[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Royal Physician William Q with Pepys


>Yes, indeed you are right about Charles II. Quite a careless gloss on my

Well, given that he ceaselessly defended his brother's right to be king
even after James converted to Catholicism, including overruling Parliament
three times, and that Charles himself converted to Catholicism on his
deathbed, it's quite plausible that he thought of himself as a Catholic
all along.

> (But, as a Protestant, it makes me feel a lot better about
>possibly being descended from William Q. All in the family, you know...)

Good point.

And let's be glad that in Britain at least no one takes such matters
to the point of civil war anymore.  Hm, well, in England, Wales, and
Scotland, anyway.

>Please see my NOTES in your edited message below.

Plus a few more comments below.

>I was very glad for that information connecting William Q to Chalgrove.

Sure wish we had copies of Carter available to examine in more detail.

>Sincerely and Repentantly Yours,
>Clay Quarterman

>> That's right; it was a rare example of a mostly bloodless
>> revolution. Before he was restored, at least; after there 
>> were many killings of opponents of the monarchy, especially 
>> in Scotland.
>I suppose it was some of this and my recent reading in Scottish history
>which led me to characterize Charles II in this negative way.

I wonder how many of those killings were about religion per se
and how many were because the victims had been opponents of the
monarchy?  Certainly they executed 9 people they said were involved
in the beheading of Charles I:

>> I'm curious why you refer to Charles II as Catholic.  He was
>> Anglican; at least until his deathbed conversion to 
>> Catholicism.  It was his brother James, the future James II, 
>> who was the relatively open Catholic, which was why James was 
>> later ejected in the Glorious Revolution in favor of William 
>> of Orange and Mary Stuart, daughter of James II.

>> It's somewhat surprising that they would put the entire royal
>> family on one ship.
>I thought of that, too --much as today the pres. and vp of the U.S.
>aren't allowed to travel together. However, in those days, perhaps they
>didn't view a channel crossing in the same light as a sea voyage, though
>I once had a pretty rough crossing in a hovercraft! I suppose it was
>something of a big day, to be enjoyed together by all the royalty.

That sounds plausible.

Did you notice whether Charles II's sister Elizabeth Stuart, the Dowager
Queen of Bohemia, was on board?  Or her daughter Sophia Hanover, the
Duchess of Brunswick, or her husband the Duke?  Maybe even her infant
son George, the future George I.
If so, they had all the various lines on the one ship.

Anyway, maybe we'll find out more about Dr. William Quartermaine.

John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org>

[ This is the Quarterman family discussion list, quarterman@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.quarterman.org/list.html