Even as Londoners dealt with the emotional devastation wrought by the Fire, plans to re-build were afoot and, along with managing the costs of such a massive enterprise, the pressing question arose of who owned what.
Historical novelist Andrew Taylor describes it in these terms: “From the Middle Ages, a web of ownership and occupancy patterns had developed, made up of freeholds, tenancies, sub leases, assignments, rents, fines and other legal mechanisms. [London] was riddled with inconsistencies, ambiguities and conflicting interests.
“Moreover, most leases included a clause obliging the lessee to rebuild in case of fire. While this was being done, the tenant had to continue paying rent. In the face of such a widespread disaster, at a time when many citizens had lost everything they had owned, this requirement was neither practical nor fair, since it placed the greater burden on that part of the population least able to bear it. It would also mean that the entire program of rebuilding could be held up while hundreds of individual cases worked their way through the courts.”
In response, the government established the Fire Court, housing it in a hall in Clifford’s Inn. It was, explains Taylor, a “special court set up to deal solely with property disputes that hindered the rebuilding of the city after the Great Fire. It handled more than 1,000 cases and imposed settlements on legal disputes that in usual circumstances could have dragged on for years.”
Ten years ago John asked, "Was it not common at the time to send out your children as servants in the houses of others? Was it also common to expect them to be molested?"
I found this article today, and yes, it's the next century and yes, it's information about French courting habits, but I suspect the lives of young women without dowries was much the same.
Looking for inspiration about what to cook for the holidays? The Folger has come up with some 17th century meal plans, including a festive dinner: https://shakespeareandbeyond.folg…
How true, on all counts, Mountebank. The news from California is about as bleak with our hospitals full, nurses quitting because they are exhausted, and 85 million Americans glibly flying off to see their relatives regardless. And Mr. Biden has warned us the Spring will be worst. Bring on the vaccines; people appear to be unable to help themselves any more. Thank you, Royal Society for paving the scientific way, and Lady Mary Pierrepont Wortley Montagu for pushing the doctors to learn something new in the 1700's.
Having this blog as a creative distraction and daily focus has -- once again for me -- been a God-sent. Phil's generosity in maintaining it for us, and Terry's continued guiding hand are appreciated every day.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and blog in good health, everyone. This time next year will be better.
Since this meeting of the Stuart brother's current cabal was held at Southampton's home, I think we can assume Treasurer Southampton was involved in the conversation. As would be Arlington, who is in charge of intelligence. And Coventry, who was Secretary of the Navy. And Carteret, another money man. Everyone loved Albemarle, so he would have been there. Maybe Buckingham, if he wasn't in the Tower. Maybe Monmouth, as Charles was grooming him for higher office. Maybe Lauderdale, if Scotland was involved. Who's in, who's out, who's up and who's down?
"... it being read before the King, Duke, and the Caball with complete applause and satisfaction."
The word CABAL existed long before the political group of 5 councilors who took over from 1668-1672 whose names coincidentally spelled CABAL. Therefore, I think linking the word today to the Committee for Foreign Affairs is too early for our narrative.
I suspect Charles II's 1665 wartime cabal included James, Rupert, Albemarle, Southampton, Carteret, Coventry, Sandwich, Arlington, maybe Lauderdale if Scotland was involved. And Buckingham, if he was in favor today, not that he knows anything about naval warfare, but he made Charles laugh.
"I'd not heard of Symon Patrick before, and from a quick search of the The Diary neither has Sam."
And nor had I, Harry. I've learned so much about the Diary years by asking Google dumb questions. Last night I googled "1667 Charles II Quakers," and the Church Times was where I landed. I wanted to know what encouragement Charles had given the Nonconformists last week, but that remains a mystery.
As to why Pepys hasn't heard of Symon Patrick, I'm sure he had. This makes me think Pepys was basically more of a Puritan than he lets on, and isn't particularly interested in reading why the Church of England is a good thing. I think he steers clear of religion: just as today we skirt around politics in the USA.
Forget “the Century of Revolution” – the 17th century was the century of the pie. Pie-making was a way of keeping cooked food. It was the pie contents that mattered: the pastry case was often discarded, and pies could reach prodigious proportions.
A South Wales customs officer in 1663 sent a pie to a London relative; it consisted of a turkey, 2 ducks, 2 snipe and 17 woodcocks, and was baked with 15 pounds of butter. Melted butter was poured into a filled pie-case to preserve the cooked contents after it solidified. This was probably at the most generous end of the pie-making scale, ....
