Lightly edited from “Rupert, Prince Palatine” -- by EVA SCOTT WESTMINSTER -- ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & Co. NEW YORK -- G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 1900 http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/ep…
Rupert's admirers thought that "the good prince" had not received his due in the official reports of the Four Day action. His secretary, James Hayes, wrote to Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington's secretary to expostulate. "Give me leave to suggest that, since in the Dutch Gazette those lying words speak dishonorably of the Prince, it will offer an occasion of a word or two in yours, more to his merit; in whom I did indeed discover so extraordinary courage, conduct and presence of mind in the midst of all the showers of cannon bullet, that higher I think cannot be imagined of any man that ever fought. I observed him with astonishment all that day."[37] [37] Dom. State Papers. Chas. II. 159. f. 3. Hayes, 15 June, 1666.
This letter produced the following note, added to the official gazette: "The writer of this letter could not think fit to mingle in his relations any expressions of His Royal Highness's personal behavior, because it was prepared for his own sight. But it is most certain that never any Prince, or it may be truly said, any private person, was, in an action of war, exposed to more danger from the beginning to the end of it. His conduct and presence of mind equaling his fearless courage, and carrying him to change his ship three times, setting up his Royal standard in each of them, to animate his own men and brave the enemy."[38] [38] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. Vol. 159. 3 (1).
For this tribute secretary James Hayes returned grateful thanks. "You have done right to a brave Prince, whose worth will endure praise, though I find his ears are too modest to hear his own."[39] [39] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. 159. 55. Hayes, June 21, 1666.
Rupert was far more engaged with his smoldering wrath against the Commissioners of the Navy, than in considering what the Dutch Gazette did, or did not say, say about him. A month earlier he had written to Charles II that "unless some course" were taken with the victualler -- viz. Pepys -- the whole fleet would be ruined.[40] [40] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. 156. 100. 22 May, 1666.
Now, when the fleet came into refit, the first thing Rupert did on meeting Charles II, was to reiterate his complaints. "Which," wrote Pepys, "I am troubled at, and do fear may in violence break out upon this office some time or other, and we shall not be able to carry on the business."[41] [41] Pepys. June 20, 1666.
But Rupert's time on shore was short, and the victualling storm was deferred. By July 22, 1666 the fleet was again at sea.
But Batten is also a one third owner ... so Pepys and Ford would (a) had to give Batten one tenth of their profits? Or (b) Batten would take one tenth of the profits before the balance was divided into three and paid to each partners? I suspect the answer to that is whatever resulted in Charles II or James getting the most.
I'm with Pepys: Not good to be in business with the other men in the office; the less they know the better. Take your money and run.
"The captains, masters and owners of privateers had to enter into bonds to render to the Admiral his share (one tenth) of their profits."
Took me a while to realize that means they have to pay Adm. BATTEN one tenth of their profits for the privilege of administering the bonds. Presumably he, in turn, had to pay Charles II or James. Everybody wins. Just prepare for an audit.
In 1663 Catherine's birthday was celebrated on November 15. I wonder why they are celebrating three weeks early this year, especially if she was in mourning for her mother.
Perhaps they needed a party to cheer themselves up? Seems a bit insensitive to the homeless and the unpaid.
Perhaps Charles II wanted to empty the wine cellars before the Butterballs arrived?
"I out with my wife to Mrs. Pierces, where she hath not been a great while, from some little unkindness of my wife’s to her when she was last here, ..."
Since this upset has caused Pepys displeasure for a couple of months, I posted its origins on Elisabeth Pearse's encyclopedia page.
