What struck me was that the three captains all called on Sam at home, not in the office. Maybe they reported to the office first, found he was at lunch, and went over hoping to be fed? Or perhaps all the Captains expected to give Sam some money, and preferred not to do it in the office? Thank goodness it wasn't wash day!
✹ alanB. on 11 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag This visit to The Royal Oak tavern is the first mention of what is now one of the most popular public house names in Britain. Sam has yet to write down Charles II's account of his time in the Boscobel Oak so is this tavern named after the Royal Oak ship, or in tribute to the King's derring-do?
✹ Australian Susan on 12 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag The first Royal Oak ship was launched in 1664, so the pub name predates this, but as the account of Charles II in the oak tree had not yet been written, is this an instance of oral history being used in the pub name? Searching for details of this, I cannot find any mention of WHEN the name came into use, just its derivation. As far as I know, Charles is the only monarch to have an association with an oak tree. (Incidently, the Crown still pays a pension to direct descendents of the Penderel family who assisted Charles at the time of the oak tree episode - and you can still see the hiding place in Boscobell house where he hid). See The Escape of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester by Ollard (Sandwich's biographer). So, this name coming up now seems rather a puzzle. By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very shortlived - the Dutch sank her in 1667.
✹ Pedro on 22 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag “but as the account of Charles in the oak tree had not yet been written” The legend of the Royal Oak already appears to be common knowledge, as can be seen from the annotation for Leaden Hall Street. At the coronation of Charles II, the first triumphal arch erected in Leadenhall Street, near Lime Street, for the king to pass under on his way from the Tower to Westminster, is described in Ogilby’s contemporary account of the ceremony as having in its center a figure of Charles, royally attired, behind whom, ‘on a large table, is deciphered the Royal Oak bearing crowns and sceptres instead of acorns; amongst the leaves, in a label.
✹ Solomon Key on 7 Oct 2006 • Link • Flag Australian Susan: "By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very short-lived - the Dutch sank her in 1667." Wrong. The Royal Oak sunk by the Dutch was of the Royal Navy. The Royal Oak referenced by Pepys was of the East India Company and a merchant ship, sunk off the Scilly Isles in 1665: Name of Vessel: Royal Oak Tons: 400 Number of Voyages: 1 Period of Service (Seasons): 1663 Year Lost: 1665 Location: Isles of Scilly See Catalogue of East India Company Ships' Journals and Logs 1600-1834 National Archives: GB/NNAF/O94727 Record Reference: HCA 14/53
Royal institutions in Greenwich -- The Royal Dockyard
Eager to create a strong, modern English Navy, Henry VIII founded the Royal Dockyard at Woolwich in 1512. It's main purpose was the building of his flagship, the beautiful and heavily armed Henri Grace a Dieu - known by all as Great Harry. Henry presided at her launch.
The Great Harry was one of a series of splendid fighting ships built at the Royal Dockyard, but she was accidentally destroyed by fire at Woolwich in 1553. In 1559 Queen Elizabeth launched "a fine ship newly built, and called by her own name" at the dockyard.
Illustrious history Later, two of the greatest ships ever seen were constructed at Woolwich. They were the Royal Prince, completed in 1610 for James I, and the Sovereign of the Seas for his son Charles I in 1637. But the problems that would eventually close the Woolwich yard were already evident.
King James came to the launch of the Royal Prince with a great retinue of courtiers, but he returned to Greenwich "much grieved" when she became stuck in the dock gates. Much the same thing happened when Charles I, with his queen, came to the launch of the Sovereign of the Seas. The ship failed to enter the water, the tide being very poor.
" ... Cromwell’s “re-admission” of Jews in 1655, may have been for commercial purposes, “English Jews” being very useful for English trade. ..." I'm no expert on this, but according to http://www.britannia.com/history/… ... A small settlement of Jews from Spain and Portugal, fleeing the Inquisition, had reached London via Amsterdam during King Charles I's reign. Cromwell was to employ them in his secret service and, eventually, he made Abraham Israel Carvajal, their official leader, the first English Jew. In 1655, at a conference led by Rabbi Menasseh Bell Israel, it was finally agreed that English Law did not forbid the settlement of Jews.
