Sir Peter Lely

The works of Sir Peter Lely have long been my favourite Restoration, and whilst I love the work of Van Dyke and Kneller, I think Lely will always hold a special place in my heart. It probably has something to do with my long standing adoration of Charles II and the Restoration period, and the fact that this fabulous artist has painted some of the historical personages that I so admire. When I first heard about the exhibition at Hampton Court a while back, "The Wild, The Beautiful and The Damned", I knew I just had to go? Why? Because it would mean seeing some of Sir Peter Lely's most famous paintings in the flesh, which in all honesty was something I could never have imagined. Think of Sir Peter Lely and what do you think of? His portraits of Charles II, Nell Gwynne, John Wilmot Earl of Rochester? One of his most famous portraits if of Nell Gwynne as Venus, and one of my favourite paintings by him, so as I'm sure you can imagine actually physically seeing it was a bit of a moment for me.

Nell Gwynne as Venus by Sir Peter Lely

Born Pieter van der Faes in Soest (Westphalia, Northern Germany) on 14th September 1618, the little boy would grow up to be one of the greatest Restoration artists. The surname he used later in life, Lely, apparently came from the house where his father had been born which had a Lily on the emblem. Lely's father noticed early on that his son was more of an artist than a soldier and so sent him to study with an artist by the name of Frans Pieters de Grebber, an artist who is not so well known today.

Elisha Refused The Gifts of Naamen by Frans Pieters de Grebber

The young Lely studdied in Holland with Grebber and it must have proved to be a stimulating environment for the young man.

It is said that the young Lely came to England in either 1641 or 1642 although the exact reason for his move to England is not recorded. It's possible that he heard of other artists from his area prospering in England under the patronage of Charles I. Did he want to follow in their footsteps? When he first arrived in England it is rather hard to trace his exact whereabouts although it is possible that he worked for the art dealer George Geldorp who had come over from Antwerp in 1626 and was keeper of the King's pictures, and apparently kept a collection of works by Van Dyke (the man who painted the majority of paintings of Charles I). It has been noted that Lely painted in the style of Geldorp so it is really rather likely that he worked with Geldorp, and was introduced to Geldorps rich patrons.

In 1641, Van Dyke died and other famous portrait painters disappeared from the scene before the onset of the English Civil War or died soon after it's beginning. It was not until 1647 however that Lely began to practice his art independently when he was free of the Guild of Painters. He had previously made himself known with the Duke of Northumberland and Earl of Salisbury. These men were loyal to Charles I but hadn't followed the King to Oxford. In 1647, Charles I surrendered Oxford and was kept at Hampton Court  - his children James Duke of York and Minette were held at Syon Park by Northumberland. It was Northumberland who commissioned Lely to paint the now famous portrait of Charles I and James Duke of York. This portrait, next to Nell Gwynne is one of my favourites by Lely.

Charles I and the Duke of York by Sir Peter Lely

In 1554, five years after the execution of Charles I, Lely painted the famous portrait of Oliver Cromwell. It is said that as Cromwell sat for his portrait he said, "Mr Lely, I desire that you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all those roughnesses, pimples, warts and every thing as you see me, otherwise I will never pay you a farthing for it". Indeed, the portrait of Cromwell certainly shows a man who was painted "warts and all" and there have been those who have suggested that Lely painted it from an existing picture although Cromwell must have approved it for later on, Richard Cromwell also commissioned a portrait from him. 

When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, he was known as one of the best artists in England. And it wasn't long before he was getting work from those leading the Restoration including King Charles II himself. By 1662 he was a citizen of England and such a popular painter that he was having to employ assistants (something which a man playing Lely was keen to emphasise when I went to The Wild, The Beautiful and The Damned) and was expected to both paint the royal portraits and to provide gift copies. It should be noted that the copies of his work were done to such a high quality that they must have been done under his close supervision. Indeed, when Samuel Pepys visited Lely's studio for the first time, Lely was so busy that he thought Pepys had turned up to buy a copy of one of his portraits and told the diarist he was full booked up for the next three weeks; and in 1666 James Duke of York commissioned Lely to paint him as Lord High Admiral of the Navy. 

The works that Lely is most famous for has to be his "Windsor Beauties" - many of these can be seen hanging in the galleries of Hampton Court. Recently they were all on display at The Wild, The Beautiful and The Damned as a special exhibition and include such court beauties as Barbara Villiers, Frances Stuart and Elizabeth Hamilton. 

Barbara Villiers by Sir Peter Lely

Frances Stuart by Sir Peter Lely

Elizabeth Gramont by Sir Peter Lely

Indeed Sir Peter Lely was the man who created the famous "Restoration Image" and it is this for which he is most known. Think of Sir Peter Lely and you will immediately think of a portrait painted by him; indeed he is known for little else other than portraits. It must be noted however that Lely did indeed paint more than just portraits, for instance his little known The Concert which although unfinished is apparently meant to be a visualisation of Shakespeare's famous line, "If music be the fool of love, play on". Indeed, despite being unfinished, I feel there is something inherently magical about The Concert. 

Lely is not just famous for his royal portraits however. Some of his most beautiful works are indeed of non royals:

Portrait of a Boy by Sir Peter Lely

Sleeping Nymphs by Sir Peter Lely

The Concert by Sir Peter Lely

Sir Peter Lely was knighted in 1680, shortly before his death. It is said that he died at his easel whilst painting the Duchess of Somerset. Indeed, when he died he had become one of the most prominent artists of Charles II's reign and indeed would go down in history as one of the greatest artists of the Restoration. Indeed, many will recognise his works today, even without knowing who he was. And this has to be a great testament to his skill. Of course to art historians and lovers of the Restoration his work is like a much loved piece of furniture, something we would not do without. Although many of his portraits, particularly of the Windsor Beauties, look incredibly similar facially (it is said he used the same template for many of his portraits but rather changed the dress and backgrounds), I cannot help but love his work. Thanks to Lely, I have been able to connect to the Royalty of the Restoration, to the nobility and even to the famous mistresses of Charles II. And every time I look at his works be it online or in person, I marvel at his beautiful works. Thanks to Lely I was introduced to the Restoration, and for that I owe the man an infinite debt, and for that I will always appreciate his amazing artwork.

Queen Catherine of Braganza by Sir Peter Lely

James Duke of York and Anne Hyde by Sir Peter Lely

Nell Gwynne by Sir Peter Lely

Henrietta Anne "Minette" Stuart by Sir Peter Lely

Further Reading

Oliver Millar - Sir Peter Lely 1618-1680

The Great Artists Issue 69: Lely (link unavailable)

The Great Fire Of London

On 2nd September 1666, disaster struck London. At around 2am that morning, in the house of John Farryner, a baker in Pudding Lane, a fire started that would cause widespread devastation. At the time the fire had struck, London had already been through the mill. The previous year the Great Plague had struck, killing an estimated 30,000 people; and previous to the Great Fire, the country had been in the grip of the Second Dutch War.

