sc
01
SIR RAL
~~~^, **.fttA*f,,
LOWEON.BDWARD ARJJr
A HISTORY OF
THE GEORGE
WORN ON THE SCAFFOLD
r BY CHARLES I
BY
SIR RALPH PAYNE-GALLWEY, B T .
AUTHOR OF 'THE MYSTERY OF MARIA STELLA*
ILLUSTRATED
LONDON
EDWARD ARNOLD
1908
[A II rifktt rtsfrvt<f\
INTRODUCTION
WHEN looking through some old family papers
recently, I was greatly interested in reading
a correspondence of 1788 between the Prince
of Wales (subsequently George iv.) and my
great-uncle, Sir Ralph Payne (afterwards Lord
Lavington). The latter visited Italy shortly before
the death of the Young Pretender. As that
miserable and dissipated man was, at the time of
Sir Ralph's visit to Rome, so broken in health
that he was not likely to live, and as he was
supposed to have in his possession the Lesser
George worn by Charles i. on the scaffold, the
Prince of Wales desired Sir Ralph to use his best
endeavours to procure for him the historic jewel.
7
INTRODUCTION
The letters connected with Sir Ralph's mission
suggested an endeavour on my part to identify
this George of such sad associations. I now
submit the result of my researches to the reader.
R. P-G.
THIRKLEBY PARK,
THIRSK, September 1908.
c
CONTENTS
PAGE
THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER . 13
I. TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF CHARLES i. THE
HANDING OF THE GEORGE BY THE KING TO
BlSHOP JUXON ON THE SCAFFOLD . . IJ
II. THE GEORGE DESCRIBED BY ASHMOLE, HERBERT,
AND MADAME DE SEVIGNE. JAMES n. AND THE
GEORGE. THE PRETENDERS AND THE GEORGE.
SIR RALPH PAYNE'S MISSION TO ITALY TO RE-
COVER THE GEORGE FOR THE PRINCE OF WALES.
CARDINAL YORK . . . .40
III. THE RESTORATION OF THE GEORGE TO CHARLES n. 56
IV. THE HOLLAR GEORGE. THE GEORGE OWNED BY
THE DUCHESS OF ALBANY . . .71
V. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SCAFFOLD GEORGE. SUM-
MARY OF ITS HISTORY . . . .86
NOTES ON THE PLATES . . . .97
B
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Set Notes on "Plates, pp. 97-103)
THE TRIPLE PICTURE OF CHARLES i. By Van-
dyck, 1637 . . . . Frontispiece
FACING PAGE
CHARLES i. By Gunst . . . . .13
TRIAL OF CHARLES i. From Nalson . . .19
CHARLES i. AT HIS TRIAL. From the original portrait
by E. Bower in the collection of Sir R. Pole-Carew 20
ARCHBISHOP JUXON. From the picture at St. John's
College, Oxford . . . . .24
EXECUTION OF CHARLES i. From a contemporary
print ...... 27
THE WARRANT TO EXECUTE CHARLES i. From the
original in the House of Lords . . 36
A LESSER GEORGE. From Hollar's drawing . . 42
THE YOUNG PRETENDER. By O. Humphrey, R.A.
1776
54
CARDINAL YORK. From a medallion of 1788 .
COLONEL THOMLINSON AND COLONEL HACKER . 62
II
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (continued)
FACING PAGE
CHARLES i. AND CROMWELL. After Vandyck . 71
CHARLES i. By My tens, 1628 . .74
CHARLES i. AND QUEEN HENRIETTA MARIA. By
Vandyck, 1634 . .... 84
A LESSER GEORGE in the Royal Collection at Windsor 90
CHARLES i. AT HIS TRIAL. From the picture at All
Souls College, Oxford . . . 92
CHARLES i. From Vandyck's Triple Picture . on Cover
12
CHARLES I
From a very rare print by Gunst. Original picture unknotctt.
THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF
THE GARTER
THIS famous Order was instituted by Edward in. about
1350, as a reward for exceptional bravery or success
in warfare on the part of his comrades in arms.
The Order was founded in honour of The Holy
Trinity, The Virgin Mary, St. George of Cappadocia,
and St. Edward the Confessor.
St. George was, however, as patron of England, the
chief protector of the Order, and for this reason it has
sometimes been called * The Order of St. George.'
The original Knights of the Garter numbered twenty-
five, exclusive of the King of England, the ex officio
Sovereign of the Order.
Though this number is still adhered to as regards the
ordinary Knights, it has been decreed that descendants
of George i., and foreign Sovereigns, may be admitted
as extra Knights of the Order.
King Edward vn., moreover, has admitted his Consort
as a Lady of the Order, thus reviving a practice which
had fallen into abeyance.
There are now twenty-eight British and foreign Kings
and Princes who are members of the Order, besides
the twenty-five ordinary Knights.
Down to the time of the death of Queen Elizabeth,
'3
ORDER OF THE GARTER
foreign Sovereigns were frequently admitted as ordinary
Knights, but from that time to 1814, this custom ceased,
and it was only in the last century that it became usual to
admit foreign Kings and Princes as extra Knights.
Since the death of Elizabeth, the Order has been be-
stowed on only four Commoners, and rarely on any
peer below the rank of an English Earl. The whole
number of Knights of the Garter elected in the five
hundred and sixty years from the foundation of the
Order by Edward in. down to the present day, is, as
nearly as can be ascertained, about eight hundred and
twenty.
Though its military character has been relinquished,
it still retains its position as the oldest and most dis-
tinguished Order of Knighthood in Europe. Highly
coveted as the Order is, its precedence is after the
eldest sons of Barons and before Privy Councillors
having no higher rank.
The Insignia of the Order consist of The Garter,
Mantle, Surcoat, Star, Hat, Collar and George. Of
these, the Collar was added by Henry vn., and the Star
by Charles i.
The chief distinction of the Order is the Garter, now
of dark blue velvet, though originally of light blue silk.
It is about an inch in width, with the motto on it in
gold letters, instead of, as formerly, in diamonds.
The Garter which Charles i. wore at his execution
was ornamented with over four hundred diamonds
(p. 61). The Garter is, of course, only worn with
knee-breeches and stockings, and encircles the left leg
just below the knee ; in the case of a Lady Sovereign,
ORDER OF THE GARTER
or a lady member of the Order, it is fastened round
the left arm, near the elbow.
The Mantle is of dark blue velvet. The Surcoat is
of crimson velvet. Both have an eight-pointed silver
star embroidered on the left shoulder. The Hood is
also of crimson velvet, and the Hat is of black velvet
with white Ostrich and black Heron feathers.
The Collar consists of twenty-six enamelled gold medals
showing alternately a white and red rose, each encom-
passed by a garter with the motto Honi soit qui maly pense.
Between the medals are twenty-six true-lovers knots,
also of gold and enamel.
From the Collar hangs the Great George ; an open-
cut figure in gold of St. George slaying the Dragon.
The afore-mentioned insignia are only worn in great
State ceremonies.
On more ordinary occasions, a Knight of the Garter
wears a silver Star on the left breast, the Garter on his
left leg, if in court dress, and over his left shoulder a
broad blue ribbon, which, passing across his breast,
slopes down to his right side. From this ribbon, near
the right hip, the Lesser George is suspended, called
lesser in opposition to the Great George which is
attached to the collar when full dress is worn.
The Lesser George is of gold, in the form of a
pendant medallion, and has in its centre, in relief, a
representation of St. George killing the Dragon, sur-
rounded with the Garter showing the motto on it.
The Lesser George is first noticed in Statutes of 1519,
when it was ordered to be worn at all times by Knights
of the Order, suspended from the neck by a chain when
'5
ORDER OF THE GARTER
they were in armour, at other times by a ribbon of silk ;
so that in case of war, sickness, or long voyages they
might be distinguished. The chain and the ribbon were
so short that the Lesser George hung in front of the breast.
They were exchanged for the broad ribbon in later times ;
and the latter being of greater length, entailed the
position of the George being near the right hip.
It was a Lesser George that Charles i. had on at his
trial and execution, and which, with its blue ribbon, he
took from off his neck and handed to Bishop Juxon on
the scaffold just before the axe fell.
The history of this George that Charles i., in his
dying moments, gave to Bishop Juxon, and its sad and
romantic associations, I have endeavoured to trace in the
following pages.
16
1
THE SCAFFOLD < GEORGE' OF
CHARLES I
TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF CHARLES I. THE HANDING
OF THE GEORGE BY THE KING TO BISHOP JUXON
ON THE SCAFFOLD
WHEN Colonel Pride effected his famous 'Purge'
in December 1648, he terrified the House of Lords
into self-effacement, and by arrests, c seclusions/ l
and intimidations, reduced the House of Commons
(which then contained about five hundred
members) to a miserable remnant of some eighty.
This remnant arrogated to itself the sovereignty of
the nation, and a majority, which probably did
not exceed some twenty-seven men in all, actually
1 The term ' seclusion ' was used for the exclusion of members of
Parliament from the House of Commons. Ninety-six members were
secluded and forty-seven others arrested by Pride ; others were intimi-
dated. As a result, in the thirteen divisions taken in three months
following the ' Purge,' the largest total vote was eighty-two, the smallest
thirty-eight.
THE SCAFFOLD ' GEORGE '
ordered the trial of the King, and appointed a
Commission of a hundred and thirty-five persons
to act as a tribunal for that purpose. Of these,
forty-nine never sat or acted.
This Court met in Westminster Hall on Satur-
day, the 2Oth of January 1649; and Charles i. was
brought before it. We have full accounts of the
proceedings ; for not only was our Revolution
almost as productive of pamphlets as was that of
France in the following century, but it also caused
the birth of many weekly newspapers, which for
the most part declared that their object was not
so much the dissemination of news as the preven-
tion of false reports.
Charles was charged with high treason. He
declined to answer until he was informed by what
authority he was arrested. He was, therefore,
remanded until the 22nd ; and, as he then still
refused to recognise his accusers in any way, he
was again remanded until the 23rd, when, as
18
TRIAL OF CHARLES I IN WESTMINSTER HALL
KEY TO THE PLATE OF
THE TRIAL OF CHARLES I.
A. THE KING.
B. PRESIDENT BRADSHAW.
C, D. LISLE AND SAY, ASSISTANTS OF THE PRESIDENT.
E, F. CLERKS AT TABLE, G.
H. BENCHES FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
I. ACHIEVEMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
K. OLIVER CROMWELL.
L. HENRY MARTIN.
M. GALLERY FOR SPECTATORS.
N. RAISED FLOOR OF THE COURT.
O. PASSAGE FROM COURT OF WARDS.
P. PASSAGE FROM EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Q. THE GUARD THAT BROUGHT THE KING TO AND FROM THE
COURT.
R. PASSAGE FROM STAIRHEAD TO KING'S SEAT, KEPT EMPTY.
S. [i, 2, 3]. THE COUNSEL OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
T. STAIRS BY WHICH THE KING ENTERED AND LEFT THE COURT.
V. PASSAGE FROM SIR R. COTTON'S HOUSE l INTO WESTMINSTER
HALL, WHERE THE KING WAS DETAINED AMONG SOLDIERS
UNTIL CALLED INTO COURT.
W, X. FLOOR OF WESTMINSTER HALL.
