The Windsor Beauties E-Book

Lewis Melville

• Herausgeber: Modern History Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2005

Seitenzahl: 415

Beschreibung

"The Duchess of York wished to have the portraits of the most beautiful women at Court," Anthony Hamilton wrote in the Memoirs of Count Grammont. "Lely painted them, and employed all his art in the execution. He could not have had more alluring sitters. Every portrait is a masterpiece."
The original set of "Beauties" painted by Lely were, as we find from James II's catalogue, eleven in number, their names being Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland (ne'e Villiers); Frances, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox (ne'e Stuart); Mrs. Jane Myddleton (ne'e Needham); Elizabeth, Countess of Northumberland (ne'e Wriothesley); Elizabeth, Countess of Falmouth (ne'e Bagot); Elizabeth, Lady Denham (ne'e Brooke); Frances, Lady Whitmore (ne'e Brooke); Henrietta, Countess of Rochester (ne'e Boyle); Elizabeth, Countess de Grammont (ne'e Hamilton); and Madame d'Orleans.
It will be seen that in this list of "Beauties" Anne Hyde, Duchess of York, does not figure; but since she was responsible for the collection, it would be peculiarly ungracious to omit her from a volume that treats of it. Also, she deserves inclusion for her supreme courage in selecting the sitters--for what must the ladies who were not chosen have said and thought of her?
Nor in the series are Nell Gwyn, Louise de Ke'roualle, and the Duchess Mazarin; but no account of the social life of the Court of Charles II can possibly omit mention of them, and therefore something has been said about each of these ladies.
The new Revised Edition restores Melville's masterpiece of the intricate relationships and day-by-day account of court life in the reign of Charles II of England. This edition also adds a new glossary, bibliography, and extended footnotes for the lay history reader. Also included are first-ever translations of French language poems, letters, and epitaphs completed by Coby Fletcher.

Leseprobe

THE WINDSOR BEAUTIES:

LADIES OF THE COURT

OF CHARLES II

by

LEWIS MELVILLE

REVISED EDITION

ADDITIONAL FRENCH TRANSLATION

BY COBY FLETCHER

The Windsor Beauties: Ladies of the Court of Charles II, Revised Edition

Copyright © 2005 Victorian Heritage Press. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Second Printing: November 2005

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Melville, Lewis, 1874-1932.

The Windsor beauties : ladies of the court of Charles II / by Lewis Melville; additional French translation by Coby Fletcher. — Rev. ed., 1st ed.

        p. cm.

   This revised edition has parallel English translations for previously untranslated French sections of the 1928 edition, which includes poems, letters, and epitaphs of St. Evremond.

   Includes bibliographical references and index.

   ISBN-13: 978-1-932690-13-2 (alk. paper)

   ISBN-10: 1-932690-13-1 (alk. paper)

   ISBN-13: 978-1-932690-14-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)

   ISBN-10: 1-932690-14-X (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Great Britain — History — Charles II, 1660-1685 — Biography. 2. Great Britain — Court and courtiers — Biography. 3. Women — Great Britain — Biography. I. Title.

   DA447.A3M447 2005

   941.06'6'0922 — dc22

            2005014818

Distributed by: Baker & Taylor, Ingram Book Group

Published by: Victorian Heritage Press, an Imprint of

Loving Healing Press,

5145 Pontiac Trail

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 USA

http://www.LovingHealing.com or [email protected]

Fax [phone]

Victorian Heritage Press

TO ELIZABETH LUCAS

ABOUT THE COVER

Front: Barbara Villiers, by Sir Peter Lely

Sir Peter Lely’s portrait of Barbara Villiers (later Lady Castle-maine, then Duchess of Cleveland) who was the mistress of Charles II and mother of the First Duke of Grafton. She is portrayed here as the penitent Magdalen. Many of the famous beauties of the day were painted by Lely. This painting is on permanent exhibition at Euston Hall (http://www.eustonhall.co.uk/)

OTHER WORKS BY LEWIS BENJAMIN

The Life of William Makepeace Thackeray

The Thackeray Country

Some Aspects of Thackeray

Victorian Novelists

The Life and Letters of Laurence Sterne

The Life and Letters of William Beckford of Fonthill

The Life of John Gay

The Life and Letters of Tobias Smollett

The Life and Letters of William Cobbett

The Windham Papers

The Wellesley Papers

The Berry Papers

The Life of Philip, Duke of Wharton

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu: Her Life and Letters

The First George

“Farmer George”

“The First Gentleman of Europe”

An Injured Queen: Caroline of Brunswick

Beau Brummel: His Life and Letters

The Beaux of the Regency

Nell Gwynn: The Story of Her Life

Some Eccentrics and a Woman

Regency Ladies

Maids of Honor

“The Star of Piccadilly” - “Old Q”

The London Scene

Bath Under Beau Nash

Brighton: Its follies, its Fashions, and its History

Royal Tunbridge Wells

PREFACE

“The Duchess of York wished to have the portraits of the most beautiful women at Court,” Anthony Hamilton wrote in the Memoirs of Count Grammont. “Lely painted them, and employed all his art in the execution. He could not have had more alluring sitters. Every portrait is a masterpiece.”

