Diplomats are probably aware that we have an archives section in Martin Library. However they are less likely to know the specific contents which lie therein. Some of the most unique contents include an ancient Sumerian tablet, and the Herbert H. Rawnsley autograph collection. Herbert H. Rawnsley was an alumni of F&M from the class of ‘40. One of his favorite hobbies was collecting signed manuscripts. He primarily obtained these manuscripts from auction houses, and in 2001 he generously donated his collection to the college (despite an appraisal signaling their worth to be around several hundred thousand dollars). The scope of this collection is quite large, comprising two boxes of autographed manuscripts from nearly every English monarch from Edward IV in the late 15th century to Elizabeth II in the 20th, and also contains documents from other prominent members of English society. Due to such a considerable size, I have spent, starting this February, several hours transcribing, and assisting to digitize these valuable documents. I have also been contacting historical societies in order to gain further insight into these documents.
I hope to make this a series, where I go through manuscripts from each ruler or person featured in the collection. If you would like to see these documents themselves in person, please contact Mr. Christopher Raab in the archives for an appointment via archives@fandm.edu.
In this edition, I will examine two manuscripts surrounding King James II of England and VII of Scotland (1633-1701) who ruled from 1685 to 1688. His short reign was marred with controversy because his Catholicism combined with his attempting to rule as an absolute monarch, against a Protestant country that began to increasingly cherish democracy. There are two other manuscripts relevant to James II, but they pertain to mundane administrative manners such as the purchasing of muskets for the Navy and supernumeraries to a Naval officer.
For more context on these manuscripts beforehand, these are authentic and original. On the prospect if they were documented before, it’s quite likely. These documents existed for nearly 300 years until they were bought at auction. For example, one of Richard Cromwell’s personal correspondences, who was the former Lord Protector of England from 1658 to 1659, was seen in an 1898 English Historical Review Journal of his letters before it made its way into Rawnsley’s hands. It is possible that these manuscripts have original copies. But after searching online to see if these manuscripts were published before, I found no trace, perhaps it was a fault in my search, or that the manuscripts had not been transcribed or digitized to the internet, or instead were only known to historical societies, that omitted them from publication of their findings. The latter possibility was replicated into my inquiring of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell’s manuscripts in the college’s archives, which I had learned were known to the Oliver Cromwell Association situated in England, which had some manuscripts in their publications, while the others were simply omitted (likely due to their mundane nature).
The first manuscript is a letter written in French, written and signed in the King’s own hand. Dated the 25th of August, 1685, it reads, from my own translation:
“My brother, I received two of your letters, one from last July, by which you praised me by the advantage that my arms had, by the grace of God, against the rebels of my Realms, the other of the 19th of August, giving me a part of the happy success, [because of] the arms of the Emperor, [James responds here] Sir my brother under your conduct against the common enemy; I took as much part as anyone, also well in consideration of the advantages that Christendom can be to take for in the glorious part that you had in it, and I hope, that you will be strongly persuaded, that as I have a lot of affection for you. I will volunteer myself on occasions of the power to testify to this, and that I am truly, your affectionate brother, James R at Windsor this 25 August 1685.”
James is not being literal in his addressing to “my brother”. It must be meant figuratively here, as James’s last-living brother died a few months prior. The language of the document gives us a hint to whomever this letter is addressed to, possibly being Louis de Duras, a principal leader of the effort to crush the rebellion, coming from a noble birth in France. But French was nevertheless a popular diplomatic and courtly language to write in, and James would have no qualms in using it, considering he spent many years in exile in France. The letter refers to the rebellion led by James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of James’ brother and the prior king, Charles II, and an uprising led by the Earl of Argyll in Scotland both in June of 1685. These rebellions were planned to coincide with each other, to force the Catholic James II off of the throne and install the Protestant although illegitimate James Scott as King. Although James Scott was James II’s nephew, it didn’t save him from getting beheaded (which was infamously botched) in July 1685. The Earl attained a similar fate a month earlier, which, fortunately for him, was not botched. After punishing the leaders, the attention turned to the rebels. The date on which this letter was written was August 25, 1685, the very same day when the punishments began. Called the Bloody Assizes, it saw around 800 people transported to the West Indies for slave labor, and around 300 executed, mostly in the barbaric manner of being hung until nearly dead, their guts drawn out, then their bodies quartered.
The second manuscript is a letter dated June 11, 1688, and is in Latin. The letter has only been signed in James’s hand, the rest has been written by someone else. As I do not know Latin, I had the help of the Royal Stuart Society for a translation. It reads:
“James the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, to the Most Illustrious and Most High Prince, Lord [this part is inked over] To Our Most Beloved Kinsman and Friend, Greetings. It seemed to me and his Highness the Prince, Kinsman and Most Beloved Friend, the generous Giver of all good things, to regard us, our Kingdoms and Dominions, well and now our most beloved Spouse, the Most Serene Queen Mary, yesterday, at about ten o’clock in the morning, gave birth to a healthy son full of life, who herself, by the Divine kindness, is safe and sound. This gift of Heaven means Our Heart should fill with exuberant joy, so we believed that of such news Our Friend and Ally would be most grateful, especially to His Majesty, as He was so sincerely affected by Our prosperous affairs. We have never seen Him so sincerely affected by Our prosperity. Therefore, we communicate this wonderful blessing of the Supreme Deity to Us at this time, to Your Majesty and, as much as possible, to other leaders, hoping that this new pledge of Our friendship with Your Majesty and His successors down the ages will be spread abroad widely. Given at Our Palace of Whitehall, 11th June, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-eighth of Our Reign. His Majesty’s Cousin and Friend James R.”
This letter has James celebrating the birth of his new child the day before. The child’s sex nor its name had not been revealed yet, but it would later become James Francis Edward Stewart, or “The Old Pretender” – nicknamed so because after the 1701 Act of Succession, which formally stripped him from succession to the Crown, he would continue his adult life trying to regain his title. His birth caused many conspiracy theories that he was not really the child of James’ wife, and instead the real child never existed or was a stillbirth – both possibilities implied that whoever the boy was, he was illegitimate. The new existence of a Catholic heir to the throne (previously James’ Protestant daughter Mary was in line to the throne), and the child’s godfather being the Pope, caused many in England to feel that Protestantism was being threatened in the Kingdom. This would eventually help lead to the Glorious Revolution a mere few months after his birth, where James II would forcibly abdicate his throne and flee to France. Very curiously, the name of the person this was addressed to was deliberately inked out for an unknown reason. The letter being written in Latin means that it could have been used for religious reasons. On first thought I believed it to be written to Louis XIV, but I find that improbable, because James II, in his right mind, would not dare to assert the centuries old English claim to dominion over France. But then I recognized the name “Middleton” on the left hand side. This refers to Charles Middleton, its second Earl, James’s Secretary of State, and Envoy to Vienna. Middleton was present at his birth, and likely penned the letter, as James only signed it. Middleton, being an Envoy to Vienna, perhaps addressed this letter to the Archduke of Austria, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I – who was also a Catholic. However, that is merely a theory, and unless there is technology to help reveal the name under the ink, we will not know for sure.
I would like to thank Christopher Raab, the aforementioned archivist for helping in digitizing these documents and making them physically available to me for research.
Tyler Wheeler is a contributing writer. His email is twheeler@fandm.edu.