According to Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate. Written December 10/01, 1660:
"It being desirable for many reasons that the king should see the present parliament dissolved, and considering that if the queen left for France on Monday as proposed, and he accompanied her and had to remain long away from London, as might easily happen at the present season, if the wind was contrary, especially as the queen decided to cross from Portsmouth to Havre de Grace, he might not be present at the dissolution when his presence is most necessary in order to sign the bills passed, he has persuaded his mother to delay her departure. To this she readily consented, especially as she does not wish to be travelling at Christmas time, now at hand. So her departure is postponed; they do not say until when, but it must be until after the dissolution, and some would even put it until after the king's coronation."
Lots more gossip at Citation: BHO Chicago MLA 'Venice: December 1660', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 32, 1659-1661, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1931), pp. 220-233. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Travel in 17th Century England in the winter was a muddy, cold, wet, miserable thing to do. The gales in the Channel are dangerous and can last for days. Altogether this trip was a dangerous undertaking. I suspect Queen Mother Henrietta Maria (1) wanted to finalize the Minette/Philipe union, and (2) not be present when Anne Hyde moved into St. James's Palace with her son, and be recognized as the Duchess of York.
But Charles II rightly didn't want to be catching his death on the road to or at Portsmouth while those Presbyterian MPs were pulling last minute fast ones before dissolving Parliament.
So they settle on having a Happy Family Christmas as a good cover story, while most English people scratch their heads and say "what's Christmas?"
According to several sources, Slingsby Bethel (1619 - 1697)'s mother's maiden name was Slingsby -- so he could have been a cousin or in-law of the Controller. He was a Parliamentarian, but more radical than our Col. Robert Slingsby:
"... As MP for Knaresborough in 1659, he opposed Richard Cromwell’s attempt to succeed his father as Protector. He also opposed Gen. Monck and the Restoration (1660). He moved to Rotterdam, communicated with the English republican exiles around Edmund Ludlow in Switzerland, and plotted an uprising in England with Algernon Sidney and others. The revolutionaries were divided, a division deepened by Bethel’s attack on Cromwell in his first major pamphlet, The World’s Mistake in Oliver Cromwell (1668). His second was The Present Interest of England stated (1671).
When revolutionary tactics changed in the mid 1670s, Bethel returned to England. He published his third main work, The Interest of the Princes and States of Europe (1680).
Sidney helped him become elected as one of two Sheriffs of London (1680). To be eligible for office, Bethel had to take the Anglican sacrament. His willingness to do so, coupled with the partisan and frugal manner in which he conducted himself in office, drew criticism from royalists and moderate Whigs.
He was satirized as ‘Shimei’ in John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (1681). Gilbert Burnet noted he ‘was a man of knowledge, and had writ a very judicious book of the interests of Princes: But as he was a known republican in principle, so he was a sullen and wilful man; and turned from the ordinary way of a Sheriff’s living into the extream of sordidness’.
Bethel’s ‘sordidness’ included packing juries, brutality, suborning witnesses, frugality, and assault and battery. He defended himself in The Vindication of Slingsby Bethel Esq. (1681).
In the royalist reaction of 1682, he fled to Hamburg and the United Providences. In his absence, he was convicted of riot and assault and fined heavily in 1683.
Abroad, Bethel returned to revolutionary plotting with other exiled Whigs, including Locke. He was excluded from those pardoned by James II in 1687, and returned to England only after the 1688 Revolution.
In 1689, the House of Lords reversed his conviction.
His last public office seems to have been on a committee preparing regulations for the Bank of England.
Bethel was one of the earliest English exponents of continental European interest theory. Drawing on Machiavelli, Harrington and Pieter de la Court, Bethel analyzed politics in terms of hierarchies of domestic and foreign ‘interests’. England’s over-riding domestic interest was trade. From this he argued for republicanism and toleration. England’s overriding foreign interest was maintaining the balance of power. From this he argued for a Dutch alliance against France.
Anyone who's faithfully following the Diary may remember that last year I posted a rather interesting item about some very memorable Puritans being rounded and imprisoned today -- in the wrong year. [DUH!] Rather than repost, here is the link https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
Sorry, David G., I know nothing of Slingsby being a poet worthy of reprinting. Maybe a manuscript in a library somewhere ...? But probably not. Good luck hunting -- you never know what the Google librarian will turn up.
Order to prevent Robberies and Disorders in London, &c. The House being informed of the great Disorder in London and Westm. and the Countries adjacent, and of the great Robberies and Murders as are daily committed: It is ORDERED, That the Lord Chancellor do acquaint the Lord Chief Justice of England with this Information; and desire him to send to the Lord Mayor of London, and the Justices in the several Countries adjacent, to take special Order, by keeping strict Watches, and other lawful Means, to prevent these Disorders.
But the Commons appear to be unaware of any unusual activities.
