"Am I mistaken in the impression that the gossip Pepys' relays is (most days) largely erroneous?"
Gossip then is like gossip now, the first very rough draft of history. Some gossipers are more reliable than others ... usually there is a kernel of truth in what they say, but the size and freshness of the kernel varies. I note Pepys usually seeks out verification and clarification before he acts on what he hears, just as we should today.
Fake News is not a new phenomenon. And Joseph Williamson was a master of spin.
Faversham was one of Kent's and England's leading ports with shipyards, gunpowder factories, and a fishing fleet.
As a ‘limb’ of Dover, Faversham was an associate member of the Confederation of Cinque Ports, which from the 11th until the 16th centuries provided the nation with a navy to protect it from foreign aggression. Among Faversham's treasures is the oldest surviving Royal Charter granted to the Ports. Dating from 20 May 1260, this gives the ‘Barons’ (established citizens) of all the member Ports immunity from summons before the Royal Justices Itinerant in respect of land in any county, unless anyone sues them.
By the 16th century, Faversham eclipsed Dover, whose early harbor had silted up.
Faversham traded mainly with the Baltic and the Netherlands (today, Holland, Belgium and NE France). Vessels from Holland crowded the Creek to satisfy the Dutch appetite for local oysters. In the 17th century more wool was exported from Faversham than from any other British port. When London began to expand in the 17th century, Faversham was the main source of its crucial supplies of wheat. Cargoes of gunpowder from Faversham's factories increased steadily from the 16th century to the early 20th. Like the other Cinque Ports, Faversham functioned virtually as a ‘city-state’, owing allegiance only to the Crown and not forming part of the administrative county of Kent. Sometimes leading local citizens gave the impression that the Lord Warden, rather than the King or Queen of England, was their head of state. From this probably stems Faversham's long record of standing up for itself, usually successfully, when the authorities failed it; and also, through its charities, of foreshadowing some of the provisions of the Welfare State.
True to form, Faversham was regarded as something of a ‘loner’ by the other Member Ports. It was especially enterprising and was the only one to exempt all trading vessels (not just those from other Member-ports) from dues and taxes. This encouraged trade and helped make Faversham prosperous.
Significantly, the arms of Faversham Abbey were those of the Ports, with an abbot’s crosier added.
Each head port had its own MP. In the 16th century, when Dover was in decline, Faversham often elected an MP instead.
"The letter do bid us to do all things, particularizing several, for the laying up of the ships, and easing the King of charge; so that the war is now professedly over."
Someone better row out and tell the Dutch to go home.
A slow Pepys day, but elsewhere things were quite exciting, as reported in http://www.historybookreviews.com… Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London -- By Nigel Jones
The book is full of wonderful details and well worth your time. But the story that relates to today is about the felon, Capt. Thomas Blood and his "employer", George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
In July 1667, hearing that one of his former republican co-conspirators, John Mason, was being transferred from the Tower of London to York for trial and probable execution, Col. Thomas Blood resolved to rescue him.
Travelling north with John Mason's armed escort was Col. William Leving, a former rebel who had turned King’s Evidence and was due to testify against Mason.
At an inn near Doncaster, Col. Blood sprung an ambush. Despite falling from his horse three times and sustaining a wound to the face and a sword thrust through his arm, he won the brawl, grabbing John Mason and escaping. However, his nose was disfigured for the rest of his life.
On this day in York, Col. William Leving was found poisoned in his jail cell.
Why did this happen? Buckingham was Lord Lt. of Yorkshire, and the records are therefore sketchy. But speculation is that this was clean up from the 1663 Farnley Wood uprising. It seems Col. Leving probably struck a "plea bargain", State Papers show his being recommended as a spy on April 3, 1664 by Sir Roger Langley, high sheriff of Yorkshire, to Secretary of State Henry Bennet. And on October 5, 1664, Bennet issued a Certificate of Employment for William Leving, and requests that he not be molested or restrained.
Villiers was a convinced anti-Catholic; he sympathized with Blood’s religious stance, if not his republican politics. Descended from royalty on his mother’s side and brought up from infancy with the Stuart brothers, George Villiers had pretensions to succeed the childless Charles II, and on his deathbed referred to himself as ‘a prince’.
Villiers weaved a very tangled web; he took care of a loose end today.
Pepys is correct: William and Henry Coventry's sister was Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Ashley's first wife, Margaret. She died 11 July, 1649.
