Happy Birthday Charles I

Today in 1600, a young prince was born to King James I and his wife Anne of Denmark. This prince, the couple's second son, would go on to become one the most famous monarchs that England had ever known - King Charles I. He would go on to declare war on Parliament in 1642 and would eventually be executed for treason on 30th January 1649. Charles has long fascinated me and during my University days I spent much of my time researching the English Civil War and the role that the Royalist army played, eventually concentrating solely on the Battle of Cheriton in 1644. For my sins I was also a part of the Sealed Knot and "fought" for the Royalist regiment, Henry Tilliers Regiment of Foote.

Charles I is an interesting character in many respects, not only for his role in the English Civil War. He was never supposed to become King in the first place, that was the role meant for his elder brother Henry Stuart. Sadly though, Henry died in 1612 and the young Duke of York became heir to the throne. Poor little Charles wasn't exactly the most healthy child, he was sickly and had problems walking, and apparently had a speech impediment too. He had spent his childhood in the shadow of his brother Henry, who he loved and tried his best to emulate but unfortunately as a child could never really live up to his brother. In fact, little Charles did not start walking properly until he was at least four years old thanks to the weakness in his legs. At the age of 16 it is recorded that he suffered from "green sickness", a rather odd illness for an adolescent young man to suffer from as it was normally said to affect young ladies! However by the time he reached his early 20's he seems to have left most of his physical illnesses behind although he apparently never really had the intellectual capacity of other young men of his age.

Charles also became bosom friends with his fathers supposed paramour George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. In George, Charles found a surrogate older brother who encouraged Charles to start looking at women (and noticed that Charles was very slow on the uptake with romance!), and even took the young heir incognito to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. When James I died in 1625, Charles married Henrietta Maria if France yet held Villiers above her in his affections. It wasn't until Villiers was assassinated in 1628 that Charles began to take decent notice of his wife and the two of them ended up falling head over heels in love with each other.

Charles never really had a very good relationship with parliament, and ended up taking personal rule of the country from 1629. The next eleven years were known by parliamentarian supporters as the "eleven years tyranny". In 1640, Charles recalled parliament - he needed money to fight the second bishops war. Less than a month later, this parliament was dissolved by Charles because he wasn't going to listen to their ideas for reform. In November that year, Charles again called Parliament, again needing more money and this became known as the Long Parliament. In this one, tensions soon rose when Parliament wanted to impeach various members of the court and they also passed an act to prevent the King from dissolving parliament. In March 1641 they impeached Lord Stafford and he was placed on trial for High Treason. Charles however refused to sign the bill of Attainder but in parliament this bill went unopposed and Charles signed the bill in fear for his family's safety. Stafford was executed. In May of the same year parliament made ship money and various forms of taxation illegal - all of which had proven unpopular when the King had forced these taxes previously.

All of this lead to Charles and Parliament fighting for control - Charles believed that as King of England he should have control, Parliament believed that the King should work with them or not at all. Charles then tried to have five prominent members of parliament arrested on 4th January 1642 when he tried to take parliament by force of arms. The five men had already left. And this was the beginning of the end for Charles Stuart - Parliament seized London and in January 1642, Charles fled London.

Civil War was declared in August 1642 and Charles raised an army. Parliament did the same and it lead to a bitter 7 year period of fighting. The best known part of the civil war lasted until 1646 when Charles was arrested and imprisoned by Parliament. The second civil war was fought in 1648-9, finishing with the execution of King Charles I in January 1649 and the third civil war lasted from 1649-51 and was fought between parliament and supporters of Charles II. Following Charles I's execution in 1649, the country was run by Oliver Cromwell and the interregnum lasted until the death of Cromwell and the failure of his son Richard - leading to the Restoration of Charles I's son Charles II as monarch.

If I'm honest, the life of Charles I deserves much much more than this super brief overview. His life was really very interesting and he did so much in his reign - not all of it clever! Though that seems to be a bit of a pattern with Stuart monarchs (maybe that's why I'm so fascinated with them, really they just seemed to make life difficult for themselves). One of these days I'll do a series of posts on this most fascinating monarch, but I hope this overview has given you all something to mull over. And to finish off - Happy Birthday Charles I!

Further Reading

Frederick Holmes - The Sickly Stuarts
Dianne Purkiss - The English Civil war: A People's History
Katie Whitaker - A Royal Passion
C.V Wedgwood - A King Condemned
Tristram Hunt - The English Civil War At First Hand
David Starkey & Christopher Hibbert - Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason

"What Idiot Wrote A Letter?"

Guy Fawkes by Cruikshank

Remember, remember! 

 The fifth of November, 

 The Gunpowder treason and plot; 

 I know of no reason 

 Why the Gunpowder treason 

 Should ever be forgot!

I've never really been a fan of fireworks. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that my dog used to get really frightened of them and shake in the corner of our kitchen whenever he heard them going off. But even as a small child when I was taken to watch the bonfire and firework displays, I would always be morbidly fascinated by the 'Guy' that was on top of the bonfire and how the crowd would watch him burn. It was my grandfather who told me why we did it, and whilst his story made me shudder inside, I thought it was all kinds of awesome. Maybe in a way, hearing my grandfather tell me the story of the Gunpowder plot is what sparked my interest in the Seventeenth Century. But what I find amazing is that even today we celebrate the fact that Guy Fawkes and his conspirators tried to blow up our parliament. Only in Britain eh?

