San Diego Sarah
Annotations and comments
San Diego Sarah has posted 8,749 annotations/comments since 6 August 2015.
The most recent first…
Daily entries from the 17th century London diary
San Diego Sarah has posted 8,749 annotations/comments since 6 August 2015.
The most recent first…
Comments
Third Reading
About Tuesday 23 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Well, Alter Kacker, the ceremony was essentially the same.
But the Pomp and Circumstances surrounding the coronation are up to the Palace and Prime Minister to agree on these days, since it is a State occasion, unlike the late Queen's funeral which was a family expense.
Charles II was out to WOW the crowd and impress them with his regime's divine duty/right/ability to rule.
Charles III and Rishi Sunak were more conscious of the mood of the British people, and while everything was splendid and appropriate, with nods to tradition, history, diversity, family, the Commonwealth, the environment, community participation, poetry, school children, etc., etc., the day was more restrained than I remember at the 1953 coronation.
Good crowd turnout, despite the rain. Lovely horses, and the fabulous but uncomfortable golden coach took the new King and Queen home from the Abbey. Great music with the combined choirs of St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey. The Royal School of Embroidery at Hampton Court had evidentally been very busy all year.
I suspect the banquet at Buck House that followed was excellent, with the best of everything -- but not to the excess of Charles II's, who was not environmentally-sensative in any way. He thought excess was good -- it fed the poor.
In 2023 there was no fighting in the Cathedral over the spoils that I could see. And the service was quite short, so I don't think anyone had to leave early, presumably to piss in the churchyard.
It's worth watching -- and hearing -- even now.
About Monday 22 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"So home, where Will and the boy staid and saw the show upon Towre Hill, and Jane at T. Pepys’s, the Turner, and my wife at Charles Glassecocke’s, ..."
So everyone except his sister got to see the parade? Pall is indeed on the lowest rung of the stepladder in the household.
About Saturday 20 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"East Indy Company of Holland" -- amazing how long the British have had this [lazy?] habit of calling The Netherlands "Holland". This is like calling the USA "Texas", or referring to the UK of GB "England", "Wales", "Scotland" or "Ireland".
The "United East India Company", or "United East Indies Company" (also known by the abbreviation "VOC" in Dutch) was the brainchild of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, the leading statesman of the independent Dutch Republic (AKA The United Providences).
Note; this did not include the Dutch people living under Spanish occupation in the other half of the country.
About Sunday 21 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
A later thought: Last month we assumed Pepys' fund-raising was for costumes and parties for the Coronation. Now we find the Navy/victualers paying for part of the event at least, and him wearing a coat he bought 6 months ago.
The fund-raising could have been for the staircase????!!!!
About Monday 22 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
If I were writing my above annotations today, I'd be less sure that Penn's son was William Jr.
According to Adm. Sir William Penn MP's website
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
he has 2 sons. The younger one is never mentioned by name in Pepys' Diary, so we have no Encyclopedia page for him.
We have no independent corroberation that William Jr. came to the Coronation.
Has anyone read a biography of either Penns with more info???
About Sunday 21 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
This foreigner word is a puzzle.
The building belongs to the Navy. The recently-departed plasterers and painters were Navy employees, and someone had found the official accounting entry which covered the payment. So I had assumed these carpenters were also Navy employees, and the work approved by Treasurer Slingsby.
If this was correct, I would think all the carpenters were technically "foreigners" and not members of the City of London guild, but obviously that's not the case. I am kerfuffled.
I recently broke my right arm, and find typing really hard. If someone can find those account's link, maybe we can find out who paid for the staircase? That might give us some clues.
About Thursday 18 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
Brits have a problem with American plain speaking. Saying YES when you really mean NO doesn't work on a continent where people speak over 50 languages at home. Keeping it simple and clear in unequivical English is essential.
Meghan probably hadn't "lost her temper" -- she didn't know how to phrase her instructions to a lady-in-waiting in such a way that they didn't sound like instructions, couched with please, maybe, whenever, if, possibly, please.
I can testify that we do speak different dialects, and what's 'normal' and polite is frequently different. Being an immigrant on top of joining the RF would be a lot for the strongest ego to endure. It took over 5 years for me to feel any level of comfort -- and I didn't have any of Meghan's learning curve requirements.
The Queen would have been more effective by taking Meghan aside and telling her quietly how to phrase whatever, rather than telling her not to do something.
And then leaking unkind apocryphal stories like this finally broke the poor woman, and the result was Britain lost their Harry.
Sorry, Phil, I know you hate it when we go off on tangents like this. Feel free to delete.
About Sunday 14 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... Presbyterian clergy in Samuel Pepys's day were typically well-educated individuals who had undergone formal theological training and held university degrees ... and that the preacher did not do the hard work ..."
My theory is that Pepys wanted to know what this new-fangled State religion was all about, and was frustrated when the same old rant he'd lived with for 15-plus years was delivered. Charles II opted to unravel the Universities before tackling the parishes.
