Annotations and comments

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


Third Reading

About Monday 3 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... my Lord Abbot Montagu being not at Paris, my Lord hath a mind to have them stay a little longer before they go."

Hhhhmmmm -- last minute effrorts by Henrietta Maria to stop this wedding? Louis XIV sending over secret instructions? What was Abbe Ralph doing in London???

About Monday 3 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"Here I had a good occasion to tell him (what I have had long in my mind) that, since it has pleased God to bless me with something, I am desirous to lay out something for my father, and so have pitched upon Mr. Young’s place in the Wardrobe, which I desired he would give order in his absence, if the place should fall that I might have the refusal. Which my Lord did freely promise me, at which I was very glad, he saying that he would do that at the least."

Thank goodness -- I knew John Pepys Snr. was an OK tailor -- maybe he didn't specialize in velvet, so Sam took that work elsewhere, or he was very busy and so Sam used someone else to meet his deadline. But our naysayers owe John an apology!

Sam first records John's desire to work at the Wardrobe almost a year ago, and Sam's reason for not doing it then do not include John's competence, but his not wishing to appear greedy:…

About Saturday 1 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"Among others got my Lord’s imprest of 1000l. and Mr. Creed’s of 10,000l. against this voyage their bills signed."

As I recall -- and I haven't looked this up -- 17 ships are sailing for Portugal; let's say there are a minimum of 500 men per ship. 8,500 men will need fresh food and water, spars and masts break, people get sick and need to be left with funds to cover their recovery; they are being entertained in Portugal by royalty, and need to reciprocate; they will be transporting a Princess for months at sea -- along with her dozens of attendants. Add gifts and port fees and other miscellaneous expenses, I can see 10,000l. disappearing quite quickly.

I wonder where Creed will keep the cash? If it's gold, that's still a lot of small barrels to keep under his bunk in his locked cabin. If it's in silver, that's a whole lot more barrels to keep where? They could overflow his cabin.

Maybe there's a "vault" next to the "armory" in the bowels of the ship, which is off limits to the crew?
Does anyone remember where to find the incredible diagram of a ship we shared during the 1660 voyage?

About Saturday 1 June 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

I wonder why the Lords didn't sit today.

And in the Commons, keeping people in their seats was an issue:
"Climbing over Seats forbidden.
"Ordered, That, whensoever the House is to rise, every Member keep their Seat, till the Speaker go out; and then every one in their Course orderly, as they sit, and not over the Formes.

"Ordered, That all such of the Members of this House, as climb over their Seats, shall pay Twelve-pence to the Serjeant attending this House."

About Wednesday 22 February 1664/65

San Diego Sarah  •  Link


James had often suffered from Buckingham's personal ascendency over his facile brother and realized that if they met, his decision would probably be reversed. He took precautions accordingly, and dispatched Harry Killigrew to the Court with letters.

Killigrew made such haste that he arrived 6 hours before Buckingham, and so Charles II had ample time to weigh matters before being subjected to his favorite's influence.

Consequently, when Buckingham made his appearance, he was informed that the King thought it would be an affront to the Lord High Admiral to override his action, and that Buckingham must owe his advancement — if any — to His Royal Highness.

Buckingham's eloquence being ineffectual, he had no alternative but to return to the Fleet, where he set to work to justify what previously had seemed an unjust and harsh decision on James' part.

The Earl of Peterborough, writes: "Buckingham's fickleness and uncertainty (for those are the epithets of such as would favor him), gives scandal to every sober thing. He has quitted his ship, sent back his goods, and abandoned to shift several gentlemen (who) came with him, and because of the appearance of her strength and the goodness of her defense thrust himself aboard the Earl of Sandwich as a private volunteer to the disturbance of that ship and the dislike of everyone."1

On board the Unicorn, 20 April, 1665.
1 Dom. State Cal., Charles II., vol. xiv. p. 95.

SPOILER: On June 3, 1665, the battle of the campaign was fought off Lowestoft, but there is no record that Buckingham took any part in this great British victory.

Adapted from
George Villiers, Second Duke of Buckingham, 1628-1687: A Study in the History of the Restoration
By Baroness Winifred Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, Lady Burghclere…

About Wednesday 22 February 1664/65

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Meanwhile, at Westminster, the Privy Council met with Charles II, James -- and Buckingham:

George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham assisted at the Privy Council meeting,1 where the Declaration of War with the Dutch Republic was drafted. He had instantly volunteered for active service, and requested the command of a ship.
1 22 Feb., 1665.

All nominations were in the gift of the Duke of York, who never missed an occasion to mortify Buckingham. Buckingham's petition was consequently rejected; James refused to entrust a man-o'-war to a gentleman who, however distinguished by birth, had no experience of naval matters — a doctrine of undeniable soundness, although somewhat opposed to the practice of the 17th century.

