The Coronation of Charles I - A Guest Post by Jennie Gillions

Today's post comes courtesy of Jennie Gillions, author of the fabulous blog "Ink Under Skin" which is all about tattoos and skin art in history. Now, I adore tattoos; heck I'm even planning on getting one of Cesare Borgia's motto but that's a different story - so her blog is definitely a must read if you like fun stuff like that. Anyway, I'll stop rambling and let Jennie take over with her post on Charles I's Coronation!

Charles I by Van Dyke

2nd February 2013 is the 387th anniversary of the coronation of England’s arguably most rubbish king.

He has some stiff competition - Henry VI was pretty useless, and Edward II was deposed by his own wife - but Charles I, I think, wins out for managing to be the only British monarch to annoy his own people so much that they, state-sanctioned, murdered him.

And it wasn’t even as if it started well. Charles had been ruling since his father James I died in March 1625, but plague had postponed the coronation. In case that wasn’t sufficiently ominous, his wife refused to be crowned alongside him, and the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke too quietly for the congregation to hear when they were supposed to start applauding.

* * *

Charles, born a second son of James VI of Scotland in November 1600, was never meant to be king. He was, by all accounts, an unattractive child, weak and with a pronounced stammer that he retained throughout his life - his father kept him in Scotland until a year after his own accession to the English throne, in 1603. Charles’s older brother Henry was, in contrast, glorious, and Henry’s death from tuberculosis in 1612 was as tragic as it was unexpected.

Charles I in his Garter robes by Van Dyke

 Charles therefore started training for kingship late, and a combination of naivety and supreme arrogance meant he made some grave errors even before he was crowned. Charles, like his father, was an ardent believer in the concept of Divine Right, that a king was annointed by God and therefore no other man had the authority to challenge him. Unfortunately Parliament tried to challenge him in its first session of his reign, by trying to impeach Charles’s beloved best friend, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham had risen to prominence under (if rumours are to be believed, quite literally under) James VI and I, becoming the preeminent figure at court, obscenely wealthy, and in charge of pretty much anything he wanted to be in charge of. This included, in 1625, an expedition to take the Spanish port of Cadiz, which ended in ignominious failure. Parliament blamed Buckingham for the men, the money and the dignity that had been lost but Charles, in an early display of the jaw-dropping inability to compromise that would eventually kill him, dissolved the session in a huff rather than risk Buckingham.

His early reign was also characterised by his disastrous marriage, to a French Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria. Henrietta Maria was only 15 when she arrived in England, already married by proxy to a nervous 25-year-old virgin who was a strict Anglican in a country that outlawed Catholicism. Charles had agreed with her brother, Louis XIII, that she should be allowed to practise her faith openly, which didn’t go down well with her new Protestant subjects. She and Buckingham hated each other, and because Charles loved his friend far more than he loved his wife, Henrietta Maria’s first months in England were unhappy ones.

Charles I and Henrietta Maria by Mytens

 So there was no glorious victory at Cadiz to celebrate, no heir to the throne and no harmony between Protestants and Catholics at court. There was no huge parade, and the Queen, refusing to be crowned in an Anglican ceremony, watched proceedings from an upstairs window. In the embarrassing silence that followed the Archbishop’s largely unheard call for cheering, it fell to one of the Lords to whip up some enthusiasm by shouting: ‘God save King Charles!’

* * *

God didn’t. Eventually, on 30th January 1649, after an eleven year rule without a single session of Parliament, followed by two bitter, bloody civil wars, England sent its king to the scaffold.

Further Reading

David Starkey & Christopher Hibbert: Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Charles-Life-Religion-War-Treason/dp/140398378X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359453943&sr=1-3)

Dr Katie Whitaker: A Royal Passion: The Turbulent Marriage of Charles I and Henrietta http://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Passion-Turbulent-Marriage-Henrietta/dp/0753828030/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359453943&sr=1-7

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

James II Vs William III

James II by Sir Peter Lely

I'll admit now that I haven't done as much reading on James II as I would like and don't know anywhere near enough about him. Other than the fact that he was Catholic and had his nephew Monmouth executed. And I'll admit also that I have done even less reading on the deposition of James in favour of William III and his wife Mary (who was actually James II's daughter!) Now then, I don't know whether it's the fact that I have this rather unnatural love of the Stuart family that has put me off reading much on William (and before you say it, I know he was a relation, and married a Stuart but shhhhhhhh!) or the fact that I have gotten it into my head that William was well...rather dull...but I have been avoiding anything after James II for a while.

Until now!

William III by Kneller

So yesterday, in 1690, William III who had come over to England and invaded in 1688 which lead to him becoming King in 1689, utterly trounced James II at the Battle of the Boyne over in Ireland. The Battle itself was actually fought on 1st of July but in the Julian Calendar - which works out as the 11th July in today's Gregorian calendar. Today however is the date in which the battle is 'celebrated'

So anyway, what lead up to the battle? And why did William win? Here, have some bullet points...

• James was catholic, and parliament were a tad fed up with him.
• So Parliament invited William over for an invasion, and invade he duly did, landing in November 1688 at Brixham.
• As William landed with thousands and thousands of troops, James began to loose support and refused to fight his nephew's armies deciding it would be much more sensible to run away.
• He tried to run away to France but was captured in Kent. William really didn't want to make his uncle a martyr though and let him escape in December.
• In 1689 a Convention Parliament met to discuss what to do and William really wanted to rule in his own right, even though his wife was higher in the succession. A lot of Parliament wanted Mary to be queen in her own right but she refused, being loyal to her husband.
• On 13th February Parliament decided that because James fled to France he had abdicated his throne and offered the joint crown to William and Mary because they were protestant - it was deemed safer for the English monarchy to remain Protestant. After this, so English monarch has ever been catholic.
• In 1690, the Irish people thought they would help James get his throne back, mainly because they were Catholic too and hoped he would allow them to keep practising their religion. James obviously thought this was a marvellous idea and joined up with the Irish to try and take back his throne.
• William however thought this was a bad idea, and wanted Ireland to remain protestant so he got an army together and marched off to Ireland.
• To cut a long story short (again because I haven't done very much reading on the subject), the battle went very badly for James and he lost and ended up taking himself back to France. He knew he was defeated.
• So William stayed King until 1702.
• And James died in France in 1701 - though up until his death some people kept trying to reinstate him, and there was this one episode where his supporters tried to assassinate William in 1696. It didn't work very well.

I have to say I feel really sorry for poor James II. He'd never been popular, and less so after his conversion to Roman Catholicism...and having a Catholic King of England didn't go down too well. Yet, at least William didn't have his uncle executed - which let's be fair, he probably could have - and allowed him to pretty much retire in peace.

I am hoping to do a lot more reading in and around this part of Stuart history because well...now I think about it, William probably wasn't all that dull, and I love battlefield history. So whilst this post may not be hugely detailed, expect more on James II, William & Mary and the Glorious Revolution in due course.

Further Reading

Coward, B, 2012, The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714 (Fourth Edition), Pearson: Harlow

It's Coronation Day for Charles II

On 23rd April 1661, King Charles II was crowned at Westminster Abbey, and I thought that I would write a little something about it. Just because you know, I think ole Charlie is rather fab.

The night before his Coronation, Charles took part in the traditional procession from the Tower of London to Whitehall, treading the same route as previous Kings. He was however, the last English Monarch to take part in this traditional procession. It started early, and everyone was mustered on Tower Hill at 8am on the morning of 22nd April. The diarist John Evelyn commented that the horses mustered there acted elegantly, which had to be a good thing as the horses were not allowed to be unruly or prove to be a menace. Samuel Pepys (another diarist close to my heart!) commented more so on the houses that lined the procession route, taking note of the rich carpets hanging out of their windows. Good old Samuel Pepys would also prove himself to be a bit of a party animal after the Coronation, getting himself stinking drunk! But more on that later. What's more, the streets ran with wine as Charles rode through the streets towards Westminster, stopping to watch plays set up in his honour. And along the way, it is said that Charles stopped at St Paul's, in front of a tavern to kiss the head of a newborn infant!

On 23rd, Coronation Day, Charles made his way to Westminster Abbey. And at 11am Charles entered the Abbey, with his periwigged head bare but he was dressed in full Coronation regalia of ermine, crimson and gold. There was just one problem, during Oliver Cromwell's time as Protector during the Interregnum, the Coronation adornments had been melted down including the famous crown of King Edward. The goldsmith Sir Robert Vyner came to the rescue however, replacing each piece exactly as it had been at a price of £30,000. The newly made regalia was carried before Charles as he made his way towards the front of the Abbey, with prominent nobles bearing the Crown (Ormond), the Sceptre (Albermarle), The Orb (Buckingham) and the Sword (Shrewsbury). Once they reached the altar, these were laid on top of it and Buckingham, Albermarle, Berkshire and Sandwich held a great cloth of gold over Charles' head for the annointing ceremony.

At the end of the service, the Archbishop of Canterbury placed the Crown upon Charles' head and according to Pepys "a great shout began" - can you imagine the sound, and how it must have felt standing upon the Altar in that huge Abbey as your entire audience shouted in happiness at the return of their King? It must have been utterly brilliant! The nobles of the realm then lined up before their King to swear fealty, rising to touch the King's crown and promising to be ever ready to support it. The Lord Chancellor then read out a General Pardon to all those who had fought against the monarchy in the previous years, and medals were thrown into the air - these medals showed an engraving of an oak, a poignant look back to Charles' escape from Worcester.

Following this, the party moved across to Westminster Hall. There, in the great space where his father had faced trial, Charles II attended a massive banquet in his honour, watched by his subjects on massive scaffolds built around the room. The space was then filled with music, dancing and feasting and even the weather held out for them. Well, until at about 6pm in the evening a huge thunder storm began and the rain came down in sheets. This meant cancelling the fireworks, although in the streets the celebratory bonfires still raged.

It was at one of these bonfire parties that Samuel Pepys and his wife began to drink to the King's health. After a while, and after a lot of drinking, Pepys sent his wife home and moved on to one of his friends where they continued drinking. They continued drinking "til one of the gentlemen fell down stark drunk and lay there spewing". A very tipsy Pepys staggered to his friend Sandwich's house where he woke up to find this he was vomiting too. And he wrote in his diary, "Thus did the day end with joy everywhere".

The Coronation of Charles II heralded a new era to his people, they had come out of years of darkness at the hand of Oliver Cromwell and had restored their rightful monarch to his throne. And Charles would end up, for the most part, being loved by his people. And what a great start to his reign it was, filled with joy, parties and a very drunk Samuel Pepys!

Further Reading

Fraser A, 1979, King Charles II, Butler & Tanner: London
Uglow, J, 2009, A Gambling Man, Faber & Faber: London

Stuart Crushes...? Oh Go On Then.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have a huge obsession with the Stuart era. I can't help it, I just love it. I mean, it was an era full of rather dashing men, battlefield heroics and amazing beards. Not only that (and we're getting serious now) but it was a dark period of Civil War, followed by a totally unfun England (cheers for that Cromwell) and ended up as a much more fun England under Charles II - bawdy poetry, theatre, dancing...general fun! My problem is that I love the era so much, the WHOLE era from James I all the way up to the reign of Queen Anne, and I have ended up developing way too many crushes on some rather dashing young men from the period. So I thought I would present you all with some pictures of these rather dashing young men and a little bit about who they are, and why I love them so much.

Prince Rupert of the Rhine

Born in December of 1619, this rather handsome young man played a huge part in the English Civil War, fighting and commanding parts of the Royalist army. He was also nephew of the lovely Charles I (see below). Prince Rupert became the poster boy for the perfect Cavalier with his dashing good looks, arrogance and enthusiasm. As commander of the Royalist Cavalry, Rupert took part in many of the English Civil Wars biggest battles including Edgehill, Marston Moor and the Siege of Bristol. Despite being rather dashing and a competent military commander he realised that the Royalist cause was lost and in 1645 advised Charles to treat with Parliament. Charles, of course refused and Rupert surrendered Bristol to Parliament ending up in him being court marshaled. His name was cleared, but in 1646 Rupert was exiled from England by his uncle. He did however have a part to play in his cousin Charles II's exile, and became a part of the exiled court, and when Charles was restored to the throne Rupert was granted a pension and made a part of the Privy Council, and took an active role in the Naval pursuits of the time. Prince Rupert is just so fabulous he deserves a post all of his own, full of pictures of his handsome face. So this will be done. For sure. Because well...LOOK AT HIM!