Monday, August 6, 1666 – Elizabeth Pepys and Betty Pearse have words, and the bad feelings linger for several months, to Pepys’ displeasure. I’m not sure what it really was about:
“By and by comes Mr. Pierce and his wife, the first time she also hath been here since her lying-in, both having been brought to bed of boys, and both of them dead. And here we talked, and were pleasant, only my wife in a chagrin humour, she not being pleased with my kindnesse to either of them, and by and by she fell into some silly discourse wherein I checked her, which made her mighty pettish, and discoursed mighty offensively to Mrs. Pierce, which did displease me, but I would make no words, but put the discourse by as much as I could (it being about a report that my wife said was made of herself and meant by Mrs. Pierce, that she was grown a gallant, when she had but so few suits of clothes these two or three years, and a great deale of that silly discourse), and by and by Mrs. Pierce did tell her that such discourses should not trouble her, for there went as bad on other people, and particularly of herself at this end of the towne, meaning my wife, that she was crooked, which was quite false, which my wife had the wit not to acknowledge herself to be the speaker of, though she has said it twenty times. But by this means we had little pleasure in their visit; however, Knipp and I sang, and then I offered them to carry them home, and to take my wife with me, but she would not go: so I with them, leaving my wife in a very ill humour, and very slighting to them, which vexed me. However, I would not be removed from my civility to them, but sent for a coach, and went with them; and, in our way, Knipp saying that she come out of doors without a dinner to us, I took them to Old Fish Streete, to the very house and woman where I kept my wedding dinner, where I never was since, and there I did give them a jole of salmon, and what else was to be had. And here we talked of the ill-humour of my wife, which I did excuse as much as I could, and they seemed to admit of it, but did both confess they wondered at it; but from thence to other discourse, and among others to that of my Lord Bruncker and Mrs. Williams, who it seems do speake mighty hardly of me for my not treating them, and not giving her something to her closett, and do speake worse of my wife, and dishonourably, but it is what she do of all the world, though she be a whore herself; so I value it not.
… “I set them both at home, Knipp at her house, her husband being at the doore; and glad she was to be found to have staid out so long with me and Mrs. Pierce, and none else; and Mrs. Pierce at her house, and am mightily pleased with the discretion of her during the simplicity and offensiveness of my wife’s discourse this afternoon.”
The next time we meet Mrs. Pearce, Pepys notes that she has been confined to bed for a month, but the baby died. So Mrs. P. is about 7-1/2 months pregnant today.
"... Sir W. Coventry, who is come to his winter lodgings at White Hall, ..."
During the summer the Duke and Duchess of York's household lived at St. James Palace. Coventry, as James' secretary, moved with the Duke.
WHY? Maybe the weather? -- living closer in winter kept people and documents warm(er) and dry(er) as they go between offices. Maybe having some empty rooms in the summer meant the repair men, painters and decorators could work and clean, and people had other places in which to sleep temporarily? Maybe St. James's was just too cold and drafty in the winter?
Can't think of any other reasons for such a regular major disruption. Anyone else know why if not the above?
Shadwell, Middlesex, derives its name from a spring anciently dedicated to St Chad. The parish lies on the river Thames, 2½ miles ESE of St Paul's, London, was part of Stepney until 1669, continued until then to be a hamlet, belonging to the Neales.
It was inhabited in its lower part chiefly by ship-chandlers, provision merchants, sailmakers, coopers, and seamen.
A Roman grave was found in 1615, and in 1745 a mineral spring called Shadwell Spa was discovered, which was found useful in the treatment of cutaneous diseases.
"The Lords Committee (of the preamble of the whole House) have passed the preamble of the Bill prohibiting of Irish Cattle. This, the writer regards as decisive of the question, but the Lord Chancellor differs from that opinion."
On 24 July 1663 Arthur Annesley, Earl of Anglesey alone signed a protest against the bill "for the encouragement of trade", on the plea that owing to the free export of coin and bullion allowed by the act, and to the importation of foreign commodities being greater than the export of home goods, "it must necessarily follow ... that our silver will also be carried away into foreign parts and all trade fail for want of money."[4][5][6] 4^ Rogers (1875), Vol. I, p. 27. 5^ Carte (1851), Vol. IV, p. 234. 6^ Parl. Hist. (1808), p. 284.
Anglesey especially disapproved of another clause in the same bill forbidding the importation of Irish cattle into England, a mischievous measure promoted by George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
Anglesey again opposed the bill forbidding the importation of Irish cattle into England in January 1667.
