Jack Ashburnham

John Ashburnham (1603 - 1671), engraving from a portrait by Daniel Mytens, c. 1630

Jack Ashburnham... That was what the king called him. He entered service with Charles I in 1628 as Groom of the Bedchamber (he was a relative of the Duke of Buckingham, via their mothers). For twenty years he was a close colleague, loyal servant and adviser to the increasingly embattled monarch. 

I know this because we recently visited Ashburnham Place (near Battle) and (after lunch under parasols on the hottest day in a hot June) I treated myself to this book about him, found in the Christian bookshop: Rhoderick W. J. Jones' John Ashburnham: Faithful Servant of King Charles I (Ashburnham Heritage Trust, 2010: 2nd edition 2021).

Most of this post comes straight from Rhoderick Jones' excellent book... acknowledgements and apologies are due!

(Apologies too for the photos with thumbs in them, taken while sitting in a crowded train corridor.)

John (later Sir John) Ashburnham (1571 - 1620), painted in 1593 by Hieronimo Custodis.

[Image source: https://www.denverartmuseum.org/en/object/2021.25 . In the Denver Art Museum. Note the prayer book!]

There were lots of John Ashburnhams. Jack's father (1571 - 1620) is usually designated "Sir John" to avoid confusion. He was knighted in 1603, presumably as part of King James' coronation draft. 

"17 July 1603 – General summons for all persons that had £40 in lands to come and receive the honour of knighthood or compound. The list of 23 July must be in response to this; the majority attended according to the summons and on that day some 427 persons were dubbed, at least 350 of them in the royal garden at Whitehall before the King’s coronation on 25 July." (Source .)

Many people disapproved. They thought it cheapened the order of knighthood. 

Come all you Farmers out of the Countrey,
Carter, Plowmen, Hedgers & all;
Tome, Dick, & Will, Raph, Roger & Humfrey,
Leave of your Gestures rusticall.
Bidd all your Home-sponne Russetts adue,
And sute yourselves in Fashions new:
Honour invits you to Delights:
Come all to Court, & be made Knights.

He that hath fortie Pounds per Annum,
Shalbe promoted from the Plowe:
His Wife shall take the Wall of her Grannam:
Honour is sould soe Dog-cheeap now.
Though thow hast neither good Birth nor Breeding,
If thow hast Money, thow art sure of speeding.

(Poem source.)

Sir John did have  breeding; the Ashburnham family went back almost to the Norman Conquest, beginning with the hamlet of Ashburnham (near Battle) being given to Robert de Criol by Robert, Count of Eu.  Sir John did have money too, at least he did in 1603.  He was in the process of re-acquiring Ashburnham Place. (Seized in 1588, due to his father's Catholicism.) But Sir John no sooner got it back than he fell into money trouble. He died in the Fleet prison in 1620, when Jack was 17. One of Jack's preoccupations, in later life, was to defend his father's reputation. Sir John had not been improvident, but he had been generous and had unreliable friends. 

A later portrait of Sir John Ashburnham 

[Image source: Jones, op. cit. I don't know the artist or date, but obviously Jacobean. As with so many portraits of the time, the subject looks like a good candidate for the author of, say, the First Folio.]

*

Jack became a trusted servant of King Charles during the decade of personal rule, and even more so once the Civil War began. When Charles had to flee Oxford, he travelled in disguise as Ashburnham's servant. (27 April 1646)

They eventually reached the Scottish army at Kelham but, not for the last time, Charles found that his hoped-for refuge was actually a prison.

Jack was despatched to the continent, taking with him the first letter Charles had managed to send his queen since she left England. (Henrietta Maria was a Catholic and it was considered too dangerous for her to stay.)

Deare Heart

The necessity of my affairs hath made me send Jack Ashburnham unto thee; who at this present is the most (and with the greatest injustice) persecuted of all my servants, and merely for his fidelity to me; which is well-known to thee, that I need neither recommend him to thy care, nor take ye pains of setting down the present state of my affairs and how they have changed since I came from Oxford, and why it is so long since I wrote to thee; referring all to his faithful relation; as likewise what I desire thee to do for my assistance: so transferring at this time ye freedom of my pen, to his tongue, I rest eternally thine,

C.R.

