Dear John,
Yes, indeed you are right about Charles II. Quite a careless gloss on my
part. (But, as a Protestant, it makes me feel a lot better about
possibly being descended from William Q. All in the family, you know...)
Please see my NOTES in your edited message below.
I was very glad for that information connecting William Q to Chalgrove.
Thanks.
Sincerely and Repentantly Yours,
Clay Quarterman
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-quarterman@quarterman.org
> [mailto:owner-quarterman@quarterman.org] On Behalf Of John S.
> Quarterman
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: quarterman@quarterman.org
> Subject: Re: Royal Physician William Q with Pepys
...........
> 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'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.
[ This is the Quarterman family discussion list, quarterman@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.quarterman.org/list.html