"he swore he'd be my chief minister !!!"
...or did he (・・ ) ? @coquetteladyofthedeadmensworld wanted to know the extent of the Earl of Sunderland's involvement in Monmouth's rebellion of 1685, so i, in my infinite mercy, went snooping like some kind of pervert... which actually ended up making The First Churchills all the more impressive to me (*￣▽￣)b
as all deranged TFC fans know, in the fifth episode we get that scene of Monmouth pleading for his life in front of James and Maria Beatrice, with Sunderland also being curiously present. James wants to know who else was conspiring with Monmouth, but ultimately the only specific name Monmouth gives him is that of Sunderland, who allegedly swore to be his "chief minister" Σ(O_O). James literally doesn't give a shit when he hears of this!
now, for the meeting itself, yes, according to the memoirs of the Earl of Ailesbury (which are a thrilling read, this guy fucking HATES Sunderland) as well as the memoirs of James 2 (sort of), Sunderland was there! but i'm guessing that, due to varying accounts of this meeting, some parts were improvised... including when Monmouth accuses Sunderland right there, in front of James.
in my everlasting genius, i'm guessing that this brief little moment of panic for Sunderland was actually taken from another instance after Monmouth was captured, in which James sent a Mr. Ralph Sheldon to speak with the captured Duke. Sheldon came back with some veeeery interesting information: that Monmouth had stated that Sunderland had promised to meet with him, and that that was something he specifically wanted Sheldon to pass on to James. he also added that he wanted to reveal all his accomplices to James, some of which were ones who James "put the greatest trust" in (￢_￢). Sheldon had wanted to say this in private, because standing there like a leech, unfortunately, was Sunderland himself, but James told him to say it anyway.
at hearing all of this Sunderland went all O_O (the memoirs describe him as "extreamly struck"), and James also kind of looked at him like o.O, but then Sunderland laughed a little, saying, "If that be all he can discover to save his life, it will do him little good." and somehow, that seemed to save him, because James didn't do shit about this, either (￣ω￣;)...
this was not something i found in any account of Monmouth's final audience with the King that i could get my grubby little claws on, leading me to believe that this little instance was what inspired that particular part of the TFC scene! curiously, though, it's James who laughs it off just the same, not Sunderland, which is a shame, because I would have liked to see the little shit damn near piss himself... in any case, it's interesting that they felt the need to include that little moment in any place they could, probably to show how fox-hearted this man was. also, this is a miniseries, precious minutes, people!
you're probably thinking by now, but Sheep, Monmouth didn't say that Sunderland would be his chief minister-- I'M GETTING THERE ((╬◣﹏◢)) !! so yes, while this particular moment was possibly what inspired Sunderland being exposed and James not giving a flying fuck, the contents of the revelation are not exactly the same. so where did TFC get this story from?
well, Ailesbury says that he heard the story from a Mr. Robert Ferguson five years after the fact, claiming that this wasn't known to anyone else but him, so take it with as much salt as you please. Ferguson was on the same ship as Monmouth when he landed at Lyme Regis in 1685. it was on this ship that Monmouth informed him that the same man who was currently serving as the "Prime Minister and Secretary" had promised to do the same for him. Ailesbury makes sure to tell us that Ferguson finishes with, "This is true before the living God!"
so, 1685, huh (ᓀ ᓀ) prime minister is a bit of a confusing title, but we can look at the 'secretary' title for more information... and during 1685, it was Sunderland who was serving as Secretary of State for the Southern Department. however, i thought this connection was still too tenuous for my liking, especially since Ailesbury didn't name Sunderland specifically, so to dispel any doubts i found this same order of offices some pages ahead, and lo and behold...
the hated "Prime Minister and Secretary" himself!! hilarious that it's still only clarified in the margins, but i digress ╮(︶︿︶)╭ we also know that it's the same one from before, as directly after that screenie, Ailesbury states that what Monmouth had told Ferguson about this aforementioned individual is true. so Sunderland it surely is, and that is where we get Monmouth's accusation in TFC! it seems they decided to roll both facts into one and have Monmouth bring up Sunderland's promise right then and there.
so there's that, but i actually want to leave you with something else which the TFC team may or may not have known about. in this same scene, Sunderland asks James if he wants to hear Monmouth out on some "great conspiracies he would discover," which James replies with his signature neigh 🐎🐎 ('nay, nay i do not!'). smug bastards! fascinating to me, tho, that Sunderland would bring this up probably knowing that Monmouth would fucking TELL on him !!! and still James doesn't caaaare (｡•̀ᴗ-)✧
historically, there's a pretty good chance Sunderland would have known exactly what kind of "conspiracies" Monmouth intended to reveal. in the correspondence of the brothers Clarendon and Rochester (bbl rochester!!! laurie hyde DO NOT DERAIL), you can find a story told to Clarendon by a Mr. Colonel Scott, whose first name i cannot fucking find for the life of me 人(_ _*) but we do know he was put in charge of guarding Monmouth in the Tower before he was executed! basically, he says that Monmouth wrote a very long letter and then gave it to Scott to give to James. Scott couldn't leave Monmouth, ofc, so he says he gave it to this unnamed captain who he apparently trusted enough. the captain then goes to fulfill his little mission:
Accordingly he went immediately to Court, and being come near the door of the King's closet, took the letter out of his pocket to give it to the King. Just then Lord Sunderland came out of the closet, and seeing him, asked what he had in his hand; he said it was a letter from the Duke of Monmouth, which he was going to give to the King. Lord Sunderland said, 'Give it to me, I will carry it to him.' 'No, my Lord,' said the Captain, 'I pawned my honour to the Duke that I would deliver the letter to no man but the King himself.' 'But,' said Lord Sunderland, 'the King is putting on his shirt, and you cannot be admitted into the closet, but the door shall stand so far open that you shall see me give it to him.' After many words, Lord Sunderland prevailed on the Captain to give him the letter, and his Lordship went into the closet with it.
what a nosy bitch (╬ Ò﹏Ó)!!! it's not very remarkable on its own, but then Clarendon reveals yet another thrilling detail...
After the Revolution, Colonel Scott, who followed the fortunes of King James, going one day to see the King at dinner, at St. Germains, in France, the King called him to him, and said, 'Colonel Scott, I have lately heard a thing that I want to know from you whether it is true.' The King then related the story, and the Colonel assured him that what His Majesty had been told was exactly true. Upon which the King then said, 'Colonel Scott, as I am a living man, I never saw that letter, nor did I ever hear of it till within these few days.'
so Sunderland never gave James this letter. interesting, interesting, wonder what he thought was in there. potentially those "great conspiracies" which incriminated him?
and now i leave you with one more thing: in both accounts of this final audience found in James' (summarized/paraphrased) memoirs as well as Ailesbury's, it's said that James was actually quite tempted to spare Monmouth after seeing his emotion and hearing his pleas and promises that he would be a Good Boy now!! however, he was apparently dissuaded of this by none other than our dearest boy Sunderland. while James' memoirs don't name him specifically, Ailesbury makes it very clear that Sunderland was the one who stated that there "could not be two kings" and advised James that "he ought not to converse with traitors," quickly putting an end to James' temptation.
TFC doesn't show us a hint of this alleged inclination towards mercy, however, which i think might have been done to portray James as less sympathetic, even less so than his parasitic minister.
anyway, there's your answer!! it's all only allegations, really, but that's about as much as we know :3
