Since Boffin Island obviously is not in Canada or the Artic Circle, where is it?
Inishbofin (Inis Bó Finne) means “The Island of the White Cow”. It is thought Bofin Island, Connemara, Co. Galway, was inhabited as far back as 8000–4000 B.C. The first documented history of Inishbofin and neighboring Inishark Island is that they were home to several saints. You can visit the monastic sites of St. Scaithín, St. Leo, and the patron saint of Inishbofin, St. Colman, who built an abbey on Inishbofin.
In the 16th Century the famous pirate queen, Granuaile of the O'Malley clan, and her ally Don Bosco, wielded control over Inishbofin harbor.
The O’Malley clan are said to have had a castle on Dun Grainne. Don Bosco is said to have had a castle opposite, where the ruins of Cromwell’s Barracks now stand. Together they prevented intruders from entering the surrounding waters, or they used the natural harbor as a trap to attack and loot those ships with valuable cargo on board. They did this by stretching a chain boom across the harbor entrance from the castle at the harbor to Scealp na gCat at the opposite end.
In 1656 Oliver Cromwell’s forces fortified the site of Don Bosco’s fort with the imposing and well-preserved star-shaped barracks which remain to this day, standing guard over the harbor’s mouth.
Later the barracks were used to house captured Catholic clergy from all over the country after the English Statute of 1655 declared them guilty of high treason. Here they awaited transportation to the West Indies and other remote places.
To the east of Cromwell’s Barracks is an impressive crescent-shaped medieval harbor, and the Barracks played a major part in allowing ships in and out during the Civil and Jacobite Wars. It is now almost totally silted up, but it is still visible at spring tides.
After the Restoration in 1660 the barracks were used mainly as part of defensive strategies.
During the Jacobite War the barracks were used when the Irish Forces held out until after the Battle of Aughrim in 1691, when they surrendered to the Williamite Forces. Their interest in Inishbofin and Inishark was to keep an eye on the French pirates that trolled up and down the west coast of Ireland, and often took refuge in natural harbors like this.
Today the inhabitants of Inishbofin fish, farm, host tourists and give guided walks which keep to the Leave No Trace code of conduct and adhere to the minimal impact hillwalking, birdwatching and marine megafauna viewing codes. They also highlight features of the Inishbofin and Inishark Special Area of Conservation, and avoid negatively impacting them. These walks can be tailored for the interests, fitness levels, and time constraints of any group. Note: a walk to Cromwell’s Castle is only possible at low tide. Walks take 2-to-3 hours.
There are pictures of Cromwell’s Barracks and the harbor which caused all the trouble on their website: http://www.inishbofin.com/
Ormonde to Kingston [as Lord President of Connaught] Written from: [Dublin Castle] Date: 13 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 81 Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Instructions concerning the due supply of fire and candle to his Majesty's guards, now quartered in the islands of Arran and Boffin.
Lords of the Council in England to Ormonde Written from: Whitehall Date: 13 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 52, fol(s). 129 Document type: Original [twelve signatures; including those of Clarendon, Lauderdale and Archbishop Sheldon]
Notify his Majesty's high approval of the care and diligence in his service, shewn by the Lord Lieutenant, in the matter of the apprehension of Christopher O'Ferrall [In MS.: "Ferrall"], a Dominican Friar, and others, accused of traitorous practices; and also his Majesty's pleasure that all due proceedings, according to law, be taken against such persons & their accomplices.
Now I'm having second thoughts on that, too ... it's true Bristol was the Ambassador to Spain, and he opposed the match as it was part of Frances' efforts to deprive Spain of allies. But Spain also had a very colorful Ambassador in London:
According to several sources, including Clarendon: After the marriage treaty was signed on 23 June, 1661 the only person to excite any opposition was the Spanish Ambassador, Carlos, Baron de Vatteville, who tried to stir up excitement by distributing papers, stating alarming evils to England likely to occur from a popish Queen. He was caught in the act of flinging papers out of a window to the soldiery and the populace. Charles II ignored his pleas for pardon, and hurried him out of the Kingdom. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
So the Spanish Ambassador could be either of them. I think I'm going to favor de Vatteville AKA de Watteville AKA de Batteville.
When I posted the above I did not remember that George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol was the English Ambassador to Spain, so those two references in part I above are to the same person.
The trial of King Charles I was really the trial of Charles Stuart, whose actions had removed him from the role and protections of King.
