This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Yes. I remember being frustrated by DNB's silence. This is one of those entries in the 2004 that had been glossied-up but not improved from 1898, and that stuff is dripping with "Lord X scandalously alleged to have been with Lady Y." When I was writing this, I went to go find out about "Berkeley" (there are a few), and I remember finding out which one and which person was alluded to, but, actually, I had found this Bargany bio to be so dull that I didn't follow up. After the break, I'll see if I can find out. (My recollection is that this was in the window between Nellie and Portsmouth, that, when Charles II cooled on Nell, there was a rush to be the courtier who supplied a mistress, but Berkeley's idea was a poor one, as Charles II had made up his own mind and wasn't going to owe his love life to a peer.) Geogre (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
(My point being that Charles was really, really clever. Whereas with Louis XIV, there was a deal of pandering to the crown and gaining preferment that way, Charles would have none of that. Whereas with his own grandfather, and possibly his father, there had been some thrusting forward of "froward" lasses and lads, Charles knew about it and would have nothing to do with it (as such things lead to enormous troubles for his father and grandfather). Given the fact that English girls were capable of putting themselves in his way all on their own and that he had an active eye and wide circuit, he didn't need and wouldn't accept all that attempting to "place" a mistress on him. Probably the cleverest monarch for the English since Elizabeth and until George III.) Geogre (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply