The Lords were confronted with a tricky problem today. Nicholas, 3rd Earl of Banbury's Petition to the King, for his Writ of Summons to take his seat in the Lords, was read, along with Charles II's decision not to issue such a summons.
There was a question as to whether Nicholas and his younger brother, Edward Knollys, were the legitimate sons of William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury and Lady Elizabeth Howard, or were the illegitimate sons of Edward Vaux, 4th Lord Vaux. William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury was aged 84 at Nicholas’ birth, and George Edward Cokayne the editor of the 19th century 'The Complete Peerage' claimed there were strong arguments in support of his legitimacy, although Nicholas was born at Lord Vaux's house.
This sticky subject was never resolved, and the Earls of Banbury never sat in the Lords.
(The Lord and Lady Vaux, a star-crossed, middle-aged couple, lived happily ever after, leaving the legal quagmire surrounding the Banbury title to their heirs and generations of students of English Common Law who struggle with the principles of Adulterine Bastardy debated in the Banbury Case. This affected a California paternity case as recently as the 1990's.) https://englishhistoryauthors.blo…
@@@
The Commons also took more action against the Quakers:
"Proclamation against Quakers.
"Upon Consideration of the Report from the Committee concerning the Quakers Petition:
"It is ORDERED, That Mr. Attorney General do prepare a Proclamation, for suppressing of the Quakers, and reducing them to the Government of this Kingdom, according to the Laws; and for preventing of such dangerous Consequences as may happen, to the Disturbance of the Peace of the Kingdom, by reason of their Distempers."
I thought they filled up the prisons with Non-conformists last January after Venner's second rising. Parliament is considering how to keep the King and country safe -- unfortunately the meat of the subject and arguments are not reported in the Pastliamentary Minutes. Did Venner really justify this level of concern, or what else is going on? Is it a ploy by Charles II to justify a standing army of Royalists?
"That the King hath done himself all imaginable wrong in the business of my Lord Antrim, in Ireland; who, though he was the head of rebels, yet he by his letter owns to have acted by his father’s and mother’s, and his commissions; but it seems the truth is, he hath obliged himself, upon the clearing of his estate, to settle it upon a daughter of the Queene-Mother’s (by my Lord Germin, I suppose,) in marriage, be it to whom the Queene pleases; which is a sad story. It seems a daughter of the Duke of Lenox’s was, by force, going to be married the other day at Somerset House, to Harry Germin; but she got away and run to the King, and he says he will protect her. She is, it seems, very near akin to the King: Such mad doings there are every day among them!"
"Oh what a tangled web we weave." Pepys didn't need AI to get the stories wrong.
1. Henrietta-Maria employed Henry "Harry" Jermyn, now the Earl of St. Albans, as her Chancellor for years. Everything historical indicates they were good friends, and he was her protector for decades. His wealth saved her from starvation a few times during the Civil Wars. She never had an illigitimate child.
2. The Catholic Earl of Antrim was technically George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham's stepfather. But the children of Katherine Manners Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham were taken from her when she turned Catholic, and brought up by King Charles to make sure they were Protestant.
3. Neither the Antrims nor the Buckinghams were related by blood to the Stuarts.
4. In 1663 Charles II was pardoning the Marquis of Antrim following lengthy investigations both in the Tower and in Ireland. Evidently some deal was made about his estate since he was childless, but it couldn't be what Pepys reports.
5. George's sister, Mary “Mall” Villiers Herbert Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox had two children with James Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox: A son, Esme, who died in Paris in 1660, and a daughter, Mary Stuart, Baroness Clifton (of Leighton Bromswold) who was baptized on 10 July, 1651, at St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church, London. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
So yes, this little girl is Mary Stuart, who is 12 going on 13.
Harry Jermyn (1636–1708) is the 26-year-old nephew of the Earl of St. Albans, and was not a suitable suitor to such a well-connected young lady IMHO. What was Mall thinking? https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Yes, that young Mary felt free to appeal directly to the King was good, and that she didn't go to her uncle Buckingham might be telling. Buckingham could have been out-of-town (he was Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, and loved his Yorkshire home), or she might have thought he agreed with Mall that this was an appropriate match. We need more evidence on this before reaching a conclusion.
"I went home with Sir R. Slingsby to bowls in his ally, and there had good sport, and afterwards went in and drank and talked. "
I think they were playing on a private, purpose-built "alley" on Slingsby's probably-rented property. It appears to have been out-of-doors, so maybe it was a form of lawn bowls? "Alley" may only indicate that it was a dedicated space more than a paved surface. (My uncle had loud opinions about children who played on his lawn bowls area. A paved alley would connect places, and be hard to keep clean and unused: "Excuse me, m'lord, but would you move your bowls -- I've got your dinner in this cart and it needs to get to the kitchen quickly.")
Slingsby came from an old and wealthy family (see below). The fact that Slingsby wanted the Pepys house as only half of his proposed residence at the Navy Offices suggests to me that he was used to having space and lots of retainers and servants.
@@@
The Slingsby legend states two brothers sailed from France in the 14th century to take up land in England. To decide which was to have Knaresborough they agreed it would belong to whoever set a hand on shore first. Whereupon one cut off his hand and flung it on the shore. The severed hand appears on the Slingsby Coat of Arms to this day.
Later Slingsbys have strong connections to Moor Monkton (or Moor Mountain as it was called until Victorian times) near York as well as to Scriven and Lofthouse Hill. Henry of Red House was a Royalist during the civil wars and was, for his pains, beheaded on Tower Hill in 1658
Red House and Scagglethorpe were purchased in 1562 by F Slingsby Esq from Robt. Oughtre Esq whose family had lived at Red House since the time of Edward III. The site of their mansion is a short distance from the site of the present mansion which is situated close to the Ouse. It was built in the reign of Charles 1st by the (later beheaded) Royalist Sir Henry Slingsby. His father built the chapel which has close connections with Sir Thomas Fairfax. . There is a Latin inscription in brass to the memory of Dorothy, daughter of Sir Thomas Slingsby, died January 21, 1667 aged 2 years, on the south side of the chancel. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Spa…
@@@
A contemporary Slingsby was an MP, and his bio links the families with the Percys and Belasys families. http://www.historyofparliamentonl…
AMEN to that, Stephane. I am constantly mentally thanking Victorian and Edwardian historians for their research and writing, and to Open Source and the Google librarians for their quick access to information it probably took the first round annotators years to accummulate.