John Wilmot - Earl of Rochester

Anyone who knows about Charles II and the Restoration should have heard the name of John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester. And if not, why not? This guy is famous for having his portrait painted with a monkey, wrote some of the best bawdy poetry and plays of his time as well as some of the most gorgeous love poems I have ever read, wrote a ton of hilarious seventeenth century pornography and loved booze and women a little bit too much. Also, if you haven't seen The Libertine with Johnny Depp starring as the lovely Rochester then you are missing out because it is rather amazing and Mr Depp makes a brilliant Rochester! My favourite little ditty of ole' Johnny's is the following:

Here lies a great and mighty King,
Whose promise none relied on;
He never said a foolish thing,
Nor ever did a wise one.

Poor Rochester kept falling out of favour with his friend Charles II, mainly because a lot of his work made fun of the King and made out he was obsessed with sex. So he was exiled, and then came back only to be exiled again after a midnight brawl ended up in the killing of one of his companions in 1676.  But poor Rochester was to die young, and it is said he died of a plethora of venereal diseases including Syphilis and alcoholism.

Charles II

I think you all know why I love this man. I MEAN LOOK AT HIM AND HIS FABULOUSNESS AND HIS SHOES AND JUST EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM. Ahem. Please see my previous posts on Charles and his mistresses Nell Gwynne and Barbara Villiers if you want serious information about this guy. For now I will leave you with more pictures.

James Duke of Monmouth

James Duke of Monmouth has long fascinated me, since driving through Norton St Phillip on the way home from a day of digging up a Roman Villa and being told all about the George Inn where the ill fated Monmouth stayed during the Monmouth Rebellion. Monmouth was the illegitimate son of Charles II and his first mistress Lucy Walter. Monmouth was doted on by his father but there were loads of rumours that he had married Lucy and so the boy was actually the heir to the throne. It didn't help that Monmouth had proven to be a military hero and the people loved him, and those who didn't want James Duke of York on the throne got ideas into their heads that Monmouth should be the next King because he was Protestant. In the end, and this is putting it simply because again this could be a post all of its own, Charles got a little bit fed up of Monmouth and his big head so exiled him. After Charles II died, Monmouth came back to England and started the Monmouth rebellion to kick his Uncle James off the throne. And it failed, badly. Monmouth ended up being executed for high treason - he was beheaded on Tower Hill by the famous executioner Jack Ketch. Before he died, Monmouth felt the axe and asked Ketch to dispatch him quickly, fearing the axe wasn't sharp enough, even going so far as to give Ketch a bag of coins to encourage him. It still took 5 blows to kill him, and Ketch ended up removing Monmouth's head with a butchers knife. Monmouth's story is fascinating and incredibly sad - all he wanted to do was please his father, but at the same time wanted desperately to believe that he was legitimate and his parents had been married. I'm currently reading a biography of him by J.N.P Watson which is proving to be a great read and I can tell that by the end of it, I will be sobbing into my cup of tea.

Charles I

Charles I was my first Stuart love. I mean, look at that beard and you will understand why! Poor Charlie, he made some bad choices when it came to running the country and arguing with Parliament but I really do believe he was in the right. Him and his Royalists fought for tradition, and he firmly believed in the Divine Right of Kings, that he was ordained by God and so he was the big dog and so, above Parliament. Parliament didn't like that idea and so we all know how the story goes...the English Civil War. And sadly we all know how it ends, with Charles I being tried in a kangaroo court and found guilty of treason (treason? How can a king be found guilty of treason when treason is a crime against the King?). He was beheaded upon a scaffold outside of Whitehall Palace, and the only part of that Palace that survives today - The Banqueting House. For more detail on Charles please see my previous post about him and his life.

Thomas Fairfax

This guy sadly fought on the wrong side during the English Civil War, and was a General of the Parliament Army. Despite this, I quite like Fairfax not only because he was a rather handsome devil, but he managed to see through the Civil War, fought for what he believed it and also had a hand in bringing Charles II back to England. He also loved literature (maybe that's why I love him so much!) and gave loads of manuscripts to the Bodleian library as well as writing his own poetry and translating Psalms. His nick name, quite adorably, was Black Tom due to his dark eyes and dark hair.

Edward Sexby

The picture above is of John Simm's portrayal of Edward Sexby in the Devil's Whore because I couldn't actually find a portrait of Sexby from the time. Which is rather annoying.  If anyone knows of any then please do email me. Anyway, the portrayal of Sexby in the Devil's Whore wasn't exactly the most accurate although he was ruggedly handsome! The REAL Sexby fought for Oliver Cromwell's Parliamentarian army during the English Civil War and was also a follower of the Leveller John Lilburne, and thus believed in government being left to the people rather than having to answer to King or Parliament. When Cromwell took up the Protectorship in 1653 Sexby opposed it hugely, as it went against everything that had been fought for in the Civil Wars - Cromwell would for all intents and purposes be a King. Sexby and other Levellers began plotting against the Protectorship, publishing pamphlets and Sexby himself even turned up at the exiled court of Charles II to tell them all about leading an uprising against Cromwell and bringing Charles II back. Edward Hyde (Clarendon) was of course sceptical, wondering how on earth the levellers and a reinstated monarchy could work together. Sexby was the author of a pamphlet named "Killing No Murder" in which he said that Cromwell was a tyrant and worse than Caligula, and in such circumstances Tyrannicide was justifiable. He then began to plot to assassinate Cromwell. He was arrested in 1657, locked up in the Tower of London and questioned where he admitted to writing the pamphlet and plotting to assassinate Cromwell, but he wouldn't name any of his accomplices. Good man. Poor Sexby died of a fever whilst locked in the Tower in 1658 before he could be tried.

John Donne

This guy was a poet, a satirist, a lawyer and eventually a priest. He didn't take part in the English Civil Wars, dying before they could even start. He was born in 1572 and died in 1631, and this the majority of his adult life was lived during the reign of James I. Whilst Donne didn't really do anything particularly exciting, he was a member of parliament and later became a priest, he did write a love poem involving a flea. And that therefore makes him awesome.

Mark but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which thou deny'st me is;
It sucked me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea, our two bloods mingled be;
Thou knowest that this cannot be said
A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead.
Yet this enjoys before it woo,
And pampered, swells with one blood made of two,
And this, alas, is more than we would do.
Oh stay, three lives in one flea spare,
Where we almost, yea, more than married are.
This flea is you and I, and this
Our marriage bed, and marriage temple is;
Though parents grudge, and you, we are met
And cloistered in these living walls of jet.
Though use make you apt to kill me,
Let not to that self murder added be,
And sacrilege, three sins in killing three.
Cruel and sudden, hast thou since
Purpled thy nail in blood of innocence?
Wherein could this flea guilty be
Except in that drop which it sucked from thee?
Yet thou triumph'st, and sayest that thou
Find'st not thyself, nor me, the weaker now.
'Tis true, then learn how false fears be;
Just so much honor, when thou yieldst to me,
Will waste, as this flea's death took life from thee

Barbara Villiers Part 2: "The Finest Woman Of Her Age"

Charles II and Lady Castlemaine by William Powell Frith

In the last post, I wrote about Barbara Villiers early life, the early scandals that attached themselves to her, her marriage to Roger Palmer and the beginnings of her career at court. After she caught the eye of the King, she became a regular sight around the Court inspiring scandal wherever she went and it is her court years that we know much, much more about. Today's post will concentrate on these years at court, the children she bore the King and of course the scandal that followed her wherever she went.

Barbara was certainly a very beautiful woman, not only did she have Charles fall for her, but Samuel Pepys also managed to fall head over heels in love with her. Indeed, all contemporary evidence points to how beautiful Barbara was - Reresby called her "the finest woman of her age" and Boyer wrote that she was "perhaps the finest woman in England in her time". Indeed she was so beautiful that the celebrated artist Sir Peter Lely kept on wanting to paint her, for the sheer fact that he believed his paint brush could not do justice to his subject. In fact Barbara was one of the first to patronise Lely when he was made court painter in 1661, and he adored her saying that her beauty was "beyond the power of art". He painted her in many guises, that of St Catherine, an Amazon and indeed in a version of the Madonna and Child; and these portraits of her would become a template for court paintings.

Barbara Villiers and her son Charles Fitzroy by Sir Peter Lely

What as it that attracted King Charles to this woman other than her beauty? They certainly had little in common apart from their sheer sense of lust for each other, which given the times honestly did not matter. During the Restoration attitudes had changed whereupon people wanted to live their lives to the full with music, dancing and of course, sex. And Charles' nature reflected this, so much so that he became almost a slave to Barbara's sexual nature.