Y. THE PUBLIC.
Z. OFFICERS.
From c a True Copy of the Journal of the High Court of
Justice for the trial of King Charles I. Taken by J. Nalson,
LL.D., Jan. 4th, 1683.' London, 1684.
John Nalson lived 1638-1686. He was a clergyman,
historian, and royalist pamphleteer.
1 The King wat lodged in Sir R. Cotton's house during his trial.
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
before, he adhered to his previous determination
not to plead. On the 24th and 25th some thirty
witnesses were heard in the King's absence, and
on the 26th the Court (also in his absence) agreed
upon the sentence. On Saturday, the 2/th of
January, the King was once more brought before
the Court, and received the sentence that, c as a
tyrant, traitor and murderer/ he should be put
to death c by severing his head from his body/
At no meeting of the Court had as many as half
of the appointed Commissioners attended; only
fifty-nine signed the death-sentence, though some
seventy were present when it was pronounced.
A secret fear of a terrible day of retribution was
ever present in the minds of the rebels. Hence
it was that so many of them were absent from
the trial of the King, or declined to commit
themselves by attaching their signatures to his
death-sentence.
Charles had slept during the week of his trial
20
CHARLES I AS HE SAT IN COURT AT HIS TRIAL
From the oriijinul picture />// K. itonvi; in the p<i**ex*tt>n of
Sir Reginald 1'olf-Carnc, nt Antony, Coinunll. (Life Size).
OF CHARLES I
at Sir Robert Cotton's house in Old Palace Yard.
The night of this fatal Saturday the ayth, and
daylight of the Sunday following, he passed at
Whitehall. On the Sunday evening he was
removed to St. James's Palace, probably in
order that his hours of prayer might not be dis-
turbed by the noise of the carpenters building his
scaffold. After his sentence the King constantly
received the ministrations of Dr. Juxon, Bishop
of London. In attendance was also Thomas
Herbert, Gentleman of his Privy Chamber, who
had been placed about the King by Parliament in
1647, anc ^ wn na d become deeply attached to
him. Another attendant was Colonel Thomlinson
(of Whitby, Yorks.), the commander of the Parlia-
mentary guard in charge of the King. We read l
that the Colonel was ' so civil both towards his
1 Memoirs of the Last Two Tears of the Reign of King Charles I.
By Sir Thomas Herbert, Bt. London, 1702. Herbert was famous
as an author and traveller. He was born 1606, created a baronet in
1660, and died 1682.
21
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
Majesty and such as attended him, that he gained
the King's good opinion.' When at length the
Colonel had to hand his prisoner over to the
officers charged with his execution, the King gave
him his gold toothpick-case, and begged him to
remain near him until the end.
Herbert has left us a most touching account of
the King's last hours. As his narrative was
written from memory, more than thirty years
after the execution, it naturally has a few inaccu-
racies about small details, but it is essentially a
trustworthy document. On the Sunday, January
the 28th, Herbert was ordered by the King to
fetch from Lady Wheeler, the King's laundress, a
sealed box, which contained some diamonds and
jewels, mostly broken Georges and Garters. ' You
see ' (said the King) c all the wealth now in my
power to give to my two children.' He referred
to those two of his children who were then in
England; Princess Elizabeth, aged thirteen, and
22
OF CHARLES I
the Duke of Gloucester, who was eight. He
received the children on the Monday at St. James's
Palace, though he declined to see any other of his
relatives. When * they came to take their sad
farewell of the King, their Father, and ask his
blessing ... he gave them all his jewels save
the George he wore.' After talking with
them for some time, he turned to the window as
they departed, but * at the opening of the room-
door, the King returned hastily from the window,
and kissed them and blessed them again, and so
parted.' He gave the Princess two seals set
with diamonds, of which we shall hear again.
Both of these children died young : the Princess
at the age of fifteen, the Duke at the age of
twenty.
On the following morning, Tuesday the 3th
January, about ten o'clock, the King, accompanied
by Bishop Juxon, Mr. Herbert, Colonel Thomlin-
son, and Colonel Hacker, the latter being the
2 3
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
officer charged with the execution, walked rapidly,
for it was cold, 1 through the Park from St. James's
Palace to Whitehall, following mainly the line of
the present Mall. The Banqueting House (now
the United Service Museum) was then, as now,
one of the chief ornaments of London. On a
level with its southern end a lofty and handsome
gateway stood across the broad roadway; and it
is generally accepted that the scaffold was placed
in the angle formed by the Banqueting House
and the north side of this gate. When the
King reached Whitehall the scaffold was not
completed ; he therefore retired for prayer with
the Bishop, who read to him St. Matthew's
account of the Crucifixion (ch. xxvii.). The
King imagined that Juxon had purposely
selected this as appropriate to the occasion, and
was not a little affected when he learned that it
1 Sir Philip Warwick writes that it was a very cold day, and in
Evelyn's Diary we find it recorded that on January 2 2nd the Thames
had been frozen over.
24
ARCHBISHOP JUXON
thf picture at St. Jhn'. <V,//,y/r. O//o/ </.
(He* iota MI plate* p. ion).
OF CHARLES I
happened to be the ordinary second lesson of that
morning. At about two o'clock he was sum-
moned to his doom. He passed to the scaffold
through the Banqueting House, and out of a
window, 1 either of the Banqueting House, or, as
some historians affirm, of a small building attached
to its northern end. 2 Herbert was so grief-
stricken that he could not accompany his master
beyond the window. On the scaffold were present,
the Bishop, the two Colonels [Thomlinson and
Hacker], and the executioner and his assistant,
both masked, besides a few other persons, pro-
bably soldiers.
1 Sir Thomas Herbert writes ' a passage broken through the wall,'
though he probably meant through an aperture caused by the removal of
a window and the part of the wall between the window-sill and the floor.
In any case, the opening was level with the scaffold and led directly on
to it.
2 If the King passed to the scaffold through the window of a small
extension building at the northern end of the Banqueting Hall, then
the scaffold would, of course, have been placed against its front, a
little north of the position described above. Though there are
many prints of the execution, which were produced shortly after the
tragedy, they do not agree in details, and were most of them probably
sketched from imagination or hearsay.
D 25
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
The late Mr. Inderwick, K.C., through a mis-
reading of a contemporary newspaper, erroneously
concluded that the King's cousin, the Duke of
Richmond, was present. There is also an un-
warranted tradition, favoured by Lord Macaulay,
that Stephen Fox, ancestor of the Lords Holland
and Ilchester, was likewise on the scaffold.
Though many thousands of persons witnessed
the tragedy, there are, curious to relate, only two
or three brief accounts existing which purport to
be those of eye-witnesses.
Sir Philip Warwick l tells us that a friend of
his, who viewed the scene from the roof of
Wallingford House (on the site of the present
Admiralty), 'saw the King come out of the
Banqueting House on to the scaffold with the
same unconcernedness and motion that he usually
had when he entered into it on a masque-night.'
1 Memoir et of the Reigne of King Charles I. London, 1701.
Warwick, a royalist politician and historian, was born in 1609 and
died in 1683.
26
I .-*
t !
I I
KEY TO THE PLATE OF
THE EXECUTION OF CHARLES I.
A. THE KING.
B. BISHOP JUXON.
C. COLONEL THOMLINSON.
D. COLONEL HACKER.
E, F. EXECUTIONERS.
From a contemporary foreign broadsheet.
This print is of historical value, as it gives the names of
persons who are known from other sources to have actually
been on the scaffold. It will be observed that the Bishop holds
some of the King's clothing, among which the George and its
ribbon are clearly visible.
It is the most trustworthy of the many prints of the kind that
appeared very shortly after the execution. There is, however,
one point in it that is open to question, and this is the block,
which it is now generally admitted was much lower than
usually portrayed, in fact so low that the King lay almost
prone on the floor of the scaffold, his neck resting on a small
log of wood.
2 7
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
Another of Sir Philip's friends, Dr. Farrar, a
physician (' a man of pious heart but fanciful
brain, for this was he that would have had the
King and Parliament decide their business by
lot*), gained such a place of vantage near the
scaffold that he assured Sir Philip ' as he had
observed the King before very majestic and
steady, so when he had laid down his neck upon
the block, he (Dr. Farrar), standing at some dis-
tance from him in a right line, perceived his
eye as quick and lively as ever he had
seen it.'
In Parr's Life of Archbishop Usher we read that
this Prelate was also on the roof of Walling-
ford House. ' When the Lord Primate came
upon the leads the King was in his speech ; the
Lord Primate stood still and said nothing, but
sighing and lifting up his hands and eyes (full
of tears) towards heaven, seemed to pray earnestly;
but when His Majesty had done speaking, and
28
OF CHARLES I
had pulled off his cloak and doublet and stood
stripped in his waistcoat, and when the villains in
vizards began to put up his hair, the good Bishop,
no longer able to endure so dismal a sight, and
being full of grief and horror for that most
wicked feat now ready to be executed, grew pale
and began to faint.'
Philip Henry, the celebrated nonconformist
preacher (being then eighteen years of age), was
also at Whitehall when the King was beheaded.
In his Life we read that : 1
* ... with a very sad heart he saw that tragical blow
struck. Two things he used to speak of, that he took
notice of himself that day, which 1 know not whether
any of the historians mention. One was, that at the
instant when the blow was given, there was such a dismal
universal groan among the thousands of people that were
within sight of it (as it were with one consent) as he
never heard before, and desired he might never hear the
like again, nor see such a cause for it. The other was,
1 Account of the Life and Death of Philip Henry, Minister of the
Gospel. London: 1712.
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE 1
that immediately after the stroke was struck, there was,
according to order, one troop marching from Charing
Cross towards King Street, and another from King
Street towards Charing Cross, purposely to disperse and
scatter the people, and to divert the dismal thoughts
which they could not but be filled with by driving them
to shift everyone for his own safety.'
These records agree with all the newspapers
and other contemporary reports, and with the
noble lines of the republican Marvell, who, in
his Ode in honour of Cromwell, writes of the
King's death :
* He nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene,
But with his keener eye
The axe's edge did try ;
Nor called the gods with vulgar spite
To vindicate his helpless right,
But bowed his comely head
Down, as upon a bed.'
We may summarise what happened on the
3
OF CHARLES I
scaffold in a few words. The King made a
speech of some length, in which he used the
very modern-sounding phrase that he died ' a
martyr of the people.' As the spectators were
too far off to hear him, he addressed himself
mainly to Colonel Thomlinson. There would
seem, however, to have been persons near enough
to the King to take down at least part of
his speech. After he had concluded, he ex-
changed a few spiritual words with the Bishop, to
whom he gave several articles to be delivered to
friends. Lastly he gave him his George l with
the word ' Remember ' (one contemporary account
1 In the year of the execution scores of books and pamphlets
were published, at home and abroad, dealing with the life and death of
Charles i. Many of these refer to the George, but I will quote only
three extracts here :
I. King Charlet' Speech, published by authority, and printed by Peter
Cole at the Sign of the Printing press in Cornhill, 1649 :
' The King said to the executioner " is my hair well ? " Then the King
took off his cloak and his George, giving his George to Dr. Juxon, saying,
" Remember."'
II. Tragicum Tbeatrum, published at Amsterdam, 1649:
4 He handed the likeness of St. George which was hung by a silken ribbon
31
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
says ' Remember me to my son Charles,' which
has a false ring about it) ; he then laid his head
upon the block, gave presently a signal, and his
neck was severed at one blow. The body was
immediately handed over to four of the King's
household Herbert, Mildmay, Preston, and
Joyner ; and it was buried at Windsor, in a storm
of snow, a few days later. 1
Herbert tells us that immediately after the
King's death he met Fairfax, then Lord General
and Cromwell's superior officer, in Whitehall,
who, to his surprise, asked him how the King
did ? Though we know that Fairfax was opposed
to his neck, and which he had taken off to Bishop Juxon, with the words
" I wish you to give this to my son the Prince." '
III. B. Whitelock, 1605-1675. Memorials of English Affairs from
1625 to 1660:
'"I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown where no disturbance
can be," said the King.
' " You are exchanged from a temporal to an eternal crown, a good
exchange" was the response of the Bishop ; and then the King took off
his cloak, and gave the George to Dr. Juxon, saying "Remember."'
1 There is a church at Tonbridge Wells dedicated to King Charles
the Martyr.
3 2
OF CHARLES I
to the King's execution, it is curious that he
should have been kept in ignorance of the affair
until after it had taken place ! Herbert also met
Cromwell on the same afternoon.
While the contemporary English, French and
Dutch reports of the execution are, as has been
stated, in general agreement, there were some
strange inconsistencies in their accounts. For
instance, a French narrative 1 makes a quaint
blunder over one of our principal courts of law
(King's Bench) in the statement that the King
was brought before ' an inferior judge named
Kingsbinch (un juge subalterne qui s'appelle Kings-
binc/i)? It is, however, concerning the identifica-
tion of the executioners, which was a constant
topic of argument for many years after the event,
that the greatest divergence of opinion exists.
Before the execution, a London paper 2 wrote
1 Relation veritable de la morte barbare du Roy d 1 Angletcrre. Paris, 1 649.
2 The Perfect Weekly Account, from Wednesday 24th January to
Wednesday 3131 January, 1648/9.
E 33
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
that ' as Gregory Brandon, the ordinary execu-
tioner, was reluctant, many of those that were
formerly in the King's army have offered them-
selves.' We find in a book published in 1649,*
that Gregory Brandon's son, Richard, performed
the deed, and died of remorse within six months.
The French account referred to has it that the
two masked executioners ' were believed to be
Fairfax and Cromwell, because they were not
seen by any one all that day ' ; but this, we know,
is false. At the trial of one Hulett after the
Restoration, a soldier named Gittens testified that
Colonel Hewson had sworn thirty-eight of his
men Hulett among them to secrecy, and then
offered 100 anc ^ promotion to any one who
would kill the King. All refused, but Gittens
believed that he recognised Hulett on the scaffold.
Other witnesses confirmed this, and Hulett was
convicted and sentenced to death ; but the autho-
1 The Confession of Richard Brandon, the Hangman. London, 1649.
34
OF CHARLES I
rities seem to have distrusted the evidence against
him, as he was reprieved.
A letter from one Kent, 1 written at Venice a
few weeks after the King's death, states that ' a
colonel, formerly a brazier, with his servant, both
masked, were those who cut the thread of His
Majesty's life.' This theory is to some extent
confirmed by a story of Lilly the astrologer, 2 who
tells us that on the next Sunday but one after the
execution, Spavin, Secretary to Lieutenant-General
Cromwell, with some other friends, came to dine
with him, and various opinions were given with
regard to the person who had slain the King.
Spavin called Lilly aside, and told him that to
his knowledge it was Lieutenant-Colonel Joyce
who had done the deed. ' There is no man
knows this but my master, Cromwell, Commis-
sary Ireton, and myself This story got abroad
1 Printed in Ellis's Original Letters, series u. vol. iii. London,
1827.
2 W. Lilly's Hittory of Hit Life and Timet. London, 1715.
35
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
after the Restoration ; and the Journals of the
House of Commons record that on the 2nd June
1660, Lilly was sent for, 'with a view to his
discovering the person employed in putting to
death his late Majesty, King Charles.' After
the examination of Lilly, the Commons at once
ordered Colonel Joyce and Hugh Peters, the
fanatic preacher, 1 to be brought before them,
but Joyce had fled to the Continent, and Peters
was in hiding. The latter was, however, ar-
1 A contemporary broadsheet of Strasburg asserts that the execu-
tioners were ' Peter, formerly a preacher at Rotterdam, and Fox a
colonel.' Now, Hugh Peters, who was in Anglican orders, always
signed his name ' Peter,' and had been for some years a chaplain at
Rotterdam. Though there is no direct evidence to identify Peters as
one of the headsmen, the above extract is curious when taken in connec-
tion with the examination of Lilly by the Commons, and the immediate
order to arrest Peters as a result. Owing to his wild clamouring for the
King's death, Peters was especially obnoxious to the Royalists. At
his trial he said that he did not leave his chamber on the day of the
execution ! One witness, however, swore that he saw two masked men
go into a room after the death of the King, and that out of the room
came Peters and the hangman !
It would have been better for Peters if he could have proved that he
was publicly seen on the fatal day ! See also reference to Peters, p. 98.
36
i|4Jc
4M|i|U&dL.
>- MJfi/j ^
3* ft S
:-f'JT*^^- . * -V?? ^RU^'
s
^
^411.^
\ |"-|"^ i ! ^^ Afi
r i 1 1 T ? J s' 9B*i: 3^*ji
MUli* If ^11 : lJ
:. .,, ?-j s :i_ j. O sj x^\ 5 V^ ^
H-HTTOii HS^^g>4
Lt*/l4?4 ^
^
' T ^'^
IF i,
1 1
*-
/x
< I
5 1 I
* a
o ""
OF CHARLES I
rested, and executed on the i6th October. He
denied all share in the execution of the King.
It seems probable that Joyce was the heads-
man, and if not Joyce, then Brandon. In the
Sloane MSS. (185), at the British Museum, is a
letter, dated 1741, from a missionary in South
Carolina named Pigott, who writes, that when he
resided in New England, one John Davis, who
came there soon after the Restoration, was said
to have been implicated in the Rebellion ; and
on his deathbed confessed that he was John Dix-
well, one of the regicide judges, and, further, ' that
he was the very person who did sever the King's
head from his shoulders.' John Dixwell was one
of the regicides, and undoubtedly died in 1689, at
Newhaven, Connecticut, where his tomb is, and
where his descendants still flourish ; but the story
of his having executed the King may be rejected.
Bishop Juxon, as we shall see (p. 38), was kept
in 'restraint' from the 27th to the 3ist January.
37
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
He was questioned by the Parliamentary autho-
rities immediately he left the scaffold on the 3Oth.
They took from him the George, and the other
articles given to him by the King, and also sundry
papers which the King had entrusted to his care.
Being asked to explain the mysterious word
* Remember,' uttered by the King on the scaffold
just previous to his death, the Bishop answered
that it referred to previous conversations, and was
merely to remind him to give to the Prince of
Wales the George, 1 and to also beg the Prince
to forgive his father's murderers. After the
execution, the Garter was at once removed from
the King's knee, and even the young Princess
Elizabeth was in heartless fashion deprived of the
two seals which her father had given her when
he bade her farewell ; for we read in the
Commons' Journals of the 3151 January, the day
after the King's death :
1 In corroboration of this, see letter from Charles u. to Mrs. Twisden,
p. 63.
38
OF CHARLES I
c Commissary-General Ireton reports a paper of divers
particulars touching the late King's body, his George,
his Diamond and two seals.
The Question being put, That the Diamond be sent
to Charles Stuart, son of the late King, commonly
called Prince of Wales ; it passed with the Negative.
The Question being put, that the Garter be sent to
him ; it passed with the Negative.
The Question being put, that the George be sent to
him ; it passed with the Negative.
The Question being put that the seals be sent to
him ; it passed with the Negative.
Colonel Harrison, Sir John Danvers, etc. etc., or
any three of them, are to consider of the Particulars
presented concerning the King's body, and other things
contained in that Paper presented by Commissary-
General Ireton . . . and make Report to the House, etc.
Ordered. That Dr. Juxon be discharged from any
restraint, by any former order of the House.' l
And thus ends the historical portion of my
chronicle of the George worn by King Charles i.
at his execution.
1 On Saturday, zyth January, the House had 'ordered That Dr.
Juxon have leave to go to, and continue with, the King in private,
under the same restraint that the King is.'
39
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
II
THE GEORGE DESCRIBED BY ASHMOLE, HERBERT, AND
MADAME DE SEVIGNE. JAMES II. AND THE GEORGE.
THE PRETENDERS AND THE GEORGE. SIR RALPH
PAYNE'S MISSION TO ITALY TO RECOVER THE
GEORGE FOR THE PRINCE OF WALES.
CARDINAL YORK
A GOOD deal was written and generally accepted
on the subject of this George of scaffold fame in
the generations which followed upon the King's
death ; but we soon find ourselves on ground that
is hardly firm.
In the year 1672, Ashmole, 1 Windsor Herald,
and founder of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford,
published his Institution of the Garter in which he
writes
* The George which his late Majesty wore at the time
of his martyrdom was curiously cut in an Onyx, set
1 Elias Ashmole was born in 1617 and died in 1692.
4
OF CHARLES I
about with 2 1 large Table Diamonds, in the fashion of a
Garter : On the back of the George was the picture of
his Queen, rarely well limned, set in a case of gold,
the lid neatly enamelled with goldsmith's work and sur-
rounded with another Garter adorned with a like number
of equal sized Diamonds, as was the foreside.'
Ashmole's book contains three illustrations of
this George by the famous engraver Hollar,
which I reproduce (p. 42) : One is a view of the
front of the ornament, showing the Saint killing
the Dragon ; another is a view of the back, open
and displaying the Queen's portrait ; the third is
a view of the back with a hinged lid closed over
the portrait. No. I, the front view, shows
twenty-one diamonds ; No. 2, the portrait view,
twenty-two ; and No. 3, the one with the hinged
lid closed over the portrait, twenty-one, though
the last two illustrations are intended to be from
the same aspect. Hollar's engraving is dated I666. 1
1 Wenceslaus Hollar was born at Prague in 1607. He became a
skilful engraver on copper ; and, owing to the patronage of the Earl of
F 41
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
In 1 68 1 Sir Thomas Herbert, aforementioned,
then seventy-five years old, wrote his memoirs of
the King's closing days ; and in them he stated
that the George which the King wore at his
death
* was cut in an onyx with great curiosity, and set
about with twenty-one fair diamonds, and the reverse
side with the like number.'
The next noteworthy mention of the George
occurs in the Letters of the famous Madame de
Sevigne. A jewel with such a sad and personal
history would naturally be for ever sacred to the
Stuarts; and it was generally supposed that
James n. took this precious relic with him when
he fled to France in 1688. Madame de Sevigne
writes, under date of the 28th of February
1689
* The King of England (the exiled James n.) started
Arundel, famed for his acquisition of inscribed marbles now at Oxford,
settled in England about 1637, where he resided, except for the period
1645-52, until his death in 1677. See also note, p. 77.
I
I
J
o .-x:
5 1
*
S l
I
OF CHARLES I
this morning to go to Ireland. He yesterday gave the
Order of the Garter to M. de Lauzun l in the Church of
our Lady. They there read a sort of oath, which
constitutes the ceremony ; the King put on him the
ribbon on the other shoulder 2 from our Order, and a
"George" which came from the late King, his father,
and which is enriched with diamonds. It is worth quite
ten thousand crowns.'