And when Oliver Cromwell needed money to pay his large, well-equipped army in the 17th century, he turned to the wealthy Jews of Amsterdam for his financing. To get money to pay his men, he had to agree to let the Jews back into England. (The story is contained in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. The article states that Cromwell was "a humane man.")
In 1656, Oliver Cromwell spoke of the debt newly-Protestant England owed the Jews. In England, he said, the Jews would finally see Christianity in its true form and embrace it. Despite Cromwell’s prediction, there was no mass conversion of Jews to Christianity in England or in any other Protestant region.
NO SPOILER ALERT NEEDED: During the first half of the 17th century, millenarian ideas of the approach of the Messianic time were popular. They included ideas of the redemption of the Jews and their return to the land of Israel, with independent sovereignty. The apocalyptic year was identified by Christian authors as 1666 and millenarianism was widespread in England. This belief was so prevalent that Manasseh ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell and the Rump Parliament, appealed to it as a reason to readmit Jews into England, saying, "[T]he opinions of many Christians and mine do concur herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their native country is very near at hand."
So I don't think it was trade Cromwell wanted. He was trying to strike a bargain with God to spare the English when the 1666 Judgment Day came.
TerryF is correct in saying Sam is reminding Penn of Holmes' tirade about Mennes taking place on December 7, 1661 (see, writing a Diary can come in useful years later when one needs details about things!):
"... by water to the office, when I found Sir W. Pen had been alone all the night and was just rose, and so I to him, and with him I found Captain Holmes, who had wrote his case, and gives me a copy, as he hath many among his friends, and presented the same to the King and Council. Which I shall make use of in my attempt of writing something concerning the business of striking sail, which I am now about. But he do cry out against Sir John Minnes, as the veriest knave and rogue and coward in the world, which I was glad to hear, because he has given out bad words concerning my Lord, though I am sorry it is so. "
Up until now I had been assuming Sam's outrage was all about the meeting of Saturday, March 23, 1663: "... Captain Holmes being called in he began his high complaint against his Master Cooper, and would have him forthwith discharged. Which I opposed, not in his defence but for the justice of proceeding not to condemn a man unheard, upon [which] we fell from one word to another that we came to very high terms, such as troubled me, though all and the worst that I ever said was that that was insolently or ill mannerly spoken. When he told me that it was well it was here that I said it. But all the officers, Sir G. Carteret, Sir J. Minnes, Sir W. Batten, and Sir W. Penn cried shame of it. At last he parted and we resolved to bring the dispute between him and his Master to a trial next week, wherein I shall not at all concern myself in defence of anything that is unhandsome on the Master’s part nor willingly suffer him to have any wrong."
SPOILER ALERT: Capt. Holmes crossed many people throughout his career. It's a pity Sam wasn't able to nip it in the bud here ... he certainly seems to be trying.
Of course, there may have been more than one Susan, but on March 26, 1663 http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Pepys pays off a Susan so he has room for the new cookmaid. Perhaps she found local rooms and came back part-time as needed? By the sound of the most recent wash days that would be a good time for her to be around ...
The included Wikipedia biography says that the first cousin, 1st Earl of Bath did not ask to be made 3rd Duke of Albemarle, so William III awarded the title elsewhere.
However, I would rather trust http://bcw-project.org/biography/… which says that Sir John was a second cousin of General Monck, and: "Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath was disappointed when William III granted the earldom of Albemarle to a favorite in 1697, a title claimed by Bath through his connection to the Monck family. Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's final years were spent in a bitter legal dispute over the Albemarle estate, which almost bankrupted him. Two weeks after Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's death in August 1701, his son and heir Charles Grenville shot himself, apparently overwhelmed by the debts he had inherited. Father and son were buried on 22 September 1701 in the family vault at Kilkhampton."