But why do we do it?

In the early hours of the morning on November 5th 1605, a magistrate and gentleman of the Kings Privy Chamber (Thomas Knyvet) were sent to search the vaults beneath Parliament. King James I was incredibly suspicious of any plot to murder him and even more so after Lord Monteagle showed him a letter. This letter had been sent to Monteagle by one of the conspirators, warning him not to be in Parliament on November 5th as the place would be blown up. 

As Knyvet and the Magistrate searched the vaults they discovered Guy Fawkes making his way out of a room. He was fully dressed with his boots on, and thinking it slightly suspicious Knyvet had him arrested. As Fawkes was hauled away, Knyvet's men discovered 36 barrels of gunpowder and wooden faggots. It became glaringly obvious what had been planned and what had been so close to being successful.

Guy Fawkes was imprisoned and interrogated. Yet Fawkes refused to give away the names of his fellow conspirators, and his fortitude actually impressed his interrogators. Faced with a barrage of questions he admitted he had recently been to Flanders and when the reason why was demanded he retorted that he had gone to sight see and pass the time! The real reason was of course to try and get help for the conspiracy. When he spoke plainly, and it wasn't often, he expressed his dislike of the Scottish King but other than that he refused to give any other answers. It was only on 7th November, likely after torture, that he gave the interrogators his name and that was only after a letter addressed to him was found in his pockets. At the same time, thanks to being tortured that he implicated his fellow torturers. Fawkes however was the only conspirator to suffer torture, and once King James had the answers he wanted, the torture was stopped. 

Four of Fawkes' co-conspirators perished in a skirmish at Holbeach House in Staffordshire as the army tried to arrest them. The remaining 8 men were captured and imprisoned, and they were kept in the Tower of London until January 1606 when they were all tried for treason. On 27th January 1606, they faced trial in Westminster Hall, although the verdict was already a foregone conclusion although all but Sir Edward Digby pleaded not guilty. On 30th January, four of the men were executed in St Paul's churchyard and the following day it was the turn of Winter, Ambrose, Rookwood, Keyes and Fawkes. They were hung, drawn and quartered in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster.

And the reason we still light bonfires today? King James I ordered that bonfires should be lit every year on November 5th in celebration of his lucky escape from the treasonous plotters. And until 1859, prayers of thanksgiving for the King's escape were still being read. Indeed, the celebrations kept on going as well due to the country's dislike of Catholicism and popery at the time and the plot was seen as one of the most horrific catholic conspiracies ever committed. Indeed the Puritans kept on the tradition well into the reign of Charles I's reign as a stand up to the Catholicism that was feared to be creeping into the royal court. James II's court tried to ban the celebrations in the early years of his reign (as James was a catholic) but the idea fell flat on its face, especially after William of Orange landed in England and took the throne from James.

Although these days the country is open to religious toleration, the celebrations of November 5th still go on. It seems it is ingrained into the minds of the English, and we still celebrate the downfall of the notorious plotter Guy Fawkes. For the most part, the celebrations are just that, celebrations although in some parts of the country there are still some towns which stay with the traditional anti catholic tradition; not only with their bonfires and fireworks but also parading with an effigy of the Pope which then gets burned on the bonfire. An excellent example of this is Lewes in Sussex.

The traditional 'anti catholic' 5th November celebrations in Lewes, Sussex

Whatever you are up to tonight; whether you are going to watch a bonfire and fireworks display or staying in, do stay safe. And try not to forget the reason why we still light bonfires on 5th November.

Further Reading

Antonia Fraser - The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605

John Paul Davis - Pity for the Guy: A Biography of Guy Fawkes

James Sharp - Remember, Remember the Fifth of November: Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot

Mark Nicholls, ‘Fawkes, Guy (bap. 1570, d. 1606)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2009 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9230, accessed 5 Nov 2012]

Sir Walter Raleigh

Sir Walter Raleigh by an unknown artist

On this day in history, 1618; sir Walter Raleigh was beheaded upon the orders of James I. But why was this man, once a great favourite of Elizabeth I, given such a death and executed as a traitor? With this post, I will give a brief overview of his life up until the reign of James I; and then will discuss in more detail the events that lead up to his trial and execution in 1618.

Sir Walter Raleigh was born in 1554 to Walter Raleigh and Catherine Champernowne in Hayes, Devon. Little Walter's family had links to royalty back to the thirteenth century, and his father had previously been Lord Vice Admiral to Mary I from 1555-58. We know from Raleigh's later work that he was an incredibly intelligent man, but really very little is known about his childhood years and what sparked that brilliant mind. What we do know though is that from 1569 (from the age of 15 or so) he served as a volunteer in France during their religious wars. He returned to England in 1570. We also know that he spent some years at Oriel College in Oxford, although the exact date that he entered the college has not been recorded. He left Oxford without his degree, which at the time was not unusual and went to the Middle Temple (sort of like a law school) in the February of 1575. Whilst there he began penning poetry, the first of which was published in 1576. Raleigh was in fact related to Katherine Ashley, first gentlewoman of Elizabeth I's bedchamber, through his mother and it is possible that this link allowed him to meet other great courtiers such as Robert Dudley. In 1578, he teamed up with a man by the name of Humphrey Gilbert and set sail on an adventure to discover remote lands. He returned the following year.