This Sir John Coventry was the son of Sir John Coventry Snr. who died shortly after helping Charles II escape from Worcester. His mother had also died when he was young, and he was sent abroad for education.
The relevant part of Sir John's Parliamentary bio is: "Their [the Somerset commissioners] suspicions were well-founded, for in his will dated 7 Apr. 1667 he [impoverished Cavalier tutor, Edward Sherburne] declared himself ‘a true son of the Church of Rome, and so have been several years’. Nevertheless [the Commissioners] were prepared to discharge the estate (valued at £3,000 p.a.) if he [orphan Sir John Coventry Jr.] were ‘taken into the tuition of some honest and well-affected person’.
"Sir John Coventry Jr. accordingly became the ward of his uncle Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, whose politics he followed, and in 1662 he was described as ‘loyal and orthodox; a very hopeful man’.
"At the Weymouth by-election of 1667, the full weight of the court interest was put behind him. His former guardian, now chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to the corporation in his support and Bullen Reymes MP used his influence with the mayor (whose mother was his business partner) while Sir Roger Cuttance, flag captain to Edward Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, accused his opponents of provoking disorder.
"On the other side, the canvassers ‘did not say Sir John Coventry will swear a thousand oaths in an hour, or rant, or be drunk, and that he is a courtier’; but the electorate were left to draw their own conclusions from these careful negatives."
No mention of a trip to The Hague with his uncle Henry, but it is quite possible since Sir John Coventry was presumably fluent in European languages.
I wonder if he was chosen to take the documents to Charles II because he was a swearing. badly-behaved drunk and they wanted to get him The Hague?
"How in the world could they establish paternity in those days before they even had so much as blood typing?"
Charles II or one of his assistants undoubtedly paid off some of Castlemaine's servants to inform on her "activities". Everyone spied on everyone. Secondly, Charles was still sleeping with the Queen and hoping she would finally carry a legitimate child. Monmouth had caused enough scandal. Third, he had been and was generous to Castlemaine, so money for child support wasn't the problem -- she had more diamonds than the Queen. Fourth, once he got to know the children and saw which did and did not favor the Stuart/Bourbon side of the family, he made judgment calls. Fifth, Castlemaine wasn't the only one using threats. One story goes that after 1670 Nell Gwyn held her younger son, Charles, out of a bedroom window at Lauderdale House by his leg and threatened to drop him if he didn't get a title. Charles II cried out "God save the Earl of Burford!" and subsequently officially created the peerage, saving his son's life. Another version of this story is that Nell obtained a title for her younger son when he was six. When the King arrived for a visit, Nell said, "Come here, you little bastard, and say hello to your father." When the King protested, she replied, "Your Majesty has given me no other name by which to call him." On 21 December 1676, Charles II granted to Charles Beauclerk, the titles of Baron of Heddington and Earl of Burford.
Then there was Charlotte Jemima Henrietta Maria Boyle, daughter of Elizabeth "Black Betty" Killigrew and Francis Boyle, Viscount Shannon (the brother of the 2nd Earl of Cork), who married James Howard, grandson of Theophilus Howard, 2nd Earl of Suffolk in Heston, Middlesex on March 9, 1663. They were both 13. In 1667 Charles II granted the couple an annual pension of 500/., which continued throughout her life. The Shannons asked Charles NOT to recognize Charlotte.
Who knows. At best an imperfect science and system.
"Here however dined an old courtier that is now so, who did bring many examples and arguments to prove that seldom any man that brings any thing to Court gets any thing, but rather the contrary; for knowing that they have wherewith to live, will not enslave themselves to the attendance, and flattery, and fawning condition of a courtier, whereas another that brings nothing, and will be contented to cog, and lie, and flatter every man and woman that has any interest with the persons that are great in favour, and can cheat the King, as nothing is to be got without offending God and the King, there he for the most part, and he alone, saves any thing."
Contrast that with Jonathan Swift, 50 years later:
“Nothing is so great an instance of ill manners as flattery. If you flatter all the company, you please none: if you flatter only one or two, you affront the rest.” -- Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)
I think the most telling paragraph is: "Sprat’s loyalties were always pliable, a fact often noted by his contemporaries, for he later served Charles II, James II, and William and Mary with the same devotion he had expressed for Cromwell. In politics he became a staunch Tory, a defender of the divine rights of kings, and a strong exponent of high church doctrines."