Barbara would find herself the mother of a good many of Charles' illegitimate children. The first was born on 25th February 1661, less than 9 months after Charles' triumphal return to London. The child's name was Anne Palmer, and Barbara's poor naive husband was convinced the child was his; Barbara insisted the child was the King's but it took him 13 years to admit paternity. With this child, there were at least three possible fathers but Charles eventually admitted paternity to placate Barbara and make the child's marriage to Lord Dacre easier. This also meant that Barbara's place at court was secure. In total Charles would have 5 more children by the King which would lead to some fireworks between the couple, including the rather famous incident when Barbara was pregnant with another child. This child was certainly not fathered by Charles but rather by Henry Jermyn and at some point towards the end of 1667 or early 1668 Barbara demanded that Charles acknowledge paternity of the unborn child. He refused on the basis that he had no memory of sleeping with her in the past six months. Barbara exploded, "God damn me! But you shall own it!" She threatened that, if the child was not christened at Whitehall, she would dash its brains out in front of him. When Charles still refused, Barbara left to stay in Covent Garden with her friend Lady Harvey. Of course, as what always happened between them Charles begged forgiveness and Barbara returned to court, with nothing else being said on the issue of the controversial pregnancy!

Barbara was universally disliked at court, due to how influential she was on the King, her arrogant nature and her imperious ways. She had a brilliant mind and knew how to get what she wanted but so many at Court disliked her, even feared her possibly down to them being jealous of her, or disapproved of her political influence with the King. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon could not even bring himself to mention her name, calling her "that lady" is he couldn't avoid it. These two ended up hating each other so vehemently that they each fought for the others downfall, which ultimately ended up in Clarendon losing favour at court and losing the battle with Barbara. John Evelyn, the famous seventeenth century diarist said that she was "the curse of our nation" which seemingly was a reflection of how the public felt of her. As we know however, Samuel Pepys gazed lustfully after her. Barbara was even slighted in public, and there was a particular incident in St James' Park which perfectly illustrates this; she was set upon by three well dressed, masked men who berated her with awful language and compared her to Jane Shore, Edward IV's mistress - they said she would end up dying in poverty just as Jane had. When Barbara returned to her apartments she collapsed in fear.

Yet in 1661 Charles showed just how indifferent he was to public opinion of his mistress by giving Roger Palmer a title so that Barbara could enjoy the privileges of higher rank and her children could also benefit. Roger was humiliated at this, knowing that the title would in fact mean nothing to him but it would all go to his wife. On 8th November the warrant was passed through, and Barbara was known as "Lady Castlemaine" and Roger as "Lord of Castlemaine", an Irish title. Roger Palmer however never took his seat at the House of Lords and rarely used his new title due to his disgust at the manner of his ennoblement. And it was following this that Roger finally caught on, and after the birth of Barbara's second child in the Spring of 1662 they had a huge argument. Roger was a staunch Catholic, and wanted the child baptised as a Catholic and so the child was baptised as a Catholic in St Margaret's, Westminster. After this Barbara had the child baptised again by a Protestant Minister with the King as a witness and she promised that the child had not already been baptised. Following this, Roger and Barbara separated - she stalked out of their house on King Street with everything, leaving poor Roger with just the walls of the house. He ended up going to France, leaving Barbara to return to the house in triumph. She now felt like she could do anything, she felt as if she were the most important woman at Court and she would make sure she stayed that way. The King's new wife was on her way from Portugal and Barbara had too much to lose, she had to keep her place as the most important woman in the King's life.

Queen Catherine of Braganza by Sir Peter Lely

The next few years would see Barbara at loggerheads with both the new English Queen, Catherine of Braganza as well as the new mistresses in Charles' life. She would continue to be disliked at Court and would end up in a furious battle of wits with Clarendon, before Charles would become tired of her. The next post in this series will concentrate on those years, leading up to her dismissal and ultimate death.


Further Reading

Fraser, A, 1979, King Charles II, Butler & Tanner: London
Fraser, A, 1984, The Weaker Vessel: Women's Lot in Seventeenth Century England, Phoenix: London
Masters, B, 1979, The Mistresses of Charles II, Constable: London
Uglow, J, 2009, A Gambling Man, Faber & Faber: London

Barbara Villiers - Part 1

Barbara Villiers by Sir Peter Lely

The name Barbara Villiers conjures up images of a greedy, power hungry woman who had King Charles II wrapped around her little finger. This woman is exceptionally fascinating, how did she retain such favour and stay an almost constant presence in the court of Charles II? But who was she?

