... in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, when the novel as an art form was taking off in Europe. Rather than claiming authorship, early novelists presented themselves as editors, transcribers, or rescuers of texts, whose existence required plausible real-world explanations. At a time when “fiction” carried only negative connotations of deception and mendacity, the contrivance of “real” primary sources reassured readers of a story’s legitimacy.
"Letters of a Portuguese Nun", published anonymously in Paris in 1669, established a template. The book carried a note affirming the “care and trouble” taken to obtain the 5 letters: eloquent expressions of “unquenchable ardor,” to quote Stendhal, from a cloistered Franciscan nun to her lost love, a French officer.
“This presentation,” writes the literary theorist Peter Brooks in his 2022 book, Seduced by Story: The Use and Abuse of Narrative, “managed to convince most readers over the next three centuries that the heartbreaking letters from the nun abandoned by her lover were authentic.”
The author was probably Gabriel de Guilleragues, a French diplomat. Although he took pains to remain invisible, the success of his literary fraud, which was translated into many languages, shaped the craft of novel-writing. To engage readers’ emotions, authors learned, it helped to offer documentary authenticity — or at least the convincing illusion of it.
During the nascency of the novel as we know it, the lines between fiction, journalism, and history were blurry. In the early 17th century, “novels” referred to the prototypical European news media of broadside ballads, which were composed, sung, and sold in rapid response to current events.
And as late as 1835, “novels” could still denote news or tidings. Book-length works of fiction were often called histories, both to project authority and because they were partly drawn from life.
Charles Sorel, a novelist, biographer, and the French royal historiographer, considered “purely fictional” books pointless, he wrote in 1671, since “that which is imaginary and contrived for pleasure has absolutely no force in discourse.”
On the other hand, sticking to the facts could be dull and therefore less lucrative. In writing about the lives of famous or notorious figures, many biographers fictionalized elements to create a more sensational — which is to say novelistic — story. Memoirists did the same.
The technique worked: in the late 1600s, the gossipy biographical tale was the most popular literary genre. The stage was set for Daniel Defoe to write what is, debatably, the first novel in the English language.
On its 1719 publication, Robinson Crusoe masqueraded as a travelogue, “a just History of Fact,” with an eponymous author. Crusoe’s account of being castaway on a tropical desert island, like the word novel itself, hovered at the semantic nexus of fiction, history, and reportage.
"I guess folks in the 1960s-70s drank a good deal midday as well, ..."
Some did, and if you were in the Executive Lunch crowd, it was expected, and reimbursed on your expense accounts. I was working in New York then, in the Marketing Dept. of a fabric house on the fringe of the Mad Men sector, and my boss limited his in-take at lunch to 2 martinis. He'd come back to the office raring to go. Never missed a beat. Different people have different tolerance levels, I think.
OOOooppps, I should have clarified that the above referred to William Penn Jr., sorry.
@@@
Both the Commons and the Lords (Sandwich in place) considered a letter from the Scottish Parliament which, to me, asked for English troops only to be sent there, and the mercenaries to be sent home.
But Charles II asked for 30,000l. to pay off and discharge the troops, which I didn't see them request. Everyone is being so polite it's hard to discern what's being said.
@@@
Lords Order for burning the Covenant. "The Lords in Parliament assembled, having considered of a Paper sent unto them from the House of Commons, for burning of an Instrument, or Writing called The Solemne League and Covenant, by the Hand of the Common Hangman, do order, That the Instrument, or Writing, called The Solemne League and Covenant, be burned, by the Hand of the Common Hangman, in The New Pallace at Westminster, in Cheapeside, and before The Old Exchange, on Wednesday the 22th of this Instant May; and that the said Covenant be forthwith taken off the Record in the House of Peers, and in all other Courts and Places where the same is recorded; and that all Copies thereof be taken down out of all Churches, Chapels, and other Public Places, in England and Wales, and the Town of Barwicke upon Tweede, where the same are set up."