In 1581, following a brief stint as a soldier in Ireland, Raleigh began to attract the attentions of Elizabeth I and spent a good few years as her favourite. That was until he earned her displeasure by entering into a liaison with one of her maids; Elizabeth Throckmorton. Having gotten Elizabeth pregnant, the two married in secret. Raleigh knew how displeased the Queen would be and so made plans to set sail once more, yet when he returned from his voyage in 1592, the Queen was well aware of what had happened. She had the couple separated and both were sent to the Tower of London. It took a while for Elizabeth to even think of forgiving the couple and both were eventually released from the Tower. Their first son disappears from the record, but in 1593 Elizabeth gave birth to another little boy. However, they were both still banished from court and it took Raleigh a while to return to favour. Raleigh was not allowed back to court until 1597 and during those years of disgrace had spent a good many years on his travels searching for the fabled El Dorado and explored the areas of Guyana and Eastern Venezuela. He had managed to get his hands on a description of a City of Gold, yet despite his years of searching never found it.

When Elizabeth I died in 1603, Raleigh had not long been back in favour yet had spent a good few years still adventuring and also dabbling in poetry. When news broke of Elizabeth's death, he hastened to meet the new King James, yet did not exactly receive a warm welcome. Despite being present at the Queens funeral as an official attendant, following this he was rebuffed quite harshly by the new ruler - James I (also James VI of Scotland) stripped him of his monopolies as well as his captaincy of the Guard and was told that he had to leave his current place of residency, Durham Place. In July of 1603 Raleigh was also questioned on two counts of treason and placed under house arrest. Yet what were these treason's? It had come to James' ear that Raleigh had been involved in a number of plots, including planning rebellion and a Spanish invasion, as well as plotting the death of the King. It is said that he planned to place Lady Arabella Stuart in James' place as monarch.

Arabella Stuart by Lowres

Raleigh was taken to the Tower on 20th July 1603. There he wrote a farewell letter to his wife, and on 27th July tried to take his own life by stabbing himself in the heart with a table knife. The attempt failed, and after a while he realised that the only evidence of any substance held against him was a statement made by a man who thought Raleigh had betrayed him. It seems that the gentleman who made the accusations withdrew them almost immediately although Raleigh did not know this until he was brought to trial on 17th November. At any rate, Raleigh was found guilty - despite the fact that Cobham had withdrawn his accusations, he was still found guilty of a more sweeping treason thanks to various letters from Cobham making out that Raleigh had passed on information on the King's military endeavours and trying to get money out of others for military intelligence. Raleigh was taken back to the Tower, and there held until 1612. After his trial, he despaired of mercy from King James and wrote another letter to his wife. However in December 1503, King James agreed that Raleigh could keep his life.

During his years in the Tower, Raleigh dabbled in chemistry. There he created various medicines, but when he fell sick in 1615 it was put down to his dabbling in chemicals. Whilst locked away he also wrote his famous History of the World. There is a copy of this still on show in the Tower of London. He began the work in around 1607, and it was intended to be widely published as the first part of his history of the world. The entire work works out as around 5 volumes, and the first two volumes make up the biblical history of how the world came into being and the final three volumes deal with the histories of the Greek and Roman Empires.

Walter Raleigh's History of the World. Photo by me

Reconstruction of Raleigh's rooms in the Tower. Photo by me

Raleigh was released from the Tower in 1616 and then began his final voyage. The aim of this expedition was to search once more for the fabled El Dorado. He set sail on 19th August 1617 and did not land until November. The journey had been arduous, Raleigh himself succumbing to a nasty fever. On 2nd January 1618, the party arrived at the Spanish settlement of San Thome. The group stormed the settlement, in direct violation of the original agreement. They were there to search for gold, they were there to help relations between England and Spain. They weren't there to attack a Spanish outpost and pillage. Following this, they searched further and further inland for the fabled mines but found nothing. San Thome had been burnt to the ground and on 13th February 1618 Raleigh was told that his son had been killed during the storming of the outpost. Raleigh would accept no apologies for his sons death and began planning another expedition of San Thome, saying that they had missed the mine. His men refused to follow, and in March deserted him completely. Raleigh was left with a tiny force, and returned to Plymouth utterly defeated.

when he returned to England, the Spanish ambassador had already been to King James with reports of the violence that had happened at San Thome. The ambassador demanded Raleigh's arrest and not long after he landed, he was arrested and taken to London. On 10th August 1618, Raleigh found himself back in the Tower. This time, there would be no escape for Sir Walter Raleigh.

On 22nd October, Raleigh was brought before the Privy Council. There he was accused of being ungrateful to the King who had forgiven him his previous treason's, accused of planning to start a war between England and Spain, and moreover was accused of deserting his men. On 28th October, a verdict was passed. Sir Walter Raleigh was guilty. Yet Raleigh threw himself on the Kings mercy, pleading for clemency. It didn't work, and Raleigh was sentenced to execution. He spent his last night in the Gatehouse at Westminster and on the morning of 29th October 1618 was beheaded at Westminster. His execution speech was long and he welcomed the fact that he was going to die. His final speech lasted for almost forty five minutes and in it he insisted that his expeditions had no ulterior motive, that he had never sought to plot with France and start a war between England and Spain.