The issues Parliament levied to made their argument against Charles Stuart form the basis of presidential impeachment in the USA today. Parliament had impeached many lesser royally-appointed functionaries before, but impeaching the king for “high and Treasonable offenses” seemed — reasonably — to violate the framework of English monarchical government, under which the person of the king embodied the state and the king could “do no wrong.”
In impeaching King Charles I, Parliament sought to clarify the terms of England’s unwritten constitution in ways that profoundly shaped America’s Founding Fathers and their understanding of how a head of state should behave. (In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote an epitaph celebrating John Bradshaw, the judge who presided over King Charles’ trial.)
In choosing to impeach rather than murder King Charles I, Parliament sought to repudiate as a matter of law the "l’état c’est moi" notion that the office of the king and the person of the king were indivisible.
The articles of impeachment levied against King Charles began from the premise that he was like any other noble official under the law, “trusted with a limited Power to govern by, and according to the Laws of the Land, and not otherwise, and by his Trust, Oath and Office, being obliged to use the Power committed to him for the Good and Benefit of the People.”
As king, in other words, Charles could only act for the public and under the law. By betraying his oath and violating the “Laws of the Land,” King Charles forfeited his claim to act as the king at all.
This article is really enlightening about how King Charles I's trial shapes the current predicament in the USA, and I strongly encourage you to take 5 and think about it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/three…
Precedents count. Always be careful about what precedents are set.
"... it would have been laid hold on to Sir G. Carteret’s hurt; but he hath avoided it, though without much reason for it, most studiously, and in short did end thus, that *he* has never shewn so much of the pigeon in all his life as in *his* innocence to Sir G. Carteret at this time; which I believe, and will desire Sir G. Carteret to thank *him* for it."
I think the he, his and him in this refer to Charles II, who loved Carteret and owed him much for his actions after the civil wars. Charles II is a pigeon?
"My Lord Chancellor moved, that without any trouble to any of the rest of the Lords, I might alone attend the King, when he was with his private Council; and open the state of the garrison’s want of credit; and all that could be done, should."
I read that as being a compliment to Pepys' reputation for being able to make a good argument, and having his facts straight. On the other hand, if he gets the politics wrong, ...
"He did call again and again upon Mr. Povy for his accounts."
I'm confused. I thought Povy was fired from Tangier accounting, which is why Pepys has the job. The "noose" has tightened around his neck his year: L&M note: Povy was replaced as treasurer to the Duke of York by Sir Allen Apsley in September 1666.
"... Mr. Povy, whose vanity, prodigality, neglect of his business, and committing it to unfit hands hath undone him and outed him of all his publique employments, and the thing set on foot by an accidental revival of a business, wherein he had three or four years ago, by surprise, got the Duke of York to sign to the having a sum of money paid out of the Excise, before some that was due to him, and now the money is fallen short, and the Duke never likely to be paid. This being revived hath undone Povy." -- https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
"At noon by coach with my Lord Bruncker and ‘light at the Temple, and so alone I to dinner at a cooke’s, and thence to my Lord Bellasses, ..."
It makes life sound so normal, as if nothing had happened five weeks ago. No complaints about queues or shortages or price gauging. What did Charles II do? -- run off the squatters and homeless? Bring in food from Portugal, France and Holland?
“THIS day, my Julia, thou must make For Mistress Bride the wedding-cake: Knead but the dough, and it will be To paste of almonds turn’d by thee: Or kiss it thou but once or twice, And for the bride-cake there’ll be spice.” – Robert Herrick (1591 – 1671) -- from Hesperides, 1648
John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale was twice married.
At 16 John, Viscount Maitland married Lady Anne Home, daughter of the 1st Earl of Home, in 1632. They had one daughter.
Anne Home Maitland, Countess of Lauderdale left John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale and went to live in Paris in 1669 after he began an affair with Elizabeth Murray Tollemache (1626-1698), daughter of William Murray, Earl of Dysart, who had been allowed to retain the title Countess of Dysart in her own right.
John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale married the Countess of Dysart after Anne Home Maitland, Countess of Lauderdale's death in 1671.
... in the autumn of 1660 the Portuguese ambassador to London, Dom Francisco de Mello, confident of a successful conclusion to the marriage treaty between Charles II and Catherine of Braganza, returned to Portugal for further instructions.
'A good peace with England was regarded as the only thing under heaven to keep Portugal from despair and ruin' (Maynard to Nicholas, in LISTER'S Life of Clarendon, vol. iii., Appendix, No. lviii.)
In February 1660/61 de Mello was sent back to England to negotiate the union, and rewarded with the title of Conde da Ponte.
