Search the Collection

David Lesley, 1st Baron Newark

(1601-1682), Army officer

Sitter in 2 portraits

Tell us More

List Thumbnail

David Lesley, 1st Baron Newark, by Michael Vandergucht - NPG D28985

David Lesley, 1st Baron Newark

by Michael Vandergucht
line engraving, 1713
NPG D28985

David Lesley, 1st Baron Newark, by Simon François Ravenet - NPG D28986

David Lesley, 1st Baron Newark

by Simon François Ravenet
line engraving, 1757
NPG D28986

Tell us more back to top

Can you tell us more about this person? Spotted an error, information that is missing (a sitter’s life dates, occupation or family relationships, or a date of portrait for example) or do you know anything that we don't know? If you have information to share please complete the form below.

If you require information from us, please use our Archive enquiry service. If you wish to license an image, please use our Rights and Images service.

Please note that we cannot provide valuations.

We digitise over 8,000 portraits a year and we cannot guarantee being able to digitise images that are not already scheduled.

Laurie Pettitt

22 March 2017, 13:47

This is a very hard man to understand. No doubt he was a good soldier who shared 'Man of the Match' status with Cromwell at Marston Moor. He also played Cromwell like a 'fish' in 1650 in the lead up to the Battle of Dunbar. But it seems the 'fish' ate him.
Guilty of a few massacres for which he blamed the Clergy and then, he blamed the Clergy for the defeat at Dunbar. One must ask, though, how it was that he had 10,000 men on the field who had bot been fed? And how was it, that leaving the field with an army which still outnumbered Cromwell, he made no attempt to rally and regain his men. My theory is that the 10,000 (ish) semi combatants on the field would have little to do with the battle, but lots to do with the disposal of English soldiers in the aftermath. If you think that impossible, you need to read up on Lesley.
His defeat was blamed on the Clergy, but I think it had more to do with the fact that Lesley was 45 days into 30 days' supplies. People call this Revisionist but that denies the fact that the History of the 1640s and 1650s were subject to a large amount of revision and destruction of records. Our job is to search through what is there and hope that we find truth to fit the available facts. I look at my 'task' as pulling the rusty nails out of the top of an ancient coffin. Each nail gets us closer to the truth.

What can you tell us?close

There are occasions when we are unsure of the identity of a sitter or artist, their life dates, occupation or have not recorded their family relationships. Sometimes we have not recorded the date of a portrait. Do you have specialist knowledge or a particular interest about any aspect of the portrait or sitter or artist that you can share with us? We would welcome any information that adds to and enhances our information and understanding about a particular portrait, sitter or artist.

Citationclose

How do you know this? Please could you let us know your source of information.

* Permission to publish (Privacy information)
Privacy Informationclose

The National Portrait Gallery will NOT use your information to contact you or store for any other purpose than to investigate or display your contribution. By ticking permission to publish you are indicating your agreement for your contribution to be shown on this collection item page. Please note your email address will not be displayed on the page nor will it be used for any marketing material or promotion of any kind.

Please ensure your comments are relevant and appropriate. Your contributions must be polite and with no intention of causing trouble. All contributions are moderated.

Your Emailclose

Contributions are moderated. We'll need your email address so that we can follow up on the information provided and contact you to let you know when your contribution has been published.