Here's the citation for the aboveL Citation: BHO Chicago MLA 'Venice: December 1660', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 32, 1659-1661, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1931), pp. 220-233. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/… [accessed 26 November 2023].
The Lower House had prepared a declaration to cause all the laws against the Roman Catholics of the time of Queen Elizabeth to be put in force, but being sent to the Lords it has lain dormant, and is not expected to pass. It seems the king does not want anything to be done against them, as he found them faithful and true during his misfortunes, and thinks it no more than a poor return to leave them undisturbed in their opinions and to shut his eyes to the private exercise of their faith. Besides this the king shows such a propensity for Catholicism there is cause for hoping that with new influences Heaven will bless this nation and direct it into the true way, after so many thousands of sheep have wandered, in danger of falling into the jaws of a wolf which aspires to devour them without sparing one.
The marriage question between Princess Henrietta and the duke of Anjou seems to have progressed so favourably no doubt appears to remain about its conclusion. The queen and princess are to leave here on Monday the 13th for France and Lord Jermin will go to Paris with her Majesty with full powers from the king to settle everything for these nuptials for which the duke and princess are both eager. [HENRY JERMYN, EARL OF ST. ALBANS https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… ]
The king having appointed commissioners to treat with the Catholic ambassador, he began his conferences with them yesterday, to treat about Dunkirk and Jamaica, wherein he will certainly meet with many difficulties. He has the king's promise that they shall not be incorporated with the crown, as parliament intended, but can obtain nothing substantial for their surrender. [The Catholic ambassador is Spanish Ambassador Carlos, Baron de Watteville aka Bateville aka Vatteville; "the king" is Charles, and the crown represents Charles' English holdings as governed by Parliament -- keeping them apart simplifies negotiations. Batteville's name is spelled Vatteville in our Encyclopedia: https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… ]
From recent conversation with his Excellency I gather that the Spaniards would be satisfied with the restitution of Jamaica, which costs England so dear and brings them no advantage. For the time being they would say nothing about Dunkirk, but in the event of objections Batteville foretells not an open rupture, but a suspension of trade which would ensue in any case, with untold damage to this mart; so if they do not want to break the peace with the Catholic they must needs satisfy him in this particular. Time will show and I will keep the Senate informed. [I.E. the Spanish want Jamaica back -- Adm. Penn MP won't like that -- and have been offered Dunkirk as compensation.)
This also bears upon what the Spanish ambassador said to the Proveditore Cornaro, mentioned in the state missives of the 23rd October. London, the 3rd December, 1660. [Italian.]
242. Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate. Parliament continues to sit without intermission, watching carefully over internal affairs to consolidate the repose at present enjoyed by the people and to render durable the great gift which Providence has conferred on this nation after a long course of vexation and misery.
They keep their attention fixed on getting the money to pay off the troops, while aiming at burdening the people in the way they will feel it least, so that they may not have reason to complain, past scars being sensitive yet, although it is supposed that at present they will submit readily to any decree, in the assurance that all that is being done is to relieve them of heavier burdens, which used to be regular. They do not lose sight of the establishment of the militia of the respective counties; many are already on foot and others are directed not to delay the execution.
The House of Peers has devoted all its time to restoring to certain lords the property (beni) lost by the usurpation of the rebels. Yesterday it voted the restoration to the family of the earl of Arundel, now at Padua, of the dukedom of Norfolk, taken away under Queen Elizabeth, and now it only wants the concurrence of the Commons and the king's assent, which are matters of course. [SEE https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/… ]
Seeing that in the Lower House there are many members of unquiet spirit owing to differences over religion, who though unable to prevent decisions tending to quiet and the welfare of the nation, do their best to delay them, the king has decided to dissolve parliament and summon a new one. He therefore sent word the day before yesterday that they shall issue the writs, which he has ready, with speed, because on the 20th inst., old style, he means to dissolve the present parliament, and that the members shall all go home. Meanwhile they are despatching the things begun in the short time left.
His Majesty's coronation is fixed for the 6/16 February, after which a new parliament will be summoned and as care will be taken to nominate persons entirely devoted to the king they will take many decisions which are required to clinch the royal authority, which cannot yet be called total and absolute, in the person of the present king who is compelled to depend in large part on the Presbyterians and not to offend them, seeing that they restored him to his throne, but by dissimulation and blandishment he will strengthen himself and consolidate for the future.
Norfolke Dukedom. A Message from the Lords, by Mr. Glascocke and * * Masters of Chancery;
Mr. Speaker, The Lords have commanded us to present this Bill to this House; being for Restitution of Thomas Earl of Arundell, Surrey, and Norfolke, to the Dignity and Title of Duke of Norfolke: Wherein they desire the Concurrence of this House.
A Bill for Restitution of Thomas Earl of Arundell, Surry, and Norfolke, to the Dignity and Title of Duke of Norfolke, was this Day read the First time.