London was used to fires - the nature of the closely build wooden houses had seen to that. So when the Lord Mayor of London was called to the fire in Farryner's house, he wasn't best pleased with what he saw and apparently said that "a woman might piss it out". The fire had been blazing for around an hour previous to the Mayor's visit and before he had gone to bed, Farryner had carefully checked his fire (which was only in one room) and he had gone through it and raked up the embers. However it started, the flames caught hold. Whatever spark had been produced, perhaps smouldering beneath the floorboards, it reached a pile of faggots that Farryner had placed ready for the next days baking and it was not long until the building was fully ablaze. Farryner's house was, of course, made of timber and surrounding the house were other tightly packed timber framed buildings. And the timber had tried out thanks to the long, sweltering hot summer.

Just six months earlier, Charles II had written to the City Authorities to try and warn them of the dangers of fire in the city. He tried to warn them that the narrow streets lined with the timber framed buildings held the potential for grave catastrophe. He even gave his Royal Authority to pull the timber buildings down and rebuild them. But nothing was done. The usual precautions obviously seemed good enough to the mayor as he dithered by the apparent small fire - water pumps were brought out to try and stem the blaze. But within an hour, an easterly gale (which had prevented the British fleet from engaging the Dutch fleet not so long back) had made the fire take hold. It was sweeping through the streets.

St Paul's On Fire - Museum of London

And the fire spread quickly, sweeping from Pudding Lane down Thames Street and beyond. It even reached the Royal Exchange after the fire rained down destruction along Fist Street Hill and Lombard Street. Nothing could stop the fire as it raged its way towards London Bridge. London Bridge was not the same stone structure we see today, instead it was crammed with dry timber framed buildings all crammed close together.

London Bridge from a panorama of London, drawn in 1660 by Claes Van Vissher

Before the southward spread of the flames were able to be stopped, almost a third of the buildings on London Bridge were destroyed.

It didn't take long for the old water pumping machines used to break down. Yet still the authorities dithered and did not take the necessary precautions to stop the fire spreading even further. To start with, the Lord Mayor was loath to pull down more houses than he already had to create bigger gaps that the fire could not jump across as he and his authorities would have to deal with any costs for rebuilding. The only way that could be absolved was by royal authority. 

The famous diarist John Evelyn wrote of the fire:

"Churches, public halls, exchange, hospitals, monuments and ornaments, leaping after a prodigious manner from house to house and street to street."

Charles behaved exceptionally when he heard news of the fire. He granted authority for the Mayor to pull down more houses, and he took his brother James, Duke of York to see the extent of the blaze. At noon on the first day, him and his brother travelled downriver and landed at Three Cranes, climbing upon a roof to see the extent of the flames. And it was from this moment on that Charles realised that he needed to help and he put himself in harms way as he made his way to the front line. Him and his brother urged people to pull down houses and even helped with the water buckets.

On the second day of the fire, Charles summoned the Privy Council and set up a special committee where fire posts were set up. Each post had 100 men and a further 30 soldiers and an allowance of £5 for bread and beer. These posts were set up in a semicircle from Smithfield to Temple Bar, and three courtiers were attached to each post too. These courtiers could override the aldermen if they thought more buildings should be destroyed to stop the spread of fire and could even hand out a shilling to those who gave their all and worked through the night. A ring even closer to the front line was set up, headed by Parish constables, and militia was called in from neighbouring counties to take over from the London Trained Bands. The Duke of York organised defences and doused houses against the flames that were expected to reach where he was and Charles worked with men in Queenhithe to pull down the local market stalls and houses, he then rode around the inner ring of fire posts encouraging the men to stay and fight the fire. Some said he carried a bag of silver or gold and handed out money to those who agreed to stay. One man, Henry Griffith later reported that:

"His Majesty's... singular care and pains, handling the water in buckets while they stood up to the ankles deep in water and playing the engines for many hours together, as they did at the Temple and Cripplegate, which people seeing, fell to work with effect, having so good fellow labourers"

Yet despite their hard work, the fire raged on - at one point building into a huge wall of flame, 50 feet high. It is said that the heat became so intense that fire balls were created that drew air into themselves and destroyed church towers and ancient walls. Yet Charles still kept on, and worked like a common labourer. And until the fire eventually burned itself out, prayers and fasting were ordered as if God's divine providence could stop the onslaught. It must be remembered that despite the advances in science, people were still incredibly superstitious and believed that their prayers to God would help. Their prayers did little and the fire even gutted old St Paul's Cathedral, the heat so intense that it melted the lead roof. 

As mentioned previously, the flames destroyed the Royal Exchange. This was the heart of mercantile London. The entire building was destroyed - spices brought by the East India company burned and filled the air with brightly coloured flames and the statues that filled the buildings niches were destroyed. Only the statue of Gresham remained.

Of course the people were in uproar as the flames raged, and the roads became jammed with people as they tried to escape. Many ran to the north of the city towards the open fields that surrounded the city. The gates became jammed and on the second day of the fire it was ordered that the gates be shut to incoming traffic. People piled their belongings into carts, desperate to escape. Many even tried to save their belongings by burying their belongings - Samuel Pepys buried his cheese but alas his diaries are silent as to whether he dug it back up later!). Yet as the people panicked, the nobility still tried to keep order. James Duke of Monmouth took charge in Cornhill and lead a troop of the Kings Guard to try and clear people from the streets.

One can only imagine the scene as London burned. Diarist John Evelyn writes of it in detail in his diaries:

"ten thousand houses all in one flame, the noise and crackling and thunder of the impetuous flames, the shrieking of women and children, the hurry of people, the fall of tower, houses and churches was like an hideous storm and the air all about so hot and inflamed that at the last one was not able to approach it...London was, but is no more"

A map showing the area of London burned, by Wenceslav Hollar

By 6th September the fire had burned itself out. Two surveyors came up with figures that make one shudder even today:

• Only 67 acres of land remained untouched out of 450 acres within the city walls
• Over 13000 houses destroyed
• 89 churches reduced to rubble
• The halls of 44 livery companies had their clothes reduced to ash
• 4 bridges collapsed
• Over 10,000 people would be homeless for the winter
• Christchurch and stationers Hall had gone up in flames - many booksellers had placed their wares in storage there. £15,000 worth of books and manuscripts had been destroyed.
• No one knows how many died

Now, the hard work of rebuilding London would begin. But it was a long and slow process. Charles II himself took great interest in rebuilding the city, as he had a huge interest in building works. He appointed a council to oversee the work and urged that London be rebuilt more beautiful than ever. He followed the work closely on maps and made sure that streets were straightened and encouraged the use of bricks rather than timber. And Charles also brought in Sir Christopher Wren, a man of genius who would work hard to restore the city and rebuilt St Paul's Cathedral into the beautiful masterpiece that we see today.