I wonder if AI will expose us to "alternative" 17th century history? Is this a factual zenith? Will a black Queen Charlotte be accepted as a fact in 100 years? Maybe AI can tell us who probably murdered Edmund Berry Godfrey?
One good piece of news is that children are being taught cursive handwriting again, so there's hope a few will be able to read the documents that are too weird for AI to grasp.
The plot cannot have been large as the tryst at Farnley Wood was the conspirators' only effort to carry out their complicated plans.
But the public were not easily reassured, and for some time there were recurrent alarms that the disbanded army would attempt another rising. 1 1 “Life of Clarendon," 1827 ed., vol. ii. p/280.
Terror invariably leads to cruelty. All the prisons in the North were so full that it was thought necessary to send 4 or 5 judges to Yorkshire to investigate the matter.
Charles II was soon so "wearied with continual discourse of plots and insinuations, he resolved he would give no more countenance to any such information." This was a determination which Buckingham must have greeted with great joy, because the one man whom he venerated [GEN. FAIRFAX - SDS] had broken his rule of silence to plead for the cause of the sufferers.
If you want to read Fairfax's letter, which speaks to his character, but not to the backstory, start at LORD FAIRFAX'S ADVICE page 131.
The far more terrible retributions of later years have obliterated many recollections of the Farnley Wood Rising. Yet Fairfax's plea was called for, since 17 or 18 rebels were executed. 1 1 "Life of Clarendon,'' vol. ii. p. 415.
And some were reprieved, but many were left in prison — a terrible fate, when one remembers the condition of the gaols at that period — to be tried at the next assize.
On October 17, 1663, Arlington wrote again to Buckingham, saying there was no sign of a rising in the South, and if there was any sign of trouble in Yorkshire, "His Majesty bids me encourage you to be very severe with the beginners, and to be confident that you shall be avowed therein, which he saith is all the directions he can give you, till he hears more from you. ..."
Again, on 20 October, 1663, Arlington writes to ask "that Your Grace should proceed, with the assistance of the High Sheriff and Deputy lieutenants, to cause strict examination to be made of all persons whom you know or suspect to be guilty or contributing to the intended rising, that they may be punished by such ordinary or extraordinary course of law as His Majesty shall appoint and they shall appear to have deserved: the originals of which examinations, Your Grace may please to be sent hither by an express, or Copies of them, if they come by the ordinary Post."
When the papers reached Whitehall, Arlington had to agree that "most of them related only to what they (the conspirators) said to one another, without being able to give accompt of the bottom and source of this design."
Apparently Arlington thought more could be extracted from the suspects by the Council in London, as he ordered several to be sent there under a good escort, and with proper precautions to prevent their having any communication with one another.
A Mr. Walters, who had shown willingness to turn King's evidence, was to be reserved for His Majesty's personal enquiry.
Meanwhile, in the hope of a full pardon — for which Buckingham had evidently pleaded — Walters was to be urged "to be more ingenuous and more particular than he had been," and Buckingham was assured "that great care should be taken that Your Grace's word be not violated" — not an unnecessary pledge to a man whose acquaintance with the standard of honor at Charles II's Court made him distrustful of vague promises.
Moreover, to allay any irritation Buckingham show at the prisoner's removal from his jurisdiction, Arlington reiterated Charles II's "entire and perfect satisfaction in your carriage and management of this whole matter, of which he promises speedily to give you a particular assurance under his own hand."
The Northern crisis was short-lived; this letter of Arlington's, dated 24 October, 1663, closes the series. Lord Lt. Buckingham's prompt action had probably discouraged any further insurrectionary attempts.
I shall have here about 1,000 foot in the Town, which will be sufficient for the defense of it, besides that we have reason to conclude their rising will be in the west parts, and so being drawn together in the fields, we shall be in a greater readiness to fall upon them.
Collonell could not last night remember who it was that Col. Chaytor designed in his letter for the man that has given him this intelligence, but this day he tells me it was Col. Smithson, which makes us more confident of the truth of it, he being the man in these parts of the greatest credit among them. Your Majesty may be pleased to keep his name private, for he may be of more use to Your Majesty than any man in this country, if I can but engage him to deal truly with us.
I could wish Your Majesty would be pleased to make me a commission for Raising a Regiment of Horse, which I promise not to make use of, except there be occasion, and when I am sure it would be for Your Majesty's service that as many men as could be raised.
I am sure it would be a great encouragement to a great many gentlemen that are very zealous in Your Majesty's service, and the sooner we could get into arms the better.
I give Your Majesty the trouble of reading this tedious letter, having the fortune to have so many about Your Majesty that I know will censure everything I do, that I am resolved to make Your Majesty yourself the judge of my actions and the director of them, and I hope Your Majesty will have the justice to protect me from the malice of my ill-wishers, since I have no ambition in this world but to serve your Majesty to the utmost of my power, and to approve myself, etc., etc.”
1 Dom. State Cal. Charles II. vol. Ixxxi.
To this letter Charles II ordered Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington to reply, acknowledging Buckingham's "exceeding care in his service," but refusing to grant him permission to raise a regiment of horse.
Arlington did not forget to include in his despatch the latest bulletin of the Queen, Catherine of Braganza's illness. He eithere knew or guessed it was of special interest to Buckingham, who had identified himself with the party following the Duke of York, whose hopes centered on the childlessness of the Queen.
Buckingham's business-like epistle proves he could throw off the indolence which, far more than the "malice of his ill-wishers" impeded his ambitions.
But Buckingham was not over-scrupulous. He was ready in this crisis to make use of Major Greathead or Smithson, but commonsense alone forbade him to foment rebellion in order to destroy possible malcontents.
Buckingham’s long residence at Nun Appleton before the Restoration had taught him to appreciate the virtues of the Yorkshire Nonconformists. He made no secret of his admiration for them, and much of his unpopularity with the Parliamentary Church Party can be linked to his advocacy of the dissenters' claims.
Buckingham to Charles II: YORK, 11 October, 1663.
