Feuds, Factions and Fornication

  • Geoffrey Smith

Abstract

Survival was the main concern of exiled Cavaliers; how to overcome the constant nagging shortage of money and the emotional distress of separation from one’s family and absence from one’s home. To cope with these problems and hardships and not be overwhelmed or demoralised by them was probably the most challenging task facing the exiles. But if, by resorting to one or more of the various measures discussed in the previous chapter, physical survival could be made reasonably certain, then another major problem emerged. How were those royalists who remained on the continent to occupy their time in exile? The enforced idleness of an emigre’s life was not the kind of existence with which royalists of the kind who remained in exile were familiar. After all, the majority of the exiled Cavaliers were in the prime of life, in their thirties. If it had not been for the long series of defeats suffered by the royalists in the civil wars, they would have been enjoying the full and satisfying careers and activities traditionally available to men of their social background: positions of influence and prestige at court, seats in Parliament, the management of estates, the opportunity to play a part in government administration at national or local level, the social round of county communities, even the traditional recreations like hunting.

Keywords

Physical Survival Household List Royal Court Private Moral County Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 14.
    G. E. Aylmer, The Kings Servants, (London, 1974), pp. 472–5.Google Scholar
  2. TSP, ii, 534; iii, 425, 428, 458–9; PRO. SP 18/138/10; Bod. L. Clarendon MS 49, f. 107; BL. Egerton MS 2542, fols. 330–2, 342–4, 347–8, 352.Google Scholar
  3. 16.
    For examples see Bod. L. Clarendon MS 49, f. 107; PRO. SP 18/158/10; 29/26/78. Google Scholar
  4. 17.
    For Brentford see HMC, Pepys MSS, 70, p. 255; DNB; Newman, Royalist Officers, p. 322.Google Scholar
  5. 18.
    C1SP, iii, 67, 77, 86–8, 106; NP, i, 283, 285–6, 298, 304.Google Scholar
  6. 19.
    The English Court. from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War, ed. David Starkey, (London, 1987), p. 256 (for Holland); Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy, p. 334 (for Grenville).Google Scholar
  7. 20.
    TSP, iv, 122; CC1SP, iii, 65. For example, Hester Chapman, The Tragedy of Charles II, combines Nicholas and William Armorer into one person.Google Scholar
  8. 26.
    CSPD 1657–1658, p. 165. Barker retained his position as avenor and Armorer his as an equerry. PRO. SP 29/26/78. Google Scholar
  9. 39.
    B. D. Henning, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660–1690, 3 vols., (London, 1983), iii, 293; Count Grammont, Memoirs of the Court of Charles II, (London, 1853), p. 217; The Diary of Samuel Pepys, eds. R. Latham and W. Matthews, 11 vols., (London, 1976–1983), v, 56; x, 347.Google Scholar
  10. 40.
    E. D’Oyley, James, Duke ofMonmouth, (London, 1938), pp. 13, 25; Chapman, The Tragedy of Charles II, pp. 148, 330.Google Scholar
  11. 41.
    J. A. Bradney, A History orMonmouthshire, (London, 1914), pp. 196–7; Henning, Commons 1660–1690, iii, 293; HMC, Report 10 (Story Maskelyne MSS), iv, 146–8; HMC, Pepys MSS, 70, pp. 238, 255; BL. Add. MS 14,858, f. 58; Clarendon, Rebellion, x, 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Smith 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations