Talk:Escape of Charles II

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

The family who owned Montacute House were called Phelips not Phiilips Is this a typo in the text or a misindentifaction?Olddemdike (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly Col Edward Phelips, of whom there is a portrait at the house. Have now corrected and added link to house. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of the woman Charles disguised himself as? Was it Polly something? VenomousConcept (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not getting confused with the flight o f"Charles Edward Stuart" "Bonnie Prince Charlie" who disguised himself as "Betty Burke"?81.174.168.60 (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrelljon (talk • contribs) of 11:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y

@Darrelljon I have thought that for a long time so your request has prompted me to find one. It is an old one (Fea, Allan (1908)) but the palace names map fairly well onto the names used in the article Monarch's Way -- PBS (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that quotations required individual citation when a paragraph has a citation at the end. Is the rash of 'citation needed' tags in this article as silly as it seems to be to me? Urselius (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC) @Urselius all quotations need citations. This is a common standard not just on Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a scientist, we don't quote much. But, it isn't quite the cast-iron case you are suggesting. Substantive quotations, that affect the meaning of a passage, are usually given citations; but illustrative quotations or quotations repeated from the same source are often not. These are merely attributed somewhere in the text. Certainly Antonia Fraser's biography has many uncited quotations, though the more substantive ones are. Urselius (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urselius, it is common in history papers to add an inline citation for all quotation see for example Chicago Style Referencing with Confidence, York University "In-text citation is included in the body of your text and is there to directly show the reader where an idea, piece of information, and/ or a quotation are from. ... For example, if you ... Provide quotations or definitions in your essay ... cite the source". As I said this is a common standard in history articles. -- PBS (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted an anomaly in the narrative account in the article. Namely, the account has Charles leaving Heale House on the 12th, staying at Hambledon that night and arriving at Brighton on the evening of the 15th, leaving on the morning of the 16th. So where was he on the nights of 13th and 14th? The answer is that these dates are wrong. He left Heale early morning on the 13th, stayed at Hambledon on that night, and arrived at Brighton on the evening on the 14th, boarded the Surprise in the early hours of the 15th and set sail later that morning. That means that he escaped English shores on the 15th not the 16th. I see the Coote book (which I don't have) is used as references for the 16th October but I can't see that it makes any sense. Unfortunately, the two book I have, Spenser and Ollard, are not very clear about dates, you have to work it out, but their texts are consistent with my interpretation.

These are some of the many references I found supporting a 15 October departure date:

https://www.glaucus.org.uk/Surprise.htm

https://h2g2.com/entry/A39368640

https://www.glaucus.org.uk/Royal_Escape.htm - includes statement by Col Gunter - I have used this as a reference

http://theroyalmiracle.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/october-15-1651.html

http://brightonbits.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/royal-escape.html

https://archive.org/stream/flightofkingfull00feaa/flightofkingfull00feaa_djvu.txt

I have made the change to correct the article

John Price (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with these sentence:

The royal party headed North through the villages of Ombersley, Hartlebury and Wolverley and then to Kinver. Dubious traditions have it that the party stopped for refreshments at hostelries now known as The King's Arms in Ombersley and the Manor House of Whittington near Kinver

The Monarch's Way is not much use as during this section it follows a scenic route rather than a known route.

The two near contemporary primary sources for the escape state:

• Fea, Allan (1903), "The King's own narrative as dictated to Samuel Pepys (Tract I)", After Worcester fight, Londo n & New York: J. Lane

• Fea, Allan (1903), "Tract II: The History of his Sacred Majesties Most Miraculous Preservation after the Battle of Worcester etc (Tract II)", After Worcester fight, Londo n & New York: J. Lane

The map provided by The Worcestershire historian John William Willis-Bund shows that if they left Worcester by the north road (numbered 3) over the Barbourne Bridge it would have taken them through Ombseley and Hartlabury. But then it is not clear.

Pepys states that Charles and his party "and slipt away out of the high-road that goes to Lancastershire, and kept on the right-hand, letting all the beaten men go along the great road...

The Worcestershire historian John William Willis-Bund writing in 1905 states on page 8 next to the map that road number (3.) "Another branch [of the London road], also going to the north, after crossing Barbourne Bridge, went to the left through Ombersley and Hartlebury; here it again branches off the road to the right, going through the parishes of Chaddesley Corbett and Belbroughton, past Hagley andPedmore to Stourbridge into Staffordshire. This is the road by which Charles II went after the Battle of Worcester. The road to the right at Hartlebury passed through Kidderminster, and so on to Bridgnorth."