“Though upon the receipt of that paper I sent your Majesty from Royston I rid night and day, the waters were so up upon the Road, that I could not possibly get to Doncaster before 9 of the clock in the morning of Saturday, when meeting with my Deputy lieutenants and a regiment of foot, which they had drawn thither before I came,
I was stayed so late that I came not hither till Sunday morning, at four of the clock;
as soon as I arrived, I sent and enquired of Sir Thomas Goare how his intelligence was of this design, and he telling me that he believed the business was blown over upon their seeing the country was in so great a forwardness to take up arms, I confess I did not think it necessary to put the country gentle- men and Militia to further trouble, and so left them in their several quarters as they were ordered to be before I came,
but receiving at night intelligence from Col. Chaytor (who is a very under-standing as well as a very brave man) that the rebels should be in arms this day or to-morrow at latest, and that he was assured it from an officer that formerly had been of their party, who was offered to command them, and refused it, I thought it was not proper to delay any more time and therefore sent orders immediately to draw all the militia together to Pomfret and Fernbridge, except the militia regiment of foot and the volunteer regiment of foot of this town, which I thought better to leave here for the defense of this place.
Col. Chaytor's letter I sent last night to the Generals as soon as I received it, and deferred the giving Your Majesty this account of myself till the morning that I might not delay that post.
We have hourly intelligence to the same effect from general hands, so that I do not only believe they have really a design, but that they are still resolved to make some attempt, to which end it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of Col. Trebswell and all the rest of the gentlemen here, that we draw out of this town the troops of horse and foot of Your Majesty's Guards and join them with the Militia.
"A great talke there is today of a crush between some of the Fanatiques up in arms, and the King’s men in the North; but whether true I know not yet."
Pepys is a month late with the news! Buckingham, as Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, had left the pleasures of the Court around the middle of October and riden to Doncaster to lead the restoration of law and order (according to his bio., which never mentions Wharton).
I've posted an abbreviated version of events in Buckingham's encyclopedia from one of his biographies, as there's a sad lack of dates in the narrative. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Buckingham 2 had such potential -- charming, funny, with leadership skills, and even a moral compass of sorts.
In 1663, as Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, it fell to Buckingham to investigate and quell The Northern Rising AKA Farnley Wood Plot AKA The Derwentdale Plot AKA The Rymer and Oates Conspiracy.
Consolidated from GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON 1903 https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
Many people in Yorkshire had lost Church and Crown lands, given to them during the Civil Wars. Naturally, they did not love the Restoration. Nor were evicted Nonconformist ministers alone. Old soldiers and officers of the Cromwellian regiments, dismissed from their professions and deprived of the right to worship God according to their conscience, were in sorry straits. Most accepting their reduced status, and took up peaceful trades and industry. But some of the fiercer spirits could not contain their disgust at the new regime, and this was sometimes fanned into rebellion by spies and informers who benefitted from forfeitures and blood-money.
It was to the machinations of the unhappy gentry that the rising of Rymer and Oates in 1663 was mainly due. Two old Parliamentary officers, Rymer and Oates, were no desperadoes. They both owned properties valued from £200 to £300 per annum, so they held a stake in the country that no middle-aged Englishman lightly imperils. Moreover, they would not have assumed the initiative of revolt had they not confided their musings to their former comrades, Cols. Smithson and Greathead. When Rymer and Oates sought the Col.'s advice, they had no formed plans.
But Cols. Smithson and Greathead wanted to find favor with the new power, and while they questioned whether they were hearing just disaffected chatter, they consulted Sir Thomas Gower, the Governor of York, who encouraged them to lead on their friends beyond retreat.
Since the four were fellow-religionists, doing this was not difficult.
While Charles II's representatives were contriving the ruin of Buckingham’s misguided subjects, he was absent from the West Ridings of Yorkshire. The black work progressed more rapidly than Gov. Gower expected; when it was known that the conspirators had assembled at Farnley Wood, near Pontefract, the public alarm bordered on panic.
The plot was that the rebels were to raise the countryside, fall unexpectedly on Whitehall, and paralyze the Government by seizing the Duke of York, and the principal Ministers. This plan required a considerable force, but when they meet in Farnley Wood, the tiny band recognized that such a plot was hopeless. They dispersed, but they had scared their opponents, and the reprisals were bound to be savage.
On 21 September, 1661, Charles II conferred the Lord Lieutenancy of the West Ridings of Yorkshire upon George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo…
The honor was far from being a sinecure. It entailed not only vast expenditure, but grave responsibilities. Calcutta is today no further removed from the center of Government, than was York from London, at that time of slow travel.
The gentry and nobility of the northern province received Buckingham with enthusiasm.
At Doncaster, all the county notables who were warned in time, assembled "to wait upon His Grace, with all the joy and best music they could make.”
1661] BUCKINGHAM'S LORD LIEUTENANCY 123
The citizens show as much eagerness in greeting their new Governor. On his arrival the Mayor and Aldermen feasted him "with good store of wine," and the next day, when Buckingham scrupulously attended both morning and evening service, they accompanied him to church.
At York Buckingham’s reception was even more cordial. When he arrived there, escorted by a gallant band of volunteers, he found the way to his inn lined on both sides by the city regiment, under the command of the High Sheriff. Then the bells and cannon took up the tale, and pealed and roared so continuously that there can have been little rest for anyone that night in York. 1 1 "Mercurius Politicus," York, Nov. 1661.
This exuberant loyalty concealed genuine discontent. Many people in Yorkshire had lost Church and Crown lands, allotted to them during the Civil Wars. Naturally, they were not enamored by the Restoration.
Nor were the evicted Nonconformist ministers alone to be pitied. The old soldiers and officers of the Cromwellian regiments, alike dismissed their profession and deprived of the right to worship God according to their conscience, were in sorry straits.
Based on GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON 1903 https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
During Charles II's triumphal progress to London, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham had many opportunities to revive his credit with Charles II -- something he must have hoped would continue from the favor with which Charles regarded his cousin, Barbara Villiers, Lady Palmer.
Later this "enormously vicious and ravenous woman" honored Buck-ingham with one of her furious demoniac hatreds, but at first they were on excellent terms, and it was at her lodgings that Buckingham was brought into nightly contact with Charles II.
Both mistress and wit were united by their common detestation of Chancellor Edward Hyde (not created the Earl of Clarendon until May 1661). Buckingham attributed to him the conspicuous omission of his name from the list of the Privy Council, to which all the other former members had been reappointed.
Buckingham’s revenge was fast. The convivial gatherings at Lady Palmer's gave him his opportunity, and at the little suppers where Charles II sought to drown in wine and ribaldry all recollection of the homilies delivered by his Chancellor, the flippant Duke caricatured to the life the pompous deportment of that austere Minister.