We may be sure that the lady is mistaken here.
King James in exile, was not in a position to give
away jewels worth ten thousand crowns ; and it is
certain that if the George in question was the
one that was handed by his father, Charles i.,
to Bishop Juxon on the scaffold, he would not
have presented it to de Lauzun or any one else.
What the King did, was to use the George
he was wearing at the time for the mere
purpose of ' investing * the Duke, receiving it
1 The Duke de Lauzun had assisted the Queen in her escape from
London.
2 The ribbon of the Garter is worn over the left shoulder ; that of
the French Order of the Saint Esprit was worn over the right one.
43
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
back again after the ceremony. In the Marquis
de Ruvigny's "Jacobite Peerage we read ' that
the infant Prince of Wales, the Duke of Powis,
the Duke of Melfort and the Duke de Lauzun all
received the Garter from James on the 1 9th April,
1692.' Doubtless the King, before his departure
for Ireland in 1689, invested the Duke with the
Order; and in 1692, after his return, made
some announcement or registration of the
honour.
The sacred George so intimately connected
with the martyrdom of Charles i. would naturally
be supposed to have passed from James n. to his
son the Old Pretender, and again, from the latter
to his son the Young Pretender, who had adopted
the title of Count of Albany. It is, therefore,
quite what we should expect when we read in
Notes and Queries (ser. ix. vol. ii. p. 264) an
extract from a letter written at Rome in December
1785, which describes the Count of Albany as
44
OF CHARLES I
wearing the George and Garter, 1 ' which is
interesting as being the one King Charles had on
when he was beheaded, and that he desired to be
sent to his son/
These passages show that there was a general
belief that the scaffold George had been recovered,
that James n. had carried it with him into exile,
and that from him it had passed to his son and
grandson. This theory was, indeed, a plausible
one, and it was held by the Prince of Wales,
afterwards George iv. This Prince was naturally
greatly interested in the jewel ; and, as the Young
Pretender was old and broken in health, and his
heir was a Cardinal, the Prince thought some
arrangement for its return to England might be
possible. Accordingly, as Sir Ralph Payne, 2 who
1 The Garter the King wore at his execution was sold to Ireton,
and was not recovered at the Restoration (p. 61), so that the Young
Pretender could not have had it. The statement as to the George is,
in my opinion, equally inaccurate.
2 Sir Ralph Payne, born in 1738, was son of a Governor of St.
Christopher's. He was many years in Parliament, was created K.B.
45
THE SCAFFOLD < GEORGE'
was a close personal friend of the Prince, was
contemplating a journey to Italy, the latter re-
quested Sir Ralph to see if there was any chance
of procuring the iewel. Sir Ralph arrived at
Genoa at the end of 1787 ; and on the 3Oth or
3ist of January I788, 1 the Young Pretender died
at Rome, having with him his natural daughter
whom he had styled Duchess of Albany, and who
had resided with him for some years. A letter
from Sir Ralph to the Prince of Wales 2 will
continue the story most effectively
' ROME, May 28//;, 1788.
SIR, My very anxious desire of bringing to some
state of decision, the event of the commission with
which your Royal Highness honoured me previously to
my departure from England, respecting the George of
the Order of the Garter, which King Charles the First, in
his dying moments, delivered into the hands of Bishop
in 1771, and Lord Lavington in 1795. ^ e wa8 tw ' ce Governor of
the Leeward Islands, where he died, childless, in 1807.
1 Both dates are given. Probably some writers affected the 3Oth as
being the anniversary of his great-grandfather's execution.
2 In my possession.
4 6
OF CHARLES I
Juxon, and which descended to the late Count of
Albany, has detained me at Rome some weeks. . . . On
hearing of the death of the Count of Albany, I lost no
time in procuring an introduction to the Duchess of
Albany, daughter to the late Count, and heiress to all
his jewels. ... I look upon this business to be accom-
plished, provided your Royal Highness shall approve of
the two conditions which have been exacted of me. . . .
The first of them is your Royal High ness's royal
word that, your Royal Highness being put in possession
of the desired object, the transaction shall remain a
profound secret in your Royal Highness's breast. The
Duchess's whole dependence (or very nearly the whole
of it) is upon her uncle the Cardinal York, who allows
her 12,000 Roman crowns a year, and the bulk of
whose fortune she will probably inherit at his death. . . .
As the Cardinal considers himself, at present, successor
to all his brother's rights and dignities (imaginary as
they are), he has withdrawn from the Duchess all the
badges and distinctions of the different British Orders
which belonged to the late Count of Albany, and which
the late Count constantly wore. Fortunately the George
which belonged to Charles i., was at the time of the
Count's death at his palace at Florence ; and, not having
been delivered by the Duchess to the Cardinal among
47
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
the other ensigns of the different Orders, it has escaped
his attention. ... If ever, by any unfortunate accident,
the Cardinal should arrive at the knowledge that she had
not only reserved from him this memorable badge, but
had parted with it, particularly to a Prince whose House
he considers as inimical to his Family ; his temper, which
is naturally impetuous, would certainly be exasperated to
a degree most fatal to his niece, whom he would probably
in the first instance turn out of doors, after stripping her
of every comfort, as well as circumstance of magnificence
in which she has been supported since the death of her
Father. . . . Your Royal Highness will probably agree
that the Duchess has some colour of reason for desiring
that formal pledge of secrecy which is the preliminary
condition of her cession of the George. . . .
I am now to state to your Royal Highness the second
preliminary. . . . Your Royal Highness is to be informed
that a certain settlement on Queen Mary, Consort of
James n., which was in every respect properly recorded,
and explicitly recognised by several subsequent Acts of
Parliament, was due to her, with interest, at the period
of the Revolution. . . . The late Count of Albany had
begun to institute a renewal of this claim, but did not
live to make any material progress in it. The Duchess,
his daughter, succeeds to the claim as heiress to her
OF CHARLES I
Father's moiety of the debt, and assignee to that of her
uncle the Cardinal, who has made it over to her. She
means to revive the application which had formerly been
preferred to the Court of Great Britain. . . . All that
is desirable to be done at present (and this is the sub-
stance of the second condition which has been proposed
to me) is, that it should be made to appear to the
Duchess that whenever she may hereafter think proper
to revive the subject, she may reasonably advert to your
Royal Highness as a friend and auxiliary in the prosecu-
tion of her claim. . . .
The Duchess, a few days ago, in showing me a variety
of the family jewels which have devolved to her by the
will of her father, the late Count of Albany, put into my
hands the George in question, which belonged to King
Charles i. The St. George and Dragon are cut upon an
onyx which is encircled by a single row of ten diamonds
and rubies, set alternately, and, as well as I could measure
the size of it by my eye, the length of the oval may be
about two inches and a half: the breadth proportionable.'
The settlement on Queen Mary (wife of James n.)
alluded to in my kinsman's letter provided that she
should receive 50,000 a year during widowhood.
In the negotiations for the Treaty of Ryswick of
G 49
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
1697, tne King of France, on behalf of the exiled
Stuarts, claimed that this payment was due to
Queen Mary from 1688, in which year her
husband was deposed. William in. was inclined
to admit the liability, but nothing was paid to the
ex-Queen. James n. died in 1701, and his widow
survived until 1718. The attempts of the Pre-
tenders in 1715 and 1745 made it hopeless for any
Stuart to expect favours from the British Govern-
ment ; though the Count of Albany persisted in
his claim that payment of Queen Mary's income
for at least the seventeen years of her widow-
hood, if not for the thirty years after her deposi-
tion, was due to him as her heir. Late in his life
he petitioned Louis xvi. to allow his ambassador
in London to move, but the French King refused.
Then the Earl of Pembroke, who had lived much in
Italy, was induced to approach the British Ministry;
but this effort was also unsuccessful. English
lawyers were next consulted, and advice to apply
5
OF CHARLES I
to the Court of King's Bench was given. The
Stuart princes, however, would not hear of this.
Such was the state of the case when Sir Ralph
Payne saw the Duchess of Albany. As she had
been declared legitimate by her royal father, she
considered that she was heiress of his share of his
grandmother's property; and the Cardinal of York
had, on the 8th May 1788, assigned to her, by a
document now in my possession, 'all his rights in
the arrears of the dowry of the late Queen Mary,
his grandmother, widow of the said James n.,
King of Great Britain.' On the 3oth May, two
days after Sir Ralph Payne's letter, before the
Consul of France at Rome (in a paper also in my
possession), 'milady Charlotte Stuart, Duchesse
d'Albanie, par ces presentes, donne plein pouvoir
a M. le Chevalier Ralph Payne, d'agir en son nom,
pour le recouvrement des arrierages du douaire de
la feu Reine Marie,' etc. This was the claim in
support of which the influence of the Prince of
5'
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
Wales was solicited by the Duchess of Albany as
a return compliment to her for parting with the
George owned by her late father, the Young
Pretender.
The reply 1 of the Prince of Wales to Sir Ralph
Payne's letter runs
'CARLTON HOUSE, June 28^, 1788.
MY DEAR SIR RALPH, I return you many thanks
for the trouble you have had on my account on the sub-
ject of the George, and I feel very sensibly the obliging
conduct of the Duchess of Albany on this occasion.
I am much indebted to you for letting me into the
delicate situation in which the Duchess stands, and the
risque (sic) she incurs in parting with the article in
question ; and, as it serves to heighten the favour to be
conferred in the greatest degree, so will it be an additional
tie, if any such could be wanting, to the most punctual
observance of my sacred word that the transaction shall
remain a profound secret. . . .
From your statement of the Duchess of Albany's
claims in right of her father, without any other considera-
tion than what is suggested to me by my own honour, I
feel myself bound to give every assistance in my power
1 In my possession.
52
OF CHARLES I
towards the accomplishment of her wishes whenever her
claims shall be transmitted hither. I am, my dear
Payne, yours sincerely, GEORGE P.'
Sir Ralph Payne's papers contain no further
information as to whether his negotiations were
finally successful ; but it is more than probable
that they were, because there are signs which
indicate that the Prince of Wales assisted the
Duchess in her claims. I possess a letter from Mr.
Dundas, afterwards Viscount Melville, to Lord
Loughborough, afterwards Lord High Chancellor
and Earl of Rosslyn, in which the former recom-
mends that the Prince should refrain from aiding
the Duchess. However that may be, the Duchess
died in November 1789, and with her all her
shadowy pretensions. From various sources we learn
that, on the death of her father, she delivered to her
uncle, the Cardinal, the Crown jewels of James n.,
a sceptre, the Order of the Garter, and the Cross
of St. Andrew worn by Prince Charles Edward.
53
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
The following note, dated March 1790, is
written on a fly-leaf in the British Museum copy
of a book called Correspondance Intercept^
c King James, when he left England, carried some of
the jewels of the Crown with him. All the jewels he
had, and which still remain in his family, were : A collar
of St. George set with diamonds ; Two medals of that
Order, one of them set with diamonds and the other
with rubies and diamonds. These jewels are now in the
possession of the Cardinal Duke of York.'