St. Paul's Church, Covent Garden was known as a society church, and in 1662 an enthusiastic Church of England minister took over.
Symon Patrick, the Rector, was one of the few who remained in his parish during the plague in 1665; in general, support for the Church of England clergy fell because many of them in the affected areas abandoned their parishioners, whereas Nonconformist ministers largely stayed. Consequently, when Patrick took up the pen in support of the Church of England's mission to take the middle way between Catholicism and Presbyterianism, he found a large audience. For more, see https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
By this time, the Nonconformist threat had receded, as Parliament passed a second Conventicle Act (1670), the apogee of the Clarendon Code. Famously described by the satirist Andrew Marvell as the “quintessence of arbitrary malice”, it increased the penalties for which Nonconformist ministers were liable, and provided for rewards for those who informed against them.
But in the same parliamentary session, attention began to move to the threat posed by Roman Catholics, and a Bill designed to prevent their holding office was considered.
What is not in doubt is that, virtually single-handedly, Symon Patrick of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden preserved the status of the Church of England so effectively that, although further Bills for comprehension and toleration would be considered and rejected, Charles II made no further attempt to compromise the position and character of his Church.
Symon Patrick of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, recognized that the survival of the Church of England was at stake. In a withering attack on Nonconformity, he issued a series of polemics, A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Non-Conformist.
This work was a phenomenal success — even more popular than The Parable of the Pilgrim. Written in dialogue form, it explained in simple language the areas of disagreement between two representatives, and used humor to present a convincing argument for conformity.
First appearing late in 1668, within a year it had expanded into a second part, and reached 10 editions.
A third part plus appendix followed in 1670, and months before Charles II died, a “corrected and enlarged” sixth edition appeared.
It can be argued that had Symon Patrick, Rector of St. Paul’s not seen the need for a defense of the Established Church when he did, the increasing strident Nonconformist voices could have persuaded Charles II that, in the interests of domestic peace, the Church of England needed to accommodate the Nonconformists through compromise.
It is difficult to see how this accommodation could have been achieved without the removal of bishops and the adoption of a Presbyterian form of church government, an outcome Pepys believed was inevitable.
The success of Symon Patrick’s Parable of the Pilgrim, and the Friendly Debate series made Charles II recognize the strength of public opposition to such a transformation.
Charles also realized at the time of the Friendly Debate’s publication that an exercise of the royal prerogative by a Declaration of Indulgence would be both unacceptable to the House of Commons and viewed as constitutionally controversial.
When, in 1672, preparatory to launching the third Anglo-Dutch war, Charles II tried to buy the loyalty of Nonconformists by issuing a Declaration that suspended all penal laws against them. Parliament forced him to withdraw it a year later.
After the success of Symond Patrick’s Friendly Debate, Samuel Parker, a former chaplain to Bishop Sheldon, published an exceptionally virulent attack on dissenters in A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie (1670).
So what are the Bishops losing? The August 9, 2019 Church Times quotes Pepys Diary many times to illustrate the explanation (lightly edited):
THE Act of Uniformity was one of a series of increasingly oppressive laws passed during the 1660s to suppress dissent. These become known as the “Clarendon Code”, but bear the fingerprints of Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London (until 1663, and then Archbishop of Canterbury).
Bishop Sheldon, implacably hostile to dissenters, intended to crush Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers, but this persecution strengthened rather than extinguished their resolve.
A problem for the Church of England was the lack of enforcement of the prohibition of building meeting houses, and the restriction on the number of Nonconformists who could gather for worship. Many responsible for the implementation were either Nonconformists or sympathetic towards them.
After the Act of Uniformity, Samuel Pepys believed “the present clergy will never heartily go down with the generality of the commons of England” (Diary, 9 November 1663).
After the Plague in 1665, support for the clergy fell further, because many of them in the affected areas abandoned their parishioners, whereas Nonconformist ministers largely stayed.
Symon Patrick, the Rector of the society church St. Paul’s in Covent Garden since 1662, was one of the exceptions who remained in his parish.
Against this troubled background, Patrick published a book that formed an apologia for the Established Church. In The Parable of the Pilgrim (1665), written from a different perspective to that of the Puritan John Bunyan's in The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678, 1684), Patrick championed the "via mediocrita", or the middle way, occupied by the re-Established Church between the extremes of Nonconformity on the one hand and Roman Catholicism on the other.