Barbara was part of the Villiers family, a very old English family who could trace their beginnings back to at least the Norman Conquest when they were granted estates in Nottingham, Leicestershire and Lancashire. The family rose to prominence thanks to Barbara's great-great grandfather, Sir George Villiers, a man who was sheriff of Leicestershire in 1591 and father to George Villiers, the first duke of Buckingham and favourite of James I. The 2nd Duke of Buckingham, another George Villiers was the very same man who introduced Charles II to such a deplorable lifestyle in Paris, introducing the young Charles to the delights of young women. And it was this very same George who was the cousin of Barbara Villiers herself.

 George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham by Sir Peter Lely

Barbara Villiers herself was born in around 1641 in Westminster. Her father was William Villiers, a man who had fought for the Royalists at Edgehill and died from wounds received at the siege of Bristol. Her mother was Mary Bayning who, after William died, married another Villiers by the name of Charles, Earl of Anglesey. Charles was a relatively poor man, and according to Masters in his book "The Mistresses of Charles II", Barbara would have been brought up in relative poverty but with the name of Villiers, and a relative of the first Duke of Buckingham who had been a favourite at the time of James I and Charles I, as soon as the monarchy was restored, the poverty would not last for long. The family would doubtless be back in favour. 

Barbara's life of depravity no doubt started when she was relatively young. By the age of 15, she was involved in an affair with Lord Chesterfield. This man would sleep with any woman if she were not old or ugly, and of course Barbara was neither. The two of them met often in secret and it seems that Barbara's feelings were so much for this man that she could be incredibly jealous of him and got rather upset when he would seek another woman's arms. Yet she would still send him letters which were nothing more than invitations to bed and would always make herself available if he wanted her.

In 1659, she married Roger Palmer and this poor man would soon become cuckolded by her, though he often had no idea what was going on under his very nose. They married on 14th April 1659 when Barbara was 18 years old, and by this time she already had a very black reputation, so much so that when Palmer decided on marrying her his own father warned him off saying, "If you persist in marrying that woman...you will live to be the most miserable man in the world". Roger of course completely ignored those very wise words. After they married, Palmer took his new wife to live in the country where she could be kept away from temptation. Yet the young Barbara snuck away whenever she could, taking herself back to Lord Chesterfield. Palmer remained ignorant of this, even failing to notice when Barbara wrote letters to Chesterfield stating that she would go anywhere in the world with him. But by 1660 her affair with Chesterfield was over when she contracted smallpox - it put Chesterfield off her completely so much so that he fled to the Continent following a duel in which he killed another member of the nobility, received a pardon from the future King Charles II and returned to England in triumph with the Restoration of the Monarchy. 

It was in 1660 when Barbara and Charles met for the first time, likely in Holland when Barbara and Roger went to offer their support. We do not know whether Barbara returned with her husband in the April or stayed behind and become involved with the King but she certainly was not present when the King returned to London on 29th May. It is said however that she was in his bed at the end of the day, so had the affair already begun before his return? The first concrete evidence of  Barbara's presence at court was when Samuel Pepys noted seeing her in his famous diaries - he was disturbed one evening as he was writing letters by a rather loud party coming from next door, which was the house of Roger and Barbara and he noted that both the King and Duke were there with "Madam Palmer" who both men had taken a bit of a fancy to! By October, she had firmly found her place in Court Circles and she knew what she wanted. Her name begins to crop up more and more, particularly in the diaries of Pepys (who was somewhat in love with her!) and even at this early stage she was well on her way to becoming Maitresse-en-titre and having such a hold over the King that many within the circles at Court would end up disliking her. Clarendon was one of the main court men to detest her presence, and refused to accept her as the King's mistress, even going as far as to forbid his own wife from receiving her!

Barbara Villiers would end up having a long career and court, full of sexual scandal. She would be universally disliked and fall in and out of favour with the King. She would bear him countless children, argue with him about their paternity and demand titles for them. She would also prove herself to have a shrewd head for politics and to be exceptionally clever, she knew how to keep her men exactly where she wanted them and she knew how to make people tick. Barbara was such a complex woman and her scandalous life still manages to capture people's imagination.