ORDERED, That this Order be forthwith printed and published.
Message to H. C. to acquaint them with it. A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Doctor Childe and Doctor Wolsley:
To let them know what Order the Lords have made for the burning of the Covenant.
I have a theory about Adm. Penn's recent ill-humor:
In 1660, Penn arrived at the University of Oxford, where he was enrolled as a gentleman scholar with an assigned servant. The student body was a volatile mix of swashbuckling Cavaliers, aristocratic Anglicans, sober Puritans, and non-conforming Quakers. The new English government's discouragement of religious dissent gave the Cavaliers license to harass minority groups. Adm. Penn's position and social status made young Penn a Cavalier -- but his sympathies lay with the Quakers. To avoid conflict, Penn became a reclusive scholar.
Penn now developed his philosophy of life. He found he was not sympathetic with either his father's martial view or his mother's society-oriented sensibilities. "I had no relations that inclined to so solitary and spiritual way; I was a child alone. A child was given to musing, occasionally feeling the divine presence," he later said.
Penn returned home for the King's restoration ceremony and was a guest of honor alongside his father, who received a highly unusual royal salute for his services to The Crown.
Adm. Penn had great hopes for his son's career at Court. Back at Oxford, Penn considered a medical career and took dissecting classes. Rational thought began to spread into science, politics, and economics, which he took a liking to.
When theologian John Owen was fired from his deanery (March 1660), Penn and other open-minded students rallied to his side and attended seminars at the dean's house, where discussions covered the gamut of new thought. Penn learned to form ideas into theory, discuss theory through reasoned debate, and test the theories in the real world.
He also faced his first moral dilemma. After Owen was censured again after being fired, students were threatened with punishment for associating with him. Penn stood by the dean, thereby gaining a fine and reprimand from the university.
Adm. Penn, despairing of the charges, pulled his son out of Oxford, hoping to distract him from its heretical influences. [I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A DATE FOR THIS, BUT SUSPECT IT MIGHT BE AROUND NOW. - SDS]
This had no effect, and father and son struggled to understand each other. At Oxford, the administration imposed strict religious requirements including daily chapel attendance and required dress. Penn rebelled against enforced worship and was expelled.
His father, in a rage, attacked young Penn with a cane and forced him from their home.
Lady Penn made the peace, allowing her son to return home but she quickly concluded that both her social standing and her husband's career were threatened by their son's behavior. At 18, young Penn was sent to Paris to improve his manners, and expose him to another culture. ..."
@@@
It sound like Adm. Penn is going to be upset for a while.
Meanwhile at Court: On 23 June, 1661 the marriage treaty was signed (see it in LA CLEDE, Histoire de Portugal, ii. 711).
[According to several sources, including Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of 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…
Diary of Ralph Josselin (Private Collection) Sunday 19 May 1661 document 70013080
God good in many outward mercies, the wet and cold abated, weather(,) the King and Chancellor moderate in their speeches, speaking much of good nature the lord divert a storm, it was feared the act of indemnity would be unravelled etc. god merciful to us in the peace of the Sabbath. my soul bless him
@@@
So the Rev. Ralph thinks that Charles II and Chancellor Clarendon's recent concillatory words about religion and tolerance have persuaded God not to punish England for executing the Regicides. Mystical thinking again.
I'm sure the hundreds of Quakers currently in prison will be heartened to hear this!
The Baron de Batteville, or Vatteville, who is said to have concealed much observant quickness and an intriguing spirit under a plain, rough, soldierlike frankness of demeanour. He was very active in opposition to the proposed marriage of Charles II with the Infanta of Portugal. -- Wheatley, 1899.
"If my understanding is correct the masses were being celebrated in York House which then belonged to the second Duke of Buckingham."
York House may have belonged to George Villiers II, but he didn't live there -- it was rented either to the Crown for the use of the Spanish Ambassador, or to the Ambassador directly.