... but something more than the lawless gratification of lust must have forced Buckingham and Shrewsbury into bigamy. No reason has ever been given, so we can only guess:
Perhaps the agents of Louis XIV did not squander his money without proof of the quid pro quo, so it does not exceed probability to suggest that -- before receiving the French bribes -- the Countess of Shrewsbury had to prove her influence over Buckingham.
The same year, Buckingham was sent to Paris to represent Charles II at the funeral of his sister, the Duchess of Orleans -- and also to prepare the way for Charles II to deceive his country.
Buckingham’s reception at Versailles was magnificent, and he returned laden with wealth and honors. So favorably did he impress the French Court that Louis XIV remarked "he was almost the only English gentleman he had ever seen!"
[Buckingham was sent to France to carry on the sham negotiations which led to the public treaties of 31 December, 1670 and 2 February, 1672. He was much pleased with his reception by Louis XIV, and declared that he had "more honors done him than ever were given to any subject," and was presented with a pension of 10,000 livres a year for Lady Shrewsbury. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/19… ]
In the following year the public were further scandalized to learn, in the words of Andrew Marvell MP, that "the Duke of Buckingham exceeds all with Lady Shrewsbury, by whom he believes he had a son, to whom the King stood godfather."
The baby was given the courtesy title of Earl of Coventry, traditionally borne by the eldest son of the Dukes of Buckingham. He was born and died in 1671, and was buried at night in the family vault at Westminster Abbey.
The book doesn't say this, but I suspect the funeral gave great offense to the pious also. Dr. Sprat evidently wasn't taken very seriously by his employer(s).
While Dr. Thomas Sprat is known for his writings about the Royal Society, there is one episode in his life which has avoided biographical scrutiny. The only place I found this story was in a biography of the scandalous Countess of Shrewsbury, written in the exaggerated style of Grammont, with no dates or citations. IF TRUE, and given the context of the story I see no reason it should not be, it calls Sprat’s ethics and character into question. I've added some verification while deleting much hyperbole. COURT BEAUTIES OF OLD WHITEHALL HISTORIETTES OF THE RESTORATION by W. R. H. TROWBRIDGE LONDON: T. FISHER UNWIN NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS MCMVI [1906] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4…
Had George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham wished, he could have proved himself a patriot, and possibly change the course of history. He had the genius and a great opportunity. But he who had never been true to any principle in his life, or to any person for 24 hours together other than Anna Maria Brudenell Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, had neither the desire nor the will to choose between his country and his country's enemies.
With diabolical cynicism, Buckingham decided to be true to both his country and his country's enemies by despising both. It was probably the challenge of playing this double game that was its chief attraction. It was easy to hoodwink Protestant England, whose idol he was, but it was not so easy to dupe Louis XIV, whose tool he was. Consequently, in 1670 the astute Louis XIV bribed Anna Maria Brudenell Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury.
The day the French Ambassador paid Anna Maria her first 10,000 livres, he had the satisfaction of writing to his master that she had sworn, "Buckingham should comply with the King in all things."
Only the vaguest suspicion of this corruption was felt by the public, but the fact that while George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham openly expressed contrition for his past evil ways to Parliament as he kept Lady Shrewsbury at Cliveden was sufficient reason to doubt his reformation.
In 1670 the nation was suddenly staggered by the news that the chief Minister George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, had, without any pretense at secrecy, married Anna Maria Brudenell Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, while his wife was still living.
This bigamous ceremony was performed according to all the rites of the Church by Buckingham's chaplain, Dr. Thomas Sprat.
The pious felt as if they were living in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the courtiers at Whitehall merely laughed, and referred to the lawful Mary Fairfax, Duchess of Buckingham as the "Dowager Duchess."
Historians may pass over this episode in the Buckingham scandal as if the times and the notorious characters of the bigamous couple make comment unnecessary. That may be a sufficient explanation for Dr. Sprat's part in the crime …
Obviously Pepys doesn't know this, but by early 1664, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley MP was a member of the circle of John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale, who ranged themselves in opposition to Chancellor Clarendon. I have not been able to discover who else was in their circle besides Sir Robert Moray who we know mostly as the moving force behind the Royal Society in the very early days.
According to the Salty One a decade ago ... he hasn't posted recently, or have I missed a name change?
silly
[Later form of ME. sely SEELY a.] From c 1550 to c 1675 silly was very extensively used in senses 1-3, and in a number of examples it is difficult to decide which shade of meaning was intended by the writer.