It took a long time to rebuild London, and many were left destitute. The people blamed the fire on a Catholic plot. And although on 6th September, Charles rode out to tell his people that the fire was nothing to do with a plot, they were not convinced. The Quakers believed it was a righteous punishment on those who persecuted them, but the majority believed it was caused by the Catholics, desperate to undermine the protestant people. It is said too that in 1685 James Duke of Monmouth blames his own uncle for starting the fire.

50 years later, long after Charles II's death as well as the exile of his brother James, London was still being rebuilt. The Great Fire was a massive event in British History, and one which will always live on in the history books. It was a catastrophe for many, yet despite the destruction it showed that in a time of crisis many can be relied on to work together. It proved that the country's King could be relied on. And out of the ashes, the City of London returned anew.

Further Reading

Coote, S, 1999,  Royal Survivor: The Life of Charles II, Palgrave: New York
Boward, B, 2012, The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714, Pearson: Harlow
Fraser, A, 1979, King Charles II, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London
Hanrahan, D, 2006, Charles II And The Duke of Buckingham: The Merry Monarch & The Aristocratic Rogue, Sutton: Stroud
Uglow, J, 2009, A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber & Faber: London
Watson, J.N.P, 1979, Captain General and Rebel Chief: The Life of James Duke of Monmouth

Review: The Sickly Stuarts by Frederick Holmes

It's been ages since I've posted a book review on here so I thought I would delight you all and post one. I will warn you now that this review may end up with me yelling about how much I love the Stuart family and how much I want to hug them all. But I'll try not to do that.

So, this book came through my letterbox yesterday morning, and I read the entire thing in a day. Whenever this has happened previously it's because the books have been really pants. This one was however, rather good. I'd spotted Holmes' book in the shop at Hampton Court before and kept wondering whether to pick it up or not, but if I'm honest it was the price that put me off. Then I found it on amazon, nice and cheap. And so when my ex library copy arrived, I settled down to read about the medical problems of my favourite historical family. And let me tell you, I learnt a lot, especially about the Stuart monarchs who I don't know all that much about.

Holmes splits the book up into each monarch that ruled throughout the Stuart era, with one chapter that concentrated on the children of Charles I. But before Holmes gets into the nitty gritty medical history of each monarch we are given a rather good introduction to disease and doctoring in the seventeenth century. This chapter describes how rife disease was in Stuart England, London in particular, and how the ever increasing population affected said disease. We are also given a brief introduction to the various illnesses and epidemics that plagued the populace (including plague...see what I did there? lolol) as well as the various treatments that are given them. Now then, some of these treatments were a little daft, including the "hot and cold method" of treating small pox. There was one part in this introduction that really made me prick my ears up, and that was a brief mention of early methods of diagnosing diabetes (as a type 1 diabetic myself, the history of this disease is hugely fascinating to me):

"In 1694 Thomas Willis was the first to note that the urine of diabetics ‘is wonderfully sweet, like Sugar or hony’"

As I quoted on our tumblr page, this 17th century doctor really has earned my respect and I really like him (even though I don't know all that much about him) because he had the balls the taste a diabetic person's urine. Now that is pretty gross, but it really opened the door for further treatment and even (in some distant way) paved the way for the advent of insulin by Banting and Best in the 1900's. Anyway, I'll shut up about the medical history of diabetes now and get on with reviewing the book. So yeah, after this we are given an introduction to the main doctors of the Seventeenth Century, and these are the men who feature prominently as physicians to the monarchy - Theodore de Mayerne, William Harvey, Thomas Sydenham, Richard Lower, John Radcliffe, Richard Mead and John Arbuthnot.

Following this introduction, Holmes' gets right into the thick of things and begins looking at each Stuart monarch. Of course we start out with James I (VI of Scotland) and Holmes then looks at each monarch in chronological order. The layout of each chapter is exactly the same - we start out with a brief look at their medical history, stuff that made them sick throughout their reign and their death and then goes on to look at their post mortem results to come to a conclusion as to what actually killed them. And as I made my way through each of the chapters, I learnt a lot of stuff that I didn't know about these monarchs.

Of course, Holmes is unable to come to a definitive answer as to the right diagnosis for each monarch but he does a damn good job with the information he had available. Drawing on primary sources and post mortem reports he was able to say "ok then it is super likely that Charles II had this, but not likely at all he had this other thing because the post mortem report says this". And although I'm not trained in medicine, a lot of Holmes' conclusions made a lot of sense. OK so he used some big words for various illnesses, but he also explained what they meant and what the illness was made up of. So yes, good.

Interesting stuff I learnt from this book:

James I had dementia, weak legs and his tongue was too big for his mouth so whenever he drank anything he slobbered it everywhere. He also didn't wash his hands, only dabbed the ends of his fingers.

Charles I had weak legs (inherited from his father), a speech impediment and according to Holmes was a tad delusional (mainly because he was all "lol parliament, I'm the King and I own all so shut up and let me rule on my own).

Charles II was actually pretty healthy until he made a massive derp of himself and conducted mercury experiments without safety gear (but then, was safety gear even invented then?) and gave himself mercury poisoning which killed him.

James II was also a derp, had an epic nosebleed that meant he couldn't fight off William of Orange (later William III, or actually he probably used the nosebleed as an excuse because he couldn't be bothered...maybe). And he died in exile of a stroke and pneumonia.

William III was an epic warrior who invaded England yet was pretty sickly and had asthma and died young because of bacterial pneumonia. His wife, Mary II confused everyone and no one knew whether she died of small pox or measles - at any rate she burned loads of her letters and papers before she died. And it was actually a really bad form of smallpox that killed her.

And last but not least, Anne was never really all that healthy. She survived 17 pregnancies, only 1 child surviving until he died of pneumonia at the age of 11, and eventually it was Lupus that killed her. And she was the last of the Stuart Monarchs...