The writer adds ' that these jewels had been in
the possession of the Duchess of Albany.' The
two ' medals ' here mentioned were obviously two
Lesser Georges; and the second is evidently the
one seen by Sir Ralph Payne in the hands of the
Duchess. But the writer of the note, whoever
he was, could hardly have known whether all
these jewels were in the actual possession of the
Cardinal. He had probably seen them in the
hands of the Young Pretender or his daughter,
and had taken it for granted that they passed to
54
CARDINAL YORK
II THE YOUNG PRETENDER
O. Humphrry 11. A. J77G.
p. 1*1 >
OF CHARLES I
the Cardinal after the death of his elder brother.
By the Treaty of Tolentino, in 1797, Bonaparte
exacted a very large payment from the Pope ; and
it is known that the Cardinal sacrificed most of his
valuables in order to assist His Holiness. A few
years later, King George in., learning that the
Cardinal was in great poverty, asked him to accept
a reasonable allowance, which he did ; and, in
gratitude, the Cardinal requested his executors to
offer to the Prince of Wales any objects of historical
value that he might possess at his death. He died
in 1807, when his executors found only two or
three articles worthy of being sent to the Prince : a
ruby ring, a Cross of St. Andrew which had been
worn by Charles i., and a Greater George and
Collar of the Garter, all of which are now pre-
served in Edinburgh Castle. It is, therefore, pro-
bable that the George set with rubies and diamonds
which Sir Ralph Payne saw in the possession of the
Duchess of Albany, did not pass to the Cardinal.
55
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
III
THE RESTORATION OF THE GEORGE TO CHARLES II.
FEELING satisfied that the George set with dia-
monds and rubies which Sir Ralph Payne pro-
bably recovered from the Duchess of Albany, was
not the jewel described by Ashmole and Herbert
(pp. 40-42), and suspecting that the sacred emblem
was not carried from England by James n., I pro-
ceeded to further investigations. I now place
before the reader some facts which, I consider,
prove that the scaffold George was recovered by
Charles n. in the year following the execution of
his father, and which also form a basis for a
reasonable identification of the genuine relic.
The jewels received from the King on the
scaffold, or taken from his body, and the seals
56
OF CHARLES I
which he gave to his daughter, the Princess
Elizabeth, the day before his execution, were,
as we have seen, seized by order of the Commons,
who forbade their being forwarded to the King's
son. They would, therefore, doubtless remain in
the hands of the Parliamentary officers, pending
the passing of an Act appointing a Board of
Trustees to collect, appraise, and sell all the
personal property of the late King, the Queen,
and the Prince. This Act was passed on July
4, 1649.
In the MSS. of Bowyer, the learned printer,
quoted in Nichol's Literary Anecdotes (i. 526),
occurs the following passage
* Mrs. Fotherly of Rickmansworth, daughter of Sir
Ralph Whitfield, first Serjeant-at-law to Charles i. and
grand-daughter to Sir Henry Spelman, 1 declared to Mr.
Wagstaffe 2 that within two days of the King's death,
1 This famous antiquary and historian was born in 1 564, and died in
1641.
* Thomas WagstafFe was born in 1645. He was the first rector of
H 57
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
she saw, in a Spanish leather case, three of these prayers
said to be delivered to the Bishop of London at his
death, from whom they were taken away by the officers
of the Army ; and it was from one of those officers, in
whose custody they then were, that she had the favour
to see them ; l and that the person who showed her those
prayers, showed her also the " George," with the Queen's
picture in it, and two seals which were the King's.'
Now what officer of the Army would be more
likely to have in his custody the George and
the other articles taken from Bishop Juxon than
Colonel Thomlinson, who had actually seen them
handed to the Bishop by the King on the scaffold ?
If Juxon had the choice, he would doubtless have
given them to the Colonel, whom he knew had
been so considerate to the King in his affliction.
the united parishes of St. Margaret Pattens and St. Gabriel Fenchurch,
and was consecrated (non-juring) Bishop of Ipswich in 1694. He
died in 1712. His son was Anglican chaplain to the Old Pretender.
1 Three prayers are printed in Works of King Charles /., civil and
sacred, published by Sam 1 . Browne, Hague, 1650, which this book
tells us were taken from Bishop Juxon as he left the scaffold. A
curious confirmation of Mrs. Fotherly's statement.
58
OF CHARLES I
The next step in the history of the George
would be its sale among the King's goods. In
the Harleian Papers at the British Museum are
two (duplicate) lists (Harleian 4898 and 7352)
of these goods, with the appraisements, the
prices realised, and the names of the purchasers.
Many thousands of lots are enumerated in the
sales-lists of the goods of Charles I., and some of
them are amusingly interesting. Thus, the
famous ' cartoons of Raphaell ' were appraised at
300, but found no purchaser. The picture on
which the highest value was placed was ' The
Madonna done by Raphaell,' which was appraised
at 2000, and * sold in a dividend as appraised.'
This probably means that it was sold to a
syndicate.
The Puritans, though they ordered the King's
statue to be broken up (p. 69), were quite alive to
the commercial value of the nude in art ; and
4 a sleeping Venus by Corregio ' was * sold in
59
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
a dividend' for 1000, its appraisement; and
'the great Venus and Parde done by Tytsian,'
valued at ^5> was so ^ to Col. Hutchins for
jT6oo. The ' unicorn's horn from Windsor ' was
valued at 5 I but was not sold. It was
returned to Windsor at the Restoration, and is,
perhaps, still there. The Act authorising these
sales prescribed the reservation of goods useful for
State purposes to a fixed amount, and we find in
the lists
c Ten pieces of Arras hangings ... of Abraham/
appraised at ^8,260 . . . 'now in the use of ye Lord
Protector.'
Again
'Sold 1649, Aug. i, to Mr. Jno. Leigh, goods for
109, 55., which were for the use of ye then Lieut.-
Gen r11 Cromwell.
Aug. 15. To the Rt. Honble. ye late Lady Crom-
well, goods for 200.'
In these sale lists of the property of Charles i.
I also find the following items :
60
OF CHARLES I
* Reed, from A Garter of blew vellvett sett with
Captain Preston 412 small dyamonds valued at 160
Sold Mr. Ireton ye jrd Jany.
1650, for 205.'
* Reed, from A George of gold sett with
Coll. Thomlins dyamonds, valued at . . ^70
Sold Mr. W. Widmor ye 17
May 1650 for 70.'
As Preston was one of the officers of his
household (p. 32) to whom the King's body was
entrusted, and was also Keeper of the Robes, we
may be sure that the Garter above-mentioned
was that worn by the King on the scaffold. The
purchaser was a brother of Cromwell's son-in-law
Ireton, who reported on the King's jewels, his
body, etc. (p. 38). This brother was Lord Mayor
of London in 1658. At the Restoration he
was ordered to return the Garter, but he had
probably broken it up and disposed of the
diamonds. However this may be, he could not
produce it; and he was accordingly sued in an
61
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
action of Trover and Conversion in the King's
Bench, in Trinity Term, 1664, and condemned
to pay 205 and 10 costs.
In connection with the George mentioned
in the sale list as having been sold to Mr.
Widmor, there is no doubt that ' Coll. Thomlins *
is a clerical error, or abbreviation, for c Colonel
Thomlinson.' As one of the chief Parliamentary
officers who had been on the scaffold, it is, as we
have already said, highly probable that Colonel
Thomlinson was entrusted with the objects taken
from Juxon pending the appointment of con-
tractors for the sale of the late King's goods ; and
that he was also the officer of the Army in whose
custody Mrs. Fotherly saw the George just after
the King's death. If, therefore, this George did
come from Colonel Thomlinson, of which there
is small doubt, it is practically certain that it was
the famous George of the scaffold.
But there is even stronger evidence to this
62
OF CHARLES I
effect. Among the papers preserved by the
Evelyn family with their celebrated ancestor's
Diary, is a copy of the following remarkable
letter, written by Charles n. twenty months after
his father's death (printed in Bray's edition of
Evelyn, 1851, vol. iv. p. 196) :
< MRIS. TWISDEN, Having assurance of your readiness
to perform what I desired of you by my letter of the
yth February from Jersey according to your Brother's
promise, in order to the conveying to me the George
and Seals left me by my blessed Father, I have again
employed this bearer (in whom I have very much con-
fidence) to desire you to deliver the said George and
Seals into his hand for me, assuring you that, as I shall
have great reason thereby to acknowledge your own and
your Brother's civilities and good affections in a particular
so dearly valued by me, so I will not be wanting, when
by God's blessing I shall be enabled, deservedly to
recompense you both for so acceptable a service done to
Your loving Friend, CHARLES R.
ST. JoHNsroN, 1 2 O'ter 1650.'
1 St. Johnstone is another name for Perth. The letter is dated a
month after the battle of Dunbar.
6 3
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
Now, this Mrs. Twisden was a sister of Colonel
Thomlinson, and the letter proves that her brother
was in negotiation, through her, with the young
King, Charles n., for the return of the scaffold
George before February 1650. There can be
no doubt that these negotiations did result in
the return of the George to the King, because
Mrs. Twisden's husband, and her brother Colonel
Thomlinson, were both markedly favoured at the
Restoration. Mr. Twisden, though he had been
made a Serjeant-at-law under Cromwell, was not
only confirmed in that rank when Charles n.
returned in 1660, but was made a Judge and
knighted in that year. Colonel Thomlinson had
served the Commonwealth until the end ; yet he
alone of the persons connected with the late
King's death was not prosecuted at the Restora-
tion ; and in the Act of Free and General Pardon
(xii. Car. n., cap. xi. s. 44), he was excepted by
name from those declared incapable of bearing
6 4
OF CHARLES I
any civil or military office for having given
sentence of death in any of the late illegal Courts.
It may, therefore, be taken as certain that
Colonel Thomlinson had possession of the scaffold
George and the two seals of Charles I. ; that when
he handed them in to the contractors for the
sales, he kept a close watch on them, and through
his sister, Mrs. Twisden, corresponded with
Charles n. with a view to recovering them for
him ; that he induced an agent, Widmor, to buy
the articles in for him at the sales, so that he,
the Colonel, might eventually restore them to the
King ; and that he did so restore them.
In the MS. accounts of the 'Trustees for the
sales of the late King's goods ' at the Public Record
Office, Widmor appears in a position which much
strengthens the suggestion that he purchased the
George from Colonel Thomlinson with a view to
its eventual return to Charles n.
In the Act authorising these sales, Cromwell's
65
THE SCAFFOLD < GEORGE'
Parliament very properly ordered that the debts
of the late King were to be the first charge on
the receipts, and among these debts were included
wages of his servants, and grants to such of these
as were 'necessitous.' On May the 24th, 1650,
the Trustees for the sales, in consideration of his
name appearing ' in the Necessitous List of the
late King's servants/ authorise the Treasurers to
' make payment unto Wm. Widmor of eighty-one
pounds in part of what was allowed him in the
first list.' This document is receipted on the
same day by 'Will. Widmor.' On the i8th
June, 1650, Widmor acknowledges the receipt of
a similar payment of one hundred and thirteen
pounds ' in part of what was allowed/ etc., to
which, however, is added the limitation that the
sum ' is to be discounted in consideration of the
contract by him made ye 28th May, 1650.'
Again, on the 5th August, he acknowledges a
similar payment of 32, 5$. 3d., ' to be discounted
66
OF CHARLES I
for and in consideration of his contract dated
2 July, 1650.'
Returning to the sales lists in the British
Museum, we find, in the summary of accounts,
these three entries :
'1650 sold,
May 14. To Mr. Wm. Widmor goods for 81.
