Annotations and comments

San Diego Sarah has posted 8,953 annotations/comments since 6 August 2015.


Third Reading

About Lionel Walden

San Diego Sarah  •  Link


Walden received the government whip from Secretary Coventry in 1675, and his name appeared on the list of ‘servants and officers’, but his parliamentary performance was highly unsatisfactory.
There can be no doubt that this was a well-calculated hint to the Treasury to come to some arrangement about his accounts.
Sir Richard Wiseman reported to the lord treasurer: ‘Sir Lionel Walden hath been made to juggle and prevaricate in the King’s service, ...’

On 12 July 1676, Danby ordered process to be stayed against Walden, and this respite was continued until after the dissolution.

Shaftesbury noted him as ‘thrice vile’, and his 1678 record was unimpeachable: he was a court supporter in both lists, and, for only the second time in 18 years, was named to a committee of political importance, that to prepare instructions for disbanding the new-raised forces, in which he had been given a regiment.

Walden was defeated at the general election of February 1679, and no report was made on his petition.
In March, Danby, now in need of friends, signed an acquittance for £6,693 12s. 10d. plus interest at 12 per cent.
Of the principal, £1,226 10s.8d. represented his deliveries to the victuallers and £383 0s.6d. was struck off by assigning his pension. The remainder was harder to justify: £1,600 was cancelled in respect of loans to King Charles I and Sir George Lisle during the Civil Wars, £610 was lost through forgery and defalcation among Walden’s subordinates, and the balance of £2,874 1s. 8d. Charles II was pleased to remit in consideration of the good services of Walden and his father.
Blacklisted among the ‘unanimous club’ of court supporters, Walden retired into private life with his ill-gotten gains.

By Whitsun, he had purchased at least 200 acres in the Bedford level, the minimum qualification for a conservator of the corporation.

Walden remained in touch with the Government, reporting on local affairs in Hunts., and Cams., and hosted the Duke of York on his journey to Scotland.
With the assistance of Robert Bruce, Lord Ailesbury he was returned for the county in 1685 without a contest.

An active Member of James II’s Parliament, Lionel Walden MP was named to 17 committees. He was chairman for 2 naturalization bills, and was appointed to the committee for taking the accounts of the disbandment commissioners.
On 4 June he was one of 7 Members ordered to bring in a bill for using part of the revenue from hackney carriage licences for the benefit of Chelsea Hospital.

Lionel Walden MP was named mayor of Huntingdon under the new charter of 1686, and returned affirmative answers on the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws.
He was nominated as court candidate for Huntingdonshire in 1688.
On 8 Dec. a Huntingdon maltster called him a pensioner and a Papist: ‘when he is at home he goes to church, but when he is in London he goes to mass’.
He recovered damages on the latter charge.

About Lionel Walden

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

The Walden pedigree recorded at the 1613 heralds’ visitation shows advantageous marriages in the 16th century, but the family seems to have wained with a move from Kent to Huntingdonshire.

Lionel Walden MP's father, the first mayor of Huntingdon, helped to make the town too hot for its former MP, Oliver Cromwell, in 1631, and during the Civil Wars allegedly contributed £1,200 to the royalist coffers.

Lionel Walden served in both wars under Sir George Lisle, escaping with a nominal fine for his delinquency. Nothing further is heard of him until the Restoration, when he was recommended for a knighthood of the Royal Oak.

He was credited with an income of £600 a year, from no known source as no property in Huntingdonshire or the Isle of Ely is recorded for him.

Walden was returned for Huntingdon at the general election of 1661, probably on the Earl of Manchester’s interest.
The first of the family to sit, he was a moderately active Member of the Cavalier Parliament, with 74 committees, including the corporations bill.
He was granted the excise farm for the county, which he held without partners for longer than most provincial farmers.
He was also receiver of assessments for 5 years, and probably used the proceeds to pay the rent of the excise farm when returns were affected by the closing of alehouses during the plague.

He opposed the Bedford level bill in 1664, acting as teller with Roger Pepys against 2 corporation bailiffs.

At Oxford, he was appointed to the Five Mile Bill committee.

