Young Jemmy is Born
James, Duke of Monmouth was a bundle of mysteries and contradictions. He began life in Rotterdam, Netherlands April 9, 1649 as the child of the infamous Lucy Walter (also known as Mrs. Barlow) and Charles II, son of King Charles I. Lucy Walters was the daughter of a Welsh gentleman named William Walter1 and her mother, Elizabeth Protheroe, was also of gentle birth and well connected.2 Although there is not a wealth of information on her childhood, it is known that Lucy Walter grew up to become a beautiful woman. Her son, Jemmy, as the Duke of Monmouth was affectionately referred to by his mother, inherited much of her good looks.3 Whether Lucy Walter was a mistress of Charles II or a bone fide wife is a much debated topic; however, it can be fairly stated that she was certainly above the status of “common prostitute”4 that James II publicly labeled her as and referred to in his memoirs.4
James’ father, Charles II was one of two legitimate living sons of King Charles I, the other being James, Duke of York. At the time of the Duke of Monmouth’s conception and through much of his early childhood, the kingdom was still in disarray from the beheading of Charles I.6 It wasn’t until 1660, after more than a decade of exile that the royal family was called to England and the crown was restored to the next heir of the Stuart family, Charles II, the father of James, Duke of Monmouth (at that time he was known as James Crofts).7
James was the first born son of Charles II’s twelve illegitimate children.8 Despite the rumors, most likely started by his uncle James Duke of York that James was really the son of Robert Sidney, an officer in the Holland regiment,9 James’ strong resemblance to his father and the tremendous amount of doting and affection heaped upon him by Charles II leaves little doubt of their relation.10
The Pre-Restoration Years
After his birth in Rotterdam, “James was given an English nurse and lodged, for the sake of privacy, in the house of a merchant named Claes Ghysen ...a mile from Rotterdam.”11 His mother was then living at Schiedam. It was during these early days that the first attempted abduction of James may have taken place. One day, Lucy Walter set off in the company of one gentleman for the purpose of visiting her son. Somewhere along the way, the man excused himself and apparently went ahead of Lucy to Claes Ghysen’s house and took the infant James and his nurse. When Lucy finally arrived at Schiedam and found out her Jemmy had been taken, she immediately ordered horses and left for the harbor of Maeslandsluce, thinking the kidnapper would try to take him to England. She arrived and told the mayor that her child had been stolen and “He’s the king’s son,” “if money will do it, spare no charges.” James was found at Loosdymen ten days later.12
Such was the tempestuous environment that James was reared in. Charles II was off engaged in affairs of politics while James was left to the care of his mother and often at the mercy of circumstances, considering the peril that his father often found himself in during James’s early years. “[O]n September 3, 1651, Charles attempted to regain his kingdom and the disastrous Battle of Worcester occurred, causing Charles to flee for his life.13 There was also questionable behavior by James’s mother, Lucy Walter, resulting in a second pregnancy and the birth of a daughter, Mary. Mary is allegedly the daughter of Theodore, Second Viscount Taaffe, who was habitually employed by Charles II to carry out diplomatic missions. Whatever the truth of Mary’s conception, Charles II refused to acknowledge Mary as his own child. The birth of Mary no doubt fueled the rumors of Lucy Walter’s promiscuous behavior.14 However, it is important to note that these were “lean years”15 for Charles; Bryan Bevan relays in James Duke of Monmouth that “[h]e was often so poor that his shoes needed repairing.”16 On March 5, 1654, Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, and an advisor to Charles, wrote to Sir Edward Hyde, “that he had not received a shilling from the King for more than three years ‘and was wasted even to nothing.’”17 Consequently, it may be inferred that the years were also “lean” for his mistress and her son since it was Charles who supported Lucy Walter by way of a stipend. Such was the “disagreeable and neurotic environment” that James was reared in.18
Throughout the winter of 1656, renewed attempts were made to wrest James from [Lucy Walter’s] control, and to hand him over to his father.”19 During this time, also, Cromwell’s spies were attempting to ferret out Lucy Walter and her young son and eventually succeeded and Lucy was imprisoned in the Tower. Although Cromwell was very aware of her relationship with Charles II and the parentage of James, “Oliver Cromwell himself wrote a warrant to Sir John Barkstead, discharging Mrs. Lucy Barlow from imprisonment.”20 Lucy, and presumably her son, were given the unusual courtesy of being set on the shore of Flanders after her release.21 Charles and his advisors continued to plot the napping of James and finally it was Edward Progers, Charles’confidential page of the back stairs who succeeded. Afterwards he was placed in the care of Lord Crofts, whose name he took, becoming James Croft.22