The original set of “Beauties” painted by Lely were, as we find from James II’s catalogue, eleven in number, their names being Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland (née Villiers); Frances, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox (née Stuart); Mrs. Jane Myddleton (née Needham); Elizabeth, Countess of Northumberland (née Wrio-thesley); Elizabeth, Countess of Falmouth (née Bagot); Elizabeth, Lady Denham (née Brooke); Frances, Lady Whitmore (née Brooke); Henrietta, Countess of Rochester (née Boyle); Elizabeth, Countess de Grammont (née Hamilton); and Madame d’Orleans. Mr. Ernest Law states that all these can now be identified in William III’s State Bedroom at Hampton Court Palace, except Lady Falmouth and Madame d’Orleans, one of whom, probably Madame d’Orleans, appears to be missing, altogether; while Lady Falmouth can most likely be recognized in the picture long called “The Countess of Ossory,” and more recently “The Duchess of Somerset.”

This group of pictures is known as “The Windsor Beauties“, because they were hung in the Queen’s bedchamber at Windsor Castle. Early in the last century they were removed to Hampton Court.

It will be seen that in this list of “Beauties” Anne Hyde, Duchess of York, does not figure; but since she was responsible for the collection, it would be peculiarly ungracious to omit her from a volume that treats of it. Also, she deserves inclusion for her supreme courage in selecting the sitters—for what must the ladies who were not chosen have said and thought of her?

Nor in the series are Nell Gwyn, Louise de Kéroualle, and the Duchess Mazarin; but no account of the social life of the Court of Charles II can possibly omit mention of them, and therefore something has been said about each of these ladies, although the present author has written a description of the trio in his biography of “Pretty, witty Nell.”

Peter Lely, otherwise Pieter van der Faes, was born in 1618, and showing an aptitude for painting he was at the age of nineteen sent to Haarlem to study under Franz Pieter de Grebber. In 1641 he came to England in the train of William, Prince of Orange, who married Mary, daughter of Charles I. He found favour at Court, and soon had a great reputation as a portrait painter. During the Commonwealth he enjoyed considerable private practice. After the Restoration he was again high in the good books of the King and the rest of the Royal Family. It was in 1662 that he was commissioned to paint “The Windsor Beauties.” Pepys visited him at his studio while he was at work on that series of portraits. “Thence gone,” he wrote on October 20 of that year, “with Commissioner Pett to Mr. Lely, the great painter, who came forth to us; but believing that I come to bespeak a picture, he prevented us by telling us, that he should not be at leisure these three weeks; which methinks is a rare thing. And then to see in what pomp his table was laid for himself to go to dinner; and here, among other pictures, saw the so much desired by me picture of my Lady Castlemaine, which is a most blessed picture; and that that I must have a copy of.”

“If Vandyke’s portraits are often tame and spiritless, at least they are natural: his laboured draperies flow with ease, and not fold but is placed with propriety,” Horace Walpole wrote in his Anecdotes of Painting, “Lely supplied the want of taste with clinquant: his nymphs trail fringes and embroidery through meadows and purling streams. Add, that Vandyke’s habits are those of the times; Lely’s a sort of fantastic night-gowns, fastened with a single pin. The latter was, in truth, the ladies’ painter; and whether the age was improved in beauty or in flattery, Lely’s women are certainly much handsomer than those of Vandyke’s. They please as much more as they evidently meant to please. He caught the reigning character, and

“…on the animated canvas stole

The sleepy eye, that spoke the melting soul.”

I do not know whether, even in softness of flesh, he did not excel his predecessor. The beauties at Windsor are the Court of Paphos, and ought to be engraved for the memoirs of its charming biographer, Count Hamilton.” Also said Walpole, “Lely’s nymphs are far too wanton to be taken for anything but Maids of Honour.” But since they were Maids of Honour, or otherwise connected with the Court, it seems a little hard on the painter to blame him for that. This, indeed, is one of the principal merits of this series of portraits, which Anthony Trollope described as “female insipidities.”

There is every reason to believe that most of these sitters were insipid. So far as the ladies, or at least the majority of them, were concerned, it was the age of insipidity. What could be expected of girls with a minimum of education, many married at the age of sixteen or seventeen, plunged into the atmosphere of a dissolute Court, and there having nothing whatever to do. They read not, neither did they spin. It was simply an age of gallantry—perhaps debauchery is the better word. “Pierce told me,” Pepys wrote in November, 1663, “how loose the Court is, nobody looking after business, but every man his lust and gain.” Then Grammont: “Lady Myddleton, Lady Denham, the Queen’s and Duchess of York’s Maids of Honour, and a hundred others, bestow their favours to the right and to the left, and not the least notice is taken of their conduct.”

• • • • •

The primary authorities upon which this volume is based are the diaries of Pepys and Evelyn, Hamilton’s Memoirs of Count Grammont, Burnet’s History of My Own Time; the autobiographies of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, St. Evremont, and Sir John Reresby; the correspondence of Andrew Marvell, Rachel Lady Russell, and Philip Stanhope, second Earl of Chesterfield; and the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission.

Other works that have been consulted are William Harris’s Life of Charles II, Mrs. Jameson’s Beauties of the Court of Charles II, Jesse’s Memoirs of the Court of England during the Reign of the Stuarts; Steinmann’s privately printed Life of the Duchess of Cleveland, Allan Fey’s Beauties of the Seventeenth Century, Sergeant’s My Lady Castlemaine; Forneron’s Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, Noel Williams’ Rival Sultanas: Nell Gwyn and Louise de Kerouaille, and Dasent’s Nell Gwynne; Tyke and Davis’s Annals of Windsor, Horace Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting, Law’s Royal Gallery of Hampton Court, and Collin Baker’s Lely and the Stuart Portrait Painters.

My thanks for assistance in the preparation of this work are due to Mrs. E. Constance Monfrino and Mr. Alfred Sydney Lewis, Librarian of the Constitutional Club.

LEWIS MELVILLE

LONDON,

March 1921

FOREWORD TO THE REVISED EDITION

It has been my great privilege to oversee the restoration of this classic history book by Lewis Melville. The process of book restoration is a long and tedious albeit superficially simple process. From scanning to proofing, quality must be foremost at each turn. Within the context of preserving textual integrity, several modernizations have been made to make the text more accessible to a 21st century audience. First, a glossary of archaic terms used in the text. If you don’t know a bastinado from a sack posset, I suggest browsing the glossary first. Second, footnotes to add more color to historical figures, clarify the value of money, and explain historical events (e.g. The Test Act). Any mistakes in the footnotes are mine alone. Third, a new improved index has been added and a proper bibliography. The rather glib list of books in the preceding preface may be of use to the most erudite scholar, but of little help for the casual reader of this century. Last, I am indebted to Coby Fletcher for translating many previously inaccessible 17th century French language passages, especially the wit of St. Evremond, into contemporary English rhyme.

I hope you will find this revised edition as enjoyable as it is educational.

Victor R. Volkman

ANN ARBOR, MI

May 2005

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I - ANNE, DUCHESS OF YORK (NÉE HYDE) (1) 1637-1671

CHAPTER II - ANNE, DUCHESS OF YORK (NÉE HYDE) (2) 1637-1671

CHAPTER III - BARBARA, DUCHESS OF CLEVELAND (NÉE VILLIERS) (1) 1641-1709

CHAPTER IV - BARBARA, DUCHESS OF CLEVELAND (NÉE VILLIERS) (2) 1641-1709

CHAPTER V - ELIZABETH, COUNTESS DE GRAMMONT (NÉE HAMILTON) 1641-1708

CHAPTER VI - MAIDS OF HONOUR GODITHA PRICE; HENRIETTA MARIA BLAGGE; MISS HOBART; AND ELIZABETH, COUNTESS OF FALMOUTH, AFTERWARDS COUNTESS OF DORSET (NÉE BAGOT) 1643 (?)-1684

CHAPTER VII - HENRIETTA, COUNTESS OF ROCHESTER (NÉE BOYLE) 1643 (?)-1687. MRS. JANE MYDDLETON (NÉE NEEDHAM), 1645-1692

CHAPTER VIII - FRANCES, LADY WHITMORE (NÉE BROOKE), BORN 1645 (1). ELIZABETH, LADY DENHAM (NÉE BROOKE), 1647 (1)-1667

CHAPTER IX - HORTENSIA, DUCHESS MAZARIN (NÉE MANCINI) 1646-1699

CHAPTER X - FRANCES TERESA, DUCHESS OF RICHMOND AND LENNOX (NÉE STUART), 1647-1702

CHAPTER XI - ELIZABETH, COUNTESS OF NORTHUMBERLAND, AFTERWARDS DUCHESS OF MONTAGU (NÉE WRIOTHESLEY), 1647-1690. ANNE, COUNTESS OF SUNDERLAND (NÉE DIGBY), 1644-1716

CHAPTER XII - LOUISE, DUCHESS OF PORTSMOUTH (NÉE KÉROUALLE), 1649-1734

CHAPTER XIII - ELEANOR (“NELL”) GWYN, 1650-1687

GLOSSARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Anne, Duchess of York (née Hyde)

Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland (née Villiers)

Elizabeth, Countess de Grammont (née Hamilton)

Elizabeth, Countess of Falmouth (née Bagot)

Henrietta, Countess of Rochester (née Boyle)

Mrs. Myddleton (née Needham)

Frances, Lady Whitmore (née Brooke)

Elizabeth, Lady Denham (née Brooke)

Frances, Duchess of Richmond (née Stuart)

Elizabeth, Countess of Northumberland (née Wriothesley)

Anne, Countess of Sunderland (née Digby)

THE WINDSOR BEAUTIES:LADIES OF THE COURT OF CHARLES II

CHAPTER I

ANNE, DUCHESS OF YORK (née HYDE) (1) 1637-1671

The place of honour—if such there be—in this chronicle of the social life of the Court during the reign of Charles II, belongs by right to the Duchess of York, and that, not because of her rank but because she it was who commissioned her protégé Lely to paint that series of portraits which became known as “The Windsor Beauties” from the fact that they were originally housed at Windsor.

Anne was the eldest daughter of Edward Hyde, afterwards created Earl of Clarendon, by his second wife, Frances, daughter of Sir Thomas Aylesbury, Bart., one of the Masters of the Court of Bequests and Master of the Mint. She was born on March 14, 1637, at Cran-bourne Lodge, in Windsor Park, then in the occupation of her maternal grandfather. Hyde came of an old, if not particularly distinguished Cheshire family. He was called to the bar, where he soon acquired a good practice. His rapid progress may, in the first instance, have been due to the influence of his uncle, Chief Justice Sir Nicholas Hyde; but once started, his abilities were more than sufficient to take him along. He was, perhaps, always more interested in politics than in law, and, at the first promising opportunity, he, in 1640, entered Parliament. His first efforts were directed to the improvement of the judicature, and he spoke vigorously against the many perversions of the law that were then rife. At first he joined the popular party, but differing from it on Church matters he soon transferred himself to the King’s party, of which he soon became a leader.