All in all, an utterly fantastic book and a brilliant read. Some of it is a little complicated and I found myself having to read a few bits a couple of times before the medical terminology sunk in. This is certainly a book I would recommend for anyone interested in the Stuart family. It makes for quite morbid reading, and I won't lie, I did shed a tear at Charles II's death but it is hugely interesting and eye-opening. A good read and highly recommended. 

Did Charles II love Catherine of Braganza?

Charles II and Catherine of Braganza, a line engraving by an Unknown Artist

Before I get stuck into this post I just want to say a massive thank you to @gemgemgembird who runs the awesome fuckyeahcharlesii on tumblr and @IsSoFab for helping me out with this post, you guys are ace!!!

I've come across a few comments across various social media websites saying that Charles II did not love his wife Catherine of Braganza. But it's not just online where I have come across this, oh no, it's even crept into a few real life conversations as well. And the normal response when I ask these people why they think this is "oh well, he had loads of mistresses so he can't have loved her". Cue me almost frothing at the mouth for around three minutes, before trying not to launch myself into a massive lecture about how he did actually love her. And so today I decided that enough is enough, and thought I would sit down and write a blog about it, with lots and lots of examples that show that yes, Charles did love his wife and no, he wasn't a giant idiot to her...

So here goes!

The biggest thing that always, always gets to me and really points out how much he loved her is when she was unwell, and Charles got up to get her a bowl but she was sick in the sheets before he got back. Charles ended up cleaning her up himself and changing the sheets. Now, I am going to say something here - Charles could have just called for Catherine's servants but no, he did it himself. And you don't clean up someones sick unless you really love them surely? There is a fantastic quote about this incident in "The Mistresses of Charles II" by Brian Masters:

“On one occasion, she (Catherine) felt ill during the night when he was in bed with her. He got up to fetch her a basin, but she was sick in the sheets before he returned. Not until he had himself cleaned and dried her, and changed the sheets, did he call her women to help, and repaired to his own room, even then returning three times to see how she was before he finally went to sleep.”(Masters 1979, 75-76)

Another incident took part in 1663, when Catherine became seriously ill. So ill in fact that everyone thought she was dying. Charles sat by her bed for hours, in floods of tears, begging her not to die. Even when she sank into delirium he stayed by her side, and she imagined they had three children together. She also told him, when she had come around a bit, that he should take a more agreeable wife once she was dead. Yet Catherine recovered (HUZZAH!), and Charles' minister started to demand he divorce her because she was barren. Yet he refused and had a go at his ministers for even suggesting the idea, saying that he had treated her so poorly (i.e. with rubbing mistresses in her face) that he could now never abandon her. So the rumours that were flying about the court that Charles should marry Frances Stuart, who he was rather enamoured with at the time and spent his time chasing after her, were chucked out.

Charles also mentions Catherine A LOT in his letters, especially to his sister Minette and he also rather enjoys pointing out how much time he spent with his wife. And it was a lot of time...

“I have been all this afternoon playing the good husband, having been abroad with my wife, and ‘tis now past twelve o’clock, and I am very sleepy.” (Norrington 1994, 78)

 Charles II by Sir Peter Lely

There is also a rather moving letter written from Charles to his sister after his wife's illness. And although he does mention other women, and the fact that he's off to see another play, the majority of the letter is spent talking about Catherine:

My wife is now so well, as in a few days, she will thank you herself for the concern you had for her in her sickness. Yesterday we had a little ball in the privy chamber, where she looked on, and, though we had many of our good faces absent, yet I assure you, the assembly would not have been disliked for beauty, even at Paris itself, for we have a great many young women come up, since you were here, who are very handsome. Pray send me some images, to put in prayer books. They are for my wife, who can get none here. I assure you it will be a great present to her, and she will look upon them often, for she is not only content to say the great office every day, but likewise that of our Lady too, and this is besides going to chapel, where she makes use of none of these. I am just now going to see a new play, so I shall say no more, but that I am entirely yours, C.R.(Norrington 1994, 72)

 Catherine of Braganza by Sir Peter Lely

"Later that spring, Charles told Minette that he had been playing the good husband, going out with Catherine all afternoon: soon he would banish Edward Montagu from court for spending too long with the queen and even daring to squeeze her hand" (Uglow 2009, 267). This quote never fails to bring a smile to my face. I can imagine a rather red faced Charles facing off against Montagu, demanding that he leave court for daring to touch his wife. 

Another big incident in which Charles showed his loyalty, dedication and love for Catherine was during the Popish Plot of 1678. The Plot, completely fictitious, had been engineered by Titus Oates. It was said that it was a plot in which the Catholics would kill King Charles, and on 24th November 1678 Charles listened to Oates as he revealed that the Queen would poison her own husband! Charles of course knew that his wife would never ever try to poison him and throughout his entire meeting with Oates maintained a cool head. When Oates said he overheard the conspirators in the queens bedchambers (which he could even describe when asked to by the king!), Charles has him thrown into prison. Unfortunately Parliament had him released soon after. Antonia Fraser, in her biography of Charles II states that Oates made a big mistake in trying to implicate Catherine; "Yet Oates, in concentrating on the Queen, had touched on one of the King's few sensitive spots: he might have let Clarendon go without too much regret, and sacrifice Danby perforce, but as he had already shown over the prospect of divorce, Catherine was another matter" (Fraser, 1979, 363)

Titus Oates by an unknown artist

Catherine wrote a letter to her brother, the King of Portugal, which is really rather moving and said of the recent incident: "the care in which he (Charles) takes to defend my innocence and truth. Every day he shows more clearly his purpose and goodwill towards me, and thus baffles the hate of my enemies...I cannot cease telling you what I owe to his benevolence, of which each day he gives better proofs, either from generosity or compassion" (Fraser 1979, 363).

During the Popish Plot we see Charles come to the aid of his wife as her knight in shining armour. His actions drew them together and not only that, showed that he really did care despite his liaisons with his mistresses. And it seems that Catherine had fallen head over heels in love with Charles, as he had with her it seems, so much so that Lady Sutherland stated that the queen was "now a mistress, the passion her spouse has for her is now so great".

There are, I am sure, many other examples that show just how much Charles loved his wife and it's going to require a lot more research and reading to get to the bottom of this one. But before I conclude about how much I adore this pair and how I'm sure they were perfect for each other (just go with me here OK...?) there is just one last thing I want to quote regarding Charles' last meeting with Catherine before his death:

"There were a series of farewells. Catherine came. Charles greeted her lovingly. But her distress, both at the King's tenderness and at his suffering was too great. Tears overcame her. She was carried back to her own apartments, half fainting. She sent back a message to her husband to beg his pardon if she had ever offended him.