I owe Jack £9,200 which I earnestly recommend thou would assest [sic] him in for his repayment 

[Source: Jones, Ch 2]

*

Kelham, outside Newark (Nottinghamshire). The Scottish army were besieging Newark. After unexpectedly obtaining the king they broke up the siege and marched swiftly north to their garrison at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 

Portrait of Jack Ashburnham, presumably when at the height of his career as courtier, say 1635 - 1640 ... ish. 

[Image source: front cover of Jones, op. cit. No artist or date given.]

Jack's story made me think about Charles I. Why, I wondered, had Scott, who memorably portrayed both his father and his son, avoided portraying Charles I? Perhaps because he did not offer any opening for Scott's gift for comedy. Perhaps because the contradictions of his character -- that is, accounts of it, both by friend and foe -- and himself, to the unclear extent that he contributes to Eikon Basilike -- are difficult to resolve into a congruent identity.

Charles I does feature in the Tales of a Grandfather. Scott argued that Charles's trial and execution was a charade: this was a naked power grab by Cromwell. I have no doubt of it; the propaganda of publically justified condemnation is too sickeningly familiar. (By the way, I found Scott's account clearer than Jones' about the relationship of army and parliament, the underlying rivalry between Presbyterian and Independent.) At the same time I recognize that many who pushed for the toppling of the monarch's head were driven partly by fear for themselves: they had already done too much for Charles to forget, were he ever to regain the upper hand. 

But Jones does give a vivid impression of what a maddening master Charles must have been: the endless indecisiveness, the ill-timed intransigence, the contracts he signed but never meant to honour, the persistent secret intriguing, the concessions that were always offered too late. He was the kind of person, I felt, whose spirit suffered beneath the weight of a plan, even if it was his own. On the other hand, a change of plan was balm to him: he could breathe easy again -- for a while. 

Even so, when the crisis came, it was Charles' servants who proved incapable of sticking to a plan. 

Rumours of plots to kill the king were rife. Charles was advised by some to escape, and the Scottish Commissioners offered to help, but the King wasn't sure he could trust them -- they had sold him to his enemies before. Some advisors suggested that the King should go to Jersey, then on to France -- but he didn't want to leave England. Yet, as the days passed, escape increasingly seemed the best option. Someone -- nobody knows who -- suggested escape to the Isle of Wight. The island was a royalist stronghold, and the governor Colonel Hammond was nephew of one of the King's most faithful chaplains. Someone -- possibly John -- suggested the Isle of Wight home of royalist Sir John Oglander would be an ideal destination, as the King could be concealed there until the disposition of the island's governor Colonel Hammond could be ascertained. If Hammond's loyalty was deemed to be suspect then the King and his party could travel on to France without ever having openly revealed their presence on the Isle of Wight -- but for the plan to work, it was essential that the King's whereabouts be kept secret. The King took this suggestion seriously, and began to make preparations for his escape. 

On 9th November an anonymous letter warned the King that the danger to his life had increased, and that a new guard coming to the palace in two days time would bring great danger. As a result Charles informed John and Berkley of his plan to leave immediately -- without having confirmed his destination. At 9pm on 11 November the King and his servant William Legg left Hampton Court via a small door down a back staircase that led to the forest, where they met John and Berkley. The group sped off on horseback, heading for the southwest of England. The night was dark and stormy, and only the King knew the forest; in spite of his guidance the men became lost. Finally, as dawn broke, the travellers reached a little town in Hampshire called Sutton, where John had ordered a relay of horses to be prepared. 

As the inn was already occupied by a committee of Parliamentarians the King and his companions quickly changed horses and moved on. Although the King had still not confirmed their final destination, the group travelled in the direction of Southampton -- ideal for crossing to the Isle of Wight. As the travellers approached the coastal town they stopped to consider their next move. It is said that they first enquired about a ship that John was to have arranged, but that there was no news of it; Berkley suggested going to the western counties. However the group finally settled on the Isle of Wight as their destination -- although the route they had taken so far suggests that the King had planned this course of action ever since leaving Hampton Court.

It was decided that John and Berkley should cross first to the Isle of Wight, to ensure that all was well and that the governor was happy to receive them. The King went to Titchfield, the residence of the mother of the Earl of Southampton, and the following morning John and Berkley arrived on the island. They headed for Carisbrooke Castle, the home of the governor, but the governor was away at Newport so they set out to meet him on his return. Neither John nor Berkley knew Hammond, and John later recorded that he was staggered by Berkley's open and "very unskilful entrance into their business" -- revealing more than was wise before they were sure of Hammond's commitment to the King's cause. Berkley told Hammond that "good King Charles was near, having come from Hampton Court for fear of being murdered". At this, John recollected, the governor turned pale and became anxious. Hammond was torn between his duty to the King, who was showing such confidence in him, and his duty to the Army. As the discussions between John, Berkley and Hammond continued, both John and Berkley began to distrust Hammond. They were on the point of leaving when Hammond finally appeared to yield and offered to serve and help the King as much as he was able. As a result, and accompanied by one of his captains, Hammond joined John and Berkley on their return journey to the King at Tichfield. 