Buckingham determined "to go as a volunteer, and put himself on board a flagship, the captain of which owed him a favor. Once there, he desired that in respect to his quality and his being a Privy Councilor, he might be present in all Councils of War.”

James, Duke of York replied that he did not consider this reasonable, and that he would not make a fresh precedent in his favor. Buckingham had frequently amused Charles II by mimicking members of the Privy Council at Whitehall, which probably strengthened James' resolution to exclude Buckingham from the Naval Board.
1 “Life of Clarendon," 1727 ed., vol. ii. p. 356.

James was determined not to be made ridiculous, and welcomed the opportunity to wipe out the long score of grievances which he and his father-in-law, Chancellor Clarendon, held against waggish Buckingham.
2 Clarendon, p. 342.

James was so unpopular that public opinion would quickly have supported Buckingham, had he maintained a calm and dignified attitude. Even Henry Mordaunt, 2nd Earl of Peterborough, a staunch partisan of James, Duke of York, was inclined to think Buckingham ill-used.

Buckingham's friends placed his contention on a sound basis in “fixing his pretence not upon a Peerage, but his being a Privy Councilor.” 3
3 Dom. State Cal., Charles II., vol. xiv. p. 54. Letter to Lord Peterborough, 16 April, 1665.

Unfortunately, calm and patience were not amongst Buckingham's qualities. Instead of remaining at his post on the flagship, he rushed back to Whitehall to see what his persuasive tongue would effect with Charles II.

About Wednesday 29 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Ooooppps -- Bishops -- I forgot to mention those pesky administrators as being part of the Church of England that Pepys is unfamiliar with.

Early in May, 1661 it was proposed to reinstate the Bishops to the House of Lords.
The Clergy Act 1661 (13 Cha. 2 St. 1. c. 2) passed and was signed by Charles II on 30 July, 1661. It "repealed, annulled and made void to all intents and purposes" the Clergy Act 1640, which had prevented those in holy orders from exercising any temporal jurisdiction or authority and so, expelled the bishops, as Lords Spiritual, from the House of Lords.

[It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.]

Bishops and Archbishops were a big part of why the Civil Wars were fought.

About Friday 31 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Talking about Wales -- it's been raining a lot there too. The House of Lords outdoes themselves today by:
"Ordered, That his Majesty be humbly moved to issue out a Proclamation for the observing of a publick Day of Humiliation throughout all England and Wales, and the Town of Berwick upon Tweed, in respect of the immoderate Rain and Waters; and to beseech God to divert the Judgments threatened thereby; and that the Lords Concurrence be desired herein: And Mr. Lowther is to carry up the Order."

If you were doubting that the most educated people in England were still a superstitious lot, there's some proof that they were. On the other hand, had they known about the Gulf Stream and El Nino years, etc., perhaps they would have avoided this inconvenience.

About Saturday 5 December 1668

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

And Dr. Brodie Waddell of Cambridge University has written a book about the 17th century concept of democracy:

Series: Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History
Series Vol. Number: 13
Imprint: Boydell Press

God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life, 1660-1720
by Brodie Waddell

An analysis of later Stuart economic culture that contributes significantly to our understanding of early modern society.

The English economy underwent profound changes in the 17th and 18th centuries, yet the worldly affairs of ordinary people continued to be shaped as much by traditional ideals and moral codes as by material conditions.

This book explores the economic implications of many of the era's key concepts, including Christian stewardship, divine providence, patriarchal power, paternal duty, local community, and collective identity.

Brodie Waddell drawson a wide range of contemporary sources - from ballads and pamphlets to pauper petitions and guild regulations - to show that such ideas pervaded every aspect of social and economic relations during this crucial period.

Previous discussions of English economic life have tended to ignore or dismiss the influence of cultural factors. By contrast, Waddell argues that popular beliefs about divine will, social duty and communal bonds remained the frame through which most people viewed vital 'earthly' concerns such as food marketing, labour relations, trade policy, poor relief, and many others. This innovative study, demonstrating both the vibrancy and the diversity of the 'moral economies' of the later Stuart period, represents a significant contribution to our understanding of early modern society. It will be essential reading for all early modern British economic and cultural historians.

Brodie Waddell is Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of Cambridge. He has published on preaching, local government, the landscape and other aspects of early modern society.

288 Pages
23.4 x 15.6 cm
8 b/w illus.
October 2012
BUY $115.00 / £80.00…

About Mary Villiers (Duchess of Buckingham)

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Mary Fairfax's skin, like Catherine of Braganza’s, was swarthy, but she was also short-legged and awkward — a "little round crumpled woman," 2 and yet so fond of finery, that even when in mourning she would contrive to wear a loose over-robe all edged and laced with gold. Pious and virtuous as she was, she shared readily in the harmless frolics of the Queen's circle.
2 Illustration to Bonn's Ed. of Grammont's "Mems.," 405.