But on reaching London the Portuguese ambassador found circumstances had changed. Spanish and Dutch influence had been exercised to thwart the match. George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol was doing his utmost to find another alliance acceptable to Spain as well as to Charles.
The Spanish Ambassador to London, Carlos, Baron de Watteville declared that the infanta Catherine, besides being no beauty, was incapable of bearing children (Quadro Elementar, xvii. 152; cf. KENNET, p. 698, for the similar report of the English merchants at Lisbon).
de Watteville offered an equal portion to ANY princess approved of by Spain that Charles II might choose. Protestants were amused by this envoy of the Catholic king urged the importance of a Protestant king marrying a Protestant bride (D'ABLANCOURT, Mémoires, p. 73 sq.)
At last the adoption of the marriage by the French court saved the government of Lisbon from despair.
In November 1660 the Queen Mother came to London to win over Charles II.
In March 1661 Louis XIV sent to England M. de Bastide on a secret mission to press for the conclusion of the marriage treaty.
Finally, on 8 May, 1661 Charles II and Chancellor Clarendon announced to parliament that the marriage negotiations had been completed. The news was favorably received within and without parliament (Calendar of State Papers, Dom. 1660-1, pp. 586, 595);
On 13 May, 1661 an address of congratulation was presented from both houses (Lords' Journals, xi. 241 α, 243 b, 253).
On 23 June, 1661 the marriage treaty was signed (see it in LA CLEDE, Histoire de Portugal, ii. 711).
[According to several sources, including Clarendon: After the marriage treaty was signed on 23 June, 1661 the only person to excite any opposition was the Spanish Ambassador, Carlos, Baron de Watteville, who tried to stir up excitement by distributing papers, stating alarming evils to England likely to occur from a popish Queen. He was caught in the act of flinging papers out of a window to the soldiery and the populace. Charles II ignored his pleas for pardon, and hurried him out of the Kingdom. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… ]
On 23 June, 1661 the marriage treaty was signed (it is given in LA CLEDE, Histoire de Portugal, ii. 711).
The news of Catherine's betrothal spread joy in Portugal. English merchants declared it the 'most beneficiallest trade that ever our nation was engaged in' (Maynard to Nicholas, in LISTER, App. No. lviii.)
Portuguese traders were pleased by the protection of their property from the Dutch navy, and the expected invasion from Spain was no longer feared.
In July 1661 the Conde da Ponte arrived back in Lisbon, bearing letters from Charles II to Catherine and her mother (MISS STRICKLAND gives translations of these, Queens of England, v. 495).
The Earl of Sandwich was appointed extraordinary ambassador to Portugal, and at once set sail for Lisbon. Nearly a year later Catherine set sail (Algerian pirates had to be chastised, Tangiers occupied, and the queen's portion shipped -- and when Sandwich was ready in the spring of 1662, a dispute arose about the payment). (Sandwich to Clarendon, in LISTER, iii. App. No. xciv.)
On 13-23 April, 1662 festivities began to celebrate Catherine's departure. The pope refused to recognize Portugal's independence, so it was politic to omit the proxy marriage ceremony (LISTER, iii. App. No. ccxxxviii.; EACHARD, p. 801, is wrong), although Catherine was already called the queen of England in Lisbon.
From an early age Catherine was looked upon as a way to establish friendly relations between Portugal and England. Not content with the commercial treaty of 1642, her father, King Jaoa IV, proposed in 1645 that Catherine should become the wife of Prince Charles (Quadro Elementar, xvii. 54; cf. Charles I's Works, i. 247, ed. 1649). The idea came to nothing.
When the Restoration seemed likely, the Portuguese ambassador Dom Francisco de Mello asked Gen. Monck about renewing the project (ib. xvii. 221; EACHARD, History of England, p. 81; KENNET, Register and Chronicle, p. 394).
Charles II's return in May 1660 was immediately followed by a formal proposal of the alliance. The terms were tempting: Tangiers, at the mouth of the Mediterranean; Bombay, with full trading privileges in the Indies; religious and commercial freedom for English subjects in Portugal, and the vast portion of 2,000,000 of crusados (about 300,000l.) Providing protection from Spain and Holland, and the defined liberty of Catholic worship for Catherine were small concessions for the English.
In a secret council at the Chancellor's house, Charles II agreed to proceed.