"I did hint to him my desire that I could make some lawfull profit thereof, which he promises that he will tell me of all that he gets and that I shall have a share, which I did not demand, but did silently consent to it, and money I perceive something will be got thereby." Sam is so specific about all this, I suspect it is the first time he has negotiated a "big" deal. It's been a brace of ducks here and the odd gift there, but this time he went for the money and documents the successful process for later reference.
" ... my wife and I and her woman by coach to Westminster, ..." and " ... and led my wife and her to Captain Ferrers, ..." We all assume Ms. Ashwell accompanied the Pepys, but Sam doesn't say that. Both these comments seem dismissive, so maybe Sam was annoyed he had agreed to Ashwell's wish for him to go to the church event and look at the young women. He doesn't say how long he had to stand around waiting for the coach to come back. Probably more than an hour. The weather in Essex was "A healthful, dry season, somewhat cold with eastern winds." March easterly winds blowing down the Thames can be very chilly, and Sam always worries about his "delicate condition". He is already worried by Holmes' behavior, and this was a further irritation.
"Sir W. Batten and I to my Lord Mayor’s, where we found my Lord with Colonel Strangways and Sir Richard Floyd, ..." and "Sir R. Ford breaking to my Lord our business of our patent to be justices of the Peace in the City, ..." I had to read this entry twice, as I'm so used to "my Lord" being the Earl of Sandwich that I missed Sam's irony the first time; he's referring to the bufflehead Lord Mayor. I wonder who set up this dinner party.
Considering how often Sam chooses to attend other churches, I think he's being a bit snooty about there not being enough space in the Navy Pew. It's another opportunity for him to instigate a bureaucratic office sign-up list. I also wonder if Wayneman and Jane and Will and Sarah also had to attend this church? I'm sure they were banished to stand at the back.
I wonder who Mr. Wood was ... none of the Woods in the index seem appropriate, but he couldn't have been a lawyer because he was able to rescind Butler's orders. Wood must have been in the Navy somehow. If he had been "against" Pepys and the gang in the Field affair, he wouldn't have told them about the appointment while it was still possible to reverse it.
The narrative here says "1. Jane, wife of Lord Gerard (see ante, January 1st, 1662-6)." So this 6 is a typo ... should be 3.
The link is correct, and takes you to: Thursday 1 January 1662/63 ... Then to my wife again, and found Mrs. Sarah with us in the chamber we lay in. Among other discourse, Mrs. Sarah tells us how the King sups at least four or [five] times every week with my Lady Castlemaine; and most often stays till the morning with her, and goes home through the garden all alone privately, and that so as the very centrys take notice of it and speak of it.
She tells me, that about a month ago she [Lady Castlemaine] quickened at my Lord Gerard’s at dinner, and cried out that she was undone; and all the lords and men were fain to quit the room, and women called to help her. ...
Comments
Second Reading
About Saturday 11 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
What struck me was that the three captains all called on Sam at home, not in the office. Maybe they reported to the office first, found he was at lunch, and went over hoping to be fed? Or perhaps all the Captains expected to give Sam some money, and preferred not to do it in the office? Thank goodness it wasn't wash day!
About Royal Oak (Lombard St)
San Diego Sarah • Link
✹ alanB. on 11 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
This visit to The Royal Oak tavern is the first mention of what is now one of the most popular public house names in Britain. Sam has yet to write down Charles II's account of his time in the Boscobel Oak so is this tavern named after the Royal Oak ship, or in tribute to the King's derring-do?