James was brought to France at the age of nine and placed in the care of his grandmother, the widowed queen of Charles I, Henrietta Maria.23 Henrietta, being a devout Catholic put James under the instruction of Father Geoffe of the Oratorian College of Notre Dame des Verlus, where he was educated for a short time.24 Although “a Venetian Ambassador in England reported that Charles II whilst in Flanders gave many indications that he was sympathetic to the Roman Catholic religion;”25 Thomas Ross, a protestant, later became James’s tutor.26 Thomas Ross was a Scotchman that subsequently held the post of librarian at St James’s.27 “According to James II, it was Thomas Ross who flattered the boy ‘and put the thoughts of legitimacy into his head; and would have Bishop Cousin to certify that he had married the King and Lucy Walter, who refused it with indignity, and gave immediate notice of it to the King who removed Ross from about him.’”28 After being taken out of the care of Ross, James was taught at Petit Ecoles, in Le Chesney near Paris.29 He was put in the first and lowest class and spent only two years there.30 He often regretted his poor education and spent many years trying to make up for it.31
The Royal Bastard
Charles landed in Dover on May 26th while James was still in Paris. “It was an exciting time for James, dazzled by the splendor of Louis XIV’s Court.” 32 James Croft was present in 1661 when his aunt Henrietta married King Louis’ younger brother Philippe. No doubt the life he was privy to during this time as a young boy of eleven was far more enchanted than the one he had endured as a wandering child of the disreputable Lucy Walter (no matter how undeserved the title may have been). He developed a knack for dancing that was as graceful as his father’s 33 that he displayed at the auspicious events he attended with his grandmother and Aunt Henrietta such as the Ball of Anne of Austria, Mother of France.34
On July 28th 1662 at fourteen years old, James arrived in England with his grandmother.35 On August 23, 1662 the King and Queen made their entry into London, and rumors concerning the King’s son’s legitimacy soon began to spread among the common people.36 Many were under the impression that Lady Castelmaine, the mistress of Charles II and the wife of Samuel Pepys was put in charge of the boy since she paid such close attention to James. Samuel Pepys described James as, “Mr. Crofts, the King’s bastard, a most pretty spark of about fifteen years old, who I perceive, do hang about my Lady Castlemaine, and is always with her, and I do hear, the Queens are both mighty kind to him. They staid till it was dark, and then went away; the King and his Queen and my Lady Castlemaine and the young Crofts in one coach, and the rest in the other coaches.”37 38 “These were days of enchantment. [James] played cards with the Queen and her maids of hounour in her presence chambers, ‘all dressed in velvet gowns.’” 39
“[N]ot since the time of Henry VIII had any English sovereign owned an illegitimate child, and the continental idea of a royal bastard enjoying royal privileges was unknown.” 40 Many thought Charles foolish in the bringing up of his son. He excessively “doted” on the boy, publicly. Many perceived this a folly since he was not a legitimate child and others believed “If the king did not intend to acknowledge the boy as his lawful heir, it was the height of fool to heap hounours on him at such an early age before it could be perceived how his character would mould or develop.”41 However, heap honors he did and from the time Monmouth landed on the shores of England with his grandmother, until his fall from grace he had to earn very little. Not even the hand of his wife, which was also a gift from his father.
The Duke of Monmouth is Born
As early as 1661, there was talk and proof of an arranged marriage between Anna Scott and James. Anna Scott Countess of Buccleugh was the wealthiest heiress in Scotland.42 Anna was only ten when the King wrote to her mother on June 14th 1661:
“Madame, I have received your letter of the 28 of May by Will Fleming, and am very sensible of the affection which you shew to me in the offer you make concerning the Countesses of Buccleugh, which I do accepte most willingly, and the rather for the relation she hathe to you...
Madame, your very affectionate Friende, Charles R.”43
About 6 weeks later Lady Wemyss wrote the King back excited about the agreement:
“Most Sacrad Soveraing, I reserved your Maiesties’s most grasious letir, and by the expressions thereof accounts myself more hapie then any thing els in the world could have maid me. I sell wait for your Maiestie’s further commands conserning that particular, as becometh, Dried Soveran,
Your Majestie’s most devoted and humble servant Margarit Wemyss.”
“On April 7th 1662 the Countess of Wemyss brought Anna to London, so that the arrangements for the proposed marriage could be discussed.”44 Sir Gideon Scott described Anna as ‘a proper handsome and a lively tall young lady of her age’ [she was only eleven at the time].”45 James Croft married Anna Scott on Tuesday April 20, 1663; he was fourteen and she was twelve.46 In a letter to the Duchess of Orleans, Charles refers to his young son’s marriage, “You must not by this post expect a long letter from me, this being James’s marriage day and I am going to sup with them, where we intend to dance and see them a bed together, the ceremony shall stop there, for they are both too young to lye all night together.”47 The union of Anna Scott and James Scott was essentially a marriage of convenience and clearly an attempt by Charles to give his son a legitimate place in society. After the marriage, Monmouth took the name Scott to become James Scott Duke of Buccleuch.48 The young James continued to be redefined and given royal titles for on February 14, 1663, James was created Duke of Monmouth, Earl of Doncaster, and Baron Scott of Tynedale.49
In addition to being made a Duke, over the years, Monmouth was bestowed with numerous other honors such as honorary degrees from Oxford and Cambridge, and Knight of the Garter to name a few.50
The Leaping Gallant Off to War
Samuel Pepys once described the Duke of Monmouth when age sixteen as “the most skittish leaping gallant, that ever I saw...always in action, vaulting, leaping, ever clambering.”51 Many suspect that it was the Duke of Monmouth’s zest for life and exceptional beauty that combined to make him not only very popular with the ladies, but “engage the affections of the populace.”52 And although Pepys insisted that the Duke of Monmouth “spends his time the most viciously and idly of any man, nor will he be fit for anything,”53 the young Duke over the years showed a great desire and aptitude for his responsibilities and took a particular interest in serving in the army. However his first military action was in the navy.
James’ first taste of battle was in the Second Dutch War. The Second Dutch War began on March 4,1665, the product of “deep commercial rivalry and jealousy between the two nations competing for naval supremacy.”54 On March 31st James Duke of York left London; Duke of York commanded the Royal Squadron, and sailed on the Royal Charles.55 The young Duke of Monmouth, at age 16, was with his uncle on the Royal Charles. “The Duke of Monmouth won golden opinions from everybody for his courage during the Second Dutch War, and even his uncle commended him.”56 Commendation from James, the Duke of York is particularly striking due to the rivalry already surfacing between the two.
Upon return, the Duke of Monmouth continued to be treated as if of royal blood. When he first arrived, he lived in lodgings in the Privy Gallery at Whitehall; he soon after moved to lodging that had been built while he was away, in the ‘Old Tennis Court,’ to the south of the cockpit and facing King Street.57 On July 26th, Monmouth accompanied his father and uncle Duke of York when they went in the King’s barge from Hampton Court to Greenwhich to inspect the new buildings King Charles II was adding to the Palace.58 In September, the Duke and Duchess of Monmouth accompanied the king and the rest of the Royal Court initially to Salisbury then in to Oxford to escape the plague. During this “escape” the King and Monmouth stayed with Lord Ashley, later the Earl of Shaftesbury, with whom he was on friendly terms with at that time, at his country home in Wimbone St. Giles. It is likely that Shaftesbury took advantage of this meeting to “size Monmouth up” and according to a biography by Haley in Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury, Shaftesbury “was not impressed by any qualities of mind or character that he could detect.” 59
In the Second Dutch War, James assumed his first military command as commander of a troop of cavalry. In 1669, he was made colonel of the King's Life Guards, one of the most senior appointments in the army. In 1670, at the age of 21, Monmouth became the senior officer in the army when the Captain General of the army, George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle. During the Third Anglo-Dutch War in 1672, Monmouth commanded a brigade of 6,000 British troops sent to serve as part of the French army. In the campaign of 1673 and in particular at the Siege of Maastricht, Monmouth gained a considerable reputation as one of Britain's finest soldiers.60
In 1678, Monmouth was commander of the Anglo-Dutch brigade fighting for the United provinces against the French. He distinguished himself yet again at the battle of St Denis, adding to his already bourgeoning reputation. The following year, after his return to Britain, he commanded the small army raised to put down the rebellion of the Scottish Covenanters. Despite being heavily outnumbered, he gallantly defeated the poorly equipped Covenanter rebels at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge on June 22, 1679.61
James the Duke of Monmouth v. James the Duke of York
The early relationship between James the Duke of Monmouth and James the Duke of York began amicably enough. They bonded over hunting as James grew to love it around the age of fourteen and benefited from the guidance of his uncle James the Duke of York.62 However the question of succession was one that always divided any real camaraderie that could be had between uncle and nephew. Monmouth was hailed as the “Protestant Duke” and stood as the people’s champion against the Papist Duke and his Roman Catholic bride whose religion the country despised so much.63 James throughout much of his life and even in his death through his memoirs constantly questioned whether or not James was Charles son and vehemently denied any possible marriage to Lucy Walter (Mrs. Barlow).
Besides the obvious rivalry, there were specific instances of conflict that incensed uncle’s hatred for nephew and increased his steadfast determination to exclude him from the throne. And like many rivalries this story involves a girl. As noted, Monmouth was well liked by the ladies and Moll (or Mary) Kirke was no exception. However, Moll became a maid of honor to Mary of Modena, the Duke of York’s second wife and it was not long before she also became his mistress.64 Both uncle and nephew were oblivious to her deceit until Moll made the mistake of taking a third lover, John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave. One night after Monmouth discovered Mulgrave’s visit to his mistress, he had him arrested and kept in jail over night, and subsequently had the command of his regiments taken away.65 In retaliation, Mulgrave relayed Monmouth’s relations with Moll to the Duke of York, which further deteriorated their relationship.66
In 1678, more fuel was added to the flame when James, Duke of Monmouth was promoted to Captain-General67 of the king’s forces. According to Bevan in James Duke of Monmouth, the Duke of York warned his nephew that if he was appointed General that he could “no longer expect his friendship.” The Duke of York fervently and openly opposed the appointment to his brother, but Charles would not be swayed and the assignment was made in spite of his complaints.68 The Duke of York was so concerned about what such an assignment would mean to his ascendancy that he allegedly instructed the Attorney General whose duty it was to draw the commission to insert the word “natural” into the document. Although there is some argument as to the details of the drafting, in the document originally signed by Charles the word ‘natural’ had been omitted and only the word ‘son’ was left in its place. When the Duke of York pointed out the flaw, Charles was angered, destroyed the copy and had a new one drawn up with the word ‘natural’ included.69
Such was the ebb in flow of the relationship between The Duke of York and the Duke of Monmouth; where Charles played the role of the referee.
Shaftesbury’s Corruption
It seems that Shaftesbury’s impression of Monmouth upon their first meeting as weak-minded when he was only sixteen was one shared by many. However to appreciate his faults, his strength’s have to be noted. “Everybody paid tribute to his courage, and many people praised and admired him for his generosity and the sincerity of his manner. One remarkable quality he had, which was to be invaluable to him during his short life of 36 years, was his ability to inspire followers with esteem, enthusiasm, and devotion.”70 Accordingly, John Evelyn in his diaries tells of the character of Monmouth by way of his actions in the fire of September 2nd 1666. Describing the Scene, Evelyn wrote:
“I saw ye whole south part of ye city burning from Cheapside to ye Thames, and all along Cornehill (for it like-wise kindl’d back against ye wind as well as forward), Tower Streete, Fen-Church Streete, Gracios Streete and so along to Bernards Castle, and was now aking hold of St. Pauls’s Church to which the scaffolds contributed exceedingly.” However, through the burning heat, ogether with the King and the Duke of York, the Duke of Monmouth “stood for hours ankle deep in water, handing buckets and playing the fire engines.”71
However, “Monmouth had not a strong mind; he was unstable and too easily influenced by ambitious intriguers for their own ends.” Specifically Shaftesbury was the most wicked of theses influences. Charles James Fox in his work described Monmouth with insight: “appearing at Court in the bloom of youth, with a beautiful figure, and engaging manners, known to be the darling of the monarch, it is no wonder that he was early assailed by the arts of flattery; and it is rather a proof that he had not the strongest of all minds, than of any extraordinary weakness of character, that he was not proof against them.”72
