Thursday, 28 June 2012

James, Duke of Monmouth

A young James Duke of Monmouth

James Crofts, later known as the Duke of Monmouth was the bastard son of Charles II and his first known Mistress Lucy Walter. He was born on 9th April 1649, and would go down in history as the man who would lose his head for rebelling against his uncle. Now then, I will be the first to admit that I have a little bit of a thing for Monmouth - and yes it may have something to do with his rather handsome portrait, and the fact I have a thing for blokes in periwigs. It may also have something to do with the fact that his sheer character intrigues me - the eldest bastard child of Charles II and a young man who believed wholeheartedly that his mother and his father were married and thus that he was the true heir to the English throne. That, and and he was an exceptional soldier and the people loved him.

However, I won't be writing about Monmouth's early life spent overseas. Even though a lot of stuff happened when he was a child, a lot more happened when he had grown up and moved back to England to live with his father at court. I will briefly mention however that in 1658 the young lad was kidnapped by his fathers men (because he believed Lucy wasn't treating him right!) and taken to Paris where he lived with Lord Crofts - and James ended up taking the name Crofts until he was made Duke of Monmouth by his father in 1663.

James Duke of Monmouth by William Wissing

James was just 14 years old when his father made him Duke of Monmouth and he was also given the titles of Earl of Doncaster and Baron Scott of Tyndale. Later that year he was also made a Knight of the Garter. Not bad for a 14 year old! Not only that but in April 1663 he married to Anne Scott, a rather wealthy heiress. The day after the marriage they were both created Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, Earl and Countess of Dalkeith and Lord and Lady Scott of Whitchester.

As I have already briefly mentioned, Monmouth was an exceptionally popular young man. The reason for this was simple - as the son of Charles II he was a Protestant, and the people did not want their next King to be Catholic. James Duke of York, Charles' brother and heir to the throne, was leaning towards the Catholic faith. James would later openly convert and it was not a popular decision. James and his Uncle would never have an easy relationship and it would sadly end in disaster for poor James.

James Duke of York at the National Maritime Museum

Despite this, from the age of 16 Monmouth served in the military under the command of his Uncle and it was this that ultimately put the barrier up between the two of them. Monmouth took part in the Second Dutch War serving under his uncle and in 1666 ended up taking command of a troop of horse. In 1668 he was made Commander of Charles II's own troop of Horse Guards, and then in 1672 went over to France as head of a troop of 6000 men and served as part of the French Army - the men went over as payment to France for their help in the Third Dutch War, and it was his experiences in these campaigns which made him one of the finest soldiers of his period. It's no wonder he had such confidence when he turned against his uncle later on!

In 1674, James was created Master of the Horse and Charles ordered that all miitary orders be given to Monmouth first for examination which gave him effective command over the entire army. Is it any wonder that the Duke of York began to get a little irate with all the favours being shown to Monmouth?

Throughout all of this, the succession was the utmost thought in people's minds. Charles II had been unable to produce a legitimate heir with his wife Catherine of Braganza, yet had fathered a number of bastards with his mistresses. James Duke of York was Charles' heir, but York was unpopular and Parliament thought it would be fun to try and pass a bill blocking his succession to the throne. Alas Parliament failed and Charles insisted that his brother was his heir. Yet Monmouth had this deep seated belief that he was Charles' legitimate child, that his mother and father had been married (though is this likely? Due to the lack of evidence we will never know but I personally like to think so!) and that he should be the legitimate heir. Even then there was no evidence to support this claim, despite rumours of an exisiting marriage certificate. "The Power & The Passion" starring Rufus Sewell shows Charles as burning the marriage certificate - did this happen? Was it hidden and found later? There are rumours from the living relatives of Monmouth but really we can never be sure.

1683 saw a plot uncovered to assassinate both Charles and James Duke of York, known as the Popish Rye House Plot, arranged by a man by the name of Titus Oates. The plot alas came to nothing (again, shown brilliantly in the Power & The Passion!) but poor Monmouth was implicated in the plot and ended up being sent into exile in Holland!

Following his banishment in 1683, Charles never saw his eldest son again.

Charles II

Charles II died on 6th February 1685, having converted to Catholicism on his death bed. And due to Charles having no legitimate heirs, his brother James ascended to the throne and became James II. Monmouth, still believing that his parents had been legally married and that he was the legitimate heir, decideed it would be fun to come back to England and lead a rebellion against his uncle. After he landed in Lyme Regis in the July of 1685, Monmouth declared himself as King at various points along the way including Axminster and Taunton. And he was popular so many did not try to stop him, even going so far as to shout crys of "A MONMOUTH! A MONMOUTH!" after him. 6th July 1685 saw the Battle of Sedgemoor in which Monmouth found himself up against his Uncle's armies. Monmouth was defeated and made his way to Ringwood in Hampshire, where he was captured.