On pages 255-256 he expands on this using Pypes as one of his primary sources but adds a letter from Richard Baxter, a Kidderminster divine and Roundhead Chaplin:

If one accepts that Charles did not continue up the Worcester Kidderminster road but branched off if at Hartlebury (see the map) then for anyone who knows the area it is very unlikely that he crossed the river Stour near Wolverley as that just north of Kidderminster and well removed from the main road that goes from Hartlebury to Stourbridge. If he had crossed at Wolverley then Kinver heath is possible, but it would be well out of his way to go from Kinver to Stourbridge and to do so he would have first had to recross the Stour to have been able to do what is stated in the Pepys account "We rode very quietly through the town, they having nobody to watch, ..."

As Kidderminster and Stourbridge were the only town of any size (apart from Dudley) between Worcester and Wolverhampton and clearly Charles could not go through Kidderminster (see above what Richard Baxter wrote of what happened that night in Kidderminster), then the Wolverley then Kinver line is unlikely. The Wolverley tradition seems to be one of those types folk tails that people often attach to events like this and there is no primary source for Charles crossing the river Stour below Lea Castle (just upstream and on the other bank from Wolverley). The Kinver heath location is mentioned in the (Tract 2), but given the geography it seems to contradict Tract 1 (Pepys) account.

It is possible to go from Stourbridge to Kinver, but to do so would have been out of his way as the usual route from Stourbridge to Wolverhampton would be through

This Google Map link helps to explain what I mean.

I would suggest that we follow Willis-Bund as an authoritative secondary source (given he was a local historian), but mention the folk tail of Lea Castle; and Kinver from tract 2 as an alternative route.

-- PBS (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be using modern secondary sources on this e.g. [1][2]? EEng 18:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do those sources say about the first night of the escape? -- PBS (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I'm just pointing out that there are more modern sources. I'll get them if you want, but I hesitate to get too involved just now because I'm a bit overloaded and there's a lot of context of which I'm ignorant. (Fascinating period, of course -- one of my favorite people is John Wilkins). EEng 15:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got those two + one more, all specifically on Charles' flight. But it may be some time before I can really look at them in relation to the question at hand. Can we suspend this conversation for two or three weeks? EEng 18:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but I have also invited others to the section. -- PBS (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another (Edwardian) account by an Allan Fea (1910) (whoever he was, author of "Secret Chambers and Hiding-places", etc.) who says Charles crossed the river at Blakeshall (see page 10) (which is near the aptly-named Kingsford. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think this is one that we or anyone else can solve. I doubt that anyone really knew the route even during Charles II's reign. I have lived most of my life in the immediate area and know it well, including land history. As I write this I have before me a 19th-century facsimile of Blount, Boscobel and Kingston, Wanderings of Charles II ... (1933).
• One difficulty arises from what was meant by Kinver Heath. The normal interpretation would be an area of heath considerably larger than the present Kinver Edge. If they had gone that way, they would have crossed Cookley Bridge and gone through Blakeshall, but there is (and was) no direct road: the present lanes are much as they were in the 17th century, except that there may still have been open fields. They might have ridden over open fields, but there may still have been crops to be harvested, which makes this unlikely. The other alternative is that the heath meant was a much larger tract of land bounded approximately by the present A449 (at times a little to the east), A451 (and some land east of this towards Hagley and Pedmore) and north to A458. That enormous heath (a large part in Kinver parish) extended to within half a mile of Stourbridge. They debated whether to go through Stourbridge (Blount) and did so. This suggests that they followed A449 and A451. A more direct route would have been by A450 through Hagley, but that would not take them on to anything that could be called 'Kinver Heath'. If they went through Stourbridge, they would have continued up A491 and presumably through Himley on A491, though how they might have got from there to Boscobel or White Ladies (both part of the estate of the Catholic Giffard family of Chillington Hall). Another possibility is that they turned slightly west at Wordsley, which would have taken them on to Ashwood, another large common. These commons derived from the area being within Kinver Forest. A trooper of Lord Talbot comes into the story. One of the Talbot houses was Grafton Manor, so that a tenant on that estate may have been a guide, but perhaps got beyond the area he knew well.
• This is a case where are only sources are a few oral accounts, written down a decade (even several decades) later by people who did not know the area from hazy memories. All we (or earlier modern historians) can do is interpret those primary sources. WP tends to prefer secondary sources, but in a case such as this, the opinion of early 20th century historians is no better than that of a WP editor. Willis-Bund was a distinguished Worcestershire historian, but he lived somewhere near Worcester and that is the area that he would have known best. Equally the so-called Monarch's Way does not help on the issue of where Charles went: it consists of footpaths collected to celebrate the route. However Charles would have travelled on main roads, which often used much the same routes in his time as now.
• As indicated, the Blakeshall theory depends on an improbable interpretation. Bringing in Kingsford is plain wrongheaded romanticism. The place has had that name since medieval times and the etymology of the name is probably not related to "king". There was a royal hunting lodge in Kinver Forest, but it was
  Stourton Castle and was granted at fee farm
  with the manor and custody of the forest in 1189.
• The passage we are discussing has the citation Modd 2001. This appears to be an article in what I suspect is a popular historical journal. This is no more authoritative than my view or that of any other modern historian. The idea that they visited the Kings Arms at Hartlebury or Whittington Inn has no historical basis. A lot of claims about Whittington Inn are pure invention: it was not an inn at the time, but probably a freehold farmhouse. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended and amplified the text, along the lines described above, doing my best to portray the various views as to the route. As stated I am a historian and know the area well, having studied its local history for over 40 years. O hope that this is not going to start an edot-war. I am missing a page number from Willis-Bund. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I'd ever start edit-war over a missing a page number from Willis-Bund. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the bold edit

