Charlezzzzz • Link
What an innocent and happy day!
If every day had been so simple and so sweet, how many of us would read the diary?
vincent • Link
from yesterday "...About the middle of the night I was very ill
Ruben • Link
Vincent: note that SP also vomited and had difficulties passing urine. This are signs good for a diagnosis of an urinary colic. It is possible that again a stone was bothering him.
SP may be writing that it was to much for him and not that it was to much in absolute terms.
Jenny Doughty • Link
Ruben - I've just noted that on yesterday's entry, before I read this one of yours.
vincent • Link
"Dined at home alone with my wife,"
did he dine "separated/exclusive/isolated/solitary/forlorne/desolate/without maid" with my wife ? Desolute fits, he being of aked head amongst other problems.
alone ME al[all]+ one?
Jenny Doughty • Link
I would read that as meaning that they had no other company for dinner.
There's no contentment like the aftermath of a vomitus hangover and the cease of razor sharp kidney pains. Especially that he'd had an operation two years previously for kidney/bladder stones(performed in a relative's house by surgeon Thomas Hollier) and that subsequent discomfort must have been worrying. Uneventful days come into their own.
In the House of Lords today they receive a letter from Charles II attached to a Petition from Sir Aubrey De Veer Knight of the most Honourable Order of the Garter (sic).
Why would Montagu Bertie, Earl of Lindsay think he should be the Earl of Oxford?
"The office of Lord Great Chamberlain descended to to Robert Bertie, 1st Earl of Lindsey following the death of his cousin Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford, as being the closest heir male."
WHY? There were legitimate Oxford sons.
After the Restoration, Montagu Bertie, 2nd Earl of Lindsey was re-appointed to the Privy Council, admitted as Lord Great Chamberlain, and appointed Lord Lieutenant of Lincolnshire. He was made a Knight of the Garter on 1 April, 1661, and officiated as Lord Great Chamberlain at the coronation of Charles II ...
So Lindsay "won" the Great Chamberlain contraversy -- but there was another very honorable living Earl of Oxford:
Aubrey de Vere, 20th Earl of Oxford, KG, PC (28 February 1627 – 12 March 1703) was the son of Robert de Vere, 19th Earl of Oxford and his wife Beatrix van Hemmend.
Aubrey de Vere, 20th Earl of Oxford was a Royalist during the English Civil Wars, and for this he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was richly rewarded for his loyalty by Charles II after the Restoration in 1660. ...
"Hoping, but failing, to become Lord Chamberlain, Aubrey de Vere was offered the Colonelcy of The Blues. He was made Chief Justice in Eyre of the Forest south of Trent 1660-1673; Colonel of the Royal Regiment of Horse from 1661."
Aubrey seems to have been seen as legitimate, so why did the honored position of Lord Chamberlain go to Lindsay? And how could Lindsay now think he should be the Earl of Oxford?
The only answer I can come up with is that King Charles I must have played favorites and not honored tradition.
Does anyone know? None of the websites I've visited even mention this broohaha.
Perhaps, in the Lindsay/Oxford tussle, Charles just got better vibes out of Lindsay? The Lord High Chamberlain manages Westminster palace, a sensitive position at a time of so many plots, and one which must also call for a few practical skills and some alertness given the sheer complexity of the place. The king in any case has made clear, early on, that he's uninterested in reversions for their own sake and will rather grant offices based on competence.
But in any case it's a Lords decision. It's the Lords who, way back in 1626 under Charles I, shunted the office from the earls of Oxford, who had held it since the 12th century, to the Lindseys when the Oxfords happened to have no suitable male descendent on offer. A quick rummaging through the State Papers (at https://play.google.com/books/rea…) find, apart from a reference on December 26 which shows this has been going on for months, an unattributed note on December 19 on "reasons why the decision concerning the Earl of Lindsay's earldom and office should not be taken out of the hands of the judges, to whom the King referred it". The King has other things to do than step into every personal matter he's petitioned about, or than doing the Lords' job perhaps.
It's also not an obvious choice to make, because both of them have legitimacy: Lindsay can fall back on the Lords' decision of 1626 - in the hallowed days of Charles I! - but Oxford's claim goes back all the way to Queen Mary and even earlier. Lindsay's proposed solution, if the office and the earldom of Oxford go together, is very simple: make me earl of Oxford too. That seems a rather more radical thing to do. Lindsay himself, in his petition to the king (visible at https://www.british-history.ac.uk…), has little justification to offer, other than 1626 being "to the great Wrong of your Suppliant", and some old records that he thinks would convince the Lords to overturn their predecessors' prior decision. No one wants to take that hot potato, so the king passes it to his secretary, who sends it to the Lords, who, as of today, have only decided to "adjourn [their decision] to the Fourth Day of the Sitting of the next Parliament", whenever that may be. So we wait in suspense.
In the end Lindsay stays high chamberlain and Oxford stays Oxford. Our astrologer predicts that at the king's coronation - an event where the high chamberlain as the king's attendent basks in maximum visibility - those two will still be at it. On 9 May 1661 a commission set up to sort out the avalanche of petitions thrown at the king on that occasion will confirm Lindsay in his appointment, "as being actually in possession", and changing it just being too much bother, "but with a saving of the right of" Oxford, for future reference. Should something happen to Lindsay. We phant'sy that, if the two of them will ever find themselves at the top of a steep staircase, neither will want to go first.