging from 62 to 200 guilders.25 Some of this
was for their education. In 1620 Kirkpatrick was awarded a 50 guilder
maintenance fund to keep her son at school, a fund that she, like numerous
other mothers, had received in previous years.26 In Sweden, Scottish widows
benefited in similar ways. Queen Christina agreed to pay 600 Rixdaler (£150)
per year for the education of the children of Margaret Forrat, widow of Sir
21
22
23
24
25
26
118
Calendar of State Papers Domestic in the reign of Charles I, 1629-1631, 431. Petition, undated,
1630.
See for example in Extracts from the Records of the Convention of Royal Burghs, 1615-1676, 97,
119, 229, 251 & 308.
Papers Illustrating the History of the Scots Brigade in the Service of the United Netherlands 15721782, I, 320-321. NB There is confusion in Ferguson’s records between Anna Kilpatrick and
Anna Kirkpatrick. There were two women who were both widows. One was the wife of
Captain Strachan, the other the wife of Colonel Henderson. On page 594 Ferguson indexes
both women together. Captain John Strachan married ‘Agnes Kirckpatrick’ on 30 October
1596 lending credence to Kirkpatrick, not Kilpatrick, being her name and why we refer to
her as Agnes here. See Maclean 1976, 34.
Scots Brigade I, 231, 233 & 492.
Scots Brigade I, 320.
Scots Brigade I, 233.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
James Spens, despite his will stipulating that the profit from her farms should
have covered their educational expenses.27 In this case, the state-sponsored
educational bursary continued for the Spens boys for at least twelve years
after their father’s death in 1632, though as we shall see below, this woman
was perhaps exceptional.28
Almost all pensions applied for by captains’ and colonels’ widows in
Dutch service had been granted during this period, but the authorities became
increasingly weary of the constant drain of money.29 In 1621, the States General
declined the application for a pension from Delia Butler, widow of Captain
David Ramsay, but instead awarded her 80 guilders to facilitate her return
to Scotland.30 It is noticeable that this reluctance to pay pensions coincided
with the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce between the Dutch and the Spanish
(1609–1621). The financial situation became more acute immediately after the
siege of Bergen-Op-Zoom in 1622. There were now many new widows for the
Dutch to deal with and additional associated costs of re-entering a state of war
were becoming quite apparent, both in human and financial terms. Therefore,
when the widow of Colonel Robert Henderson, Anna Kirkpatrick, asked for
a pension, the Council hesitated to grant the request as it might set another
precedent.31 However, as the colonel had apparently behaved particularly
fearlessly, they were inclined to review the petition favourably, not least in
order to encourage similar acts of bravery by his fellow officers. Initially, Anna
was granted only three months of her husband’s pay. In July and September
1624 both King James VI and members of the Scottish Privy Council became
involved in supporting her case which again came before the States General.32
27
28
29
30
31
32
NRS, GD334/109. Will of Sir James Spens of Wormiston, 31 May 1631.
Fischer 1907, 99. For the continued involvement of the Swedish Chancellor in the tutoring
choices for Forrat’s sons, see RA/OS, E619. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 30 June
1643 and 13 November 1644.
Scots Brigade I, 342-343.
Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks, 1617–1670. Del 5, 1621–1622, 105. Resolution,
2 April 1621. There were complications here: Delia Butler, daughter of the late Captain
Thomas Butler, had previously brought a case against Colonel Buccleuch who, though she
was only 15, had seduced her and fathered a daughter by her. For this she was already
receiving financial compensation from the Dutch authorities, and she gained custody of
her child. See Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks, 1617–1670. Del 2, 1613–1616, 380
& 561-562. Ibid., Del 3, 1617–1618, 93, 111 & 374. Somewhat insensitively here, Butler is
indexed as Buccleuch’s widow; Scots Brigade I, 260, 262-266 & 393. Her late husband, David
Lindsay, had served in Buccleuch’s company since 1612 and had died sometime before 1
February 1620. See Scots Brigade I, 228.
Scots Brigade I, 342-343. As Henderson did not die until 1622 at Bergen-op-Zoom, we can be
sure that Anna Kirkpatrick is meant here rather than Kilpatrick as Henderson sometimes
calls her. In the volumes of the Resolutiën der Staten-General, Widow Henderson is only
referred to as Anna Kirkpatrick. See Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks. Del 6, 16231624, 36, 40 and 55.
Scots Brigade I, 345; Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks. Del 7, 1624–1625, 15 & 78.
119
Northern Studies, vol. 50
These interventions were successful. In January 1626 Kirkpatrick was awarded
a sum of 300 guilders annually, but only four months later the amount was
raised to 500 guilders. However, a subsequent petition from her for the transfer
of her pension onto her children after her death was not upheld by the council.33
As the Kirkpatrick case demonstrated, the valour of her husband proved a
factor in her pension. However, one did not have to be a senior officer to deserve
such consideration. George Bruce became an ensign in Captain Kirkpatrick’s
company only three weeks before his death at the fort of Schenken. Regardless of
his relatively short service as an officer, it was the longevity and steadfastness of
his service as a rank and file soldier that was noted by Frederick of Orange who
intervened on his widow’s behalf in 1636. That said, not all interventions were
immediately successful regardless of the credentials of those who supported
the petition. In May 1632 King Charles I requested the payment of a sum of
1490 guilders owed to Captain Ramsey’s widow. The matter was deferred to
the Council of State, though no conclusion was reached at that point.34 If such
cases tell us anything, it is surely that intervention, even by an anointed prince,
could directly help in some cases but not necessarily in others.