I agree with Willis-Bund analysis that Charles II did not go through Kidderminster, as I am sure that if Charles had gone through Kidderminster, just as it is reported in Tract I that he sneaked through a town without a an alert guard (Stroubridge), he would certainly of remembered the memorable event of a dash through Kidderminster with its alert guard, and mentioned it to Pepys (Pepys first heard about the escape from Charles in person on 23 May 1660 (8.5 years after the escape) while accompanying Charles back to England from exile Holland, the published version in Tract I was recorded 20 years later on 5 Oct. 1680 – 29 years after the escape).

Where you and Willis-Bund disagree is where Charle's smaller party broke away from the Kidderminster bound party. Willis-Bund suggests A450 (at Hartlebury) while you are suggesting (I presume the Chester Road that skirts Kidderminster to the east by about a quarter of a mile and joins the A451. Before the modern ringroad was built in the late 60s (or was it the early 70s?), I presume that the A449 and A451 joined inside Kidderminster at the junction of Worcester St, Blackwell St.

The problem with you analysis while I think that journeying up the A451 is a possibility that explains the Kinver Heath in Tract II better then Willis-Bund's theory, but it ought not to be included in this article unless we can find a secondary source to cite (likewise your criticisms of Willis-Bund's hypothesis). It is the same problem as we encountered way back on the River Teme article, where we had to wait for you article to be published in a reliable secondary source before we could include you conclusions in that Wikipedia article :-)

Also I agree that if they did indeed cross the Stour near Wolverley then Cookley bridge is far more likely than a river fording in a dell near Lea Castle as they are close to each other (google map) -- unless Cookley bridge was guarded -- but there no primary source for either option and -- unless they recrossed the Stour somewhere else -- such a crossing contradicts the primary sources of them sneaking sneaking though a town (Tract I), and the mention of Stourbridge in Tract II. Unless of course Stourton (the location of the old Stewpony) was large enough to have a garrison in which case if it were Stourton and not Stourbridge then the Wolverhampton road (A449) throught Cookley and Stourton is an alternative to the A451 to Stourbridge.

-- PBS (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Everyone knows that the A491 wasn't built until the reign of George II. Anyway, I still have those sources on my shelf and will try to get back to them before I go on vacation in May. EEng 04:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on

A491 it was "turnpiked" in 1753 (in the reign of George II), but what makes you so sure that it was a new road and not a road improvement? It seems to me likely that there was a road from Stourbridge to Ambelcote and beyond before the reign of George II, because if not, why was the bridge there and where did the road go north of the Stour? -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I argued in 'Some roads out of North Worcestershire' Transactions of Worcestershire Archaeological Society 3rd ser. 20 (2006), 88-9, describing it as the road to Stafford that the road Hartlebury-Hagley-Stourbridge-Kingswinford cross-Wolverhampton was Saxon in origin, if not older. This is the route favoured by Willis-Bund. Most early turnpikes involved the improvement of existing roads, rather than the creation of new ones. Perhaps more problematic might be A451 Kidderminster-Stourbridge, but this is shown on an estate map of c.1735 (for Iverley) and before the inclosure of Iverley Hay in the late 17th century was across heathland from Broadwaters on the edge of Kidderminster to the end of north end of Norton Road Stourbridge, so that there would have been no difficulty in going that way. I was not seeking to imply that any of the suggested routes was new: it is merely a question of which one was followed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was joking. In future I'll have my posts sign-interpreted for the humor-impaired. EEng 21:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've still got the sources on my shelf, but I'm still traveling. Stand by. EEng 04:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]