"L&M note that page 47 of the book repeats the common story that Father Sarabras tossed his hat in the air to celebrate the fall of the head of Charles 1, elder son of the Queen Mother." Seems to me Charles I was husband of Henrietta Maria, the now-Queen Mother. But no one else is contesting this ... makes me nervous.
✹ Martin on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag Sam was resolved to get rid of Wayneman, and on Dec. 27 1662 said he would keep him just a week longer. He has said nothing further about this but apparently nothing is in the works. Out of his basic fondness for the boy he seems to have decided to try a little more tough love to see if he will reform. ✹ David A. Smith on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag "he being capable of making a brave man" Judge not by ourselves, but by the 17th-century attitudes toward physical punishment and moral instruction. Whatever one thinks of his tactics, Sam is motivated to improve the lad, and the lad stays (yes, I understand his choices may have been limited). ✹ TerryF on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag What SP did to Wayneman was called 'correction.' ✹ Pedro on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag “yet for all I am afeard it will make the boy never the better” Sam seems to imply that beating may be a trusted way, in those days, of improving the boy. I would love to know if Sam was subjected to the treatment in his youth. ✹ in Aqua Scripto on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag The Military Army/Navy had whippings,100 lashes etc. that were part of the punishment scheme until early 20th Century. ✹ TerryF on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag The status of the lash in the Navy “You say that I am ignoring the time-honored traditions of the Royal Navy? And what might they be? I shall tell you in three words. Rum, buggery, and the lash! Good morning sirs.” - Winston Churchill addressing the Sea Lords, 1912 http://www.clashofarms.com/feargo… ✹ Australian Susan on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag Much is made here of the terrible floggings administered to convicts in the early 19th century, but ... the colony was a military run establishment at the beginning, using military discipline and the floggings were the same as given to members of the Royal Navy at that time. Very brutal. ✹ Jesse on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag "did beat him till I was fain to take breath two or three times" I just finished reading about Uriah Levy http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/…... who's "wish [was] that he be remembered for his singular efforts to abolish the barbarous punishment of flogging in the U.S. Navy, which resulted in Congressional approval of an anti-flogging bill in 1850." http://www.amuseum.org/jahf/virto… . ✹ Paul Dyson on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag salt eel For an interesting, although long, study of the educational use of corporal punishment see the following link. Section 3.5 deals with England up to the 18th Century. http://www.zona-pellucida.com/wil… ✹ in Aqua Scripto on 26 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag For justice and punishment see Old Bailey online: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/
"Many British clergymen were vehemently opposed to forks; they believed that only human fingers were worthy of touching God's food. Often, when someone died after having used a fork, these clergymen preached that it was God's way of showing His displeasure over the use of such a shocking novelty."
And according to http://www.clanntartan.org/articl…: "The English were quite a bit behind the French in the use of forks, maybe because they were naturally suspicious of things from abroad. ... by the mid 1600's, eating with a fork had nearly become the norm for the upper classes and nobility of England. Then slowly the use trickled down to the craftsmen, merchants, and as styles and customs usually did, eventually reached the poor. Even as forks were gaining in popularity amongst those in the upper classes, many hosts, inns, and even the palaces did not provide table settings for dinner guests. By the mid-1600's cutlery centers such as Sheffield, England were not producing large numbers of forks along with knives and spoons. ... By the end of the 1600's, manufacturers were adding additional tines, usually a third to denote the old custom of eating with just the first three fingers, and sometimes a fourth as we generally see now."
So maybe auntie was old-fashioned or superstitious, and young Sam was eager to show off his modern, fashionable, upper-class ways.
"...my Book Manuscript, which pleases me very much..." If you mean the Diary, Sam, we're much pleased too.
Mr. Gertz, I agree about the diary, but suspect in this case Sam was talking about his labor of love from yesterday: "Up betimes and to my office, where first I ruled with red ink my English “Mare Clausum,” which, with the new orthodox title, makes it now very handsome." After all, he has been tasked with writing and presenting a report on flag protocol.