In the autumn, 1660 a confident de Mello returned to Portugal for instructions. 'A good peace with England was regarded as the only thing under heaven to keep Portugal from despair and ruin' (Maynard to Nicholas, in LISTER'S Life of Clarendon, vol. iii., Appendix, No. lviii.)
In February, de Mello returned to England to negotiate the match, with the title of Conde da Ponte.
On reaching London he found things had changed. Spanish and Dutch influence had been exercised to stop the match. George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol was looking for an alliance acceptable to Spain as well as Charles II.
The Spanish ambassador declared that Catherine, besides being no beauty, was incapable of bearing children (Quadro Elementar, xvii. 152; cf. KENNET, p. 698, for the similar report of the English merchants at Lisbon). He offered an equal portion to ANY princess approved by Spain that Charles might choose. Protestants were amused by the envoy of the Catholic king arguing a Protestant king should wed a Protestant bride. (D'ABLANCOURT, Mémoires, p. 73 sq.)
The adoption of the match by the French court saved the Portuguese from despair.
In November 1660 the Queen Mother came to London to win Charles II over.
In March 1661 Louis XIV sent M. de Bastide to England on a secret mission to press for the match.
Finally, on 8 May, 1661 Charles II and Chancellor Clarendon announced to parliament that the marriage negotiations had been completed. The news was favorably received by all (Calendar of State Papers, Dom. 1660-1, pp. 586, 595).
Sir William Temple to Ormonde [William Temple is Envoy to Brussels] Written from: Brussels Date: 23 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 47, fol(s). 288 Document type: Holograph
The likeliest concert of our enemies seems to be that the Dutch shall fight us alone, with the utmost of their forces; and in case a battle ends but as the last did, with both retiring for a time to recruit in their Havens; then, the French fleet, left without control at sea, shall back some descent. ... The interests of all Europe, adds the writer, seem to be now at sea with the fleets. ... ________________________________________ Encloses: A news-letter, chiefly narrating political and military incidents in France. Sent to Sir W. Temple at Brussels Written from: [Paris?] Date: [July] 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 47, fol(s). 290 Document type: Copy
Ormonde to Kingston [as Lord President of Connaught] Written from: Dublin Castle Date: 14 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 76v Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Further instructions concerning the Dutch prisoners of war, confined in various towns. ###
Ormonde to the Mayor of Kilkenny Written from: [Dublin Castle] Date: 14 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Directions for the reception, at Kilkenny, of certain Dutch prisoners, removed from Galway. ###
Ormonde to Sir William Neale (at Cashel) Written from: [Dublin Castle] Date: 14 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Directions for the safe convoy of the Dutch prisoners, removed from Galway. ###
Ormonde to William Crispin Written from: [Dublin Castle] Date: 14 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Directions for the due supply of provisions to the Dutch prisoners; and for payment of debts. ###
An account of the debts owing by the Dutch prisoners at Athlone; received from the Governor of that place Date: [July] 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v Document type: Copy [in Letter Book] ###
I wonder if the build-up of Dutch POWs in the Southeast of England was alleviated by sending some to Ireland, or if some of the Dutch warships were blown so far off course that they were caught by Irish ships?
Sir William Temple to Ormonde [Temple is the Envoy to Brussels] Written from: Brussels Date: 13 July 1666 Shelfmark: MS. Carte 157, fol(s). 286-287 Document type: Holograph
Gives an account of the setting out of the Holland fleet, with sealed orders; and provided with all sorts of instruments for land-service; expecially for mining and fortifying ... According to the guesses of some, a descent is intended upon Scotland; but according to most, upon Ireland. ...
Yet all sober men in Holland know that their business is not victory but peace; their condition being at this time like that of a great pond, fed by a few little pipes, but drained by many peat channels; which in spite of land floods or rain must, in little time, leave them dry ...
Comments
Second Reading
About Friday 13 July 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Since Boffin Island obviously is not in Canada or the Artic Circle, where is it?
Inishbofin (Inis Bó Finne) means “The Island of the White Cow”. It is thought Bofin Island, Connemara, Co. Galway, was inhabited as far back as 8000–4000 B.C. The first documented history of Inishbofin and neighboring Inishark Island is that they were home to several saints. You can visit the monastic sites of St. Scaithín, St. Leo, and the patron saint of Inishbofin, St. Colman, who built an abbey on Inishbofin.
In the 16th Century the famous pirate queen, Granuaile of the O'Malley clan, and her ally Don Bosco, wielded control over Inishbofin harbor.
