George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, his brother and their women

Posted on by
Reply
George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham by Sir Peter Lely via Wikimedia Commons

George was born in 1628. He was only an infant when his father was assassinated by John Felton. Charles I arranged for the boy and his brother Francis and their elder sister Mary, to be raised in the royal nurseries and from there to complete his education at Cambridge.

He took part in the Siege of Lichfield in 1643 but was sent with his brother, under the tutorship of the Earl of Northumberland, to Italy but returned to England in time for the Second English Civil War. Because of his age, Parliament returned his sequestrated lands to him. Francis was still only 19 years old when he joined the Earl of Holland’s failed Royalist rising. The boy was killed on 7 July 1648 in a particularly brutal manner following a surprise attack. Part of the reason for the soldiers success was that Villiers had sent his companions away so that he could enjoy the evening which his mistress, Mary Kirke.

George managed to escape the situation after fighting off six Parliamentarians. Parliament once again confiscated his lands and gave them to General Sir Thomas Fairfax. Charles II admitted Buckingham to his council but he was often in opposition to Edward Hyde and he negotiated with Oliver Comrwell’s government which distanced him from the rest of the king’s advisers. Matters were not helped by a dispute with Charles and an attempt to court the widowed Mary, Princess of Orange.

When he returned to England in 1657 he met and married Mary Fairfax, the daughter of the general who held his lands. Fairfax had intended his daughter to marry Philip Stanhope but Mary fell in love with the cavalier. Fairfax was even required to negotiate for the release of his son-in-law from the Tower of London.

It was not to be a happy marriage. Buckingham found his way back into royal favour at the Restoration and was soon up to his neck in intrigue and passion. He became part of the so called CABAL Ministry and in 1668 fought a duel with the Earl of Shrewsbury over the earl’s wife. Having killed the earl, he imported the widowed countess to his home. She apparently had been present at the duel disguised as a page. When Mary protested, he arranged to send her home to her father. In 1671, Anna Talbot gave birth to Buckingham’s son but the boy died soon afterwards. Parliament was not amused and in 1673 the lovers parted. Anna found herself temporarily in a convent in France.

As well as the scandalous affair with Anna, Buckingham also had a liaison with Barbara Villiers, who was his cousin. The pair had, it seems, several amorous encounters with one another at the same time as plotting against their enemies including the Earl of Clarendon. Of course, the fact that both of them wanted to be the most powerful person at court and to have Charles II’s favour it meant that as soon as they’d finished with their intrigues to topple their shared political opponent they turned on one another.

Pepys stated in his diary that Buckingham was unfit for public office after his duel. Pepys also referenced another court observer who described him as an. ‘atheist, blasphemer, violent, cruel and infamous for his licentiousness.’

For Mary Fairfax, a devout Presbyterian, who genuinely loved her erring spouse there was only dignified silence. Perhaps it’s what ensured she and Catherine of Braganza became close friends. Mary served the queen from 1663 until 1692 when Catherine returned to Portugal.

Villiers died in 1687 at Kirkbymoorside. He was given an elaborate funeral at Westminster Abbey. His long suffering wife was buried beside him after her death in 1704. She had spent many of those years fending off her husband’s creditors.

Anna Talbot returned to England in 1677, married again and was welcomed back into society although she was never allowed custody of hers and Shrewsbury’s son – Charles. In 1688, in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, Anna became a Jacobite spy.

Charles Talbot, 12th Earl of Shrewsbury, on the other hand, refused to have anything to do with the Catholic king even when he was sitting on the throne. In 1688 he was one of the so-called Immortal Seven who invited William of Orange to invade England and topple his father-in-law from his throne. Quite remarkably Charles served William, Mary and Anne dying in 1718. By then he was the 1st Duke of Shrewsbury but the title died with him, having no legitimate children.