Anne, Duchess of York (née Hyde)

During the Civil War1, Hyde was one of the principal advisers of Charles I, and had his suggestions been taken, on many occasions it would probably have been better for the monarch. However, his Majesty was wilful, and the Queen, Henrietta Maria, who cordially disliked Hyde, used such influence as she had against him. However, Charles II, immediately after his escape to Paris in November 1651, summoned him to his side to act as Secretary of State. After the death of Cromwell, he it was who laid down the terms on which the King would return. As Dr. Firth put it, Hyde’s aim was, as it had been throughout, to restore the Monarchy, not merely to restore the King; and, in the main, he had his way at the time.

Two years before Edward Hyde went to Paris, his wife had taken Anne and the other children to Antwerp. Presently they removed to a residence at Breda, which had been placed at their disposal by the Princess of Orange, the eldest daughter of Charles I and Henrietta Maria. This royal lady took a fancy to Anne, and, when the girl was seventeen, appointed her one of her Maids of Honour, although this appointment was opposed by Henrietta Maria, and was also against the wish of the girl’s father, who knowing something of courts, may well have thought that his daughter was too young to be submitted to the temptations that would surround her.

Anne became a general favourite with all she met at The Hague or at the Princess’s country residence at Teyling. She was very pretty, most attractive, and, unquestionably, a coquette. She received attentions from many men with equanimity. Her heart, however, was fluttered by the attentions paid her by Henry Jermyn, afterwards first Baron Dover, who was one year her junior, and from his early youth a notorious libertine. He held a position in the Household of the Duke of York, and accompanied his Royal Highness to Holland in 1657. “Jermyn“, Anthony Hamilton wrote of him, “supported by his uncle’s wealth, found it no difficult matter to make a considerable figure upon his arrival at the court of the Princess of Orange: the poor courtiers of the King, her brother, could not vie with him in point of equipage and magnificence; and these two articles often produce as much success in love as real merit: there is no necessity for any other example than the present; for though Jermyn was brave, and certainly a gentleman, yet he had neither brilliant actions, nor distinguished rank, to set him off; and as for his figure there was nothing advantageous in it. He was little; his head was large, and his legs short; his features were not disagreeable, but he was affected in his carriage and behaviour. All his wit consisted in expressions learnt by rote, which he occasionally employed either in raillery or in love. This was the whole foundation of the merit of a man so formidable in amours. The Princess Royal was the first who was taken with him: Miss Hyde seems to have been following the steps of her mistress: this immediately brought him into credit, and his reputation was established in England before his arrival. Prepossession in the minds of women is sufficient to find access to their hearts: Jermyn found them in dispositions so favourable for him, that he had nothing to do but to speak.”

Anne Hyde, however, recovered from her infatuation when in 1657 she met the Duke of York, who had come to Paris to visit his mother, Queen Henrietta Maria. He saw the girl, and paid his court to her according to the manner of Princes of the Blood of that day—that is to say he offered her his bed, but not his hand. No one can say whether Anne fell in love with the man, or whether she was flattered by having the Duke at her feet; all that is known is that they were much together. Their frequent walks and talks gave rise to much scandal, and it was generally assumed that the young lady yielded to the solicitations of her lover. “When his sister, the Princess Royal2, came to Paris to see the Queen Mother, the Duke of York fell in love with Mrs. Anne Hyde, one of her maids of honour,” so runs a passage in the Memoirs of the Count de Grammont. “Besides her person, she had all the qualities proper to inflame a heart less apt to take fire than his; which she managed so well as to bring his passion to such an height, that, between the time he first saw her and the winter before the King’s restoration, he resolved to marry none but her; and promised her to do it and though, at first, when the Duke asked the King, his brother, for his leave, he refused, and dissuaded him from it, yet at last he opposed it no more, and the Duke married her privately, owned it some time after, and was ever after a true friend to the Chancellor Clarendon for several years.”

However, that she withstood him is more likely, for when he saw her again at Breda, he on November 24 contracted an engagement of marriage with her.

Then in May 1660 came the Restoration3, and the whole situation was altered. There is all the difference between a King in exile and a King on the throne. At this time Charles was a bachelor and the heir-presumptive was the Duke of York, who had married a commoner. The Cophetua business, however romantic, found no favour in the eyes of Charles; it was distasteful to the Court, especially to the ladies, it was violently disagreeable to Henrietta Maria, who opposed it tooth and nail. Even Edward Hyde, who at the Coronation was created Earl of Clarendon, was alarmed, being far-sighted enough to realise that, by jealousy, powerful enmities would be brought into being. He was in a dilemma, confronted with the claims of his daughter and his duty to his Sovereign.

The Duke of York went to see the Chancellor, and told him “that he knew that he had heard of the business between him and his daughter, and of which he confessed he ought to have spoken to him before; but that when he returned from Dover (where he was going with the King to receive the Princess Royal on her arrival from Holland) he would give him full satisfaction: in the meantime he desired him not to be offended with his daughter.” To this the Chancellor made no other answer than, “That it is a matter too great for him to speak of.”