A. adj.
3. a. Unlearned, unsophisticated, simple, rustic, ignorant. Obs. or arch.
3b. Of humble rank or state; lowly. Obs. a1568 A 1610 J. GUILLIM Heraldry IV. v. (1660) 281 Before the invention of Printing, the onely means of preserving good Arts..was by this silly instrument the Pen.
1629 MILTON Hymn Nativ. viii, Perhaps their loves, or els their sheep, Was all that did their silly thoughts so busie keep.
"... and slily answered him about the Prince’s leaving all his concerns to him, ..."
"And "silly" had more of a "stupid" connotation than we give it today."
But Phil pointed out to me, "slily" is more likely to by "SLYLY". Which reinforces my thoughts on Penn's fund-raising activities.
Penn's timing is truly awful, with the threatened Parliamentary hearings; messing around with the popular war hero third-in-line to the throne, and the only one untainted by rumors of Catholicism.
Comments
Second Reading
About Monday 29 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Am I mistaken in the impression that the gossip Pepys' relays is (most days) largely erroneous?"
Gossip then is like gossip now, the first very rough draft of history. Some gossipers are more reliable than others ... usually there is a kernel of truth in what they say, but the size and freshness of the kernel varies. I note Pepys usually seeks out verification and clarification before he acts on what he hears, just as we should today.
Fake News is not a new phenomenon. And Joseph Williamson was a master of spin.
About Faversham, Kent
San Diego Sarah • Link
Google thinks the maritime history of Faversham is a dangerous website. You never know! Another good site is http://www.kafs.co.uk/pdf/port.pdf
About Faversham, Kent
San Diego Sarah • Link
Faversham was one of Kent's and England's leading ports with shipyards, gunpowder factories, and a fishing fleet.
As a ‘limb’ of Dover, Faversham was an associate member of the Confederation of Cinque Ports, which from the 11th until the 16th centuries provided the nation with a navy to protect it from foreign aggression. Among Faversham's treasures is the oldest surviving Royal Charter granted to the Ports. Dating from 20 May 1260, this gives the ‘Barons’ (established citizens) of all the member Ports immunity from summons before the Royal Justices Itinerant in respect of land in any county, unless anyone sues them.
By the 16th century, Faversham eclipsed Dover, whose early harbor had silted up.
Faversham traded mainly with the Baltic and the Netherlands (today, Holland, Belgium and NE France).
Vessels from Holland crowded the Creek to satisfy the Dutch appetite for local oysters.
In the 17th century more wool was exported from Faversham than from any other British port.
When London began to expand in the 17th century, Faversham was the main source of its crucial supplies of wheat.
Cargoes of gunpowder from Faversham's factories increased steadily from the 16th century to the early 20th.
Like the other Cinque Ports, Faversham functioned virtually as a ‘city-state’, owing allegiance only to the Crown and not forming part of the administrative county of Kent. Sometimes leading local citizens gave the impression that the Lord Warden, rather than the King or Queen of England, was their head of state.
From this probably stems Faversham's long record of standing up for itself, usually successfully, when the authorities failed it; and also, through its charities, of foreshadowing some of the provisions of the Welfare State.
True to form, Faversham was regarded as something of a ‘loner’ by the other Member Ports. It was especially enterprising and was the only one to exempt all trading vessels (not just those from other Member-ports) from dues and taxes. This encouraged trade and helped make Faversham prosperous.
Significantly, the arms of Faversham Abbey were those of the Ports, with an abbot’s crosier added.
Each head port had its own MP. In the 16th century, when Dover was in decline, Faversham often elected an MP instead.
For more info see:
https://heritagecalling.com/2018/…
http://www.faversham.org/history/…
About Monday 29 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"The letter do bid us to do all things, particularizing several, for the laying up of the ships, and easing the King of charge; so that the war is now professedly over."
Someone better row out and tell the Dutch to go home.
About Sunday 28 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
A slow Pepys day, but elsewhere things were quite exciting, as reported in
http://www.historybookreviews.com…
Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London -- By Nigel Jones
The book is full of wonderful details and well worth your time. But the story that relates to today is about the felon, Capt. Thomas Blood and his "employer", George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham.