"Alas! poor woman", said the King. "She beg my pardon! I beg hers with all my heart" (Fraser 1979, 456)

As can be seen, I hope, from these few examples; Charles II really did love his wife. He may not have shown it in their early years of marriage and he may have rubbed his relationships with his mistresses in her face (I should mention the Bedchamber Incident here but that is a whole other post for a whole different day) yet they still grew incredibly close. Charles grew to love her, respect her and trust her intimately. He stayed by her side during her terrible illness, he begged her not to die, he wrote of her often to his sister Minette, he protected her and stood up for her during the Popish Plot, he spent vast amounts of time with her which was commented on a lot by other courtiers and he even conducted business in her chambers. Not to mention of course his final meeting with her which makes me cry every single time. So you see, is it any wonder when people turn around and say that Charles didn't love his wife because he had mistresses that I and so many others end up giving epic lectures on the subject? You only have to read of how he stood by her when Oates accused her of plotting the King's death to understand how he felt about her, you only have to read of how he refused to divorce her despite parliament trying to badger him into doing so to understand how he felt about her. 

Plus he cleaned up her vomit, and you don't do that for someone unless you really love them.

Sources and Further Reading

Fraser, A, 1979, King Charles II, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London

Masters, B, 1979 The Mistresses of Charles II, Constable & Co: London

Norrington, R, 1994, My Dearest Minette, Peter Owen: London

Uglow, J, 2009, A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber & Faber: London

Oliver Cromwell - I can't believe I am admitting this...

Oliver Cromwell by Robert Walker

Let's make on thing quite clear:

I am not a fan of Oliver Cromwell.

There, I admitted it. In my rather embarrassing days in the Sealed Knot I was a member of a Royalist regiment and as we faced the Parliamentarian army in front of the crowds we would shout insults such as "A POX ON PARLIAMENT!!". And it was those months spent in the Royalist 'army', sleeping in muddy fields and having my tent flooded on each and every occasion that I began to develop a serious interest in the Seventeenth Century.

And a serious dislike for Oliver Cromwell.

During my time reading up on the Seventeenth Century and researching the English Civil War for my Uni dissertation (the one that is going to published!) that I realised that had I lived back then, and been a man, I would have fought on the side of the King. Why? Charles I was a bit of a stubborn derp, but he believed fully in his divine right and fought to keep the traditions of England going. Oliver Cromwell on the other man was harsh and banned everything fun - including mince pies at Christmas!

That's not to say I don't respect him historically because of course I do. He tried his best to keep the country running during the Interregnum and was pretty successful. It's just the people got bored, and after Oliver died his son Richard just sort of shrugged his shoulders and left, leading Parliament to bring back the Monarchy.

Oliver Cromwell looking at the body of King Charles II

Anyway, I am currently reading "Oliver Cromwell: Our Chief of Men" by Antonia Fraser on my Kindle. It's a little weird for me, reading about the English Civil War from his point of view, and even weirder for me to be enjoying what I'm reading about him and dare I say it...

I actually feel sorry for him. And I am growing to like him.

...

Yes, you heard me correctly. The man is growing on me. It seems he was a bit of a tearaway as a child and loved getting into trouble and stealing apples from farms. Just that makes me like him more than I did before. And yes, I feel sorry for him - why? Because in the early 1630's he was suffering badly from depression and spent much of his time in bed feeling pretty useless, but he did get treatment from the best doctor in the country for it.

Now, Cromwell will never overtake Charles I and Charles II in my affections but let's just say that branching out and reading more about Cromwell has really helped me develop a new kind of respect for the man. And dare I even say it, I have developed a liking for the man. And I am very much looking forward to reading more about him

James, Duke of Monmouth

A young James Duke of Monmouth

James Crofts, later known as the Duke of Monmouth was the bastard son of Charles II and his first known Mistress Lucy Walter. He was born on 9th April 1649, and would go down in history as the man who would lose his head for rebelling against his uncle. Now then, I will be the first to admit that I have a little bit of a thing for Monmouth - and yes it may have something to do with his rather handsome portrait, and the fact I have a thing for blokes in periwigs. It may also have something to do with the fact that his sheer character intrigues me - the eldest bastard child of Charles II and a young man who believed wholeheartedly that his mother and his father were married and thus that he was the true heir to the English throne. That, and and he was an exceptional soldier and the people loved him.

However, I won't be writing about Monmouth's early life spent overseas. Even though a lot of stuff happened when he was a child, a lot more happened when he had grown up and moved back to England to live with his father at court. I will briefly mention however that in 1658 the young lad was kidnapped by his fathers men (because he believed Lucy wasn't treating him right!) and taken to Paris where he lived with Lord Crofts - and James ended up taking the name Crofts until he was made Duke of Monmouth by his father in 1663.

James Duke of Monmouth by William Wissing

James was just 14 years old when his father made him Duke of Monmouth and he was also given the titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Scott of Tyndale. Later that year he was also made a Knight of the Garter. Not bad for a 14 year old! Not only that but in April 1663 he married to Anne Scott, a rather wealthy heiress. The day after the marriage they were both created Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, Earl and Countess of Dalkeith and Lord and Lady Scott of Whitchester.

As I have already briefly mentioned, Monmouth was an exceptionally popular young man. The reason for this was simple - as the son of Charles II he was a Protestant, and the people did not want their next King to be Catholic. James Duke of York, Charles' brother and heir to the throne, was leaning towards the Catholic faith. James would later openly convert and it was not a popular decision. James and his Uncle would never have an easy relationship and it would sadly end in disaster for poor James.

James Duke of York at the National Maritime Museum

Despite this, from the age of 16 Monmouth served in the military under the command of his Uncle and it was this that ultimately put the barrier up between the two of them. Monmouth took part in the Second Dutch War serving under his uncle and in 1666 ended up taking command of a troop of horse. In 1668 he was made Commander of Charles II's own troop of Horse Guards, and then in 1672 went over to France as head of a troop of 6000 men and served as part of the French Army - the men went over as payment to France for their help in the Third Dutch War, and it was his experiences in these campaigns which made him one of the finest soldiers of his period. It's no wonder he had such confidence when he turned against his uncle later on!

In 1674, James was created Master of the Horse and Charles ordered that all miitary orders be given to Monmouth first for examination which gave him effective command over the entire army. Is it any wonder that the Duke of York began to get a little irate with all the favours being shown to Monmouth?

