Meet a face of Manchester’s Regiment with #mancsmugs – Elder Sergeant Ian


We recently introduced new feature on our Instagram account – Manchesters’ Mugs! It’s our way of introducing you to a face of our regiment.

We featured favourite photos from a member of The Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote along with their reasons why each image is special and some of the stories about why they love reenacting with us.

This time it’s the turn of Elder Sergeant Ian from our pike division, who’s chosen some of his favourite images:

Photo 1: Here is Ian looking very fresh-faced at his first event, which was a major muster at Wetherby in 2006: “This was my first ever muster. The kit I’m wearing has all been borrowed from members of the regiment who were eager to help out”

Photo 2: Ian chose this photo to show how easy it is to get involved in our regiment: “This one is from our event in Chester where I got my girlfriend involved. She brought a couple of mates along to what was a cracking weekend!” 

Photo 3: Ian chose this picture of himself with fellow pikemen David and Mike at our banquet in Oxford’s Trinity College: “we all are quite happy in this because we realised we’d joined up for the same event ten years ago and all of us look better with age”

Photo 4: one of the great things about reenactment is the friends you make – and the adventures you have both at and away from events: “This is a pic from a great 30th birthday weekend in Dublin. It’s crazy to think that if I wasn’t in Manchester’s I wouldn’t know these people and this weekend wouldn’t have taken place.”

Photo 5: Ian’s final photo shows him at the Battle of Nantwich in January: “this is me leading the pike block through the streets of Nantwich. It’s the first time I got to properly lead the block and a proud moment for me”.

That’s all from Ian’s #mancsmugs – thanks so much to him for taking part and we hope you’ve got a glimpse of just some of the things we get up to at events. If it’s whetted your appetite, make sure you join up now! You can give reenactment a go for just a tenner – and all your kit is provided!

Make sure you follow the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote account on Instagram for daily updates of our adventures on and off the battlefield!


This July: the English Civil War will return to Bolton!



Follow The Storming of Bolton event page on Facebook >>

Cannon will fire, drums will sound, and swords will clash as schoolchildren from across Bolton get the chance to go back in time to the English Civil War – thanks to a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund.

A new project will see special education days staged at Bolton School to teach local children about their town’s part in the Civil War that rocked the nation in the 1640s.

Roundheads and Cavaliers will then descend on 7-8 July for ‘The Storming of Bolton’ – an exciting weekend of thrilling battles and fascinating ‘living history’ in the grounds of Bolton School, all free for local people and staged by costumed reenactors from The Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote, the local regiment of the Sealed Knot reenactment society.

The Earl of Manchester’s Regiment was awarded a £9,800 regional grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund towards the costs of the project, which means it will be free for local families.

Thanks to the generous support of Bolton School, the project’s education days and first event in July will give youngsters the chance to see what life was like for ordinary people in Bolton in the 17th Century and aims to improve educational access for children from across the town.

Known as ‘the Geneva of the North’ due to its staunchly Puritan population, Bolton was attacked in May 1644 by forces led by King Charles’ nephew, the dashing Prince Rupert, on his way to relieve the siege of York. After repelling the first assault, Parliamentarian defenders hanged one of Rupert’s officers, which led to a notorious massacre when the Royalists finally stormed the town. The outmatched Parliamentarian commander and MP for Wigan, Colonel Alexander Rigby, pretended to be an enemy soldier before fleeing the defeat, which ended up being a huge propaganda coup for the Parliamentarians. Local magnate, the Earl of Derby, was later executed next to Bolton Market Cross for his part in the massacre and the third Civil War in 1651.

Headmaster of Bolton School Boys’ Division, Philip Britton, said: “We are very pleased to be able to share our facilities to enable this event to take place. It is an eye-catching way of reminding the young people of Bolton about an important moment in our history. We look forward to welcoming everyone in the summer.”

David Frederick, commanding officer of the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote, said: “To be able to provide such an immersive educational event like this with the ability to reach hundreds of local children is very exciting for both myself and for our regiment. We’d like to say a huge thank you to both the Heritage Lottery Fund and to Bolton School for making this possible.”