"With Sir G. Carteret and Sir John Minnes by coach to my Lord Treasurer’s, thinking to have spoken about getting money for paying the Yards; but we found him with some ladies at cards: and so, it being a bad time to speak, we parted, ..."
Different times, indeed. First, did they go to Lord Treasurer Thomas Wriothesley, 4th Earl of Southampton's office or home to ask for money to pay wages? Often it was almost the same place, as in Sam's case. The encyclopedia says the Treasurer's Office was on Broad Street, near the Tower (and the Mint), so that's why they went by coach. Second, you have the inconvenience of no established working times or days ... you did what you had to do to get the job done before someone higher up the pecking order became inconvenienced, or the sailors rioted. I'm surprised Charles II didn't want his money man at Whitehall, but perhaps he didn't want to be nagged?
"Charles II (the supreme leader of fashion, of course)" -- does anyone know when Louis XIV started sending out dolls dressed in mock-ups of his latest fashions? I suspect Louis wanted royalty in other countries to start using French brocades, lace and workmanship, so this was as much marketing as vanity. Anyone know?
Where the young scotchman reading, I slept all the While.....I seem to think Sam has a 'thing' for the Scots people, meaning, that he finds them boring.
Sunday 26 October 1662 (Lord’s day). Up and put on my new Scallop, and is very fine. To church, ... Then to church again, and heard a simple Scot preach most tediously.
"The country side be rather muddy and quiet at this time, so much for hearing the Chaffinch trill around that olde Elm tree bowl." And the bluebells are out ... spring is a magic time in England.
✹ TerryF on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag "Mr Shishe" is Jonas Shish, Asst. Shipwright, Deptford. His Diary name IS a bit deceiving , but he's clearly esteemed; more at the link (including a misspell or two).
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag There be a small problem for written orders from the Admiralty, they had to be translated into words for Shishe, as it is said he could not read or write, he built by eye.
✹ TerryF on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag Jonas Shish Methinks his surname is as Baltic in origin as are many a naval supply, perhaps a contraction of a surname, as are a host from elsewhere - in this case a Slavic one.
✹ Australian Susan on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag If Mr. Shish is from the Baltic (and not just his name), maybe he could not read or write in English, being Estonian/Latvian/Lithuaian. Do they use cyrillic script?
✹ TerryF on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag Estonians/Latvians/Lithuaians did and do not use Kyrillic until it was imposed on them in 1864 by the Russians, but Shish could be a derivation of Polish, and the Poles were included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. http://www.scantours.com/lithuani…
✹ gerry on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag Shish is surely a Turkish word as in kebab; it means skewer.
✹ JWB on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag Shish I suggest he carries the German word for dung, the English variant we all know; and being so named, would be a compelling reason to immigrate.
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Saturday 11 April 1663 ... After dinner in comes Captain Lambert of the Norwich, this day come from Tangier, whom I am glad to see. There came also with him Captain Wager, and afterwards in came Captain Allen to see me, of the Resolution.
What struck me was that the three captains all called on Sam at home, not in the office. Maybe they reported to the office first, found he was at lunch, and went over hoping to be fed? Or perhaps all the Captains expected to give Sam some money, and preferred not to do it in the office? Thank goodness it wasn't wash day!
✹ alanB. on 11 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag This visit to The Royal Oak tavern is the first mention of what is now one of the most popular public house names in Britain. Sam has yet to write down Charles II's account of his time in the Boscobel Oak so is this tavern named after the Royal Oak ship, or in tribute to the King's derring-do?