Charlotte Fitzroy, Countess of Lichfield

Posted on by
1
Charlotte Lee, Countess of Lichfield, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Charlotte Fitzroy was born on 5 September, 1664. By that time Roger Palmer had left his wife, Barbara, so there was no disguising the fact that the little girl was the child of King Charles II. Both Charles and James, Duke of York doted on Charlotte who was as affectionate as she was lovely.

Barbara was less enamoured of any of her children. On occasion she threatened to leave them with their father. And, in one notable instance the glass in the window of her mother’s coach broke while Charlotte was in it. She burst into tears fearing her mother’s wrath. Charles II intervened to prevent the girl from being punished.

When she was only ten years old a marriage was arranged by the Countess of Rochester, who was Edward Lee’s grandmother. The pair were distantly related and a similar age. As soon as the couple were engaged, Edward was created Earl of Lichfield. When the couple were married, the union would be a long and, it seems, very happy one.

In 1676 Charlotte went with her mother and her younger sister Barbara to France where the pair were sent to a convent to be educated along with other members of the English aristocracy. The following year Charles II demanded that he daughter be returned home and married. He provided her and her new husband with a town house designed by Christopher Wren which was known as Lichfield House. Charlotte’s dowry, provided by Charles was £18,000 and he also gave his daughter a pension of £2,000 per year.

By the time she was nineteen years old Charlotte had given her husband four children. Fourteen more would be born. In between caring for her expanding family Charlotte remained a favourite with her father and was often at court. Existing correspondence shows that father and daughter retained close contact throughout Charles II’s life and that he was an affectionate father.

After Charles’ death the couple remained at the heart of the court and Charlotte would be one of the women who testified that her aunt by marriage Mary of Modena had indeed given birth to a son rather than a changeling being introduced. However, she was not present at the birth itself. Because of their loyalty to James II, Charlotte and Edward were not welcome at court in the years following the Glorious Revolution of1689. Instead they spent their time at Edward’s home at Ditchley (Yes – Edward was descended from Queen Elizabeth I’s somewhat scandalous champion, Henry Lee.)

Because Edward remained loyal to the Stuart dynasty they were not permitted to return to court when Charlotte’s cousin Anne ascended the throne.

Edward died in 1716, followed by Charlotte who died two years later, aged fifty-three. She was the only one of Barbara Villiers daughters who did not have a scandal in their lives. The next generation were rather less fortunate and in later times Charlotte could count among her descendants the Mitford Sisters who have to be among the most famous, not to mention most scandalous, sisters of the twentieth century. Also descended from Charlotte and thus Charles II was British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden.

Henriette Anne of England

Posted on by
Reply
Peter Lely, Henriette Anne of England via Wikimedia Commons

Henrietta, or Henriette, was the last of Charles I and Henrietta Maria’s children. She was born on 16 June 1644 at Bedford House, Exeter. The queen who had left Oxford earlier that year fled to France soon afterwards leaving the sickly princess in the care of her governess Lady Dalkeith.

Charles I arranged for the infant to be baptised at Exeter Cathedral where she was received into the Church of England. The king also appointed Thomas Fuller as Henriette’s chaplain. That autumn and winter saw the net tighten around the increasingly beleaguered Royalists and although Henrietta Maria wrote to Lady Dalkeith ordering her to bring Henrietta to France there was no one available to ensure hers or the princess’s safety, so they remained at Exeter. In December the city was beseiged by a Parliamentarian army.

Henrietta, and Lady Dalkeith, were still there when the city surrendered to General Sir Thomas Fairfax on 9 April. The pair went to Oatlands but when Parliament gave orders for Henriette to join her siblings at St James and for Lady Dalkeith to be dismissed the princess’s governess took matters into her own hands. She made her escape, carrying the toddler, to Dover – a distance of some 95 miles.

Safely in France, Henrietta was reunited with her mother. Henriette as she was called in France became Henriette Anne when the latter was added to her name in honour of Anne of Austria, the dowager queen of France. Henriette was given solely into the care of her mother who insisted that she was raised a Catholic. Lady Dalkeith remained Protestant and Prince Charles was horrified that his mother had broken the terms of his father’s marriage agreement with her. He recognised the importance of his family retaining their Protestant credentials if his father, and later himself, were to be restored to the throne.

