Monday 6 May 1661
Up by four o’clock and took coach. Mr. Creed rode, and left us that we know not whither he went. We went on, thinking to be at home before the officers rose, but finding we could not we staid by the way and eat some cakes, and so home.
Where I was much troubled to see no more work done in my absence than there was, but it could not be helped.
I sent my wife to my father’s, and I went and sat till late with my Lady Batten, both the Sir Williams being gone this day to pay off some ships at Deptford.
So home and to bed without seeing of them.
I hear to-night that the Duke of York’s son is this day dead, which I believe will please every body; and I hear that the Duke and his Lady themselves are not much troubled at it.
33 Annotations
First Reading
A. De Araujo • Link
"which I believe will please every body;and I hear that the Duke and his Lady themselves are not much troubled by it" They were married in September and the child was born in October and dies 7 months later; of their 8 children only 2( the future Queens ) survived; what I don't understand is why is everybody so pleased?
Vicente • Link
'twas from wrong side of the bed. Everybody was counting the days.
Eric Walla • Link
This is an extension of Sam's earlier statement about James, only applied to the offspring. The Protestant population lived in fear of a royal return to Catholicism. Thus the gladness he expressed earlier that Charles would soon marry (and produce an heir, so he thought) is continued when another potential Catholic heir is lost. The child's death, leaving only girls, reduced the danger ... so much for the best laid plans.
Vicente • Link
Eric: True, return to Roman Rule was more dangererous than the Protesting Bishop rule. It would be hard for the City Merchants to be paying off the Vatican and King.
Stephen Taylor • Link
Little did they know that Charles 2nd was a closet Catholic, something he was clever and politically astute enough to hide until his deathbed I believe.
Jackie • Link
The baby was born under a question mark. At the time, the marriage was under dispute and the Duke of York had persuaded friends to lie and say that they'd had affairs with Anne Hyde. The timiing was too tight and, given that the child was in line for the throne, could have caused problems.
Politically it was helpful that the child died. Personally, it was probably more of a disaster to the couple.
Wim van der Meij • Link
It now appears Sam and company had their own coach (someone commented on this the other day), otherwise Mr Creed would not have ridden.
Emilio • Link
"much troubled to see no more work done in my absence than there was"
Now that sounds about right--it was probably a good idea for Sam to be at home watching the workmen as much as he has been.
Jenny Doughty • Link
At least he's philosophical about it though - 'but it could not be helped.'
David A. Smith • Link
"the Duke of York's son is this day dead”
Amplifying Stephen’s comments: Charles II was probably a Catholic for less than an hour of his life.
In a scene worthy of a Jacobean morality play, he was converted on his deathbed by the same Catholic priest who had played a key role in helping his escape after the Battle of Worcester.
Aside from the several witness to the deathbed conversion — and if he was a Catholic before, why have a conversion rather than simply extreme unction? — there is actually no evidence to suggest that he was personally an ‘unofficial’ Catholic before then - or even that he had fundamentally Catholic beliefs. He began his life fairly ignorant of the differences between Protestant (Anglican) and Catholic doctrine, and spent his latter reign mainly quelling mobs who equated Popery with royal absolutism. His conversion, like Jefferson’s deathbed emancipation of his household slaves, seems to have come upon him as a flash of inspiration when, for that brief time, he could cease being a political leader and ask himself a question I suspect he had, up to then, dared not ask himself.
JWB • Link
...and I hear that the Duke and his Lady...
Psychological projection.
David A. Smith • Link
"which I believe will please every body"
At this date, not even James, Duke of York, is a Catholic (speculation is he converted in 1672). Though his good lady Anne was a commoner, she was the daughter of firmly Royalist, firmly Protestant, Edward Hyde, Charles II's faithful and effective Lord Chancellor. The child's legitimacy is questionable because James and Anne were formally married on 3 Sep 1660, but may have been married in Breda the year before. As to whether Sam is projecting, he is close enough to the royal household that the DUke and Duchess's views may well have been common knowledge.
JWB • Link
"I hear tonight..."
Sam's only been gossiping with Lady Batten.
Michael • Link
"will please every body"
I understand the political implications and everything, and I realize that this "timely" death has removed a possible source for trouble later on. And there was already some discussion on the role of children in 17th century society. And still: the report of this and of the parents reaction does sound extremely cold. If this were Shakespeare and fiction (and not Pepys and real life) I would assume that some foul play had to be part of it. The parents don't seem to be troubled, and everybody is better off politically. Except the poor baby.
Eric Walla • Link
I think JWB has it right ...
... Sam's been gossiping, and the rumor he hears is that the Duke and Duchess of York "are not much troubled by it." Again, with the position Sam (and society) seems to hold of James, the drift of the rumor serves to play into and magnify his lack of feeling and character, making the King's brother ever more unfit for the role of monarch.
It is noteworthy that Sam, as chronicler, makes sure once again to record the context as hearsay rather than simply stating, "They didn't care one whit about the boy."
