7 - Information, Access, and Court Culture: Daniel O'Neill

Summary

The lit[t]le Queene a munday last went hence with her two younger sonns, with her eldest shee had hot disputs the night and morning before shee went, about Prince Rupert, Sr Edward Herbert and Sir John Barkley, in all which shee had litle satisffaction, for hee said they had soe behaved themselves to him that they should never more have his trust, nor his company, iff he could … My Ld Gerrard, if I am not mistaken is uppon as ticklish tearmes and soe will all those that thinke to use this young man as they did his father; for though in appearance hee iss gentle, familiar and easy, yet hee will not be gurmanded nor goverened by violent humors such as these are …

[Daniel O'Neill] to [W. Ashburnham], 3 June 1654

The politics of Charles's pleasures was not, of course, the only factor that had determined the outcome of Taaffe's pleas for satisfaction and gentlemanly decorum. Certainly, Charles can and should be faulted for his lack of interest in the proper management of these affairs of honour and preferment. As Ormond and Hyde lamented, Charles's inability (or unwillingness) to function as a powerful, stabilising entity at the centre of the scattered Royalist community had certainly exposed a failure on the King's part to grasp the particular demands of exile and the needs of his supporters amid penury and disillusionment. Yet, the moral fibre of the King and the court that he kept was only one among a much larger mass of issues which dislocation and penury had thrust upon the Royalist community as it gathered around the Stuart cause. One such issue was the decentralised nature of the Royalist courts.