'The Duchess of York wished to have the portraits of the most beautiful women at Court,' Anthony Hamilton wrote in the Memoirs of Count Grammont. 'Lely painted them, and employed all his art in the execution. He could not have had more alluring sitters. Every portrait is a masterpiece.' The original set of 'Beauties' painted by Lely were, as we find from James II's catalogue, eleven in number, their names being Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland (ne'e Villiers); Frances, Duchess of Richmond and Lennox (ne'e Stuart); Mrs. Jane Myddleton (ne'e Needham); Elizabeth, Countess of Northumberland (ne'e Wriothesley); Elizabeth, Countess of Falmouth (ne'e Bagot); Elizabeth, Lady Denham (ne'e Brooke); Frances, Lady Whitmore (ne'e Brooke); Henrietta, Countess of Rochester (ne'e Boyle); Elizabeth, Countess de Grammont (ne'e Hamilton); and Madame d'Orleans. It will be seen that in this list of 'Beauties' Anne Hyde, Duchess of York, does not figure; but since she was responsible for the collection, it would be peculiarly ungracious to omit her from a volume that treats of it. Also, she deserves inclusion for her supreme courage in selecting the sitters--for what must the ladies who were not chosen have said and thought of her? Nor in the series are Nell Gwyn, Louise de Ke'roualle, and the Duchess Mazarin; but no account of the social life of the Court of Charles II can possibly omit mention of them, and therefore something has been said about each of these ladies. The new Revised Edition restores Melville's masterpiece of the intricate relationships and day-by-day account of court life in the reign of Charles II of England. This edition also adds a new glossary, bibliography, and extended footnotes for the lay history reader. Also included are first-ever translations of French language poems, letters, and epitaphs completed by Coby Fletcher.
The married life of the Duchess of York was not all roses. Her consort was a pleasant enough fellow, though not so genial nor so dignified as his brother, the King, and he was certainly as selfish as any of the Stuarts. Anthony Hamilton in hisMemoirs of Grammont presents a good and fairly reliable penportrait of the Heir-Presumptive. “He was very brave in his youth,” he says, “and so much magnified by Monsieur Turenne, that till his marriage lessened him, he really clouded the King, and passed for the superior genius. He was naturally candid and sincere, and a firm friend, till affairs and his religion wore out all his first principles and inclinations. He had a great desire to understand affairs: and in order to do that he kept a constant journal of all that passed, of which he showed me a great deal.
“The Duke of Buckingham gave me once a short but severe character of the two brothers. It was the more severe, because it was true: the King (he said), could see things if he would: and the Duke would see things if he could. He had no true judgment, and was soon determined by those whom he trusted: but he was obstinate against all other advices. He was bred with high notions of kingly authority, and laid it down for a maxim, that all who opposed the King were rebels in their hearts. He was perpetually in one amour or another, without being very nice in his choice: upon which the King once said, he believed his brother had his mistress given him by his priests for penance. He was naturally eager and revengeful: and was against the taking off any, that set up in opposition to the measures of the Court. He was for rougher methods. He continued many years dissembling his religion, and seemed zealous for the Church of England, but it was chiefly on design to hinder all propositions, that tended to unite us among ourselves. He was a frugal prince, and brought his court into method and magnificence, for he had £100,000 a-year allowed him. He was made High Admiral, and he came to understand all the concerns of the sea very particularly.”
It was not to be expected that a lady not of royal blood who, married the Heir-Presumptive to the throne would at once become popular with the ladies of the Court or with society generally. In fact, jealousy was, not unnaturally, rampant. Nor did her relations by marriage accept her with equanimity. The Duke of Gloucester said that his sister-in-law smelt of her father’s green-bag, and that in a parvenue the pride habitually imputed to her was naturally resented. However, after a time, she contrived to live down her unpopularity. Anthony Hamilton wrote of her: “The Duchess of York’s want of birth was made up by endowments, and her carriage afterwards became her acquired dignity. She had a majestic air, a pretty good shape, not much beauty, a good deal of wit, and so just a discernment of merit, that, whoever of either sex were possessed of it, were sure to be distinguished by her: an air of grandeur in all her actions made her to be considered as if born to support the rank which placed her so near the throne.”
Of her, Pepys wrote in 1667, “The Duchess is not only the proudest woman in the world, but the most expenceful.” Anyhow, whether the fault lay with her or her husband, the fact remains that the cost of their household was £20,000 a year in excess of their revenue, and that about the time that Pe