* * * * *
May 28. To Mr. Wm. Widmor goods for i 13.
*****
July 2. To Mr. Wm. Widmor goods for 45, ys. 8d.'
What is proved by these documents ? First
and foremost that Widmor had been a servant of
the King, and was, therefore, just the person to
whom Thomlinson would apply for assistance in
recovering the jewels for that King's son. From
a comparison of the documents it appears that the
Trustees granted Widmor, as a necessitous servant
of the late King, a sum of 226, 55. jd. (the total
of the three items which they authorised their
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
Treasurers to pay him). 1 He then expressed his
wish to take this sum out in what we may term ' a
contra account/ in the form of goods at the sales.
The Trustees therefore paid him the amount (or
probably debited him with it, without any passing
of money) of his first purchase (81) on account ;
and so with that of his second purchase ; but
when it came to his third purchase (45, 75. 8d.)
there was only 32, 55. 3d. left to his credit.
They therefore paid him that sum, and he had to
make up the balance of 13, 2S - 5^. out of his
pocket. The George was apparently paid for out .
of his first or second grant. It is to be noted that
it is not always possible to trace goods in the sales
list, as many small articles were put together as a
' parcel of plate,' etc. Moreover, the items were
entered in the lists as they came into the hands of
1 If this seems to be a large sum to grant to a servant, it may be
observed that the term ' servant ' in the King's household might imply
an officer of almost any rank. It was applied to Sir Thomas Herbert,
who was a cousin of Lord Pembroke.
68
OF CHARLES I
the Trustees, the names of purchaser and price
being added when they were sold, perhaps two or
three years later. I am, for instance, unable to
trace the ' seals ' ; nor can I find particulars of the
sale of several Georges which T. Beauchamp is
stated by Ashmole to have bought for i 36 (p. 87),
though the summary of the sales records
* 1651, Nov. 3. To Thos. Beauchamp goods for 136.'
We know that many pictures and jewels were
bought at these sales by Stuart sympathisers with
the intention of eventually returning them to
Charles n. For instance, this T. Beauchamp,
who was clerk to the contractors, purchased
many hundreds of pounds' worth of jewels that
had belonged to Charles i. ; and after the Restora-
tion he received large sums from the Treasury for
discovering and effecting their return. So, too,
the brass statue of Charles i., which is now at
Charing Cross, was sold by Cromwell's Parliament
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
to one Rivett, a brazier in Holborn, under strict
conditions that he should break it up. Rivett,
however, buried it and produced it after the
Restoration, probably to his great advantage. If
Colonel Thomlinson restored the jewel, it is only
fair to him, as a Cromwellian, to say that there
was no disloyalty to the Commonwealth in his
action. The restoration of the George to
Charles n. was of no political effect ; the Com-
monwealth had received its value in money ; and
as Colonel Thomlinson had learned to respect
Charles i. in his last days, and had earned his
regard, it was merely an act of humanity to restore
to the bereaved son a relic that had received
so awful a consecration.
I consider, therefore, it is proved that Charles n.,
in 1650 or 1651, recovered the George which
his father wore on the scaffold.
70
,
CROMWELL
an adapted from VattdycVt picture of Chart en I now at Windsor.
(8ee uoiw plate* p. 102).
THE PORTRAIT OF CROMWELL
nr of Charles I after the Rrttoratio*.
(8* BOto. Ml plUM I
OF CHARLES I
IV
THE HOLLAR GEORGE. THE GEORGE OWNED BY THE
DUCHESS OF ALBANY
So far, we have mentioned three definite theories
touching the George worn by Charles i. on the
scaffold :
(1) That it was the George drawn by Hollar
and described by Ashmole in his book,
to which I shall presently refer again
more fully.
(2) That it was the George, set with diamonds
and rubies, shown to Sir Ralph Payne
by the Duchess of Albany, which, it is
evident, was not the one drawn by
Hollar and described by Ashmole. It
is also certain this one could not have
7'
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
been the George set with diamonds only
that was bought by Widmor.
(3) That it was the George purchased by
Widmor in the sales of the King's
goods, in support of which theory, and
in the subsequent return of the jewel to
Charles n., I have offered very strong
evidence.
Now, as to the George drawn by Hollar and
described by Ashmole in his book on the Garter
(p. 40), I have come to the conclusion that this
cannot be taken to represent the one worn by
the King at his martyrdom.
At first sight, indeed, the evidence in its favour
appears strong: Hollar's engraving dated 1666,
Ashmole's description (p. 40) published in 1672,
and Sir Thomas Herbert's account of it (p. 42)
written in 1681, are all in perfect agreement as to
the number of diamonds it contained. But it is
this very agreement which gives cause for suspicion.
7 2
OF CHARLES I
Herbert's description, as given in his Memoirs,
was written when he was seventy-five years old,
thirty-two years after the King's death ; and he
accompanied it with a letter to Dugdale l con-
taining this passage
* Seeing it is your further desire I should recollect
what I can well remember upon that sad subject more at
large, I am willing to satisfy you therein so far forth as
my memory will assist. Some short notes of occurrences
I then took which in their long interval of time and
several removes with my family are either lost or mislaid,
so as at present I cannot find them.'
Now how could this septuagenarian remember
with such accuracy the number of stones in a
jewel which he may have seen a few times thirty-
two years before ? And to whom were his letter
and memoir addressed ? To Dugdale, the father-
in-law of Ashmole, the latter being the author of
that Institution of the Garter which contains Hollar's
1 Sir William Dugdale, the celebrated antiquarian and author, 1605
1686, was Garter principal King of Arms under Charles it.
K 73
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
engraving. Ashmole's book had been published
nine years before Herbert wrote, and Herbert was
doubtless familiar with it as being a work written
by his friend's son-in-law. If Herbert's account
of the scaffold George be compared with Ash-
mole's (pp. 40, 42), the verbal coincidences
suffice to prove that he merely repeated Ashmole's
description. It is equally demonstrable that Ash-
mole's description, published in 1672, was written
' up to ' Hollar's engraving of 1666. If this view
be accepted, then these three witnesses are reduced
to one : Hollar or rather Ashmole, for it is the
latter who asserts that the illustration by Hollar
represented the scaffold George.
And what was Hollar's position ? He was
employed, not to reproduce this particular George
of the scaffold, but to illustrate Ashmole's large
book, which contains several plates by him, in
which all the insignia of the Garter are repre-
sented. In no list, in no collection, is there now
74
OF CHARLES I
to be found a George at all resembling the one in
Hollar's drawing.
It is, however, certain that Charles i. at one time
did possess a George more or less resembling the
one drawn by Hollar for Ashmole's book. Hollar
came to London about 1634, and for ten years
was largely employed by Charles i., and was also
drawing-master to the Prince of Wales (Charles n.).
Several engraved portraits of the King by this
artist are extant that are excellent likenesses.
These portraits were no doubt taken from life,
and in all of them the King wears a George more
or less similar to the one depicted in Ashmole's
book. In the very fine engraving, after a
portrait by Mytens (p. 74), the George which
the King is wearing resembles the one drawn
by Hollar for Ashmole, even to the exceptional
peculiarity of the horse, on which the saint is
mounted, galloping to the left, instead of to the
right, as is its usual position.
75
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
The most probable theory is that Hollar being
asked by Ashmole to illustrate his book, and
recollecting a George with the Queen's portrait
in it, which he had seen the King wearing some
years before his execution, described it to the
author as being the one worn on the scaffold.
Ashmole would naturally appropriate a sug-
gestion which would add so much interest
to his book, and so Hollar sketched a
George for him from memory. It is most
unlikely that the artist could have recalled
so accurately the exact number of the stones
with which the George he recollected the
King wearing was ornamented, for he drew
it in 1666, seventeen years after the King's
death, and a still longer period since he had
last seen it, for Hollar was abroad for some years
before the tragedy of Whitehall. In any case it
is clear that he did not draw his sketch from a
George that was before him, for he blunders over
OF CHARLES I
the number of stones in the back of the jewel
(illustration, p. 42). l -
For these reasons it is evident that Hollar
drew from memory a George he had seen Charles i.
wearing many years previously ; that he added
the portrait of the Queen to it because he knew
that the King formerly wore a George con-
taining one; and that he assumed, without any
real grounds for doing so, that the jewel he re-
membered was the one the King wore at his execu-
tion. 2 Further, there is in the Royal Collection at
Windsor a miniature of Queen Henrietta Maria, by
P. Oliver, which I have been graciously permitted
to inspect. This miniature of the Queen and the
1 Hollar even omits the scroll or Garter and its motto. The motto
alone makes the Lesser George a Garter decoration, and every such
George shows one as a matter of course.
2 Hollar served as a Royalist soldier, was taken prisoner by the
Parliamentarians in 1645, allowed to return to the Continent soon after,
and returned to England in 1652. He was abroad, therefore, from
four years before the King's death till three years after, and, except
from hearsay, would know nothing of the scaffold George.
77
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
likeness of her given by Hollar in his drawing (p. 42) ,
resemble each other so closely as to suggest that
the latter was drawn from or ' after ' the miniature
at Windsor, and, therefore, not from a portrait in
any George, either the famous one or another.
Ashmole, in his book, is very full and accurate
as to the history and location of the jewels he de-
scribes. He gives us, for instance, all the particu-
lars of the recovery by Charles n. of the George
which that King was forced to abandon after the
battle of Worcester, as well as of several Georges
that were sold by the Trustees for the late King's
goods. Yet he has not a word to say concerning
this all-important George drawn for his book by
Hollar, except that it was worn by Charles I. on
the scaffold, twenty-three years before ! Though
he writes that it contained forty-two diamonds
and a portrait, he apparently had no idea where it
was, or even if it was in existence when he wrote. 1
1 I have shown that Charles u. recovered the scaffold George, but
78
OF CHARLES I
This silence on his part is the more noticeable
because not only does he record (as we shall see
presently) the history in full of various other
Georges, but he had, in May 1662, been appointed
one of the 'Commissioners' for recovering the late
King's goods. If Ashmole had been able to do so,
he would naturally have traced the history of the
sacred and historic jewel of the scaffold which
had been officially referred to the House of Com-
mons on the day after the King's execution.
The inference is that the George drawn for
Ashmole by Hollar was not the one worn by
Charles i. at his execution ; that Ashmole was
not cognisant of the fact that, at the time he
wrote, the genuine ornament had been restored to
Charles n., through the negotiation of Colonel
Thomlinson and his sister, Mrs. Twisden (p. 63) ;
Ashmole was evidently ignorant of the fact. If he had known this,
or knew where the relic was, he would assuredly have said so in his
book.
79
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
and that, in fact, he knew nothing about the
scaffold George beyond the suggestion of Hollar.
There can be small doubt that Hollar drew
from memory a George he had seen the King
wearing some twenty years before, long before,
that is, the execution at Whitehall, and that
Ashmole then wrote a description of it as being
the one Charles wore at his martyrdom, though
neither artist nor author could have known what
the jewel was really like which the King gave
to Bishop Juxon on the scaffold. But they,
perhaps, naturally imagined that the King went to
his death wearing over his heart the badge which
Hollar remembered as containing a portrait of the
Queen, whom her husband had not seen since
her flight to France in 1644.