Vicente • Link
"He began his life fairly ignorant of the differences between Protestant (Anglican) and Catholic doctrine,"
'Tis he who wields the final power, as King and Head of his own organisation, he only answers to his own conscience,but as A loyal Catholic, he has to answer to Rome, and Charles was no Dummy and had seen how his cousin was controlled by the leading clerics, was not about to give up Supreme Power, until the after life came a calling. [bad enough, argueing with Parliament]
dirk • Link
parents attitude vs deceased children
There was a "lively" debate on this issue ref. the diary entry for 1 January 1660/1661.
For those interested:
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Australian Susan • Link
David A. Smith
Anglicans are not Protestants! (but I thought the rest of your comments were spot on: there is no evidence James was Catholic at this time and we must remember that both of James's daughters who reigned after him were not brought up as Catholics - only his son by his second wife was - the future 'Old Pretender")
Mary • Link
Charles was no dummy.
Equally, he was prepared to undertake to return to the Catholic church at some unspecified time in the future (Secret Treaty of Dover, 1670) in order to secure financial and material support from France in the conflict with The Netherlands. It's noteworthy that the treaty nowhere promised that Charles would bring England back into the Catholic fold; he promised only for himself and, eventually, fulfilled his promise. In the event, the Treaty of Dover brought him less advantage than he had hoped for.
Stephen Taylor • Link
"of their 8 children only 2( the future Queens ) survived; what I don't understand is why is everybody so pleased”
Unfortunately I believe this to be untrue. There was also James Edward, decried by many around the time as the ‘warming pan baby’ who was nevertheless almost son and heir to James II. Political expediency won the day in the end though…….
tony t. • Link
"of their 8 children only 2 (the future Queens) survived...". Unfortunately, Stephen, you are the one in error here. James Edward was only a half-brother to the two Queens as the future James II remarried.
Jackie • Link
The survival rate of the Royal Nursery was shocking. Basically, the higher in society a baby, the more that the doctors of the time tried to medicalise those first few years of life. Unfortunately, the doctors knew next to nothing then and seemed to kill their patients as often as not (the way Charles II eventually met his end is sobering in this regard).
When James Edward was born, his doctors decreed that the most poisonous thing that could possibly be given to the newborn was a woman's milk and tried to wean him immediately onto a gruel-based mixture, while dosing him with large doses of medicine for the good of his health. He survived because his mother insisted against the protest of the doctors that a wet nurse had to be found. The doctors all protested that any newborn should be fed anything so dangerous to his health as milk.
The death rates in the rooyal household had a significant effect upon events n the near future. Mary and Anne only survived because daughters were less important than sons, so their first years were less subject to doctors.
Also, the royal nursery was open to the public and even in times of smallpox people walked in and out at will. Several babies died of plague as not even the doctors thought that people who'd been exposed to disease should be kept from mixing with the royal children.
vicente • Link
Big egos and little knowledge doth prove dangerous.
JonTom Kittredge • Link
Anglicans and Protestants
It is certainly true that many Anglicans today consider themselves Catholics (and many others consider themselves Protestants, and some, like me, consider themselves something of both). However, this is all following the Oxford movement and the Anglo-Catholic revival of the 19th Century. I am quite sure that 17th Century Anglicans would loudly "protest" that they were Protestant. For example, I found on the 'net, the text of the English Coronation Oath from 1689, wherein the monarch swears to maintain the "Protestant reformed religion established by law" (i.e. the Church of England).
vicente • Link
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counselors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.
http://www.bessel.org/billrts.htm
Second Reading
Louise Hudson • Link
It's been wisely said that the Church of England saved the English from Chrisrianity (attributed to William Empson, though I can find no documentation).
jude cooper • Link
Interesting point, Jackie. The fact that girls were less valuable and less doctored, led to their greater survival, and ability to take power is something to ponder on...
Dick Wilson • Link
Re David Smith's 2004 post: If memory serves, Jefferson freed only 5 of the approximately 150 people he owned.
Terry Foreman • Link
"I hear to-night that the Duke of York’s son is this day dead, which I believe will please every body;
L&M: The baby Charles Stuart, designated Duke of Cambridge, born on 22 October 1660, the first of eight children of the marriage, was buried this day in Westminster Abbey. Both the Duke of York and his secret marriage were unpopular. Cf. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Third Reading
LKvM • Link
Re 3rd President of the United States Thomas Jefferson and the five household slaves he freed on his deathbed:
Jefferson "owned more than 600 slaves during his adult life. Jefferson freed two slaves while he lived, and five others were freed after his death, including two of his children from his relationship with his slave (and sister-in-law) Sally Hemings. His other two children with Hemings were allowed to escape without pursuit. After his death, the rest of the slaves were sold to pay off his estate's debts."
Stephane Chenard • Link
On how baby Charles went, the Venetian ambassador will thrown in a brief paragraph in his weekly report (dated May 20, new style) on how he was "lamented by his parents and all the Court" - so they might be human after all - but "no one has gone into mourning for him, as it is not the custom at this Court for princes of such tender years". With maybe a hint that it's not like that in Venice, but we are reminded of (non-Christian) cultures where infants are not even named until six months old, their Fate being so unclear till then.