Walden’s first recorded speech was made in the debate of 20 Feb. 1668 on the miscarriages of the war, in which he scored off his enemies by affirming that Sandwich had blamed want of victuals for his failure to press home the attack at Bergen.

On 13 Dec. 1670, on being named by Sir George Downing as £7,040 in debt to the crown, he replied that the victuallers owed him much more.
He usually voted for supply, and was regarded at this time as a court supporter by both sides of the House.

Lionel Walden MP was given a regular commission in the third Anglo-Dutch Dutch war.
His smartness at the review on Blackheath won the approval of Gen. Schomberg, who commended him to Charles II ‘for as good an officer as ever he served with’.
His continued inability to present his accounts as receiver of taxes forced him to look for a patron, and shrewdly attached himself to Sir Robert Carr, by whom he was treated with condescension.

Walden was included in the Paston list, and in "A Seasonable Argument" he was described as being ‘£8,000 in the King’s debt, a Blackheath captain and a Papist: at present has a company of foot and £1,000 a year given him’.

The charge of Popery was later held to be a libel, and his excise pension as compensation for loss of the county farm was only £300 a year; but the comment is as accurate as can be expected.

About Sunday 9 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

SYDSERFF, THOMAS (1581–1663), bishop of Galloway, born in 1581, the eldest son of James Sydserff, merchant, Edinburgh
He was educated at Edinburgh University, and graduated M.A. on 22 Feb. 1602
His first charge was St. Giles, Edinburgh, to which he was admitted on 30 May 1611; when the city was reconstituted ecclesiastically in 1626 he was translated to Trinity College church
He was one of the bishops and ministers hwho met at Holyrood on 30 June 1633 to discuss the introduction of the English prayer-book. Sydserff advocated the measure, and in 1634 was made dean of Edinburgh. In that year he was removed to the high church, Edinburgh. This position he held for a few months; on the recommendation of Archbishop Laud he was promoted to the bishopric of Brechin, and consecrated on 29 July 1634.
On 21 Oct. 1634 he was admitted burgess of Dundee ‘for his services to the Commonweal,’ and made a member of the Court of High Commission.
He exercised his powers with rigor, and in 1637 had high words with Lord Lorne for sentencing one of his followers to a fine and imprisonment.
His appointment to the see of Galloway was signed by King Charles on 30 Aug. 1635, and he was installed in Nov.
The active part he took in the establishment of prelacy and his intimacy with Laud made him a target for the violence by Presbyterians. The introduction of the service-book made him very unpopular
At Stirling in Feb. 1638 he was attacked by a Presbyterian mob; the intervention of the magistrates stopped severe injury
A few days later he was assaulted in the streets of Falkirk, Dalkeith, and Edinburgh. On 13 Dec. 1638 he was formally deposed and excommunicated by the general assembly.

After his deposition Sydserff joined Charles I, and was with him at Newcastle in 1645
The overthrow of King Charles led to his retirement, and he remained in seclusion until after the Restoration

When episcopacy was re-established in Scotland he was promoted to the bishopric of Orkney in 1661, being the only survivor of the bishops deposed in 1638

He died at Edinburgh on 29 Sept. 1663

He married, on 27 April 1614, Rachel, daughter of John Byers, an Edinburgh magistrate. By her he had 4 sons and 4 daughters

One of the sons was Thomas Sydserff, a popular dramatist, and the compiler of ‘Mercurius Caledonius,’ the first newspaper printed in Scotland

Keith describes the bishop as ‘a learned and worthy prelate,’ and Bishop Burnet alludes to him (under the name of ‘Saintserf’) in complimentary terms in his ‘History of his own Time.’
His name appears several times in the presbyterian lampoons of the period (see Maidment, Book of Scottish Pasquils).…

Bishop Sydserff doesn't sound like a disaffected Royalist bishop who ordained unqualified non-conformist criminals.
Maybe Roundtree was a man fallen on unfortunate times, and Sandwich was giving him a deserved second chance.

About Mr Roundtree

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

L&M: Ralph Roundtree on 6 June, 1661, was in the Fleete prison when he was appointed chaplain of The Breda: PRO, Adm. 2/1745, f45r.

