Editor's Weekly Round-Up, March 26, 2017

by the EHFA Editors

Enjoy this week's round-up of historical articles.

An Overview of Laud and Strafford – Charles I’s ‘Evil Councillors’

by Annie Whitehead

Torn Between Two Queens

by Wendy J. Dunn

(Editors's Choice from the archives)

Teething: A leading cause of infant mortality?

by Maria Grace

And a timely post from the archives...

What's the Date?

by Katherine Pym

Death of King Charles II

By Katherine Pym

First, a little about him…

King Charles II lived a life full of sex and sport. During his youth, he learned to keep his own counsel. He was kind natured, only allowing his need for revenge against a few of the regicides. Cromwell was one of these, even though already dead and buried.

Charles took a long time to come to a state decision. He’d put it off with a wave of his hand, and play with one of his women. He loved spaniels, and several romped in his private chambers, soiling the floors so that no one could walk across the room in a straight line.

Even though he reigned in a Protestant country, while on the run in 1651 after his defeat at the Battle of Worcester, Charles was protected at their peril by Catholics. For a few hours, Charles hid in a priest hole, very snug and claustrophobic, while Parliament men searched for him. By the end of his trek through England and into exile, Charles had gained a high regard for Catholics and Catholicism.

But I digress.

While Charles reigned, he did not confide in many. He was considered an enigma by both his contemporaries and those who study him. He had a kind heart. His nature made people comfortable. They confided in him, wanted to be near him. But when Charles wanted to be alone, or was tired of the subject, he’d pull out his watch. Those who knew of this would quickly state their business, for soon their king would walk away.

Charles loved reading (not political or religious). He brought great strides to the theatre sector, and he enjoyed science. In 1660, he approved a charter for The Royal Society. The group of great minds, Isaac Newton for one, met at Gresham College in London City. Experiments took place there, including draining the veins of a dog into the veins of another dog. The results amazed those curious people.

So, we come to his death…

‘He fell sick of a tertian fever’, but the official cause of death is: Uraemia (per dictionary.com—“a condition resulting from the retention in the blood of constituents normally excreted in the urine.”), chronic nephritis. Syphilis.

On the evening of February 1, 1685, Charles went to bed with a sore foot. By early morning, he was very ill with fever. His physician (Sir Edmund King) tended to his foot whilst a barber shaved his head. Suddenly, the king suffered apoplexy. His physician immediately withdrew sixteen ounces of blood. Sir Edmund took a big risk, and could have been charged with treason. The protocol was to get permission from the Privy Council prior to a bloodletting.

For several days, Charles was tormented by his physicians. As a private man this must have been difficult. Surrounded by more physicians than could gain his bed, they attempted to remove the ‘toxic humours’ that penetrated his body.

He was bled and purged. Cantharides plasters were stuck to his bald pate. They caused blistering. They attached plasters of spurge to his feet, then red-hot irons to his skin. Besides the large number of physicians crowding his bed, His Royal Highness’ bedchamber was filled to the walls with spectators (family members and state officials).

They gave the poor king “enemas of rock salt and syrup of buckthorn, and ‘orange infusion of metals in white wine’. The king was treated with a horrific cabinet of potions: white hellebore root; Peruvian bark; white vitriol of peony water; distillation of cowslip flowers; sal ammoniac; julep of black cherry water (an antispasmodic); oriental bezoar stone from the stomach of a goat and boiled spirits from a human skull.”

After days of this, he apologized for taking so long to die, then added, “I have suffered much more than you can imagine.”

Finally, on February 6, 1685 “the exhausted king, his body raw and aching with the burns and inflammation caused by his treatment, was given heart tonics, to no avail. He lapsed into a coma and died at noon on February 7.”

His death is considered by historians as “iatrogenic regicide”.

I give thanks to Royal Poxes & Potions, The Lives of Court Physicians, Surgeons & Apothecaries, by Raymond Lamont-Brown.

For more on Charles II (not his death but a bit on his return from exile), please see my historical novel, Viola, A Woeful Tale of Marriage - mostly of marriage and bigamy during the mid 17th century.

To read my historical novels in London 1660's and one odd French Revolution story, please see http://www.amazon.com/Katherine-Pym/e/B004GILIAS

King Charles II, a Randy Rowley Monarch

by Katherine Pym

King Charles II loved women. He loved sex. Most historical fiction and nonfiction books state this. 