On their arrival John went ahead for a private audience with the King. On hearing what had happened on the Isle of Wight, Charles exclaimed "What! Have you brought Hammond with you? Oh Jack thou hast undone me, for I am, by this means, made fast from stirring". In vain John urged him to believe that Hammond had promised to help, whilst the King paced the room with an expression of the utmost anguish. John burst into tears and offered to go and kill Hammond. "No" replied Charles -- "we will go with him and leave the outcome in God's hands." After he had composed himself, Charles received Hammond. The governor again renewed his promise to the King, but remained worryingly vague and spoke with some embarrassment. 

Night was falling as the party departed for the island. News had spread that the King was coming and many inhabitants went out to meet him on his arrival. As he passed through Newport a young woman advanced towards him and presented him with a red rose, in full bloom despite the season, and accompanied it with a prayer for the King's deliverance. Charles felt assured that the whole population was devoted to him -- and as Carisbrooke Castle only had twelve soldiers he believed that he could easily escape if he wanted to. In the following days Charles felt increasingly at ease as he rode around the island and was treated with every demonstration of respect by Hammond. Charles told John that he was out of reach of those who would seek his life, that the governor was after all an honest man, and that he had no reason to regret having come to the island. However, Charles' faith was misplaced -- although it seems he didn't realise it, he was a prisoner on the island. In addition, almost as soon as Charles arrived on the island, the duplicitous Hammond had informed Cromwell of the King's arrival. As John later ruefully commented: "I have been taught than honour and honesty have clear contrary definitions in several men's understanding".

(from Ch 3 of Rhoderick W. J. Jones, John Ashburnham)

[Sir John Berkley, along with Jack Ashburnham a principal assistant to the King from 1647. Jones records: "The two men were described as being vain, intriguing, and talkative, but it was said that Berkley had more courage, and Ashburnham more craftiness and influence with the King".]

[William Legg or Legge, royalist colonel and another Groom of the Bedchamber.]

[Presumably Long Sutton, a few miles south of Hook? The sources for this story are Clarendon, the Memoirs of Sir John Berkley and A Narrative by John Ashburnham . Unfortunately online texts of the latter do not actually contain Jack's narrative: they consist only of Vol I, which is his descendant George's lengthy "Vindication of His Character and Conduct from the Misrepresentations of Lord Clarendon" (1830) (PDF) (interesting as it is).]

Hindsight changes our perspective, but it's difficult to understand how Charles and his followers could even think of involving Col.  Hammond. The king's arrival on the island being inevitably public knowledge, this was placing Hammond and his twelve men in defiance of the entire English army. Maybe they didn't conceive, as a modern reader does, that the king was by now utterly bereft of authority within his own kingdom. 

Jack Ashburnham in later life

[Image source: Jones, op. cit.]

After Charles' execution Jack was assailed by other royalists (who accused him of feathering his own nest) and of course by the Commonwealth who sometimes imprisoned him and always restricted his movements; he only survived,  I suppose, because Charles was dead and it was supposed he couldn't do much harm. But when Charles II became king, Jack once more became a trusted royal adviser; he was much at court, but soon afterwards lost his beloved second wife and suffered ill health himself in his final years.

Postcards from Ashburnham Place, now the Ashburnham Christian Trust through a series of transmutations that arguably began with Jack's own renovations of St Peter's church. 

*

Eikon Basilike

I found this article usefully comprehensive:

Robert Wilcher, "What was the King's Book for?: The Evolution of Eikon Basilike", The Yearbook of English Studies, Vol. 21, Politics, Patronage and Literature in England 1558-1658 Special Number (1991), pp. 218-228 (11 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25519603

The author takes the view that the book's contents are substantially Charles' own work, written at various times and with various purposes from 1642 onwards; John Gauden's role being essentially limited to a redaction in 1648 and a few editorial passages. Doubtless there's scope for further debate: Clarendon's reluctant admission of Gauden's authorship continues to trouble.