Resolved, That this Bill be read the Second time on Tuesday Morning next.
###
I wonder why this is so important now. Thomas Howard, 21st Earl of Arundel was Roman Catholic, crazy and kept in obscurity in Padua, Italy. Yes, his younger brother, the Hon. Henry, seems to have been a popular (but Catholic) heir who needed to settle their father's accounts and was caretaking many antiquities which he didn't really know what to do with and didn't have the authority to sell. But restoring the crazy one as Duke of Norfolk didn't solve any of that. The Duke of Norfolk traditionally has the job of organizing the coronation -- Charles II seems to be doing that quite successfully by himself, and the crazy one would be in no condition to help anyways. But the Hon. Henry Howard was a lucky man in other ways -- https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
As a dog lover, Charles II would want Susanna (above) to know that Cavalier Spaniels and King Charles Spaniels are two different breeds. Cavalier are much bigger. King Charles Spaniels are little and cute and lots of fun, but not known for intelligence, so it's not surprising they would get lost in a place as big as Whitehall.
Pictures of modern King Charles spaniels -- the name of this regal little dog, partnered with its distinctive domed head, short square muzzle and long low-set, feathered ears lends the King Charles spaniel (not to be confused with the Cavalier, a completely separate breed) an air of refinement. A quick glance at that inscrutable expression is enough to acknowledge that this is a spaniel of distinguished character and certainly not one to be trifled with — woe betide the owner who forgets exactly who is in charge. ... The breed can trace its royal heritage back to the 16th century, when the toy spaniel was a favourite of the ladies at Court — in 1570, Dr Caius referred to it as the ‘spaniel gentle’ or ‘comforter’ — but it was during the reigns of Charles I and Charles II that the breed rose to prominence. It earned its name from Charles II, rarely seen without a pack of them following him around the royal residences. The shorter muzzle came into fashion through the 18th century, so the appearance of the toy spaniel began to alter — it is believed a bulldog or pug was introduced somewhere along the way and, by 1859, ...
More from in Aqua Scripto on 12 Jan 2006: 'Tis why White hall has a matted Gallery [used the wormwood] as noted by Pedro "While wormwoode hath seede, get a bundle or twayne, to save against March, to make flea to refraine."
When the House of Lords was reestablished in 1660 the traditional roles for running the Chamber were reestablished:
From the 17th to 19th centuries, the posts of Housekeeper and Deputy Housekeeper to the House of Commons and the House of Lords were frequently held by women. While most holders were married to senior male officers (who stood to benefit financially) these roles often passed down through the female line within parliamentary families, and appointments could be hotly contested between rival claimants and their male relatives.
The post of House of Lords Housekeeper (known formally as the Keeper of the Palace of Westminste) can be traced back to at least 1509. Appointed by the Lord Chamberlain on behalf of the Crown, it was a grand and highly desirable office. From 1573 through to 1787 this post was the preserve of a single parliamentary family and generally passed down the female line. There was a clear presumption that, like the Housekeepers of the other royal palaces, its incumbents should be women. The most prominent of these was the Necessary Woman to the House of Lords.
A necessary woman was a woman who ‘did the necessary’ –- providing close personal cleaning services, such as emptying chamber pots and stool pans, or managing or supervising others doing so. The post of Necessary Woman to the House of Lords emerged in the 17th century, entirely separately from the post of Housekeeper. It was a role appointed by the Black Rod, alongside Doorkeepers and Firelighters.
Servants with the title ‘necessary woman’ appear in various government service staff lists from the late 17th century.
Most famous perhaps was Bridget Holmes, described by the Royal Collections Trust as ‘Necessary Woman’ to James II, who was immortalized and presented with dignity in a 7-ft-high oil painting by James Riley in 1686. Bridget Holmes was buried in Westminster Abbey.
To begin with the House of Lords forgot about this necessary role in a medieval building with no Houses of Office. They quickly discovered that the ‘necessary men’ would not do the necessary work for the House of Lords, so a Deputy Necessary Woman post was created to really ‘do the business’ and … Perhaps most interesting of all, the post can be seen to have originated as a hereditary post which went down the female line of one family for 3 generations.
The earliest postholder was Margery Hatrum or Hathrum. The date of her appointment is unknown but must have been before her death in 1678 – perhaps soon after the re-establishment of the House of Lords following the Restoration in 1660.
Much as I like the idea that Pepys had a hand in giving Thomas Pepys Snr. such a safe haven for his retirement, I think he would have told us about what lengths he had had to go to in such awful weather, etc. and whether or not he thought "a cupp of lignum vitae for a token" a sufficient token. If he had to pay off someone for the favor, which he undoubtedly would have had to do, I think the cup would be of something more valuable than lignum vitae.
I suspect Thomas Jr. is thrilled a member of the family is taking an interest in woodworking, and encouraging Pepys to try his hand to see if he has any talent.
A map of the rivers of London -- now mostly used as sewers, sadly -- and how they feed into the Thames, plus thoughts on how they got their names: https://londonist.com/2014/08/how…
Scott showed just enough war footage to emphaize the heroism of every-day soldiers involved in hand-to-hand combat, and those brave horses that galloped towards the guns. Charles II was 14 when King Charles judged him old enough to be present on the battlefield at Edgehill -- hidden in a hedge which he had to leave in a hurry as the battle came his way. He must have had PTSD -- they all must have had it. (OK, not Napoleon, who seems to have looked on warfare as a strategy skill set which is doubtly is -- chess on steroids -- if you can ignore the bloodshed involved.) That partly accounts for the gambling, risky behavior, self-medication, etc.
Being exposed to that level of violence at a young age changes our brains, so we should not be surprised by the suicides and bad behavior -- irrational as it occasionally appears to have been: "The negative long-term effects of childhood trauma or adverse childhood experiences on physical and mental health are well established in the literature. Childhood adversity, commonly experienced as child abuse, neglect, and/or household dysfunction has been linked to increased risk for various long-term chronic illnesses. It increases the risk for depression 4.5-fold and suicide attempts 12.2-fold. Childhood adversity may increase impulsive behaviors, reward orientation, and unhealthy lifestyle choices. Epigenetic changes, posttranslational modification, and an unregulated inflammatory response may accompany the behavioral and cognitive response to childhood trauma. Exposure to war or terrorism increases a child’s risk for both medical and psychiatric disorders in adult life." https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/…
After seeing Ridley Scott's "Napoleon", I was struck by how English blood lust was satisfied by just the death of King Charles, and the Puritans did not turn to the wholesale execution of elites -- 200 years later the French mob required roughly 20,000 executions before the strongman subdued them. Later I found those executions came from all classes, much to my surprise: https://theconversation.com/the-f…
I was also surprised that Scott didn't say what Napoleon did to make the French people love him so. From school I know he stimulated the economy, made society more equitable, started schools and hospitals, reformed the legal code, and offered a fortune for developing a way of preserving food (we owe canned food to him)
Researching further I found: "It is striking that for every year between 1806 and 1813 ... the free [THEATER] performance [ON NAPOLEON'S BIRTHDAY] was always a tragedy bar one exception in 1811. Tragedy was central to Napoleon’s image, allowing him to draw parallels between himself and Louis XIV, the patron for many of these tragedies, and the empires of antiquity. "Theatre was an important propaganda tool for Napoleon, ..." https://theconversation.com/the-f…
I wonder who gave him that idea!
In England, Oliver Cromwell was the strongman.
The French, like the English, went back to kingship after the revolution failed to find a better way to govern.
So Charles II did not have to play the "strongman" although he could do so when he had to. "My words are my own, and my actions are my ministers" was his way of using the "surpremacy" of the Commons over his Divine Right of a King. EG: he made Parliament take responsibility for punishing the Regicides.
If he had acted as a "strongman" the Puritan faction was still strong enough to bring about another fourth Civil War to kick out the Stuarts for good.
When Charles' back was against the wall, after the Diary and the Popish Plot, and he had to break Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury and the Whigs over the succession, he did what had to be done. Yes, it involved selling England to Louis XIV, but even then he avoided doing what Louis expected of him in return. And he has to exile his favorite son.
Louis XIV grewn up during The Fronde, a civil war led by his uncles. Amazingly when he became of age, he employed them fighting for France, and all seems to have been forgiven. This Catholic family's ties ultimately held together.
The English Stuarts came unstuck over religion.
Napoleon ended religion.
One thing Charles II, Louis XIV and Napoleon all feared was the power of the mob. Partly to keep the mob occupied, they all fought wars (Louis and Napoleon both in search of French "glory" and Charles and George/Wellington to curb just that).
Comments
Third Reading
About Tuesday 27 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
According to Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate. Written December 10/01, 1660:
"It being desirable for many reasons that the king should see the present parliament dissolved, and considering that if the queen left for France on Monday as proposed, and he accompanied her and had to remain long away from London, as might easily happen at the present season, if the wind was contrary, especially as the queen decided to cross from Portsmouth to Havre de Grace, he might not be present at the dissolution when his presence is most necessary in order to sign the bills passed, he has persuaded his mother to delay her departure.
To this she readily consented, especially as she does not wish to be travelling at Christmas time, now at hand.
So her departure is postponed; they do not say until when, but it must be until after the dissolution, and some would even put it until after the king's coronation."
Lots more gossip at
Citation: BHO Chicago MLA
'Venice: December 1660', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 32, 1659-1661, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1931), pp. 220-233.
British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/…
Travel in 17th Century England in the winter was a muddy, cold, wet, miserable thing to do. The gales in the Channel are dangerous and can last for days. Altogether this trip was a dangerous undertaking.