The popularity of his work, and the implicit support for its stance, led to 8 editions by 1687.
By 1667, the confidence of the national Church had further declined, as Charles II was thought to be promoting the comprehension of Presbyterians within it. Pepys charts the growing Nonconformist ascendancy between June 1667 and March 1669. He refers to “great endeavours of bringing in the Presbyterian interest”, and Nonconformists becoming “mighty high” (17 June and 21 December 1667).
He observes that “there is great presumption that there will be a Toleration granted,’ and “Nonconformists ... are connived at by the King”, who is “forced” to trust “them or nobody” (20 January, 11 August, and 23 December 1668).
Worryingly, Pepys concluded on 16 March 1669: “The Bishops must certainly fall, and their Hierarchy; these people [Nonconformists] have got so much ground upon the King and Kingdom as is not to be got again from them — and the Bishops do well deserve it.”
'So we parted, and to Westminster Hall, where the Hall full of people to see the issue of the day, the King being come to speak to the House to-day. One thing extraordinary was, this day a man, a Quaker, came naked through the Hall, only very civilly tied about the privities to avoid scandal, and with a chafing-dish of fire and brimstone burning upon his head, did pass through the Hall, crying, “Repent! repent!”'
Some early Quakers took to heart George Fox’s exhortation to “run naked for a sign,” stripping off their clothes and running naked through towns as a way of protesting worldly wealth.
"My Lord is going down to his garrison to Hull, by the King’s command, to put it in order for fear of an invasion which course I perceive is taken upon the sea-coasts round; for we have a real apprehension of the King of France’s invading us."
Perhaps they had heard about a small French fleet assembled at La Rochelle?
In need of support from Portugal against their mutual enemy, Spain, in 1666 Louis XIV arranged a marriage between 20-year-old Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale (his cousin, and an important member of the French nobility), and the new Portuguese king, Alfonso VI, an ill young man who was paralyzed on his left side and mentally unstable.
Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale was married by proxy to Alfonso VI (who she had never met) on June 27 at La Rochelle, and departed from La Rochelle aboard the Vendôme under the command of the Marquis de Ruvigny on June 30, 1666.
Upon Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale’s arrival in Portugal, she became known as Queen Maria Francisca Isabel de Sabóia.
Meanwhile, in Lisbon, Catherine of Braganza's brother was preparing for his dynastic wedding:
Upon the arrival of Louis XIV's cousin, Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale in Portugal, she became known as Queen Maria Francisca Isabel de Sabóia.
The new Queen was deeply disappointed with her new life at the court of Portugal. The wedding with Alfonso VI in person took place a few days after her arrival, on 2 August 1666.
But King Alfonso was too infirm and unstable to consummate the marriage.
Queen Maria Francisca soon decided to participate in a palace coup d'état that ended the government of Luís de Vasconcelos e Sousa, 3rd Count of Castelo Melhor, which she did in cooperation with her brother-in-law, the Infante Pedro, Duke of Beja.
Major John Wildman had been a retainer of George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham's for over a decade. People knew he was a scoundrel, but I suspect his time at the Post Office had given him a lot of information which he was able to use to manipulate events. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
How did Ormonde know of Wildman? Apart from general gossip of the day going back to the Interregnum, the only connection I can think of is that Col. Blood had tried to assassinate Ormonde a couple of times, and both Blood and Wildman were known associates of Buckingham. I can't see any time when they could have met. If anyone figures out something more direct, please share.
Wildman was called ‘a scholar of Cambridge’ by Clarendon, but he never matriculated at the university. He picked up enough knowledge of the law to practice as an attorney, first achieving political prominence as spokesman for democratic republicanism in the Putney Debates of 1647.
He abandoned the Levellers in 1649, and became a successful land-jobber and ‘manager of Papists’ interests’. But he was openly hostile to the Protectorate, and was not allowed to take his Parliamentary seat in 1654. About this time he bought a Wiltshire estate, worth over £1,500 p.a., so he was making good money.
In 1655 he was arrested in the act of dictating a proclamation against Cromwell. He was accused of complicity in the Penruddock Rising which followed. But his contacts with the Royalists were few, apart from his position as man of business to George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
Wildman was released in 1656, probably on condition of becoming an informer, and resumed his career of intrigue.