Scottish widows continued to fight for their rights to an annual pension
during the ensuing decades. One particularly complex case was that of Christina
Boswell, the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Allan Coutts, who petitioned
the council in May 1631 for a pension in recompense for her husband’s long
and faithful service.35 The petition was first deferred and repeatedly refused.
Christina Boswell did not give up and submitted additional requests over the
coming years. On 5 March 1632 her fifth petition was forwarded to the Council
of State and she received a one-off payment of 150 guilders.36 Although this was
a minor success, three months later Christina’s request for an annual pension
was again refused upon the advice of the Council of State which stated that
‘it would be too great a burden for the country to support the widows of all
captains and officers’.37 Besides, they argued, Colonel Coutts had not died facing
the enemy but in his bed, and his son’s appointment as an ensign should have
been adequate recompense. The peaceful passing of Coutts stood in contrast to
Henderson’s valorous demise as the Dutch authorities now effectively indicated
a reluctance to pay out for those who did not die fighting. It was deemed
imperative that any further claims made by Christina were to be disregarded
as otherwise an important precedent would be set. She remained undeterred,
however, and continued to petition the Council of War for a life pension which
33
34
35
36
37
120
Scots Brigade I, 349-350.
Scots Brigade I, 444.
Scots Brigade I, 60 and 442. Allan Coutts had died before 12 May 1631.
Scots Brigade I, 444.
Scots Brigade I, 445.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
led to several awards of smaller regular and larger irregular payments over the
next six years. The authorities were careful not to view these as a fixed pension.38
It is clear that Christina’s persistent efforts wore the authorities down but,
despite her relative successes, her situation remained precarious.
A similar, although less successful, case is that of Maria van Loon, the
Dutch widow of Colonel John Halket, who had died in battle at Bois-le-Duc in
1629.39 The Council of State found that she should receive the same pension as
other widows of colonels or captains, which was an amount of 1500 guilders
over three years. However, this renewed petition from Maria arrived with
the Council in January 1640, eleven years after her husband’s death. Thus,
they argued that as van Loon had already received some payments, her
grant was not to exceed 1000 guilders over four years. Unfortunately for her,
the decision was once again deferred, and the outcome remained unclear.40
But van Loon was not without significant patrons; a letter of Frederick V,
sometime King of Bohemia, to his wife Elizabeth in 1629 already mentioned
the desperation of the widow and her numerous children.41 From her records,
it is clear Maria was receiving some assistance, but the slow pace is evidenced
by the subsequent intervention of her patrons. Fully 10 years after Frederick’s
letter to Elizabeth, the Queen of Bohemia petitioned the States General to
get Maria’s son John a position as an officer; one which they had declined
to grant him nine years previously.42 The granting of an officers' commission
still seemed to be a suitable compensation to the Dutch authorities, at least in
some cases and particularly where the widows had the friends in high places
The efforts of the Dutch Republic to save money when granting pensions
and other payments also becomes evident in the case of the unnamed widow
of Rev Andrew Hunter, the chaplain of the Scots Brigade. Apparently, the
States General had asked the three colonels of the Scots Brigade if money
usually paid to the Scottish minister could be reallocated to support
Hunter’s widow. The colonels answered on 14 November 1630 that they
had no objection to this and that they would provide for the maintenance
of their chaplains without the assistance of the Dutch authorities during the
widow’s remaining lifetime, but in essence the Dutch had abrogated their
responsibility to her.43
38
39
40
41
42
43
Scots Brigade I, 446-447.
Maria van Loon and Captain John Halket married on 19 December 1608 in The Hague. See
Maclean 1976, 140.
Scots Brigade I, 458-459.
The Correspondence of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia: Volume I, 1603–1631, 777-778.
Frederick V to Elizabeth, 19 August 1629. We thank Dr Akkerman for bringing this
intervention to our attention.
Elizabeth Stuart, 778, notes 9 and 10.
Scots Brigade I, 438-439.
121
Northern Studies, vol. 50
These cases of interaction between Scottish widows and the Dutch
authorities are instructive for many reasons, not least that ever since the
outbreak of the Eighty Years’ War, widows of officers, in particular, expected
financial remuneration, whilst deserving lower ranks' widows also obtained
limited financial assistance. However, the prevailing attitude to the transfer of
property requires interrogation, given that land was a commodity the Dutch
did not have much of, and what they did possess was already allocated. In
Europe, it was generally accepted that upon being widowed, a woman could
retain a proportion of her husband’s land or property to sustain herself so long
as she did not remarry. The land or property would then devolve to the late
husband’s heirs on his widow’s death although the heirs apparent could take
a widow to court during her lifetime if they felt she was decreasing the value
of their inheritance.44 This situation became particularly acute in the Swedish
Empire: any possessions that the Swedish Crown acquired and hoped to profit
from had to be both held and carefully managed. They did so via the allocation
of land and governorships to those who served them best, often in lieu of pay.