I suspect Queen Mother Henrietta Maria (1) wanted to finalize the Minette/Philipe union, and (2) not be present when Anne Hyde moved into St. James's Palace with her son, and be recognized as the Duchess of York.
But Charles II rightly didn't want to be catching his death on the road to or at Portsmouth while those Presbyterian MPs were pulling last minute fast ones before dissolving Parliament.
So they settle on having a Happy Family Christmas as a good cover story, while most English people scratch their heads and say "what's Christmas?"
About Monday 26 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
According to several sources, Slingsby Bethel (1619 - 1697)'s mother's maiden name was Slingsby -- so he could have been a cousin or in-law of the Controller. He was a Parliamentarian, but more radical than our Col. Robert Slingsby:
"... As MP for Knaresborough in 1659, he opposed Richard Cromwell’s attempt to succeed his father as Protector. He also opposed Gen. Monck and the Restoration (1660).
He moved to Rotterdam, communicated with the English republican exiles around Edmund Ludlow in Switzerland, and plotted an uprising in England with Algernon Sidney and others.
The revolutionaries were divided, a division deepened by Bethel’s attack on Cromwell in his first major pamphlet, The World’s Mistake in Oliver Cromwell (1668).
His second was The Present Interest of England stated (1671).
When revolutionary tactics changed in the mid 1670s, Bethel returned to England. He published his third main work, The Interest of the Princes and States of Europe (1680).
Sidney helped him become elected as one of two Sheriffs of London (1680).
To be eligible for office, Bethel had to take the Anglican sacrament. His willingness to do so, coupled with the partisan and frugal manner in which he conducted himself in office, drew criticism from royalists and moderate Whigs.
He was satirized as ‘Shimei’ in John Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel (1681).
Gilbert Burnet noted he ‘was a man of knowledge, and had writ a very judicious book of the interests of Princes: But as he was a known republican in principle, so he was a sullen and wilful man; and turned from the ordinary way of a Sheriff’s living into the extream of sordidness’.
Bethel’s ‘sordidness’ included packing juries, brutality, suborning witnesses, frugality, and assault and battery.
He defended himself in The Vindication of Slingsby Bethel Esq. (1681).
In the royalist reaction of 1682, he fled to Hamburg and the United Providences. In his absence, he was convicted of riot and assault and fined heavily in 1683.
Abroad, Bethel returned to revolutionary plotting with other exiled Whigs, including Locke. He was excluded from those pardoned by James II in 1687, and returned to England only after the 1688 Revolution.
In 1689, the House of Lords reversed his conviction.
His last public office seems to have been on a committee preparing regulations for the Bank of England.
Bethel was one of the earliest English exponents of continental European interest theory.
Drawing on Machiavelli, Harrington and Pieter de la Court, Bethel analyzed politics in terms of hierarchies of domestic and foreign ‘interests’. England’s over-riding domestic interest was trade.
From this he argued for republicanism and toleration.
England’s overriding foreign interest was maintaining the balance of power. From this he argued for a Dutch alliance against France.
There's more at https://www.researchgate.net/publ…
About Tuesday 26 November 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Anyone who's faithfully following the Diary may remember that last year I posted a rather interesting item about some very memorable Puritans being rounded and imprisoned today -- in the wrong year. [DUH!]
Rather than repost, here is the link
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Monday 26 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
"After the Restoration, Praise-God Barebone was looked upon with a jealous eye, and on Nov. 26, 1661, was apprehended, ..."
I should read my own annotation -- this is next year! Sorry everyone!!!
About Monday 26 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sorry, David G., I know nothing of Slingsby being a poet worthy of reprinting. Maybe a manuscript in a library somewhere ...? But probably not. Good luck hunting -- you never know what the Google librarian will turn up.
About Monday 26 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
In the House of Lords today:
Order to prevent Robberies and Disorders in London, &c.
The House being informed of the great Disorder in London and Westm. and the Countries adjacent, and of the great Robberies and Murders as are daily committed:
It is ORDERED, That the Lord Chancellor do acquaint the Lord Chief Justice of England with this Information; and desire him to send to the Lord Mayor of London, and the Justices in the several Countries adjacent, to take special Order, by keeping strict Watches, and other lawful Means, to prevent these Disorders.
But the Commons appear to be unaware of any unusual activities.
About Sunday 25 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Here's the citation for the aboveL
Citation: BHO Chicago MLA
'Venice: December 1660', in Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 32, 1659-1661, ed. Allen B Hinds (London, 1931), pp. 220-233.
British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/… [accessed 26 November 2023].
About Sunday 25 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
The Lower House had prepared a declaration to cause all the laws against the Roman Catholics of the time of Queen Elizabeth to be put in force, but being sent to the Lords it has lain dormant, and is not expected to pass.