Major John Wildman's seizure of Windsor Castle from Gen. Lambert’s supporters in December 1659 stood him in good stead at the Restoration, and for a few months he was the power behind the scenes at the Post Office. ‘As subtle a person as any of his quality in England’, commented a rival.
But in November 1661 he was rounded up with the other leading republicans, and imprison until the fall of Clarendon in 1667.
It was Buckingham who procured Wildman's release, and proposed him unsuccessfully for the commission of public accounts as ‘the wisest statesman in England’.
Wildman went abroad in 1670, but returned before the third Anglo-Dutch war, and took no part in du Moulin’s activities. [Pierre du Moulin was the person responsible for both the writing and the distribution of William of Orange’s propaganda in England, and also for the organization of a Dutch spy network in England during the third Anglo-Dutch war from 1672-74.]
John Hawles many years later deposed that ‘John Wildman never was more quiet and freer from troubles from the time he arrived at the age of 20 years than he was from the year 1672 to the year 1683’. [Or did he just cover his tracks well?]
By reading his Parliamentary bio. you'll see how his work at the Post Office and for William of Orange paid off ... he was well placed to bribe or blackmail himself into whatever position he or Buckingham wanted.
Comments
Second Reading
About Monday 5 November 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Even as Londoners dealt with the emotional devastation wrought by the Fire, plans to re-build were afoot and, along with managing the costs of such a massive enterprise, the pressing question arose of who owned what.
Historical novelist Andrew Taylor describes it in these terms: “From the Middle Ages, a web of ownership and occupancy patterns had developed, made up of freeholds, tenancies, sub leases, assignments, rents, fines and other legal mechanisms. [London] was riddled with inconsistencies, ambiguities and conflicting interests.
“Moreover, most leases included a clause obliging the lessee to rebuild in case of fire. While this was being done, the tenant had to continue paying rent. In the face of such a widespread disaster, at a time when many citizens had lost everything they had owned, this requirement was neither practical nor fair, since it placed the greater burden on that part of the population least able to bear it. It would also mean that the entire program of rebuilding could be held up while hundreds of individual cases worked their way through the courts.”
In response, the government established the Fire Court, housing it in a hall in Clifford’s Inn. It was, explains Taylor, a “special court set up to deal solely with property disputes that hindered the rebuilding of the city after the Great Fire. It handled more than 1,000 cases and imposed settlements on legal disputes that in usual circumstances could have dragged on for years.”
https://historicalnovelsociety.or…
About Sunday 22 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
Ten years ago John asked, "Was it not common at the time to send out your children as servants in the houses of others? Was it also common to expect them to be molested?"
I found this article today, and yes, it's the next century and yes, it's information about French courting habits, but I suspect the lives of young women without dowries was much the same.
https://psyche.co/ideas/working-f…
About Saturday 21 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
Looking for inspiration about what to cook for the holidays? The Folger has come up with some 17th century meal plans, including a festive dinner:
https://shakespeareandbeyond.folg…
About Monday 23 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
How true, on all counts, Mountebank. The news from California is about as bleak with our hospitals full, nurses quitting because they are exhausted, and 85 million Americans glibly flying off to see their relatives regardless. And Mr. Biden has warned us the Spring will be worst. Bring on the vaccines; people appear to be unable to help themselves any more.
Thank you, Royal Society for paving the scientific way, and Lady Mary Pierrepont Wortley Montagu for pushing the doctors to learn something new in the 1700's.
Having this blog as a creative distraction and daily focus has -- once again for me -- been a God-sent. Phil's generosity in maintaining it for us, and Terry's continued guiding hand are appreciated every day.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and blog in good health, everyone. This time next year will be better.
About Sunday 22 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
More about dentistry and dentists at https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Sunday 31 March 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
Since this meeting of the Stuart brother's current cabal was held at Southampton's home, I think we can assume Treasurer Southampton was involved in the conversation. As would be Arlington, who is in charge of intelligence. And Coventry, who was Secretary of the Navy. And Carteret, another money man. Everyone loved Albemarle, so he would have been there. Maybe Buckingham, if he wasn't in the Tower. Maybe Monmouth, as Charles was grooming him for higher office. Maybe Lauderdale, if Scotland was involved. Who's in, who's out, who's up and who's down?