It must have been difficult for Charles II to repress his amusement at the spectacle of the madcap Duke, preceded by his old associate Col. Silas Titus, with a fire-shovel for the mace, and a pair of bellows for the purse, solemnly aping the portentous gravity of the tedious "Schoolmaster."
Reckless as he habitually was, Buckingham did not affront Chancellor Hyde without safe-guarding himself against too critical an enquiry into his own past doings. By June 6, 1660, he had taken out a pardon under the Great Seal "for all past offences." It is true this step did not necessarily presuppose an admission of guilt. 1 1 Dom. State Cal., 6 June, 1660.
This was a time when a mere technicality might place the most upright citizen at the mercy of an informer, so a pardon was dictated by ordinary prudence.
On this occasion, Buckingham did not prove over-hasty, as a week after his pardon had been signed and sealed, a warrant was issued against two of his gentlemen, on the grounds that they had betrayed Charles II's secrets to his enemies during the Commonwealth." 2 2 Guizot's "Life of Monk," App. p. 374.
Adapted from: GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON 1903 https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
"... my Lord Abbot Montagu being not at Paris, my Lord hath a mind to have them stay a little longer before they go."
Pepys didn't say they were in London either. It's probably to early for the annual summer trip, made by the entire French court, to Fontainebleau. It's not important where Abbe Ralph went after all.
"... we were shown the method of making this new money, from the beginning to the end, which is so pretty that I did take a note of every part of it and set them down by themselves for my remembrance hereafter."
Pepys was right. In May 2024 one of the rarest British coins in existence sold for £817,929 or $1,000,000 at an auction. It is now the most expensive silver British coin ever sold at auction.
The Petition Crown of Charles II was minted in 1663. Only 16 of these Petition Crowns exist.
The Petition Crown was struck by celebrated medallist and coin-designer Thomas Simon, who worked for the Royal Mint, in 1663. It was created by Simon to 'petition' Charles II to reinstate him as the sole chief engraver at the Royal Mint and also as a petition against the contemporary coins designed by the Flemish brothers John and Joseph Roettiers.
Using new mechanical coin machinery, Simon printed message around the edge of the coin asking the King to 'compare this his tryall piece with the Dutch', a dig at the Flemish engravers.
The coin features a striking portrait of Charles II so detailed that even a shadow of the veins on the King's neck can be made out.
Coin experts at the Classical Numismatic Group said: 'Our understanding is that there are 8 examples of the Petition Crown in museum collections and a further 8 in private hands.'
David Guest, director of Classical Numismatic Group said: 'Widely regarded as the most beautiful machine-made coin ever struck and undoubtedly the most important coin in the British series, we are delighted to have seen the 1663 Petition Crown realise a world record price.'
The article continues with information about 2 more rare English coins which were also auctioned:
The Oxford Crown was minted in 1644 and shows King Charles I in battle at Oxford during the English Civil War.
It is the only coin in the British series featuring a depiction of a city, and it sold for £382,798 or $486,000, making a record for any coin depicting Charles I.
Only 11 Oxford Crowns are known to be in existence, 8 of which are in museum collections.
Regal: The King Henry VIII Testoon is one of the most sought after coins aside from the Petition Crown. This coin was struck in 1544. It has always been popular with collectors because of the striking portrait of Henry VIII.
It represents a key moment in Henry VIII's reign, when lack of funds in the treasury led the Tudor government to introduce cheap metals into coins previously made of sterling silver, known as the Great Debasement.
Slingsby at this time did not live in the Navy complex, which is why he wants to take over Pepys' house along with the Davies' old house next door. Clearly he now has large quarters somewhere order to accommodate a bowling alley.
"... and it being very hot weather I took my flageolette and played upon the leads in the garden, where Sir W. Pen came out in his shirt into his leads, and there we staid talking and singing, ..."
Life is so much better now "Lady" Davies and her brood are in Ireland, and no one has blocked Pepys' access door to the leads, or will complain about the noise. (Life before television!)
May the rain stay away, and the grain prices drop soon.
"4th crossing: thence to Lord Crew's to dinner. I'm guessing this is back on the north side of the river in either the City or in Westminster. The Theatre seems to have been there as well and must have had artificial lighting since it would have been getting dark by then. London in June - not really dark until about 9 pm?"
Glyn worked hard on this timeline, but forgot that dinner time was lunch time to us. So the theater outing was in the afternoon.
Lord Crew's house was in what we now think of as Lincoln's Inn, and Gibbon's Tennis Court Theater was a building off Vere Street and Clare Market, near Lincoln's Inn Fields. Just around the corner, so not a long walk.
I'm guessing lunch was at 1 p.m., and the theater at 3 p.m.-ish.
"The Comptroller came this morning to get me to go see a house or two near our office, which he would take for himself or Mr. Turner, and then he would have me have Mr. Turner’s lodgings and himself mine and Mr. Davis’s. But the houses did not like us, and so that design at present is stopped."
We have established that Slingsby likes Pepys, and he can't be insensative to the inconvenience the Pepys family have had to endure recently getting their housing fixed up -- never mind the cost of that fine new staircase and improved kitchen, which I suspect Pepys paid for since he was so worried about money the month before it started.
My guess is that Slingsby is trying to find better housing for someone nearby, so he can up-grade the Pepys' quarters by having them move --either into the new house or the Turner's house, and by combining the Pepys house with the next-door Davies quarters, make a really nice house for himself. It's a case of unlocking some doors, and voila, a bigger residence.
Win-win. But Pepys needs to buy into the scheme. Which, so far, he has not done. (Must really like his new staircase?)
Comments
Third Reading
About Thursday 6 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Lords were confronted with a tricky problem today. Nicholas, 3rd Earl of Banbury's Petition to the King, for his Writ of Summons to take his seat in the Lords, was read, along with Charles II's decision not to issue such a summons.
There was a question as to whether Nicholas and his younger brother, Edward Knollys, were the legitimate sons of William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury and Lady Elizabeth Howard, or were the illegitimate sons of Edward Vaux, 4th Lord Vaux.
William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury was aged 84 at Nicholas’ birth, and George Edward Cokayne the editor of the 19th century 'The Complete Peerage' claimed there were strong arguments in support of his legitimacy, although Nicholas was born at Lord Vaux's house.