The O’Malley clan are said to have had a castle on Dun Grainne. Don Bosco is said to have had a castle opposite, where the ruins of Cromwell’s Barracks now stand. Together they prevented intruders from entering the surrounding waters, or they used the natural harbor as a trap to attack and loot those ships with valuable cargo on board. They did this by stretching a chain boom across the harbor entrance from the castle at the harbor to Scealp na gCat at the opposite end.
In 1656 Oliver Cromwell’s forces fortified the site of Don Bosco’s fort with the imposing and well-preserved star-shaped barracks which remain to this day, standing guard over the harbor’s mouth.
Later the barracks were used to house captured Catholic clergy from all over the country after the English Statute of 1655 declared them guilty of high treason. Here they awaited transportation to the West Indies and other remote places.
To the east of Cromwell’s Barracks is an impressive crescent-shaped medieval harbor, and the Barracks played a major part in allowing ships in and out during the Civil and Jacobite Wars. It is now almost totally silted up, but it is still visible at spring tides.
After the Restoration in 1660 the barracks were used mainly as part of defensive strategies.
During the Jacobite War the barracks were used when the Irish Forces held out until after the Battle of Aughrim in 1691, when they surrendered to the Williamite Forces. Their interest in Inishbofin and Inishark was to keep an eye on the French pirates that trolled up and down the west coast of Ireland, and often took refuge in natural harbors like this.
Today the inhabitants of Inishbofin fish, farm, host tourists and give guided walks which keep to the Leave No Trace code of conduct and adhere to the minimal impact hillwalking, birdwatching and marine megafauna viewing codes. They also highlight features of the Inishbofin and Inishark Special Area of Conservation, and avoid negatively impacting them. These walks can be tailored for the interests, fitness levels, and time constraints of any group. Note: a walk to Cromwell’s Castle is only possible at low tide. Walks take 2-to-3 hours.
There are pictures of Cromwell’s Barracks and the harbor which caused all the trouble on their website: http://www.inishbofin.com/
About Friday 13 July 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Ormonde to Kingston [as Lord President of Connaught]
Written from: [Dublin Castle]
Date: 13 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 81
Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Instructions concerning the due supply of fire and candle to his Majesty's guards, now quartered in the islands of Arran and Boffin.
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/s…
About Friday 13 July 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Lords of the Council in England to Ormonde
Written from: Whitehall
Date: 13 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 52, fol(s). 129
Document type: Original [twelve signatures; including those of Clarendon, Lauderdale and Archbishop Sheldon]
Notify his Majesty's high approval of the care and diligence in his service, shewn by the Lord Lieutenant, in the matter of the apprehension of Christopher O'Ferrall [In MS.: "Ferrall"], a Dominican Friar, and others, accused of traitorous practices; and also his Majesty's pleasure that all due proceedings, according to law, be taken against such persons & their accomplices.
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/s…
About Francisco de Mello (Marquez de Sande, Portugese Ambassador)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Now I'm having second thoughts on that, too ... it's true Bristol was the Ambassador to Spain, and he opposed the match as it was part of Frances' efforts to deprive Spain of allies. But Spain also had a very colorful Ambassador in London:
According to several sources, including Clarendon: After the marriage treaty was signed on 23 June, 1661 the only person to excite any opposition was the Spanish Ambassador, Carlos, Baron de Vatteville, who tried to stir up excitement by distributing papers, stating alarming evils to England likely to occur from a popish Queen. He was caught in the act of flinging papers out of a window to the soldiery and the populace. Charles II ignored his pleas for pardon, and hurried him out of the Kingdom. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
So the Spanish Ambassador could be either of them. I think I'm going to favor de Vatteville AKA de Watteville AKA de Batteville.
About Francisco de Mello (Marquez de Sande, Portugese Ambassador)
San Diego Sarah • Link
When I posted the above I did not remember that George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol was the English Ambassador to Spain, so those two references in part I above are to the same person.
About Sunday 14 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Good catch, Tonyel - I had missed that one.
About Charles Stuart (I, King 1600-1649)
San Diego Sarah • Link
The trial of King Charles I was really the trial of Charles Stuart, whose actions had removed him from the role and protections of King.
The issues Parliament levied to made their argument against Charles Stuart form the basis of presidential impeachment in the USA today. Parliament had impeached many lesser royally-appointed functionaries before, but impeaching the king for “high and Treasonable offenses” seemed — reasonably — to violate the framework of English monarchical government, under which the person of the king embodied the state and the king could “do no wrong.”