So where did he live? Maybe at Buckingham House (not to be confused with Buckingham Palace which was known in the 1660s as Arlington House). https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
In July, 1665, when the plague broke out in London, six companies of the "The First Regiment of Foot Guards" escorted Charles II to Salisbury, and in September, they escort him to Oxford.
Charles has managed to hang on to his private standing army!
In November 1664, a detachment of “Lord Wentworth's Regiment” AKA “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” embarked on board the “Royal Catherine” and “Triumph” at Woolwich. These ships returned to Portsmouth for the winter.
In January 1665, in preparation for the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665 – 1667), 600 men of “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” were apportioned for service at sea.
After the death of Thomas, Lord Wentworth on 28 February, 1665 “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” and Col. John Russell’s "King's Regiment of Guards" were amalgamated into a single regiment counting two battalions under the command of Col. Russell on 16 March, and later became known as "The First Regiment of Foot Guards".
On 13 June, 1665, part of "The First Regiment of Foot Guards" took part in the naval Battle of Lowestoft.
Our first "marines"? Yes, soldiers had fought on ships before, but I'm not aware of a regiment sending them before this time. I'm not a military historian and would love to be corrected.
That explains this information about Charles II's standing army which parliament fears so much:
In November 1664, a detachment of “Lord Wentworth's Regiment” of “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” embarked on board the “Royal Catherine” and “Triumph” at Woolwich. These ships returned to Portsmouth for the winter.
In January 1665, in preparation for the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665 – 1667), 600 men of “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” were apportioned for service at sea.
After the death of Thomas, Lord Wentworth on 28 February, 1665 “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” and Col. John Russell’s "King's Regiment of Guards" were amalgamated into a single regiment counting two battalions under the command of Col. Russell on 16 March, and later became known as "The First Regiment of Foot Guards".
Sandwich skipped the Lords again today -- this is an expensive habit since no excuse is recorded. Of course, he could have been waiting on His Majesty, discussing a trip to Portugal ...
Their discussion of an Order to prevent Riots and Disturbances in the Fens leads me to think there has been recent vandalism and resistance to this form of enclosure. Does anyone have local knowledge about this?
L&M footnote: "Faber Fortunae sive Doctrina de ambitu vitae" is one of the pieces collected in Bacon's "Sermones Fideles", published in Leyden in 1641, 1644 and 1649. The "Faber Fortunae" was one essay/sermon published with a collection of others.
L&M: Pepys liked to put some reading material in his pocket to read outside, and when he did so, it was often the "Faber Fortunae" that he read.
An essay (De Fortuna) in Sir Francis Bacon's "Sermones Fideles" in which the first paragraph contains Appius Claudius Caecus' quote:"Faber est suae quisque fortunae" -- Every man is the maker of his own fortune. It's a short piece, not enough in length or content to spend whole afternoon on. Perhaps Pepys was practising his Latin?
L&M: After the Restoration, Westminster Hall was renovated and the Courts of Chancery and King's Bench moved from the sides to the upper (southern) end of the hall.
And don't overlook this fact: The elderflowers are out! Many will soon be making elderflower cordial. You can be sure the folk in Stuart Britain would have used these remarkably sweet and fragrant flowers as well.
My reaction was that Pepys had, on some level, internalized Adm. Penn's recent lessons about not allowing yourself to be pushed around by the lower orders. Protocol had not been followed by the House of Lords.
The Houses of Parliament officially got the news today:
King's Marriage. We the Lords and Commons do humbly tender our Acknowledgments and Thanks unto Your Majesty, for that free and gracious Communication of Your Resolution to marry with the Infanta of Portugall; which we conceive to be of so high Concernment to this Nation, as that we receive it with great Joy and Satisfaction; and do, with all Earnestness, beg a Blessing upon, and a speedy Accomplishment of it. And we cannot but express our own unanimous Resolutions, (which we are confident will have a general Influence upon the Hearts of all Your Subjects) that we shall, upon all Occasions, be ready to assist Your Majesty, in the Pursuance of those Your Intentions, against all Oppositions whatsoever.