Further reading

Fraser, A, 1979, King Charles II, Butler & Tanner: London

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

Uglow, J, 2009, A Gambling Man, Faber & Faber: London

Revisiting Hampton Court Palace (March 2011)

Following on from my post about our visit to The Tower, earlier this year my partner and I took a trip to Hampton Court. It was next on my list of Tudoresque buildings to visit after the Tower and I loved its links to the ghost of Katherine Howard. I had known that originally the palace had belonged to Cardinal Wolsey, and passed into the Kings hands later but I had no idea of the scale of the place and just how beautiful it was. Unfortunately, it was raining on the day we went (I have this unfortunate knack of picking the days to visit places that have the worst weather) so I ended up having to shell out on an expensive Hampton Court brolly. It has since become my favourite brolly in the world however!

Anne Boleyn's gateway, just inside the entrance to the palace. So called because as you walk through the archway there are still the HA insignia carvings from when Henry and Anne were married. These insignias were overlooked after Anne's execution and as Henry rushed to have all evidence of Anne removed.
Anne Boleyn's gateway from the other side. This clock is an astronomical clock commissioned by Henry VIII in 1540, which shows the time of day, phases of the moon, the quarter of the year, the date, the sun and star sign and the high water at London bridge!

The day we were there there was a huge display of costumed reenactors. As we arrived we were presented with a what's on guide which told us the time and place of events that were going in but promptly forgot about it and went on our way through the palace. As we were walking through the Haunted gallery however, my partner was coerced into attending a meeting of the Privy Council by a man who later turned out to be none other than Thomas Seymour! And I, lowly woman that I was, was told to go to the Great Watching Chamber and see Frances Grey, the King's niece. This was an absolutely fantastic portion of the day, all of the staff members played their roles so well and I had a great talk with the lady playing Frances about how the little Prince Edward was getting on before we went to the Privy Council to inform the King. Later on as we were in the Great Watching chamber having a look, who should turn up but King Henry VIII in time for his petitions! The room got quite full very quickly but we were relatively near the front and sure enough, Frances Grey takes my arm and asks how my "sister is getting on" because she recognised me and remembered the letter I had written her about getting my sister married off. I ended up being taken before the King (it was very VERY scary, I was pretty much lost for words!) to ask him to help out my sister and find her a good marriage. There was a bit of banter between myself and Thomas Seymour after that too. And yes, that is me in the photo above! Great fun, finished with Henry answering lots of questions from the children who were there on a school trip. It made the experience very hands on, and I loved it. A great way to make the history that little more interesting and hands on to those younger generations and those who are only just finding an interest in the period.

Next we took a further sojourn down the Haunted Gallery and saw some of the most famous Tudor portraits:

The top one there is the famous Tudor family portrait showing Henry, Prince Edward and Jane Seymour (although she had long been dead by the time this was painted) and Henry's two daughters Mary and Elizabeth. In this portrait Elizabeth is wearing a necklace with the letter "A" around her neck, a stark reminder that she is Anne Boleyn's daughter. The lower photograph is of course little Edward VI, the young king who was used as a stepping stone to power for so many and who unfortunately died before he could reach his majority.

Now this portrait got me a little excited. It's probably the most famous portrait in the world of Charles II, the man who restored the monarchy of England after the tyrannical rule of Oliver Cromwell. And he was certainly a man who liked to party. I was astounded at the size of this portrait, as we walked into the room where all the Stuart portraits were hung this one dominated the room. I stood there for what seemed like an eternity drinking in this beautiful portrait and it was really very hard to drag myself away. Charles II is one of my favourite historical figures and a man who deserves a lot of respect. And this portrait just exudes power and majesty and dominates the room, as I think the character of Charles would have done in life.

Hampton Court really is an amazing place, so full of so many different periods of history. The majority know it just for its links to the Tudor dynasty but there really is so much more. Yes, Henry VIII spent a lot of time here and yes, Katherine Howard was arrested here after it was found out that she had been "unfaithful" but there are astounding Stuart links here as well as Georgian (although after George II, no monarch ever resided there - George III linked it to a rather embarrassing moment where his father struck him) and it was during the reign of Victoria that it was first opened to the public. I definitely recommend Hampton Court as it is a fantastic day out and really not too expensive! Just make sure you get there early enough to do everything - we arrived rather late (closer to lunch time) and so didn't have time to do the gardens or the maze, although saying that with the weather as rubbish as it was it was probably best that we stayed inside! It's definitely somewhere that we will be looking to go back to!

Next on the agenda however is Westminster Abbey and Westminster Hall!