It is, on the other hand, very likely that Charles's
notably fine taste led him to discard the inartistic
George, depicted by Hollar in Ashmole's book,
for the much more elegant jewel I shall presently
80
OF CHARLES I
describe, and that he had the portrait transferred
from the former to the latter, or a new one
inserted in it. The older George would then
probably be dismantled, and may have been
among the ' broken ' ones l that Charles described
to Herbert as being all that was left to him of
his worldly goods (p. 22).
With regard to the George shown to Sir Ralph
Payne by the Duchess of Albany at Rome in 1788,
I am equally incredulous. Sir Ralph makes no
mention of its containing a portrait, which he
could not well have failed to notice had it been
present ; and even if he did handle it without
detecting this feature, we may be sure that, if it
existed, the Duchess, with her woman's senti-
mentality, would have pointed out to him this
historic proof of the identity of the jewel with
the one of scaffold fame. The row of ten diamonds
1 Broken ' Georges, I take to mean cast-off Georges from which
the jewels had been removed ; for such badges especially the King's
would not have been liable to accidental damage.
L 8l
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
and rubies set alternately round its margin shows,
moreover, that it could not have been the George
drawn for Ashmole by Hollar, or the one pur-
chased in the sales of the King's goods by Widmor.
Though from the letter of Dundas to Lord
Loughborough (p. 53) we may assume that the
jewel negotiated for by Sir Ralph Payne was
received by the Prince of Wales from the Duchess
of Albany, it is curious that nothing like it is to
be found among King Edward's many Georges at
Windsor.
I rather feel that in the account of the transac-
tions between the Prince of Wales and Sir Ralph
Payne I have raised a theory merely to destroy it,
but as the notes and letters quoted under this head
contain matters of considerable historic interest
regarding the exiled Stuarts, I have retained them.
The legend that the Stuarts had the sacred relic
of the scaffold with them in exile is, indeed,
specious ; but it is just one of those legends that
82
OF CHARLES I
would be sure to grow up round a banished Royal
House. If, however, we consider the matter
practically, we must come to the conclusion that
the jewel could hardly have been taken out of
England. It was then the custom of our Princes
(as, indeed, it is the duty of every knight under
the Statutes of the Garter) to wear the George
always. Charles n. certainly had a George before
he received back from Mrs. Twisden the one
which his father wore on the scaffold ; and Ash-
mole gives an account of the one he wore at the
battle of Worcester, which shows very clearly
that it was not the scaffold George of Charles I.
James n. would also have worn a George from
boyhood, and would have had one about his neck
when he fled abroad in 1688. The George of
Charles i. would doubtless be stored away in some
safe treasure-house, perhaps in the Tower ; and,
in flying from his kingdom, James n. would have
had little time for collecting family heirlooms to
83
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
take with him in his flight, however precious
they might have been as sentimental relics of his
family.
There can be no doubt that Charles i. wore on
the scaffold a George set with diamonds and con-
taining a portrait of his Queen, 1 and I am confident
that this George was recovered by Charles n. 2 It
is, however, curious that Charles u., if he had
the real George in his possession, did not direct
Ashmole to alter the drawing of it in his book, if
it was incorrectly represented therein. To that I
answer that the King may have considered the
matter unimportant, or he may have thought it
beneath his dignity to correct a book written by
one of his heralds. Or it might be he did not
care to let it be known that during the Com-
monwealth he had been in secret negotiations with
the rebel, Colonel Thomlinson, especially as this
1 Vide statement by Mrs. Fotherly, p. 57.
2 Vide letter from Charles u. to Mrs. Twisden, and comments,
pp. 63, 64.
8 4
OF CHARLES I
would have explained the favour with which the
Colonel, and his relative Sir Thomas Twisden,
were treated at the Restoration.
In this chapter I have shown objections to
either the Hollar or the Albany George being
accepted as that worn by the King on the scaffold.
I will now endeavour to identify an existing
George with the historic ornament.
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SCAFFOLD GEORGE.
SUMMARY OF ITS HISTORY
WE are not without information as to the Lesser
Georges in the possession of the Stuart Kings.
I have already quoted (p. 61), from the book of
sales of the property of Charles i., the description
of the George which was bought by Mr. Wid-
mor, and which I believe to have been the
one that the King wore on the scaffold. 1 Ash-
mole enumerates five others, which were pur-
chased at these sales by Thomas Beauchamp, on
the 1 5th October, 1651, in the following
terms :
1 For evidence of this consult pp. 62-68.
86
OF CHARLES I
Valued at Sold for
*(i) A George containing 161 dia-
monds, which came from the
Countess of Leicester and
was discovered by Cornelius
Holland . . . 60 71
(2) A George cut in an Onyx with
41 diamonds in the Garnish . 35 37
(3) A small George set with a few
diamonds .... 8 9
(4) A George with 5 Rubies and 3
diamonds and 1 1 diamonds
in a box . . . . 10 1 1
(5) A George cut in a Garnet . 7 8
These Georges are not mentioned in the book of
sales; but there are several lots therein, representing
parcels of jewellery, which are not described in
detail ; and there is also an entry that on the
3rd November 1651 or nineteen days after
Beauchamp's purchase 'goods for 136' were
delivered to him. Now, as Beauchamp either
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
retained these jewels, or would know to whom he
had parted with them, and as he subsequently
received several grants from Charles n. for dis-
covering and effecting the return of the late King's
jewels, we may safely infer that most of these
Georges were returned into the new King's hands.
This theory is strengthened by the fact that Ash-
mole, who describes them in his book written in
1672, had in May 1662 been appointed one of the
Commissioners for recovering the late King's goods.
Again, among the MSS. in the British
Museum (Harleian 1890) is a list of the jewels of
James n. which is dated the I9th March, 1687.
In this list we find
* 6. One Onyx George adorned and set with 16 large
diamonds and 25 less.
7. One lesser Onyx George adorned and set with 16
great diamonds and 19 lesser.
8. One George set with several sparks of diamonds.
9. One Onyx George set and adorned with 38 larger
rose diamonds and 4 smaller in the loupe.'
OF CHARLES I
It also mentions c forty Georges,' not more fully
described, as in the King's possession.
Of the Georges in these two lists (which I
have numbered consecutively for the reader's con-
venience) Nos. 2 and 6 are probably the same, by
reason of the identical number of diamonds they
contained. No. 4 is, presumedly, the George
which Sir Ralph Payne saw in the hands of the
Duchess of Albany with its ' ten diamonds and
rubies set alternately,' as (assuming his number to
be quite accurate) in the rapid seizure, transport,
and sale of the royal property a couple of diamonds
may easily have been lost, and others substituted
later. No. 7 I believe to be the George purchased
by Widmor, and the one worn by Charles i. on
the scaffold.
If the scaffold George was not carried abroad
by James n., then it is doubtless in existence to-
day, and Windsor Castle, as the great storehouse
of the more ancient and historic treasures of the
M 89
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
reigning monarch, is the place in which we should
naturally expect to find it.
In the Royal Collection in that venerable
palace is an old and, if I may use the term, dis-
mantled George of which I am graciously per-
mitted to give a representation. As will be seen,
it is quite unlike Hollar's drawing in Ashmole's
book. In this George, the Garter, with the
motto which surrounds the Onyx carving of St.
George and the Dragon, was at one time encircled
by an edging of sixteen large gems. All are now
gone, but it is clear that they were rose, and not
table diamonds. 1 It has at its back a space for a
portrait which has long since vanished. It is
(and this is very strong evidence in its favour)
the only existing George known to have been fitted
with a portrait, though the St. Andrew's Cross,
now at Edinburgh, which was bequeathed to
George iv. by the Cardinal of York, has a portrait
1 In Hollar's drawing, and in Ashmole's text, they are table
diamonds.
9
Ji
5 *
-2
o .
3s
K -,
iii e
OF CHARLES I
of his mother, placed similarly under a lid at its
back. We may be sure that no one except a real
or claimant Sovereign of the Order would presume
to place his wife's portrait at the back of his
George. Now this, I have very little doubt,
is the George worn by Charles i. on the scaffold.
The absence of the portrait and stones in the
George at Windsor is not remarkable, as they
were probably extracted in the period of at least
five months between its sale to Widmor and its
return to Charles n. by Colonel Thomlinson, a
probability which is increased if it was not in the
possession of the Colonel all this time. If the
diamonds were not removed during this interval,
they may have been taken out at some later date,
perhaps under a King who was unaware of the
associations of the badge, when stones were re-
quired for decorating other ornaments.
It is true the Windsor George agrees to some
extent with Nos. 2 and 6 of my lists (pp. 87,
91
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
but if, as is very probable, and as I have suggested,
Nos. 2 and 6, by reason of the identical number of
diamonds they contain, refer to the same jewel,
then, of course, this jewel cannot be the one of
scaffold associations, because No. 2 was sold to
Beauchamp, not to Widmor.
The Windsor George corresponds very nearly
with No. 7 in the Harleian list (p. 88), or the one
described as a 'lesser Onyx George adorned and
set with sixteen great diamonds and nineteen
lesser ' which we know from that list was in the
possession of James n. in 1687. The number of
the larger stones, as given in No. 7, agrees with
the spaces now vacant in the ornament at Windsor,
and as to the nineteen lesser diamonds, a glance
at my reproduction will show that sixteen of these
might have been inserted in the spaces between the
larger stones, while the loupe would probably
hold three more. Further, in the central portrait
in Vandyke's famous threefold picture of Charles i.,
92
CHARLES I A3 HE SAT iN COURT AT HIS TRIAL
affrt- thi fuctinr af AH >'<>/'.* (Wleyr,
!Se KKJ OB pIKM p. 103).
OF CHARLES I
the King appears to be wearing a George con-
taining the motto inside the gems, as it is in the
jewel at Windsor. 1 (See frontispiece.)
Again, in the life-sized original of one of the
illustrations given of King Charles at his trial
(p. 20), a George may be seen suspended from his
neck that closely resembles in its size and oval
shape, and in the number of its larger stones, the
one at Windsor (p. 90).
This in itself is strong evidence of its identity,
as there can be no doubt that the George the
King wore at his trial was the one he wore on the
scaffold a few days afterwards. Lastly, this George
at Windsor has long been traditionally known as
the Juxon George.
If it is objected that the sale-list contains no
1 This picture gives a curious proof of the genuineness of another relic
of Charles i. The Duke of Portland possesses a pearl which Queen
Mary n. stated had been taken from her grandfather's ear after death.
One would have expected that there would be a pair of these pearls ;
but Vandyck's triple portrait shows the pearl in his left ear, while the
right one is unadorned.
93
THE SCAFFOLD GEORGE'
mention of the portrait of the Queen, I reply that
it might have been removed, or that the appraisers
might easily have handled the George when
closed without noticing its hinged lid.
If I am right, the history of the George at
Windsor is as follows
It was given to Bishop Juxon on the scaffold
by King Charles i. on the 3oth of January, 1649,
and taken from Juxon by the Parliamentary autho-
rities, probably by Colonel Thomlinson, on the
same day. On the 3ist, Parliament refused to
send it to Charles n. On the ist or 2nd of
February it was seen in the possession of an officer
of the Army by Mrs. Fotherly, and it probably
remained with that officer until after the 4th July,
when the Act for the sale of the King's goods
was passed, and when it would have been handed
over to the official contractors. It was then
purchased from the contractors by Widmor, on
the 1 7th May, 1650. If the Army officer, in
94
OF CHARLES I
whose hands Mrs. Fotherly saw it, and who
handed it over to the contractors, was Colonel
Thomlinson which is practically certain from
the marginal note in the book of sales then the
Colonel had certainly arranged with Widmor
a former servant of Charles i. first to buy it and
then to sell it back to him (the Colonel), with
the special intent of returning it to Charles n.