Mercurius Politicus will regale us tomorrow, however, with the happy tale that on "the 7th day of this month [at] a general muster of all the Citty forces (...) the Kinge, with the Duke of York" had a great banquet in Hyde Park, "where after the banquett his Majesty was pleased to make himselfe mery in throwinge amongst the soldiers neats tongues, west hamms, English gammons, oringes and leamons and the like. Great fierings, much company, great joy. Vale! Vale!"
So, not a lot of mourning indeed. But we have sad newes ourselves: For those were the final lines in our edition of Thos. Rugge's summary of Mercurius Politicus, as published online by Cambridge University Press (https://doi.org/10.1017/S20421710…). So, unless another trove is found, and until somebody invents the London Gazette, the onely newes-book at our disposal shall be... the French Gazette! Woe!
San Diego Sarah • Link
Since this is the last of Thomas Rugge's welcome comments, perhaps his bio is called for:
Thomas Rugge (died c. 1670/72) was a diarist and later compiler of 'Mercurius Politicus Redivivus'. The "Diurnall" of Thomas Rugge, preserved in the British Museum, corroborates Pepys in many ways.
Self-description for his diary:
MERCURIUS POLITICUS REDIVIVUS
or, A Collection of the most materiall occurrences and transactions
in Public Affairs since Anno Dni, 1659, until
28 March 1672,
serving as an annuall diurnall for future satisfaction and information,
BY THOMAS RUGGE.
Est natura hominum novitatis avida. — Plinius.
Thomas Rugge's Diurnall is preserved in the British Library. It belonged in 1693 to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, and was purchased by the British Museum at Heber's sale in February 1836. It was published as The diurnal of Thomas Rugg, 1659-1661 by William Lewis Sachse ed. in 1961.
Rugge was descended from an ancient Norfolk family: his ancestors are described as two Aldermen of Norwich, and William Rugge, Bishop of Norwich.
According to Rugge's Diurnall, in London: "And theire ware also att this time a Turkish drink to bee sould, almost every street, called coffee, and another kind of drink called tee, and also a drink called Chacolate, which was a very harty drink."
Thomas Rugge paid tax for 9 hearths when he lived in Covent Garden, Middlesex in 1666. Before that he lived in King Street 1651–c.1663.
His death seems to have occurred about 1672; in the Diary for 1671 he complains that on account of his declining health, his entries will be but few. Nothing has been traced of his circumstances beyond his living for 14 years in Covent Garden, then a fashionable locality.
He may have been the Thomas Rugge of St. Paul, Covent Garden whose will was probated on 31 March 1670, although this predates those journal entries. That would make him the Thomas Rugge who was buried on 16 March 1669/70 at St. Paul's, Covent Garden.
At St. Paul's, Covent Garden, we find the following parish registry entries:
Elizabeth, baptised 26 Oct. 1653, daughter to Thomas and Elizabeth Rugg, born on 26 Oct., the first entry of the registers of St. Paul's Church, Convent Garden, London.
Ann, baptised 11 Dec. 1654, daughter to Thomas and Elizabeth Rugg, born 11 Dec, 1654, buried 9 May 1657 at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, Anna, daughter of Tho: Rugg
Mary, baptised on 27 June 1659, daughter to Thomas and Eliza: Rugg, born on 26 June 1659, buried 12 Oct. 1659 at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, Mary, daughter of Tho: Rugg
John, baptised 16 April 1662, son of Thomas and Elizabeth Rugg, buried 17 Oct, 1673 at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, John, son of Thomas Rugg
(During the Commonwealth, date of birth had to be registered in the parish registers.)
San Diego Sarah • Link
CONCLUSION:
Half the entries in the journal, which spans more than a decade, are after the death of Mary in late 1659 and before the birth of John in early 1662.
ODNB identifies the preceding marriage as that between Thomas Rugg and Elizabeth Cox at St. Clement Danes, in the City of Westminster, London, both of Covent Garden.
The will of the widow of Thomas Rugge, Elizabeth Rugge née Cox (d.1695) of St. Giles in the Fields, only mentions her nephew, John Rugge of Bugden in the County of Huntingdon. This was the John Rugge (d.1720) of the Inner Temple, London and Stirtloe, Buckden, Huntingdonshire, gentleman, who married Elizabeth, the daughter of Sir Robert Wright, Chief Justice of the King's Bench.
The Rugge coat of arms can be seen on the monument of Francis Rugge (1535–1607), Mayor of Norwich at St. Andrew's Church in Norwich.
The Rugge family owned property in Hoveton from at least 1533, when William Rugge, abbot of St. Bennet's, conveyed the manor of Greengate to Robert Rugge, his brother, alderman of Norwich.
The family held property there until at least 1618.
More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho…
Not much for a man of substance who confirms and elaborates on such times of upheaval. I can't even find that ODNB for him.