In February 1661 the Rt. Hon. Arthur Annesley, Viscount Valentia PC (22 November 1660 – 20 April 1661) obtained a captaincy of horse. But as Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey, his services in the administration of Ireland were especially valuable as he filled the office of Vice-Treasurer from 1660 until 1667. In 1667 he exchanged that post for that of Treasurer of the Navy.
An L&M footnote of 9/2/1663 tells us that by 1663 Pepys' friend, Peter Llewellyn, was in the service of Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey, Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, so Pepys must know a little about his reputation.
"On their return to England Thomas Killigrew became groom of the bedchamber and later, chamberlain to Catherine of Braganza, while his wife was appointed first lady of the queen's privy chamber."
Thomas Killigrew's first wife, Cecilia Crofts Killigrew, was a Maid of Honor to Queen Henrietta Maria. She died in 1638.
His second wife, Charlotte de Hesse Killigrew, was not in Catherine of Braganza's entourage that I can find.
"First lady of the privy chamber" was a term that ended with Queen Elizabeth. Catherine's ladies were called "Ladies of the Bedchamber". They main ones were: • 1663–1667: Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield • 1663–1673: Barbara Villiers Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine • 1663–1681: Barbara Villiers Wenman Wentworth Howard, Countess of Suffolk • 1663–1688: Mary Fairfax Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham • 1663–1688: Jane Wyche Granville, Countess of Bath
Charlotte de Hesse Killigrew was too mature (and married) to be a Lady-in-Waiting. But no one seems to have written much about her on line, so I can't unravel this entry more than this.
I think this is the first time I've seen the two mentioned in one sentence. Tom Edwards is a "boy" and I think we concluded he was about 14 when he joined the Pepys household, making him around 16 now. Jane Birch is an experienced and appreciated maid. I think she was about 13 when the Diary started, making her about 20 now. SPOILER: And these two get married later in life. Should we rethink their ages -- or was she a cougar?
Admiral Penn is overseeing what fleet repairs and dock and fort building can be done. The fleet is anchored at the Nore (a long east-west sandbank producing a large stretch of calmer water used by the navy as a convenient anchorage) which lies just off the Ness at what today is the town of Sheerness.
When the second Anglo-Dutch war began in March 1665, the Dutch and English faced each other across the North Sea, dictating the likely arena for engagements, meaning maintenance would fall to the three dockyards, hours of sailing time up river on the Thames and Medway.
The Admiralty decided the broad mudflats exposed at low tide on the southern side of the Ness could be used for more than the careening of ships' hulls, and in the spring of 1665 a small ready-to-use victualing storehouse was erected adjacent to the foreshore. As readily available supplies of spare masts, yards, rigging and canvas came into demand to keep the fighting ships at sea, a stockpile of stores was developed at Sheerness in what rapidly became a ramshackle little depot.
On 18 August, 1665 the Navy Board landed at Sheerness to survey the ground and layout the proposed new dockyard. https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
In mid-November 1665 it was announced large warships could now be refitted at Sheerness Dockyard adjacent to which, at the Ness, they started building a fort to contain 29 pieces of ordnance, but progress on the fort was slow.
The Sheerness fort was part of a nationwide awareness that invasion by the Dutch was a probability, especially after Holmes' Bonfire.
SPOILER: Sheerness fort was still not completed by June 1667. No doubt we'll find out if Penn catches blame for that later.
Sir W. Temple to Ormonde [Sir William Temple is Special Envoy to Brussels Written from: Brussels Date: 22 October 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 47, fol(s). 300 Document type: Holograph
The season of action seems to be wholly past, by the returning of the fleets into their ports, and so has made way for that of negotiation ...
The French are grown tame - everywhere but in their Gazettes; and have very calmly given the Marquess here the liberty of raising a new fort upon the frontiers, which [So in MS.] is already in defence, almost in sight of Philipville, which [So in MS.] covers this town, and that whole Frontier, and is [So in MS.] by all allowed to be owing to our war with France - which has plainly broke all their ambitious measures. ... http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/s…
%%% Former Parliamentarian Sir William Temple was the Envoy to Brussels from 1665 to 1667. He was also Lord Treasurer Thomas Osborne (later the Earl of Danby)'s Brother-in-Law. Sir William Temple was created 1st Bart. on 31 Jan. 1666. He was strongly pro-Dutch, and was recognized as the principal architect of the Triple Alliance in 1668 (which may explain his words about negotiation and interest in the French). http://www.historyofparliamentonl…
It's too early for Vauban to be building forts on the French-Flanders border, and he certainly wasn't a Marquess at the time. Perhaps Temple is referring to the French Envoy to Brussels? Any nominations?