Resolved, upon the Question, That this House doth concur with the House of Lords, in this Vote and Resolution: And
...
A Message from the Lords, brought by Mr. Baron Atkins and Mr. Baron Turner;
King to be attended. Mr. Speaker, His Majesty hath appointed Four of the Clock this Afternoon, for Reception of both Houses, in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall.
Ordered, That the Speaker of this House, being accompanied by all the Members thereof, do, with the House of Peers, wait upon his Majesty, in the Banquetinghouse at Whitehall, at Four of the Clock this Afternoon, according to his Majesty's Appointment, to present the said Vote and Resolution of both Houses: And, in order thereunto, the House adjourned till Three of the Clock this Afternoon.
The Judges being called in, Mr. Speaker acquainted them, that he, being accompanied with the Members of this House, would wait upon his Majesty, with the House of Peers, in the Banqueting House at Whitehall, at Four of the Clock this Afternoon, according to his Majesty's Appointment.
@@@
Drinks all round; party time -- congratulations, Charles II. Bombay and Tangier are on their way!
The House of Lords discussed a couple of interesting things today:
Absent Lords to pay to the Poor. ORDERED, That the ancient Order of this House be renewed, for every Lord that is absent from attending this House, and maketh not his just Excuse, to pay Five Shillings to the Poor for every Day's Absence.
And yes, the Earl of Sandwich was in his chair, so no fine today! Nothing like this is proposed for the Commons -- they turn up,
@@@
Bill for reversing the E. of Strafford's Attainder. Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for reversing the Attainder of Thomas Earl of Strafford.
ORDERED, That the Consideration of this Bill be referred to these Lords following:
L. Treasurer. Dux Bucks. Dux Albemarle. Comes Lyncolne. Comes Dorsett. Comes Bridgwater. Comes North'ton. Comes Denbigh. Comes Bristoll. Comes Clare. Comes Bolingbrooke. Comes Berks. Comes Cleveland. Comes Petriburgh. Comes Chesterfeild. Comes Portland. Comes * Bathon. Viscount Fawconberge. Ds. Wharton. Ds. Pagett. Ds. Grey de Wark. Ds. Craven. Ds. Seymour. Ds. Lucas. Ds. Cornwallis. Their Lordships, or any Five; to meet To-morrow in the Afternoon, at Three of the Clock, in the Prince's Lodgings; and to adjourn from Time to Time.
And in the House of Lords -- the sounds like the Committee John Evelyn mentioned being appointed to:
Bill for mending Streets and Highways. Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for amending and keeping clean the Streets and Highways, in and about the City of Westm. and other Cities and Towns."
@@@
Happy to see the Earl of Sandwich in his chair today.
Comments
Third Reading
About Friday 11 November 1664
San Diego Sarah • Link
... in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, when the novel as an art form was taking off in Europe. Rather than claiming authorship, early novelists presented themselves as editors, transcribers, or rescuers of texts, whose existence required plausible real-world explanations. At a time when “fiction” carried only negative connotations of deception and mendacity, the contrivance of “real” primary sources reassured readers of a story’s legitimacy.
"Letters of a Portuguese Nun", published anonymously in Paris in 1669, established a template. The book carried a note affirming the “care and trouble” taken to obtain the 5 letters: eloquent expressions of “unquenchable ardor,” to quote Stendhal, from a cloistered Franciscan nun to her lost love, a French officer.
“This presentation,” writes the literary theorist Peter Brooks in his 2022 book, Seduced by Story: The Use and Abuse of Narrative, “managed to convince most readers over the next three centuries that the heartbreaking letters from the nun abandoned by her lover were authentic.”