✹ Australian Susan on 12 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag The first Royal Oak ship was launched in 1664, so the pub name predates this, but as the account of Charles II in the oak tree had not yet been written, is this an instance of oral history being used in the pub name? Searching for details of this, I cannot find any mention of WHEN the name came into use, just its derivation. As far as I know, Charles is the only monarch to have an association with an oak tree. (Incidently, the Crown still pays a pension to direct descendents of the Penderel family who assisted Charles at the time of the oak tree episode - and you can still see the hiding place in Boscobell house where he hid). See The Escape of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester by Ollard (Sandwich's biographer). So, this name coming up now seems rather a puzzle. By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very shortlived - the Dutch sank her in 1667.
✹ Pedro on 22 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag “but as the account of Charles in the oak tree had not yet been written” The legend of the Royal Oak already appears to be common knowledge, as can be seen from the annotation for Leaden Hall Street. At the coronation of Charles II, the first triumphal arch erected in Leadenhall Street, near Lime Street, for the king to pass under on his way from the Tower to Westminster, is described in Ogilby’s contemporary account of the ceremony as having in its center a figure of Charles, royally attired, behind whom, ‘on a large table, is deciphered the Royal Oak bearing crowns and sceptres instead of acorns; amongst the leaves, in a label.
✹ Solomon Key on 7 Oct 2006 • Link • Flag Australian Susan: "By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very short-lived - the Dutch sank her in 1667." Wrong. The Royal Oak sunk by the Dutch was of the Royal Navy. The Royal Oak referenced by Pepys was of the East India Company and a merchant ship, sunk off the Scilly Isles in 1665: Name of Vessel: Royal Oak Tons: 400 Number of Voyages: 1 Period of Service (Seasons): 1663 Year Lost: 1665 Location: Isles of Scilly See Catalogue of East India Company Ships' Journals and Logs 1600-1834 National Archives: GB/NNAF/O94727 Record Reference: HCA 14/53
Royal institutions in Greenwich -- The Royal Dockyard
Eager to create a strong, modern English Navy, Henry VIII founded the Royal Dockyard at Woolwich in 1512. It's main purpose was the building of his flagship, the beautiful and heavily armed Henri Grace a Dieu - known by all as Great Harry. Henry presided at her launch.
The Great Harry was one of a series of splendid fighting ships built at the Royal Dockyard, but she was accidentally destroyed by fire at Woolwich in 1553. In 1559 Queen Elizabeth launched "a fine ship newly built, and called by her own name" at the dockyard.
Illustrious history Later, two of the greatest ships ever seen were constructed at Woolwich. They were the Royal Prince, completed in 1610 for James I, and the Sovereign of the Seas for his son Charles I in 1637. But the problems that would eventually close the Woolwich yard were already evident.
King James came to the launch of the Royal Prince with a great retinue of courtiers, but he returned to Greenwich "much grieved" when she became stuck in the dock gates. Much the same thing happened when Charles I, with his queen, came to the launch of the Sovereign of the Seas. The ship failed to enter the water, the tide being very poor.
" ... Cromwell’s “re-admission” of Jews in 1655, may have been for commercial purposes, “English Jews” being very useful for English trade. ..." I'm no expert on this, but according to http://www.britannia.com/history/… ... A small settlement of Jews from Spain and Portugal, fleeing the Inquisition, had reached London via Amsterdam during King Charles I's reign. Cromwell was to employ them in his secret service and, eventually, he made Abraham Israel Carvajal, their official leader, the first English Jew. In 1655, at a conference led by Rabbi Menasseh Bell Israel, it was finally agreed that English Law did not forbid the settlement of Jews.
And when Oliver Cromwell needed money to pay his large, well-equipped army in the 17th century, he turned to the wealthy Jews of Amsterdam for his financing. To get money to pay his men, he had to agree to let the Jews back into England. (The story is contained in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. The article states that Cromwell was "a humane man.")
In 1656, Oliver Cromwell spoke of the debt newly-Protestant England owed the Jews. In England, he said, the Jews would finally see Christianity in its true form and embrace it. Despite Cromwell’s prediction, there was no mass conversion of Jews to Christianity in England or in any other Protestant region.