Just before he knelt he spoke a few more words, admitting that he had been a man of vanity and joked with the executioner that the axe would be his "sharp medicine". And once the fatal blow was struck, his head was placed in a red bag and taken away by his wife who kept it until her own death. It is said that she liked to bring out his head when she had visitors. Once she died, his head was returned to the rest of his remains at St Margaret's Church next to Westminster Abbey.

Raleigh's memorial plaque inside St Margaret's Church

St Margaret's Church, Westminster. Photo by me.

Further Reading

Mark Nicholls, Penry Williams, ‘Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23039, accessed 29 Oct 2012]
Sir Walter Raleigh: In Life & Legend - Penry Williams & Mark Nicholls
The Favourite - Mathew Lyons

A Rip In The Veil by Anna Belfrage

On a muggy August day in 2002 Alexandra Lind is inexplicably thrown several centuries backwards in time to 1658. Life will never be the same for Alex. Alex lands at the feet of Matthew Graham - an escaped convict making his way home to Scotland. She gawks at this tall, gaunt man with hazel eyes, dressed in what looks like rags. At first she thinks he might be some sort of hermit, an oddball, but she quickly realises that she is the odd one out. Catapulted from a life of modern comfort, Alex grapples with her frightening new existence. Potential compensation for this brutal shift in fate comes in the shape of Matthew - a man she should never have met, not when she was born three centuries after him. But Matthew comes with baggage of his own and at times it seems his past will see them killed.

Having just finished this book, I can safely say that it is not the type of book that I would normally read. Rather, this is a book I would take on holiday with me to read on the beach whilst huddling under an umbrella to keep the sun away from me. I don't really like beaches you see, and have to take a book with me to keep myself from getting bored beyond measure. However, although it's not normally a book I would read, I should say that I did rather enjoy it and in particular because the story was set in the seventeenth century.

The story itself is your basic time slip concept - modern woman finds herself inexplicably thrown back in time and spends most of the first few chapters confused about where the hell she is and what the hell should she be doing. The heroine, Alex Lind, was likeable enough and I did rather like how she kept confusing people by talking about modern stuff. I was however a little disappointed that the hero of the story, Matthew Graham, didn't make a very big deal out of the fact that Alex had come from the future when she told him, just giving her a hug and doing a sneaky sign against the evil eye behind her back. Of course, witchcraft was mentioned rather a lot during the story from various other characters including the main "bad guy" Hector Olivares and Matthew's nasty piece of work brother, Luke. With Luke, I felt like his story was one of the more interesting ones - caught in bed with his fathers ward at the age of 15 he ends up being kicked out of the family home, Matthew ends up marrying the girl and ends up catching her back in bed with his brother. Said ward, by the name of Margaret, is the spitting image of Alex - although this point wasn't really expanded upon as much as I would have liked. The hatred between the two brothers is a huge part of the story and it all ends up getting rather messy.

As I read through the book, it seemed to me as if the plot centred mainly on the life lead by the people in the little town and those who lived in the manor house where Matthew (eventually) lives. I say eventually because about half of the book is made up of Alex and Matthew in the wilderness, running away from soldiers who are intent on capturing them both. Occasionally hints are dropped of the wider historical context - the death of Oliver Cromwell, George Monk helping to bring Charles II back, the issue of religion during the seventeenth century. I liked these little snippets of context and I feel that the time spent on the context was probably about right - Matthew fought in the English Civil Wars for Parliament, believed wholeheartedly in the commonwealth and becomes worried when he hears that the Protector is dead and wonders whether Charles Stuart will allow religious freedom. The snippets were good, and added to the story rather than detracted from it.

The narrative was written well, and really quite descriptive. I could imagine the hustle and bustle of Matthew's household, could imagine the dirty and smelly towns, could imagine the infested taverns and dark looks of the clientele who frequented them. There was just one thing about the narrative that got to me, and that was the constant finishing of sentences with the word no, and then turning it into a question:

"And it would be the one gift, no?"
"I told you no? Unless you clean them they rot and fall out"
"Get over it? You held her against her will, no?"

All in all though, a good read and perfect if you want to escape from reality for a little while. Likeable characters and a story set in a time that was far from easy, it's really rather easy to find yourself wondering how you would act were you in Alex's shoes. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes a bit of a historical fiction, but doesn't want to get stuck into something too heavy.

A massive thank you to Anne Belfrage for sending me this book to review. You can visit Anna's website here. And you can pick up a copy of A Rip In The Veil at Amazon UK and Amazon US

Winchester In The English Civil War

Having spent three years of my life in Winchester, I feel a certain affinity to the city and in particular the role that it played in the English Civil War. I first became interested in it's role during the English Civil War when I was wandering around the Cathedral for the first time and saw the statues of James I and Charles I that sit on either side of the massive main doors. The statue of Charles has a huge musket hole in it, from when Parliamentarian troops took the city. After that, it became my obsession and I spent many an hour in the University library researching what happened to this beautiful city during those turbulent years and I ended up specialising in one particular battle that had a huge effect on the City and the surrounding area: Cheriton. Of course, the city itself holds many secrets of what happened to it during the Civil War, many of which I discovered whilst doing work for University. Today, I thought I would travel away from Renaissance Italy for a bit and do a little something that goes back to my roots: Winchester in the English Civil War.