Sydserff of Galloway, the only Scottish bishop to survive the interregnum, was then in London angling (in vain) for advancement to the primacy of Scotland.

Burnet (i, 236) tells how his reputation suffered from these at best Non-conformist indiscriminate ordinations.

About Sunday 9 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Taking a dancing master to sea -- well, this is a special trip. If the Portuguese courtiers know the latest dances, Sandwich and his captains must be able to match them.
If, on the other hand, the Infanta Katerina doesn't know the latest dances, here's something they can share with her which will be useful when she arrives, which can easily be done during their months at sea.

About Saturday 8 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Sandwich didn't attend the Lords today, and no mention of his being given a leave of absence.

The Lords were upset by the Commons inviting them to a meeting this afternoon in the Painted Chamber, and showed it by inviting them back to the same location and subject.

Therefore no one thought it was their job to post the minutes.…

About Saturday 8 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"To Whitehall to my Lord, who did tell me that he would have me go to Mr. Townsend, whom he had ordered to discover to me the whole mystery of the Wardrobe, and none else but me, and that he will make me deputy with him for fear that he should die in my Lord’s absence, of which I was glad."

Sandwich seriosly thinks Pepys can run the Navy and the Wardrobe! Of course, it would only be a temporary appointment. But paid. I wonder if it's the money or Sandwich's esteem which pleases Pepys more.

About Bartholomew Fair (Ben Jonson)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

L&M: A comedy by Ben Jonson, first acted in 1614, and published in 1631; in 1661 performed at the King's House/Theater Royal, Vere St. This was the first record of a post-Restoration performance; according to 'Roscius Anglicanus, or, An historical review of the stage from 1660 to 1706' by Downes, John, fl. 1661-1719; p. 17…
The role of Cokes was one of Wintersel's best interpretations. On this occasion the puppet-show in Act V was omitted. Much of the satire in the play was directed against Puritans, hence its popularity after the Restoration.

About Monday 9 June 1662

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Since Pepys writes mostly in shorthand, do we know if he had adopted the "J" in his alphabet/index?

It wasn’t until after the life of William Shakespeare (1564-1616) that the English alphabet welcomed “J” as its 26th and final letter.
First-edition copies of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet from 1597 were titled Romeo and Iuliet, as the letter “I” was often used as a written substitute for words with a “J” sound in English.

In order to fully understand the letter’s origins, however, we need to go all the way back to ancient Roman times.
In Roman numerals, a swash was sometimes used to denote the end of sequences — for instance, the number 13 often visually appeared in handwritten text as “XIIJ” instead of “XIII.”
In classical Latin and in various European languages through the medieval era, the letter “I” was used as both a vowel and as a consonant, and the constant version of “I” morphed over the years and eventually began appearing as a “J” shape.

In the late 15th century and early 16th century, a few scholars wrote treatises on grammar in which they suggested using “J” as the constant version of “I.” In English, this change took hold in the early 17th century.

A good illustration of this is the King James Bible, one of the first modern English texts to print “J” as a unique letter. The 1611 edition uses the consonant “I” in words such as “Iesus” and “Ioseph,” while the 1629 edition uses the letter “J,” paving the way for the eventual widespread inclusion of “J” in the English alphabet.…

About Friday 7 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Today the Commons continues to grapple with the big kahuna: the reinstatement of the Church of England:

"Clergy's temporal Jurisdiction.
The Bill for the Repeal of an Act of Parliament, intituled, An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was this Day read the Second time.

And the said Act for disabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority, was also read.

And the Question being put, That the said Bill for Repeal thereof should be referred to a Committee of the whole House;

The same passed in the Negative."