"He says that he heard Captain Digby (my Lord of Bristoll’s son, a young fellow that never was but one year, if that, in the fleete) say that he did hope he should not see a tarpaulin have the command of a ship within this twelve months."
I hope Pepys gets more facts before spreading this "information". Francis first went to sea at 15 in 1661. He volunteered with Lawson at the Battle of Lowestoft. He's a career-sensitive younger son of the Roman Catholic Ambassador to Spain who tried to block Charles II's marriage to Catherine of Braganza. Francis' opposition to tarpaulins may be more his immature way of reassuring everyone in earshot that he's not "suspect" like his father. The Navy is his career; he seems to have been good at it, and he served with / learned from the very best of the tarpaulins.
Terry's link has died ... but here's a book summary for the same author with good information about Francis Digby and the rest of the gang: http://jddavies.com/2016/02/29/th…
J.D. Davies is a serious historian who likes to write novels about the Anglo-Dutch Wars, plague and Great Fire. All very readable and fun.
“The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.” -- Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, 2008
Arlington to Ormonde Written from: Whitehall Date: 18 September 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 46, fol(s). 371 Document type: Original; subscribed and signed
Notices the opening of Parliament; the calling up of Lord Ossory to the House of Lords; further advices received concerning the French fleet, under De Beaufort; and a message from the Lord Chancellor concerning the making good of a sum of £3,300 which was deficient in a late remittance, made through Sir Robert Vyner, into Ireland.
%%% THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING, WHICH MAKE ME THINK SIR ROBERT KEPT HIS MARK-UP: Anglesey to Ormonde Written from: London Date: 20 October 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 217, fol(s). 344 Document type: Holograph
Has received the Duke's letters of October 2nd and 12th, with the enclosure, in the first of them, of Sir Robert Vyner's letter to Sir Daniel Bellingham "about the remainder of the £30,000". From Bellingham he has also received a letter, in relation to his the writer's calculations of the Irish Revenue; calculations which the writer has no doubt of justifying; "except in such particulars as fail by accident". Adds other advices as to political and financial matters ...
%%% Anglesey to Ormonde Written from: London Date: 3 November 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 217, fol(s). 350 Document type: Holograph [with seal of arms]
Sir Robert Vyner, being now Sheriff, is very hard to meet with, "but I shall be sure", ads the writer, "to dispatch your Grace's comments, the first business I do with him".
Lord Ossory was freed from the Tower on Wednesday [having been committed on the Monday, at the instance of the Duke of Buckingham, for breach of privilege of Parliament]. He has lost "no honour in the difference with Buckingham"; although, adds the writer, the course taken [to prevent a duel] was inevitable, the compaint being once made to the House.
Let the extremities [in Ireland] be what they may, no money will be gotten hence, until the fleet is fitted for sea. ...
### By October the threat of invasion had diminished, so what money there was now went to the fleet.
Comments
Second Reading
About James Hayes
San Diego Sarah • Link
Lightly edited from “Rupert, Prince Palatine” -- by EVA SCOTT
WESTMINSTER -- ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & Co.
NEW YORK -- G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
1900
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/ep…
Rupert's admirers thought that "the good prince" had not received his due in the official reports of the Four Day action. His secretary, James Hayes, wrote to Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington's secretary to expostulate. "Give me leave to suggest that, since in the Dutch Gazette those lying words speak dishonorably of the Prince, it will offer an occasion of a word or two in yours, more to his merit; in whom I did indeed discover so extraordinary courage, conduct and presence of mind in the midst of all the showers of cannon bullet, that higher I think cannot be imagined of any man that ever fought. I observed him with astonishment all that day."[37]
[37] Dom. State Papers. Chas. II. 159. f. 3. Hayes, 15 June, 1666.