As War was declared against Parliament in 1642, the majority of Hampshire was staunchly Parliamentarian. Winchester, however, became a Royalist stronghold and began to prepare itself for a fight. Money was voted in for swords, bullets and arms. However, Winchester would soon find itself the victim of siege from the armies of Sir William Waller (commander of the Parliamentarian armies, and old friend of Ralph Hopton; a commander in the Royalist army). In the December of 1642, as the Royalist army who had fought a skirmish is Wherewall, began to withdraw to the City:

"fearing to be caught napping by active Sir William Waller and his force and the better to protect himself and his Cavaliers from the pursuit of the Parliaments force retreated to Winchester, a place not like to give him kind entertainment being full of Malignant spirits, who indeed were not a little glad at his coming, thinking themselves now secure from danger being under the wings of a bird of theire own feathers."

Yet as the troops fled to the city, they were pursued by Parliamentarian troops, and as they reached the city gates (and some of the citizens came out to help), were heavily outnumbered. As they fought, Grandison's regiment of horse rushing through the gates covered by musketeers, two entire regiments were destroyed. The city was now under siege, it's people trapped and its soldiers outnumbered. William Waller himself arrived not long after and found, as was to be expected, the gates shut to him. So he barricaded the city so the Royalists could not escape, and as he waited for his dragoons to arrive, began to plan his attack. At about 2pm on the afternoon of Waller's arrival, the Parliamentary forces attacked Winchester and by 3pm, they had started to break through the walls into the City and the Royalist soldiers holed themselves up inside the Castle. The very next day, having realised that the Castle was ill equipped to deal with a siege, the Royalists surrendered the castle.

As the Castle was being surrendered however, and terms settled, the Parliamentary troops began to riot through the city, pillaging and plundering as they went. And the Cathedral was quite possibly one of the biggest victims of the 1642 siege. The troops entered the great West Door and there, according to a description by Trussel, defiled bibles, hangings and sacred monuments. They fired their muskets at the two bronze statues of King Charles and King James, and pulled down beautiful mortuary chests containing the bones of Kings an Prelates; scattering the remains.

As well as this they also desecrated chantry chapels, the Lady Chapel and the medieval glass in the cathedral. They also fired their muskets at the huge West Window which depicted images of the saints. During the Restoration, new mortuary chests were made to replace the ones destroyed during this attack, and the bones gathered together and placed in them, including the remains of Kings Cnut and Rufus, Queen Emma and Bishops Wina and Alwyn. Some prominent tombs were destroyed during the attack including the tomb of Cardinal Beaufort (the effigy there now was created during the Restoration and has seventeenth century shoes depicted!) and William of Wainfleet. Whilst most of the damage was reparable, the cathedral lost some parts permanently including the medieval glass windows, ornaments and furniture.

By September 1643, the town was back in Royalist hands again after the Parliamentarians moved out of the city towards Southampton. On Monday 18th September, Colonel Sir Edward Ford marched into the city with his entire regiment. It was the day of the Mayors election, and the city would stay in Royalist hands until Oliver Cromwell would besiege the city in 1645.

For the next two years, the city stayed once more as a Royalist stronghold. The mayor of the city, William Ogle set about fortifying the castle in case the worst should happen again. He ordered the clearing of the surrounding ditches from trees, shrubs and wooden buildings that could be set fire to. And on Monday 6th November, Sir Ralph Hopton arrived in the city from Andover and he made the city his main quarters, from which he marched out to relieve the nearby Basing House from its own recent siege. It is also incredibly likely that at this point the City would have prospered - it was free from plundering parliamentarians after all. In the surrounding area, as 1643 drew to a close, much more was happening. For instance on December 12th 1643, Colonel John Boles found himself in a skirmish at Alton where he and many other defenders were killed inside the local church. The outer door of the Church of St Lawrence shows holes made during musket fire and if you look closely you can even see a few musket balls embedded in the stonework.

There is a memorial plaque to Colonel Boles on a column in Winchester Cathedral. Erected many years later, it gives Boles' name as Richard which was actually his brothers name.

As well as this, in early 1644 nearby Arundel was besieged and taken by Parliament.

The winter of 1644 was used by Hopton to get his troops back into shape after the fall of Romsey, Alton and Arundel. It was high time for him to recruit more men and get them trained in time for the next offensive in the Spring. Hopton also had to make sure than his base of operations was secure and so much of the 1644 winter was spent in building two sconces (defensive ditches or fortifications) - one upon St Giles Hill and the other upon West Hill. By 1st February 1644 Hopton had recruited and trained around 3500 foot and 2000 horse, and by mid February sent a reconnaissance force to Southampton. The sheer amount of new troops in Hoptons army meant that they had to be billeted somewhere, and many were sent to stay at the Hospital of St Mary Magdalen (which at one time had been used as a leper hospital). A few years back now, I took part in an archaeological dig at Magdalen Hill and spent most of my 4 weeks there digging in the chapel where we found evidence of seventeenth century horse gear. This matches up to a complaint sent to Hopton in 1644 by the Master of the Hospital:

"(they) have used violence to the house of God; burninge up all the seats and pues in the church, as also the communion table, and all other wainscott and timbers there, that they could lay hands on: and have converted the sayd house of God into a stable for horses and other prophane uses, to the great dishonour of God..."