Morning and afternoon education classes (9.30am-12 noon and 1.30pm-3.00pm, for Year 5, 6 and 7 pupils) with experienced local reenactors at Bolton School are available to book now on 7th and 29th June. To book your class’s place on one of the free education sessions, contact Mrs Michelle Fox Makin at Bolton School on 01204 840201 or at


Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote public relations: Michael Molcher on 07821 405 772 or

Bolton School public relations: John Newbould on 01204 434788 or

Battle weekend details:

Where: Bolton School, Chorley New Rd, Bolton BL1 4PA

When: 7-8 July 2018

Provisional battle weekend activities:

10am – 4pm: a ‘living history’ display on Bolton School’s grounds will include traditional crafts, cooking, and talks about 17th Century life, as well as give children a special scavenger hunt so they can learn more about Bolton during the English Civil War.

2pm: a thrilling battle between Roundhead and Cavalier will be staged in the grounds, including cannon, muskets, and pikes.

About the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote:

Part of the Sealed Knot, the world’s oldest and Europe’s largest re-enactment society, the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote re-enacts an infantry regiment from the civil wars of 1642 to 1651. With members drawn from across the country, they portray the pike, musket, and artillery divisions of the personal regiment of Edward Montagu, the second Earl of Manchester, who was one of the leading Parliamentarian generals from 1643 to 1645. For more information about the regiment, go to

About the English Civil War:

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, popularly known as the English Civil War, was a series of armed conflicts across England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland between 1641 and 1652, which concluded with the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660. Far more complex than simply ‘Roundheads versus Cavaliers’, this was a tumultuous period of divided communities and shifting loyalties. Arguments between King Charles I and his Parliament over taxation, religion and control of the country spilled over into open conflict in 1642, with those who supported the King and those who supported Parliament taking up arms. The King was captured in 1646 and, after he helped provoke a second civil war, he was tried and executed in 1649. Over the period, an MP called Oliver Cromwell rose to prominence and eventually headed the English Commonwealth before becoming king in all but name as Lord Protector. He died in 1658, but his son and successor Richard Cromwell abdicated soon after. In 1660, the king’s eldest son Charles returned and was restored as King of England.

Fighting for firewood: surviving in the English Civil War


While the siege continues in the teeth of a bitter winter, a Parliamentarian soldier is sent out to find firewood amidst the snow but must avoid enemy patrols and angry locals. During a winter siege, collecting ‘faggots’ of wood was an important task – but who knows what threats a soldier might stumble across?

With a name derived from the Old English ‘fagot’ and maybe the Latin ‘fascia’, ‘faggots’ are bundles of branches and twigs bound together, typically a foot in diameter and three feet or longer. Used to fire bread ovens, thanks to their quick-burning qualities they are often mentioned being employed to hasten the end for burning heretics in the 15th and 16th Century. But during the English Civil War, faggots provided both fuel and defence.

A fascine is a type of long faggot approximately 13 to 20 feet long and eight to nine inches in diameter and used to maintain earthworks such as trenches, while hazel branches could be made into woven fences called hurdles and cylindrical woven baskets filled with earth known as gabions, all of which provided artificial cover for besieging troops at major sieges such as those of Lathom House, Colchester, Basing House, and Chester. Faggots could also be used to overcome defences – during the Royalist attack on Bristol in 1643, ‘waines full of faggots’ were thrown into the ditches to help the soldiers cross and storm the earthworks.

Collecting firewood was usually seen as menial, low work, usually left to women and children – Parliament’s commander-in-chief for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, Sir Richard Browne, was the son of a coal and timber merchant but was acutely sensitive to sneers about his social origin from Royalist propagandists, who called him ‘Faggot-Monger Browne’. But as a ready source of easily-found fuel, something as simple as fallen branches could be vital for soldiers, and the lands around besieged towns or hotly disputed areas  could become zones of constant flux, with competing armies vying for provisions and marshal advantage. As John Childs points out in his book on 17th Century warfare:

So undeveloped was state bureaucracy that it could shoulder only part of the burden of feeding soldiers in wartime. When marching through enemy lines, an army lived off the country … Provided that an army kept moving, sufficient victuals could usually be found. However, when it halted, in camp or at a siege, it rapidly devoured the locally available comestibles and had either to march or to draw supplies from magazines.*

The age of professional armies had yet to dawn and, with poor roads and lack of logistical support, armies in this period had to rely on land and local populace to sustain them. During the English Civil War this mostly involved ‘free quarter’ – forcing the local population to house and feed troops. Soldiers though were also expected to shoulder part of burden of their upkeep – the pay for an ordinary Parliamentarian soldier during the English Civil War was eight pence a day, but deductions were made for clothing, shoes, arms, food and lodging; soldiers serving in Dublin in 1641 received only one pence out of their four shillings and eight pence weekly pay after deductions.

