Thursday 29 March 1660

We lie still a little below Gravesend.

At night Mr. Sheply returned from London, and told us of several elections for the next Parliament. That the King’s effigies was new making to be set up in the Exchange again.

This evening was a great whispering of some of the Vice- Admiral’s captains that they were dissatisfied, and did intend to fight themselves, to oppose the General. But it was soon hushed, and the Vice- Admiral did wholly deny any such thing, and protested to stand by the General.

At night Mr. Sheply, W. Howe, and I supped in my cabin. So up to the Master’s cabin, where we sat talking, and then to bed.

15 Annotations

language hat  •  Link

"the King's effigies":
"Effigy" had a wider meaning in the 17th century: any 'likeness, portrait, or image.'

Brian  •  Link

Effigy would probably mean a statue in this instance.

kvk  •  Link

The effigies
These were the images of Charles I that were taken down in 1649. A statue was removed and a Latin inscription saying 'The King has left' was painted over the niche. You'll recall that Monck ordered the inscription painted over on March 16 (see the footnote attached to that entry). I don't know if there were any other images. Many statues of Charles I were destroyed, so I don't know if 'new making' means recasting the statues or making new plans to return statues that were hidden. Some statues were buried in order to hide them from Cromwell and co.

mary  •  Link

No wonder that Mountagu took firm action

yesterday in holding the loudly royalist Mr Banes; he must fear that this whole, southern stretch of the Thames Estuary may be turning into a maelstrom of conflicting factional currents.

Michiel van der Leeuw  •  Link

Effigies of Charles I

I've heard a story that there had been a large bronze statue of Charles I in London, that had been taken away by order of Parliament and given (or sold) to a smith to be melted down. This smith earned a living the next years by selling parts of the statue as relics to Royalists, and furthermore managed to "conjure up" the whole statue after the Restoration!

Roger Miller  •  Link

The statue of Charles I that wasn't melted down is by Hubert Le Soeur and dates from 1638. It is believed to be the first statue of an English King on horseback. Cromwell ordered it to be destroyed but was concealed by John Rivett who buried it in his garden. At the restoration Rivett sold the statue to Charles II and it was re-erected at the site where the regicides were executed, facing down White Hall towards the Banqueting House outside which Charles I was beheaded in 1649.

The location of the statue is now in Trafalgar Square and there are some pictures here:

Hhomeboy  •  Link

Was this a threatened mutiny?

"...This evening was a great whispering of some of the Vice- Admiral’s captains that they were dissatisfied, and did intend to fight themselves, to oppose the General. But it was soon hushed, and the Vice- Admiral did wholly deny any such thing, and protested to stand by the General...."

Anyone care to parse and explain the reasons behind the purported dissatisfaction amongst the serving officers? Were the sailours also troubled? Or did this have something to do with political appointees being given commissions and/or payment arrears?

Hhomeboy  •  Link

" stand by the General...."

Monck or Montagu?

helena murphy  •  Link

An effigy of Charles II may be seen today in the crypt of Westminster Abbey in London along with those of other monarchs. It is a lifesize figure dressed in the clothes of the period. The relevance of this move to reinstate the effigy of the king in the Exchange is of paramount significance considering the time and the turning of events. It is indicative of the merchant oligarchy of London's support and willingness for the return of the king,the new symbol of the nation's stability, a return to the old order of the episcopal Church of England, The House of Lords and a Parliament elected on the traditional franchise.Without this stability England cannot lay the foundations of its future empire in the east, establish the Bank of England and grow from being a European power to a world power.

michael f vincent  •  Link

"effigy" Every revolution/counter revolution needs symbols. The only way to tell the illiterate who is officially in charge. For data of illiteracy see Liza Picard Restoration London p.197

Jenny Doughty  •  Link

'concealed by John Rivett who buried it in his garden' - must have been a bloody great big hole in a very large garden. I've seen this statue, and it is not small! I'd love to know how he managed to dig a hole that size discreetly and unobserved.

john lauer  •  Link

Jenny, could it be help from those famous London fogs? And a very large garden would have very distant neighbors.

Jenny Doughty  •  Link

Londoners don't have very large gardens unless they're the Queen! A London garden can be 20 feet wide by sixty feet long, or even smaller, and I don't think it was that different even in the 17th century. Smog may be an explanation - Evelyn wrote of 'the horrid smoake which obscures our Church and makes our palaces look old, which fouls our cloth and corrupts the Waters, so as the very rain, and refreshing Dews which fall in the several Seasons, precipitate to impure vapour, which with its black and tenacious quality, spots, contaminates whatever is exposed to it.'

Grahamt  •  Link

Hiding equestrian statues in London:
John Rivett was a brazier, and as such would have a large yard/garden for casting of statues and smelting brass and bronze. He would probably also have a workforce to help with the task as a single man could not manhandle a large bronze statue probably weighing several tons. The plinth that the statue now stands on was created separately and was possibly not buried, making the task slightly less daunting, but still impressive.

erik spaans  •  Link

The equestrian statue of Charles I by Hubert le Sueur apparently was intended for a site at Roehampton. It was never placed there, however. The question how John Rivett moved and / or hid the statue is somewhat beside the point since in all probability the statue was sold to Rivett to be melted down. Therefore there was no need for secrecy whatsoever. Once Rivett had the statue in his possession it wouldn't have been too hard to hide it. If my information is correct, the statue was re-erected near Charing Cross sometime around 1675. However Westminster Hall seems even more likely as a location.

Log in to post an annotation.

If you don't have an account, then register here.