William Stewart (1653 - 1692) MP

‹ Back to Stewart surname

Is your surname Stewart?

Research the Stewart family

William Stewart, 1st Viscount Montjoy's Geni Profile

Records for William Stewart

7,563,769 Records

Share your family tree and photos with the people you know and love

  • Build your family tree online
  • Share photos and videos
  • Smart Matching™ technology
  • Free!

Share

Related Projects

Birthplace: Newtownstewart, County Tyrone, Ulster, Ireland
Death: Died in Steenkerque, Baillage d'Enghien, Comté de Hainaut, Spanish Netherlands (Present Belgium)
Cause of death: Killed in the Battle of Steenkerque, fighting against the French.
Occupation: 1st Viscount Montjoy of County Tyrone, 3rd Baronet and 1st Baron Stewart of Ramalton in County Donegal
Managed by: Donna iLine Howse
Last Updated:

About William Stewart

From Darryl Lundy's Peerage page on William Stewart, 1st Viscount Montjoy:

http://thepeerage.com/p2792.htm#i27913

William Stewart, 1st Viscount Mountjoy [1]

  • M, #27913
  • Last Edited=19 Jan 2009

William Stewart, 1st Viscount Mountjoy married Hon. Mary Coote, daughter of Richard Coote, 1st Lord Coote, Baron of Coloony and Mary St. George.[1]

He was the son of Sir Alexander Stewart, 2nd Bt. and Catherine Newcomen.[2]

  • He succeeded to the title of 3rd Baronet Stewart, of Ramalton, co. Donegal [I., 1623] on 3 September 1650.[1]
  • He was created 1st Viscount Mountjoy, of co. Tyrone [Ireland] on 19 March 1682/83.[3]
  • He was created 1st Baron Stewart of Ramalton, co. Donegal [Ireland] on 19 March 1682/83.[3]

Children of William Stewart, 1st Viscount Mountjoy

  • 1. William Stewart, 2nd Viscount Mountjoy+[4] d. 10 Jan 1727/28
  • 2. Hon. Alexander Stewart+[5]

Children of William Stewart, 1st Viscount Mountjoy and Hon. Mary Coote

  • 1. Hon. Catherine Stewart+
  • 2. Hon. Mary Stewart+[6] b. c 1677, d. 4 Oct 1765

Citations

  • 1. [S37] Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 893. Hereinafter cited as Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition.
  • 2. [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume IX, page 349. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
  • 3. [S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume IX, page 350.
  • 4. [S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume IX, page 351.
  • 5. [S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume II, page 192.
  • 6. [S37] Charles Mosley, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 107th edition, volume 2, page 1628.

------------------

From the English Wikipedia page on the Battle of Steenkerque, where he died:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Steenkerque

Prelude

The French had achieved their immediate object by capturing of Namur. The French, not wishing to fight, took up a strong defensive position in accordance with the strategical methods of the time. The French army lay facing North-West with its right on the Zenne at Steenkerque and its left towards Enghien. Their supposition was that the enemy would not dare to attack it.

(King William III of England and William II of Scotland) had replaced Waldeck as supreme allied commander. The allied army was encamped about Halle. The Allies, who would otherwise probably have done as the French marshal desired, were by the fortune of war afforded the opportunity of surprising a part of the enemy's forces.

Accordingly William set his army in motion before dawn on August 3 and surprised the French right about Steenkerque. He completely misled the enemy by forcing a detected spy to give (French Commander, the Duc de) Luxemburg false news. In the 17th century when the objects of a war were, as far as possible, secured without the loss of valuable lives and general decisive battles were in every way considered undesirable, a brilliant victory over a part, not the whole, of the enemy's forces was the tactical idea of the best generals.

The battle

The allied advanced guard of infantry and pioneers, under the Duke of Wurttemberg, deployed silently around 5:00 a.m. close to the French camps. The main body of the French army was farther back and forming up after the passage of some woods. Belatedly, Luxemburg became aware of the impending blow. When the fight opened, Luxemburg was completely surprised and he could do no more than hurry the nearest foot and dragoons into action as each regiment came on the scene.

Unfortunately for the allies, the march of their main body had been mismanaged. Valuable time was lost. At 9 a.m. Wurttemberg started methodically cannonading the enemy while waiting for support and for the order to advance. The French worked with feverish energy to form a strong and well-covered line of battle at the threatened point. The allied main body had marched in the usual order with one wing of cavalry leading, the infantry following, and the other wing of cavalry at the tail of the column. On arrival at the field they were hastily sorted out into infantry and cavalry, for the ground was only suitable for the former.

Only a few allied battalions had come up to support the advanced guard when the real attack opened at 12.30. Although the advanced guard had already been under arms for nine hours and the march had been over bad ground, its attack swept the first French line before it. The English and Danes stubbornly advanced and the second and third lines of the French infantry gave ground before them. However, Luxemburg was rapidly massing his whole force to crush them. During this time the confusion in the allied main body had reached its height.

Count Solms ordered the cavalry he commanded forward, but the mounted men, scarcely able to move over the bad roads and heavy ground, only blocked the way for the infantry. Some of the English foot, with curses upon Solms and the Dutch generals, broke out to the front, and Solms, angry and excited, thereupon refused to listen to all appeals for aid from the front. No attempt was made to engage and hold the centre and left of the French army, which hurried, regiment after regiment, to take part in the fighting at Steenkerque. William's counter-order that the infantry was to go forward, the cavalry to halt, only made matters worse, and by now the advanced guard had at last been brought to a standstill.

At the crisis Luxemburg had not hesitated to throw the whole of the French and Swiss guards into the fight, led by the princes of the royal house. More and more French troops under command of Boufflers appeared from side of Enghien. During and after this supreme effort the Allies were driven back, contesting every step against the weight of numbers.

The foot and dragoons of the main body which succeeded in reaching the front, served only to cover and to steady the retreat of Wurttemberg's force. The coup having manifestly failed, William ordered a general retreat. The Allies retired as they had come, their rear-guard under the Dutch Marshal Ouwerkerk showing too stubborn a front for the French to attack. The French army, very disordered and suffering heavy casualties, was in no state to pursue.

Aftermath

Over 8,000 men (including William Stewart) out of only about 15,000 engaged on the side of the Allies were killed and wounded. The losses of the French out of a much larger force were at least equal. Contemporary soldiers affirmed that Steenkirk was the hardest battle ever fought by the infantry in that war. Five English regiments were completely destroyed. Their commander, general Hugh Mackay, was also killed. John Cutts, was one of the few survivors. The English, as they would again 50 years later at Battle of Fontenoy, blamed their great losses on the attitude of the Dutch.

view all

William Stewart, 1st Viscount Montjoy's Timeline

1653
December 23, 1653
Newtownstewart, County Tyrone, Ulster, Ireland
1676
1676
Age 22
1677
1677
Age 23
Mountjoy, County Tyrone, Ulster, Ireland
1692
August 3, 1692
Age 38
Steenkerque, Baillage d'Enghien, Comté de Hainaut, Spanish Netherlands (Present Belgium)
????
????