✹ Australian Susan on 12 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
The first Royal Oak ship was launched in 1664, so the pub name predates this, but as the account of Charles II in the oak tree had not yet been written, is this an instance of oral history being used in the pub name? Searching for details of this, I cannot find any mention of WHEN the name came into use, just its derivation. As far as I know, Charles is the only monarch to have an association with an oak tree. (Incidently, the Crown still pays a pension to direct descendents of the Penderel family who assisted Charles at the time of the oak tree episode - and you can still see the hiding place in Boscobell house where he hid). See The Escape of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester by Ollard (Sandwich's biographer). So, this name coming up now seems rather a puzzle.
By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very shortlived - the Dutch sank her in 1667.
✹ Pedro on 22 Apr 2006 • Link • Flag
“but as the account of Charles in the oak tree had not yet been written”
The legend of the Royal Oak already appears to be common knowledge, as can be seen from the annotation for Leaden Hall Street. At the coronation of Charles II, the first triumphal arch erected in Leadenhall Street, near Lime Street, for the king to pass under on his way from the Tower to Westminster, is described in Ogilby’s contemporary account of the ceremony as having in its center a figure of Charles, royally attired, behind whom, ‘on a large table, is deciphered the Royal Oak bearing crowns and sceptres instead of acorns; amongst the leaves, in a label.
✹ Solomon Key on 7 Oct 2006 • Link • Flag
Australian Susan: "By the way, the first Royal Oak ship was very short-lived - the Dutch sank her in 1667."
Wrong. The Royal Oak sunk by the Dutch was of the Royal Navy. The Royal Oak referenced by Pepys was of the East India Company and a merchant ship, sunk off the Scilly Isles in 1665:
Name of Vessel: Royal Oak
Tons: 400
Number of Voyages: 1
Period of Service (Seasons): 1663
Year Lost: 1665
Location: Isles of Scilly
See Catalogue of East India Company Ships' Journals and Logs 1600-1834
National Archives: GB/NNAF/O94727
Record Reference: HCA 14/53
About Greenwich
San Diego Sarah • Link
Royal institutions in Greenwich -- The Royal Dockyard
Eager to create a strong, modern English Navy, Henry VIII founded the Royal Dockyard at Woolwich in 1512. It's main purpose was the building of his flagship, the beautiful and heavily armed Henri Grace a Dieu - known by all as Great Harry. Henry presided at her launch.
The Great Harry was one of a series of splendid fighting ships built at the Royal Dockyard, but she was accidentally destroyed by fire at Woolwich in 1553. In 1559 Queen Elizabeth launched "a fine ship newly built, and called by her own name" at the dockyard.
Illustrious history
Later, two of the greatest ships ever seen were constructed at Woolwich. They were the Royal Prince, completed in 1610 for James I, and the Sovereign of the Seas for his son Charles I in 1637. But the problems that would eventually close the Woolwich yard were already evident.
King James came to the launch of the Royal Prince with a great retinue of courtiers, but he returned to Greenwich "much grieved" when she became stuck in the dock gates. Much the same thing happened when Charles I, with his queen, came to the launch of the Sovereign of the Seas. The ship failed to enter the water, the tide being very poor.
Nonetheless, Woolwich continued to produce fine ships for the Royal Navy for another 250 years.
-- http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/…
About Wednesday 8 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
" ... Cromwell’s “re-admission” of Jews in 1655, may have been for commercial purposes, “English Jews” being very useful for English trade. ..." I'm no expert on this, but according to http://www.britannia.com/history/…
... A small settlement of Jews from Spain and Portugal, fleeing the Inquisition, had reached London via Amsterdam during King Charles I's reign. Cromwell was to employ them in his secret service and, eventually, he made Abraham Israel Carvajal, their official leader, the first English Jew. In 1655, at a conference led by Rabbi Menasseh Bell Israel, it was finally agreed that English Law did not forbid the settlement of Jews.
And when Oliver Cromwell needed money to pay his large, well-equipped army in the 17th century, he turned to the wealthy Jews of Amsterdam for his financing. To get money to pay his men, he had to agree to let the Jews back into England. (The story is contained in the Encyclopaedia Judaica. The article states that Cromwell was "a humane man.")