The author was probably Gabriel de Guilleragues, a French diplomat. Although he took pains to remain invisible, the success of his literary fraud, which was translated into many languages, shaped the craft of novel-writing. To engage readers’ emotions, authors learned, it helped to offer documentary authenticity — or at least the convincing illusion of it.
During the nascency of the novel as we know it, the lines between fiction, journalism, and history were blurry. In the early 17th century, “novels” referred to the prototypical European news media of broadside ballads, which were composed, sung, and sold in rapid response to current events.
And as late as 1835, “novels” could still denote news or tidings. Book-length works of fiction were often called histories, both to project authority and because they were partly drawn from life.
Charles Sorel, a novelist, biographer, and the French royal historiographer, considered “purely fictional” books pointless, he wrote in 1671, since “that which is imaginary and contrived for pleasure has absolutely no force in discourse.”
On the other hand, sticking to the facts could be dull and therefore less lucrative. In writing about the lives of famous or notorious figures, many biographers fictionalized elements to create a more sensational — which is to say novelistic — story. Memoirists did the same.
The technique worked: in the late 1600s, the gossipy biographical tale was the most popular literary genre. The stage was set for Daniel Defoe to write what is, debatably, the first novel in the English language.
On its 1719 publication, Robinson Crusoe masqueraded as a travelogue, “a just History of Fact,” with an eponymous author. Crusoe’s account of being castaway on a tropical desert island, like the word novel itself, hovered at the semantic nexus of fiction, history, and reportage.
About Monday 20 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I guess folks in the 1960s-70s drank a good deal midday as well, ..."
Some did, and if you were in the Executive Lunch crowd, it was expected, and reimbursed on your expense accounts. I was working in New York then, in the Marketing Dept. of a fabric house on the fringe of the Mad Men sector, and my boss limited his in-take at lunch to 2 martinis. He'd come back to the office raring to go. Never missed a beat. Different people have different tolerance levels, I think.
About Tuesday 21 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... I went to my father’s, and there did give order about some clothes to be made ..."
See, Pepys does let his father do his tailoring.
Just the hat came from Mr. Holden’s.
About Monday 20 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
OOOooppps, I should have clarified that the above referred to William Penn Jr., sorry.
@@@
Both the Commons and the Lords (Sandwich in place) considered a letter from the Scottish Parliament which, to me, asked for English troops only to be sent there, and the mercenaries to be sent home.
But Charles II asked for 30,000l. to pay off and discharge the troops, which I didn't see them request. Everyone is being so polite it's hard to discern what's being said.
@@@
Lords Order for burning the Covenant.
"The Lords in Parliament assembled, having considered of a Paper sent unto them from the House of Commons, for burning of an Instrument, or Writing called The Solemne League and Covenant, by the Hand of the Common Hangman, do order, That the Instrument, or Writing, called The Solemne League and Covenant, be burned, by the Hand of the Common Hangman, in The New Pallace at Westminster, in Cheapeside, and before The Old Exchange, on Wednesday the 22th of this Instant May; and that the said Covenant be forthwith taken off the Record in the House of Peers, and in all other Courts and Places where the same is recorded; and that all Copies thereof be taken down out of all Churches, Chapels, and other Public Places, in England and Wales, and the Town of Barwicke upon Tweede, where the same are set up."
ORDERED, That this Order be forthwith printed and published.
Message to H. C. to acquaint them with it.
A Message was sent to the House of Commons, by Doctor Childe and Doctor Wolsley:
To let them know what Order the Lords have made for the burning of the Covenant.
@@@
House cleaning continues.
About Monday 20 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Pen seeming to be in an ugly humour"
I have a theory about Adm. Penn's recent ill-humor:
In 1660, Penn arrived at the University of Oxford, where he was enrolled as a gentleman scholar with an assigned servant. The student body was a volatile mix of swashbuckling Cavaliers, aristocratic Anglicans, sober Puritans, and non-conforming Quakers. The new English government's discouragement of religious dissent gave the Cavaliers license to harass minority groups. Adm. Penn's position and social status made young Penn a Cavalier -- but his sympathies lay with the Quakers. To avoid conflict, Penn became a reclusive scholar.