I.E. the first step is to repeal the 1640 Act of Parliament entitled "An Act for disenabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal Jurisdiction or Authority".
In part it says, "Be it enacted that no Archbishop or Bishop or other person that now is or hereafter shall be in Holy Orders shall at any time after the fifteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord One thousand six hundred forty one have any Seat or place suffrage or Voice or use or execute any power or authority in the Parliaments of this Realm nor shall be of the Privy Councell of his Majestie his heires or successours or Justice of the Peace of Oyer and Terminer or Goal Delivery or execute any temporall authoritie by vertue of any Commission but shall be wholly disabled and be uncapable to have receive use or execute any of the said Offices Places Powers Authorities and things aforesaid."…

The Lords wants to include the Bishops in their number, as was customary -- but does this Act make the Archbishop and Bishops who just crowned Charles II also technically 'illegal'? Better clarify this before some bright non-conformist spreads some rumors!

About Wednesday 26 April 1665

San Diego Sarah  •  Link


Adapted from
By WINIFRED Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE

* In February 1664 Pepys wrote about efforts to marry Lady Mary Stuart to the letch Harry Jermyn, and that she had been shelted from that outcome by Charles II.…

Sadly, it seems probable that Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran treated Lady Mary no better that Harry Jermyn would have done:…

About Wednesday 26 April 1665

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Letters are being exchanged at the Whitehall end of town:

Although the world marveled that Mary "Mall" Villiers Herbert Stuart, Dowager Duchess of Richmond should bestow herself on so inconsiderable a personage as "northern Tom Howard,'' yet it was evident that they were "the fondest couple that can be. George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was mightily troubled at the match." 1
1 "Hatton Correspondence" (Camden Soc), vol. i. p. 42. Sir Charles Lyttleton to Lady Hatton, 26 Nov. 1664.

Nor was Buckingham better pleased when James Butler, Duke of Ormonde sent him a polite request to settle his estates on Mary Stuart Butler*, who had recently married his son, Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran .

For once, Buckingham had public opinion with him in his contention that if his sister [now Mary "Mall" Howard] had a son, it would only be reasonable that as this child must succeed to the Dukedom, the Villiers estates should also be his; and the world considered that Richard Butler, 1st Earl of Arran deserved no pity, since he received ^20,000 dowry with a "high-born pritty lady."

Unfortunately, as the following letter shows, indiscreet friends were widening the breach between Buckingham and Ormonde, and much of their subsequent enmity was probably caused by the quarrels which took place over Mary Stuart Butler, Countess of Arran's settlement:

"My Lord, — I received yours of the 10th of this month, but since my return to the Fleet, otherwise I should have waited upon your Grace when I was last in town to give you myself this answer.

"First that I wonder very much at the discourse George Porter had with you, since though it had been all true with you upon his own knowledge, methinks he might have forborne the speaking of it.

“That I did once make a settlement very much to the advantage of my niece and my lord her husband, he did know, but whether I have altered it since I conceive he does not know, neither do I think myself obliged to give him or anybody else an account of it. What guesses he may make either of your Lordship's behavior to me or my sense of it, I cannot tell; perhaps his kindness may make him judge more in my favor than I do myself; for I have been myself so long accustomed to be ill-used, that I may very well begin to think I deserve no better; and that it is high time for me to leave off the pursuit of those things I have had so little success in to look after the repairing of my own private fortune.

“This humble opinion I have of myself hinders me from making any complaints only I shall assure your Grace, that my professions and kindness to you were so real, that if it laid in my power to do you service, I should not have left a possibility for you or the world to doubt of my being, My Lord,—
Your Grace's Most faithful and obedient servant,
"Buckingham." 2
2 Carte, MSS. 34, fol. 160. 26 April, 1665.

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"Mall has borne a secret feeling for the Earl of St. Albans."

That answers a lot. And he was very wealthy. Always good to have money in the family.

Agreed Buckingham and Mary Fairfax had not produced a legitimate living heir yet.

Your comment about Ephelia needs clarification: Ladies were supposed to be seen and not heard in those days. And ladies certainly did not write poetry and have it published under their real names.

But some excellent apparently-female poets in the Restoration times were published. Of course, they might have been Buckingham's "Merry Wits" teasing us from afar as pseudonyms hide their identities.

One of these poets used the pseudonyms of "Ephelia":
'In 1885, H. B. Wheatley contributed an undocumented, one-line identification of "Ephelia" as "Mrs. Joan Phillips" to A Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature edited by Halkett and Laing (VIII: 1885).'