Shaftesbury himself is remembered and considered by many as the leader of the Country party, the violent opposition of the Court party. He is generally credited with having a harmful influence on the impressionable Monmouth and sowing the initial seeds of distrust between him and his father in order to encourage the Duke of Monmouth to rebel.73 However, it is important to note that Shaftesbury also served in some auspicious offices during Charles II’s reign including Chancellor of the Exchequer, President of the Council of Trade, Treasury Commissioner and Lord Chancellor.74 It was with the influence of his position that Shaftesbury, in 1667 along with the Duke of Buckingham, in the advancement of his newly formed Country party, later to be referred to as the Whigs, suggested to the King that he declare Monmouth his heir, and that they would prove his marriage to his mother.75 The king completely rejected this idea and Shaftesbury was forced to come up with another scheme to rid the Court of what he and his contemporaries considered the Papist threat that James Duke of York would inherit the kingdom.76 It is important to point out however, that there are a small sample of those who believe that in fact Monmouth was underestimated, and that it may have been he who was using Shaftsebury and his party as a means to accomplish his own ends of ascending the throne.77
During the years following Monmouth’s last professional military service, suppressing the insurrection in Scotland, the country’s climate had continued to change and encourage a culture of anti-Catholic sentiment. Monmouth’s positive role in the Popish Plots enhanced his popularity. On the other hand, the popularity of James, Duke of York declined significantly during this time and the outcry of excluding him by virtue of his Catholic religion was perfect juxtaposition to James, the Duke of Monmouth’s Protestant beliefs.78 Monmouth’s general love of the people, and “his friendship with the popular idols of the day, led to his being regarded as the champion of Protestantism and of freedom;79 he was their “Protestant Duke.”
Fall From Grace
Monmouth was generally known by the populace as, “a staunch friend, an enemy to oppression, and a firm adherer to his word.”80 He was universally known to be “high spirited and was a leader in his peer groups and also apparently in fashion coining a style of hat wearing that survived even his death called the “Monmouth cock.” To his followers he could do no wrong, but when he did his popularity with the Court and the love of his father outweighed the importance of any alleged transgressions. The two most noted examples of escaping penalty due to his charm was his involvement in the disfiguring of Sir John Coventry’s nose over an argument that occurred in the House of Commons;81 and the part he played in the murdering of the “beadle.”82
Unfortunately for Monmouth, his popularity within the Court began to wane in the mid 1670’s. Although James Duke of York had been banished, King Charles was seized with an alarming illness at Windsor and the possibility of his eminent death stirred up a political hotbed concerning who the successor should be. The theory of the “black box” asserting the legitimacy of Monmouth again began to circulate around this time. “The friends of the rival dukes were of course on the alert, and had the King died at that juncture, there would, no doubt, have been a struggle for the succession. But Charles, in, his danger, was not forgetful of his brother's interests, and, with his permission, James was secretly sent for from Brussels, in order to be ready for any emergency.”83 After the scare, opponents of Monmouth within the Court such as Laurence Hyde and Lord Peterborough took the opportunity to voice how “unfair it was that the Duke of York be banished and the Duke of Monmouth remaine in England.84 Consequently, both Dukes were banished and Monmouth reluctantly left for Holland.”85 Monmouth was also stripped of his post as Captain-General and other titles.86
However, the following year, on November 22, 1680, Monmouth, having in vain solicited his recall, decided on returning to England without permission. The action was dangerous considering the existing political climate and his general disfavor in the Court. Yet once again his charm and popularity prevailed, at least amongst the people, and “although it was midnight when he entered London, the watch took it upon themselves to arouse the sleeping inhabitants, by announcing to them the return of their idol. Within an hour or two the church-bells were ringing their joyous peals, and bonfires blazed in the streets.”87 In spite of his warm welcome by the populace, Monmouth was arrested by order of the king. Monmouth acquiesced quietly. The king was furious at Monmouth’s defiance of his orders and initially refused to entertain him at the Court until he did.