This letter produced the following note, added to the official gazette: "The writer of this letter could not think fit to mingle in his relations any expressions of His Royal Highness's personal behavior, because it was prepared for his own sight. But it is most certain that never any Prince, or it may be truly said, any private person, was, in an action of war, exposed to more danger from the beginning to the end of it. His conduct and presence of mind equaling his fearless courage, and carrying him to change his ship three times, setting up his Royal standard in each of them, to animate his own men and brave the enemy."[38]
[38] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. Vol. 159. 3 (1).
For this tribute secretary James Hayes returned grateful thanks. "You have done right to a brave Prince, whose worth will endure praise, though I find his ears are too modest to hear his own."[39]
[39] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. 159. 55. Hayes, June 21, 1666.
Rupert was far more engaged with his smoldering wrath against the Commissioners of the Navy, than in considering what the Dutch Gazette did, or did not say, say about him. A month earlier he had written to Charles II that "unless some course" were taken with the victualler -- viz. Pepys -- the whole fleet would be ruined.[40]
[40] Dom. State Papers, Chas. II. 156. 100. 22 May, 1666.
Now, when the fleet came into refit, the first thing Rupert did on meeting Charles II, was to reiterate his complaints. "Which," wrote Pepys, "I am troubled at, and do fear may in violence break out upon this office some time or other, and we shall not be able to carry on the business."[41]
[41] Pepys. June 20, 1666.
But Rupert's time on shore was short, and the victualling storm was deferred.
By July 22, 1666 the fleet was again at sea.
About Tuesday 23 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
But Batten is also a one third owner ... so Pepys and Ford would (a) had to give Batten one tenth of their profits? Or (b) Batten would take one tenth of the profits before the balance was divided into three and paid to each partners? I suspect the answer to that is whatever resulted in Charles II or James getting the most.
I'm with Pepys: Not good to be in business with the other men in the office; the less they know the better. Take your money and run.
About Tuesday 23 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The captains, masters and owners of privateers had to enter into bonds to render to the Admiral his share (one tenth) of their profits."
Took me a while to realize that means they have to pay Adm. BATTEN one tenth of their profits for the privilege of administering the bonds. Presumably he, in turn, had to pay Charles II or James. Everybody wins. Just prepare for an audit.
About Thursday 25 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Catherine of Braganza (Catarina Henriqueta) was born on November 25, 1638 at the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa in Vila Viçosa, Portugal.
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/…
In 1663 Catherine's birthday was celebrated on November 15. I wonder why they are celebrating three weeks early this year, especially if she was in mourning for her mother.
Perhaps they needed a party to cheer themselves up? Seems a bit insensitive to the homeless and the unpaid.
Perhaps Charles II wanted to empty the wine cellars before the Butterballs arrived?
About Thursday 25 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I out with my wife to Mrs. Pierces, where she hath not been a great while, from some little unkindness of my wife’s to her when she was last here, ..."
Since this upset has caused Pepys displeasure for a couple of months, I posted its origins on Elisabeth Pearse's encyclopedia page.