The journey from Oatlands to Dover, dressed in clothes that did not belong to her, was not the end of Henriette’s trials. She and her mother were given a home at the Louvre and at St Germain but the queen spent her pension on supporting her husband and during the civil wars that became known as the Fronde (1648-1653) which targeted Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin she and her mother were deserted by the royal court and trapped in their apartments.

Henriette’s young cousin, King Louis XIV of France, needed a bride. Henrietta Maria thought that it would be an ideal match for her daughter but so far as Anne of Austria and Mazarin were concerned, Henriette was a penniless refugee. It was only in 1660 in the months following the Restoration that Henriette, a pretty young woman, became a potential bride but for Louis’ younger brother Philippe – who was bisexual and had been associated with a number of scandals.

Negotiations were interrupted when Henriette and her mother travelled to England for Charles II’s coronation and for Henrietta Maria to sort out her finances. The pair delayed their return when Henriette’s older brother Henry died of small pox. It was October before she began her return to France and November, in Dover, before an official request for marriage made. Further delays including the death of her eldest sister, Mary Princess of Orange, meant that Henriette did not return to France until January.

Charles II, who called his sister Minette, agreed a dowry of 840,000 livres as well as other financial gifts and the wedding took place on 30 March 1661. Louis XIV created his brother Duc d’Orléans. At first Philippe was besotted with his pretty bride. Their first child was born within a year of the marriage but questions were raised about Marie Louise’s paternity. Could the father have been Louis or even Guy Armand de Gramont, Count of Guiche? The latter was part of Philippe’s entourage and may even have been his lover. Philippe became increasingly jealous and Henriette’s marriage became strained to breaking point, especially after the arrival of Philippe, Chevalier de Lorraine who did all that he could to drive a wedge between the couple.

Despite this Henriette gave birth to a son in 1664, two still born infants and a daughter, Anne Marie who would become the Queen of Sardinia.

Despite the misery of married life, illness and increasing frailty caused possibly by anorexia nervosa, Henriette had a passion for gardens, for works of art and for correspondence with her brother in England. It was Henriette whose letters lay at the heart of the Secret Treaty of Dover (1670) between Louis XIV and Charles II. Louis had a close friendship with Minette. Aside from the family connection and the early flirtation, Henriette – beautiful, charming and witty became a notable figure at court.

By 1667 Henriette was complaining about a pain in her side, when she travelled to Dover for the secret negotiations she was so unwell that she was only able to drink milk. When she returned to France she travelled, on 26 June, to Saint-Cloud where Philippe was living. On 29 June she became unwell after drinking a glass of iced chicory water. She called out that she had been poisoned and on 30 June she died.

Louis XIV ordered that a post mortem be conducted. The official report stated that Minette died from gastroenteritis but suspicions remained. Today historians believe that she may have died from peritonitis caused by a ruptured stomach ulcer rather than poison.

Henrietta Anne was buried next to her mother at St Denis, who had died in September 1669 having taken an excessive quantity of opiates as a painkiller on the advice of the French court doctor.

Melanie Clegg. The Life of Henrietta Anne

Julia A. Hickey. Preparing Stuart Kings and Princes to Rule (Pen and Sword, 2026)

Linda Porter. Royal Renegades: The Children of Charles I and the English Civil Wars

Getting to grips with the Roman Empire

Posted on by
Reply

This is one of my periodic book reviews courtesy of NetGalley. Roman Empire in 100 Moments by Dr Philip Matyszak is an informative and very accessible introduction to the Roman world – which as those of you who follow the blog know is outside my usual time frame. Matyszak has chosen 100 key moments to tell the story of Rome, from its rise to power through its triumphs, conflicts and eventual decline, making what could be an overwhelming subject much easier to digest. It’s ideal for readers who have an interest in Roman history but who don’t necessarily know the relationships and events that shaped the empire.

