Originally Posted by Karen 18th January 2006


Here lies our Sovereign Lord the King
Whose word no man relies on;
He never said a foolish thing
But never did a wise one.


This is Rochester's infamous description of Charles II. Lamb depicts an emotional and multi layered relationship between Charles and Rochester.

From what you've read, what do you think the relationship was based on? How do you think Lamb portrayed them?

Jeppody


I think Charles originally took Wilmot under his wing because he promised Wilmot senior that he would take care of him. He then began to appreciate his company, enjoying his wit. We know how he hated it if Wilmot was away from court for any length of time. I think he enjoyed his honesty too, so unlike the other courtiers, who would bow and scrape and agree with him constantly.

Wilmots feelings towards the king, however, seem very confused. I think he did like him as a person, but not as a king. I get the feeling he saw Charles as two different people, though I am probably wrong. As a friend he cared about him, comforted him when his sister was poisened, enjoyed going to horse races with him. etc. As a king, I think he found him too weak, which made him an easy target for all his lampooning. I also think he used Charles to his own ends. He got money from him, and earned respect from being a close friend.

On the whole, I think it was a love/hate relationship.

Deppraved


You've hit the proverbial nail square on it's head, Anne. I can't think of a thing you haven't covered in your reply.

There may have been some ambivalence on Rochester's part toward Charles because I get the feeling he blamed Charles II's court for the Libertine climate he embraced but, according to Lamb, abhored subconsiously, because it was contrary to his Puritan upbringing.

Also, I can't shake the notion that Rochester was in competion with Charles in the sexual arena and felt a bit jealous of Charles' endowments. Just a theory. LOL.

Jeppody

Good one Deppraved, I hadn't given that a thought. Mind you, he still seemed to be in great demand, so he couldn't have been that far behind Charles.

I've had another thought too. I think he probably resented Charles for keeping Wilmot senior away from him in France, along with Charles I, whilst he was growing up. I'm sure he would have felt that as unfair as a child, and those feelings are hard to reject in later life.

Karen


Any random thoughts about a "father" image with Charles?

Deppraved

Seems so, yes, or an older brother. I don't recall reading the age difference between them.

If Charles was a father figure, then Rochester was the petulant child.

Karen

Well that's certainly been my opinion. LOL

Pamela


Charles II was born in 1630, so a 17 year difference. Not really as old as a father would be, but older than an older brother.

With regard to how Charles saw Rochester, I think he clearly saw his intelligence & humor, and wanted, needed that around him. I think, too, that he trusted Rochester implicitly.

As to how Rochester saw Charles, I think he wanted desperately to be able to look up to him, to respect him, to love him, but found him wanting. He did not live up to the expectations that Rochester had of him. He was a disappointment to him. Perhaps if Charles had been a better man (because, after all, he was a pretty effective king) Rochester would have demanded more of himself as well. That he would have made more of an effort to develop the talents that he so freely wasted away.

Whitehall


Rochester was brought up to be an absolute Royalist. His mother was still trying to support efforts to have Charles return at the head of an invading army and uprising mob even as he was a very young child. If there was anyone ever brought up with the words 'God Save The King' - it was Rochester!

Young children tend to idolize and nearly deify such person's of 'mythical image. Imagine if your 6-year-old son or little brother were to come into the company of the real Superman, Batman, or Spiderman - and to know they are the one and only truly 'real thing'?

In the summer of 1653, Countess Rochester took 6-year-old John and his much older stepbrother to France to look after her oldest son who had fallen ill while on his Grand Tour of Europe. They stayed there until early 1654.

Charles spent the summer of 1653 ill, having to be bled 5 times before he recovered. Edward Hyde, his chief adviser wrote letters to Henry Wilmot, who was in Germany raising funds, telling him that his young son John was a bright child, most worthy of his father's affection.

A 6-year-old Royalist, meeting his 23 year old Sovereign most likely... you have to wonder if in later years, that 'inner child' of Rochester's wasn't acting out at times when that Great Sovereign disappointed him.

He must not have hated the man - I doubt he named his son after a King he despised and hated. Rochester was obviously a sensitive man - and his personal friendship with the king is well known. They had much in common besides the bottle and the bedroom antics.

Despite their public disagreements and spats, Rochester remained a Royalist to his very last. He may not have always worshipped his King, but he was no betrayer of his monarch either. Perhaps Charles sensed that under the saracasm, under the insults, under the glaring truths he did not want aired to the world, that their author was still a personal friend, one who was 'on his side' when it came to the political issues that plagued him, and a 'companion' in those things they both found more enjoyable.

Charles had it in his power to discipline Rochester far more than he ever did. He never even disciplined him as he did the Duke of Buckingham. Clearly the relationship between The King and his Satyrist was very complex, involved, and intellecually and emotionally charged - on both sides.