Throughout all of this, the succession was the utmost thought in people's minds. Charles II had been unable to produce a legitimate heir with his wife Catherine of Braganza, yet had fathered a number of bastards with his mistresses. James Duke of York was Charles' heir, but York was unpopular and Parliament thought it would be fun to try and pass a bill blocking his succession to the throne. Alas Parliament failed and Charles insisted that his brother was his heir. Yet Monmouth had this deep seated belief that he was Charles' legitimate child, that his mother and father had been married (though is this likely? Due to the lack of evidence we will never know but I personally like to think so!) and that he should be the legitimate heir. Even then there was no evidence to support this claim, despite rumours of an exisiting marriage certificate. "The Power & The Passion" starring Rufus Sewell shows Charles as burning the marriage certificate - did this happen? Was it hidden and found later? There are rumours from the living relatives of Monmouth but really we can never be sure.

1683 saw a plot uncovered to assassinate both Charles and James Duke of York, known as the Popish Rye House Plot, arranged by a man by the name of Titus Oates. The plot alas came to nothing (again, shown brilliantly in the Power & The Passion!) but poor Monmouth was implicated in the plot and ended up being sent into exile in Holland!

Following his banishment in 1683, Charles never saw his eldest son again.

Charles II

Charles II died on 6th February 1685, having converted to Catholicism on his death bed. And due to Charles having no legitimate heirs, his brother James ascended to the throne and became James II. Monmouth, still believing that his parents had been legally married and that he was the legitimate heir, decideed it would be fun to come back to England and lead a rebellion against his uncle. After he landed in Lyme Regis in the July of 1685, Monmouth declared himself as King at various points along the way including Axminster and Taunton. And he was popular so many did not try to stop him, even going so far as to shout crys of "A MONMOUTH! A MONMOUTH!" after him. 6th July 1685 saw the Battle of Sedgemoor in which Monmouth found himself up against his Uncle's armies. Monmouth was defeated and made his way to Ringwood in Hampshire, where he was captured.

Of course there were a few skirmishes a long the way and I will always remember the story of how Monmouth and his compatriots stayed at the George Inn at Norton St Philip in the West Country during the rebellion. I was told the story of the rebellion one evening on the way home from an archaeological dig, and it stuck with me.

The George Inn: Norton St Phillip

I was also told the story of Monmouth's execution on that same car journey, which has haunted me ever since. But it comes later...

After being captured at Ringwood, Monmouth never stood trial for the crimes he committed against his uncle. He was condemned by act of attainder. He was automatically found guilty of high treason and would be beheaded, his lands and titles would become forfeit.

Monmouth's execution

On 15th July 1685, James Duke of Monmouth was executed on Tower Hill for leading the rebellion against James II. His executioner was the infamous Jack Ketch. Upon the scaffold, Monmouth felt the edge of the axe and asked if it was sharp enough - his good friend having been executed by Ketch and it being botched - and he gave Ketch a bag of coins to encourage his good work. The coins did not help. Ketch botched the execution.

The first blow did not sever Monmouth's head, and it is said Monmouth looked at Ketch in shock. 5 blows later and Monmouth was only just dead, and Ketch ended up removing Monmouth's head with a butchers knife.

Monmouth's story always brings a tear to my eye. I don't know why, I just feel a certain affinity with him. His story is so sad - he was loved by his father but suffered because of his own blind belief. He lead a remarkable life, but again let his beliefs bring him down. Part of me wishes that his rebellion in the west country had succeeded, and I don't know why but I think that he would have made a great King. But alas, we cannot change history and who knows what might have been should he succeeded. But Monmouth's story is so gripping and so sad, I always feel a pang of pain when I think of the fate he suffered.

A MONMOUTH!


Further reading


Coward, B, 2012, The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714 (Fourth Edition), Pearson: Harlow
Fraser, A, 1979. King Charles II, Butler & Tanner: Frome
Harris, T, 2006, Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms, Penguin: London
Watson, J.N.P, 1979, Captain General & Rebel Chief: The Life of James Duke of Monmouth,:George Allen & Unwin: London

"Monsieur Is A Villain!"

Phillipe Duc D'Orleans

"Monsieur is a villain!" These are the words that Charles II is said to have shouted when he received the news of his sisters death. But why did he say those words? Rumours came from the French Court that Madame, Minette, had been poisoned by her husband Phillipe; and in a fit of grief and rage at the thought of this Charles locked himself away in his bedroom for 5 days.

Henrietta Anne "Minette" Stuart by Sir Peter Lely

So far, I haven't read too much about Minette and her life. But yesterday I finished the fantastic "My Dearest Minette" by Ruth Norrington and from reading it I have developed an immense dislike for Phillipe Duc d'Orleans, more commonly known as Monsieur.

Minette married Phillipe on 30th March 1661 but the marriage was not a happy one. It became more and more evident towards the end of Minette's life, especially when Monsieur began to spend more and more time with his favourite, the Chevalier de Lorraine. Monsieur and Lorraine were inseparable, and Monsieur ended up falling head over heels in love with him. It is said that the two were also sexually involved with each other, and Monsieur rather enjoyed showing his favourite off in front of his wife, and the court.

Phillipe, Chevalier De Lorraine

The relationship between the two men is what finally ruined the relationship between Minette and Monsieur. Previous to Lorraine showing up, Monsieur seems to have been at least a little bit interested in Minette, even doting on her in the first year of their marriage. But Monsieur would soon begin to show his true colours, becoming increasingly jealous of Minette and any relationships she developed with others. He believed that Minette was having an affair with Louis XIV, even going so far as to complain to his mother Queen Anne of Austria who reprimanded both Louis and Minette. It was also said that Minette began an affair with Phillipe's old lover the Comte De Guiche which sparked more jealousy from Monsieur. Not only that, but when Charles II sent his illegitimate son James, Duke of Monmouth, over to France in 1668; Phillipe began to grow very jealous of all the time that Minette was spending closeted away with her nephew. And Lorraine began to fan the flames, rumours sparking that something was going on between Minette and Monmouth. When Minette complained of Monsieur's behaviour towards her, his jealousy and his anger, Louis XIV reprimanded his brother and in anger Monsieur took Minette away from the court.

It is the events of 1669-70 that really made me dislike Monsieur. This ended up being the final year of Minette's life, and Monsieur's treatment of her just got worse and worse. After Madame de St. Chaumont was dismissed from court (she had been the governess of her children), Monsieur had his way in appointing her replacement. Minette wanted her friend Madame de La Fayette as the new governess but Monsieur appointed one of his minions, the Marechale de Clerembault. And at this point Lorraine began publicly bragging that he was the one responsible for getting rid of all of Minette's friends, and began to spread rumours that a divorce was on the cards for the couple. After Monsieur went to the King to beg that Lorraine be given the lands of a recently passed away friend, of which the King refused, Monsieur lost his temper. He ended up telling Lorraine what the King had said about him - that he was not a fit person to hold Church benefices - Lorraine made offensive remarks about the King. Of course at the French court news spread quickly and the news reached the King, who promptly dismissed the Chevalier in disgrace. Monsieur blamed his wife and began acting terribly towards her, even though she had very little to do with it. He refused to sleep with her, which of course caused huge scandal at court, and the two barely spoke. Was there violence? So far I have read nothing to suggest this but that's not to say there was none. And as the two spent their time away from court at Villers-Cotterets, Monsieur refused to return to court unless his favourite was restored. He was eventually persuaded to return, and Minette had a huge part to play in the negotiations between France and England.