Clarendon behaved in a manner which now would be regarded as utterly scandalous. Some of the Duke’s friends told him that the Chancellor had a great party in Parliament, and that he was resolved within a few days to complain there, and to produce the witnesses who were present at the marriage, to be examined, that their testimony might remain there, which would be a great affront to him.”

The Duke was alarmed, and sent for the Chancellor, who has himself described the interview:

“The Duke told him with much warmth, ‘what he had been informed of his purpose to complain to the Parliament against him, which he did not value or care for’; however, if he should prosecute any such course, it would be the worse for him; implying some threats, ‘what he would do before he would bear such an affront’; adding then, ‘that for his daughter, she had behaved so foully (of which he had such evidence as was so convincing as his own eyes, and of which he could make no doubt), that nobody could blame him for his behaviour towards her’; concluding with some other threats, ‘that he should repent it, if he pursued his intention of appealing to the Parliament.’”

It would naturally be expected that the Lord High Chancellor of England would stand by his daughter; but not so at all, as he has been at pains to relate:

“As soon as the Duke discontinued his discourse, the Chancellor told him, ‘that he hoped he would discover the untruth of other reports which had been made to him by the falsehood of this, which had been raised without the least ground or shadow of truth. That though he did not pretend to much wisdom, yet no man took him to be such a fool as he must be if he intended to do such an act as he was informed. That if his Highness had done anything towards or against him which he ought not to have done, there is One who is as much above him as his Highness was above him and who could both censure and punish it. For his own part, he knew too well whose son he was and whose brother he is, to behave himself towards him with less duty and submission than was due to him, and should always be paid by him.’ He said, ‘he was not concerned to vindicate his daughter from any of the most improbable scandals and aspersions: she had disobliged and deceived him too much, for him to be overconfident that she might not deceive any other man: and therefore he would leave that likewise to God Almighty, upon whose blessing he would always depend whilst himself remained innocent no longer.’”

Queen Henrietta Maria came over from Paris and, according to Clarendon, expressed her indignation to the King and her younger son, with her natural passion. It was reported, said the same authority, that the Duke had asked his mother’s pardon “for having placed his affections so irregularly, of which he was sure there was now an end; that he was not married, and had now much evidence of her unworthiness that he should think no more of her.”

The source of these accusations against the honour of Anne Hyde was soon generally known. “It was avowedly said,” Clarendon wrote, “that Sir Charles Berkeley (afterwards Lord Falmouth), who was captain of his guard, and in much more credit and favour with the Duke than his uncle (though a young man of dissolute life, and prone to all wickedness in the judgment of all sober men) had informed the Duke, ‘that he was bound in conscience to preserve him from taking to wife a woman so wholly unworthy of him; that he himself had lain with her; and that for his sake he would be content to marry her, though he knew well the familiarity the Duke had with her.’ This evidence, with so many solemn oaths presented by a person so much loved and trusted by him, made a wonderful impression in the Duke; and now confirmed by the commands of his mother, as he had been before prevailed upon by his sister, he resolved to deny that he was married, and never to see the woman again who had been so false to him.”

The story of this disgraceful business is told with more of detail but with some difference in Grammont’s memoirs:

“The Duke of York’s marriage with the Chancellor’s daughter was deficient in none of those circumstances which render contracts of this nature valid in the eye of Heaven: the mutual inclination, the formal ceremony, witnesses, and every essential point of matrimony had been observed.

“Though the bride was no perfect beauty, yet, as there were none at the Court of Holland who eclipsed her, the Duke during the first endearments of matrimony, was so far from repenting of it, that he seemed only to wish for the King’s restoration that he might have an opportunity of declaring it with splendour; but when he saw himself enjoying a rank which placed him so near the throne; when the possession of Miss Hyde afforded him no new charms; when England, so abounding in beauties, displayed all that was charming and lovely in the court of the King his brother; and when he considered he was the only prince, who, from such superior elevation, had descended so low, he began to reflect upon it. On the one hand, his marriage appeared to him particularly ill-suited in every respect: he recollected that Jermyn had not engaged him in an intimacy with Miss Hyde, until he had convinced him by several different circumstances, of the facility of succeeding: he looked upon his marriage as an infringement of that duty and obedience he owed to the King; the indignation with which the Court, and even the whole kingdom, would receive the account of his marriage presented itself to his imagination, together with the impossibility of obtaining the King’s consent to such an act, which for a thousand reasons he would be obliged to refuse. On the other hand, the tears and despair of poor Miss Hyde presented themselves; and still more than that, he felt a remorse of conscience, the scruples of which began from that time to rise up against him.

“In the midst of this perplexity he opened his heart to Lord Fal-mouth, and consulted with him what method he ought to pursue. He could not have applied to a better man for his own interests, nor to a worse for Miss Hyde’s; for at first, Falmouth maintained not only that he was not married, but that it was even impossible that he could ever have formed such a thought; that any marriage was invalid for him, which was made without the King’s consent, even if the party was a suitable match: but it was a mere jest, even to think of the daughter of an insignificant lawyer, whom the favour of his sovereign had lately made a peer of the realm, without any noble blood, and Chancellor, without any capacity; that as for his scruples, he had only to give ear to some gentlemen whom he could introduce, who would thoroughly inform him of Miss Hyde’s conduct before he became acquainted with her; and provided he did not tell them that he really was married, he would soon have sufficient grounds to come to a determination.