He had a wife who could not go full term in her pregnancies, which Charles mourned, but he received solace throughout the years with his many mistresses.  

He had, according to my count, fourteen mistresses and fourteen illegitimate children. A few mistresses gave King Charles II a ‘quiver full’ of children, whilst others gave him little or none.  

With so many mistresses (sometimes more than one at a time), the king enlisted Sir Henry Bennet, 1^st Earl of Arlington, to help. Charles used Bennet as the procurer and management of the royal mistresses to keep things steady in the royal bedchamber.

Not always satisfied with his mistresses or wife, women from local surrounds were hustled up the privy stairs to Randy Rowley’s bedchamber. There they stayed a few hours for romps and frolics, then sent packing.

The king had problems with his mistresses. He had been heard to complain how frustrating it was for them to find other lovers or go back to their husbands. Apparently, what was good for the goose was not so good for the gander.

We know of his mistresses Barbara Villiers, Nell Gwynn, and Louise de Kéroualle (whom the king called ‘Fubbs’ which meant chubby). But I like the following, either more interesting or lesser known:

According to Alison Weir, the mother of Charles’s firstborn was Marguerite de Carteret, the daughter of George de Carteret of Jersey in the Channel Islands. Born 1646, the child was christened James, his official father being Jean de la Cloche. He is often referred to as James de Carteret. As a Protestant, James was educated in France and the Netherlands. Records state he died 1667.

Lucy Walter, who Charles met whilst in The Hague. John Evelyn described her as ‘brown, beautiful, bold, but insipid’. Born in a Welsh Royalist family, she was with Charles in 1648, and gave birth to a son also named James in 1649, only months after Charles I had been beheaded. Lucy died in Paris 1658, they believe from syphilis.

Lucy’s child was known as James Scott, originally called James Crofts or James Fitzroy. His royal father ‘recognized him’ in 1663, and the Crown bestowed upon him the title: Duke of Monmouth. This son turned leader when he tried to unseat his uncle, King James II, who openly practiced Roman Catholicism, whilst, he, the Duke of Monmouth was Protestant, and son of Charles II. He felt he was the rightful heir to the throne. The Duke of Monmouth was executed as a traitor 1685 after the battle of Sedgemoor.

Elizabeth Killigrew the sister of Thomas Killigrew of theatre renown. Thomas and his sister spent time in exile with the king. Thomas became Master of Revels while Elizabeth was maid-of-honor to Charles’s mother. Married to Francis Boyle, 1^st Viscount Shannon, Elizabeth cuckolded him. She gave birth to a Charles’s daughter in 1650, named Charlotte Jemima Henrietta Maria FitzRoy.

Catherine Pegge, Lady Greene, came from the Pegge family of Yeldersley in Derbyshire. She bore Charles II a son named Charles FitzCharles in 1657.

Hortense Mancini, Duchess of Mazarin. This woman’s life is one made for a rollicking historical fiction novel. She was born 1646 as Ortensia in Rome to Baron Lorenzo Mancini, an Italian aristocrat. After the baron died, Hortense’s mother took her children to Paris where her brother, Cardinal Mazarin, lived in wealth and power.

Hortense was thirteen when she met Charles in exile. He proposed to her, but Hortense’s uncle, Cardinal Mazarin, refused the suit believing Charles had no prospects. At fifteen, Hortense was married to one of the wealthiest men in Europe, but she was young and wild. She found the marriage too constricting. At sixteen, Hortense launched into a lesbian affair with Sidonie de Courcelles.

The marriage failed, and Hortense over the years became a courtesan to wealthy nobility. By the late 1670’s she found herself in England and replaced Louise as Charles’s mistress. Due to her promiscuity and open bisexuality (she had affairs other than with the king, which irritated him), it didn’t take long to lose favor with Charles II. Once she was cast adrift, Charles went back to Barbara Palmer. Although never again intimate, the king and Hortense remained friends.