In July 1667, hearing that one of his former republican co-conspirators, John Mason, was being transferred from the Tower of London to York for trial and probable execution, Col. Thomas Blood resolved to rescue him.
Travelling north with John Mason's armed escort was Col. William Leving, a former rebel who had turned King’s Evidence and was due to testify against Mason.
At an inn near Doncaster, Col. Blood sprung an ambush. Despite falling from his horse three times and sustaining a wound to the face and a sword thrust through his arm, he won the brawl, grabbing John Mason and escaping. However, his nose was disfigured for the rest of his life.
On this day in York, Col. William Leving was found poisoned in his jail cell.
Why did this happen? Buckingham was Lord Lt. of Yorkshire, and the records are therefore sketchy. But speculation is that this was clean up from the 1663 Farnley Wood uprising. It seems Col. Leving probably struck a "plea bargain", State Papers show his being recommended as a spy on April 3, 1664 by Sir Roger Langley, high sheriff of Yorkshire, to Secretary of State Henry Bennet.
And on October 5, 1664, Bennet issued a Certificate of Employment for William Leving, and requests that he not be molested or restrained.
Villiers was a convinced anti-Catholic; he sympathized with Blood’s religious stance, if not his republican politics. Descended from royalty on his mother’s side and brought up from infancy with the Stuart brothers, George Villiers had pretensions to succeed the childless Charles II, and on his deathbed referred to himself as ‘a prince’.
Villiers weaved a very tangled web; he took care of a loose end today.
About Sir John Coventry (MP Weymouth and Melcombe Regis)
San Diego Sarah • Link
"they wanted to get him out of The Hague," Sorry
About Sir John Coventry (MP Weymouth and Melcombe Regis)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sir John Coventry 1636-1685, MP for Weymouth's Parliamentary biography is at
https://www.historyofparliamenton…
Pepys is correct: William and Henry Coventry's sister was Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Ashley's first wife, Margaret. She died 11 July, 1649.
This Sir John Coventry was the son of Sir John Coventry Snr. who died shortly after helping Charles II escape from Worcester. His mother had also died when he was young, and he was sent abroad for education.
The relevant part of Sir John's Parliamentary bio is:
"Their [the Somerset commissioners] suspicions were well-founded, for in his will dated 7 Apr. 1667 he [impoverished Cavalier tutor, Edward Sherburne] declared himself ‘a true son of the Church of Rome, and so have been several years’. Nevertheless [the Commissioners] were prepared to discharge the estate (valued at £3,000 p.a.) if he [orphan Sir John Coventry Jr.] were ‘taken into the tuition of some honest and well-affected person’.
"Sir John Coventry Jr. accordingly became the ward of his uncle Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, whose politics he followed, and in 1662 he was described as ‘loyal and orthodox; a very hopeful man’.
"At the Weymouth by-election of 1667, the full weight of the court interest was put behind him. His former guardian, now chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to the corporation in his support and Bullen Reymes MP used his influence with the mayor (whose mother was his business partner) while Sir Roger Cuttance, flag captain to Edward Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, accused his opponents of provoking disorder.
"On the other side, the canvassers ‘did not say Sir John Coventry will swear a thousand oaths in an hour, or rant, or be drunk, and that he is a courtier’; but the electorate were left to draw their own conclusions from these careful negatives."
No mention of a trip to The Hague with his uncle Henry, but it is quite possible since Sir John Coventry was presumably fluent in European languages.
I wonder if he was chosen to take the documents to Charles II because he was a swearing. badly-behaved drunk and they wanted to get him The Hague?
About Saturday 27 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"How in the world could they establish paternity in those days before they even had so much as blood typing?"
Charles II or one of his assistants undoubtedly paid off some of Castlemaine's servants to inform on her "activities". Everyone spied on everyone.
Secondly, Charles was still sleeping with the Queen and hoping she would finally carry a legitimate child. Monmouth had caused enough scandal.
Third, he had been and was generous to Castlemaine, so money for child support wasn't the problem -- she had more diamonds than the Queen.
Fourth, once he got to know the children and saw which did and did not favor the Stuart/Bourbon side of the family, he made judgment calls.
Fifth, Castlemaine wasn't the only one using threats. One story goes that after 1670 Nell Gwyn held her younger son, Charles, out of a bedroom window at Lauderdale House by his leg and threatened to drop him if he didn't get a title. Charles II cried out "God save the Earl of Burford!" and subsequently officially created the peerage, saving his son's life.