Penn now developed his philosophy of life. He found he was not sympathetic with either his father's martial view or his mother's society-oriented sensibilities. "I had no relations that inclined to so solitary and spiritual way; I was a child alone. A child was given to musing, occasionally feeling the divine presence," he later said.
Penn returned home for the King's restoration ceremony and was a guest of honor alongside his father, who received a highly unusual royal salute for his services to The Crown.
Adm. Penn had great hopes for his son's career at Court.
Back at Oxford, Penn considered a medical career and took dissecting classes. Rational thought began to spread into science, politics, and economics, which he took a liking to.
When theologian John Owen was fired from his deanery (March 1660), Penn and other open-minded students rallied to his side and attended seminars at the dean's house, where discussions covered the gamut of new thought. Penn learned to form ideas into theory, discuss theory through reasoned debate, and test the theories in the real world.
He also faced his first moral dilemma. After Owen was censured again after being fired, students were threatened with punishment for associating with him. Penn stood by the dean, thereby gaining a fine and reprimand from the university.
Adm. Penn, despairing of the charges, pulled his son out of Oxford, hoping to distract him from its heretical influences. [I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A DATE FOR THIS, BUT SUSPECT IT MIGHT BE AROUND NOW. - SDS]
This had no effect, and father and son struggled to understand each other. At Oxford, the administration imposed strict religious requirements including daily chapel attendance and required dress. Penn rebelled against enforced worship and was expelled.
His father, in a rage, attacked young Penn with a cane and forced him from their home.
Lady Penn made the peace, allowing her son to return home but she quickly concluded that both her social standing and her husband's career were threatened by their son's behavior. At 18, young Penn was sent to Paris to improve his manners, and expose him to another culture. ..."
@@@
It sound like Adm. Penn is going to be upset for a while.
Extracted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wil…
About Sunday 23 June 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile at Court:
On 23 June, 1661 the marriage treaty was signed (see it in LA CLEDE, Histoire de Portugal, ii. 711).
[According to several sources, including Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of 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 Sunday 19 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Diary of Ralph Josselin (Private Collection)
Sunday 19 May 1661
document 70013080
God good in many outward mercies, the wet and cold abated, weather(,) the King and Chancellor moderate in their speeches, speaking much of good nature the lord divert a storm, it was feared the act of indemnity would be unravelled etc.
god merciful to us in the peace of the Sabbath. my soul bless him
@@@
So the Rev. Ralph thinks that Charles II and Chancellor Clarendon's recent concillatory words about religion and tolerance have persuaded God not to punish England for executing the Regicides.
Mystical thinking again.
I'm sure the hundreds of Quakers currently in prison will be heartened to hear this!
About Carlos, Baron de Vatteville
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Baron de Batteville, or Vatteville, who is said to have concealed much observant quickness and an intriguing spirit under a plain, rough, soldierlike frankness of demeanour. He was very active in opposition to the proposed marriage of Charles II with the Infanta of Portugal. -- Wheatley, 1899.
About Sunday 19 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"If my understanding is correct the masses were being celebrated in York House which then belonged to the second Duke of Buckingham."
York House may have belonged to George Villiers II, but he didn't live there -- it was rented either to the Crown for the use of the Spanish Ambassador, or to the Ambassador directly.
So where did he live? Maybe at Buckingham House (not to be confused with Buckingham Palace which was known in the 1660s as Arlington House). https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Thursday 27 July 1665
San Diego Sarah • Link
The King and Queen set out for Salisbury ...
In July, 1665, when the plague broke out in London, six companies of the "The First Regiment of Foot Guards" escorted Charles II to Salisbury, and in September, they escort him to Oxford.
Charles has managed to hang on to his private standing army!
Information taken from
https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/ind…
and https://www.grengds.com/history
THE NAME OF THE REGIMENT IS IN QUOTES AS I’M NOT SURE WHEN THE NAME CHANGES OCCURRED.
About Battle of Lowestoft
San Diego Sarah • Link
In November 1664, a detachment of “Lord Wentworth's Regiment” AKA “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” embarked on board the “Royal Catherine” and “Triumph” at Woolwich. These ships returned to Portsmouth for the winter.
In January 1665, in preparation for the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665 – 1667), 600 men of “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” were apportioned for service at sea.
After the death of Thomas, Lord Wentworth on 28 February, 1665 “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” and Col. John Russell’s "King's Regiment of Guards" were amalgamated into a single regiment counting two battalions under the command of Col. Russell on 16 March, and later became known as "The First Regiment of Foot Guards".
On 13 June, 1665, part of "The First Regiment of Foot Guards" took part in the naval Battle of Lowestoft.
Information from
https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/ind…
and https://www.grengds.com/history
THE NAME OF THE REGIMENT IS IN QUOTES AS I’M NOT SURE WHEN THE NAME CHANGES OCCURRED.
Our first "marines"? Yes, soldiers had fought on ships before, but I'm not aware of a regiment sending them before this time. I'm not a military historian and would love to be corrected.
About Monday 21 November 1664
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... the warr is begun ..."
That explains this information about Charles II's standing army which parliament fears so much:
In November 1664, a detachment of “Lord Wentworth's Regiment” of “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” embarked on board the “Royal Catherine” and “Triumph” at Woolwich. These ships returned to Portsmouth for the winter.
In January 1665, in preparation for the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665 – 1667), 600 men of “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” were apportioned for service at sea.
After the death of Thomas, Lord Wentworth on 28 February, 1665 “His Majesty's Royal Regiment of Guards” and Col. John Russell’s "King's Regiment of Guards" were amalgamated into a single regiment counting two battalions under the command of Col. Russell on 16 March, and later became known as "The First Regiment of Foot Guards".
Information taken from
https://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/ind…
and https://www.grengds.com/history
THE NAME OF THE REGIMENT IS IN QUOTES AS I’M NOT SURE WHEN THE NAME CHANGES OCCURRED.
About Saturday 18 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sandwich skipped the Lords again today -- this is an expensive habit since no excuse is recorded. Of course, he could have been waiting on His Majesty, discussing a trip to Portugal ...
Their discussion of an Order to prevent Riots and Disturbances in the Fens leads me to think there has been recent vandalism and resistance to this form of enclosure. Does anyone have local knowledge about this?
About Bacon's 'Faber Fortunae sive Doctrina de ambitu vitae'
San Diego Sarah • Link
Faber Fortunae: book or essay?
L&M footnote: "Faber Fortunae sive Doctrina de ambitu vitae" is one of the pieces collected in Bacon's "Sermones Fideles", published in Leyden in 1641, 1644 and 1649.
The "Faber Fortunae" was one essay/sermon published with a collection of others.
L&M: Pepys liked to put some reading material in his pocket to read outside, and when he did so, it was often the "Faber Fortunae" that he read.
An essay (De Fortuna) in Sir Francis Bacon's "Sermones Fideles" in which the first paragraph contains Appius Claudius Caecus' quote:"Faber est suae quisque fortunae" -- Every man is the maker of his own fortune.
It's a short piece, not enough in length or content to spend whole afternoon on. Perhaps Pepys was practising his Latin?
About Westminster Hall
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: After the Restoration, Westminster Hall was renovated and the Courts of Chancery and King's Bench moved from the sides to the upper (southern) end of the hall.
About Sunday 12 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
And don't overlook this fact: The elderflowers are out! Many will soon be making elderflower cordial. You can be sure the folk in Stuart Britain would have used these remarkably sweet and fragrant flowers as well.