I particularly liked the way the book demonstrates how individual events, decisions and people can have consequences far beyond the moment itself. The short chapters make it an easy book to dip into, but together they build up a fascinating picture of the Roman Empire and the people who shaped it.

Matyszak writes in a lively and approachable way rather than making the book feel like a textbook. There is plenty here for someone new to Roman history, while those who already know the period are likely to find plenty of interesting detail and reminders of just how complex this extraordinary civilisation was.

An enjoyable and informative way to explore the Roman Empire, one moment at a time. Now back to the Devil’s Causeway – which is on the OS map and even in the road atlas.

St John the Baptist Church, Edlingham

Posted on by
Reply

The church in the little hamlet of Edlingham dates from the 11th and 12th centuries. It stands on the site of a Saxon building dating to 740 AD or there about. The first stone building was erected in about 1050 – when Edward the Confessor was on the throne. The village had originally been given to St Cuthbert by King Coelwulf of Northumbria. The latter abdicated and became a monk on Lindisfarne in 737. He gifted St Cuthbert four villages of which Edlingham was one. Warkworth, Eglingham and Whittingham composed the other three. Little wonder that the Venerable Bede was something of a fan.

The rather impressive tower at Edlingham was a later addition and given its location on the Scottish border it is perhaps not surprising that it had a defensive role like many other church towers along the border. It is also thought that the church was used to imprison moss troopers during the middle of the seventeenth century – men who returned to a reviving lifestyle at the end of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

The nearby castle was started by Sir William de Felton at the end of the thirteenth century, who is buried in the church. The castle was built in place a Manor House built by John of Edlingham during the 12th century. The Felton family are associated with both Norfolk and Shropshire. During the fourteenth century William’s son, also named William, continued the building work and his grandson – yes that’s another William, would fight alongside the Black Prince.

Meanwhile the Edlingham Railway Viaduct beyond the castle dates from 1885. Inevitably I was more interested in the Roman road running to the west of the village. It turns out it’s known as the Devil’s Causeway. Apparently it’s very obvious straightness caused a degree of consternation in later times, hence the name – unexplained, straight across empty moors – I’m sure you get the gist.

St Mary the Virgin- Saffron Walden, Thomas Audley, Margaret of Anjou and the New Model Army

Posted on by
Reply

Having written about Thomas Audley, who hailed from Earl’s Colne and became Colchester’s recorder before going on to become Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor (remarkably dying in his own bed in 1544), I was keen to see his tomb. I was quietly surprised to find him tucked in a side chapel surrounded by filing cabinets!

Thomas had written clear instructions in his will about what he wanted – little in the way of pomp and ceremony. While he might not have wanted an expensive or public funeral the chest tomb he commissioned, complete with the family crest, was not cheap. It’s made from Belgian slate.

Thomas’s tomb was placed in the side chapel that was newly completed. However, there’s been a church in Saffron Walden since Saxon times and the building on the site has gone through several reincarnations until becoming, in the fifteenth century, the largest parish church in Essex – the nave is some 50 ft high. Inevitably the saffron crocus which gives the town its name features in the decorations.

Unfortunately the church’s medieval glass did not survive the Reformation or the attentions of the Roundheads – although there is no documentary evidence of soldiers under the command of Thomas Fairfax damaging the church in 1647 (and he was known to take a dim view of such behaviour). The only medieval stained glass to survive is thought to be a likeness of Margaret of Anjou – Henry VI’s unfortunate and oft reviled consort.

Which brings me to the Parliamentarians and the English Civil War. In May 1647 there were a week of debates held in the church about the future of England’s political and religious life. Men whose view did not coincide with the dominant Presbyterian view were regarded as increasingly dangerous. There were calls for religious independents and Levellers who wanted to extend voting rights to be rooted out of the army and punished. There were even calls for the New Model Army to be disbanded.