It was so returned to Charles n. (either with or
without the diamonds and portrait) by the
Colonel's sister, Mrs. Twisden, some time after
the and of October, 1650 ; and from that
monarch it has passed through his heirs and
successors to King Edward vn., in whose keeping
may it long remain 1
In the MSS. of the well-known antiquary Joseph
Hunter, in the British Museum, are quoted
(about 1850) several original 'certificates of the
Contractors for the sale of the goods of the late
King Charles i., to the Treasurers of the said
95
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
sale.' These documents, which refer to pictures
only, give particulars of the works sold and of
the purchasers. If the certificates for the jewels
could also be found, they would no doubt throw
some further light on the matter of Mr. Widmor's
George. Unfortunately, Hunter does not tell us
where he saw the certificates he quotes, and it
has not been possible to find them ; though the
courteous officers of the British Museum and the
Public Record Office have given me unstinted
help. Possibly, this publication may lead to the
revelation of their present resting-place.
I venture to hope that if I have not proved
my case indisputably, I have made out a very
strong one. I see no evidence to controvert it,
except Ashmole's description of Hollar's draw-
ing; and even that agrees with my deductions
in the main, differing only in minor details, as
would be natural on the simple and not in-
criminating theory that Hollar made his sketch of
the scaffold George from memory or tradition.
NOTES ON THE PLATES
CHARLES I.
(Frontispiece.}
FROM the original picture at Windsor Castle. Painted by
Vandyck in 1637, in three aspects, to assist Bernini the
Sculptor who was engaged on a bust of the King.
After the Restoration, this bust by Bernini was returned to
Whitehall, where it remained till the reign of William in.,
when it is supposed to have perished in the fire that destroyed
the Palace, with the exception of the Banqueting Hall.
Cardinal Richelieu had previously had a triple portrait of him-
self done with a view to assisting a sculptor, and this probably
suggested a similar expedient on the part of Charles i.
When Bernini first saw Vandyck's picture of Charles, he is
said to have exclaimed ' that it represented the face of a man
who was likely to suffer some great affliction.'
CHARLES I. AS HE APPEARED AT HIS TRIAL (p. 20)
BOWER pinxit.
From the original picture, life-size, in the possession of
General Sir Reginald Pole-Carew, of Antony, Cornwall,
where it has remained since it was painted.
There are replicas at Oxford, St. Andrews University,
Badminton, Belvoir, and Peniarth, which were produced for the
more prominent adherents of the King, as, for instance, the
picture at Badminton, which was done for the Lord Worcester
who defended Raglan Castle with such gallantry.
Edward Bower is chiefly known as the painter of this portrait
N 97
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
at Antony, though he also did pictures of Lord Fairfax and
a few other celebrated men, some of these having been engraved
by Hollar.
There are two points connected with the portrait at Antony
that are curiously corroborative of its authenticity.
(i) The King is shown with a staff in his left hand. 1 We
know he had a staff at his Trial, for we read in Herbert's
Memoirs, Tuesday, 23rd January : ' The King was the third
time summoned, and, as before, guarded to the Court. . . .
The Solicitor began to offer something to the President of the
Court, but was interrupted by the King gently laying his staff
upon the Solicitor's arm, the head of which happened to fall oft",
which Mr. Herbert [who, as his Majesty appointed, waited near
his chair] stooped to take up, but the head falling on the contrary
side, to which he could not reach, the King took it up himself.
This incident by some was looked upon as a bad omen.'
Sir Philip Warwick in his Memoirs also gives an account of
the incident of the staff and its head, though he differs slightly
from Sir Thomas Herbert in details. Sir Philip writes
* The King's deportment was very majestic . . . and yet, as
he confessed himself to the Bishop of London, who attended
him, one action shocked him very much ; for whilst he was
leaning in the Court upon his staff, which had an head of
gold, the head broke off on a sudden ; he took it up but seemed
unconcerned, yet told the Bishop "it really made a great
impression upon him, and to this hour (says he) I know not
possibly how it should come." It was an accident, writes Sir
Philip, "I confess I myself have often thought on, and cannot
imagine how it came about, unless Hugh Peters [who was truly
and really the King's gaoler, for at St. James' nobody went to
him but by Peter's leave] had artificially tampered upon his
staff; but such conjectures are of no use.'
1 In the replica at Belvoir, the King also has a staff, but in his right
hand.
NOTES ON THE PLATES
The staff was inherited by Colonel Dugald Stuart of Terns-
ford Hall, Bedfordshire, to whom it descended through an
ancestor who lived in the time of Charles i. Temsford was
burnt down in 1898, and the staff" perished in the fire that
destroyed the house.
This staff was used by Charles i. in his walk from St. James'
to Whitehall on the day of his execution, and was given by
the King, together with a gold coin he had in his pocket, to
Bishop Juxon. It had had a gold head with a cornelian set in
it, was of cane, and had a silk tassel. The staff shown in the
picture at Antony is precisely similar to the one formerly
at Temsford. As to the gold coin, it is supposed to be the one
which the authorities of the British Museum recently purchased
for ^770, and which is said to have been given to Bishop Juxon
on the scaffold by Charles i. The King having handed his
George to the Bishop to give to the Prince of Wales, perhaps
bethought him of the coin as a memento for the Prelate to
retain for himself. It was exhibited by H. Montague, Esq.,
in the collection of Stuart relics held in 1889, and was then
described as * a pattern five broad piece that was given to Juxon
by Charles i. on the scaffold.' On one side of this coin are the
Royal Arms, on the other * Florent Concordia Regna.'
(2) The King is represented with a full beard, which suggests
that the artist did actually draw his picture, or at all events the
sketch for it, from life, as Charles sat at his trial ; for no painter
would add a beard to his face unless he had actually seen it. The
beard was no doubt allowed to grow during the King's close
confinement at Hurst Castle and Windsor during the last two
months of his life. A strange corroboration of this is that when
the coffin of Charles was opened at Windsor in 1813, the
head of the King had a short but full beard attached to it,
as is to be seen in a careful drawing that was made at the
time for Sir H. Vaughan's account of the disinterment.
As further confirmation that Charles i. wore a beard at his
trial and execution, I will quote from one of the original MSS.
99
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
of Sir Thomas Herbert's Memoirs [vide Allan Fea's M artyr King,
London, 1905: p. 130].
4 Mr. Babbington was barber, but His Majesty made little use
of a barber, save at Hampton Court and Newport, where
Mr. Davis was barber, for His Majesty neither let his hair
(which was darkish and long and curly at the ends) nor his beard
be cut during his affliction.'
In the picture at Antony, and in the replicas of it, Charles
wears a hat and sits in a chair, precisely similar to those shown
in Nalson's print (p. 19). The chair is now the property of
the Cottage Hospital, Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire, to
which it descended through Juxon's representatives. It is
identical in shape and ornamentation with the one to be seen in
the print and in the pictures above referred to.
WILLIAM JUXON (1582-1663) (p. 24)
BISHOP OF LONDON 1633, ARCHBISHOP OF
CANTERBURY 1660.
From an original picture at St. John's College, Oxford.
Juxon, though intimately associated in business and politics
with all parties of Church and State for many troublous years,
was generally beloved for his tolerance and amiable character.
He was in close attendance on Charles after his trial and at his
execution, nor would the King suffer any other minister of
religion to approach him after he received his sentence.
THE DEATH WARRANT (p. 36)
The careful observer will notice some erasures and correc-
tions in this important document. In line 2, * uppon Saturday
IOO
NOTES ON THE PLATES
last was ' is a correction. In line 4, c Thirtieth ' has been
written in a blank space evidently intended for a longer word.
The address 4 To Collonell Francis Hacker, etc.' is also a
correction over an erasure. These alterations suggest doubts as
to the date when the warrant was drawn up, and the time
originally fixed for the execution !
CARDINAL YORK (p. 54)
From a medallion of 1788, the year of his accession on the death
of his brother , the Toung Pretender.
Obverse : HENRY ix., King of Great Britain and Ireland,
Defender of the Faith, Cardinal Bishop of
Tusculum.
Reverse : Not by the desire of men, but by the will of
God. In the year 1788.
It is noticeable that the word ' France ' is omitted after
* Great Britain ' and before * and Ireland ' in the inscription on
the obverse of the medal. Though the Kings of England
claimed the throne of France until 1801, the Pretender, and
his brother the Cardinal, naturajly did not put any such claim
forward, as they hoped that the French King would assist their
cause in England.
COLONEL THOMLINSON (p. 62)
(1617-1681)
This portrait, attributed to Mytens, was exhibited by T. E.
Twisden, Esq., at the first Loan Exhibition of National Portraits
at South Kensington. Colonel Thomlinson had charge of the
King^s person during the progress of the trial, and delivered
101
THE SCAFFOLD 'GEORGE'
him up to Colonel Hacker on the day of execution, but at the
King's request accompanied him to the scaffold.
Though Thomlinson attended the trial of the King on two
days, one of which was the day of sentence, he did not sign the
warrant (p. 36), and was pardoned after the Restoration.
At the Restoration he lost Ampthill Park, which he had
acquired during the Commonwealth.
COLONEL HACKER (p. 62)
From a picture at Thornton-le-strcet, the property of Earl Cathcart.
Colonel Hacker was the officer in charge on the scaffold and
was responsible for carrying out the sentence of execution.
He was tried after the Restoration as a Regicide, October 15,
1660, and hanged October 19.
He made no defence, other than that he was a soldier and as
such merely obeyed the orders of his superiors in carrying out
the death-sentence on the King.
CHARLES I. AND OLIVER CROMWELL (p. 71)
The history of these very curious prints, now in the British
Museum, is unknown.
The plate from which they were both taken is obviously an
impudent copy of Vandyck's great painting at Windsor Castle
of Charles I. on a white horse.
The accessories are, however, changed, notably the scenery
and the attendant figure.
The print of Cromwell is the earlier one, and in this the
head of the Protector is shown in the place of that of the King.
After the Restoration, the head of Cromwell was erased and
the likeness of Charles i. substituted, as shown in the illustration
(p. 71), and as it is depicted in Vandyck's picture.
IO2
NOTES ON THE PLATES
THE SCAFFOLD ' GEORGE ' OF CHARLES I. (p. 90}
In the Royal Collection at Windsor.
The large rose diamonds and the smaller ones are now all
absent ; as are also the portrait and the lid that covered it.
CHARLES I. AT HIS TRIAL (p. 92)
After the picture at All Souls College, Oxford.
Incorrectly attributed to Vandyck, who died seven years
before the trial of Charles I. It is interesting as so plainly
showing the Lesser George, which was doubtless the one worn
by the King on the scaffold a few days after his trial.
It will be noticed that the jewel closely resembles the one
shown in the Antony picture (p. 20) as well as the one now at
Windsor (p. 90), and that in it the effigy of the saint is to
be seen riding to the right, and not, as in Hollar's illustration
(p. 42), to the left.
Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press
Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll,,,,,,,,,,,,
A 000706136 9
Open Library