And the medicine seemed to work as, in little more than a decade, France turned from the sick man of Europe into the European super-power. It also became the very model of a modern monarchy.
The rise of France posed for the English the same dilemma as the earlier rise of the Dutch. How would the English see the new France? As a threat? Or as a model?
For most of Charles’s subjects, Louis’s aggressive Catholicism meant that the issue was not in doubt: France not only threatened to become a universal monarchy but what was even worse a universal Catholic monarchy.
The result was that when, less than a year after the debacle of the battle of the Medway, England not only made peace with the Dutch but joined them in an alliance against France, the news was greeted with widespread rejoicing.
But not by Charles. The king harboured a grudge against the Dutch for the stain on his honour of defeat by a mere republic. He also took a very different view of both Louis and Catholicism from most of his subjects. Partly it was a matter of family connection. Charles himself was half French through his mother, Henrietta Maria. And the ties were strengthened when his youngest sister, also named Henrietta Maria, married Louis’s brother, Philippe, duke of Orleans. Henrietta, who was as intelligent as she was pretty, promptly became a firm favourite of Louis (indeed, his interest was rumoured to be more than brotherly) and a powerful conduit between the two courts.
And there was a similar family inclination to Catholicism. So when in 1668 Charles’s brother James informed him that he had converted to Rome, Charles, far from expressing horror, confided in him his intention to do the same. It remained only to work out the means.
A secret meeting was summoned on 25 January 1669 in James’s private closet or study, at which only the king, his brother and three confidential advisers were present. Tearfully Charles explained his determination to adopt the true faith. But how? The fear of a Catholicized monarchy was, as everyone knew, enough to rouse Englishmen to arms. In the face of this threat the rest unanimously advised him to inform Louis and seek his powerful advice and assistance.
Charles and Louis had already opened secret negotiations, with Henrietta Maria, duchess of Orleans, as go-between, for a renversement d’alliances that would see England and France joining together to make war on the Dutch. Now Charles’s professed resolution to convert to Catholicism raised the stakes still higher.
It took over a year to reach agreement. Finally, in May 1670, under cover of a flying visit by the duchess of Orleans to see her brother, the secret Treaty of Dover was signed. (It was called ‘secret’ because it was so closely guarded that most of Charles’s ministers were not informed of its existence.) In it, Charles reaffirmed his ‘plan to reconcile himself with the Roman Church’, while Louis, for his part, promised Charles a subsidy of 2 million livres to help him suppress any armed resistance to his conversion, together, if need be, with 6000 French troops. The two monarchs were then to coordinate an attack on the Netherlands, with Louis bearing the brunt of the land war and Charles the naval.
Was Charles’s undertaking to convert real? Or a diplomatic ploy that proved too clever by half ? In any case, though the actual text of the Treaty of Dover remained a closely guarded secret, the rumours surrounding it led to a dangerous polarization in English politics. The worst fears of Charles’s opponents were confirmed by the final steps that led to the outbreak of war. On 5 January 1672, Charles unilaterally suspended all payments from the Exchequer for a year; on 15 March he published the Declaration of Indulgence, which, on the model of the abortive declaration of a decade earlier, used the royal prerogative to suspend the Clarendon Code for Catholics as well as Protestant dissenters. Then, two days later, he joined Louis in declaring war on the Dutch.
The effect was to reconfirm the fatal association in the public mind of arbitrary government with Catholicism and an unpopular and, as it turned out, unsuccessful foreign policy. For the Dutch, despite the French occupying five out of their seven provinces, refused to roll over. Instead, they broke the dykes and used the flood waters to stop the French advance into the heartland of Holland. Still worse, from Charles’s point of view, the man who led the heroic Dutch resistance was his own nephew, William, prince of Orange.
For the system of hereditary monarchy meant that the rivalries of the great European powers were also family quarrels. France was ruled by King Charles’s cousin, Louis XIV, while France’s Continental rival Holland was ruled by his nephew William, the son of Charles’s eldest sister, Mary, princess royal of England, and William II, prince of Orange.