During the Thirty Years’ War, Scots were viewed as something of the favoured
nation in this regard. They were awarded governorships and land in abundance
in both Sweden proper and in the conquered territories.45 Because this reward
for service via land donation was contingent on the soldiers remaining alive,
particularly in contested territories, the significance for the wives and family
following the death of the land-holder naturally had consequences.
Institutions such as the Swedish Riksråd (Council of the Realm)
recognised the plight of the bereaved families, of officers at least, and sought
to implement measures to alleviate their fate. The Riksråd altered an existing
policy to allow the widow of the recipient of a land donation to maintain the
property so long as she did not remarry.46 However, there were drawbacks
to this decision. For example, if the widow had not been mentioned in the
original land donation, the land reverted to the crown immediately. Despite
this drawback for women who had married already landed husbands,
daughters could benefit from this new policy. They were to be granted three
years’ worth of interest as a ‘bridal tax’ on property, regardless of whether the
mother was mentioned in the original donation or not.47 In the Scottish case,
their rights could also be supported by their pre-existing wills and marriage
contracts. This proved crucial particularly in the Swedish context, albeit we
44
45
46
47
122
Wiesner 2000, 37.
Grosjean 2003b, 53-78.
Ailes 2006, 17. An example of a Scottish widow who received her husband’s possessions
was Cecilia Spens (widow to Major General David Drummond). She also held six farms in
her own right. RA/OS, E589, Cecilia Spens to Axel Oxenstierna, 15 October 1639.
SRP III, 121. Minute, 7 June 1633.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
are forced to look to the higher status widows due to a dearth of evidence
regarding the wives of common soldiers.
The Agency of Widows
With institutional support sporadic at best, and the Swedish military
suffering something of a financial crisis after 1630, many widows turned to
other sources of help.48 Many cashed in their social capital with individuals at
the highest level of the military leadership or with requests made directly to
the Swedish government. Ailes divides these appeals into two main categories
with one encompassing any financial requests (including outstanding debts
owed to their late husbands), and the other any form of maintenance to
secure their future, including donations of land.49 As the Gardiner case, above,
demonstrated, this could include the recovery of assets, or value in lieu, as
per her claim on her husbandʼs ship. Ailes’ categorisation reminds us that not
all widows pursued a pension. It is clear that provisions were made for some
widows to gain possession of land in their own right. Miss Rutherford was
the widow of Andrew Forrat, the navy captain who blew himself up along
with his ship Solen rather than let it fall into the hands of the Poles in 1627.
For his actions, Widow Rutherford was apparently granted several estates
from King Gustav II Adolf, with all the privileges of nobility attached.50
Catherine Murray, a correspondent of the Swedish Chancellor and Regent,
Axel Oxenstierna, long before the death of her husband, Colonel Thomas
Thomson, also received confirmation of her land in Vrana and Munkevrak
after his death, doubtless due to the chancellor’s mediation.51 Isobel Spens also
petitioned Oxenstierna for reimbursement for James Ramsay’s long and loyal
service.52 In order to enforce her claim, Isobel relocated from her residence
in St Andrews in Scotland to Sweden in the mid-1640s. This proved to be a
successful move as in 1647, her wish was granted when her son David was
given various farms in Sweden under the condition that Isobel should hold
the estates in her possession until her death.53 Numerous other cases show
women easily taking possession of portions of land, some for the duration of
their lives, whilst others gained the land outright.
48
49
50
51
52
53
For the financial implications and differences in money available to the Dutch and Swedish
armies, see Murdoch 2016, esp 57-62
Ailes 2006, 19
Fischer 1907, 179
Den introducerade Svenska Adelns Ättartavlor vol. 8, 264-265. See also Murdoch and Grosjean
2014, 249. For her previous correspondence with Oxenstierna, see RA/OS, E740. ʻCatharina
Moritz’ to Axel Oxenstierna, December 1636 and another ʻundated’.
RA/OS, E692, Isobel Spens to AO, Stockholm, 13 April and 9 December 1646; Spens 1983,
38-39.
Spens 1983, 38-39.
123
Northern Studies, vol. 50
Of those who sought to recoup debt, not all targeted the government
of the armies in which their late spouse had served. Margaret Lindsay, the
widow of surgeon William Welch, petitioned Charles I to receive Welch’s
outstanding back pay of £272 and expenses after several years’ service in
both the Danish and Swedish armies.54 Of interest here is that she viewed the
recruiting colonel, Donald Mackay Lord Reay, as the party responsible for the
debts owing to her husband, and not either of the Scandinavian kings. Lindsay
was not alone in the pursuit of outstanding debts or reasonable living costs
based on their husband’s service. In 1649, Colonel William Forbes interceded
on behalf of Isobel Forbes, a rare example of a low-status widow, who had lost
her husband several years previously. Widow Forbes’ own financial burdens
were increased by the responsibility she had for the children of one Captain
Pringle whose wife had been killed by a cannon ball. Some remuneration
had been forthcoming from General Lennart Torstensson, but this had been
interrupted for some time.55 As her case demonstrates, not only could she call
on her kinsman, Colonel William Forbes, for help but he in turn took her case
further up the extended kinship hierarchy to General Arvid Forbes in order
that her remuneration would be reinstated. The widow of George Leslie
petitioned Axel Oxenstierna in 1639, also for outstanding payments due to her
late husband.56 She did so with the support of Field Marshal Alexander Leslie,
the half-brother of her deceased husband and close friend of Oxenstierna.57
These latter cases seem to contradict Merry Weisner’s assertion that extended
families did not care for widows of bereaved relatives in this period as the
Forbes’s and Leslie’s clearly did.58
Leslie’s widow was one of several Scottish women who were in
correspondence with the Swedish chancellor, but in terms of agency, we should
not think in simplistic terms about women only engaged in correspondence
once their husbands had died. The previously mentioned Margaret Forrat
maintained a correspondence with and was well-acquainted with the Swedish
Chancellor for several years before her bereavement. There is no doubt that
her marriage placed her in a slightly different position to several of the other
widows discussed here. Her husband was both a general in the Swedish army
and held the position of permanent ambassador to and between the houses of
54
55
56
57
58
124
TNA, SP16/257 f.110. Petition of Margaret Lindsay to Charles I, c.1633; Riis 1988, II, 132.