NO SPOILER ALERT NEEDED: During the first half of the 17th century, millenarian ideas of the approach of the Messianic time were popular. They included ideas of the redemption of the Jews and their return to the land of Israel, with independent sovereignty. The apocalyptic year was identified by Christian authors as 1666 and millenarianism was widespread in England. This belief was so prevalent that Manasseh ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell and the Rump Parliament, appealed to it as a reason to readmit Jews into England, saying, "[T]he opinions of many Christians and mine do concur herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their native country is very near at hand."
So I don't think it was trade Cromwell wanted. He was trying to strike a bargain with God to spare the English when the 1666 Judgment Day came.
TerryF is correct in saying Sam is reminding Penn of Holmes' tirade about Mennes taking place on December 7, 1661 (see, writing a Diary can come in useful years later when one needs details about things!):
"... by water to the office, when I found Sir W. Pen had been alone all the night and was just rose, and so I to him, and with him I found Captain Holmes, who had wrote his case, and gives me a copy, as he hath many among his friends, and presented the same to the King and Council. Which I shall make use of in my attempt of writing something concerning the business of striking sail, which I am now about. But he do cry out against Sir John Minnes, as the veriest knave and rogue and coward in the world, which I was glad to hear, because he has given out bad words concerning my Lord, though I am sorry it is so. "
Up until now I had been assuming Sam's outrage was all about the meeting of Saturday, March 23, 1663: "... Captain Holmes being called in he began his high complaint against his Master Cooper, and would have him forthwith discharged. Which I opposed, not in his defence but for the justice of proceeding not to condemn a man unheard, upon [which] we fell from one word to another that we came to very high terms, such as troubled me, though all and the worst that I ever said was that that was insolently or ill mannerly spoken. When he told me that it was well it was here that I said it. But all the officers, Sir G. Carteret, Sir J. Minnes, Sir W. Batten, and Sir W. Penn cried shame of it. At last he parted and we resolved to bring the dispute between him and his Master to a trial next week, wherein I shall not at all concern myself in defence of anything that is unhandsome on the Master’s part nor willingly suffer him to have any wrong."
SPOILER ALERT: Capt. Holmes crossed many people throughout his career. It's a pity Sam wasn't able to nip it in the bud here ... he certainly seems to be trying.
Of course, there may have been more than one Susan, but on March 26, 1663 http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Pepys pays off a Susan so he has room for the new cookmaid. Perhaps she found local rooms and came back part-time as needed? By the sound of the most recent wash days that would be a good time for her to be around ...
The included Wikipedia biography says that the first cousin, 1st Earl of Bath did not ask to be made 3rd Duke of Albemarle, so William III awarded the title elsewhere.
However, I would rather trust http://bcw-project.org/biography/… which says that Sir John was a second cousin of General Monck, and: "Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath was disappointed when William III granted the earldom of Albemarle to a favorite in 1697, a title claimed by Bath through his connection to the Monck family. Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's final years were spent in a bitter legal dispute over the Albemarle estate, which almost bankrupted him. Two weeks after Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's death in August 1701, his son and heir Charles Grenville shot himself, apparently overwhelmed by the debts he had inherited. Father and son were buried on 22 September 1701 in the family vault at Kilkhampton."
Comments
Second Reading
About Saturday 25 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"L&M note that page 47 of the book repeats the common story that Father Sarabras tossed his hat in the air to celebrate the fall of the head of Charles 1, elder son of the Queen Mother." Seems to me Charles I was husband of Henrietta Maria, the now-Queen Mother. But no one else is contesting this ... makes me nervous.
About Salt eel
San Diego Sarah • Link
More on sale eels, floggings and "correction":
✹ Martin on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Sam was resolved to get rid of Wayneman, and on Dec. 27 1662 said he would keep him just a week longer. He has said nothing further about this but apparently nothing is in the works. Out of his basic fondness for the boy he seems to have decided to try a little more tough love to see if he will reform.
✹ David A. Smith on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
"he being capable of making a brave man" Judge not by ourselves, but by the 17th-century attitudes toward physical punishment and moral instruction. Whatever one thinks of his tactics, Sam is motivated to improve the lad, and the lad stays (yes, I understand his choices may have been limited).
✹ TerryF on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
What SP did to Wayneman was called 'correction.'
✹ Pedro on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
“yet for all I am afeard it will make the boy never the better” Sam seems to imply that beating may be a trusted way, in those days, of improving the boy. I would love to know if Sam was subjected to the treatment in his youth.
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
The Military Army/Navy had whippings,100 lashes etc. that were part of the punishment scheme until early 20th Century.
✹ TerryF on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
The status of the lash in the Navy “You say that I am ignoring the time-honored traditions of the Royal Navy? And what might they be? I shall tell you in three words. Rum, buggery, and the lash! Good morning sirs.” - Winston Churchill addressing the Sea Lords, 1912 http://www.clashofarms.com/feargo…
✹ Australian Susan on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Much is made here of the terrible floggings administered to convicts in the early 19th century, but ... the colony was a military run establishment at the beginning, using military discipline and the floggings were the same as given to members of the Royal Navy at that time. Very brutal.
✹ Jesse on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
"did beat him till I was fain to take breath two or three times" I just finished reading about Uriah Levy http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/…... who's "wish [was] that he be remembered for his singular efforts to abolish the barbarous punishment of flogging in the U.S. Navy, which resulted in Congressional approval of an anti-flogging bill in 1850." http://www.amuseum.org/jahf/virto… .
✹ Paul Dyson on 25 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
salt eel For an interesting, although long, study of the educational use of corporal punishment see the following link. Section 3.5 deals with England up to the 18th Century. http://www.zona-pellucida.com/wil…
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 26 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
For justice and punishment see Old Bailey online: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/
About Wednesday 22 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
Forks were a recent addition to tableware. According to http://www.askandyaboutclothes.co…
"Many British clergymen were vehemently opposed to forks; they believed that only human fingers were worthy of touching God's food. Often, when someone died after having used a fork, these clergymen preached that it was God's way of showing His displeasure over the use of such a shocking novelty."
And according to http://www.clanntartan.org/articl…:
"The English were quite a bit behind the French in the use of forks, maybe because they were naturally suspicious of things from abroad. ... by the mid 1600's, eating with a fork had nearly become the norm for the upper classes and nobility of England. Then slowly the use trickled down to the craftsmen, merchants, and as styles and customs usually did, eventually reached the poor. Even as forks were gaining in popularity amongst those in the upper classes, many hosts, inns, and even the palaces did not provide table settings for dinner guests. By the mid-1600's cutlery centers such as Sheffield, England were not producing large numbers of forks along with knives and spoons. ... By the end of the 1600's, manufacturers were adding additional tines, usually a third to denote the old custom of eating with just the first three fingers, and sometimes a fourth as we generally see now."
So maybe auntie was old-fashioned or superstitious, and young Sam was eager to show off his modern, fashionable, upper-class ways.
About Wednesday 22 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"...my Book Manuscript, which pleases me very much..." If you mean the Diary, Sam, we're much pleased too.
Mr. Gertz, I agree about the diary, but suspect in this case Sam was talking about his labor of love from yesterday: "Up betimes and to my office, where first I ruled with red ink my English “Mare Clausum,” which, with the new orthodox title, makes it now very handsome." After all, he has been tasked with writing and presenting a report on flag protocol.
About Monday 20 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"With Sir G. Carteret and Sir John Minnes by coach to my Lord Treasurer’s, thinking to have spoken about getting money for paying the Yards; but we found him with some ladies at cards: and so, it being a bad time to speak, we parted, ..."
Different times, indeed. First, did they go to Lord Treasurer Thomas Wriothesley, 4th Earl of Southampton's office or home to ask for money to pay wages? Often it was almost the same place, as in Sam's case. The encyclopedia says the Treasurer's Office was on Broad Street, near the Tower (and the Mint), so that's why they went by coach. Second, you have the inconvenience of no established working times or days ... you did what you had to do to get the job done before someone higher up the pecking order became inconvenienced, or the sailors rioted. I'm surprised Charles II didn't want his money man at Whitehall, but perhaps he didn't want to be nagged?
About Sunday 19 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Charles II (the supreme leader of fashion, of course)" -- does anyone know when Louis XIV started sending out dolls dressed in mock-ups of his latest fashions? I suspect Louis wanted royalty in other countries to start using French brocades, lace and workmanship, so this was as much marketing as vanity. Anyone know?
About Sunday 19 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
JudithS on 20 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Where the young scotchman reading, I slept all the While.....I seem to think Sam has a 'thing' for the Scots people, meaning, that he finds them boring.
In passing I found one example, "http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Sunday 26 October 1662 (Lord’s day).
Up and put on my new Scallop, and is very fine. To church, ... Then to church again, and heard a simple Scot preach most tediously.
About Thursday 16 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The country side be rather muddy and quiet at this time, so much for hearing the Chaffinch trill around that olde Elm tree bowl." And the bluebells are out ... spring is a magic time in England.
About Jonas Shish
San Diego Sarah • Link
✹ TerryF on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
"Mr Shishe" is Jonas Shish, Asst. Shipwright, Deptford. His Diary name IS a bit deceiving , but he's clearly esteemed; more at the link (including a misspell or two).
✹ in Aqua Scripto on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
There be a small problem for written orders from the Admiralty, they had to be translated into words for Shishe, as it is said he could not read or write, he built by eye.
✹ TerryF on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Jonas Shish Methinks his surname is as Baltic in origin as are many a naval supply, perhaps a contraction of a surname, as are a host from elsewhere - in this case a Slavic one.
✹ Australian Susan on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
If Mr. Shish is from the Baltic (and not just his name), maybe he could not read or write in English, being Estonian/Latvian/Lithuaian. Do they use cyrillic script?
✹ TerryF on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Estonians/Latvians/Lithuaians did and do not use Kyrillic until it was imposed on them in 1864 by the Russians, but Shish could be a derivation of Polish, and the Poles were included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. http://www.scantours.com/lithuani…
✹ gerry on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Shish is surely a Turkish word as in kebab; it means skewer.
✹ JWB on 16 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
Shish I suggest he carries the German word for dung, the English variant we all know; and being so named, would be a compelling reason to immigrate.
About Norwich
San Diego Sarah • Link
http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
Saturday 11 April 1663
... After dinner in comes Captain Lambert of the Norwich, this day come from Tangier, whom I am glad to see. There came also with him Captain Wager, and afterwards in came Captain Allen to see me, of the Resolution.
About Saturday 11 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
What struck me was that the three captains all called on Sam at home, not in the office. Maybe they reported to the office first, found he was at lunch, and went over hoping to be fed? Or perhaps all the Captains expected to give Sam some money, and preferred not to do it in the office? Thank goodness it wasn't wash day!
About Royal Oak (Lombard St)
San Diego Sarah • Link
✹ alanB. on 11 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
This visit to The Royal Oak tavern is the first mention of what is now one of the most popular public house names in Britain. Sam has yet to write down Charles II's account of his time in the Boscobel Oak so is this tavern named after the Royal Oak ship, or in tribute to the King's derring-do?
✹ Australian Susan on 12 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
The first Royal Oak ship was launched in 1664, so the pub name predates this, but as the account of Charles II in the oak tree had not yet been written, is this an instance of oral history being used in the pub name? Searching for details of this, I cannot find any mention of WHEN the name came into use, just its derivation. As far as I know, Charles is the only monarch to have an association with an oak tree. (Incidently, the Crown still pays a pension to direct descendents of the Penderel family who assisted Charles at the time of the oak tree episode - and you can still see the hiding place in Boscobell house where he hid). See The Escape of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester by Ollard (Sandwich's biographer). So, this name coming up now seems rather a puzzle.