By March 1644, there were plans afoot by Parliament to move back towards the west and on 25th March the army rendesvoused at West Meon. News of course reached the ears of Hopton, and during a council of War on 26th it was agreed that they should march immediately against Waller. The two armies met at Cheriton on 29th March 1644, more of which can be read about here. Following their defeat at Cheriton, instead of falling back to Winchester, the Royalists retreated back towards Basing House leaving Winchester isolated. Parliament seem to have got it into their heads that the City would be easily taken, declaring proudly in London that the City had been taken. They were wrong, and the Castle held out for another eighteen months.

On 28th September however, the city found itself besieged once more, this time by Oliver Cromwell - the Lieutenant General of the Parliamentarian Army. It took exactly a week for the City to surrender. During that week, Cromwell and the Mayor exchanged letters in which Cromwell said the only reason he was there was to save the city from ruin. Terms were not reached, and as the week progressed, Cromwell discovered that an elderly bishop was staying in the castle. Cromwell offered the man safe conduct out of the city, but was refused. So instead of giving the city another chance, he fired on the city gates and after a very short skirmish entered the city, forcing the Royalists to retreat back to the castle, which they found difficult to protect against Parliament. Impossible in fact. The castle itself was huge, made up of 8 towers which had to be manned as well as the various gates, yet the Royalists made a stirling effort in their defence. Cromwell however made sure he was well equipped to the task of taking the castle, having gun platforms built, defensive ditches dug and men lined up ready to attack. And during early October, as Cromwell was preparing his attack, the Cathedral was again being ransacked. On the 3rd October, the guns were ready and the next day the attack began. Cromwell started by firing one single shot to signal to Ogle that the attack was beginning, and sent a summons into the castle. It was ignored and the attack began. By nightfall, a breach in the walls had been made and Ogle sent men to defend it. The following day, more summons were sent to Ogle, yet he still refused to surrender although asked if his wife would be allowed safe conduct from the city as she was unwell. Although this was granted, she died on her way home to Stoke. By the Sunday evening, a breach had been made next to the black tower, wide enough for 30 men to walk through. Ogle and his troops had had quite enough, and their morale broke down completely. Ogle then sat down and wrote a letter to Cromwell, asking for a parley which was immediately accepted by Cromwell although negotiations were lengthy. Eventually, a settlement was reached and the castle was once more taken by Parliament and by 3pm the next day Ogle and his army marched out of the City, although many of the Royalists ended up joining Parliament instead.

Later in 1645, Ogle was court marshaled for surrendering Winchester castle. However, due to the size and strength of Cromwell's army he was allowed to walk free.

It was decided by Parliament that the castle should remain garrisoned in case of another Royalist rising, and Thomas Bettesworth was made its governor.

During the attack on the Castle, a large hole was made in the roof of the Great Hall. This Hall is one of the only remaining parts of the Castle left today, and has been used frequently throughout history including the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603, and the famous Judge Jeffries condemned supporters of Monmouth during the 1685. The hole had been caused by a grenado filled with musket shot which had killed three men. The famous Round Table which today hangs on the wall of the Hall is littered with musket shot, caused either by this grenado or possibly by stray musket shots.

Many other buildings in the city were damaged during the siege, including the church of St Clements and its surrounding buildings. This church had been used as a guard room by the Parliamentarians and ransacked by them. St Larences church in the middle of the city was also wrecked and made unsafe for usage thanks to its interiors being torn out. Hastily patched back together, it was used as a school until Charles II was restored in 1660. The Royalists also stole the bells from the towers of St Mary Kalender, a church that had already long been in ruin. This church now no longer exists within the city. My very favourite little church in the city, St Swithun's Upon Kingsgate was also badly damaged and during Cromwell's Protectorate was let out to a family who used one end of it to live in and the other to keep their pigs in!

By the end of the English Civil War, and following the execution of Charles I in 1649, Cromwell ordered that  Winchester castle be demolished. The castle was demolished in 1651, due to fears of a Royalist invasion from France under the exiled Prince Rupert. Parliament ordered that the Castle be demolished within fourteen days of receiving the instructions. The Great Hall was left standing, as was the central oval tower on the east side of the castle. This tower seems to have been left standing until Sir Christopher Wren began building a new palace for King Charles II in the 1680's. Sir William Waller seemed to be rather upset by the demolition:

"It was just with God for the punishment of my giving way to the plunder of the City of Winchester (whereof I was a freeman and sworne to maintain and procure the good thereof as far as I could) to permit the demolition of my castle in Winchester"

In 1682, the City sold the land to King Charles II for the grand sum of 5 shillings. And in 1683, the City agreed to the demolition of the Great Hall to make way for the Kings new palace but only if they could have a new hall built for them. However, when Charles II died in 1685, building of his new palace was abandoned and so the Hall was saved.

The history of Winchester during the English Civil War has long fascinated me. It was the central area that each side wanted to keep their hands on, and during the years of war certainly suffered. Not only were buildings destroyed but the Cathedral was ransacked and it's people had to put up with the pillaging soldiers not once but four times. The War also meant that the City lost one of it's biggest landmarks; it's Castle, with only a few ruins and the Great Hall left of it today. I must admit, that every time I go back to Winchester I wonder what it would have been like during the siege of 1645, what would the Royalists held in the castle have been thinking? And it never fails to get my imagination going.