Another version of this story is that Nell obtained a title for her younger son when he was six. When the King arrived for a visit, Nell said, "Come here, you little bastard, and say hello to your father." When the King protested, she replied, "Your Majesty has given me no other name by which to call him." On 21 December 1676, Charles II granted to Charles Beauclerk, the titles of Baron of Heddington and Earl of Burford.
Then there was Charlotte Jemima Henrietta Maria Boyle, daughter of Elizabeth "Black Betty" Killigrew and Francis Boyle, Viscount Shannon (the brother of the 2nd Earl of Cork), who married James Howard, grandson of Theophilus Howard, 2nd Earl of Suffolk in Heston, Middlesex on March 9, 1663. They were both 13.
In 1667 Charles II granted the couple an annual pension of 500/., which continued throughout her life. The Shannons asked Charles NOT to recognize Charlotte.
Who knows. At best an imperfect science and system.
For lots of stories, some verified and some not, see http://everything2.com/title/Char…
About Wednesday 24 June 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Here however dined an old courtier that is now so, who did bring many examples and arguments to prove that seldom any man that brings any thing to Court gets any thing, but rather the contrary; for knowing that they have wherewith to live, will not enslave themselves to the attendance, and flattery, and fawning condition of a courtier, whereas another that brings nothing, and will be contented to cog, and lie, and flatter every man and woman that has any interest with the persons that are great in favour, and can cheat the King, as nothing is to be got without offending God and the King, there he for the most part, and he alone, saves any thing."
Contrast that with Jonathan Swift, 50 years later:
“Nothing is so great an instance of ill manners as flattery. If you flatter all the company, you please none: if you flatter only one or two, you affront the rest.” -- Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)
About Wednesday 12 June 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"True is it that we have seen better days." -- William Shakespeare (1564-1616) – As You Like It (Act II, Scene VII).
About Thomas Sprat
San Diego Sarah • Link
A more in-depth article about Dr. Thomas Sprat and his influence is here:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/peop…
I think the most telling paragraph is:
"Sprat’s loyalties were always pliable, a fact often noted by his contemporaries, for he later served Charles II, James II, and William and Mary with the same devotion he had expressed for Cromwell. In politics he became a staunch Tory, a defender of the divine rights of kings, and a strong exponent of high church doctrines."
About Sprat's 'History of the Royal Society of London'
San Diego Sarah • Link
The Royal Society website has a page devoted to this book and the Rev. Sprat:
https://www.rct.uk/collection/105…
About Thomas Sprat
San Diego Sarah • Link
I inadvertently posted a gossipy article about Rev. Thomas Sprat to the site about his book on the Royal Society.
https://www.pepysdiary.com/encycl…
About Sprat's 'History of the Royal Society of London'
San Diego Sarah • Link
The link for this story didn't transfer, sorry. You'll find all of Anna Maria's bio at
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4…
About Sprat's 'History of the Royal Society of London'
San Diego Sarah • Link
... but something more than the lawless gratification of lust must have forced Buckingham and Shrewsbury into bigamy. No reason has ever been given, so we can only guess:
Perhaps the agents of Louis XIV did not squander his money without proof of the quid pro quo, so it does not exceed probability to suggest that -- before receiving the French bribes -- the Countess of Shrewsbury had to prove her influence over Buckingham.
The same year, Buckingham was sent to Paris to represent Charles II at the funeral of his sister, the Duchess of Orleans -- and also to prepare the way for Charles II to deceive his country.
Buckingham’s reception at Versailles was magnificent, and he returned laden with wealth and honors. So favorably did he impress the French Court that Louis XIV remarked "he was almost the only English gentleman he had ever seen!"
[Buckingham was sent to France to carry on the sham negotiations which led to the public treaties of 31 December, 1670 and 2 February, 1672. He was much pleased with his reception by Louis XIV, and declared that he had "more honors done him than ever were given to any subject," and was presented with a pension of 10,000 livres a year for Lady Shrewsbury. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/19… ]
In the following year the public were further scandalized to learn, in the words of Andrew Marvell MP, that "the Duke of Buckingham exceeds all with Lady Shrewsbury, by whom he believes he had a son, to whom the King stood godfather."
The baby was given the courtesy title of Earl of Coventry, traditionally borne by the eldest son of the Dukes of Buckingham. He was born and died in 1671, and was buried at night in the family vault at Westminster Abbey.