About Thursday 18 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... in our way met with two country fellows upon one horse, which I did, without much ado, give the way to, but Sir W. Pen would not, but struck them and they him, and so passed away, but they giving him some high words, he went back again and struck them off their horse, in a simple fury, and without much honour, in my mind, and so came away."
One way the Upper Classes kept control was by never turning a blind eye to any breach of privilege. Pepys hasn't adjusted to that yet, and doesn't find it alarming to share the road. But Adm. Penn knows these country bumpkins need a lesson in civility -- and he probably thinks Pepys needs to smarten up and learn how it's done -- so he acts as an Admiral of the Realm would.
When thinking about slavery in the 17th century, remember how they were accustomed to treating their British servants -- it wasn't pretty.
About Newcastle Upon Tyne
San Diego Sarah • Link
Number of voters: c 1,250 in 1710
Date Candidate
11 Apr. 1660 ROBERT ELLISON
WILLIAM CALVERLEY
29 Aug. 1660 SIR FRANCIS ANDERSON vice Calverley, deceased
10 Apr. 1661 SIR FRANCIS ANDERSON
SIR JOHN MARLAY
Sir Robert Slingsby, Bt.
3 Dec. 1673 WILLIAM BLACKETT vice Marlay, deceased
The corporation of Newcastle consisted of the mayor, the recorder and the sheriff, who acted as returning officer, 10 aldermen and a common council of 24.
Both the corporation and the Members of Parliament were elected by the freemen, although the indirect method used in municipal elections favored control by the merchant oligarchy. All the successful candidates at this time came from this class, and all except William Calverley were in trade.
Newcastle’s Members were active in defending the interests of the local merchant adventurers and the hostmen, or coal exporters, on whose trade the prosperity of the town depended. Consequently the payment of parliamentary wages continued until 1685.
At the 1660 general election, Robert Ellison, a Presbyterian, was returned with Calverley, an obscure lawyer who took out his freedom on the occasion.
The Restoration was greeted with a loyal address expressing the hope that Charles II might prove ‘the instrument to unite a divided church, compose a distracted kingdom, and ease an oppressed people’.
A new writ was ordered on 23 July after Calverley’s death; but the by-election was not held until the franchise had been restored to Sir John Marlay, hero of the Scottish siege in 1644, and 9 other Royalists.
The new Member was a Cavalier officer, Sir Francis Anderson, whose election set the political tone for the rest of the period.
A further royalist success followed at the municipal elections on 1 Oct., when they wrested control from the close-knit group that had governed Newcastle during the Interregnum.
Anderson stood for reelection in 1661 with Marlay, although the latter had been compromised during the Protectorate.
The Duke of York recommended another Cavalier, Sir Robert Slingsby, the comptroller of the navy, who was connected with the Northumberland gentry by marriage, and considered it both easy and proper for the principal officers ‘to labour to get into the Parliament’.
The labor had to be performed by deputy, as Slingsby was in London on election day and never even took out his freedom.
Anderson and Marlay were returned by ‘the greater part of the burgesses’, and when George Liddell, a royalist conspirator, petitioned on 15 May, he alleged no electoral irregularities but only Marlay’s betrayal in 1658. The Commons spent the whole morning on the affair, then rejected the petition, and Liddell took no further action.
On Marlay’s death in 1673 he was succeeded by William Blackett, a prominent coal-owner, who was re-elected with Anderson at the first election of 1679. ...
FROM https://www.historyofparliamenton…
About Saturday 13 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I went to the Banquethouse, and there saw the King heal, the first time that ever I saw him do it; which he did with great gravity, and it seemed to me to be an ugly office and a simple one."
We have a page for The King's Evil aka Scrofula:
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Shooter's Hill, Kent
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: “A highwayman: it was common to erect gallows at the scene of the crime. The body of the malefactor would sometimes be soaked in tar to preserve it. Shooter’s Hill, about eight miles out of London, was one of the most dangerous points on the Dover Road; the way was steep, narrow and fringed by woods. Many robberies were committed there until, under an act of 1739, a new road was built up the hill.”
About Monday 8 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
For an organization with a Holy Ghost, that sounds reasonable to us post-Enlightenment spirits. But they were a superstitious lot, with an incomplete understanding of cause-and-effect -- besides which, although I profess not to believe in ghosts, I have experienced one event that defies logical explanation.
There are situations which defy all understanding. Where is your Bible when you need it? On a shelf somewhere. Which passage do you read?
About Tuesday 9 April 1661
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... I put my Lady, Mrs. Turner, Mrs. Hempson, and the two Mrs. Allens into the lanthorn and I went in and kissed them, demanding it as a fee due to a principall officer, ..."
Attaboy! Pepys is getting the hang of how to behave in his new role in life.
About Vincent Delabarr
San Diego Sarah • Link
L&M: Vincent Delabarr (a merchant) had been the collector of customs at Sandwich -- an office from which he had been dismissed for alleged disloyalty to the Commonwealth.