But William III was a very different ruler from Louis, the Sun King, the absolute monarch of all he surveyed. For the head of the House of Orange was not sovereign in the Dutch Republic, but first among equals. Sovereignty instead resided in the Estates of the seven provinces. But ever since William the Silent’s leadership of the Dutch Revolt against Spain in the late sixteenth century, his descendants as princes of Orange had traditionally been made stadholder or governor of each of the provinces and captain-general and admiral of the armed forces of the republic.
It was an important position. But to exploit its potential required talent and tact on the part of the reigning prince. He also had to cope with strong republican elements among the Dutch urban elites, who were jealous of the quasi-regal pretensions of the House of Orange and were determined to cut it down to size. William would prove more than equal to the task.
His beginnings were inauspicious enough, however. In 1649, his English grandfather, Charles I, was executed, and the following year his own father died of smallpox at the age of only twenty-four. Eight days later, on 14 November 1650, William was born as a posthumous child in a black-hung bedchamber.
Quarrels between his widowed mother, Princess Mary, and his grandmother, Princess Dowager Amalia, for his guardianship played into the hands of the anti-Orange faction in the republic, led by the Grand Pensionary or chief administrator of Holland, De Witt, who not only managed to withhold the family’s traditional offices from the young prince but even went so far as to abolish them.
None of this had much impact on the young prince, who was brought up in his birthplace, the Binnenhof Palace in The Hague, first in his moth-er’s apartment and then in his own. At the age of six he was given his first tutor, a local clergyman, and at the age of nine a governor, who came from the cadet Nassau branch of the princely house.
From his tutor he absorbed a firm Calvinistic Protestantism and from his governor a sense of the historic destiny of the House of Orange and a passionate love of hunting. He also emerged as a man’s man, with little time for women but a lot for attractive young men.
And all of these things – his religiosity, his family pride, even his homoeroticism – came together in the crisis of 1672, when he discovered his lifelong vocation as leader of the military resistance to French hegemony and the champion of Protestantism first in the Netherlands and then throughout Europe.
William was not the only Protestant in Charles’s family. Only a few months after the Restoration, Charles’s brother James, duke of York, had married Anne Hyde, daughter of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the author of the notorious Code that defended the Church of England against Catholics and dissenters. Many, including the queen mother, Henrietta Maria, were scandalized at the mésalliance between a prince and a commoner. But Anne proved a dignified duchess and a loyal wife. She also brought up her two daughters, Mary and Anne, as committed Anglican Protestants despite their father’s zealous devotion to the Roman Catholic Church.
And this Protestant grouping within the royal family became even stronger in 1677, when, as a result of the perpetual switchback of politics at Charles’s court between Protestantism and Catholicism and France and the Netherlands, it was decided that William of Orange should marry his cousin, James and Anne’s eldest daughter Mary. Charles’s alliance with Louis and James’s Catholicism had outraged the nation. It seemed as if the suspiciously Catholic royal court was subverting the national reli
gion by joining Louis’s campaigns against the Netherlands. The sudden U-turn to a marriage alliance with the Protestant Dutch Republic was intended to reassure the public and Parliament.
The wedding took place at Whitehall on 4 November 1677, the prince’s birthday. Despite the auspicious anniversary, however, the marriage was hardly a meeting of minds or bodies. The fifteen-year-old Mary, beautiful and vivacious, towered over the dour bridegroom, who, despite his reputation as a warrior prince, was weak in body, hunched and asthmatic. She is said to have wept for a day and a half when she was told she was going to marry the Dutchman; while William, for his part, had made prudential enquiries via the wife of the English ambassador in The Hague as to Mary’s suitability for a man like himself, who ‘might not perhaps be very easy for a wife to live with’.