It seems the king does not want anything to be done against them, as he found them faithful and true during his misfortunes, and thinks it no more than a poor return to leave them undisturbed in their opinions and to shut his eyes to the private exercise of their faith.
Besides this the king shows such a propensity for Catholicism there is cause for hoping that with new influences Heaven will bless this nation and direct it into the true way, after so many thousands of sheep have wandered, in danger of falling into the jaws of a wolf which aspires to devour them without sparing one.
The marriage question between Princess Henrietta and the duke of Anjou seems to have progressed so favourably no doubt appears to remain about its conclusion.
The queen and princess are to leave here on Monday the 13th for France and Lord Jermin will go to Paris with her Majesty with full powers from the king to settle everything for these nuptials for which the duke and princess are both eager.
[HENRY JERMYN, EARL OF ST. ALBANS https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… ]
The king having appointed commissioners to treat with the Catholic ambassador, he began his conferences with them yesterday, to treat about Dunkirk and Jamaica, wherein he will certainly meet with many difficulties. He has the king's promise that they shall not be incorporated with the crown, as parliament intended, but can obtain nothing substantial for their surrender.
[The Catholic ambassador is Spanish Ambassador Carlos, Baron de Watteville aka Bateville aka Vatteville; "the king" is Charles, and the crown represents Charles' English holdings as governed by Parliament -- keeping them apart simplifies negotiations. Batteville's name is spelled Vatteville in our Encyclopedia: https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl… ]
From recent conversation with his Excellency I gather that the Spaniards would be satisfied with the restitution of Jamaica, which costs England so dear and brings them no advantage.
For the time being they would say nothing about Dunkirk, but in the event of objections Batteville foretells not an open rupture, but a suspension of trade which would ensue in any case, with untold damage to this mart; so if they do not want to break the peace with the Catholic they must needs satisfy him in this particular.
Time will show and I will keep the Senate informed.
[I.E. the Spanish want Jamaica back -- Adm. Penn MP won't like that -- and have been offered Dunkirk as compensation.)
This also bears upon what the Spanish ambassador said to the Proveditore Cornaro, mentioned in the state missives of the 23rd October.
London, the 3rd December, 1660.
[Italian.]
About Sunday 25 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
As today is pretty boring for Pepys, let's also think about the news from the Venetian Ambassador's point-of-view:
Dec. 3. 1660 N.S. -- Nov. 24 O.S.
Senate, Secreta.
Dispacci, Inghilterra.
Venetian Archives.
242. Francesco Giavarina, Venetian Resident in England, to the Doge and Senate.
Parliament continues to sit without intermission, watching carefully over internal affairs to consolidate the repose at present enjoyed by the people and to render durable the great gift which Providence has conferred on this nation after a long course of vexation and misery.
They keep their attention fixed on getting the money to pay off the troops, while aiming at burdening the people in the way they will feel it least, so that they may not have reason to complain, past scars being sensitive yet, although it is supposed that at present they will submit readily to any decree, in the assurance that all that is being done is to relieve them of heavier burdens, which used to be regular.
They do not lose sight of the establishment of the militia of the respective counties; many are already on foot and others are directed not to delay the execution.
The House of Peers has devoted all its time to restoring to certain lords the property (beni) lost by the usurpation of the rebels.
Yesterday it voted the restoration to the family of the earl of Arundel, now at Padua, of the dukedom of Norfolk, taken away under Queen Elizabeth, and now it only wants the concurrence of the Commons and the king's assent, which are matters of course.
[SEE https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/… ]
Seeing that in the Lower House there are many members of unquiet spirit owing to differences over religion, who though unable to prevent decisions tending to quiet and the welfare of the nation, do their best to delay them, the king has decided to dissolve parliament and summon a new one.
He therefore sent word the day before yesterday that they shall issue the writs, which he has ready, with speed, because on the 20th inst., old style, he means to dissolve the present parliament, and that the members shall all go home. Meanwhile they are despatching the things begun in the short time left.
His Majesty's coronation is fixed for the 6/16 February, after which a new parliament will be summoned and as care will be taken to nominate persons entirely devoted to the king they will take many decisions which are required to clinch the royal authority, which cannot yet be called total and absolute, in the person of the present king who is compelled to depend in large part on the Presbyterians and not to offend them, seeing that they restored him to his throne, but by dissimulation and blandishment he will strengthen himself and consolidate for the future.
About Saturday 24 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
From the House of Commons today:
Norfolke Dukedom.
A Message from the Lords, by Mr. Glascocke and * * Masters of Chancery;
Mr. Speaker, The Lords have commanded us to present this Bill to this House; being for Restitution of Thomas Earl of Arundell, Surrey, and Norfolke, to the Dignity and Title of Duke of Norfolke: Wherein they desire the Concurrence of this House.
A Bill for Restitution of Thomas Earl of Arundell, Surry, and Norfolke, to the Dignity and Title of Duke of Norfolke, was this Day read the First time.