Minette as Minerva, holding a portrait of Monsieur by Antoine Mathieu

When they returned, everyone noticed how pale and unwell Minette looked.

It was vitally important that Minette visit England to secure the secret treaty between the two countries and when it was mentioned to Monsieur he lost his temper, saying he would never let her go. Charles of course resented this behaviour hugely and his feelings were reported to Louis by the French Ambassador. It was the Ambassadors brother Jean Baptiste who persuaded Monsieur to let her go for a short visit as long as he went with her. Monsieur begrudgingly allowed her three days, but then began making a fuss and saying that he should go with her - Charles was the man to come up with best excuse to keep Monsieur out of England; it would be unseemly for Monsieur to go to England unless James Duke of York could visit the French King at the same time. Was it a coincidence that James could not go? Probably not.

When Minette returned to France on 3rd June (meeting with her husband on 18th June at St Germain - her journey had taken over two weeks!), relations with her husband were still very strained. When Minette met her husband and the King at St Germaine, he sulkily refused the offer for he and his wife to go and stay at Versailles. Upon her return she apparently looked stunningly beautiful but in reality she was very unwell and spent the day of her arrival in bed at St Germaine. Despite being most graciously received by the King, Monsieur really ruined her happiness by constantly reminding her that with her influence with the King, she could very easily get Lorraine recalled from his exile. And when, after the couple and their children had removed to St Cloud, they were invited to Versailles Monsieur yet again began to get exceptionally jealous. The reason for this one was that Minette became involved in a secret conference with the King to discuss the treaty she had been to England for. When Monsieur entered the room, they broke off their conversation and refused to continue it whilst he was there. And at dinner that evening a member of the court infuriated Monsieur by mentioning how attentive Monmouth had been to Minette during his visit. Not only that but Monsieur was starting to turn his eldest daughter against Minette, teaching her to hate her mother. Minette was of course deeply unhappy with this, and her health was failing fast.

In the June of 1670, Minette began to complain of searing pains in her side and people began to comment on how unwell she looked, including Monsieur! The next day she asked for some chicory water, which she had been drinking in the warm evenings since her return to St Cloud. As soon as she drank it she gave a cry and collapsed. Her maids put her to bed, and people began to talk of the water being poisoned. The pains in her stomach got worse and a doctor was called, who diagnosed Colic and said she would recover. But Minette knew she was dying as she called for Monsieur and said to him:

"Alas Monsieur, you have long since ceased to love me, but you have been unjust to me. I never wronged you."

It was suggested, by Monsieur, that to prove the water had not been poisoned that they should give some to the dog. Two of Minette's maids offered to taste it, as did Monsieur however it must be noted that they did not drink out of the same cup as Minette had, it was missing. When it was found it had been thrown into a fire to clean it. When Monsieur finally realised his wife was dying, he appeared very upset and rounded on the doctor, blaming him for his incompetence. But as Monsieur sat with her, she found his lamentations too much and sent him away again. Was he putting it on? And at three o clock in the morning on 30th June, Minette passed away.

The death certificate was signed after a post mortem was performed, the cause of death being stated as "cholera morbis", but the English doctors were not entirely satisfied with that, saying that the junior doctor who performed the post mortem was incompetent and it seemed as if he were covering up the truth. The post mortem however did not stop the rumours that flooded France and England - that she had been poisoned by the Chevalier Lorraine and his cronies. Monsieur however was not blamed for it. After her death, many confirmed that Minette had been poisoned, including Monsieur's second wife. Louis never believed that Monsieur had any part in it however, saying that if it were the case he would never allow Monsieur to marry again. It was the Orleans Maitre d'Hotel that said she had been poisoned but not by Monsieur. It had been Lorraine who hatched the plot in Italy with two of his friends who were living in the household of Monsieur. However, Louis tried hard to keep the poison theory hushed up, it was a politically sensitive time and even went so far as to recall Lorraine from his exile and allow him to live back in Monsieur's household. And despite the grief that wracked the French Royal Family, Monsieur's grief was incredibly superficial - he ended up dressing himself and his children in preposterous mourning clothes.

And as mentioned at the start of this post, when Charles II heard of his sisters death he cried, "Monsieur is a Villain" and locked himself away for 5 days in his grief, unable to bear the thought that his dearest Minette had been poisoned by her husband.

Whilst I do not believe that Monsieur had a hand in his wife's death, he certainly treated her terribly during her life. His showing off of his favourites and having open affairs with them was despicable, and more so when Lorraine began to use his place with Monsieur to try and ruin Minette, Monsieur did nothing to stop it. Indeed it seems to me that he encouraged it. Is it any wonder that Minette ended up sinking into sadness and illness that everyone commented on? The story of Minette's relationship with her husband makes me feel so sad, she did not deserve to be treated so badly by her husband. And from the little reading I have done on Minette, I have begun to dislike Monsieur hugely...and it's not often I feel so strongly about people from history (except for Oliver Cromwell, because well...he deserves it). I fully intend to do more reading in and around Minette's life, although I doubt very much my feelings on her nasty piece of work husband will change.

Further reading

Bevan, B, 1979, Charles II's Minette, Ascent Books: London
Norrington, R, 1996, My Dearest Minette, Peter Own Publishers: London

My Dearest Minette

You all know how much I adore Charles II. Sometimes I may even consider myself his number 1 fan...did I just admit that? I regret nothing whatsoever. And during my reading of Charlie's life I found myself struck by the close relationship he had with his sister Henrietta, Duchesse d'Orleans, or Minette as he so playfully called her. And so after doing a bit of reading around, finding references to Minette in various biographies of Charles, I decided I wanted to find out a little bit more about this fascinating woman. So I asked around on twitter to get some recommendations, and took myself off to Amazon.

I may have gotten a little bit overexcited when this one fell through my letter box the other day, and I began reading it right away. Though I've been trying to take it slowly as I'm trying to work my way through Lucy Worsley's "Cavalier" at the same time. This has become my before bed book, and as I read I quite often find myself so moved at how tender and loving these two siblings were to each other. They joke with each other, tell each other both bad news and good, talk politics, and always end on the sweetest of sentences.