The answers seem to have satisfied him. And, after a shaky start, the forecast proved to be correct. Rumours of pregnancies soon dried up and Mary was jealous of William’s quick and, as it turned out, lifelong attachment to her lady-in-waiting, Elizabeth Villiers. But this was an affair of the head rather than the heart, and William and Mary soon became mutually devoted. Indeed, Mary would put her loyalty to her husband above that to her own father. English history would have been very different otherwise.
IV
The marriage of William and Mary took on a further significance. Mary would inherit the English throne after her father James died, and would then, of course, bring her kingdom’s might into alliance with William’s Holland. For Mary and her younger sister Anne were the only legitimate children of the royal house of the younger generation. William himself was fourth in line, after his wife and sister-in-law.
For King Charles, so philoprogenitive with other women, had no children with his wife, Catherine of Braganza. When Charles had first seen the princess, with her hair dressed in long projecting ringlets in the Portuguese fashion, he is supposed to have exclaimed, ‘they have brought me a bat!’ But, despite her repeated miscarriages and at least one serious exploration of the possibility of divorce on grounds of her barrenness, Charles – perhaps out of guilt, perhaps out of affection – stuck with her.
The result was a replay of the twin crises of religion, in the form of the Royal Supremacy over the Church, and the succession, which had plagued English politics since the reign of Henry VIII. Known as the Exclusion Crisis, because it focused on the attempt to exclude Charles’s brother James from the succession, it threatened to set the Stuarts on their travels once more. And his handling of it showed Charles at his best and worst.
James was made of very different stuff from his sinuous elder brother Charles. Every bit as highly sexed (indeed, he slept with a stream of common whores so ugly that wits claimed they had been prescribed as penance by his confessor!), James was otherwise formal, unimaginative and good at receiving orders and delegating them to subordinates. In short, there was something in him of the centurion in the Bible who told Jesus: ‘I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come and he cometh.’
So it was with James. Unlike Charles, who regarded his secret and half-hearted attachment to Catholicism as a matter of mere diplomatic and political expediency, James, after he had embraced the true faith as he saw it, never once deviated from it in word or deed: ‘it was like a rod of steel running through thirty years’.
It was also to prove an absolute dividing line in English history.
The first test of James’s resolve came quickly. In February 1673, the strongly Anglican Parliament was recalled and immediately set itself to force the king to overturn the Declaration of Indulgence. Lured by a generous promise of taxation, Charles agreed. Parliament then pressed home its advantage by passing the Test Act. This banned from all public office, civil or military, anyone who would not swear to the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy; take communion according to the rite of the Church of England; and just to make sure sign a declaration against the key Catholic belief of transubstantiation, by which the bread and wine in the mass were held to become the actual body and blood of Christ.
James, as Lord Admiral, held such a public office; but, as a now convinced Catholic, he could take neither the required oaths nor the Anglican sacrament. The deadline for swearing the oaths was 14 June; that day James surrendered the Admiralty to the king. His resignation resolved the immediate issue; it raised, however, a much bigger one: if, as a Roman Catholic, James could not be Lord Admiral, how could he be entrusted with the infinitely greater responsibility of kingship? And, if not, could Parliament break the sacred line of succession and the integrity of its monarchy for the sake of its religion? It seemed like another version of resistance theory, this time in the name of the Church of England.
But down that route most respectable Englishmen, traumatized by the execution of Charles I, were not prepared to go unless something very extraordinary occurred.
In the late summer of 1678, the extraordinary duly happened in the shape of the Popish Plot. It is one of the strangest episodes of mass delusion and hysteria in English history; it starred one of the most remarkable hoaxers, Titus Oates, while its setting was the teeming metropolis of London, where Parliament, court and City all lived cheek by jowl with what was now the largest urban population in Europe. It was where men went to make their careers and to disappear.
One of those perhaps with more to escape from than most was Titus Oates. Lame, stunted, homosexual and extraordinarily ugly (his mouth was described as being in the middle of his face), he had failed at everything. He had been expelled from school; passed through two Cambridge colleges without getting a degree; been ordained on false pretences and driven out of his parish for making a false accusation of sodomy; been cashiered as a naval chaplain for committing buggery himself; and finally, after a probably false conversion to Catholicism, he had been frogmarched out of no less than three Jesuit seminaries.