This sticky subject was never resolved, and the Earls of Banbury never sat in the Lords.
(The Lord and Lady Vaux, a star-crossed, middle-aged couple, lived happily ever after, leaving the legal quagmire surrounding the Banbury title to their heirs and generations of students of English Common Law who struggle with the principles of Adulterine Bastardy debated in the Banbury Case. This affected a California paternity case as recently as the 1990's.)
https://englishhistoryauthors.blo…
@@@
The Commons also took more action against the Quakers:
"Proclamation against Quakers.
"Upon Consideration of the Report from the Committee concerning the Quakers Petition:
"It is ORDERED, That Mr. Attorney General do prepare a Proclamation, for suppressing of the Quakers, and reducing them to the Government of this Kingdom, according to the Laws; and for preventing of such dangerous Consequences as may happen, to the Disturbance of the Peace of the Kingdom, by reason of their Distempers."
I thought they filled up the prisons with Non-conformists last January after Venner's second rising.
Parliament is considering how to keep the King and country safe -- unfortunately the meat of the subject and arguments are not reported in the Pastliamentary Minutes. Did Venner really justify this level of concern, or what else is going on? Is it a ploy by Charles II to justify a standing army of Royalists?
About Monday 22 February 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
"That the King hath done himself all imaginable wrong in the business of my Lord Antrim, in Ireland; who, though he was the head of rebels, yet he by his letter owns to have acted by his father’s and mother’s, and his commissions; but it seems the truth is, he hath obliged himself, upon the clearing of his estate, to settle it upon a daughter of the Queene-Mother’s (by my Lord Germin, I suppose,) in marriage, be it to whom the Queene pleases; which is a sad story. It seems a daughter of the Duke of Lenox’s was, by force, going to be married the other day at Somerset House, to Harry Germin; but she got away and run to the King, and he says he will protect her. She is, it seems, very near akin to the King: Such mad doings there are every day among them!"
"Oh what a tangled web we weave." Pepys didn't need AI to get the stories wrong.
1. Henrietta-Maria employed Henry "Harry" Jermyn, now the Earl of St. Albans, as her Chancellor for years. Everything historical indicates they were good friends, and he was her protector for decades. His wealth saved her from starvation a few times during the Civil Wars. She never had an illigitimate child.
2. The Catholic Earl of Antrim was technically George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham's stepfather. But the children of Katherine Manners Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham were taken from her when she turned Catholic, and brought up by King Charles to make sure they were Protestant.
3. Neither the Antrims nor the Buckinghams were related by blood to the Stuarts.
4. In 1663 Charles II was pardoning the Marquis of Antrim following lengthy investigations both in the Tower and in Ireland. Evidently some deal was made about his estate since he was childless, but it couldn't be what Pepys reports.
5. George's sister, Mary “Mall” Villiers Herbert Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox had two children with James Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox: A son, Esme, who died in Paris in 1660, and a daughter, Mary Stuart, Baroness Clifton (of Leighton Bromswold) who was baptized on 10 July, 1651, at St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church, London.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
So yes, this little girl is Mary Stuart, who is 12 going on 13.
Harry Jermyn (1636–1708) is the 26-year-old nephew of the Earl of St. Albans, and was not a suitable suitor to such a well-connected young lady IMHO. What was Mall thinking?
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Yes, that young Mary felt free to appeal directly to the King was good, and that she didn't go to her uncle Buckingham might be telling.
Buckingham could have been out-of-town (he was Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, and loved his Yorkshire home), or she might have thought he agreed with Mall that this was an appropriate match.
We need more evidence on this before reaching a conclusion.
About Wednesday 5 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I went home with Sir R. Slingsby to bowls in his ally, and there had good sport, and afterwards went in and drank and talked. "
I think they were playing on a private, purpose-built "alley" on Slingsby's probably-rented property. It appears to have been out-of-doors, so maybe it was a form of lawn bowls? "Alley" may only indicate that it was a dedicated space more than a paved surface.
(My uncle had loud opinions about children who played on his lawn bowls area. A paved alley would connect places, and be hard to keep clean and unused: "Excuse me, m'lord, but would you move your bowls -- I've got your dinner in this cart and it needs to get to the kitchen quickly.")
Slingsby came from an old and wealthy family (see below). The fact that Slingsby wanted the Pepys house as only half of his proposed residence at the Navy Offices suggests to me that he was used to having space and lots of retainers and servants.
@@@
The Slingsby legend states two brothers sailed from France in the 14th century to take up land in England. To decide which was to have Knaresborough they agreed it would belong to whoever set a hand on shore first. Whereupon one cut off his hand and flung it on the shore. The severed hand appears on the Slingsby Coat of Arms to this day.
Later Slingsbys have strong connections to Moor Monkton (or Moor Mountain as it was called until Victorian times) near York as well as to Scriven and Lofthouse Hill. Henry of Red House was a Royalist during the civil wars and was, for his pains, beheaded on Tower Hill in 1658
Red House and Scagglethorpe were purchased in 1562 by F Slingsby Esq from Robt. Oughtre Esq whose family had lived at Red House since the time of Edward III. The site of their mansion is a short distance from the site of the present mansion which is situated close to the Ouse. It was built in the reign of Charles 1st by the (later beheaded) Royalist Sir Henry Slingsby. His father built the chapel which has close connections with Sir Thomas Fairfax. . There is a Latin inscription in brass to the memory of Dorothy, daughter of Sir Thomas Slingsby, died January 21, 1667 aged 2 years, on the south side of the chancel.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Spa…
@@@
A contemporary Slingsby was an MP, and his bio links the families with the Percys and Belasys families.
http://www.historyofparliamentonl…
About Saturday 1 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
AMEN to that, Stephane. I am constantly mentally thanking Victorian and Edwardian historians for their research and writing, and to Open Source and the Google librarians for their quick access to information it probably took the first round annotators years to accummulate.
I wonder if AI will expose us to "alternative" 17th century history? Is this a factual zenith? Will a black Queen Charlotte be accepted as a fact in 100 years? Maybe AI can tell us who probably murdered Edmund Berry Godfrey?
One good piece of news is that children are being taught cursive handwriting again, so there's hope a few will be able to read the documents that are too weird for AI to grasp.
