Finding Elizabeth Royal’s Husband

Back in June, I wrote about Elizabeth Royal, who shows up in the records of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress trying to get into besieged Boston with her child. The legislature understood she was “wife to William Royal, first sergeant in the 63d regiment of foot.” How, I wondered, had she become separated from her husband? And why was the Provincial Congress paying to send her to Newbury and maintain her there?

Don N. Hagist of the British Soldiers, American Revolution blog has data on more redcoats than anyone I know, so it didn’t surprise me when he was able to answer some of those questions—while raising others. Don is today’s guest blogger, writing on the mysteries of Elizabeth Royal.

I had heard of this woman before, but the version of the Committee of Safety entry reprinted in the Essex Institute Historical Collections, V. 46 (1910), has her name as Rogers rather than Royall.

The muster rolls for the 63rd Regiment of Foot confirm that a man named William Royall was in fact in the regiment at this time; there was, however, no William Rogers. He is on the rolls prepared in Ireland which cover January to April 1775 and indicate that he was from either England or Scotland (the rolls distinguish British, covering England, Scotland and Wales, from Irish or Foreign). He continues to be carried on the rolls during the regiment’s service in America.

Royall was not, however, a sergeant in the regiment as the Committee of Safety minutes indicate. He was a private soldier. The rolls have no information to suggest why he was separated from his wife. When British regiments sailed for America, shipping space was allocated for only 60 wives from each regiment. It is possible that Elizabeth Royall could not get space on a ship with the regiment; it is also possible that she was “big with child,” and her condition prevented her passage at that time. It is also possible that she was separated from the army after arriving in America.

We also do not know whether she was able to make her way into Boston to be with her husband. Even if she was, they were not destined for a long and happy future. The muster rolls show that William Royall died on 6 October 1777; as is typical for these documents, no cause is given. The fate of his wife who dutifully tried to get to him in Boston remains unknown.

Thanks, Don! For more information on women attached to the British army during the Revolution, here’s Don’s article on the subject. He’s also author of Wenches, Wives and Servant Girls: A Selection of Advertisements for Female Runaways in American Newspapers, 1770-1783, available from Ballindalloch Press.

Elizabeth Royal: sergeant’s wife and refugee

The records of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress’s Committee of Safety for 21 June 1775 contain this intriguing resolution:

That Joseph Adams, driver of the stage from Newbury, be, and he hereby is directed, to transport back to Newbury, Elizabeth Royal and her child, who, as she says, is wife to William Royal, first sergeant in the 63d regiment of foot, now in Boston, and deliver her to the care of the selectmen of said Newbury, who are hereby directed to provide for her and her child, at the expense of the colony.

I haven’t been able to turn up anything more about this situation or these people. (A Joseph Adams set up a stage service between Haverhill and Boston in 1793 and engaged in an advertising war with a rival; but that Adams appears to have been new to the coach business.)

Was Elizabeth Royal a native of Newbury who had married Sgt. William Royal? Had she and her child been living in Newbury, separate from her husband? Had Elizabeth been captured on a ship that came into Newbury harbor, and then the local authorities had to figure out what to do with her?

Most important, if Elizabeth wanted to go into Boston to reunite with her husband, why did the Committee of Safety send her away and take on the expense of maintaining her?

More about this story might exist in manuscript form—the Newbury selectmen’s records, the 63rd’s muster rolls, the state’s expense accounts, &c. But for now it’s a mystery.