In 1656, Oliver Cromwell spoke of the debt newly-Protestant England owed the Jews. In England, he said, the Jews would finally see Christianity in its true form and embrace it. Despite Cromwell’s prediction, there was no mass conversion of Jews to Christianity in England or in any other Protestant region.
NO SPOILER ALERT NEEDED: During the first half of the 17th century, millenarian ideas of the approach of the Messianic time were popular. They included ideas of the redemption of the Jews and their return to the land of Israel, with independent sovereignty. The apocalyptic year was identified by Christian authors as 1666 and millenarianism was widespread in England. This belief was so prevalent that Manasseh ben Israel, in his letter to Oliver Cromwell and the Rump Parliament, appealed to it as a reason to readmit Jews into England, saying, "[T]he opinions of many Christians and mine do concur herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their native country is very near at hand."
So I don't think it was trade Cromwell wanted. He was trying to strike a bargain with God to spare the English when the 1666 Judgment Day came.
About Thursday 2 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
TerryF is correct in saying Sam is reminding Penn of Holmes' tirade about Mennes taking place on December 7, 1661 (see, writing a Diary can come in useful years later when one needs details about things!):
"... by water to the office, when I found Sir W. Pen had been alone all the night and was just rose, and so I to him, and with him I found Captain Holmes, who had wrote his case, and gives me a copy, as he hath many among his friends, and presented the same to the King and Council. Which I shall make use of in my attempt of writing something concerning the business of striking sail, which I am now about. But he do cry out against Sir John Minnes, as the veriest knave and rogue and coward in the world, which I was glad to hear, because he has given out bad words concerning my Lord, though I am sorry it is so. "
Up until now I had been assuming Sam's outrage was all about the meeting of Saturday, March 23, 1663: "... Captain Holmes being called in he began his high complaint against his Master Cooper, and would have him forthwith discharged. Which I opposed, not in his defence but for the justice of proceeding not to condemn a man unheard, upon [which] we fell from one word to another that we came to very high terms, such as troubled me, though all and the worst that I ever said was that that was insolently or ill mannerly spoken. When he told me that it was well it was here that I said it. But all the officers, Sir G. Carteret, Sir J. Minnes, Sir W. Batten, and Sir W. Penn cried shame of it. At last he parted and we resolved to bring the dispute between him and his Master to a trial next week, wherein I shall not at all concern myself in defence of anything that is unhandsome on the Master’s part nor willingly suffer him to have any wrong."
SPOILER ALERT: Capt. Holmes crossed many people throughout his career. It's a pity Sam wasn't able to nip it in the bud here ... he certainly seems to be trying.
About Wednesday 1 April 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
I'm guessing Ashwell was ready to move ... where? ... so Pepys Snr. could have the new bedroom? Seems to me Pepys is still a bedroom short.
About Jane Ferrer
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sam and Elizabeth attended the christening of Robert and Jane Ferrers' baby on March 22, 1663 http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1…
About Friday 27 March 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
I wonder why Sam was looking at Spanish books. Portuguese, Dutch or French I can see ... but Spanish?
About Susan (a, Pepys' cookmaid)
San Diego Sarah • Link
Of course, there may have been more than one Susan, but on March 26, 1663 http://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1… Pepys pays off a Susan so he has room for the new cookmaid. Perhaps she found local rooms and came back part-time as needed? By the sound of the most recent wash days that would be a good time for her to be around ...
About George Monck (Duke of Albemarle)
San Diego Sarah • Link
The included Wikipedia biography says that the first cousin, 1st Earl of Bath did not ask to be made 3rd Duke of Albemarle, so William III awarded the title elsewhere.