Pillaging and theft were common occurrences, with local communities often bearing the brunt of an army’s hunger pangs at a time when poor harvests and harsh winters put extreme pressure on food supplies. Meanwhile, the sheer logistical feat of maintaining an army often meant soldiers could spend more time foraging than fighting. ‘Foraging’ literally means ‘gathering hay’, with green fodder for horses perhaps the most important item that had to be gathered, grand campaigns were restricted to the summer months and sometimes the entire fighting force could be involved in securing supplies.

So weary did some communities become of having their food, crops, and possessions appropriated without consent or recompense – and often at gunpoint – that associations of ‘clubmen’ formed to repel the armies of both sides involved in the civil war. Armed with clubs (from where they get their name), pitchforks and scythe blades, these motley collections of yeomen and farmers took issue with both sides. In Dorest in 1645, up to 4,000 clubmen became entrenched on Hambledon Hill beneath a banner proclaiming ‘If you offer to plunder or take our cattle, be assured we will bid you battle’ – they were then put to flight by a regiment of Oliver Cromwell’s cavalry, fresh from the siege of nearby Sherborne Castle.

During the upheaval of the English Civil War, even an act as simple as collecting firewood took on new meaning and danger, but it was already a contentious and political act that provides a handy metaphor for the social and economic changes affecting Britain, which helped contribute to the unrest that turned into all-out civil war – something we’ll examine in another blogpost soon!


* quoted from Warfare in the Seventeenth Century (2001) by John Childs


The ECW Q&A: did Cromwell ban mince pies?


Over on Twitter we asked if there were any questions people would like answered about history, politics, and society during the English Civil Wars. Meaghan Brown (@EpistolaryBrown) asked about the oft-repeated line about Oliver Cromwell banning mince pies as part of the Puritan ‘war on Christmas’ in the 1640s and ’50s.

Thanks for the great question, Meaghan!

This is one of those ‘facts’ that everyone knows – dour old Puritan Oliver Cromwell hated merriment and fun and laughing and dancing and so banned mince pies when he was Lord Protector because nothing is more guaranteed to bring pleasure and enrage a killjoy than a little pagan sweet pie dusted with icing sugar…

Except it’s just not true.

While there was an effort during the 1640s by Parliament to clamp down on the celebration of Christmas and other saints’ and holy days as part of a general de-Romanisation of the calendar, it wasn’t personally directed by Cromwell and he didn’t play a particularly large role in the various pieces of legislation which restricted the celebration of Christmas. We know that, as a Puritan, it is likely that he was sympathetic towards and supported such measures, and as Lord Protector from December 1653 until September 1658 he supported their enforcement.

But does that mean he banned mince pies?

Without going too much into the ‘Puritan War on Christmas’, measures to reduce the importance of Christmas as a festival began before Cromwell rose to national prominence – a 1631 pamphlet called The Complaint of Christmas urged the enthusiastic observance of the mid-winter feast in reaction to perceived Puritan interference and The Long Parliament met as usual on 25 December 1643. Rather than aiming to ban foodstuffs, anti-Christmas legislation of the 1640s and ’50s took aim at ending special Christmas church services and ensuring shops remained open. In January 1645, Parliament issued its new Directory for the Public Worship of God, their radical alternative to the Book of Common Prayer, which made no reference to Christmas at all.

The only Christmas Day on which eating mince pies was technically illegal was in 1644, when 25 December fell on the same day as a legally-mandated national fast, about which MPs issued an ordinance specifically reminding people:

The Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled doe order and ordaine that publique notice be given that the Fast appointed to be kept on the last Wednesday in every moneth ought to be observed untill it be otherwise ordered by both Houses of Parliament: And that this day in particular is to be kept with the more solemne humiliation, because it may call to remembrance our sinnes, and the sinnes of our forefathers, who have turned this Feast, pretending the memory of Christ into an extreame forgetfulnesse of him, by giving liberty to carnall and sensuall delights.