Other mistresses less known and some alleged:

Winifred Wells - one of the Queen's Maids of Honour

Jane Roberts – daughter of a clergyman

Mary Sackville – the possible illegitimate daughter of Charles Sackville, 6th Earl of Dorset and 1st Earl of Middlesex

Elizabeth Fitzgerald - the second wife of the 18th earl of Kildare

Elizabeth Berkeley - née Bagot, Dowager Countess of Falmouth, and widow of Charles Berkeley, 1^st Earl of Falmouth

Mrs Knight - a famous singer

Christabella Wyndham - the royal nurse who had once been Charles’s wet nurse.  

Katherine Pym is the author of several historical novels set in London 1660's. For more information, see http://www.amazon.com/Katherine-Pym/e/B004GILIAS

What’s the Date?

by Katherine Pym

When I started studying 17^th Century London, I noticed documents with confused dates. For instance--15 February 1661-62. Sometimes, I’d see the day and month in larger print with the years beside the month, one on top of the other in smaller print.

Later, I learned England used the Julian calendar while other Western European countries followed the Gregorian calendar established in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. Catholic countries tended to obey the Pope, but Protestant countries preferred not. England continued to follow the Julian calendar, thinking the Pope’s calendar was a plot to return popery to the land. This inconsistency carried throughout the next centuries.

It must have been confusing for travelers. If you visited Spain (Gregorian) on June 11, 1660 and received a letter from a loved one in England (Julian) who married on June 11, 1660, your loved one-in England-actually married on June 1, 1660 (Gregorian).

Bewildered? Wait, there’s more…

Russia did not embrace the Gregorian until its Revolution in 1918. Due to the eleven day difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars, Denmark took forty years to implement it.

Per the Pope’s dictate, France followed the Gregorian calendar until, during the French Revolution it became a Republic. Since France no longer considered itself Catholic under the Republic, it tossed out the Gregorian, and created its own, unique calendar. French years were based on the year of the Republic, the months named after bits of nature and all things beautiful. There were no equivalents to base the new calendar with the standard Gregorian or Julian. The author of this new calendar, Fabre d’Eglantine, was later guillotined.

As a Protestant nation, England never considered the Gregorian and kept forthright with the Julian, a calendar that served them well for quite a long time.

More fluster: In 17^th Century England, the new year began March 25, (Lady Day) and ended March 24. Did the Julian new year start in March, or was this a random date chosen by some pope hundreds of years prior? English legal documents and church registers maintained this confusion, filling their records with laws, births, deaths, and marriages with two year dates between January 1 and March 24.

The person who wrote the following Wikipedia article stymies us: “Old Style and New Style Dates: ‘…the execution of Charles I was recorded as “30 January 1648” (Old Style). In modern English-language texts this date is usually recorded as “30 January 1649” (New Style). A full conversion of the date into the Gregorian calendar is 9 February 1649, the date by which his contemporaries in some parts of continental Europe would have recorded his execution.’”

According to historical records, the execution of King Charles I was January 30, 1649. Is this Gregorian when England was Julian? Did the king die in England’s old year 1648? Should we consider King Charles I’s death of January 30, 1648-49 (Julian with the strange proviso that the new year started March 25), or per Gregorian, February 9, 1649? What’s the date?

Through the years, things got better…

No longer afraid of a popish plot, Britain went Gregorian with the Calendar Act of 1750. It aligned the dates with those of Europe, starting the new year on January 1 rather than March 25, but it made 1751 shorter, 282 days (That’s a difference of 83 days to today’s 365. How did that happen?)

When the new calendar took effect in September 1752, the land and all its colonies lost eleven days. It upset people. They went to bed on September 6 and woke up September 16 (see below). There were riots in the streets. Good folk demanded the Crown return those eleven days. It was their right to live them.

You are at below. I’ve seen experts count quite differently:

1) If you count on your fingers, starting at finger one with 6, your tenth finger will be 15, making the eleventh--invisible--finger 16.

2) One article author stated if you went to bed on September 2, you’d wake up on September 14. My math doesn’t see this as eleven days. Does yours? Please explain.

As you can see, even the experts are perplexed.

For more information on dates, you will not find it in my historical novels based on London 1660’s. I used the Julian calendar with the new year as January 1, not March 25. It would have been too difficult to explain the strange dating process to the reader.

To read more (other interesting stuff) on London 1660’s, please see my historical novels: Viola, A Woeful Tale of Marriage, London 1660, and TWINS, London 1661 (an EPIC 2012 contest finalist). 

You can find them at www.wings-press.com  or www.amazon.com e-formats or paperback.