In 1646 the army was at Nottingham under the command of Sir Thomas Fairfax. He moved his men to Saffron Walden when the Levellers began to petition soldiers. There was an increasingly vocal demand for extended suffrage. The use of a system of printed petitions that were widely distributed was something else to add to Parliament’s list of concerns – before long men like Lilburne were demanding that there should be more frequent elections to avoid Parliament becoming tyrannical in much the same way as the monarchy before it.

In March, the following year Parliament decided to disband the army in England and to send another to Ireland to suppress the rebellion there. Even worse, arrears in pay were not to be fully honoured – after the years of war there wasn’t much spare cash in the coffers. Unsurprisingly the soldiers drafted a petition demanding their money in full as well as indemnity against anything they might have done during the war. They also wanted pensions for widows, orphans and those disabled by their soldiering. Soldiers who were prepared to go to Ireland only wanted to do so under the command of their own commanders. Parliament decided that men like Colonels Pride and Lilburne were traitors to the State for encouraging the petition – who’d have thought that what today seems largely reasonable would have been greeted with such alarm?

Most ordinary soldiers did not want to go to Ireland. And when a deputation from Parliament arrived tor recruit for the campaign rather than signing on for the new campaign as had been expected, representatives from each of the eight regiments in Saffron Walden formed a council of action and drafted a document which they presented to Fairfax and to Parliament reiterating their grievances.

Meetings followed in the town’s church on 6 and 7 May during which Parliamentary and army representatives tried to arrive at a compromise as well as to recruit for the Irish campaign.

On 18 May, Parliament decided to disband the army with the exception of men prepared to go to Ireland or for garrison duties. Fairfax was told to organise this and moved to Bury St Edmunds. The agitators, as they were known, refused to comply even when Fairfax order them to stop holding meetings. Instead a new petition was presented to him and the regiments, increasingly militant, refused to disband.

The Saffron Waldren debates reflected the widening void between those in power and the soldiers of the New Model Army. This difference would come to a head in November 1647 with the more famous Putney Debates. Ultimately, Fairfax would refuse, in 1649, to go to Ireland. The experiences of Saffron Walden had turned him into something of a political mediator as well as maintaining military unity. It was Fairfax who first chaired the Putney Debates but illness forced him to step down and it was Cromwell who suppressed the army’s radicals.

Quebec House, Kent

Posted on by
Reply

Quebec House is close to Chartwell. Colonel Wolfe rented the Tudor house in 1726. It was here that his and Henrietta’s son, James, was born and grew up until the age of 11-years. The property had been extended during the reign of James I and has evolved since – having a Georgian appearance.

James Wolfe became a soldier at just fourteen-years and found himself involved in the war of the Austrian Succession as well as the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. In 1759, during the so-called Seven Years War, Wolfe led his men up the cliffs at Quebec and attacked the French. The general, whose death is captured on canvas at Ickworth House near Bury St Edmunds, won the battle but lost his life. Spiers, as his childhood home was known, was renamed Quebec House in his honour.

The Seven Years War was fought between 1756 to 1763 and was effectively world war – and so it was described by Churchill- since it involved all the European powers of the time and consequently their colonies. Britain was an ally of Prussia while France, Austria, Russia, Sweden and Spain lined up on the other side. One of the causes included a territorial dispute over Silesia fought between Austria and Prussia. The British and the French were more interested in control of North America. The French and Indian War had started in 1754. The Treaty of Paris signed in 1763 would see France relinquish most of its North American land to Britain.

One of the domino effects of the war, aside from Wolfe’s death, was the amount that it cost. Inevitably this led to more taxation of the American Colonies which in turn led to increasing discontent.

The house is full of General Wolfe memorabilia including the general’s canteen chest – with spaces for all the china he used while he was on campaign. That said the contents of the home are fairly spartan – a reminder that Wolfe’s family were not aristocratic.