Lund University Library. De La Gardie Släktarkiven, Forbes 8.1. William Forbes to Arvid
Forbes, 3 June 1649; Fischer 1907, 240.
RA/OS, E648. Widow Leslie to Axel Oxenstierna, 30 January 1639
RA/OS, E648. Widow Leslie to Axel Oxenstierna 30 January 1639
Wiesner 2000, 90. For more of the differences between Scottish kith and kin networks in
comparison to other European structures, see Murdoch 2006, 13-48.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
Stuart and Vasa.59 What becomes clear in the moment of her bereavement is
the influence this lady held in her own right.
Aggrieved that her late husband was not getting the respect in death, he
had been accorded in life, Margaret penned a number of letters to Chancellor
Oxenstierna. One of the earliest of these to survive is a carefully crafted missive
in Latin, the tone of which is strikingly firm and reprimanding in nature: her
husband’s body remained unburied and her family was being mocked for it,
whilst creditors were hounding her for bills, she claimed she simply could not
meet. Margaret said that even if she sold everything she owned, she could
not keep up interest payments on debts accrued while her husband had been
deployed on Sweden’s state business.60 Bearing James Spensʼ will in mind, and
Axel’s signature upon it, Margaret reminded Oxenstierna of his obligations to
her and her family. She cleverly concluded the letter to this devoutly religious
statesman noting ‘that providing for widows and orphans is pleasing [to]
Almighty God.’61 The message was heard. Having already been named as
co-guardian of her children, within months of Forrat’s letter Oxenstierna
facilitated her sons' and their half-brother Colonel William Spens’ elevation
to the House of Nobility (Riddarhuset) through a special dispensation from
the crown which even allowed for their continued adherence to Calvinism.62
In the following years, Margaret played on the relationship between
Oxenstierna and her sons, asking for help to protect their estates even after
she married her second husband, Colonel Hugo Hamilton in 1637.63 In order
to protect their inheritance, Oxenstierna asked Queen Christina to reissue and
confirm land donations given to General James Spens by Gustav II Adolf in
1631. The original document stated that ‘We forbid all of those that owe us
obedience to put any obstacle or hindrance in the way of the aforesaid Jacob
Spentz (sic) or his heirs in any shape or form now or in the future’.64 This
supported the will of James Spens, and Axel Oxenstierna proved true to the
obligations he undertook to his old friend.
59
60
61
62
63
64
Grosjean 2003a, 67-87; Murdoch 2000, 93-138.
RA/OS, E724. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 22 July 1633. We thank Dr Peter
Maxwell-Stuart for his meticulous translation and detailed notes on this particular letter.
The trope of the ‘unburied husband’ resounds throughout the letters of the widows. What
they are actually getting at, is ‘not buried with sufficient pomp, ceremony and status’. See
also the similar protests of Isobel Spens noted in her correspondence with Oxenstierna.
RA/OS, E692.
RA/OS, E724. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 22 July 1633
SRP III, 193. Riksråd minute, 9 October 1633; SRP V, 214 & 257. Minutes, 21 and 31 October
1635. A cautionary note here is that the editors of the Riksråd series were not sure which son
was meant and often conflate William and Axel.
RA/OS, E724, Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 26 August and 27 September 1636.
Queen Christina’s 1641 republished letter of donation by Gustav II Adolf, originally
written 11 August 1631 and quoted in Fischer 1907, 236-237.
125
Northern Studies, vol. 50
Once Oxenstierna’s intervention had resolved her sons’ situations, it was
not long before Margaret Forrat’s case for her pension was brought before
the Riksråd. Despite the generous provisions laid out in James Spens’ will,
his creditors were moving in on Forrat’s assets. In September 1634, she was
paid what she was due for Spens’ expenses during his Swedish service in
Germany. However, the year of grace she had requested in regard to Spens’
finances was not allowed as the cost of 10,000 Riksdaler was prohibitive for
the state. Instead, Margaret was granted a sum of 1000 Riksdaler to be paid
in two instalments over the next two years.65 In addition to this, she received
the right to the church tithe in Härkirberga for three years to supplement her
income.66 Although this seemed helpful, a Riksråd minute from the following
year made it clear that not all of her issues were resolved. It reveals that
Margaret had requested that no other person would be invested in her estates,
obviously with an eye to those debtors.67 To resolve the wider Spens family
debt, it is clear that William Spens worked closely with his father’s widow.
The Marquis of Hamilton interceded on their behalf asking that William
should be allowed to sell the Orreholm estate. The Riksråd responded that
they were sympathetic to both William and Margaret, but Queen Christina, to
whom the petition was directed, forbade the sale stating that William would
have sufficient opportunity to raise money on the estate.68 Such a sale would,
anyway, have been in breach of the original grant.
Thereafter, Margaret’s financial problems may have eased as she did not
raise them again in her other surviving correspondence. She maintained her
written exchanges with Axel Oxenstierna. For example, in January 1638 she
wrote regarding diplomatic meetings at the Stuart court passed on by her
husband, Hugo.69 Her agency here is clear in that it was she, and not Colonel
Hamilton, who had the ear of Axel Oxenstierna to pass on such intelligence. In
1643 she wrote a letter of intercession on Hamilton’s behalf, including seeking
permission for him to remain in Stockholm beyond his allotted period of
leave.70 The continued correspondence reveals a woman comfortable with her
status. Margaret shows us that she commanded respect from senior officials in
the Swedish government, could successfully activate kith, kin and friendship
65
66
67
68
69
70
126
SRP IV, 225. Riksråd minute, 25 September 1634.
Fischer 1907, 99.
SRP V, 326. Minute. 18 November 1635.
Historical Manuscripts Commission, The Manuscripts of the Duke of Hamilton, K.T., 83. ʻin
answer to a petition by the Marquis (Hamilton) for Sir William Spens, the Council express
great regard for the widow (Margaret Forrat) and children, and state that though Spens’s
barony of Oreholm cannot be alienated, it may be mortgaged on behalf of the creditorsʼ.
Stockholm, 17 July 1635. Extract.
RA/OS, E619. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 2 January 1638.
RA/OS, E619. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 7 August 1643.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
networks to gain advantage for her children, and intercede on behalf of her
second husband who, though a full colonel in the Swedish army, was clearly
not so well connected as she. This daughter of a ‘middling sort’ family from
Fife died in 1653 and was given a full state funeral at Riddarholm church –
final resting place of many Swedish kings – in Stockholm.71
Isobel Spens and Margaret Forrat’s cases reveal that these women’s
long-term relationship with members of the Swedish government is far from
exceptional. Another interesting case is that of Martha ‘Hansdotter’ Stuart.
She was born in Scotland, the daughter of John Stuart and Brita Soop. After
moving to Sweden, she married a French Lieutenant-Colonel, Anton Ydron,
but was widowed in 1632 after her husband died at the battle of Nürnberg.
Her first surviving letter to Oxenstierna contains a ‘typical’ petition
highlighting her husband’s long and loyal service of 26 years followed by
a request for help.72 However, while some scholars dismiss widows’ use of
the relation of the deceased husband’s military curriculum vitae in their
personal testimonies as somehow seeking sympathy, the women are using
exactly the same techniques and register as men in identifying and locating
themselves for the benefit of the governmental hierarchy to whom they wrote.
This device allowed the authorities to easily understand who it was they were
dealing with – for example, there were two Martha Stuarts corresponding
with Swedish government officials in the mid-seventeenth century.73 Men
such as Axel Oxenstierna were in receipt of thousands of letters every year,
so it was important to specify who the petitioners were, especially given the
Scottish tendency to recycle first names across generations. Anyone who has
transcribed such letters, whether by colonels or generals looking to recover
their entitlement for service, will understand that Martha Stuart simply used
the appropriate code to explain who she was and why she was worthy of
consideration.74 There was nothing gendered about it.
So what makes Martha Stuart’s case interesting? Having been widowed
in 1632, there is little indication of any immediate request for help from either
71
72
73
74
Riddarholmskyrkan: Sveriges Kyrkor, Stockholms Kyrkor, vol.2, 724.
RA/OS, E757, Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, without date or place.
These were Martha Hansdotter Stuart and Martha Beata Stuart. For the latter see RA,
Skoklostersmalingen II. Personarkiv, E8151. Martha Beata Stuart to Count and Riksråd Per
Brahe, 1672.
RA/OS, E703. Numerous letters from Colonel Francis Ruthven to Axel Oxenstierna, 16391643 in pursuit of his pension. Here Ruthven repeatedly details his years of service and
why he is deserving of what is due to him. Even when chastising superior officers for a
minor slight, the reminder of who the author was, and how long they had served was an
essential part of the soldiers’ correspondence. See Colonel John Gunn protesting against
Colonel Wrangel in Krigsarkivet, Karl Viggo Key Arkiv, Gunn to Major General Karl
Gustav Wrangel, 14 December 1644. In this case Gunn staked his 18 years of service over
the word of the general’s relative.