By Baroness Winifred Anne Henrietta Christine Herbert Gardner, LADY BURGHCLERE

And if you believe Grammont ... but in this case, I score his memory quite high as it fits with others testimonials. I'm happy Queen Catherine found some genuine lady friends.

About Thursday 30 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Don't overlook the politics of Penn/Batten's selection -- probably from their old Partliamentarian pals. Carteret is a Royalist, and would probably have vetoed some of these appointments in favor of a more "noble" representation for such an important cruise to Portugal.
He's worried Charles is going to be looking at his old friend and asking, "How did that happen? I thought you said you had the situation under control. Can we change the line-up now?"

About Wednesday 29 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Diary of Ralph Josselin (Private Collection)
29.5.1661 (Wednesday 29 May 1661)
document 70013090

29. A thanksgiving day for K Charles return to the crown. I preached, very few hearers a sad wet season. etc.


Not turning up for church avoids listening to this new-fangled Church of England Royalist brainwashing. Of course, the rain might also be a factor. And it's Wednesday -- there are cows to milk, fences to mend. grumble, grumble, grumble.

About Monday 27 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

OOooooppps -- that should be "Lady" Davis, not Turner!
And I had forgotten
"Good hopes given me to-day that Mrs. Davis is going away from us, her husband going shortly to Ireland." --

Which means that Col. Slingsby may well have moved in next door, and will give up a bedroom to Pepys (for Hewer, or the female servants?). In which case, why would he need Pepys to "... open him a way to get lodgings himself in the office, ..."?

Todd Bernhardt suggested this means finding a place for a desk in he office, but 'lodgings' means somewhere to live.

Hopefully it will become clear in time.

About Sunday 19 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"The property stayed in the family"

Yes, 徽柔, the Villiers and the Fairfax families were distant relatives (I haven't figured out how).
When Fairfax received Villiers property in lieu of salary, apparently he viewed himself as the caretaker, not the owner.
(You can read about other fights over property ownership in the Parliamentary records that Phil has posted top right. Most Parliamentarians didn't like their "just rewards" being taken from them any more than the Royalists had liked loosing their property during the Interregnum. Some of these legal fights go on for decades.)

By marrying Black Tom's heiress, his "cousin" Mary Fairfax, Buckingham was effectively also codifying Fairfax ownership. And securing property was what arranged marriages was all about.

"In that case, from a political and financial point of view, did the Fairfax marriage be a faulty stroke for him after the restoration?"

Buckingham never dreamed there would be a Restoration in 1660. In 1657 this was his only way of reclaiming his lands. Also, he needed Lord Fairfax's protection -- Cromwell wanted his head. Marriage was a political and financial coup at the time.

Plus, judging from Buckingham's poetry, at the time he genuinely liked Mary and the peaceful life she offered him at Nun Appleton, Yorkshire.
Shades of "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, Never make a pretty woman your wife ..."

About Wednesday 29 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"Mr. Radcliffe, my former school fellow at Paul’s (who is yet a mere boy), preach upon “Nay, let him take all, since my Lord the King is returned,” &c. He reads all, and his sermon very simple, but I looked for new matter."

I agree with David A Smith -- everyone knows Charles II is back; but now what?
What is the Church if England -- beyond moving the alter/Lord's table, kneeling for the eucharist, and dressing up in surpluses again?
There must be more to it than that to fuel 10 years of Civil War, and the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Pepys wants to know what the rules are so he can be a good citizen, and not open to criticism.

About Monday 27 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

"... but I have got of him leave to have a little room from his lodgings to my house, of which I am very glad, ..."

Oh to have a map! On one side of Pepys' abode were Sir William and Lady Batten, and on the other the troublesome "Lady" Turner and her brood.

Slingsby is the landlord, so maybe he has wrangled a room from either the Battens or the Turners for Pepys, and we are just dealing with Pepys making an obscure entry? Hopefully it will become clear in time.

About Sunday 19 May 1661

San Diego Sarah  •  Link

Buckingham also owned and lived in York House in London as a child and early in his marriage in 1657 -- Pepys even mentions it, and it has an encyclopedia page! Duh!
Since all the info. I gleaned on it happened before the Diary, I have added it there. Fun stuff, I think:…

I suspect that's where Lady Fairfax stayed during the trial of King Charles, where she almost got into trouble for expressing her distress that that was happening. With the marriage of Buckingham to Mary Fairfax, the General returned the property to Villiers, which he had never considered his own to keep anyways. The property stayed in the family -- always a concern to the nobility.