By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very shortlived - the Dutch sank her in 1667.
✹ Pedro on 22 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
“but as the account of Charles in the oak tree had not yet been written”
The legend of the Royal Oak already appears to be common knowledge, as can be seen from the annotation for Leaden Hall Street. At the coronation of Charles II, the first triumphal arch erected in Leadenhall Street, near Lime Street, for the king to pass under on his way from the Tower to Westminster, is described in Ogilby’s contemporary account of the ceremony as having in its center a figure of Charles, royally attired, behind whom, ‘on a large table, is deciphered the Royal Oak bearing crowns and sceptres instead of acorns; amongst the leaves, in a label.
✹ Solomon Key on 7 Oct 2006 • Link • Flag
Australian Susan: "By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very short-lived - the Dutch sank her in 1667."
Wrong. The Royal Oak sunk by the Dutch was of the Royal Navy. The Royal Oak referenced by Pepys was of the East India Company and a merchant ship, sunk off the Scilly Isles in 1665:
Name of Vessel: Royal Oak
Tons: 400
Number of Voyages: 1
Period of Service (Seasons): 1663
Year Lost: 1665
Location: Isles of Scilly
See Catalogue of East India Company Ships' Journals and Logs 1600-1834
National Archives: GB/NNAF/O94727
Record Reference: HCA 14/53
About Greenwich
San Diego Sarah • Link
Royal institutions in Greenwich -- The Royal Dockyard
Eager to create a strong, modern English Navy, Henry VIII founded the Royal Dockyard at Woolwich in 1512. It's main purpose was the building of his flagship, the beautiful and heavily armed Henri Grace a Dieu - known by all as Great Harry. Henry presided at her launch.
The Great Harry was one of a series of splendid fighting ships built at the Royal Dockyard, but she was accidentally destroyed by fire at Woolwich in 1553. In 1559 Queen Elizabeth launched "a fine ship newly built, and called by her own name" at the dockyard.
Illustrious history
Later, two of the greatest ships ever seen were constructed at Woolwich. They were the Royal Prince, completed in 1610 for James I, and the Sovereign of the Seas for his son Charles I in 1637. But the problems that would eventually close the Woolwich yard were already evident.
King James came to the launch of the Royal Prince with a great retinue of courtiers, but he returned to Greenwich "much grieved" when she became stuck in the dock gates. Much the same thing happened when Charles I, with his queen, came to the launch of the Sovereign of the Seas. The ship failed to enter the water, the tide being very poor.
Nonetheless, Woolwich continued to produce fine ships for the Royal Navy for another 250 years.
-- http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/…
About Wednesday 8 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
" ... Cromwell’s “re-admission” of Jews in 1655, may have been for commercial purposes, “English Jews” being very useful for English trade. ..." I'm no expert on this, but according to http://www.britannia.com/history/…
... A small settlement of Jews from Spain and Portugal, fleeing the Inquisition, had reached London via Amsterdam during King Charles I's reign. Cromwell was to employ them in his secret service and, eventually, he made Abraham Israel Carvajal, their official leader, the first English Jew. In 1655, at a conference led by Rabbi Menasseh Bell Israel, it was finally agreed that English Law did not forbid the settlement of Jews.
And when Oliver Cromwell needed money to pay his large, well-equipped army in the 17th century, he turned to the wealthy Jews of Amsterdam for his financing. To get money to pay his men, he had to agree to let the Jews back into England. (The story is contained in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. The article states that Cromwell was "a humane man.")
In 1656, Oliver Cromwell spoke of the debt newly-Protestant England owed the Jews. In England, he said, the Jews would finally see Christianity in its true form and embrace it. Despite Cromwell’s prediction, there was no mass conversion of Jews to Christianity in England or in any other Protestant region.