“The Duke of York consented, and Lord Falmouth, having assembled both his council and his witnesses, conducted them to his Royal Highness’s cabinet, after having instructed them how to act: these gentlemen were the Earl of Arran, Jermyn, Talbot, and Killi-grew, all men of honour; but who infinitely preferred the Duke of York’s interest to Miss Hyde’s reputation, and, who, besides, were greatly dissatisfied, as the whole Court, at the insolent authority of the prime minister.

“The Duke having told them, after a sort of preamble, that although they could not be ignorant of his affection for Miss Hyde, yet they might be unacquainted with the engagements his tenderness for her had induced him to contract; that he thought himself obliged to perform all the promises he had made her; but as the innocence of persons of her age was generally exposed to Court scandal, and as certain reports, whether false or true, had been spread abroad on the subject of her conduct, he conjured them as his friends, and charged them upon their duty, to tell him sincerely everything they knew upon the subject, since he was resolved to make their evidence the rule of his conduct towards her. They all appeared rather reserved at first, and seemed not to dare to give their opinions upon an affair of so serious and delicate a nature; but the Duke of York having renewed his entreaties, each began to relate the particulars of what he knew, and perhaps of more than he knew, of poor Miss Hyde; nor did they omit any circumstance necessary to strengthen the evidence. For instance, the Earl of Arran, who spoke first, deposed that in the gallery at Honslaerdyk, where the Countess of Ossory, his sister-in-law, and Jermyn, were playing at nine-pins, Miss Hyde, pretending to be sick, retired to a chamber at the end of the gallery; that he, the deponent, had followed her, and having cut her lace, to give a greater probability to the pretence of the vapours, he had acquitted himself to the best of his abilities both to assist and to console her.

“Talbot said, that she had made an appointment with him in the Chancellor’s cabinet, while he was in Council; and that, not paying so much attention to what was upon the table as to what they were engaged in, they had spilled a bottle full of ink upon a despatch of four pages and that the King’s monkey, which was blamed for this accident, had been a long time in disgrace.

“Jermyn mentioned many places where he had received long and favourable audiences: however, all these articles of accusation amounted only to some delicate familiarities, or at most, to what is generally denominated the innocent part of an intrigue; but Killigrew, who wished to surpass these trivial depositions, boldly declared that he had had the honour of being upon the most intimate terms with her: he was of a sprightly and witty humour, and had the art of telling a story in the most entertaining manner, by the graceful and natural turn he could give it: he affirmed that he had found the critical moment in a certain closet built over the water, for a purpose very different from that of giving ease to the pains of love: that three or four swans had been witnesses to his happiness, and might perhaps have been witnesses to the happiness of many others, as the lady frequently repaired to that place, and was particularly delighted with it.

“The Duke of York found this last accusation greatly out of bounds, being convinced he himself had sufficient proofs of the contrary: he therefore returned thanks to these officious informers for their frankness, ordered them to be silent for the future upon what they had been telling him, and immediately passed into the King’s apartment.

“As soon as he had entered the cabinet, Lord Falmouth, who had followed him, related what had passed to the Earl of Ossory4, whom he met in the presence chamber: they strongly suspected what was the subject of the conversation of the two brothers, as it was long, and the Duke of York appeared to be in such agitation when he came out, that they no longer doubted the result had been unfavourable for poor Miss Hyde. Lord Falmouth began to be affected for her disgrace, and to relent that he had been concerned in it, when the Duke of York told him and the Earl of Ossory to meet him in about an hour’s time at the chancellor’s.

“They were rather surprised that he should have the cruelty himself to announce such a melancholy piece of news; they found his Royal Highness at the appointed hour in Miss Hyde’s chamber: a few tears trickled down her cheeks, which she endeavoured to restrain. The Chancellor, leaning against the wall, appeared to them to be puffed up with something, which they did not doubt was rage and despair. The Duke of York said to them with that serene and pleasant countenance with which men generally announce good news: ‘As you are the two men of the Court whom I most esteem, I am desirous you should first have the honour of paying your compliments to the Duchess of York: there she is.’

“Surprise was of no use, and astonishment was unseasonable on the present occasion: they were, however, so greatly possessed with both surprise and astonishment, that in order to conceal it, they immediately fell on their knees to kiss her hand, which she gave them with as much majesty as if she had been used to it all her life.”

The next day the news was made public, and the whole Court was eager to pay her that respect, from a sense of duty, which in the end became very sincere.

It had been thought that the accusations of Sir Charles Berkeley would have brought to an end the question of the Duke’s marriage, but as Grammont shows it was, in fact, only the beginning.

Public opinion at Court was aroused. “Men of the greatest name and reputation spoke of the foulness of the proceeding with great freedom, and with all the detestation imaginable against Sir Charles Berkeley, whose testimony nobody believed.” Clarendon added: “Not without some censure of the Chancellor, for not enough appearing and prosecuting the indignity; but he was not to be moved by any instances, which he never afterwards repented.” About this time the Princess Royal died of smallpox, and in her last agonies expressed a dislike of the proceedings in the affair, to which she had contributed so much.