Further Reading

The Civil War In Winchester - Richard Sawyer
Cheriton 1644: The Campaign & The Battle - John Adair
The Civil War in Hampshire - Tony MacLachlan
The Civil War In Hampshire - Rev G N Godwin (no link available)

The Monmouth Summer by Tim Vicary

1685. King Charles II dies unexpectedly, and is succeeded by his brother James II, England's first Catholic monarch since Bloody Mary. English Protestants feel threatened, and King Charles’s illegitimate son, the handsome young duke of Monmouth, rises against his uncle in armed rebellion. The rebellion turns young Ann Carter’s world upside down. Eighteen years old, she is betrothed to Tom Goodchild, a Protestant shoemaker; but secretly loves Robert Pole, an officer in King James’s army, who offers to take her to London as his mistress. Ann knows it is her duty to marry Tom, but does not love him; so when he marches away with the rebels, she imagines him being killed – which would set her free. But she knows such thoughts are wicked; her father is a rebel soldier too, like all the men of her village. So who should she pray for, when musket balls start to fly? What matters most – love or loyalty?

When I was asked to review this book, I jumped at the chance. As readers of this blog will know I have a bit of a thing for all things Seventeenth Century (despite having not really done much on it recently...), and a book set in the midst of the 1685 West Country Rebellion seemed like my perfect historical novel. Now I've said in before, and I'll say it again - I'm not a big fan of historical fiction; but this turned out to be one book that was the exception to the rule. In a nutshell, I thought that this book was a masterpiece. My love of the Seventeenth Century includes pretty much everything from James I onwards, but I have a particular love of the English Civil Wars, Restoration and more recently, Monmouth's rebellion in 1685. Over the past year or so I have been devouring non fiction books on James Duke of Monmouth and his rebellion; and it also helps having grown up near many of the towns featured in both the historical rebellion, and this novel. And from the get-go, I devoured this book.

Vicary's writing style is second to none in this book. From the very first page, as we are introduced to the people of Colyton, and in particular the Carter family, the world in which the characters live in seems to burst from the page and come alive. Vicary weaves his prose together masterfully, and as I read I could quite clearly imagine the scenes being described. And as the story began to pick up pace, and the rebel armies of the Duke of Monmouth began to clash with the Royalist troops, it was as if I could hear the musket shots in my ears. It's not often that a book does this to me, and when it happens it is a real breath of fresh air. As I was reading through however, I did notice a couple of odd grammar mistakes such as full stops in random places throughout the sentences, but I can overlook this as it wasn't blindingly noticeable. As well as this, I really loved the way the Vicary made his characters speak. The town where the story is mainly set, Colyton, is a real town located in East Devon; and throughout the prose, the characters speak in a west country accent. And Vicary makes this clearer by having the characters actually speak as those in the West Country did (and still do for the most part!):

"Good day Mr Carter! Sorry 'bout Methuselah! Come here Methuselah, you stupid beast! You'm scarin' they 'orses!"

Almost all of the characters spoke like this throughout the story, and it really endeared many of them to me. It's little things like this that can change a book from a good book, to an excellent one.

As I mentioned previously, the story follows the inhabitants of Colyton (a fun fact: known as the most rebellious town in Devon due to their part in the Monmouth rebellion) as they hear of King Charles II's bastard son coming back from overseas to try and take the throne back from his Catholic uncle, James II. The main character of the story is Ann Carter, a young lady born to a good Puritan family, and she is betrothed to Tom Goodchild. The problem for Ann however is that she is secretly in love with Robert Pole, second son of the local Lord and a supporter of King James. Ann finds herself torn as the men of her village march off to war (including her father) and to fight for the Duke of Monmouth. She is betrothed to marry Tom, who she does not love; yet in love with a man who her father would likely end up meeting on the field of battle. The character of Ann is an interesting one and throughout the narrative you can really see how desperate she is to break free of the ties that bind her to the village and to see the bigger picture. So much so she finds herself highly tempted when Robert offers to take her to London as his mistress. And you can see this throughout the entire story - she fights to stay true to her family's wishes, to marry Tom and remain true to her faith yet at the same time delights in escaping the village and travelling with the army. And yet despite this new found freedom she finds herself entangled in a life where she must face life or death decisions and finds out that the world is not one to be viewed through rose tinted glasses.

I was incredibly pleased also with the amount of research that went into this book. As a bit of a seventeenth century nut (who, to my shame, was in the Sealed Knot at one point as a musketeer), I was paying quite close attention to the description of the battles, and the musket drill. And it was spot on. And even though I was only ever in a pike block once in my time with the knot (and was rather drunk at the time, thanks for that Nantwich!), I couldn't see any issues with the pike drill being described in the story either.

All in all, a fantastic story right from the get-go that includes some of the most names and faces of the Seventeenth Century - Prince Rupert, Judge Jeffries and the Battle of Sedgemoor. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Seventeenth Century and looking to read a well researched, action packed story of an incredibly famous rebellion in English history.

You can pick up Tim Vicay's novel from Amazon UK and Amazon US for kindle.