About Sir Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor 1658-67)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Oooops, that should be 1660-1669, obviously!
About Sir Edward Hyde (Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor 1658-67)
San Diego Sarah • Link
One thing not reflected in the early years of the Diary is that courtiers were trying to get rid of Chancellor Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon from day one.
One man who was a consistant opponent was George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
This long set of annotations gives lots of background info. on issues covered in the Diary from 1550-1669.
For the whole of Bristol's strange life, see
https://dev.historyofparliamenton…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Having spent the afternoon with this strange tale of George Digby, 2nd Earl of Bristol, I have great sympathy with his wife, Anne Russell Digby, Lady Bristol. She married a Protestant, threw him out of the house when he became a Catholic -- but still had to cooperate with him in petitioning Charles II to protect son John's future.
Then she had to spend her own money buying back the rights, presumably because Digby was too stubborn to do so?
His mansion in Wimbledon was a palace, see
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 17
In Feb. 1668 Edward, Viscount Conway remarked of the uncertainties and chaos afflicting government policy that ‘Lord Bristol thinks himself in as good favour as ever, but Lord A[rlington], says he is not, and never will be employed. The king gives good words and good countenance to friends and foes alike, without any distinction’.
Bristol was influential enough to be credited with the reconciliation between Charles II and his namesake Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond.
In April Bristol was granted the superintendence of banks and monts de piété (a form of pawnbroker) in London, Westminster and other cities.
In Parliament also in April he was named as one of the managers of the conference on the impeachment of Adm. Sir William Penn.
On 8 May during the debate relating to the conference over the dispute arising from Skinner’s case Bristol was said to have spoken ‘excellently well, and in favour of the Commons’ which probably explains why his name was deleted from the list of managers in the manuscript minutes.
That Bristol was now in favour with Charles II is confirmed by a warrant for the payment of £1,000 issued to him in June 1668.
In July a further £200 was granted and there was a report that he was to go ambassador to Spain.
Although he and Buckingham had taken opposite sides during Skinner’s case, Bristol was still reckoned to be one of Buckingham’s followers in Jan. 1669.
That same month his growing confidence in Charles II’s goodwill led him to draw up a petition to the crown for recompense in which he pointedly referred both to his own merits and to his frustrations at Clarendon’s hands.
His claims were referred to a small committee consisting of Sir Orlando Bridgeman, Anglesey and the two secretaries of state.
They reported in his favour recommending that his £10,000 grant should be renewed and that he should be given a pension of £2,000 ‘so that after his eminent services, he may be comfortable the remainder of his life.’
The king subsequently turned this into a grant of a pension of £2,000 plus a second pension to Lady Bristol of £1,000 with a reversion after her death to their younger son, Francis, until he in turn succeeded to his own reversion of a place as auditor of the receipt.
During the short 1669 session Bristol was present on 64 per cent of sitting days.
Although still considered an ally of Buckingham, in Nov. 1669 the 2 peers were again at odds over the bill spawned in the Commons as a result of Skinner’s case and designed to prevent the House of Lords from hearing original causes.
Bristol and George, 9th Baron Berkeley were said to be the only peers who voted in its favour.
Excerpted from:
https://dev.historyofparliamenton…
About George Digby (2nd Earl of Bristol)
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 16
Military reverses over the summer of 1667 also strengthened Bristol’s position by discrediting the ministry in which Clarendon had played so important a part.
Bristol took his seat again on 29 June, 1667 for the prorogation. He and Clarendon saluted each other, but Bristol did not wear his robes and carefully absented himself from the chamber whilst the king was present.
Ominously for Clarendon, Bristol returned to the House on 16 Oct. 1667, a few days after the opening of the 1667-9 session. He was then present for just over 82 per cent of sitting days and was named to 16 committees.
His return took place amidst reports that he was rising in the king’s favour.
By mid-Nov. 1667 Pepys wrote that Bristol and Buckingham provided ‘the only counsel the king follows’.
Bristol was also reported to have encouraged Lady Dacres to petition for a private bill which suggests that his intention to return to public life was well known.
The business of the House for the remainder of 1667 was dominated by the attack on Clarendon.
Bristol was named as one of the managers of the conferences with the Commons concerning Clarendon’s impeachment that were held on 15, 19, 25, 28 Nov. and 4, 6 and 14 Dec. 1667.
He was not present for the conference on 21 Nov.
On 22 Nov. he was appointed to the committee to draw up reasons for a conference about procedural issues relating to conferences but did not attend the House on 23 Nov. when the conference was held.
His involvement in the attack on Clarendon was underlined by his signature to the protest of 20 Nov. against the resolution not to commit Clarendon without a specific charge.
During a debate in the House on 27 Nov. about the conference to be held the following day, he repeated his belief that the House should reverse its vote and commit Clarendon, ‘but the generality of the House disliked that and it was ordered without a question that we should give them a free conference’.