About Elizabeth Pearse
San Diego Sarah • Link
Monday, August 6, 1666 – Elizabeth Pepys and Betty Pearse have words, and the bad feelings linger for several months, to Pepys’ displeasure. I’m not sure what it really was about:
“By and by comes Mr. Pierce and his wife, the first time she also hath been here since her lying-in, both having been brought to bed of boys, and both of them dead. And here we talked, and were pleasant, only my wife in a chagrin humour, she not being pleased with my kindnesse to either of them, and by and by she fell into some silly discourse wherein I checked her, which made her mighty pettish, and discoursed mighty offensively to Mrs. Pierce, which did displease me, but I would make no words, but put the discourse by as much as I could (it being about a report that my wife said was made of herself and meant by Mrs. Pierce, that she was grown a gallant, when she had but so few suits of clothes these two or three years, and a great deale of that silly discourse), and by and by Mrs. Pierce did tell her that such discourses should not trouble her, for there went as bad on other people, and particularly of herself at this end of the towne, meaning my wife, that she was crooked, which was quite false, which my wife had the wit not to acknowledge herself to be the speaker of, though she has said it twenty times. But by this means we had little pleasure in their visit; however, Knipp and I sang, and then I offered them to carry them home, and to take my wife with me, but she would not go: so I with them, leaving my wife in a very ill humour, and very slighting to them, which vexed me. However, I would not be removed from my civility to them, but sent for a coach, and went with them; and, in our way, Knipp saying that she come out of doors without a dinner to us, I took them to Old Fish Streete, to the very house and woman where I kept my wedding dinner, where I never was since, and there I did give them a jole of salmon, and what else was to be had. And here we talked of the ill-humour of my wife, which I did excuse as much as I could, and they seemed to admit of it, but did both confess they wondered at it; but from thence to other discourse, and among others to that of my Lord Bruncker and Mrs. Williams, who it seems do speake mighty hardly of me for my not treating them, and not giving her something to her closett, and do speake worse of my wife, and dishonourably, but it is what she do of all the world, though she be a whore herself; so I value it not.
… “I set them both at home, Knipp at her house, her husband being at the doore; and glad she was to be found to have staid out so long with me and Mrs. Pierce, and none else; and Mrs. Pierce at her house, and am mightily pleased with the discretion of her during the simplicity and offensiveness of my wife’s discourse this afternoon.”
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Monday 18 June 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
The next time we meet Mrs. Pearce, Pepys notes that she has been confined to bed for a month, but the baby died. So Mrs. P. is about 7-1/2 months pregnant today.
About Thursday 25 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... Sir W. Coventry, who is come to his winter lodgings at White Hall, ..."
During the summer the Duke and Duchess of York's household lived at St. James Palace. Coventry, as James' secretary, moved with the Duke.
WHY?
Maybe the weather? -- living closer in winter kept people and documents warm(er) and dry(er) as they go between offices.
Maybe having some empty rooms in the summer meant the repair men, painters and decorators could work and clean, and people had other places in which to sleep temporarily?
Maybe St. James's was just too cold and drafty in the winter?
Can't think of any other reasons for such a regular major disruption. Anyone else know why if not the above?
About Shadwell, Middlesex
San Diego Sarah • Link
Shadwell, Middlesex, derives its name from a spring anciently dedicated to St Chad. The parish lies on the river Thames, 2½ miles ESE of St Paul's, London, was part of Stepney until 1669, continued until then to be a hamlet, belonging to the Neales.
It was inhabited in its lower part chiefly by ship-chandlers, provision merchants, sailmakers, coopers, and seamen.
A Roman grave was found in 1615, and in 1745 a mineral spring called Shadwell Spa was discovered, which was found useful in the treatment of cutaneous diseases.
Highlights from https://ukga.org/england/Middlese…
About Tuesday 23 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The Lords Committee (of the preamble of the whole House) have passed the preamble of the Bill prohibiting of Irish Cattle. This, the writer regards as decisive of the question, but the Lord Chancellor differs from that opinion."
On 24 July 1663 Arthur Annesley, Earl of Anglesey alone signed a protest against the bill "for the encouragement of trade", on the plea that owing to the free export of coin and bullion allowed by the act, and to the importation of foreign commodities being greater than the export of home goods, "it must necessarily follow ... that our silver will also be carried away into foreign parts and all trade fail for want of money."[4][5][6] 4^ Rogers (1875), Vol. I, p. 27. 5^ Carte (1851), Vol. IV, p. 234. 6^ Parl. Hist. (1808), p. 284.
Anglesey especially disapproved of another clause in the same bill forbidding the importation of Irish cattle into England, a mischievous measure promoted by George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
Anglesey again opposed the bill forbidding the importation of Irish cattle into England in January 1667.
He was a man of principle.