This protest preyed upon the mind of the Duke, who grew more and more melancholy. This, in turn, affected Sir Charles Berkeley, who now came forward and branded himself as a liar. He declared to the Duke, “that the general discourse of men, of what inconvenience and mischief, if not absolute ruin, such a marriage would be to his Royal Highness, had prevailed with him to use all the power he had to dissuade him from it, and when he found he could not prevail with him, he had formed that accusation which he presumed could not but produce the effect he wished; which he now confessed to be false; and without the least ground, and that he was very confident of her virtue“; and he went on to beseech his Royal Highness “to pardon a fault that was committed out of pure devotion to him; and. that he would not suffer him to be ruined by the power of those whom he had so unworthily provoked; and of which he had so much shame, that he had not confidence to look upon them.”

The Duke evidently thought that no gentleman could have spoken fairer, and promised Sir Charles “that he should not suffer in the least degree in his own affection, for what had proceeded so absolutely from his good will to him; and that he would take so much care of him, that in the compounding that affair, he should be so comprehended, that he should receive no disadvantage.”

The Duke was, in fact, in a forgiving mood, for Berkeley’s statement greatly relieved him. He was still in love with Anne, and though he was at all times loose in his amours, he had felt very unhappy at breaking his word. He was now determined that the marriage should take place at once—in fact, if there was to be another marriage it was vital that there should be no delay, for the girl was many months advanced in pregnancy.

The Duke told his brother of Berkeley’s confession, and expressed to him his delight that the charges were fabrications, and announced his marriage, which took place privately at Worcester House, the residence of Sir Edward Hyde in the Strand, London, on September 3, 1660, between eleven o’clock at night and two o’clock in the morning, Lord Ossory giving away the bride. During the next month the Duchess was delivered of a son, Charles, who was created Duke of Cambridge, but survived only seven months. In all, there were eight children; but only Mary and Anne lived more than a year beyond infancy.

Of course, the secret was soon out, and the town was agog with excitement.

“To my Lord’s; he all dinner-time talking French to me, and telling me the story how the Duke of York hath got my Lord Chancellor’s daughter with child, and that she do lay it with him, and that for certain he did promise her marriage, and had signed it with his blood, but that he by stealth had got the paper out of her cabinet. And that the King would have him to marry her, but that he will not. So that the thing is very bad for the Duke and them all.” Thus Pepys wrote on October 7; and on the same day there is an entry in Evelyn’s diary5:

“There dined with me a French Count, with Sir George Tuke, who came to take leave of me, being sent over to the Queen-Mother to break the news of the marriage of the Duke [of York] with the daughter of Chancellor Hyde. The Queen would fain have undone it, but it seems matters were reconciled on great offers of the Chancellor to befriend the Queen, who was much in debt, and was now to have the settlement of her affairs go through his hands. Henrietta Maria was vastly displeased with the change in the resolution of the Duke, and made strong representations to the King, without, however, obtaining any real satisfaction. She was always very angry at the King’s coldness, which had been so far from that aversion which she had expected that he found excuses for the Duke, and endeavoured to divert her passions: and now pressed the discovery of the truth by Sir Charles Berkeley’s confession.”

To add to the annoyance of her Majesty, those about her were less strongly opposed to the marriage of the Duke—an attitude which angered her so much that in a passion she declared that whenever “that woman should be brought into Whitehall by one door, she would go out of the palace by another, and never enter it again.” In any case, she threatened to leave the country for a lengthy sojourn in France.

Then suddenly, quite suddenly, Henrietta Maria told the Duke “that the business that had offended her so much, she perceived so far, that no remedy could be applied to it; and that therefore she would trouble herself no further in it, but pray to God to bless him, and that he might be happy.” This change of face aroused much speculation, until the cause of it was declared by Abbot Montagu, who, in the first instance, told Clarendon, “that this change in the Queen had preceded from a letter she had newly received from the Cardinal, in which he had plainly told her, that she would not receive a good welcome in France, if she left her sons in her displeasure, and professed animosity against those ministers who were most trusted by the King. He extolled the services done by the Chancellor, and advised her to comply with what could not be avoided, and to be perfectly reconciled to her children, and to those who were nearly related to the throne, and were entrusted by them.”

The next move was that the Duke brought Sir Charles Berkeley to the Duchess, who cast himself at her feet, expressed penitence for his conduct, and begged for forgiveness. Sir Charles proceeded to the Chancellor, and made humble submission, the which we are told he “was obliged to receive civilly. “The Duchess of York,” as the Memoirs of Grammont relate, “being fully informed of all that was said in the cabinet concerning her, instead of showing the least resentment, studied to distinguish, by all manner of kindness and good offices, those who had attacked her in so sensible a part; nor did she ever mention it to them, but in order to praise their zeal, and to tell them: that nothing was a greater proof of the attachment of a man of honour, than his being more solicitous for the interest of his friend or master than for his own reputation: a remarkable example of prudence and moderation, not only in the fair sex, I but even for those who value themselves upon their philosophy among the men.” The marriage of the Duke of York with Anne Hyde was publicly announced by December, 1660. “The marriage of the Chancellor’s daughter being now newly owned,” Evelyn wrote on the following day, “I went to see her, she being Sir Richard Browne’s6 intimate acquaintance when she waited on the Princess of Orange; she was now at her father’s at Worcester House in the Strand. We all kissed her hand, as did also my Lord Chamberlain [Manchester] and the Countess of Northumberland. This was a strange evening—can it succeed well?”