Resolved, That this Bill be read the Second time on Tuesday Morning next.
###
I wonder why this is so important now.
Thomas Howard, 21st Earl of Arundel was Roman Catholic, crazy and kept in obscurity in Padua, Italy.
Yes, his younger brother, the Hon. Henry, seems to have been a popular (but Catholic) heir who needed to settle their father's accounts and was caretaking many antiquities which he didn't really know what to do with and didn't have the authority to sell. But restoring the crazy one as Duke of Norfolk didn't solve any of that.
The Duke of Norfolk traditionally has the job of organizing the coronation -- Charles II seems to be doing that quite successfully by himself, and the crazy one would be in no condition to help anyways.
But the Hon. Henry Howard was a lucky man in other ways --
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Friday 25 May 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
As a dog lover, Charles II would want Susanna (above) to know that Cavalier Spaniels and King Charles Spaniels are two different breeds. Cavalier are much bigger.
King Charles Spaniels are little and cute and lots of fun, but not known for intelligence, so it's not surprising they would get lost in a place as big as Whitehall.
About Saturday 25 July 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
Pictures of modern King Charles spaniels -- the name of this regal little dog, partnered with its distinctive domed head, short square muzzle and long low-set, feathered ears lends the King Charles spaniel (not to be confused with the Cavalier, a completely separate breed) an air of refinement.
A quick glance at that inscrutable expression is enough to acknowledge that this is a spaniel of distinguished character and certainly not one to be trifled with — woe betide the owner who forgets exactly who is in charge.
... The breed can trace its royal heritage back to the 16th century, when the toy spaniel was a favourite of the ladies at Court — in 1570, Dr Caius referred to it as the ‘spaniel gentle’ or ‘comforter’ — but it was during the reigns of Charles I and Charles II that the breed rose to prominence. It earned its name from Charles II, rarely seen without a pack of them following him around the royal residences.
The shorter muzzle came into fashion through the 18th century, so the appearance of the toy spaniel began to alter — it is believed a bulldog or pug was introduced somewhere along the way and, by 1859, ...
https://www.countrylife.co.uk/out…
About Saturday 24 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
",,, Mr. Townsend, Rumball, Blackburn, Creed and Shepley and I to the Rhenish winehouse, ..."
Interesting Robert Blackburn being included amongst all these Sandwich retainers. I wonder why.
About Long/Matted Gallery (Whitehall Palace)
San Diego Sarah • Link
More from in Aqua Scripto on 12 Jan 2006:
'Tis why White hall has a matted Gallery [used the wormwood] as noted by Pedro "While wormwoode hath seede, get a bundle or twayne,
to save against March, to make flea to refraine."
About House of Lords
San Diego Sarah • Link
When the House of Lords was reestablished in 1660 the traditional roles for running the Chamber were reestablished:
From the 17th to 19th centuries, the posts of Housekeeper and Deputy Housekeeper to the House of Commons and the House of Lords were frequently held by women.
While most holders were married to senior male officers (who stood to benefit financially) these roles often passed down through the female line within parliamentary families, and appointments could be hotly contested between rival claimants and their male relatives.
The post of House of Lords Housekeeper (known formally as the Keeper of the Palace of Westminste) can be traced back to at least 1509. Appointed by the Lord Chamberlain on behalf of the Crown, it was a grand and highly desirable office.
From 1573 through to 1787 this post was the preserve of a single parliamentary family and generally passed down the female line. There was a clear presumption that, like the Housekeepers of the other royal palaces, its incumbents should be women.
The most prominent of these was the Necessary Woman to the House of Lords.
A necessary woman was a woman who ‘did the necessary’ –- providing close personal cleaning services, such as emptying chamber pots and stool pans, or managing or supervising others doing so.
The post of Necessary Woman to the House of Lords emerged in the 17th century, entirely separately from the post of Housekeeper. It was a role appointed by the Black Rod, alongside Doorkeepers and Firelighters.
Servants with the title ‘necessary woman’ appear in various government service staff lists from the late 17th century.
Most famous perhaps was Bridget Holmes, described by the Royal Collections Trust as ‘Necessary Woman’ to James II, who was immortalized and presented with dignity in a 7-ft-high oil painting by James Riley in 1686. Bridget Holmes was buried in Westminster Abbey.
To begin with the House of Lords forgot about this necessary role in a medieval building with no Houses of Office. They quickly discovered that the ‘necessary men’ would not do the necessary work for the House of Lords, so a Deputy Necessary Woman post was created to really ‘do the business’ and … Perhaps most interesting of all, the post can be seen to have originated as a hereditary post which went down the female line of one family for 3 generations.
The earliest postholder was Margery Hatrum or Hathrum. The date of her appointment is unknown but must have been before her death in 1678 – perhaps soon after the re-establishment of the House of Lords following the Restoration in 1660.