127
Northern Studies, vol. 50
Axel Oxenstierna personally or the state in general, but it is clear she gained
entitlement to property. Nevertheless, from the late 1640s, the chancellor
acted as a patron to Martha and her family on several occasions. For example,
in 1647 she thanked Oxenstierna for his help in regard to a royal donation
based on a large share of crops harvested from an ecclesiastical tithe.75 The
following year, Oxenstierna recommended Martha to the Landshövding Johan
Berndes, stating that she should receive payment for some of her husband’s
possessions which had apparently been illegally taken by a Captain Ferret
(Forrat?).76 During this time, Martha also sought Oxenstierna’s help in regard
to one of her sons who was joining Swedish service. He was, apparently,
unable to pay for a horse and therefore Martha implored Oxenstierna to confer
with General Robert Douglas to equip her son gratis until he was able to repay
him. She further requested that Douglas stand as guarantor for any ransom
for her son should he become a captive.77 Martha later sought the Chancellor’s
aid in getting her sons ennobled and introduced into Riddarhuset.78 This was
granted in 1649 when both her sons were elevated into the peerage. Martha
Stuart thus evidently had the ear and direct support of the most powerful
man in Sweden and – through him – senior members of the Scottish military
community, including General Robert Douglas. However, if not familiar with
Swedish geography, one might miss a crucial detail in the Stuart-Oxenstierna
dynamic. While it is true that the Widow Stuart corresponded with ‘Chancellor
Oxenstierna’, one should also note that her requests were also directed to her
immediate neighbour. Martha Stuart lived and farmed on the island of Almö,
situated in Lake Mälaren while Oxenstierna resided ‘next door’, slightly to
the south west at Tidö Slott.
Martha Stuart’s later letters to Oxenstierna certainly read like requests
to a local magnate rather than to the Chancellor of Sweden. For example, on
20 November 1651, she asked Oxenstierna to sell her two farm horses since
she had suffered great damage to her livestock. She offered to pay for these at
the first opportunity, but with hay rather than specie.79 On another occasion,
she complained about the high prices of hay and referred to the big floods
which had affected her lands. In this instance, she asked Oxenstierna to sell
her two oxen which would allow her to continue her husbandry.80 Albeit that
these and her other requests for intervention were being made to a man who
happened to be the Chancellor of Sweden, Widow Stuart was also simply
75
76
77
78
79
80
128
RA/OS, E757, Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 21 November 1648.
RAOSB, Series I, Vol. 16:2, 681-682, Axel Oxenstierna to Johan Berndes, 9 October 1648.
RA/OS, E757, Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 30 July 1647.
RA/OS, E757, Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, undated.
RA/OS, E757, Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 20 November 1651.
RA/OS, E757, Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 9 September 1649.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
asking a close neighbour to help out a fellow farmer in times of need. It was,
in this spirit, that Oxenstierna responded.
Conclusion
This brief examination of Scottish widows does much to contest some
of the prevailing assumptions surrounding the bereaved wives of fallen
soldiers. While undoubtedly true for some that ʻwidowhood generally
brought a decline in a woman’s economic statusʼ, the cases considered
here suggest that many simply continued as before.81 Scrutiny of the wills
and testaments of the common soldiery in the Dutch Republic shows that
men and women anticipated their own demise and made contingencies for
just that event. Certainly, the options available to the wives of all common
soldiers included returning home, joining the sutlers following the armies or
remarrying.82 While Dutch sources are abundant on the lower status women,
Swedish sources on the subject remain scant. Indeed, Isobel Forbes remains
one of the few low-status Scottish widows in a Swedish context for whom
we have any information at all. That said there are other factors to consider:
whether in Scotland or overseas, women managed farms or businesses while
their husbands were away fighting in the wars. Often, despite personal
bereavement, they simply continued in their previous roles, albeit while in
mourning. Existing scholarship has already proven that mechanisms were in
place to ensure the welfare and legal rights of bereaved wives in Scotland
and abroad regardless of social status. Delia Butler’s case shows that the
Dutch were prepared to finance her passage home to Scotland where local
institutions could look after her. Isobel Spens, on the other hand, made the
journey to Sweden from Scotland to gain access to her entitlements. As she
and Martha Stuart show, many women continued to develop their economic
fortunes long after the death of their husbands, taking either state-sponsored
pensions or land in lieu of payment. Whilst many widows remarried to secure
their livelihoods, these widows preferred to live their lives on their own terms
and without recourse to remarriage.
Considering the totality of the correspondence base, we find ourselves
unconvinced by assertions that the state only wanted to support the most
deserving of the widows. Rather they did what they could with the resources
available. As recent research has demonstrated, the Swedish state was in a
particularly perilous financial state after 1630 and could barely afford to pay
its living soldiers, let alone their widows. The Dutch Republic, on the other
81
82
Wiesner 2000, 37-38.
Sjöberg 2011, 205 & 207.
129
Northern Studies, vol. 50
hand, buoyed by its expanding empire in South East Asia, could reward
both servicemen and their wives, even hiking up the wages offered to the
military around 1630 after some nine years adjusting to the renewed conflict
with Spain.83 But with the higher wages came an expectation to make some
provision for widowhood while the husbands were still alive. Scrutiny of
widows’ letters and petitions reveals that many widows appear to have been
granted pensions without ever having to petition for one. Other widows can
only be shown to have only ever have written one letter to the authorities and
it is not yet certain if that reflects success at first time of asking, or a negative
outcome. Moreover, in this regard, the widows who did petition the authorities
behaved no differently to men in similar situations in the period. Numerous
cases demonstrate that the contention that women ʻcould not expect to receive
much financial help from the crown based upon their own meritʼ is also found
wanting.84 One need only think of Christina Boswell in the Dutch Republic
or Margaret Forrat in Sweden to refute the contention. The majority of cases
we have analysed show foreign women in alien environments sometimes
exerting considerable influence in their country of residence, even if they
moved there specifically to make their case, as Isobel Spens demonstrated.85
As Alexia Grosjean had previously noted, it would be foolish to think that
foreign women could not achieve this either directly or through the influence
of their wider kith and kin networks.86 Indeed, Wiesner has observed that
widowhood gave a woman the power to influence the careers and cultivate
opportunities for her children, and, with only a few exceptions, this is certainly
confirmed in our case studies above.87
83
84
85
86
87
130
Boxer 1965, 337-342.