About Wednesday 15 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... like Hamlet, he forgot himself."
My reaction was that Pepys had, on some level, internalized Adm. Penn's recent lessons about not allowing yourself to be pushed around by the lower orders. Protocol had not been followed by the House of Lords.
About Monday 13 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Houses of Parliament officially got the news today:
King's Marriage.
We the Lords and Commons do humbly tender our Acknowledgments and Thanks unto Your Majesty, for that free and gracious Communication of Your Resolution to marry with the Infanta of Portugall; which we conceive to be of so high Concernment to this Nation, as that we receive it with great Joy and Satisfaction; and do, with all Earnestness, beg a Blessing upon, and a speedy Accomplishment of it. And we cannot but express our own unanimous Resolutions, (which we are confident will have a general Influence upon the Hearts of all Your Subjects) that we shall, upon all Occasions, be ready to assist Your Majesty, in the Pursuance of those Your Intentions, against all Oppositions whatsoever.
Resolved, upon the Question, That this House doth concur with the House of Lords, in this Vote and Resolution: And
...
A Message from the Lords, brought by Mr. Baron Atkins and Mr. Baron Turner;
King to be attended.
Mr. Speaker, His Majesty hath appointed Four of the Clock this Afternoon, for Reception of both Houses, in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall.
Ordered, That the Speaker of this House, being accompanied by all the Members thereof, do, with the House of Peers, wait upon his Majesty, in the Banquetinghouse at Whitehall, at Four of the Clock this Afternoon, according to his Majesty's Appointment, to present the said Vote and Resolution of both Houses: And, in order thereunto, the House adjourned till Three of the Clock this Afternoon.
The Judges being called in, Mr. Speaker acquainted them, that he, being accompanied with the Members of this House, would wait upon his Majesty, with the House of Peers, in the Banqueting House at Whitehall, at Four of the Clock this Afternoon, according to his Majesty's Appointment.
@@@
Drinks all round; party time -- congratulations, Charles II. Bombay and Tangier are on their way!
About Tuesday 14 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
The House of Lords discussed a couple of interesting things today:
Absent Lords to pay to the Poor.
ORDERED, That the ancient Order of this House be renewed, for every Lord that is absent from attending this House, and maketh not his just Excuse, to pay Five Shillings to the Poor for every Day's Absence.
And yes, the Earl of Sandwich was in his chair, so no fine today! Nothing like this is proposed for the Commons -- they turn up,
@@@
Bill for reversing the E. of Strafford's Attainder.
Hodie 2a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for reversing the Attainder of Thomas Earl of Strafford.
ORDERED, That the Consideration of this Bill be referred to these Lords following:
L. Treasurer.
Dux Bucks.
Dux Albemarle.
Comes Lyncolne.
Comes Dorsett.
Comes Bridgwater.
Comes North'ton.
Comes Denbigh.
Comes Bristoll.
Comes Clare.
Comes Bolingbrooke.
Comes Berks.
Comes Cleveland. Comes Petriburgh.
Comes Chesterfeild.
Comes Portland.
Comes * Bathon.
Viscount Fawconberge.
Ds. Wharton.
Ds. Pagett.
Ds. Grey de Wark.
Ds. Craven.
Ds. Seymour.
Ds. Lucas.
Ds. Cornwallis.
Their Lordships, or any Five; to meet To-morrow in the Afternoon, at Three of the Clock, in the Prince's Lodgings; and to adjourn from Time to Time.
I wonder where The Prince's Lodgings were.
About Friday 17 May 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
And in the House of Lords -- the sounds like the Committee John Evelyn mentioned being appointed to:
Bill for mending Streets and Highways.
Hodie 1a vice lecta est Billa, "An Act for amending and keeping clean the Streets and Highways, in and about the City of Westm. and other Cities and Towns."
@@@
Happy to see the Earl of Sandwich in his chair today.