By July 1678, the twenty-nine-year-old Oates was back in London and desperate for survival and for revenge on the world in general and on Catholics in particular. His scheme was to invent a gigantic Catholic conspiracy, masterminded by his erstwhile teachers, the Jesuits, to murder Charles and forcibly reconvert England. He found a willing listener in a fanatically anti-Catholic clergyman and, at his suggestion, wrote the whole thing up in the form of a deposition of forty-three articles.
On 13 August, a copy was handed to Charles while he was taking his usual brisk morning walk in St James’s Park; on 6 September Oates also swore to the truth of his deposition before Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, a fashionable, rather publicity-seeking magistrate; and on 28/29 September Oates appeared before the Privy Council itself.
Charles shredded his evidence from his own knowledge. But his advisers, from a mixture of motives, were inclined to take Oates more seriously and gave him a free hand to arrest the alleged plotters. And here Oates, for the first time in his life, struck lucky. Anne, duchess of York, had died in 1671, and two years later James had remarried the Catholic Mary of Modena. One of those Oates accused was Edward Coleman, Mary of Modena’s secretary.
Coleman was almost as great a fantasist as Oates himself. Unfortunately, he had tried to put his schemes into action by soliciting money from Père la Chaise, Louis XIV’s highly influential confessor. Copies of the correspondence were discovered when his papers were searched and they contained a damning paragraph: ‘Success for his schemes’, Coleman wrote, ‘would give the greatest blow to the Protestant religion that it had received since its birth … They had a mighty work on their hands, no less than the conversion of three kingdoms, and by that perhaps the utter subduing of a pestilent heresy, which had so long domineered over great part of the northern world.’ Here at last, it seemed, was proof positive of Oates’s allegations, with a conspiracy extending to the heart of the royal family itself.
Oates’s winning streak continued, even more sensationally, when Justice Godfrey, before whom he had sworn his deposition, disappeared in mysterious circumsta
nces on 12 October. Already that evening rumours were sweeping through the City that he had been murdered by the papists. Five days later the rumours seemed to be confirmed when his body was found face down in a ditch on Primrose Hill. There was heavy bruising round his neck and his own sword had been driven through his heart so hard that the point protruded several inches from his back. Despite the violence, however, none of his valuables had been taken.
Even at the time, some suspected that the death was a suicide disguised as a murder. But such doubts were brushed aside and the coroner’s jury returned the verdict of ‘murder’. And there was no doubt in the popular mind that it was murder by Oates’s papist conspirators. Godfrey was now reinvented as a Protestant martyr. His body was laid in state in his house and, on 31 October, given an impressive funeral at St Martin-in-the-Fields, at which the preacher preached a fiery sermon on the text ‘As a man falleth before the wicked, so fallest thou’. Medals were struck in his honour and pamphlets written.
Fears of a massacre of Protestants now swept the capital; the preacher at Godfrey’s funeral stood between two heavies dressed as clergymen and ladies carried daggers inscribed ‘Remember Justice Godfrey’ for their own protection from Catholic assassins.
In the midst of all this, on 21 October 1678, Parliament assembled. As the hysteria of the plot gathered force, no fewer than thirty-five people, mostly Catholic priests, were condemned to the hideous death of a traitor on the mere say-so of Oates and his steadily increasing band of associate informers.
But the parliamentary opposition, led by the earl of Shaftesbury, aimed at the biggest Catholic target of all: James, duke of York, the king’s brother and the heir presumptive of the Imperial Crown of Britain.
V
Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, was one of the most complex and controversial figures of a complex and controversial age. He was very short, had strongly marked features and was known as ‘Tapski’, from the tube and tap which, in a dangerous and innovatory operation, had been inserted by his physician, John Locke, into his abdomen to drain an abscess on his liver.
Crown & Country: A History of England Through the Monarchy Page 44