Ailes 2006, 25.
This contrasts with the findings presented in Ailes 2006, 27. In another example of exerting
influence abroad, the wife of the cavalry trooper James Ramsay who died in Royalist service
in England in 1640 either personally petitioned, or had someone in authority petition, both
Charles I and the Scottish Parliament in 1641. That she was most likely a Dutch widow in
Scotland is shown in the subsequent letter of recommendation in her favour sent to ʻthe
Estates of Hollandʼ in 1641. See Charles I and the Parliament of Scotland to the Estates of
Holland, 17 August 1641, found in RPS, 1641/8/44, and also RPS, 1641/8/59, Ordnance
in favour of Alexander Ramsay of Balnabreich, 17 August 1641. That James Ramsay had
been knighted as suggested in the first document is debatable and may reflect confusion
with the colonel of the same name. Similarly, the French widow of medical doctor William
Oliviat successfully petitioned the Scottish Parliament in her own right and was awarded
some 2,000 merks by the treasurer of the army in 1646 for her husband’s covert work as
ʻagent and intelligencerʼ in France for four years. See RPS, 1645/11/131. Act in favour
of Widow Oliviat, 26 November 1645. All RPS records accessed via www.rps.ac.uk on 10
September 2018.
Grosjean 2003a, 158-159.
Wiesner 2000, 38.
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
In the present project, we have located, transcribed and translated
hundreds of letters pertinent to Scottish widows in the period of Thirty Years’
War and its aftermath. The cases here are but the tip of an exciting corpus
which, we believe, provide some important conclusions.
Bibliography
Unpublished Primary Sources
UK
The National Archives
State Papers (SP) 16/530, f.44. Petition of the Mayor, Jurats, and Commonalty of Dover,
26 March 1629
SP16/304, f.104. Petition of Euphemia, widow of David Gardiner, 17 December 1635
SP16/257 f.110. Petition of Margaret Lindsay to Charles I, c.1633
National Records of Scotland,
GD334/109 The Will of Sir James Spens of Wormiston (copy), 31 May 1631.
Highland Council Archive Service
GD93/201. Contract between Colonel Robert Monro of Obstell and Hector Monro of
Foulis, 20 September 1639
Sweden
Riksarkiv
Oxenstiernska samlingen (OS), E589. Cecilia Spens to Axel Oxenstierna, 15 October
1639.
OS, E619. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 30 June 1643 and 13 November 1644
OS, E619. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 2 January 1638
OS, E619. Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 7 August 1643
OS, E648. Widow Leslie to Axel Oxenstierna, 30 January 1639OS, E692. Isobel Spens
to AO, Stockholm, 13 April and 9 December 1646OS, E703. Numerous letters
from Colonel Francis Ruthven to Axel Oxenstierna, 1639–1643 in pursuit of his
pension
OS, E724 Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 22 July 1633
OS, E724, Margaret Forrat to Axel Oxenstierna, 26 August and 27 September 1636
OS, E740. ’Catharina Moritz’ to Axel Oxenstierna, December 1636
OS, E757. Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, without date or place
OS, E757. Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 30 July 1647
OS, E757. Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 21 November 1648
OS, E757. Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 9 September 1649
OS, E757. Martha Stuart to Axel Oxenstierna, 20 November 1651
Skoklostersmalingen II. Personarkiv, E8151. Martha Beata Stuart to Count and Riksråd
Per Brahe, 1672.