However, the Duke remained in England and at length, Monmouth toured the West raising support for the Whig party while continually trying to win back the favor of his father, but the terms of reconcile could not be agreed upon. Monmouth was exiled (by word) for a second time after he offered to stand bail for Shaftesbury after his release from the Tower where he had been detained on charges of high treason.88 He also lost his last two remaining offices at that time. The Whigs had lost the Exclusion Bill,89 their political positions were being picked off one by one and all attempts of Shaftesbury and other prominent Whigs to reconcile their antagonistic behavior against the Court failed. Over all, the political climate was a tempest and the Whig party, after losing their ability to achieve power through constitutional means began to think of more drastic measures to achieve their ends.90 Moreover, the year of 1682 was a trying year for Monmouth, he saw his old rival James the Duke of York successfully petition for return to England, was in the distinct disfavor of his father and lost one of his best friends, Thomas Thynne to a brutal shooting and watched him die; the Court subsequently pardoned the murderer and infuriated Monmouth. 91 His resentment for the Court and Charles, like that of his party grew to a fevered pitch. The overall feeling was ripe for an ill fated Plot.
The Rye House Plot was “a shadowy London conspiracy or set of conspiracies which, early in 1683, [Whigs] may well have discussed murdering the King as he returned to London from the Newmarket races.”92 The actual conditions and provisions of the Rye House Plot are much debated. Some believe Monmouth and other prominent Whigs such as Shaftesbury to be planning the murder of the king, some the abduction of him. What is known is that on June 12th “Josiah Keeling, a minor Whig organizer in the City, made a deposition before Secretary Jenkins saying that a few weeks prior he had been engaged in a conspiracy with Rumbold and Goodenough and others to assassinate the King on his return from Newmarket.”93 Of course the Tories seized on the admission and believed it immediately. As Iris Morley wrote in A Thousand Lives, “It was in fact exactly what they had been waiting for. Irrespective of the evidence—scanty, true or palpably false—a powerful body of opinion felt justified in accepting it because fundamentally and symbolically it was true.” 94 Furthermore regardless of the truth or falsity, many Whigs were forced out of the country and among them James the Duke of Monmouth.
Another defining aspect of Monmouth’s life occurred during this time also. He fell madly in love with the “only woman to ever hold his heart,” Lady Henrietta Wentworth. Upon Monmouth’s return to the capital, after his exile in Holland, he was in such high spirits he was the sole cause of at least two women being cast out of the city out of his reach. The first was the wife of Lord Grey who was demanded by her husband to pack her things and head to the country within a few hours of his learning of a ‘Monmouth’ threat. The “universal terror of husbands and lovers”95 also caused Lady Wentworth to pack up her twenty- four year old daughter, Henrietta Wentworth ‘in such haste that it ma[d]e a stir,’ The alleged liaison with Lady Grey fizzled to obscurity, but the relationship with Lady Henrietta Wentworth blossomed into a deep emotional connection.96 Thomas Bruce, Earl of Ailesbury, who was once in love with Henrietta himself, wrote in about the love the two had for each other and of their belief that in the eyes of God they were husband and wife. It was to her house in Toddington in Hertfordshire he ran after the calamity ensued and many of his friends and allies were imprisoned.
Monmouth against all odds reconciled with his father by way of an affectionate letter and was let back into the court. However, the reconciliation only lasted twelve days because Monmouth refused to affirm a letter drafted by the king and previously signed by him that went against the interest of his party. King Charles, again, banished him. Monmouth left England for Brussels in April 1684.97
The Death of a Protestant King
During the two next years, the Protestant Duke resided principally in Holland, “in which country he was treated with hospitality and respect.” He stayed with the Prince and Princess of Orange. 