NO SPOILER ALERT NEEDED: During the first half of the 17th century, millenarian ideas of the approach of the Messianic time were popular. They included ideas of the redemption of the Jews and their return to the land of Israel, with independent sovereignty. The apocalyptic year was identified by Christian authors as 1666 and millenarianism was widespread in England. This belief was so prevalent that Manasseh ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell and the Rump Parliament, appealed to it as a reason to readmit Jews into England, saying, "[T]he opinions of many Christians and mine do concur herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their native country is very near at hand."
So I don't think it was trade Cromwell wanted. He was trying to strike a bargain with God to spare the English when the 1666 Judgment Day came.
About Thursday 2 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
TerryF is correct in saying Sam is reminding Penn of Holmes' tirade about Mennes taking place on December 7, 1661 (see, writing a Diary can come in useful years later when one needs details about things!):
"... by water to the office, when I found Sir W. Pen had been alone all the night and was just rose, and so I to him, and with him I found Captain Holmes, who had wrote his case, and gives me a copy, as he hath many among his friends, and presented the same to the King and Council. Which I shall make use of in my attempt of writing something concerning the business of striking sail, which I am now about. But he do cry out against Sir John Minnes, as the veriest knave and rogue and coward in the world, which I was glad to hear, because he has given out bad words concerning my Lord, though I am sorry it is so. "
Up until now I had been assuming Sam's outrage was all about the meeting of Saturday, March 23, 1663: "... Captain Holmes being called in he began his high complaint against his Master Cooper, and would have him forthwith discharged. Which I opposed, not in his defence but for the justice of proceeding not to condemn a man unheard, upon [which] we fell from one word to another that we came to very high terms, such as troubled me, though all and the worst that I ever said was that that was insolently or ill mannerly spoken. When he told me that it was well it was here that I said it. But all the officers, Sir G. Carteret, Sir J. Minnes, Sir W. Batten, and Sir W. Penn cried shame of it. At last he parted and we resolved to bring the dispute between him and his Master to a trial next week, wherein I shall not at all concern myself in defence of anything that is unhandsome on the Master’s part nor willingly suffer him to have any wrong."
SPOILER ALERT: Capt. Holmes crossed many people throughout his career. It's a pity Sam wasn't able to nip it in the bud here ... he certainly seems to be trying.
About Wednesday 1 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
I'm guessing Ashwell was ready to move ... where? ... so Pepys Snr. could have the new bedroom? Seems to me Pepys is still a bedroom short.
About Jane Ferrer
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sam and Elizabeth attended the christening of Robert and Jane Ferrers' baby on March 22, 1663 http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
About Friday 27 March 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
I wonder why Sam was looking at Spanish books. Portuguese, Dutch or French I can see ... but Spanish?
About Susan (a, Pepys' cookmaid)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Of course, there may have been more than one Susan, but on March 26, 1663 http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Pepys pays off a Susan so he has room for the new cookmaid. Perhaps she found local rooms and came back part-time as needed? By the sound of the most recent wash days that would be a good time for her to be around ...
About George Monck (Duke of Albemarle)
San Diego Sarah • Link
The included Wikipedia biography says that the first cousin, 1st Earl of Bath did not ask to be made 3rd Duke of Albemarle, so William III awarded the title elsewhere.
However, I would rather trust http://bcw-project.org/biography/… which says that Sir John was a second cousin of General Monck, and:
"Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath was disappointed when William III granted the earldom of Albemarle to a favorite in 1697, a title claimed by Bath through his connection to the Monck family. Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's final years were spent in a bitter legal dispute over the Albemarle estate, which almost bankrupted him. Two weeks after Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's death in August 1701, his son and heir Charles Grenville shot himself, apparently overwhelmed by the debts he had inherited. Father and son were buried on 22 September 1701 in the family vault at Kilkhampton."