In impeaching King Charles I, Parliament sought to clarify the terms of England’s unwritten constitution in ways that profoundly shaped America’s Founding Fathers and their understanding of how a head of state should behave. (In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote an epitaph celebrating John Bradshaw, the judge who presided over King Charles’ trial.)
In choosing to impeach rather than murder King Charles I, Parliament sought to repudiate as a matter of law the "l’état c’est moi" notion that the office of the king and the person of the king were indivisible.
The articles of impeachment levied against King Charles began from the premise that he was like any other noble official under the law, “trusted with a limited Power to govern by, and according to the Laws of the Land, and not otherwise, and by his Trust, Oath and Office, being obliged to use the Power committed to him for the Good and Benefit of the People.”
As king, in other words, Charles could only act for the public and under the law. By betraying his oath and violating the “Laws of the Land,” King Charles forfeited his claim to act as the king at all.
This article is really enlightening about how King Charles I's trial shapes the current predicament in the USA, and I strongly encourage you to take 5 and think about it:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/three…
Precedents count. Always be careful about what precedents are set.
About Saturday 13 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... it would have been laid hold on to Sir G. Carteret’s hurt; but he hath avoided it, though without much reason for it, most studiously, and in short did end thus, that *he* has never shewn so much of the pigeon in all his life as in *his* innocence to Sir G. Carteret at this time; which I believe, and will desire Sir G. Carteret to thank *him* for it."
I think the he, his and him in this refer to Charles II, who loved Carteret and owed him much for his actions after the civil wars. Charles II is a pigeon?
About Saturday 13 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"My Lord Chancellor moved, that without any trouble to any of the rest of the Lords, I might alone attend the King, when he was with his private Council; and open the state of the garrison’s want of credit; and all that could be done, should."
I read that as being a compliment to Pepys' reputation for being able to make a good argument, and having his facts straight. On the other hand, if he gets the politics wrong, ...
About Saturday 13 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"He did call again and again upon Mr. Povy for his accounts."
I'm confused. I thought Povy was fired from Tangier accounting, which is why Pepys has the job. The "noose" has tightened around his neck his year: L&M note: Povy was replaced as treasurer to the Duke of York by Sir Allen Apsley in September 1666.
"... Mr. Povy, whose vanity, prodigality, neglect of his business, and committing it to unfit hands hath undone him and outed him of all his publique employments, and the thing set on foot by an accidental revival of a business, wherein he had three or four years ago, by surprise, got the Duke of York to sign to the having a sum of money paid out of the Excise, before some that was due to him, and now the money is fallen short, and the Duke never likely to be paid. This being revived hath undone Povy." -- https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Saturday 13 October 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"At noon by coach with my Lord Bruncker and ‘light at the Temple, and so alone I to dinner at a cooke’s, and thence to my Lord Bellasses, ..."
It makes life sound so normal, as if nothing had happened five weeks ago. No complaints about queues or shortages or price gauging. What did Charles II do? -- run off the squatters and homeless? Bring in food from Portugal, France and Holland?
About Friday 17 August 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
THE BRIDE-CAKE.
“THIS day, my Julia, thou must make
For Mistress Bride the wedding-cake:
Knead but the dough, and it will be
To paste of almonds turn’d by thee:
Or kiss it thou but once or twice,
And for the bride-cake there’ll be spice.” – Robert Herrick (1591 – 1671) -- from Hesperides, 1648
About Anne Maitland (née Home)
San Diego Sarah • Link
John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale was twice married.
At 16 John, Viscount Maitland married Lady Anne Home, daughter of the 1st Earl of Home, in 1632. They had one daughter.
Anne Home Maitland, Countess of Lauderdale left John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale and went to live in Paris in 1669 after he began an affair with Elizabeth Murray Tollemache (1626-1698), daughter of William Murray, Earl of Dysart, who had been allowed to retain the title Countess of Dysart in her own right.
John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale married the Countess of Dysart after Anne Home Maitland, Countess of Lauderdale's death in 1671.
For more -- about John, of course -- see http://bcw-project.org/biography/…
About Oysters
San Diego Sarah • Link
"He was a bold man that first eat an oyster." -- Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)
About Carlos, Baron de Vatteville
San Diego Sarah • Link
Spanish Ambassador Carlos, Baron de Vatteville, or Watteville, or Batteville, caused much entertainment in London:
Information from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ca…
... in the autumn of 1660 the Portuguese ambassador to London, Dom Francisco de Mello, confident of a successful conclusion to the marriage treaty between Charles II and Catherine of Braganza, returned to Portugal for further instructions.