About Wednesday 16 January 1660/61
San Diego Sarah • Link
Finally the more in-depth exchange about toll-roads that I was recalling has emerged:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Wednesday 5 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Leads are by definition on the roof -- so maybe they were using the part overlooking the gardens? Once again, you had to be there.
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 5
The plot cannot have been large as the tryst at Farnley Wood was the conspirators' only effort to carry out their complicated plans.
But the public were not easily reassured, and for some time there were recurrent alarms that the disbanded army would attempt another rising. 1
1 “Life of Clarendon," 1827 ed., vol. ii. p/280.
Terror invariably leads to cruelty.
All the prisons in the North were so full that it was thought necessary to send 4 or 5 judges to Yorkshire to investigate the matter.
Charles II was soon so "wearied with continual discourse of plots and insinuations, he resolved he would give no more countenance to any such information."
This was a determination which Buckingham must have greeted with great joy, because the one man whom he venerated [GEN. FAIRFAX - SDS] had broken his rule of silence to plead for the cause of the sufferers.
If you want to read Fairfax's letter, which speaks to his character, but not to the backstory, start at LORD FAIRFAX'S ADVICE page 131.
The far more terrible retributions of later years have obliterated many recollections of the Farnley Wood Rising. Yet Fairfax's plea was called for, since 17 or 18 rebels were executed. 1
1 "Life of Clarendon,'' vol. ii. p. 415.
And some were reprieved, but many were left in prison — a terrible fate, when one remembers the condition of the gaols at that period — to be tried at the next assize.
Yes, I up-dated spelling - SDS
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 4
On October 17, 1663, Arlington wrote again to Buckingham, saying there was no sign of a rising in the South, and if there was any sign of trouble in Yorkshire, "His Majesty bids me encourage you to be very severe with the beginners, and to be confident that you shall be avowed therein, which he saith is all the directions he can give you, till he hears more from you. ..."
Again, on 20 October, 1663, Arlington writes to ask "that Your Grace should proceed, with the assistance of the High Sheriff and Deputy lieutenants, to cause strict examination to be made of all persons whom you know or suspect to be guilty or contributing to the intended rising, that they may be punished by such ordinary or extraordinary course of law as His Majesty shall appoint and they shall appear to have deserved: the originals of which examinations, Your Grace may please to be sent hither by an express, or Copies of them, if they come by the ordinary Post."
When the papers reached Whitehall, Arlington had to agree that "most of them related only to what they (the conspirators) said to one another, without being able to give accompt of the bottom and source of this design."
Apparently Arlington thought more could be extracted from the suspects by the Council in London, as he ordered several to be sent there under a good escort, and with proper precautions to prevent their having any communication with one another.
A Mr. Walters, who had shown willingness to turn King's evidence, was to be reserved for His Majesty's personal enquiry.
Meanwhile, in the hope of a full pardon — for which Buckingham had evidently pleaded — Walters was to be urged "to be more ingenuous and more particular than he had been," and Buckingham was assured "that great care should be taken that Your Grace's word be not violated" — not an unnecessary pledge to a man whose acquaintance with the standard of honor at Charles II's Court made him distrustful of vague promises.
Moreover, to allay any irritation Buckingham show at the prisoner's removal from his jurisdiction, Arlington reiterated Charles II's "entire and perfect satisfaction in your carriage and management of this whole matter, of which he promises speedily to give you a particular assurance under his own hand."
The Northern crisis was short-lived; this letter of Arlington's, dated 24 October, 1663, closes the series.
Lord Lt. Buckingham's prompt action had probably discouraged any further insurrectionary attempts.
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 3
I shall have here about 1,000 foot in the Town, which will be sufficient for the defense of it, besides that we have reason to conclude their rising will be in the west parts, and so being drawn together in the fields, we shall be in a greater readiness to fall upon them.
Collonell could not last night remember who it was that Col. Chaytor designed in his letter for the man that has given him this intelligence, but this day he tells me it was Col. Smithson, which makes us more confident of the truth of it, he being the man in these parts of the greatest credit among them.
Your Majesty may be pleased to keep his name private, for he may be of more use to Your Majesty than any man in this country, if I can but engage him to deal truly with us.
I could wish Your Majesty would be pleased to make me a commission for Raising a Regiment of Horse, which I promise not to make use of, except there be occasion, and when I am sure it would be for Your Majesty's service that as many men as could be raised.
I am sure it would be a great encouragement to a great many gentlemen
that are very zealous in Your Majesty's service, and the sooner we could get into arms the better.
I give Your Majesty the trouble of reading this tedious letter, having the fortune to have so many about Your Majesty that I know will censure everything I do, that I am resolved to make Your Majesty yourself the judge of my actions and the director of them, and I hope Your Majesty will have the justice to protect me from the malice of my ill-wishers, since I have no ambition in this world but to serve your Majesty to the utmost of my power, and to approve myself, etc., etc.”
1 Dom. State Cal. Charles II. vol. Ixxxi.
To this letter Charles II ordered Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington to reply, acknowledging Buckingham's "exceeding care in his service," but refusing to grant him permission to raise a regiment of horse.
Arlington did not forget to include in his despatch the latest bulletin of the Queen, Catherine of Braganza's illness. He eithere knew or guessed it was of special interest to Buckingham, who had identified himself with the party following the Duke of York, whose hopes centered on the childlessness of the Queen.
Buckingham's business-like epistle proves he could throw off the indolence which, far more than the "malice of his ill-wishers" impeded his ambitions.
But Buckingham was not over-scrupulous.
He was ready in this crisis to make use of Major Greathead or Smithson, but commonsense alone forbade him to foment rebellion in order to destroy possible malcontents.
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
Buckingham’s long residence at Nun Appleton before the Restoration had taught him to appreciate the virtues of the Yorkshire Nonconformists. He made no secret of his admiration for them, and much of his unpopularity with the Parliamentary Church Party can be linked to his advocacy of the dissenters' claims.
Buckingham to Charles II:
YORK, 11 October, 1663.