About Saturday 14 October 1665
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... it being read before the King, Duke, and the Caball with complete applause and satisfaction."
The word CABAL existed long before the political group of 5 councilors who took over from 1668-1672 whose names coincidentally spelled CABAL. Therefore, I think linking the word today to the Committee for Foreign Affairs is too early for our narrative.
I suspect Charles II's 1665 wartime cabal included James, Rupert, Albemarle, Southampton, Carteret, Coventry, Sandwich, Arlington, maybe Lauderdale if Scotland was involved. And Buckingham, if he was in favor today, not that he knows anything about naval warfare, but he made Charles laugh.
About Saturday 21 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I'd not heard of Symon Patrick before, and from a quick search of the The Diary neither has Sam."
And nor had I, Harry. I've learned so much about the Diary years by asking Google dumb questions. Last night I googled "1667 Charles II Quakers," and the Church Times was where I landed. I wanted to know what encouragement Charles had given the Nonconformists last week, but that remains a mystery.
As to why Pepys hasn't heard of Symon Patrick, I'm sure he had. This makes me think Pepys was basically more of a Puritan than he lets on, and isn't particularly interested in reading why the Church of England is a good thing. I think he steers clear of religion: just as today we skirt around politics in the USA.
About Friday 1 January 1663/64
San Diego Sarah • Link
Forget “the Century of Revolution” – the 17th century was the century of the pie. Pie-making was a way of keeping cooked food. It was the pie contents that mattered: the pastry case was often discarded, and pies could reach prodigious proportions.
A South Wales customs officer in 1663 sent a pie to a London relative; it consisted of a turkey, 2 ducks, 2 snipe and 17 woodcocks, and was baked with 15 pounds of butter.
Melted butter was poured into a filled pie-case to preserve the cooked contents after it solidified.
This was probably at the most generous end of the pie-making scale, ....
https://thehistoryofparliament.wo…
About Covent Garden
San Diego Sarah • Link
St. Paul's Church, Covent Garden was known as a society church, and in 1662 an enthusiastic Church of England minister took over.
Symon Patrick, the Rector, was one of the few who remained in his parish during the plague in 1665; in general, support for the Church of England clergy fell because many of them in the affected areas abandoned their parishioners, whereas Nonconformist ministers largely stayed. Consequently, when Patrick took up the pen in support of the Church of England's mission to take the middle way between Catholicism and Presbyterianism, he found a large audience.
For more, see https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/…
About Saturday 21 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 3
By this time, the Nonconformist threat had receded, as Parliament passed a second Conventicle Act (1670), the apogee of the Clarendon Code.
Famously described by the satirist Andrew Marvell as the “quintessence of arbitrary malice”, it increased the penalties for which Nonconformist ministers were liable, and provided for rewards for those who informed against them.
But in the same parliamentary session, attention began to move to the threat posed by Roman Catholics, and a Bill designed to prevent their holding office was considered.
What is not in doubt is that, virtually single-handedly, Symon Patrick of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden preserved the status of the Church of England so effectively that, although further Bills for comprehension and toleration would be considered and rejected, Charles II made no further attempt to compromise the position and character of his Church.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/art…
About Saturday 21 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
PART 2
Symon Patrick of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, recognized that the survival of the Church of England was at stake. In a withering attack on Nonconformity, he issued a series of polemics, A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Non-Conformist.
This work was a phenomenal success — even more popular than The Parable of the Pilgrim. Written in dialogue form, it explained in simple language the areas of disagreement between two representatives, and used humor to present a convincing argument for conformity.
First appearing late in 1668, within a year it had expanded into a second part, and reached 10 editions.
A third part plus appendix followed in 1670, and months before Charles II died, a “corrected and enlarged” sixth edition appeared.
It can be argued that had Symon Patrick, Rector of St. Paul’s not seen the need for a defense of the Established Church when he did, the increasing strident Nonconformist voices could have persuaded Charles II that, in the interests of domestic peace, the Church of England needed to accommodate the Nonconformists through compromise.
It is difficult to see how this accommodation could have been achieved without the removal of bishops and the adoption of a Presbyterian form of church government, an outcome Pepys believed was inevitable.
The success of Symon Patrick’s Parable of the Pilgrim, and the Friendly Debate series made Charles II recognize the strength of public opposition to such a transformation.