In June 1647, this was reinforced by another ordinance cracking down on the celebration of feast days in general, including Easter and Whitsun, and there were numerous legal attempts to stop celebrations and force businesses and markets to remain open on Christmas Day.

None of these ordinances mention mince pies or, indeed, pies of any kind. Pies themselves were a fundamental part of the cuisine of 17th Century England, as recipe books of the time attest, including one filled with recipes by Leticia Cromwell (any relation?). there was nothing ‘Popish’ or ‘Pagan’ about a pie…

When Christmas Day fell on a fast day you shouldn’t have been eating at all, but mince pies – or pastries of any kind – were never singled out. In any case, although mince pies were and are associated with Christmas, they were probably eaten at other times of the year and contemporary recipes do not insist they are meant only for Christmas. A captive Charles I was apparently denied the chance to eat ‘plum pudding’ on his last Christmas Day in 1642 – though this had more to do with the general petty austerity imposed by his gaolers throughout his terminally final stay in London.

That’s not to say people at the time were complicit or weren’t concerned about these proposed changes. Pamphlets such as The Vindication of Christmas were published in the 1650s and as early as December 1643, apprentice boys in London rose up in violent protest against shop-keepers who had opened on Christmas Day and the same happened in 1646 in Bury St Edmunds. After Parliament declared the celebration of Christmas to be a punishable offence in 1647, there was trouble at Bury, while pro-Christmas riots also took place at Norwich and Ipswich, with the worst disturbances taking place in Canterbury where a crowd of protesters seized control of the entire city. However, most people were more concerned about the end of traditions such as free ‘Christmas ale’ provided by their local church on 25 December than about sweet pies.

So why does this ‘fact’ about Cromwell banning mince pies persist?

Its roots may be a good deal more recent than the Civil War: Mercurius Politicus mentions various references in 18th Century texts that link refusal to eat mince pies with Puritanism but the popular myth doesn’t seem to to really gain traction until the mid-to-late 20th Century when it is repeated ad nauseum. Like so many myths, it may well have originated from satirical pamphlets either being taken at face value or treated in a ‘no smoke without fire’ manner – Royalists loved to lampoon their opponents and portray them in the most extreme manner possible, so poet John Taylor’s reference to mince pies in his Christmas In and Out (1652) – Plumb-Pottage was meer Popery, that a Coller of Brawn was an obhomination, that Roast Beef was Antichristian, that Mince-Pies were Reliques of the Whore of Babylon, and a Goose, aTurkey, or a Capon, were marks of the Beast – has to be taken with a pince of salt.

It could be that mince pies and their proscription is meant to represent the wider attack on Christmas as a secular holiday separate to Christian practices. The ‘Twelve Days of Christmas’ still celebrated in song, if not in practice, was a long-established period of feasting and celebration that had little connected to Christian practice. It was despised by Puritans for several reasons, not least because of the associated wantonness and debauchery but also because of their mission to do away with anything not ordained or permitted by biblical scripture. At the Restoration in 1660, all legislation passed during the period of 1642 to 1660 was declared null and void, so both the religious and the secular elements of the full Twelve Days of Christmas could once again be celebrated openly. As a potent symbol of non-religious Christmas feasting, ‘banning’ mince pies is a simple shorthand way of explaining a much broader attack on Christmas tradition by religion zealots – a symbol that, over time, became fact – and, as the arch-Puritan, regicide and king-in-all-but-name, of course it must have been Cromwell himself who did away with them.

This popular conception about Puritans, and the ‘dour Roundhead vs dashing Cavaliers’ myth so beloved of children’s textbooks, has its own roots in Victorian monochromatic attitudes towards British history as well as towards non-conformist denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, and Quakers, who have their roots in the Civil War and who were often portrayed as dour killjoys thanks to their focus on sobriety and eschewing of alcohol and public frivolity. There is also the popularly perceived sharp contrast with the subsequent reign of the ‘Merry Monarch’ Charles II and the supposed riot of colour, happiness, and devil-may-care frolicking of the Restoration after the religious zealotry and suppression of the Interregnum.