“Though upon the receipt of that paper I sent your Majesty from Royston I rid night and day, the waters were so up upon the Road, that I could not possibly get to Doncaster before 9 of the clock in the morning of Saturday, when meeting with my Deputy lieutenants and a regiment of foot, which they had drawn thither before I came,
I was stayed so late that I came not hither till Sunday morning, at four of the clock;
as soon as I arrived, I sent and enquired of Sir Thomas Goare how his intelligence was of this design, and he telling me that he believed the business was blown over upon their seeing the country was in so great a forwardness to take up arms, I confess I did not think it necessary to put the country gentle- men and Militia to further trouble, and so left them in their several quarters as they were ordered to be before I came,
but receiving at night intelligence from Col. Chaytor (who is a very under-standing as well as a very brave man) that the rebels should be in arms this day or to-morrow at latest, and that he was assured it from an officer that formerly had been of their party, who was offered to command them, and refused it, I thought it was not proper to delay any more time and therefore sent orders immediately to draw all the militia together to Pomfret and Fernbridge, except the militia regiment of foot and the volunteer regiment of foot of this town, which I thought better to leave here for the defense of this place.
Col. Chaytor's letter I sent last night to the Generals as soon as I received it, and deferred the giving Your Majesty this account of myself till the morning that I might not delay that post.
We have hourly intelligence to the same effect from general hands, so that I do not only believe they have really a design, but that they are still resolved
to make some attempt, to which end it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of Col. Trebswell and all the rest of the gentlemen here, that we draw out of this town the troops of horse and foot of Your Majesty's Guards and join them with the Militia.
About Friday 20 November 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"A great talke there is today of a crush between some of the Fanatiques up in arms, and the King’s men in the North; but whether true I know not yet."
Pepys is a month late with the news! Buckingham, as Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, had left the pleasures of the Court around the middle of October and riden to Doncaster to lead the restoration of law and order (according to his bio., which never mentions Wharton).
I've posted an abbreviated version of events in Buckingham's encyclopedia from one of his biographies, as there's a sad lack of dates in the narrative.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About George Villiers (2nd Duke of Buckingham)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Buckingham 2 had such potential -- charming, funny, with leadership skills, and even a moral compass of sorts.
In 1663, as Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, it fell to Buckingham to investigate and quell The Northern Rising AKA Farnley Wood Plot AKA The Derwentdale Plot AKA The Rymer and Oates Conspiracy.
Consolidated from
GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION
By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON
1903
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
Many people in Yorkshire had lost Church and Crown lands, given to them during the Civil Wars. Naturally, they did not love the Restoration.
Nor were evicted Nonconformist ministers alone. Old soldiers and officers of the Cromwellian regiments, dismissed from their professions and deprived of the right to worship God according to their conscience, were in sorry straits.
Most accepting their reduced status, and took up peaceful trades and industry. But some of the fiercer spirits could not contain their disgust at the new regime, and this was sometimes fanned into rebellion by spies and informers who benefitted from forfeitures and blood-money.
It was to the machinations of the unhappy gentry that the rising of Rymer and Oates in 1663 was mainly due.
Two old Parliamentary officers, Rymer and Oates, were no desperadoes. They both owned properties valued from £200 to £300 per annum, so they held a stake in the country that no middle-aged Englishman lightly imperils. Moreover, they would not have assumed the initiative of revolt had they not confided their musings to their former comrades, Cols. Smithson and Greathead.
When Rymer and Oates sought the Col.'s advice, they had no formed plans.
But Cols. Smithson and Greathead wanted to find favor with the new power, and while they questioned whether they were hearing just disaffected chatter, they consulted Sir Thomas Gower, the Governor of York, who encouraged them to lead on their friends beyond retreat.
Since the four were fellow-religionists, doing this was not difficult.
While Charles II's representatives were contriving the ruin of Buckingham’s misguided subjects, he was absent from the West Ridings of Yorkshire.
The black work progressed more rapidly than Gov. Gower expected; when it was known that the conspirators had assembled at Farnley Wood, near Pontefract, the public alarm bordered on panic.
The plot was that the rebels were to raise the countryside, fall unexpectedly on Whitehall, and paralyze the Government by seizing the Duke of York, and the principal Ministers.
This plan required a considerable force, but when they meet in Farnley Wood, the tiny band recognized that such a plot was hopeless.
They dispersed, but they had scared their opponents, and the reprisals were bound to be savage.
About Saturday 21 September 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Please wait until we get there, 徽柔. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but readers not familiar with the stories get very confused when we skip years.
About Saturday 21 September 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile, at Whitehall:
On 21 September, 1661, Charles II conferred the Lord Lieutenancy of the West Ridings of Yorkshire upon George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo…
The honor was far from being a sinecure. It entailed not only vast expenditure, but grave responsibilities. Calcutta is today no further removed from the center of Government, than was York from London, at that time of slow travel.
The gentry and nobility of the northern province received Buckingham with enthusiasm.
At Doncaster, all the county notables who were warned in time, assembled "to wait upon His Grace, with all the joy and best music they could make.”
1661] BUCKINGHAM'S LORD LIEUTENANCY 123
The citizens show as much eagerness in greeting their new Governor. On his arrival the Mayor and Aldermen feasted him "with good store of wine," and the next day, when Buckingham scrupulously attended both morning and evening service, they accompanied him to church.
At York Buckingham’s reception was even more cordial. When he arrived there, escorted by a gallant band of volunteers, he found the way to his inn lined on both sides by the city regiment, under the command of the High Sheriff. Then the bells and cannon took up the tale, and pealed and roared so continuously that there can have been little rest for anyone that night in York. 1
1 "Mercurius Politicus," York, Nov. 1661.
This exuberant loyalty concealed genuine discontent. Many people in Yorkshire had lost Church and Crown lands, allotted to them during the Civil Wars. Naturally, they were not enamored by the Restoration.
Nor were the evicted Nonconformist ministers alone to be pitied. The old soldiers and officers of the Cromwellian regiments, alike dismissed their profession and deprived of the right to worship God according to their conscience, were in sorry straits.
Based on
GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION
By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON
1903
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
About Wednesday 27 June 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile, at Whitehall:
During Charles II's triumphal progress to London, George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham had many opportunities to revive his credit with Charles II -- something he must have hoped would continue from the favor with which Charles regarded his cousin, Barbara Villiers, Lady Palmer.
Later this "enormously vicious and ravenous woman" honored Buck-ingham with one of her furious demoniac hatreds, but at first they were on excellent terms, and it was at her lodgings that Buckingham was brought into nightly contact with Charles II.
Both mistress and wit were united by their common detestation of Chancellor Edward Hyde (not created the Earl of Clarendon until May 1661). Buckingham attributed to him the conspicuous omission of his name from the list of the Privy Council, to which all the other former members had been reappointed.