'But who was "Joan Phillips"? It is not entirely preposterous, in view of Ephelia's probable identity in the tricksy 'Mall' Villiers, that "Joan Phillips" was yet another alter-ego of Mary Villiers Herbert Stuart, Duchess of Richmond, an urban identity or cover which allowed this inventive Duchess easy access to the colorful street culture of Restoration London.

'Within the constricted confines of the Court, the Duchess of Richmond was the pseudonymous writer, "Ephelia"; on the streets of Restoration London, she was "Joan Phillips."

'A woman of imposed multiple identities all her long life, the Duchess of Richmond, in the 1660s and 1670s, finally had the freedom, time, and personal space to recreate herself through multiple poetic voices and identities. From her privileged position at Court, 'Mall' had the resources and surely the talent to bring off such trickery.'

This article also proposes other theories, including Ephra/Joan Phillips being Aphra Behn.…

Also arguing against it being Mary "Mall" Villiers Stuart:
'The strongly promoted attribution of the verse of late-17th century woman poet ‘Ephelia’ to Mary Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox, should be rejected. Maureen E. Mulvihill's arguments for it are vitiated by circular reasoning and uncritical use of evidence. They also require explaining away much apparently autobiographical reference in the works as fraudulent or part of an elaborate private code. Taking these references at their face value is more likely to bring about a satisfactory identification.'…

We will never know for sure. Time travel doesn't appear to be a possibility yet.

About Thursday 6 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

The Lords were confronted with a tricky problem today. Nicholas, 3rd Earl of Banbury's Petition to the King, for his Writ of Summons to take his seat in the Lords, was read, along with Charles II's decision not to issue such a summons.

There was a question as to whether Nicholas and his younger brother, Edward Knollys, were the legitimate sons of William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury and Lady Elizabeth Howard, or were the illegitimate sons of Edward Vaux, 4th Lord Vaux.
William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury was aged 84 at Nicholas’ birth, and George Edward Cokayne the editor of the 19th century 'The Complete Peerage' claimed there were strong arguments in support of his legitimacy, although Nicholas was born at Lord Vaux's house.

This sticky subject was never resolved, and the Earls of Banbury never sat in the Lords.

(The Lord and Lady Vaux, a star-crossed, middle-aged couple, lived happily ever after, leaving the legal quagmire surrounding the Banbury title to their heirs and generations of students of English Common Law who struggle with the principles of Adulterine Bastardy debated in the Banbury Case. This affected a California paternity case as recently as the 1990's.)


The Commons also took more action against the Quakers:

"Proclamation against Quakers.

"Upon Consideration of the Report from the Committee concerning the Quakers Petition:

"It is ORDERED, That Mr. Attorney General do prepare a Proclamation, for suppressing of the Quakers, and reducing them to the Government of this Kingdom, according to the Laws; and for preventing of such dangerous Consequences as may happen, to the Disturbance of the Peace of the Kingdom, by reason of their Distempers."

I thought they filled up the prisons with Non-conformists last January after Venner's second rising.
Parliament is considering how to keep the King and country safe -- unfortunately the meat of the subject and arguments are not reported in the Pastliamentary Minutes. Did Venner really justify this level of concern, or what else is going on? Is it a ploy by Charles II to justify a standing army of Royalists?

About Monday 22 February 1663/64

San Diego Sarah  •  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; but it seems the truth is, 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. It seems a daughter of the Duke of Lenox’s was, by force, going to be married the other day at Somerset House, to Harry Germin; but she got away and run to the King, and he says he will protect her. She is, it seems, very near akin to the King: Such mad doings there are every day among them!"

"Oh what a tangled web we weave." Pepys didn't need AI to get the stories wrong.

1. Henrietta-Maria employed Henry "Harry" Jermyn, now the Earl of St. Albans, as her Chancellor for years. Everything historical indicates they were good friends, and he was her protector for decades. His wealth saved her from starvation a few times during the Civil Wars. She never had an illigitimate child.