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
Yes, you could be buried in Westminster Abbey for emptying chamber pots. The right ones, of course.
About Charles Stuart (II, King)
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... which is doubtly is ..." should read "... which it undoubtedly is ..." of course.
About Wednesday 21 November 1660
San Diego Sarah • Link
Much as I like the idea that Pepys had a hand in giving Thomas Pepys Snr. such a safe haven for his retirement, I think he would have told us about what lengths he had had to go to in such awful weather, etc. and whether or not he thought "a cupp of lignum vitae for a token" a sufficient token.
If he had to pay off someone for the favor, which he undoubtedly would have had to do, I think the cup would be of something more valuable than lignum vitae.
I suspect Thomas Jr. is thrilled a member of the family is taking an interest in woodworking, and encouraging Pepys to try his hand to see if he has any talent.
But you never know ...
About Maps of London
San Diego Sarah • Link
A map of the rivers of London -- now mostly used as sewers, sadly -- and how they feed into the Thames, plus thoughts on how they got their names:
https://londonist.com/2014/08/how…
About Charles Stuart (II, King)
San Diego Sarah • Link
MUSINGS PART 2
Scott showed just enough war footage to emphaize the heroism of every-day soldiers involved in hand-to-hand combat, and those brave horses that galloped towards the guns.
Charles II was 14 when King Charles judged him old enough to be present on the battlefield at Edgehill -- hidden in a hedge which he had to leave in a hurry as the battle came his way.
He must have had PTSD -- they all must have had it. (OK, not Napoleon, who seems to have looked on warfare as a strategy skill set which is doubtly is -- chess on steroids -- if you can ignore the bloodshed involved.)
That partly accounts for the gambling, risky behavior, self-medication, etc.
Being exposed to that level of violence at a young age changes our brains, so we should not be surprised by the suicides and bad behavior -- irrational as it occasionally appears to have been:
"The negative long-term effects of childhood trauma or adverse childhood experiences on physical and mental health are well established in the literature.
Childhood adversity, commonly experienced as child abuse, neglect, and/or household dysfunction has been linked to increased risk for various long-term chronic illnesses. It increases the risk for depression 4.5-fold and suicide attempts 12.2-fold.
Childhood adversity may increase impulsive behaviors, reward orientation, and unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Epigenetic changes, posttranslational modification, and an unregulated inflammatory response may accompany the behavioral and cognitive response to childhood trauma.
Exposure to war or terrorism increases a child’s risk for both medical and psychiatric disorders in adult life."
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/…
About Charles Stuart (II, King)
San Diego Sarah • Link
After seeing Ridley Scott's "Napoleon", I was struck by how English blood lust was satisfied by just the death of King Charles, and the Puritans did not turn to the wholesale execution of elites -- 200 years later the French mob required roughly 20,000 executions before the strongman subdued them.
Later I found those executions came from all classes, much to my surprise:
https://theconversation.com/the-f…
I was also surprised that Scott didn't say what Napoleon did to
make the French people love him so. From school I know he stimulated the economy, made society more equitable, started schools and hospitals, reformed the legal code, and offered a fortune for developing a way of preserving food (we owe canned food to him)
Researching further I found:
"It is striking that for every year between 1806 and 1813 ... the free [THEATER] performance [ON NAPOLEON'S BIRTHDAY] was always a tragedy bar one exception in 1811. Tragedy was central to Napoleon’s image, allowing him to draw parallels between himself and Louis XIV, the patron for many of these tragedies, and the empires of antiquity.
"Theatre was an important propaganda tool for Napoleon, ..."
https://theconversation.com/the-f…
I wonder who gave him that idea!
In England, Oliver Cromwell was the strongman.
The French, like the English, went back to kingship after the revolution failed to find a better way to govern.
So Charles II did not have to play the "strongman" although he could do so when he had to. "My words are my own, and my actions are my ministers" was his way of using the "surpremacy" of the Commons over his Divine Right of a King.
EG: he made Parliament take responsibility for punishing the Regicides.
If he had acted as a "strongman" the Puritan faction was still strong enough to bring about another fourth Civil War to kick out the Stuarts for good.
When Charles' back was against the wall, after the Diary and the Popish Plot, and he had to break Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury and the Whigs over the succession, he did what had to be done. Yes, it involved selling England to Louis XIV, but even then he avoided doing what Louis expected of him in return. And he has to exile his favorite son.
Louis XIV grewn up during The Fronde, a civil war led by his uncles. Amazingly when he became of age, he employed them fighting for France, and all seems to have been forgiven. This Catholic family's ties ultimately held together.
The English Stuarts came unstuck over religion.
Napoleon ended religion.
One thing Charles II, Louis XIV and Napoleon all feared was the power of the mob. Partly to keep the mob occupied, they all fought wars (Louis and Napoleon both in search of French "glory" and Charles and George/Wellington to curb just that).