Annotations and comments

Terry Foreman has posted 9768 annotations/comments since 28 June 2005.

The most recent…


Comments

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"the Princes of the Blood (though invited by our Embassador, which was the greatest absurdity that ever Embassador committed these 400 years) were not there; and so were not said to give place to our King’s Embassador."

A canard: Holles was not received in audience by Louis XIV until 10 March.
(Per L&M footnote)

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"The rape upon a woman at Turnstile the other day, her husband being bound in his shirt, they both being in bed together, it being night, by two Frenchmen, who did not only lye with her but abused her with a linke, is hushed up for 300l., being the Queen Mother's servants."

They were in fact condemned in the April sessions. (Per L&M footnote)

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"he hath obliged himself, upon the clearing of his estate, to settle it upon a daughter of the Queene-Mother’s (by my Lord Germin, I suppose,) in marriage, be it to whom the Queene pleases; which is a sad story. "

There is no truth in this story: it was inspired by the fact that Henrietta Maria and Jermyn (and court Catholics generally) supported Antrim. (L&M footnote)

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"That the King hath done himself all imaginable wrong in the business of my Lord Antrim, in Ireland; who, though he was the head of rebels, yet he by his letter owns to have acted by his father’s and mother’s, and his commissions"

Antrim (a leader of the Roman Catholic royalists and not 'the head of rebels' as Pepys has it) had given valuable service to Montrose in Scotland during the civil war, and to support him the King had written a letter to Ormond, the Lord-Lieutenant, a copy of which was sent to the commissioners adjudicating the land settlement. It had been published illegally in the autumn of 1663 in *Murder will out, or, The King's letter justifying the Marquess of Antrim and declaring that what he did in the Irish rebellion was by direction from his royal father and mother, and for the service of the crown.* Collection of letters and declarations chiefly by Charles, and a letter from Pope Gregory XV. Includes Charles's letter exonerating MacDonnell [Antrim] which is signed: By His Majesty's command, Henry Bennet. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c...

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"That my Lord Lauderdale, being Middleton’s enemy, and one that scorns the Chancellor even to open affronts before the King, hath got the whole power of Scotland into his hand; whereas the other day he was in a fair way to have had his whole estate, and honour, and life, voted away from him."

On 5 January Middleton had been forced to resign from the captain-generalship and the keepership of Edinburgh Castle -- Rothes, Lauderdale's agent, succeeding him in both offices. Lauderdale, Secretary to the Scottish Privy Council, was now supreme, after a rivalry which had been fierce and open since the Restoration. (Per L&M footnote)

About Sunday 21 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"a letter to Mr. Coventry about preserving of masts, being collections of my own"

Dated Shrove Tuesday (23 February): Further Corr., pp. 15-19. Pepys argued, largely on the advice of Warren, that the best method would be to submerge the masts in the water of creeks. He opposed the building of a mast-house at Deptford, and the suggestion of keeping them in the proposed new dock at Chatham. (Per L&M footnote)

13 January Dr. Whistler had explained to Pepys why keeping masts dry was inadvisable: http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1664/01/13/#c53...
In 1689, after Pepys had retired, a wet-dock for masts was built at Deptford:
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/deptfor...

About Friday 19 February 1663/64

Terry Foreman  •  Link

"Sir John Bankes...told us several passages of the East India Company; and how in his very case, when there was due to him and Alderman Mico 64,000l. from the Dutch for injury done to them in the East Indys, Oliver presently after the peace, they delaying to pay them the money, sent them word, that if they did not pay them by such a day, he would grant letters of mark to those merchants against them; by which they were so fearful of him, they did presently pay the money every farthing."

Pepys seems to have confused the payment of £85,000 to the E. India Company made after the Treaty of 1654, with the payment of £50,000 to Banks and others made in 1659 for their losses from three trading ventures. Banks himself made a profit of only £465. See D.C. Coleman, Sir John Banks, pp. 18-19; Cal. court mins E. India Co. 1650-4 (ed. E.B. Sainsbury) p. xii; ib., 1655-9, pp. v, vi; Thurloe, State Papers, iii, 212. (L&M footnote)