98 As was typical of Charles’ love for his son, however, he again began communications with Monmouth by way of Halifax about the possibility of reconciliation. Unfortunately for Monmouth, his father tragically died before any of those plans came into fruition. James ascended the throne and used his influence with his son in law, Prince of Orange to procure Monmouth’s expulsion from Holland. James subsequently withdrew to his paramour, Lady Henrietta Wentworth in Brussels were he began to be an avid student.99 After being forced to leave Brussels, James wondered for a while and settled eventually again with his mistress. If James Duke of Monmouth had stayed there in the arms of his lover, his fate would have been different. Instead he kept contact with other Whig party members such as Sir Patrick Hume and Archibald Campbell Earl of Argyle who tried to beseech him to assert his claim as rightful heir to the throne. “When the project had been first proposed to him, no one could have expressed himself more sensibly on the rashness and desperation of the undertaking. Surrounded, however, by the wildest Protestant zealots, his weak and vacillating mind afforded but little proof against their specious and animating arguments.”100 It is believed that his eventual acquiescence and last ditch effort to gain his rightful place was based on his belief that he was “predestined by Heaven to be the champion of Protestantism in the approaching religious crusade.”101 Unfortunately, although James “imagined himself as the leader of the party, in fact he was their tool.”102
In June 1685, James landed at Lyme, with scarcely a hundred followers; and although their numbers soon increased, it was not enough to overcome the royal army. On June 16, 1985 an Act of Attainder was passed convicting Monmouth of high treason and a reward of £5000 was offered for his capture, either dead or alive.103 James declared himself King on June 20, 1685 at Taunton, which proved to be a fatal folly. On July 6, 1685, the rebels were defeated at the Battle of Sedgemoor.104 Monmouth was captured days later lying in a ditch asleep. Despite apparent attempts to plead his uncle and mortal enemy for his life, Monmouth was executed by the ax of Jack Ketch on July 15, 1685 on Tower Hill. The execution was botched.105
The tragedy of the Duke of Monmouth was summarized in an apologetic poem by Dryden:
Unblamed of life, ambition set aside,
Not stained with cruelty, not puffed with pride;
How happy had he been, if destiny
Had higher placed his birth, or not so high '
His kingly virtues might have claimed a throne,
And blest all other countries but his own :
But charming greatness since so few refuse, '
Tis juster to lament him than accuse." 106
Bibliography
Allen Fea, King Monmouth Being A History of the Career of James Scott “The Protestant Duke”, (John Lane, The Bodley Head London 1902).
Bryan Bevan, James Duke of Monmouth (Robert Hale & Company 1973).
Bryan Bevan, The Protestant Duke (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1976).
Elixabeth D’Oyley, James Duke of Monmouth (C. Chivers 1983).
George Roberts, The Life, Progress and Rebellion of James, Duke of Monmouth (Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans 1844).
The Gentleman’s Magazine (John Bowyer Nichols and Son 1850).
Iris Morley, A Thousand Lives (Andre Dutch Limited 1954).
John H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Court of England During the Reign of the Stuarts: Including the Protectorate, vol. 3 (Richard Bentley 1855).
J.N.P. Watson, Captain-General and Rebel Chief (George Allen & Unwin 1979).
Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford 1857).
Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University 1994).
Robin Clifton, The Last Popular Rebellion (Maurice Temple 1984).
Thomas B. Macaulay The History of England From the Accession of James the Second, (An Excerpt Ch. 4 -10) (1848).
William Fraser, The Scotts of Buccleuch vol. I. (1878)
William H. Dixon, Her Majesty’s Tower (Hurst and Blackett Publishers 1871).
William Russel & Charles Coote, The History of Modern Europe: With an Account of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (Abraham Small 1822).
1 George Roberts in The Life of the Duke of Monmouth stated that Lucy Walters was the daughter of Richard Walter. However, multiple other sources such as Bryan Bevan, James Duke of Monmouth 12 (1973) have refuted that information.
2 Bryan Bevan, James Duke of Monmouth 12 (1973).
3 See William Russell & Charles Coote, History of Modern Europe 318 (1822).
4 Bevan, supra note 2, at 24.
5 Id. James II in memoirs said that Lucy Walter died in Paris, after the Restoration, from a disease that was “incident to her profession.” Id.
6 James, Duke of Monmouth was borne three months after his grandfather Charles I was executed at Whitehall. Id. at 14.
7 Iris Morely, A Thousand Lives 13 (1954).
8 Bevan, supra note 2, at 37.
9 Id. at 13.
10 For proof of the resemblance please compare the miniature painting of James Duke of Monmouth hanging at Windsor Castle, painted by Samuel Cooper to the William Dobson’s portrait of Charles II at age fourteen.
11 Id. at 14.
12 Id.
13 Bevan, supra note 2, at 16.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 17.
16 Id. at 17.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 18.
20 Id. at 21.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 22.
24 Morley, supra note 7, at 14.
25 Id. at 24.
26 Id. at 25.
27 Allen Fea, King Monmouth: Being a History of the Career of James Scott "The Protestant Duke” 27 (1902).
28 Bryan Bevan, James Duke of Monmouth 25 (1973).
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 28.
33 See Id. at 25.
<34 Bevan, supra note 28, at 28.