'A good peace with England was regarded as the only thing under heaven to keep Portugal from despair and ruin' (Maynard to Nicholas, in LISTER'S Life of Clarendon, vol. iii., Appendix, No. lviii.)
In February 1660/61 de Mello was sent back to England to negotiate the union, and rewarded with the title of Conde da Ponte.
But on reaching London the Portuguese ambassador found circumstances had changed. Spanish and Dutch influence had been exercised to thwart the match. George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol was doing his utmost to find another alliance acceptable to Spain as well as to Charles.
The Spanish Ambassador to London, Carlos, Baron de Watteville declared that the infanta Catherine, besides being no beauty, was incapable of bearing children (Quadro Elementar, xvii. 152; cf. KENNET, p. 698, for the similar report of the English merchants at Lisbon).
de Watteville offered an equal portion to ANY princess approved of by Spain that Charles II might choose. Protestants were amused by this envoy of the Catholic king urged the importance of a Protestant king marrying a Protestant bride (D'ABLANCOURT, Mémoires, p. 73 sq.)
At last the adoption of the marriage by the French court saved the government of Lisbon from despair.
In November 1660 the Queen Mother came to London to win over Charles II.
In March 1661 Louis XIV sent to England M. de Bastide on a secret mission to press for the conclusion of the marriage treaty.
Finally, on 8 May, 1661 Charles II and Chancellor Clarendon announced to parliament that the marriage negotiations had been completed. The news was favorably received within and without parliament (Calendar of State Papers, Dom. 1660-1, pp. 586, 595);
On 13 May, 1661 an address of congratulation was presented from both houses (Lords' Journals, xi. 241 α, 243 b, 253).
On 23 June, 1661 the marriage treaty was signed (see it in LA CLEDE, Histoire de Portugal, ii. 711).
[According to several sources, including Clarendon: After the marriage treaty was signed on 23 June, 1661 the only person to excite any opposition was the Spanish Ambassador, Carlos, Baron de Watteville, who tried to stir up excitement by distributing papers, stating alarming evils to England likely to occur from a popish Queen. He was caught in the act of flinging papers out of a window to the soldiery and the populace. Charles II ignored his pleas for pardon, and hurried him out of the Kingdom. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… ]
About Francisco de Mello (Marquez de Sande, Portugese Ambassador)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
On 23 June, 1661 the marriage treaty was signed (it is given in LA CLEDE, Histoire de Portugal, ii. 711).
The news of Catherine's betrothal spread joy in Portugal. English merchants declared it the 'most beneficiallest trade that ever our nation was engaged in' (Maynard to Nicholas, in LISTER, App. No. lviii.)
Portuguese traders were pleased by the protection of their property from the Dutch navy, and the expected invasion from Spain was no longer feared.
In July 1661 the Conde da Ponte arrived back in Lisbon, bearing letters from Charles II to Catherine and her mother (MISS STRICKLAND gives translations of these, Queens of England, v. 495).
The Earl of Sandwich was appointed extraordinary ambassador to Portugal, and at once set sail for Lisbon.
Nearly a year later Catherine set sail (Algerian pirates had to be chastised, Tangiers occupied, and the queen's portion shipped -- and when Sandwich was ready in the spring of 1662, a dispute arose about the payment). (Sandwich to Clarendon, in LISTER, iii. App. No. xciv.)
On 13-23 April, 1662 festivities began to celebrate Catherine's departure. The pope refused to recognize Portugal's independence, so it was politic to omit the proxy marriage ceremony (LISTER, iii. App. No. ccxxxviii.; EACHARD, p. 801, is wrong), although Catherine was already called the queen of England in Lisbon.
About Francisco de Mello (Marquez de Sande, Portugese Ambassador)
San Diego Sarah • Link
The match between Charles and Catherine took ages to arrange:
This wikipedia page is well referenced, so I give it more credence than most. (As usual, edited):
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ca…
From an early age Catherine was looked upon as a way to establish friendly relations between Portugal and England. Not content with the commercial treaty of 1642, her father, King Jaoa IV, proposed in 1645 that Catherine should become the wife of Prince Charles (Quadro Elementar, xvii. 54; cf. Charles I's Works, i. 247, ed. 1649).
The idea came to nothing.
When the Restoration seemed likely, the Portuguese ambassador Dom Francisco de Mello asked Gen. Monck about renewing the project (ib. xvii. 221; EACHARD, History of England, p. 81; KENNET, Register and Chronicle, p. 394).
Charles II's return in May 1660 was immediately followed by a formal proposal of the alliance. The terms were tempting: Tangiers, at the mouth of the Mediterranean; Bombay, with full trading privileges in the Indies; religious and commercial freedom for English subjects in Portugal, and the vast portion of 2,000,000 of crusados (about 300,000l.) Providing protection from Spain and Holland, and the defined liberty of Catholic worship for Catherine were small concessions for the English.
In a secret council at the Chancellor's house, Charles II agreed to proceed.
In the autumn, 1660 a confident de Mello returned to Portugal for instructions. 'A good peace with England was regarded as the only thing under heaven to keep Portugal from despair and ruin' (Maynard to Nicholas, in LISTER'S Life of Clarendon, vol. iii., Appendix, No. lviii.)
In February, de Mello returned to England to negotiate the match, with the title of Conde da Ponte.
On reaching London he found things had changed. Spanish and Dutch influence had been exercised to stop the match. George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol was looking for an alliance acceptable to Spain as well as Charles II.
The Spanish ambassador declared that Catherine, besides being no beauty, was incapable of bearing children (Quadro Elementar, xvii. 152; cf. KENNET, p. 698, for the similar report of the English merchants at Lisbon). He offered an equal portion to ANY princess approved by Spain that Charles might choose. Protestants were amused by the envoy of the Catholic king arguing a Protestant king should wed a Protestant bride. (D'ABLANCOURT, Mémoires, p. 73 sq.)
The adoption of the match by the French court saved the Portuguese from despair.
In November 1660 the Queen Mother came to London to win Charles II over.
In March 1661 Louis XIV sent M. de Bastide to England on a secret mission to press for the match.
Finally, on 8 May, 1661 Charles II and Chancellor Clarendon announced to parliament that the marriage negotiations had been completed. The news was favorably received by all (Calendar of State Papers, Dom. 1660-1, pp. 586, 595).
About Monday 23 July 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/s…
Sir William Temple to Ormonde
[William Temple is Envoy to Brussels]
Written from: Brussels
Date: 23 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 47, fol(s). 288
Document type: Holograph
The likeliest concert of our enemies seems to be that the Dutch shall fight us alone, with the utmost of their forces; and in case a battle ends but as the last did, with both retiring for a time to recruit in their Havens; then, the French fleet, left without control at sea, shall back some descent. ...
The interests of all Europe, adds the writer, seem to be now at sea with the fleets. ...
________________________________________
Encloses:
A news-letter, chiefly narrating political and military incidents in France. Sent to Sir W. Temple at Brussels
Written from: [Paris?]
Date: [July] 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 47, fol(s). 290
Document type: Copy
About Saturday 14 July 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Ormonde to Kingston [as Lord President of Connaught]
Written from: Dublin Castle
Date: 14 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 76v
Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Further instructions concerning the Dutch prisoners of war, confined in various towns.
###
Ormonde to the Mayor of Kilkenny
Written from: [Dublin Castle]
Date: 14 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v
Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Directions for the reception, at Kilkenny, of certain Dutch prisoners, removed from Galway.
###
Ormonde to Sir William Neale (at Cashel)
Written from: [Dublin Castle]
Date: 14 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v
Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Directions for the safe convoy of the Dutch prisoners, removed from Galway.
###
Ormonde to William Crispin
Written from: [Dublin Castle]
Date: 14 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v
Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
Directions for the due supply of provisions to the Dutch prisoners; and for payment of debts.
###
An account of the debts owing by the Dutch prisoners at Athlone; received from the Governor of that place
Date: [July] 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 144, fol(s). 78v
Document type: Copy [in Letter Book]
###
I wonder if the build-up of Dutch POWs in the Southeast of England was alleviated by sending some to Ireland, or if some of the Dutch warships were blown so far off course that they were caught by Irish ships?
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/s…
About Friday 13 July 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sir William Temple to Ormonde
[Temple is the Envoy to Brussels]
Written from: Brussels
Date: 13 July 1666
Shelfmark: MS. Carte 157, fol(s). 286-287
Document type: Holograph
Gives an account of the setting out of the Holland fleet, with sealed orders; and provided with all sorts of instruments for land-service; expecially for mining and fortifying ...
According to the guesses of some, a descent is intended upon Scotland; but according to most, upon Ireland. ...
Yet all sober men in Holland know that their business is not victory but peace; their condition being at this time like that of a great pond, fed by a few little pipes, but drained by many peat channels; which in spite of land floods or rain must, in little time, leave them dry ...