Info from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art…
About Arthur Annesley (1st Earl of Anglesey, Treasurer of the Navy 1667-8)
San Diego Sarah • Link
In February 1661 the Rt. Hon. Arthur Annesley, Viscount Valentia PC (22 November 1660 – 20 April 1661) obtained a captaincy of horse. But as Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey, his services in the administration of Ireland were especially valuable as he filled the office of Vice-Treasurer from 1660 until 1667. In 1667 he exchanged that post for that of Treasurer of the Navy.
An L&M footnote of 9/2/1663 tells us that by 1663 Pepys' friend, Peter Llewellyn, was in the service of Arthur Annesley, 1st Earl of Anglesey, Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, so Pepys must know a little about his reputation.
About Sunday 21 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"On their return to England Thomas Killigrew became groom of the bedchamber and later, chamberlain to Catherine of Braganza, while his wife was appointed first lady of the queen's privy chamber."
Thomas Killigrew's first wife, Cecilia Crofts Killigrew, was a Maid of Honor to Queen Henrietta Maria. She died in 1638.
His second wife, Charlotte de Hesse Killigrew, was not in Catherine of Braganza's entourage that I can find.
"First lady of the privy chamber" was a term that ended with Queen Elizabeth. Catherine's ladies were called "Ladies of the Bedchamber". They main ones were:
• 1663–1667: Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield
• 1663–1673: Barbara Villiers Palmer, Countess of Castlemaine
• 1663–1681: Barbara Villiers Wenman Wentworth Howard, Countess of Suffolk
• 1663–1688: Mary Fairfax Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham
• 1663–1688: Jane Wyche Granville, Countess of Bath
Charlotte de Hesse Killigrew was too mature (and married) to be a Lady-in-Waiting. But no one seems to have written much about her on line, so I can't unravel this entry more than this.
About Sunday 21 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... my boy and Jane ..."
I think this is the first time I've seen the two mentioned in one sentence. Tom Edwards is a "boy" and I think we concluded he was about 14 when he joined the Pepys household, making him around 16 now. Jane Birch is an experienced and appreciated maid. I think she was about 13 when the Diary started, making her about 20 now. SPOILER: And these two get married later in life. Should we rethink their ages -- or was she a cougar?
About Sunday 17 June 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
John Evelyn called it right. Make sure you read Terry's entry above.
About Sunday 21 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"(Sir William being below with the fleete)"
Admiral Penn is overseeing what fleet repairs and dock and fort building can be done. The fleet is anchored at the Nore (a long east-west sandbank producing a large stretch of calmer water used by the navy as a convenient anchorage) which lies just off the Ness at what today is the town of Sheerness.
When the second Anglo-Dutch war began in March 1665, the Dutch and English faced each other across the North Sea, dictating the likely arena for engagements, meaning maintenance would fall to the three dockyards, hours of sailing time up river on the Thames and Medway.
The Admiralty decided the broad mudflats exposed at low tide on the southern side of the Ness could be used for more than the careening of ships' hulls, and in the spring of 1665 a small ready-to-use victualing storehouse was erected adjacent to the foreshore. As readily available supplies of spare masts, yards, rigging and canvas came into demand to keep the fighting ships at sea, a stockpile of stores was developed at Sheerness in what rapidly became a ramshackle little depot.
On 18 August, 1665 the Navy Board landed at Sheerness to survey the ground and layout the proposed new dockyard.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
In mid-November 1665 it was announced large warships could now be refitted at Sheerness Dockyard adjacent to which, at the Ness, they started building a fort to contain 29 pieces of ordnance, but progress on the fort was slow.
The Sheerness fort was part of a nationwide awareness that invasion by the Dutch was a probability, especially after Holmes' Bonfire.
SPOILER: Sheerness fort was still not completed by June 1667. No doubt we'll find out if Penn catches blame for that later.
About Monday 22 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sir W. Temple to Ormonde
[Sir William Temple is Special Envoy to Brussels
Written from: Brussels
Date: 22 October 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 47, fol(s). 300
Document type: Holograph
The season of action seems to be wholly past, by the returning of the fleets into their ports, and so has made way for that of negotiation ...
