9 Annotations

Jackie   Link to this

It seems to be a concatenation of several separate stories:

Charles I was not restored - his head was cut off, making restoration tricky for him. He was married, legally to the Queen Henrietta Maria and appears to have lived a rather exemplary private life by the standards of his day. He even seems to have been faithful (unusual in powerful men of that time).

Charles II was famous for his huge string of mistresses and most of today's Dukedoms are descended from his bastards. Charles was always generous in his provision for his bastards and didn't hesitate to acknowledge them (and give them titles after the restoration). The oldest of his acknowledged bastards was the Duke of Monmouth. When the Catholic James II was about to take the throne, various people plotted to put him on the throne instead by claiming that Charles II had married the mother of Monmouth. It was a very flimsy thing, as Charles was always aware that he had to make a royal marriage and as he had no legitimate heirs was unwilling to take his brother James out of the succession on behalf of any of his natural children. If Charles had been married to somebody else at any point, then his children would have been able to take the throne and given his misgivings (well founded!) about his brother, he'd have surely insisted on his sons inheriting instead!

James II did famously marry a commoner while in exile (and then tried to deny it after the restoration). He married Anne Hyde, daughter of the future Earl of Clarendon. James behaved very shabbily towards her in trying to claim that she'd been unfaithful with all and sundry. Charles II looked into it and when he was satisfied that it was a genuine marriage told his brother to "sup as ye have brewed".

This sounds like a story which leans heavily on two separate items firstly Charles II was famously unfaithful to his wife and that James II married a commoner in exile. However, James II's daughters were Mary II (who co-ruled with her husband William of Orange) and Ann who was the first Queen who was married and ruled in her name, without sharing that rule with her husband at all.

helena murphy   Link to this

king Charles I married Henrietta Maria in 1625. She was proclaimed Queen of England but never crowned as she would not accept a protestant ceremony.For this the Commonwealth refused her a pension after the death of her husband as she had never officially been Queen of England.
They had many children inclluding five who survived into adulthood , the future Charles II and James II, princess Mary who married prince William of Orange, Henriette-Anne who married Monsieur the brother of Louis XIV and Henry Duke of Gloucester who died shortly after the restoration.There is no evidence that Charles I had illegitimate offspring and had there been it would have been widely publiced by his enemies. He enjoyed a very happy marriage and was devoted to his children which even moved Cromwell to shed a tear. Illegitimate children in any case had no rights of succession unless recognized as heirs by the King. Henrietta Maria died in 1669. Her son, Charles II had no children from his marriage to Catherine of braganza but he had at least thirteen illegitimate children from different mistresses all whom he acknowledged but he did not recognize any one of them as his heir.

Therefore Janet even if there were some substance to this interesting story the children would have had no rights of sucession to the crown.

helena murphy   Link to this

Charles I was a man of religious principle whose suppport of the Anglican Church eventually cost him his life. His son James II was a man of religious principle whose adherence to his faith cost him three Kingdoms. He was a professional soldier and naval officer who fought bravely for his country during the Anglo Dutch naval war. Like his father and brother before him he helped to structure and build up the Royal Navy whose strength led Britain to became a European power and a great world power in the following century.
Charles I supported his brother's conversion to Roman Catholicism.
The Stuart monarchs were very insistent on the rights of primogeniture.Charles I warned his son prince Henry not to let parliament make him king while his elder brothers lived.Both Charles II and James II were ahead of their day in their ecumenical outlook and they tried as did their father to ease the burden of the penal laws on decent English men and women whose only crime was to adhere to the Roman Catholic faith.
For this they must be lauded.

Phil   Link to this

Copied from Maureen's post on 3 May 1660:

In the wake of the execution of Charles I - tried, remember, for making war against his own people and refusing to rule within the law - the monarchy was abolished and England made a "Commonwealth and Free State."

When Charles II returned it was by invitation of the newly elected Parliament and on terms more or less dictated by them - including the promise to act within the law (Declaration of Breda).

Other rulers may have seen him as a king in exile but he could not be king of England until England said so!

It is still part of the process that the new ruler is acknowledged by the people and accepted by Parliament, now in token form. This dates back in essence to the process in Anglo-Saxon times, before primogeniture came in, when the new king was chosen from among the eligible nobility.

NB: we had to depose another Stuart king to achieve some sort of order and have removed another since then!

Transcriptions of various relevant documents are at http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur_.htm

vicente   Link to this

This a look ahead to the future [38 years ] to the events now in progress will lead to the "Bill of Rights of 1689 " [google 'tis fascinating] a sample of the points in scribe there in.
"..And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.
And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgment against the persons,upon whom the same were to be levied.

By causing several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law. ..."

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/1689-rights/index...

Michael Robinson   Link to this

Court Officers, 1660 - 1837, a Database

http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/bucholz/DCO/in...

Michael Robinson   Link to this

Office Holders in Modern (post Medieval) Britain

Lists by office at:-
http://www.history.ac.uk/office/

Bradford   Link to this

"The King Returned": 5 fifteen-minute BBC Radio 3 "programmes in which Jonathan Sawday paints a picture of Restoration Britain in five essays: the politics, the science, the culture and the philosophy which made this an extraordinary period of history."

Broadcast Monday 24--Friday 28, 2010, and each installment available online for 7 days after first airing. The annotation (click on "Programme Information") for the first installment provides a good overview:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sbx30/T...

And here is the main page for "The Essay" (the series' general name), from which all the episodes can be accessed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006x3hl

Terry Foreman   Link to this

The Restoration, a 45-minute BBC Radio 4 "In Our Time" podcast

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00547bx

in which "Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the Restoration. On 29th May 1660, on his thirtieth birthday, Charles II rode into London on horseback and was restored to the thrones of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Ireland. A ‘golden age’ descended on a people that had been ravaged by civil war, religious division, Cromwellian tyranny and puritanical laws: suddenly the theatres were re-opened, Christmas was celebrated once again, all Orange-sellers were beautiful and peace and prosperity reigned across the land.

"Or at least that’s one version of the Restoration story. But despite the architecture of Wren, the literature of Dryden, and the philosophy of Hobbes, can an era that is suffused in Plague and in Fire, and culminates in something called The Glorious Revolution, ever really have had it so good?"

But in the 1680's there was the Hilton Gang, who terrorised Quakers and other peaceable dissenters.
http://www.historytoday.com/mark-goldie/hilton-...

Log in to post an annotation.

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