Tudor House, Southampton

It's been a couple of years since I was last at Tudor House. Last time I was there the place was a building site, part way through a restoration programme. I was an archaeologist then, and I was working with a team of diggers in the gardens. We were basically there to shovel dirt out of the way of the builders. Yet we still found some pretty awesome bits of archaeology including some nice bits of pottery, and one of my colleagues found a rather beautiful stylus. One of my fondest memories is of trying to demolish a little stone wall with a mattock, in the rain. The mattock wasn't working and every time I hit the wall sparks would fly. In the end I had to use a sledgehammer. It was tough work. But damn it felt good when that wall came down!

Today, I decided it was high time I went back. Mainly because I've had nearly three weeks off work due to illness, but also because it's right on my doorstep. So this afternoon I took myself down there. I stood outside for a moment, in the little square facing this absolutely stunning building and I took it all in. The outside hasn't changed a bit since I was last there but it never fails to take my breath away. And then, I took myself inside, paid my entry fee and entered the banqueting hall.

The first thing we were treated to was an audio visual tour giving a brief history of Tudor House as well as a short introduction of how Tudor House became a museum. It was held in a very darkened banqueting hall, with a light show in which it seemed as though the candles were flickering, and noises came from the door behind me. I closed my eyes and I have to say, as the audio of creaking footsteps and barking dogs was being played it was somewhat freaky. It was a brilliant introduction to the history of the house, which I shall go into briefly below before I bombard you with all the photographs that I took.

The house itself dates from the fourteenth century, when in around 1348 a man named John Whytegod owned the land. The lane that runs alongside Tudor House, now known as Blue Anchor Lane, was originally known as Whytegod's lane (I wonder why). Whytegod also owned part of the property nearby known as King John's Palace, part of which can be seen as you wander around Tudor House. In the fifteenth century, Tudor House passed to Walter and Jane William. Walter William inherited the building from his father, and he was a trader who dealt in the shipment of wool and cloth. William was also involved a plot against King Richard III when, in 1483 he was made Mayor of Southampton. Due to his part in the plot, he was branded a traitor and fled to Beaulieu Abbey where he sought sanctuary and died not long afterwards. When Henry VII became king in 1485 after the Battle of Bosworth, he pardoned Williams fellow traitors and his wife became the wealthy owner of Tudor House. She later married Sir John Dawtrey. Following the wedding, the house came into the hands of the Dawtrey family. Sir John, already overseer of the Port of Southampton also owned many property in St Michael's Square near Tudor House, and he decided that a man of his status needed a house to befit him. So he commenced work and joined his houses into a bigger house which became very much like the building today. After Sir John died in 1518, the house passed into the hands of Lady Isobel Lyster (Sir John's widow, who he had married after Jane had died). Lord and Lady Lyster were exceptionally wealthy and conducted huge entertainments at Tudor House. After Isobel's death, Lord Lyster married again and retired permanently to Southampton in 1528. He was the owner of Tudor House until his own death 1554, and there is a monument to him in the church opposite the House. In the 1600's the house belonged to wealthy ship owners (evidence of which can be seen in the graffiti dotting the walls of the house), yet in the Georgian era began to decline, when it was made into a series of dwellings and the nearby area was one of the poorest areas of the city. Not long after, in the early 1800's, the house was made into a museum, yet many changes were made. Doors were added where there had been no doors, a minstrels gallery was added where there was none previously and wood panelling was added to many of the walls in a romanticised version of Tudor building work. However, it is thanks to this work that we still have Tudor House today, and thanks to the work of local historians and archaeologist we now have a history of this fantastic building.

I have to say, even though I spent less than an hour wandering around this beautiful building, I certainly saw more of it than I ever did while I was working here. When I was working in the gardens there was little time to explore the building - even though I did get to see the cellars on my first day. It was an absolute pleasure to wander around and have a look at the displays, and to see the graffiti scrawled on the walls from the 1600's and beyond. And despite the changes made to the place in the Georgian period, you really can get a sense of what it was like there. Plus, it was really very quiet and exceptionally peaceful, which always helps.

Below are some photographs that I took while I was wandering around.

The door on the left originally lead to the Tudor pantry and buttery. The gallery above was added in the Georgian era, as were the oak beams you can see in the wall on the left.

This is apparently a model of Elizabeth I

The beautiful gardens

This corner in the gardens is where I spent most of my time digging. To get rid of spoil we had to hoist buckets over the wall.

Tudor kitchen...apparently

Tudor pottery - we found many examples of this whilst digging

The engraving above could be a "witch mark" - used in medieval and Tudor times to protect against witchcraft (although these are normally two intersecting letter V's), or an insignia or a merchant who lived here at the time.

Beautiful painted beam

Not a very clear picture, but this wall has graffiti on it dating from the 1600's

Poor little stuffed spaniel puppy :(

Greek Amphorae

YAY ARCHAEOLOGY

YAY MORE ARCHAEOLOGY

Ship marks. If you look closely you can see what looks like a boat, and to the right of it and inscription of SCH

And last but not least, the staircase heading towards the exit, decorated with portraits of the family who once lived in Tudor House.

All in all, a fantastic afternoon and well worth the money. If any of you are in Southampton, I urge you all to visit this fantastic little place.

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