However, you can even see Henrietta Wolfe’s cookbook or receipt book. As might be expected as well as recipes for cooking everything from fish to sponge cake there are also a number of household remedies. If you time your visit right, volunteers may be found in the kitchen preparing some dishes inspired by the Georgian recipes.

Jock – the cat and some other animals.

Posted on by
2

In 1962 Sir Winston Churchill received a ginger cat with four white socks for his birthday. Churchill named the cat after the man who gifted it to him – Sir John Colville. Jock became an important part of Churchill’s life.

When Chartwell became part of the National Trust Churchill’s family stipulated that a cat that looked like Jock must always have a home at Chartwell. Jock mark 7 arrived in 2020. It was a pleasant surprise to encounter him just after the property opened a couple of weeks ago. He clearly takes his duties very seriously.

I knew that Churchill was an animal lover before I visited Chartwell. During the war, for instance, he was often accompanied by a poodle called Rufus. I read somewhere that he refused to keep animals that ended up on his plate, working on the theory that if you’ve said good morning to a creature of any kind- it really shouldn’t end up on your plate. What I didn’t know was that he built a butterfly house at Chartwell and had the borders planted with flowers to give them nectar.

Today the grounds are also home to black swans descended from those gifted to Churchill by the people of Australia. The ponds were built on the instruction of Churchill during the 1930s – and there was I thinking they just wanted somewhere quieter to live than Leeds Castle.

I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Chartwell and I particularly liked one of the Churchill quotes he made about the delights of painting – ‘Every land, every parish has its own tale to tell.’ He was describing painting as a pastime but it seems to me to be an excellent quote for anyone interested in history. And inevitably I shall be using it at some point. There is an exhibition of Churchill’s work at Chartwell as well as an exhibition in London currently exhibiting at the Wallace Collection.

Churchill became a prolific artist when he discovered it at the age of 40. He used it as a way of keeping depression at bay. He believed that skill wasn’t important but that enjoyment was. A valuable lesson.

The House of Cromwell – Thomas and Oliver viewed together

Posted on by
3

Thomas Cromwell’s sister had a son called Richard Williams. Williams entered Cromwell’s household and changed his name from Williams to Cromwell – it was a sound move at the time with Cromwell being Henry VIII’s chief minister. Miranda Malins’ book entitled The House of Cromwell explores the family from their earliest antecedents.

 The House of Cromwell is compelling in its extraordinary level of detail. Miranda Malins has clearly immersed herself in the world of the Cromwells, and that knowledge brings the people, places and politics of the period vividly to life. Rather than simply presenting history as a sequence of political events, she allows us to see the family behind the history —weaving together their ambitions, loyalties, rivalries and vulnerabilities – not to mention introducing us to the rather less successful members of the family…think an excess of drinking, gambling and entertaining.

What I found particularly fascinating was the book’s exploration of identity and power. The Cromwells’ rise raises such interesting questions about what happens when people from outside the traditional aristocracy suddenly find themselves at the centre of national power. Thomas and Oliver Cromwell may have been separated by generations, but Malins makes us think about the connections between them and about the different ways in which power can be acquired, exercised and ultimately lost.

I also loved the attention given to the wider family, particularly the women whose lives and influence can so easily disappear behind the better-known political story. It gives a much richer sense of how power actually worked: not simply through kings, parliaments and battles, but through marriage, family relationships, reputation, loyalty and personal influence…though I’m still not a huge fan of Oliver, although it turns out that he had something of an interest in family history and a sense of humour.

For me, the great strength of the book is the way Malins combines scholarship with a real feeling for the human story. And lets face it while Thomas Cromwell ended up losing control of his story Oliver ended up controlling his own history unlike Sir Thomas Fairfax who deliberately stepped away from power which meant that although it was Fairfax who was the commander-in-chief of the New Model Army that its Cromwell who everyone remembers.