Buckingham’s revenge was fast. The convivial gatherings at Lady Palmer's gave him his opportunity, and at the little suppers where Charles II sought to drown in wine and ribaldry all recollection of the homilies delivered by his Chancellor, the flippant Duke caricatured to the life the pompous deportment of that austere Minister.
It must have been difficult for Charles II to repress his amusement at the spectacle of the madcap Duke, preceded by his old associate Col. Silas Titus, with a fire-shovel for the mace, and a pair of bellows for the purse, solemnly aping the portentous gravity of the tedious "Schoolmaster."
Reckless as he habitually was, Buckingham did not affront Chancellor Hyde without safe-guarding himself against too critical an enquiry into his own past doings. By June 6, 1660, he had taken out a pardon under the Great Seal "for all past offences." It is true this step did not necessarily presuppose an admission of guilt. 1
1 Dom. State Cal., 6 June, 1660.
This was a time when a mere technicality might place the most upright citizen at the mercy of an informer, so a pardon was dictated by ordinary prudence.
On this occasion, Buckingham did not prove over-hasty, as a week after his pardon had been signed and sealed, a warrant was issued against two of his gentlemen, on the grounds that they had betrayed Charles II's secrets to his enemies during the Commonwealth." 2
2 Guizot's "Life of Monk," App. p. 374.
Adapted from:
GEORGE VILLIERS, SECOND DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM -- 1628-1687 : A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE RESTORATION
By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. LONDON
1903
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192…
Col. Silus Titus MP https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Barbara Villiers, Lady Palmer
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
Chancellor Edward Hyde
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Monday 3 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... my Lord Abbot Montagu being not at Paris, my Lord hath a mind to have them stay a little longer before they go."
Pepys didn't say they were in London either. It's probably to early for the annual summer trip, made by the entire French court, to Fontainebleau. It's not important where Abbe Ralph went after all.
About Tuesday 19 May 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... we were shown the method of making this new money, from the beginning to the end, which is so pretty that I did take a note of every part of it and set them down by themselves for my remembrance hereafter."
Pepys was right. In May 2024 one of the rarest British coins in existence sold for £817,929 or $1,000,000 at an auction. It is now the most expensive silver British coin ever sold at auction.
The Petition Crown of Charles II was minted in 1663. Only 16 of these Petition Crowns exist.
The Petition Crown was struck by celebrated medallist and coin-designer Thomas Simon, who worked for the Royal Mint, in 1663. It was created by Simon to 'petition' Charles II to reinstate him as the sole chief engraver at the Royal Mint and also as a petition against the contemporary coins designed by the Flemish brothers John and Joseph Roettiers.
Using new mechanical coin machinery, Simon printed message around the edge of the coin asking the King to 'compare this his tryall piece with the Dutch', a dig at the Flemish engravers.
The coin features a striking portrait of Charles II so detailed that even a shadow of the veins on the King's neck can be made out.
Coin experts at the Classical Numismatic Group said: 'Our understanding is that there are 8 examples of the Petition Crown in museum collections and a further 8 in private hands.'
David Guest, director of Classical Numismatic Group said: 'Widely regarded as the most beautiful machine-made coin ever struck and undoubtedly the most important coin in the British series, we are delighted to have seen the 1663 Petition Crown realise a world record price.'
Highlights from an article which also has great sketches and photos of this rare coin at
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mon…
The article continues with information about 2 more rare English coins which were also auctioned:
The Oxford Crown was minted in 1644 and shows King Charles I in battle at Oxford during the English Civil War.
It is the only coin in the British series featuring a depiction of a city, and it sold for £382,798 or $486,000, making a record for any coin depicting Charles I.
Only 11 Oxford Crowns are known to be in existence, 8 of which are in museum collections.
Regal: The King Henry VIII Testoon is one of the most sought after coins aside from the Petition Crown. This coin was struck in 1544. It has always been popular with collectors because of the striking portrait of Henry VIII.
It represents a key moment in Henry VIII's reign, when lack of funds in the treasury led the Tudor government to introduce cheap metals into coins previously made of sterling silver, known as the Great Debasement.
About Wednesday 5 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Slingsby at this time did not live in the Navy complex, which is why he wants to take over Pepys' house along with the Davies' old house next door. Clearly he now has large quarters somewhere order to accommodate a bowling alley.
"... and it being very hot weather I took my flageolette and played upon the leads in the garden, where Sir W. Pen came out in his shirt into his leads, and there we staid talking and singing, ..."
Life is so much better now "Lady" Davies and her brood are in Ireland, and no one has blocked Pepys' access door to the leads, or will complain about the noise.
(Life before television!)
May the rain stay away, and the grain prices drop soon.
About Tuesday 4 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"4th crossing: thence to Lord Crew's to dinner. I'm guessing this is back on the north side of the river in either the City or in Westminster. The Theatre seems to have been there as well and must have had artificial lighting since it would have been getting dark by then. London in June - not really dark until about 9 pm?"
Glyn worked hard on this timeline, but forgot that dinner time was lunch time to us. So the theater outing was in the afternoon.
Lord Crew's house was in what we now think of as Lincoln's Inn, and Gibbon's Tennis Court Theater was a building off Vere Street and Clare Market, near Lincoln's Inn Fields. Just around the corner, so not a long walk.
I'm guessing lunch was at 1 p.m., and the theater at 3 p.m.-ish.
About Tuesday 4 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The Comptroller came this morning to get me to go see a house or two near our office, which he would take for himself or Mr. Turner, and then he would have me have Mr. Turner’s lodgings and himself mine and Mr. Davis’s. But the houses did not like us, and so that design at present is stopped."
We have established that Slingsby likes Pepys, and he can't be insensative to the inconvenience the Pepys family have had to endure recently getting their housing fixed up -- never mind the cost of that fine new staircase and improved kitchen, which I suspect Pepys paid for since he was so worried about money the month before it started.
My guess is that Slingsby is trying to find better housing for someone nearby, so he can up-grade the Pepys' quarters by having them move --either into the new house or the Turner's house, and by combining the Pepys house with the next-door Davies quarters, make a really nice house for himself. It's a case of unlocking some doors, and voila, a bigger residence.
Win-win. But Pepys needs to buy into the scheme. Which, so far, he has not done. (Must really like his new staircase?)