Of course there were a few skirmishes a long the way and I will always remember the story of how Monmouth and his compatriots stayed at the George Inn at Norton St Philip in the West Country during the rebellion. I was told the story of the rebellion one evening on the way home from an archaeological dig, and it stuck with me.

The George Inn: Norton St Phillip

I was also told the story of Monmouth's execution on that same car journey, which has haunted me ever since. But it comes later...

After being captured at Ringwood, Monmouth never stood trial for the crimes he committed against his uncle. He was condemned by act of attainder. He was automatically found guilty of high treason and would be beheaded, his lands and titles would become forfeit.

Monmouth's execution

On 15th July 1685, James Duke of Monmouth was executed on Tower Hill for leading the rebellion against James II. His executioner was the infamous Jack Ketch. Upon the scaffold, Monmouth felt the edge of the axe and asked if it was sharp enough - his good friend having been executed by Ketch and it being botched - and he gave Ketch a bag of coins to encourage his good work. The coins did not help. Ketch botched the execution.

The first blow did not sever Monmouth's head, and it is said Monmouth looked at Ketch in shock. 5 blows later and Monmouth was only just dead, and Ketch ended up removing Monmouth's head with a butchers knife.

Monmouth's story always brings a tear to my eye. I don't know why, I just feel a certain affinity with him. His story is so sad - he was loved by his father but suffered because of his own blind belief. He lead a remarkable life, but again let his beliefs bring him down. Part of me wishes that his rebellion in the west country had succeeded, and I don't know why but I think that he would have made a great King. But alas, we cannot change history and who knows what might have been should he succeeded. But Monmouth's story is so gripping and so sad, I always feel a pang of pain when I think of the fate he suffered.

A MONMOUTH!


Further reading


Coward, B, 2012, The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714 (Fourth Edition), Pearson: Harlow
Fraser, A, 1979. King Charles II, Butler & Tanner: Frome
Harris, T, 2006, Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms, Penguin: London
Watson, J.N.P, 1979, Captain General & Rebel Chief: The Life of James Duke of Monmouth,:George Allen & Unwin: London

6 comments:

  1. Barbara Gaskell Denvil29 June 2012 20:52

    Very interesting. And I must say I'm looking forward to the future post on the fascinating Earl of Rochester - a favourite historical figure of mine (though I thought he was against the bill to eliminate James as successor?) It was certainly a vivid time of turmoil and contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Barbara - thank you.

      As far as I'm aware, Rochester was against Jimmy II taking the throne but I will double check (and for now remove that bit in the post lol, I may have been er slightly under the influence of wine when I wrote it lol)

      Delete
  2. Barbara Gaskell Denvil30 June 2012 16:34

    Under the influence of wine sounds good to me! And I could easily be wrong. In either case - I loved your article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sure James would have aproved of the wine as well. His mother always told him she was married to charles, his tutor always said his parents were married, his father always acknowledged him as his child, he was treated as a royal prince and he had the support of the majority of the ordinary people. In addition, there was a rebellion planned in Scotland, James II was new and his control of the country was still weak. He was also building up the army from a small number. Soon a rebellion would be out of the question.I can see why he had a go, to be honest it was the best chance he's ever have. He gambled and lost and it is easy to portray a lost gamle as stupid. In my opinion he has been very harshly treated by conventional history. It's time the established history is re-evaluated, so I agree with your site, good posting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much for your kind words, Andy.

      Delete
  4. I think most peoples views of young James are based on only a few sources. those written by his supporters and the majority written by people who had to avoid offending or tried to flatter the current monarch (who wouldn't be there if Monmouth had won)His reputation had to be destroyed. We will probably never know his true character but there are clues, he stood in the line of water buckets during the great fire, he disliked a fuss being made of him, just look at the expressions in the official portraits he's quite clearly unconfortable. he could easily dissapear into the background when he wanted. Vain yes, he was the sun of a king, more vain than any other royal? no and certainly less than most. his reputation of ignorance and poor education was from when he was quite young and had only had bearly 2 years of education. he did change and was taking extra education as an adult. Daddy Charles made him the effective head of the army, much as he loved his son he was a pragmarist and would not have given him such an important role as well as a position on the privy council if he wasn't certian of his ability. A question hangs over the murder of the beadle and the nose cutting incident, but since neither was investigated it is unfair to say he was guilty, he may have been of both and it is important to remember that the times were very different then. His mercy to defeated enemies does tend to contrdict this view as a violent man. The cowardice ascribed to him in his private interview with James II was not shown when he was excecuted, surly a time when a man lacking courage would show his true nature. After the first blow of the axe mealry grazed him he din't loose his composure but looked reproachfully at Ketch and lay down again. Most people seem to just read the official history and accept it as truth. Read between the lines and you will find that he was much more complex man. And lets be fair to his uncle he wasn't the pantomime villian either. The diposed king or pretender has to be destroyed either physically or by reputation. I'm sure if we met any historical character we simlpy would not recognise them.

    ReplyDelete

Due to both spam and some rather nasty individuals all comments will be moderated.