The book doesn't say this, but I suspect the funeral gave great offense to the pious also. Dr. Sprat evidently wasn't taken very seriously by his employer(s).
About Sprat's 'History of the Royal Society of London'
San Diego Sarah • Link
While Dr. Thomas Sprat is known for his writings about the Royal Society, there is one episode in his life which has avoided biographical scrutiny. The only place I found this story was in a biography of the scandalous Countess of Shrewsbury, written in the exaggerated style of Grammont, with no dates or citations. IF TRUE, and given the context of the story I see no reason it should not be, it calls Sprat’s ethics and character into question. I've added some verification while deleting much hyperbole.
COURT BEAUTIES OF OLD WHITEHALL
HISTORIETTES OF THE RESTORATION
by W. R. H. TROWBRIDGE
LONDON: T. FISHER UNWIN
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
MCMVI [1906]
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4…
Had George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham wished, he could have proved himself a patriot, and possibly change the course of history. He had the genius and a great opportunity. But he who had never been true to any principle in his life, or to any person for 24 hours together other than Anna Maria Brudenell Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, had neither the desire nor the will to choose between his country and his country's enemies.
With diabolical cynicism, Buckingham decided to be true to both his country and his country's enemies by despising both. It was probably the challenge of playing this double game that was its chief attraction. It was easy to hoodwink Protestant England, whose idol he was, but it was not so easy to dupe Louis XIV, whose tool he was. Consequently, in 1670 the astute Louis XIV bribed Anna Maria Brudenell Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury.
The day the French Ambassador paid Anna Maria her first 10,000 livres, he had the satisfaction of writing to his master that she had sworn, "Buckingham should comply with the King in all things."
Only the vaguest suspicion of this corruption was felt by the public, but the fact that while George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham openly expressed contrition for his past evil ways to Parliament as he kept Lady Shrewsbury at Cliveden was sufficient reason to doubt his reformation.
In 1670 the nation was suddenly staggered by the news that the chief Minister George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, had, without any pretense at secrecy, married Anna Maria Brudenell Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, while his wife was still living.
This bigamous ceremony was performed according to all the rites of the Church by Buckingham's chaplain, Dr. Thomas Sprat.
The pious felt as if they were living in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the courtiers at Whitehall merely laughed, and referred to the lawful Mary Fairfax, Duchess of Buckingham as the "Dowager Duchess."
Historians may pass over this episode in the Buckingham scandal as if the times and the notorious characters of the bigamous couple make comment unnecessary. That may be a sufficient explanation for Dr. Sprat's part in the crime …
About Friday 17 March 1664/65
San Diego Sarah • Link
Obviously Pepys doesn't know this, but by early 1664, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley MP was a member of the circle of John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale, who ranged themselves in opposition to Chancellor Clarendon.
I have not been able to discover who else was in their circle besides Sir Robert Moray who we know mostly as the moving force behind the Royal Society in the very early days.
About Tuesday 23 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
According to the Salty One a decade ago ... he hasn't posted recently, or have I missed a name change?
silly
[Later form of ME. sely SEELY a.]
From c 1550 to c 1675 silly was very extensively used in senses 1-3, and in a number of examples it is difficult to decide which shade of meaning was intended by the writer.
A. adj.
3. a. Unlearned, unsophisticated, simple, rustic, ignorant. Obs. or arch.
3b. Of humble rank or state; lowly. Obs.
a1568 A
1610 J. GUILLIM Heraldry IV. v. (1660) 281 Before the invention of Printing, the onely means of preserving good Arts..was by this silly instrument the Pen.
1629 MILTON Hymn Nativ. viii, Perhaps their loves, or els their sheep, Was all that did their silly thoughts so busie keep.
About Tuesday 23 July 1667
San Diego Sarah • Link
"... and slily answered him about the Prince’s leaving all his concerns to him, ..."
"And "silly" had more of a "stupid" connotation than we give it today."
But Phil pointed out to me, "slily" is more likely to by "SLYLY". Which reinforces my thoughts on Penn's fund-raising activities.
Penn's timing is truly awful, with the threatened Parliamentary hearings; messing around with the popular war hero third-in-line to the throne, and the only one untainted by rumors of Catholicism.
About Sir Edward Turnour (Speaker of the House of Commons)
San Diego Sarah • Link
His Parliamentary biography ...
https://www.historyofparliamenton…