However, I would rather trust http://bcw-project.org/biography/… which says that Sir John was a second cousin of General Monck, and:
"Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath was disappointed when William III granted the earldom of Albemarle to a favorite in 1697, a title claimed by Bath through his connection to the Monck family. Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's final years were spent in a bitter legal dispute over the Albemarle estate, which almost bankrupted him. Two weeks after Sir John Grenville, 1st Earl of Bath's death in August 1701, his son and heir Charles Grenville shot himself, apparently overwhelmed by the debts he had inherited. Father and son were buried on 22 September 1701 in the family vault at Kilkhampton."
About Wednesday 25 March 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
"I did hint to him my desire that I could make some lawfull profit thereof, which he promises that he will tell me of all that he gets and that I shall have a share, which I did not demand, but did silently consent to it, and money I perceive something will be got thereby." Sam is so specific about all this, I suspect it is the first time he has negotiated a "big" deal. It's been a brace of ducks here and the odd gift there, but this time he went for the money and documents the successful process for later reference.
About Wednesday 25 March 1663
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sam apparently ate two lunches. Made up for the bad service at home where there is no mention of an evening meal.
About Sunday 22 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
" ... my wife and I and her woman by coach to Westminster, ..." and " ... and led my wife and her to Captain Ferrers, ..." We all assume Ms. Ashwell accompanied the Pepys, but Sam doesn't say that. Both these comments seem dismissive, so maybe Sam was annoyed he had agreed to Ashwell's wish for him to go to the church event and look at the young women. He doesn't say how long he had to stand around waiting for the coach to come back. Probably more than an hour. The weather in Essex was "A healthful, dry season, somewhat cold with eastern winds." March easterly winds blowing down the Thames can be very chilly, and Sam always worries about his "delicate condition". He is already worried by Holmes' behavior, and this was a further irritation.
About Thursday 19 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I deduce from this that "betimes" is an abbreviation for "before times" or earlier than usual.
About Tuesday 17 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
"Sir W. Batten and I to my Lord Mayor’s, where we found my Lord with Colonel Strangways and Sir Richard Floyd, ..." and "Sir R. Ford breaking to my Lord our business of our patent to be justices of the Peace in the City, ..." I had to read this entry twice, as I'm so used to "my Lord" being the Earl of Sandwich that I missed Sam's irony the first time; he's referring to the bufflehead Lord Mayor. I wonder who set up this dinner party.
About Sunday 15 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Considering how often Sam chooses to attend other churches, I think he's being a bit snooty about there not being enough space in the Navy Pew. It's another opportunity for him to instigate a bureaucratic office sign-up list. I also wonder if Wayneman and Jane and Will and Sarah also had to attend this church? I'm sure they were banished to stand at the back.
About Friday 13 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
Sam has recovered from his cold a lot faster than I have mine this spring.
About Thursday 12 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I wonder if Sam finally caught Sandwich's cold. It's been about 5 days since they saw each other ... about the right incubation time.
About Wednesday 11 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
I wonder who Mr. Wood was ... none of the Woods in the index seem appropriate, but he couldn't have been a lawyer because he was able to rescind Butler's orders. Wood must have been in the Navy somehow. If he had been "against" Pepys and the gang in the Field affair, he wouldn't have told them about the appointment while it was still possible to reverse it.
About Saturday 7 March 1662/63
San Diego Sarah • Link
The narrative here says "1. Jane, wife of Lord Gerard (see ante, January 1st, 1662-6)." So this 6 is a typo ... should be 3.
The link is correct, and takes you to:
Thursday 1 January 1662/63
...
Then to my wife again, and found Mrs. Sarah with us in the chamber we lay in. Among other discourse, Mrs. Sarah tells us how the King sups at least four or [five] times every week with my Lady Castlemaine; and most often stays till the morning with her, and goes home through the garden all alone privately, and that so as the very centrys take notice of it and speak of it.
She tells me, that about a month ago she [Lady Castlemaine] quickened at my Lord Gerard’s at dinner, and cried out that she was undone; and all the lords and men were fain to quit the room, and women called to help her. ...