Charles also realized at the time of the Friendly Debate’s publication that an exercise of the royal prerogative by a Declaration of Indulgence would be both unacceptable to the House of Commons and viewed as constitutionally controversial.
When, in 1672, preparatory to launching the third Anglo-Dutch war, Charles II tried to buy the loyalty of Nonconformists by issuing a Declaration that suspended all penal laws against them. Parliament forced him to withdraw it a year later.
After the success of Symond Patrick’s Friendly Debate, Samuel Parker, a former chaplain to Bishop Sheldon, published an exceptionally virulent attack on dissenters in A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie (1670).
About Saturday 21 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
So what are the Bishops losing? The August 9, 2019 Church Times quotes Pepys Diary many times to illustrate the explanation (lightly edited):
THE Act of Uniformity was one of a series of increasingly oppressive laws passed during the 1660s to suppress dissent. These become known as the “Clarendon Code”, but bear the fingerprints of Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London (until 1663, and then Archbishop of Canterbury).
Bishop Sheldon, implacably hostile to dissenters, intended to crush Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers, but this persecution strengthened rather than extinguished their resolve.
A problem for the Church of England was the lack of enforcement of the prohibition of building meeting houses, and the restriction on the number of Nonconformists who could gather for worship. Many responsible for the implementation were either Nonconformists or sympathetic towards them.
After the Act of Uniformity, Samuel Pepys believed “the present clergy will never heartily go down with the generality of the commons of England” (Diary, 9 November 1663).
After the Plague in 1665, support for the clergy fell further, because many of them in the affected areas abandoned their parishioners, whereas Nonconformist ministers largely stayed.
Symon Patrick, the Rector of the society church St. Paul’s in Covent Garden since 1662, was one of the exceptions who remained in his parish.
Against this troubled background, Patrick published a book that formed an apologia for the Established Church. In The Parable of the Pilgrim (1665), written from a different perspective to that of the Puritan John Bunyan's in The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678, 1684), Patrick championed the "via mediocrita", or the middle way, occupied by the re-Established Church between the extremes of Nonconformity on the one hand and Roman Catholicism on the other.
The popularity of his work, and the implicit support for its stance, led to 8 editions by 1687.
By 1667, the confidence of the national Church had further declined, as Charles II was thought to be promoting the comprehension of Presbyterians within it.
Pepys charts the growing Nonconformist ascendancy between June 1667 and March 1669. He refers to “great endeavours of bringing in the Presbyterian interest”, and Nonconformists becoming “mighty high” (17 June and 21 December 1667).
He observes that “there is great presumption that there will be a Toleration granted,’ and “Nonconformists ... are connived at by the King”, who is “forced” to trust “them or nobody” (20 January, 11 August, and 23 December 1668).
Worryingly, Pepys concluded on 16 March 1669: “The Bishops must certainly fall, and their Hierarchy; these people [Nonconformists] have got so much ground upon the King and Kingdom as is not to be got again from them — and the Bishops do well deserve it.”
About Monday 29 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
'So we parted, and to Westminster Hall, where the Hall full of people to see the issue of the day, the King being come to speak to the House to-day. One thing extraordinary was, this day a man, a Quaker, came naked through the Hall, only very civilly tied about the privities to avoid scandal, and with a chafing-dish of fire and brimstone burning upon his head, did pass through the Hall, crying, “Repent! repent!”'
Some early Quakers took to heart George Fox’s exhortation to “run naked for a sign,” stripping off their clothes and running naked through towns as a way of protesting worldly wealth.
https://englishhistoryauthors.blo…
About Wednesday 27 June 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
"My Lord is going down to his garrison to Hull, by the King’s command, to put it in order for fear of an invasion which course I perceive is taken upon the sea-coasts round; for we have a real apprehension of the King of France’s invading us."
Perhaps they had heard about a small French fleet assembled at La Rochelle?
In need of support from Portugal against their mutual enemy, Spain, in 1666 Louis XIV arranged a marriage between 20-year-old Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale (his cousin, and an important member of the French nobility), and the new Portuguese king, Alfonso VI, an ill young man who was paralyzed on his left side and mentally unstable.
Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale was married by proxy to Alfonso VI (who she had never met) on June 27 at La Rochelle, and departed from La Rochelle aboard the Vendôme under the command of the Marquis de Ruvigny on June 30, 1666.
Upon Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale’s arrival in Portugal, she became known as Queen Maria Francisca Isabel de Sabóia.
https://www.google.com/books/edit…
About Saturday 28 March 1668
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile, in Lisbon, Catherine of Braganza's former sister-in-law is marrying Catherine's younger brother:
On 28 March 1668, former queen Maria Francisca Isabel de Sabóia married the Infante Pedro, Duke of Beja, now the Prince Regent of Portugal.
Maria's former husband, King Alfonso VI, is now residing in exile in Terceira, the Azores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar…
About Monday 6 August 1666
San Diego Sarah • Link
Meanwhile, in Lisbon, Catherine of Braganza's brother was preparing for his dynastic wedding:
Upon the arrival of Louis XIV's cousin, Dona Maria Francisca of Savoy, Mademoiselle d'Aumale in Portugal, she became known as Queen Maria Francisca Isabel de Sabóia.
The new Queen was deeply disappointed with her new life at the court of Portugal. The wedding with Alfonso VI in person took place a few days after her arrival, on 2 August 1666.
But King Alfonso was too infirm and unstable to consummate the marriage.
Queen Maria Francisca soon decided to participate in a palace coup d'état that ended the government of Luís de Vasconcelos e Sousa, 3rd Count of Castelo Melhor, which she did in cooperation with her brother-in-law, the Infante Pedro, Duke of Beja.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar…
About Monday 16 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
Thanks JayW, I don't have a subscription and was pleased to read more details.
I wonder if the previous owners of the Pepys Harwich portrait know the sold at a fraction of it's value????
About Friday 20 December 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
Major John Wildman had been a retainer of George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham's for over a decade. People knew he was a scoundrel, but I suspect his time at the Post Office had given him a lot of information which he was able to use to manipulate events.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
How did Ormonde know of Wildman?
Apart from general gossip of the day going back to the Interregnum, the only connection I can think of is that Col. Blood had tried to assassinate Ormonde a couple of times, and both Blood and Wildman were known associates of Buckingham. I can't see any time when they could have met.
If anyone figures out something more direct, please share.
About Maj. John Wildman
San Diego Sarah • Link
Major John Wildman earns biographies in the British Civil War Project
http://bcw-project.org/biography/…
as well as the House of Commons
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
and features in an article about the hiding of Cavalier estates during the Interregnum
https://thehistoryofparliament.fi…
Wildman was called ‘a scholar of Cambridge’ by Clarendon, but he never matriculated at the university. He picked up enough knowledge of the law to practice as an attorney, first achieving political prominence as spokesman for democratic republicanism in the Putney Debates of 1647.
He abandoned the Levellers in 1649, and became a successful land-jobber and ‘manager of Papists’ interests’. But he was openly hostile to the Protectorate, and was not allowed to take his Parliamentary seat in 1654. About this time he bought a Wiltshire estate, worth over £1,500 p.a., so he was making good money.
In 1655 he was arrested in the act of dictating a proclamation against Cromwell. He was accused of complicity in the Penruddock Rising which followed. But his contacts with the Royalists were few, apart from his position as man of business to George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
Wildman was released in 1656, probably on condition of becoming an informer, and resumed his career of intrigue.
Major John Wildman's seizure of Windsor Castle from Gen. Lambert’s supporters in December 1659 stood him in good stead at the Restoration, and for a few months he was the power behind the scenes at the Post Office. ‘As subtle a person as any of his quality in England’, commented a rival.
But in November 1661 he was rounded up with the other leading republicans, and imprison until the fall of Clarendon in 1667.
It was Buckingham who procured Wildman's release, and proposed him unsuccessfully for the commission of public accounts as ‘the wisest statesman in England’.
Wildman went abroad in 1670, but returned before the third Anglo-Dutch war, and took no part in du Moulin’s activities.
[Pierre du Moulin was the person responsible for both the writing and the distribution of William of Orange’s propaganda in England, and also for the organization of a Dutch spy network in England during the third Anglo-Dutch war from 1672-74.]
John Hawles many years later deposed that ‘John Wildman never was more quiet and freer from troubles from the time he arrived at the age of 20 years than he was from the year 1672 to the year 1683’. [Or did he just cover his tracks well?]
By reading his Parliamentary bio. you'll see how his work at the Post Office and for William of Orange paid off ... he was well placed to bribe or blackmail himself into whatever position he or Buckingham wanted.