Unlike Thomas, His two times great nephew Oliver received a state funeral but in 1661, orders were given by. the restored Crown to have the Lord Protector’s body dug up, hanged at Tyburn where it remained for several hours before being beheaded. Oliver’s body went into an unmarked grave near Tyburn. Thomas fared better. Having been beheaded, his remains were interred at St Peter ad Vinincula – and remained undisturbed even though the grave was eventually lost to history. Both men discovered that power can be rather a dangerous commodity.

Thomas, a canny administrator if ever there was one, had ensured that both his son Gregory and his nephew Richard were well provided for prior to his death. It helped that Gregory was married to Jane Seymour’s sister and that Cromwell made sure property deeds were watertight in terms of inheritance even if the Crown did take back property under attainder laws. Oliver’s family estates were little impacted by the Restoration – they hadn’t been that significant to start with. However, land he acquired in the aftermath of the civil war – particularly Irish estates – were removed from his heirs. For the younger Cromwells who had made good marriages there was life in the gentry.

The Cromwells didn’t disappear they simply retreated back to the life that Oliver emerged from. Perhaps the government didn’t feel the need to make martyrs of them. Richard Cromwell who spent some years abroad returned to England to live a quiet life and like his brother, Henry, was permitted to live undisturbed. It probably helped that Mary Cromwell, the third of Oliver’s daughters, was married to Thomas Belasyse, 1st Earl Fauconberg, an active supporter of the Crown.

I’d like to thank Harper Collins and Net Galley for giving me the opportunity to read Miranda Malins’ The House of Cromwell prior to its publication.

Mourning in the 17th century

Posted on by
Reply
Mary Vere (née Tracy), Lady Vere
by Frederick Hendrik van Hove
line engraving, circa 1683
NPG D28117. Courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery

I know it’s not the most cheery topic for a post! However, by the beginning of the seventeenth century in England funeral practices and mourning had undergone a change thanks to the Protestant reformation. Purgatory no longer existed so it wasn’t necessary to make provision for prayer and masses to expedite the process. It led to a simplification of the process although society still had its own requirements.

When Lady Mary Vere was unexpectedly widowed in May 1635 she would have had to dressed in black as would her daughters. They weren’t permitted to wear anything bright or even shiny. Gradually they could have moved to half mourning which involved greys and mauves. Lady Mary was also expected to provide cloths with the chief mourners at her husband’s funeral as well as for the servants. This could have been anything from gowns and cloaks to gloves, scarves and armbands – although there would have been nothing elaborate or ostentatious. The key for Lady Mary, a Presbyterian, was that she would not have used any practices or rituals that had links to Catholicism. The clothing was more about showing proper respect. The funeral itself, which took place at Westminster Abbey, is likely to have been a quiet affair without even the tolling of a bell to mark the baron’s passing. Unlike his brother he has no effigy or marker.

Lord Horace Vere’s funeral was plain and relatively brief. Lady Mary’s restraint would have been a reminder of the virtue of simplicity and an external illustration of her pious submission to God’s will – no space for wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was the duty of her friends and family to provide practial support and quiet sorrow…all in all very solemn. Horace, a godly man, was seen as having made his final journey to Heaven. It is possible that a costly effigy would have smacked of vanity – the family would have wanted to focus on Horace’s soul.

By the time news travelled across the country, the funeral would have already taken place. Support in that case would take the form of a letter of condolence focusing on theological support for the widow and while they might wear sober clothing, or even be in receipt of a mourning ring left to them in the will of the person who died, the whole e process would be navigated with restraint.

Inevitably it is through memoirs that much of this information comes to light. Some of you will recall the work of Alice Thornton who lived in Yorkshire during the 17th century – her life was not without drama including a marriage after the English Civil War to a Parliamentarian to protect the family and its land – however her writing also reflects the need for quiet acceptance of God’s will.

John Evleyn’s journal reflected the writer’s piety and his own grief at the loss of his children. He also recorded court funerals as did Samuel Pepys whose diary reflects the writers interest in fashion! The sobriety of the Commonwealth Period would have met with Lady Mary Vere’s approval rather better than the grand displays that followed the Restoration.