2. The Catholic Earl of Antrim was technically George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham's stepfather. But the children of Katherine Manners Villiers, Duchess of Buckingham were taken from her when she turned Catholic, and brought up by King Charles to make sure they were Protestant.

3. Neither the Antrims nor the Buckinghams were related by blood to the Stuarts.

4. In 1663 Charles II was pardoning the Marquis of Antrim following lengthy investigations both in the Tower and in Ireland. Evidently some deal was made about his estate since he was childless, but it couldn't be what Pepys reports.

5. George's sister, Mary “Mall” Villiers Herbert Stuart, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox had two children with James Stuart, Duke of Richmond and Lennox: A son, Esme, who died in Paris in 1660, and a daughter, Mary Stuart, Baroness Clifton (of Leighton Bromswold) who was baptized on 10 July, 1651, at St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church, London.…

So yes, this little girl is Mary Stuart, who is 12 going on 13.

Harry Jermyn (1636–1708) is the 26-year-old nephew of the Earl of St. Albans, and was not a suitable suitor to such a well-connected young lady IMHO. What was Mall thinking?…

Yes, that young Mary felt free to appeal directly to the King was good, and that she didn't go to her uncle Buckingham might be telling.
Buckingham could have been out-of-town (he was Lord Lt. of the West Ridings, and loved his Yorkshire home), or she might have thought he agreed with Mall that this was an appropriate match.
We need more evidence on this before reaching a conclusion.

About Wednesday 5 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"I went home with Sir R. Slingsby to bowls in his ally, and there had good sport, and afterwards went in and drank and talked. "

I think they were playing on a private, purpose-built "alley" on Slingsby's probably-rented property. It appears to have been out-of-doors, so maybe it was a form of lawn bowls? "Alley" may only indicate that it was a dedicated space more than a paved surface.
(My uncle had loud opinions about children who played on his lawn bowls area. A paved alley would connect places, and be hard to keep clean and unused: "Excuse me, m'lord, but would you move your bowls -- I've got your dinner in this cart and it needs to get to the kitchen quickly.")

Slingsby came from an old and wealthy family (see below). The fact that Slingsby wanted the Pepys house as only half of his proposed residence at the Navy Offices suggests to me that he was used to having space and lots of retainers and servants.


The Slingsby legend states two brothers sailed from France in the 14th century to take up land in England. To decide which was to have Knaresborough they agreed it would belong to whoever set a hand on shore first. Whereupon one cut off his hand and flung it on the shore. The severed hand appears on the Slingsby Coat of Arms to this day.

Later Slingsbys have strong connections to Moor Monkton (or Moor Mountain as it was called until Victorian times) near York as well as to Scriven and Lofthouse Hill. Henry of Red House was a Royalist during the civil wars and was, for his pains, beheaded on Tower Hill in 1658

Red House and Scagglethorpe were purchased in 1562 by F Slingsby Esq from Robt. Oughtre Esq whose family had lived at Red House since the time of Edward III. The site of their mansion is a short distance from the site of the present mansion which is situated close to the Ouse. It was built in the reign of Charles 1st by the (later beheaded) Royalist Sir Henry Slingsby. His father built the chapel which has close connections with Sir Thomas Fairfax. . There is a Latin inscription in brass to the memory of Dorothy, daughter of Sir Thomas Slingsby, died January 21, 1667 aged 2 years, on the south side of the chancel.…


A contemporary Slingsby was an MP, and his bio links the families with the Percys and Belasys families.

About Saturday 1 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

AMEN to that, Stephane. I am constantly mentally thanking Victorian and Edwardian historians for their research and writing, and to Open Source and the Google librarians for their quick access to information it probably took the first round annotators years to accummulate.

I wonder if AI will expose us to "alternative" 17th century history? Is this a factual zenith? Will a black Queen Charlotte be accepted as a fact in 100 years? Maybe AI can tell us who probably murdered Edmund Berry Godfrey?

One good piece of news is that children are being taught cursive handwriting again, so there's hope a few will be able to read the documents that are too weird for AI to grasp.

About Wednesday 5 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Leads are by definition on the roof -- so maybe they were using the part overlooking the gardens? Once again, you had to be there.