131
Northern Studies, vol. 50
Krigsarkivet
Karl Viggo Key Arkiv, John Gunn to Major General Karl Gustav Wrangel, 14 December
1644
Lund University Library
De La Gardie Släktarkiven, Forbes 8.1. William Forbes to Arvid Forbes, 3 June 1649
The Netherlands
Rotterdam City Archive
Gemeentearchief Rotterdam (GAR) – Notarial Archive (ONA). Testament 14/12/1635
Inventarisnummer 195. Aktennummer 231/44s; Grim (Graham) married Bruce
in Delft, 15 September 1630
ONA, Testament 13/05/1631. Inventarisnummer 108. Aktennummer 157/275;
Coenraat Been married widow Aeltgen Willeborts in Rotterdam 25 June 1628
ONA, Testament 08/01/1633. Inventarisnummer 129. Aktennummer 3/19
Printed Primary Sources
Calendar of State Papers Domestic in the reign of Charles I, 1629–1631, Bruce, J (eds), 1860,
London: Public Record Office
The Correspondence of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia: Volume I, 1603–1631, Akkerman,
N (ed), 2015, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Extracts from the Records of the Convention of Royal Burghs, 1615–1676, Marwick, J D (ed),
1878, Edinburgh: William Patterson
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eleventh report Appendix, part vi. The Manuscripts
of the Duke of Hamilton, K.T., 1887, London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office
Papers Illustrating the History of the Scots Brigade in the Service of the United Netherlands
1572–1782, Ferguson, J (ed), 1899, 3 volumes, Edinburgh: Scottish History Society
The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland [RPS] to 1707, K M Brown et al (eds), (St
Andrews, 2007–2018), Available online at http://www.rps.ac.uk, accessed 10
September 2018
Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks, 1617–1670. Del 5, 1621–1622, 1983, The
Hague: Nijhoff
Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks, 1617–1670. Del 2, 1613–1616, 1984, The
Hague: Nijhoff
Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks, 1617–1670. Del 3, 1617–1618, 1975, The
Hague: Nijhoff
Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks. Del 6, 1623–1624, 1989, The Hague: Nijhoff
Resolutiën der Staten-General: Nieuw Reeks. Del 7, 1624–1625, 1994, The Hague: Nijhoff
Riddarholmskyrkan: Sveriges Kyrkor, Stockholms Kyrkor, Curman, S and Roosval, J (eds),
1937, vol 2, Stockholm: Svenska Bokhandelscentralen
Rikskansleren Axel Oxenstiernas Skrifter och Brefvexling (RAOSB), Backhaus, Helmut
(ed.), Series I, Vol. 16:2, Stockholm: Vitterhetsakademien, 2009
Svenska Riksrådets Protokoll (SRP), Kullberg, N A et al., (eds), 18 volumes, 1878–1959,
Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt och Söner
132
Scottish Widows during the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
Secondary Sources
Ailes M B 2006, ‘Wars, Widows and State Formation in 17th century Swedenʼ,
Scandinavian Journal of History 31:1, 17-34
Boxer, C R 1965, The Dutch Seaborne Empire, c.1600–1800, London: Knopf.
Coutts, W 1999, ‘Wife and Widow: The Evidence of Testaments and Marriage Contracts,
c.1600’ in E Ewan and M Meikle (eds), Women in Scotland, c.1100 to c.1750, East
Linton: Tuckwell Press, 176-186.
Elgenstierna, G 1925–36, Den introducerade Svenska Adelns Ättartavlor, 9 volumes,
Stockholm: P.A. Nordstedt och Söner
Fischer, T 1907, The Scots in Sweden, Edinburgh: O. Schulze & Company.
Glozier, M 2001, ‘Scots in the French and Dutch Armies during the Thirty Years’ War’
in S Murdoch (ed), Scotland and the Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, Leiden: Brill,
117-139
Grosjean, A 2003a, An Unofficial Alliance: Scotland and Sweden, 1569–1654, Leiden: Brill
Grosjean, A 2003b, ‘A century of Scottish Governorship in the Swedish Empire,
1574–1700’ in S Murdoch and A Mackillop (eds), Military Governors and Imperial
Frontiers, 1600–1800, Leiden: Brill, 53-78
Grosjean, A 2004, ‘Ramsay, James, 1589?–1638/9’, Dictionary of National
Biography,
published
online
http://www.oxforddnb.com/
view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e23084?rskey=LOnbsG&result=5 Date accessed 24 September 2018
Grosjean, A, Murdoch, S and Talbott, S 2015, ‘Drummer Major James Spens: Letters
Home from a Common Soldier Abroad, 1617–1632’, Northern Studies 47, 76-101
Hacker, B C and Vining, M (eds) 2012, A Companion to Women’s Military History, Leiden:
Brill
Lynn, J 2008, Women, Armies and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Maclean, J 1976, De huwelijksintekeningen van Schotse militairen in Nederland, 1547–1665,
Zutphen: Walberg Pers
Murdoch, S 2016, ‘“Medic!” An Insight into Scottish Field Surgeons, Physicians and
Medical Provision during the Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648’, Northern Studies 48,
50-65
Murdoch, S 2012, ‘The Repatriation of Capital to Scotland: A Case Study of Dutch
Testaments and Miscellaneous Notarial Instruments’ in M Varricchio (ed), Back
to Caledonia, Edinburgh: John Donald, 38-57
Murdoch, S 2006, Network North: Scottish Kin, Commercial and Covert Associations in
Northern Europe, 1603–1746, Leiden: Brill
Murdoch, S (ed) 2001, Scotland and the Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, Leiden: Brill
Murdoch, S 2000, ‘Diplomacy in Transition; Stuart-British Diplomacy in Northern
Europe, 1603–1618’ in A I Macinnes, T Riis and F G Pedersen (eds), Ships, Guns
and Bibles in the North Sea and Baltic States, East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 93-138
Murdoch, S and Grosjean, A 2014, Alexander Leslie and the Scottish Generals of the Thirty
Years’ War, 1618–1648, London: Pickering & Chatto
133
Northern Studies, vol. 50
Riis, T 1988, Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot, 2 volumes, Odense: Odense University
Press
Sjöberg, M 2011, ‘Women in campaigns 1550–1850. Household and homosociality in
the Swedish army’, The History of the Family 16:3, 204-216
Spens, E 1983, ‘En Skotsk Lady i Älghultʼ, Älghultskrönika, 36-37
Talbott, S 2007, ʻScottish Women and the Scandinavian Wars of the Seventeenth
Centuryʼ, Northern Studies 40, 102-127
Wiesner, M E 2000, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, 2nd edition, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Worthen, H 2017, ‘The experience of war widows in mid seventeenth-century England,
with special reference to Kent and Sussexʼ, unpublished PhD thesis, University
of Leicester
134