35 Id. at 29.
36 Id. at 30.
37 Pepys was mistaken about James’s age. He was actually 13 at the time he arrived in England. Id. at 30.
38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Morley, supra note 7, at 62.
41 Bevan, supra note 28, at 30.
42 Id. at 32.
43See Fraser, The Scotts of Buccleuch, Vol. I. (1878)
44 Bevan, supra note 28, at 33.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 34.
47 Id. at 35.
48 Id.
49 However, the original title granted, “Baron of Fotheringay” because of its tragic associations for the Stuarts in the fate of Charles’s great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots, was not considered a suitable title. It was struck out, and “Baron Tynedale” substituted.” Fea, supra note 23, at 33.
50 Id.
51 See Fea, supra note 23, at 38 (omitting the word skittish); See also Bevan, supra note 24, at 28.
52 William Russell & Charles Coote, History of Modern Europe 318 (1822).
53 Bryan Bevan, James Duke of Monmouth 50 (1973).
54 Id. at 42.
55 Id.
<56 Id. at 43.
57 See Fea, supra note 27, at 38.
58 Bevan, supra note 43, at 43.
59 Id. at 44.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 See Bevan, supra note 53, at 33.
63 Fea, supra note 27, at 63.
64 Bevan, supra note 53, at 46.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 The actual title is uncertain, some refer to the appointment as Captain-General, others as Commander in Chief, but for the purpose of this paper they can be used interchangeably.
68 Allen Fea, King Monmouth: Being a History of the Career of James Scott "The Protestant Duke” 64 (1902).
69 See Fae, supra note 68, at 39; See also Bevan, supra note 53, at 90.
70 Id. at 48; see also John H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Court of England During the Reign of the Stuarts: Including the Protectorate, vol. 3 118-119 (1855).
71 Memoirs and Correspondence of John Evelyn Vol. II p.262.
72 Bryan Bevan, James Duke of Monmouth 81 (1973).
73 Id. at 82, 83.
74 Id. at 81.
75 Moreley, supra note 7, at 63.
76 Id.
77 Robin Clifton, The Last Popular Rebellion, 116 (1984).
78 See Bevan supra note 72, Jesse, infra note 79, at 118-119
79 John Heneage Jesse, Memoirs of England During the Reign of the Stuarts 119 (1855).
80 Id. at 112.
81 Id. at 115.
82 Id.
83 Jesse, supra note 79, at 115.
84 See Bevan, supra note 72, at 107.
85 Id. at 109.
86 See Jesse, supra note 79, at 121.
87 Id. at 123. During his progress through the countryside, Monmouth continued to connect with the people. While in Liverpool, the Protestant Duke, typical to his high spiritedness, engaged in the country games which included racing on foot. After beating the swiftest racers on foot, he would race them again allowing them to wear shoes while he wore his boots! The prizes he won during the competitions were given away at Christenings in the evening. Id. at 125.
88 Bevan, supra note 72, at 140.
89 Iris Morley, A Thousand Lives 127 (1954).
90 See Clifton, supra note 77, at 134-135; See also Morely, supra note 89, at 127.
91 Clifton, supra note 77, at 135.
92 Id. at 140
93 Id.
94 Iris Morely, A Thousand Lives 148-149 (1954).
95 John Heneage Jesse, Memoirs of the Court of England During the Reign of the Stuarts; Including The Protectorate, 114 (1855).
96 See Clifton, supra note 77, at 121.
97 at, 142-143.
98 Jesse, supra note 95, at 130.
99 Id.
100 Bryan Bevan, James the Duke of Monmouth 188-189(1973).
101 Jesse, supra note 95, at 136.
102 Id.
103 Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, from Sept. 1678 to April 1714, 347 (1857); see also 1 Jac. II, c. 2 (1685) (the statute referencing the Act of attainder).
104 The Battle of Sedgemoor is the last battle to be fought on English soil.
105 It was a horrid scene; John Ketch, the executioner, apparently had a dull blade and had to strike James again and again as the crowd yelled in horror at the sight. The crowd was so outraged; Ketch had to be escorted from Tower Hill so that the crowd didn’t pull him apart. James B. Macaulay The History of England From the Accession of James the Second, An Excerpt Ch. 4 -10, 570 (1848).
106 Jesse, supra note 95 at 131.