Letter from Minette to Charles

I won't go too much into Minette's life on this post as I want to do a bit more reading about her before I start doing any sort of serious pieces on her. But through reading her letters to her brother I am struck by a bold woman, who loved her brother so much, who was kind, and a woman who always had the best interests of her home country at heart. She may have married into France, but she certainly worked very hard to get that famous alliance between Louis XIV and her brother! Of course Charles' foreign policy deserves a post all of it's own.

Letter from Charles to Minette

I must say that reading the letters between these two have opened up so many doors for me in my love of the Seventeenth Century, thanks to reading their own words it is much easier to get a sense of how they would have been feeling when certain events happened, the worry when sickness struck. It is eye opening, and I wish more than anything I could get my hands on the original documents and look at the beautiful handwriting of Charles and his sister. One day, one day. Until then, I am going to read more about the lovely Minette, because she has stolen my heart almost as much as her brother has done. And I need to know more.

Henrietta Anne Stuart, Duchesse d'Orleans by an unknown artist

Happy Birthday Charlie!

On 29th May 1630, Queen Henrietta Maria gave birth to a son at St James' Palace London. The child's father was, of course, the famous Charles I who would eventually be executed for apparent treason against his country. The little boy, Charles, was their second son - their first having been born about a year previously and died at less than a year old. When he was born, little Charles was automatically given the titles of Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, and was officially given the title of Prince of Wales around the time of his 8th birthday.

On his 30th birthday, 29th May 1660, Charles returned to London to reclaim the crown that was taken from his father. The day was full of rejoicing, the people were glad to have their King back and be rid of Puritan rule. The new monarch also reinstated things that had been banned under Puritan rule including theatres and sport. This day was known for a very long time as "Oak Apple Day" and was a celebration every year to mark the Restoration of the Monarchy.

You all know how much I love Charles II (or Charlie as I more commonly call him, because of reasons) and so I thought on this day which marks two very important occasions in his life I would write a little bit about how and why I love him so much, and why he was an amazing monarch.

When Charles was born, his mother Henrietta Maria was embarrassed due to his darker colouring (which came from her side of the family, her mother was the famous Marie De Medici), and called him ugly saying, "He is so ugly that I am ashamed of him, but his size and fatness supply the want of beauty". It looks like Henrietta got her comeuppance as Charlie grew up as he did indeed grow to be a rather handsome young man with a passion for the ladies! I mean he was an exceptionally adorable child. I mean just look at him!

When his father Charles I went to war with Parliament in 1642, little Charlie got his first taste of battle. He accompanied his father to the Battle of Edgehill (which famously ended up with no clear victor!) and during 1645 took part in a number of campaigns aged just 14!! Brave boy! But when it was clear he was losing the war, Charles escaped abroad where he lived in exile. Whilst there he made the er...acquaintance of Lucy Walter who became his mistress, and bore him his first son - James, who would later become Duke of Monmouth. He was also an exceptionally handsome young man...

When I saw this little miniature at "The Wild, The Beautiful and the Damned" I thought "HGFKSDHFFS HE LOOKS LIKE HIS DAD!"...ahem

After he became King, he restored the theatres and general fun which would eventually lead to him having the lovely Nell Gwynne as a mistress. In the mean time however he was too busy with his maitresse-en-titre Barbara Villiers (fascinating women but just naaaasty) who went on to bear him many illegitimate children. I read an excellent story that involved Charles going to Barbara's house where they spent the evening chasing a moth and giggling. Typical Charlie.

As we know, Charlie loved the theatre and he often frequented the theatres, even allowing women to act on stage. One of his great friends was the famous John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester (a man who deserves a post in his own right!) who wrote a rather amusing ditty about Charles:

We have a pretty witty King

And whose word no man relies on

He never said a foolish thing

And never did a wise one.

Good ole Rochester also wrote some excellent bawdy plays - basically 17th century pornography!

The thing that gets me the most about Charles II is how he loved his people. In 1666, when the Great Fire of London hit, he helped. He actually went down into the streets and helped with the bucket work, helped try and stop the fire. Good old Charles ordered buildings to be destroyed to try and stop the spread of fire, but it didn't work all that well, so he ended up working with the common men to stop the spread of fire. Whenever I read of the Great Fire I always well up at his bravery, and working with his people. Just...it makes me want to cry. 

Charles was also a huuuuuge advocate of science and helped bring about the Royal Society. Charlie signed a charter in 1660 which allowed it to keep going, and throughout the years it got stronger and stronger, with members such as the lovely Prince Rupert!!

Also, his foreign policy was a little bit daft and it's no wonder that his advisers and parliament got a little bit peeved with him. To cut a very long story short, Charles ended up agreeing to ally with France, agreeing to the Treaty of Dover in which France would give him £16000 per year, and in agreement Charles agreed to give France troops and announce his conversion to Roman Catholicism...except he didn't convert...until he was on his death bed. Oh Charlie, you sneaky little bugger!!

Despite his many mistresses, including Barbara Villiers, Nell Gwynne, Louise De Kerouelle and Moll Davis etc; he was very much in love with his wife. There is a wonderful story in Brain Masters' book "The Mistresses of Charles II" in which Masters describes Charles going to bed with his wife Catherine of Braganza and she felt sick in the middle of the night. As she was throwing up, he went and fetched her a bowl and spent his night clearing up after her. That is LOVE!

And that is just a few reasons as to why I love Charles II - I won't mention his fabulous legs, love of nice shoes and general good looks...Not only that but he is the man who kept the famous Ravens in the Tower of London after his astrologer started moaning about them getting in the way of his telescope. Whilst he may have made some mistakes and later on alienated his parliament, he was a good man who believed in doing the best for his country. 

Charles II brought fun back to his kingdom, despite parliament constantly trying to outmanoeuvre him. I guess that's why he dissolved them and spent the last years of his reign in self reign. He loved many, fathered many, loved his subjects. He refused to make the mistakes his father did, despite making many of his own, and was a resounding success.

Charles II is a man to be looked up to. He brought fun back to his subjects, fought against parliament at the same time as trying desperately to work with them to save himself from the same mistakes his subjects made. yet despite his setbacks he still knew how to have fun, he loved to party, loved the theatre and more so loved his woman. I can't help but adore this man and all he did for England.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHARLIE! 382 YEARS YOUNG! MAY YOUR FABULOUS MEMORY LAST FOREVER. Here have a Horrible Histories gif...