Then came the final scene in the drama, graphically described by Clarendon. “The Duke of York had before presented his wife to his mother, who received her without the least show of regret, or rather with the same grace as if she had liked it from the beginning, and made her sit down by her. When the Chancellor came in, the Queen rose from her chair, and received him with a countenance very serene. The ladies, and others who were near, withdrawing, her Majesty told him, that he could not wonder, much less take it ill, that she had been much offended with the Duke, and had no inclination to give her consent to his marriage; and if she had, in the passion that could not be condemned in her, spake anything of him that he had taken ill, he ought to impute it to the provocation she had received, though not from him. She was now informed by the King, and well assured, that he had no hand in contriving that friendship, but was offended with that passion that really was worthy of him. That she could not but confess, that his fidelity to the King, her husband, was very eminent, and that he had served the King, her son, with equal fidelity and extraordinary success. And therefore as she had received his daughter as her daughter, and heartily forgave the Duke and her, and was resolved ever after to live with all the affection of a mother towards them; so she resolved to make a friendship with him, and hereafter all the offices from him which her kindness should deserve.”

________________________________

 1The English Civil War that broke out on August 27, 1642 and continued until approximately 1650 is often simply referred to in Britain as the “civil war“, sometimes leading to confusion with the American Civil War. It was not, however, the only civil war ever fought in England. There were two other periods of major civil war after the Norman Conquest: “the Anarchy,” which occurred during the 12th century reign of King Stephen, and the Wars of the Roses, which lasted for much of the 15th century. (source: Wikipedia)

 2Princess Royal: the eldest daughter of a British sovereign, who has had the title conferred on her for life by the sovereign. Mary Stuart, daughter of Charles I, was the first woman to ever receive this title. After marriage, she was sometimes known as the Princess of Orange.

 3The Restoration was an episode in the history of Great Britain beginning in 1660 when the monarchy was restored under King Charles II after the English Civil War. Theatres reopened after having been closed during the protectorship of Oliver Cromwell, Puritanism lost its momentum, and the bawdy ‘Restoration comedy’ became a recognisable genre.The name Restoration may apply both to the actual event by which the English monarchy was restored, and to the period immediately following the accession of Charles II. (source: Wikipedia)

 4Thomas Butler, Earl of Ossory (1634-1680): eldest son of James Butler (1st Duke of Ormonde) was born at Kilkenny. Having come to London in 1652 he was rightly suspected of sympathizing with the exiled royalists, and in 1655 was put into prison by Cromwell; after his release about ayear later he went to Holland and married a Dutch lady of good family, accompanying Charles II to England in 1660. 1662 was made an Irish peer as 1st Earl of Ossory. He was an excellent naval strategist and widely known as ‘Gallant Ossory’.

 5Evelyn’s diaries are largely contemporaneous with those of the other noted diarist of the time, Samuel Pepys, and cast considerable light on the art, culture and politics of the time (he witnessed the deaths of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, the last Great Plague in London, and the Great Fire of London in 1666.). Evelyn and Pepys corresponded frequently and much of this correspondence has been preserved. (Source: Wikipedia)

 6Sir Richard Browne (1605-1683) was elected Lord Mayor on 3rd October 1660. During his mayoralty, Venner’s insurrection took place and the vigour he showed in suppressing it gained him fresh advancement. The City rewarded him with a pension of £500 a year (7th August 1662) and the King created him a baronet.

CHAPTER II

ANNE, DUCHESS OF YORK (née HYDE) (2) 1637-1671

The married life of the Duchess of York was not all roses. Her consort was a pleasant enough fellow, though not so genial nor so dignified as his brother, the King, and he was certainly as selfish as any of the Stuarts. Anthony Hamilton in his Memoirs of Grammont presents a good and fairly reliable penportrait of the Heir-Presumptive. “He was very brave in his youth,” he says, “and so much magnified by Monsieur Turenne, that till his marriage lessened him, he really clouded the King, and passed for the superior genius. He was naturally candid and sincere, and a firm friend, till affairs and his religion wore out all his first principles and inclinations. He had a great desire to understand affairs: and in order to do that he kept a constant journal of all that passed, of which he showed me a great deal.

“The Duke of Buckingham gave me once a short but severe character of the two brothers. It was the more severe, because it was true: the King (he said), could see things if he would: and the Duke would see things if he could. He had no true judgment, and was soon determined by those whom he trusted: but he was obstinate against all other advices. He was bred with high notions of kingly authority, and laid it down for a maxim, that all who opposed the King were rebels in their hearts. He was perpetually in one amour or another, without being very nice in his choice: upon which the King once said, he believed his brother had his mistress given him by his priests for penance. He was naturally eager and revengeful: and was against the taking off any, that set up in opposition to the measures of the Court. He was for rougher methods. He continued many years dissembling his religion, and seemed zealous for the Church of England, but it was chiefly on design to hinder all propositions, that tended to unite us among ourselves. He was a frugal prince, and brought his court into method and magnificence, for he had £100,000 a-year allowed him. He was made High Admiral, and he came to understand all the concerns of the sea very particularly.”