Page:The Story of Nell Gwyn.djvu/151

This page has been validated.

KING CHARLES'S CHILDREN.

135

made her one of the most conspicuous of the Kneller Beauties, still so attractive in the collection at Hampton Court.^[1]

↑ When Dugdale was busy with his "Baronage," he laid the following statement of difficulties before the King.
"Whereas the second volume of an Historicall Worke, intituled the Baronage of England (being extracted from publiq records, and other authorities) is now in the presse; and extending from the end of K. Henry the Third's reigne containeth what is most memorable of the English Nobility throughout all times since; in w^ch the preambles of most Creation Patents have been usefull. Descending down to the reign of this king, the Author humbly concieveth, that there is some deficiency in that of the Duke of Monmouth's Creation; no mention at all being made that he is his Ma^ties naturall son, though in some patents, and other instruments since, he hath been owned so to be. In that also of the Countesse of Castlemaine, whereby she hath the title of Countesse of Southampton and Dutchesse of Cleveland, conferred on her; her eldest son (on whom those honours are entailed) is denominated Charles Palmer, and George (her third son) to whom, in case Charles die w^thout issue male, the remaynder is limitted, is sayd to be her second son, and likewise surnamed Palmer; but afterwards, upon his being created Earle of Northumberland, called Fitz-roy, and sayd to be her third son. Also in the Creation-Patent of the same Charles, to be Duke of Southampton, the name of Fitz-roy is attributed to him. These things considered, the Author most humbly craveth direction what to do herein; whether to decline the mention of all his Ma^ties creations, rather than from the authoritie of these Patents to divulge such contradictions; though thereby he shall hazard the displeasure of some, whom his Ma^tie hath deservedly raysed to such degrees of honour, since his happy restoration.
"If it be resolved, that all of them shall be called Fitz-roys; Then forasmuch as the Duke of Southampton, and Earle of Northumberland, and likewise the Duke of Grafton, are sayd to be the King's naturall sons by the sayd Dutchesse of Cleveland; whether it will not be as proper to make mention on what particular woman his Ma^tie begot the Dukes of Monmouth, Richmond, and E. of Plimouth?
"This being shewed to K. Charles the Second, by the Earl of Anglesey, then L^d Privye Seale, the king directed that these his naturall children should be all of them called Fitz-Roys; but no mention to be made of the mothers of these three last-named; viz. Monmouth, Richmond, and Plymouth."
Hamper’s Life of Dugdale, p. 494.

[1] When Dugdale was busy with his "Baronage," he laid the following statement of difficulties before the King.
"Whereas the second volume of an Historicall Worke, intituled the Baronage of England (being extracted from publiq records, and other authorities) is now in the presse; and extending from the end of K. Henry the Third's reigne containeth what is most memorable of the English Nobility throughout all times since; in w^ch the preambles of most Creation Patents have been usefull. Descending down to the reign of this king, the Author humbly concieveth, that there is some deficiency in that of the Duke of Monmouth's Creation; no mention at all being made that he is his Ma^ties naturall son, though in some patents, and other instruments since, he hath been owned so to be. In that also of the Countesse of Castlemaine, whereby she hath the title of Countesse of Southampton and Dutchesse of Cleveland, conferred on her; her eldest son (on whom those honours are entailed) is denominated Charles Palmer, and George (her third son) to whom, in case Charles die w^thout issue male, the remaynder is limitted, is sayd to be her second son, and likewise surnamed Palmer; but afterwards, upon his being created Earle of Northumberland, called Fitz-roy, and sayd to be her third son. Also in the Creation-Patent of the same Charles, to be Duke of Southampton, the name of Fitz-roy is attributed to him. These things considered, the Author most humbly craveth direction what to do herein; whether to decline the mention of all his Ma^ties creations, rather than from the authoritie of these Patents to divulge such contradictions; though thereby he shall hazard the displeasure of some, whom his Ma^tie hath deservedly raysed to such degrees of honour, since his happy restoration.
"If it be resolved, that all of them shall be called Fitz-roys; Then forasmuch as the Duke of Southampton, and Earle of Northumberland, and likewise the Duke of Grafton, are sayd to be the King's naturall sons by the sayd Dutchesse of Cleveland; whether it will not be as proper to make mention on what particular woman his Ma^tie begot the Dukes of Monmouth, Richmond, and E. of Plimouth?
"This being shewed to K. Charles the Second, by the Earl of Anglesey, then L^d Privye Seale, the king directed that these his naturall children should be all of them called Fitz-Roys; but no mention to be made of the mothers of these three last-named; viz. Monmouth, Richmond, and Plymouth."
Hamper’s Life of Dugdale, p. 494.

[1]

Page:The Story of Nell Gwyn.djvu/151

Navigation menu

Search