The myth does, perhaps, also tap into the way we think about history and its appearance on endless ‘crazy laws that have never been repealed’ listicles confirms that we often want the past to be archaic, odd, senseless, and irrational.

So no, Cromwell had nothing against pastry.

Meet a face of Manchester’s regiment with #mancsmugs – Drummer Amber


Last week we ran a new feature on our regiment’s Instagram account – Manchesters’ Mugs! It’s our way of introducing you to a face of our regiment.

We featured favourite photos from a member of ‘Manchester’s foote’ along with their reasons why each image is special and some of the stories about why they love reenacting with us.

First up was one of our drummers Amber!

Photo 2: A member of the regiment when she was a child, drummer Amber returned a few years ago. She says: “Here, I was 10 years old. The regiment has always felt like a family to me and I’ve always felt a great sense of belonging.”

Photo 2: “This was taken at my first event back after seven years away. I had such a great time and was welcomed back with open arms!”

Photo 3: Reenactment isn’t all about battling – Amber says: “Nothing can be compared to Manchesters’ regimental parties. Always fun, always crazy, always hilarious.”

Photo 4: On the field, Amber keeps the regiment in order and motivated – she says “Being part of something so big is exhilarating. Sometimes you stop and just take it all in. Its incredible.”

Photo 5: After battle, it’s time let your hair down – including fun in the beer tent! Amber says: “Fancy dress in the beer tent is always a great laugh, seeing all the mad and inventive outfits people come up with!”

That’s all from Amber’s #mancsmugs – thanks so much to her for taking part and we hope you’ve got a glimpse of just some of the things we get up to at events. If it’s whetted your appetite, make sure you join up now! You can give reenactment a go for just a tenner – and all your kit is provided!

Make sure you follow the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote account on Instagram for daily updates of our adventures on and off the battlefield!

What’s in a name – why is the term ‘The English Civil War’ wrong?


The English Civil Wars, The British Civil Wars, The English Revolution, The Puritan Revolution, The Great Rebellion, The Wars of the Three Kingdoms… one thing pretty much all historians of the period agree on is that the term ‘The English Civil War’ isn’t accurate (the old joke goes that it’s incorrect in three ways – it wasn’t English, it wasn’t just one war, and it wasn’t particularly civil)

But why is it inaccurate?

Firstly, it describes a series of conflicts that spanned the entire British Isles, involving Scotland and Ireland, as well as England and Wales.

Secondly, it wasn’t one war but many – historians tend to chart the period to encompass the Irish Rebellion and Confederate Wars in Ireland between 1641 and 1653 (including the Cromwellian invasion), The Bishops’ Wars between England and Scotland in 1639 and 1640, as well as THREE separate wars (1642-6, 1648-49, and 1650-51) that took place in England, Scotland, and Wales.battle image.jpg

So what’s in a name? And why do historians use different terms to describe the same conflict?

The term someone uses to describe the wars of mid-17th Century England usually tells you more about them than the conflicts themselves. The posthumously-published history of the English conflict by Edward Hyde 1st Earl of Clarendon was titled ‘The History of the Rebellion’ (reflecting the fact he fought on the Royalist side), the great Victorian historian SR Gardiner used both ‘The Great Civil War’ and ‘The Puritan Revolution’ in his landmark series on the period (although his account was remarkably unbiased, the wars were seen as the foundations of Britain’s constitutional monarchy), Blair Worden called his 2009 book ‘The English Civil Wars 1640-1660’, while the Marxist historian Christopher Hill favoured the term ‘English Revolution’.

The choice of name suggests when the conflicts started and when they ended – for instance, the term ‘Wars of the Three Kingdoms’ views the wars starting in Scotland in 1637 and ending with the Anglo-Scottish conflicts in 1651. These wars involved a pan-British and Irish dimension, each of the Stuart states experienced its own domestic civil wars and the terms we use to describe it continue and exacerbate the Anglo-centric views of the time. Indeed, the way England viewed and treated Ireland, Scotland, and Wales were often a major reason for conflict – it was the ‘plantation’ of Catholic Ireland with Protestant settlers (and the economic imbalances it created and reinforced) that helped spark conflict in 1641; it was the attempt to impose the English church’s Book of Common Prayer of the Presbyterian Scottish that led to the National Covenant and the Bishop’s Wars; the Scottish were used by a duplicitous King Charles I to spark the second Civil War, while his son would again use Scottish forces to invade England in 1651; meanwhile Parliament’s policies treated Scotland (an independent kingdom connected to England only through Charles’ crown) and Wales as wayward children requiring correction, while the Irish were considered brutal savages.

So why use a term like ‘English Civil War’ if it’s not accurate?

Whatever the accuracy (or otherwise) of the term, it is nonetheless used ubiquitously in mainstream culture and comment to refer to the interconnected series of conflicts of the 1630s, ’40s, and ’50s. One of the aims of our group and the Sealed Knot of which it is part is to educate the general public about the period, its causes, and its consequences – for us, that begins with engaging with the misnomers and myths about the period, not to reinforce them but to use them as a starting point for dispelling them. If your first point is to chastise the public for not using the right term, rather than drawing them in to explain how and why it is inaccurate, then you are already beginning the process of losing your audience.

For example, one of the most popular and helpful parts of our displays is when we ask an audience the nicknames of the two sides that fought the English Civil War – “Cavaliers and Roundheads” is always the standard response. We then stand a pikeman and a musketeer in front of them and ask them to identify when is which; naturally, the musketeer we use has a large-brimmed felt hat and long hair, the pikeman with short hair beneath his steel helmet. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the musketeer will be identified as the ‘Cavalier’, the pikeman as the ‘Roundhead’. The answer, of course, is that they could be either – clothes were no indication of which side you were on. This opens up opportunities to challenge myths about the era and about the causes of the war.

You take a myth, pick it apart, explain why it is wrong, educate, and move on…

We’re fortunate to have the Twitter handle @englishcivilwar because it gives us a unique opportunity to challenge people’s notions about the period: we start with a term they know and use that as a gateway to broaden understanding of this critical juncture in the history of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, when political, social, and cultural norms were overthrown and a king executed by his own people.

We would be the first to acknowledge that we can always do more to combat the Anglo-centric viewpoint that has dominated this history for so long, but for the time being at least we use ‘English Civil War’ as a way of drawing people in so that we can begin a process.

We’ll be doing more blog posts looking into the ways we can shift perceptions and broaden knowledge of the period in the future, but in the meantime what’s your favoured term for describing the conflicts of the mid-17th Century in Britain and Ireland? Let us know in the poll below…


Join the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote today!



Just think – YOU could join us as we bring history to life across the country, camping in spectacular locations, having great fun afterwards by socialising around the campfire or in the beer tent, and making great new friends – whether you’re on your own or part of a family!

2018 promises to be a fantastic year of events for us so if you’ve ever thought about having a go at historical re-enactment it really couldn’t be easier to join the Earl of Manchester’s Regiment of Foote – you can try it for just a tenner!

Visit our website for more information and then go to the contacts page to find a member that’s close to you, or contact our recruitment team leader Ian directly by emailing

You don’t need to jump in with both feet – for a mere £10 for an individual and £15 for a family, you can have a taster weekend! That’s free camping, all your kit supplied, and a brand new experience to enjoy!

You’ll no doubt have questions, so you should definitely check out our Frequently Asked Questions page – being in the Sealed Knot is the easiest and most family-friendly way to get into re-enactment!

But don’t take our word for it – just listen to what our members have to say about why you should join up now…

And don’t forget that Manchester’s is great for kids too – we talked to some of the youngsters who form the future of our regiment:

Convinced? We’re always on the look out for new recruits – you don’t need to be an ‘expert’ on history or know lots about the English Civil War, just think of its as a cross between a music festival, a rugby match, and a party afterwards! Just imagine taking on one of these roles on the battlefield:

Become a Musketeer

Become a Pikeman

Become a Drummer

Become a part of the Baggage Train

Whatever you choose to do, we’d LOVE for you to become a part of our regiment. Everyone was new once, so we’re committed to making you feel welcomed and part of the regiment from day one – just give it a go, we promise you a weekend you’ll never forget!

Contact our recruitment team leader Ian by emailing