The French are grown tame - everywhere but in their Gazettes; and have very calmly given the Marquess here the liberty of raising a new fort upon the frontiers, which [So in MS.] is already in defence, almost in sight of Philipville, which [So in MS.] covers this town, and that whole Frontier, and is [So in MS.] by all allowed to be owing to our war with France - which has plainly broke all their ambitious measures. ...
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/s…
%%%
Former Parliamentarian Sir William Temple was the Envoy to Brussels from 1665 to 1667. He was also Lord Treasurer Thomas Osborne (later the Earl of Danby)'s Brother-in-Law.
Sir William Temple was created 1st Bart. on 31 Jan. 1666. He was strongly pro-Dutch, and was recognized as the principal architect of the Triple Alliance in 1668 (which may explain his words about negotiation and interest in the French).
http://www.historyofparliamentonl…
It's too early for Vauban to be building forts on the French-Flanders border, and he certainly wasn't a Marquess at the time. Perhaps Temple is referring to the French Envoy to Brussels? Any nominations?
About Saturday 20 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"He says that he heard Captain Digby (my Lord of Bristoll’s son, a young fellow that never was but one year, if that, in the fleete) say that he did hope he should not see a tarpaulin have the command of a ship within this twelve months."
I hope Pepys gets more facts before spreading this "information". Francis first went to sea at 15 in 1661. He volunteered with Lawson at the Battle of Lowestoft. He's a career-sensitive younger son of the Roman Catholic Ambassador to Spain who tried to block Charles II's marriage to Catherine of Braganza. Francis' opposition to tarpaulins may be more his immature way of reassuring everyone in earshot that he's not "suspect" like his father. The Navy is his career; he seems to have been good at it, and he served with / learned from the very best of the tarpaulins.
About Capt. Francis Digby
San Diego Sarah • Link
Terry's link has died ... but here's a book summary for the same author with good information about Francis Digby and the rest of the gang:
http://jddavies.com/2016/02/29/th…
J.D. Davies is a serious historian who likes to write novels about the Anglo-Dutch Wars, plague and Great Fire. All very readable and fun.
About Friday 19 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
The importance of the 1628 Petition of Right today:
https://www.historic-uk.com/Histo…
“The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.” -- Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, 2008
About Friday 19 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sir Robert Vyner's "commissions" cont.:
Arlington to Ormonde
Written from: Whitehall
Date: 18 September 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 46, fol(s). 371
Document type: Original; subscribed and signed
Notices the opening of Parliament; the calling up of Lord Ossory to the House of Lords; further advices received concerning the French fleet, under De Beaufort;
and a message from the Lord Chancellor concerning the making good of a sum of £3,300 which was deficient in a late remittance, made through Sir Robert Vyner, into Ireland.
%%%
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING, WHICH MAKE ME THINK SIR ROBERT KEPT HIS MARK-UP:
Anglesey to Ormonde
Written from: London
Date: 20 October 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 217, fol(s). 344
Document type: Holograph
Has received the Duke's letters of October 2nd and 12th, with the enclosure, in the first of them, of Sir Robert Vyner's letter to Sir Daniel Bellingham "about the remainder of the £30,000".
From Bellingham he has also received a letter, in relation to his the writer's calculations of the Irish Revenue; calculations which the writer has no doubt of justifying; "except in such particulars as fail by accident". Adds other advices as to political and financial matters ...
%%%
Anglesey to Ormonde
Written from: London
Date: 3 November 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 217, fol(s). 350
Document type: Holograph [with seal of arms]
Sir Robert Vyner, being now Sheriff, is very hard to meet with, "but I shall be sure", ads the writer, "to dispatch your Grace's comments, the first business I do with him".
Lord Ossory was freed from the Tower on Wednesday [having been committed on the Monday, at the instance of the Duke of Buckingham, for breach of privilege of Parliament]. He has lost "no honour in the difference with Buckingham"; although, adds the writer, the course taken [to prevent a duel] was inevitable, the compaint being once made to the House.
Let the extremities [in Ireland] be what they may, no money will be gotten hence, until the fleet is fitted for sea. ...
###
By October the threat of invasion had diminished, so what money there was now went to the fleet.