Winchester VA Streets - Monmouth
Monmouth Street Winchester VA
The Streets of Winchester VA.
.
When you drive down Monmouth Street in Winchester VA think of poor Monmouth's headless fate . . . and the Bill of Attainder authorizing his decapitation.
.
But is this the reason for naming Monmouth Street?
.
Quarles assumes so - sort of.
.
"There is a Monmouth Road in London, undoubtedly named after James the Duke of Monmouth (1649-1685), an illegitimate son of Charles II who asserted his right to the throne and was defeated at the Battle of Sedgemoor and beheaded on July 15, 1685. It is assumed that Monmouth Street in Winchester is named for this London thoroughfare."
.
Source:
Page 75. Garland R. Quarles author. "Winchester, Virginia Streets, Churches, Schools" published by Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, compiled in 1996 of Streets 1958, Churches 1960, and Schools 1964, hereafter referenced as Quarles Streets, Churches, Schools.
.
The 1758 James Wood addition to Winchester included side streets with no names. Monmouth was one of those no-name side streets.
.
The 1759 Lord Fairfax addition shows the name Monmouth for this side street.
.
Quarles observes:
.
"For example we could see no reason why Lord Fairfax in 1759 should have named a street after Lord Leicester, who died in 1588 and whose name and fame had been pretty thoroughly discredited by 1759."
.
"On the other hand, we can see good reason for him to select the name Leicester to recall a beautiful square in his native land which he knew and wished to remember."
.
Page 49, Quarles Streets, Churches, Schools.
.
So although the London streets were named after a famous individual ...
.
the 1759 Lord Fairfax addition were named primarily to remembering those London streets and not to the history of that famed individual.
.
.
But it is interesting to look at the names behind those London Streets copied here in Winchester in 1759 by Lord Fairfax's addition.
.
Back to the story of the man behind the name.
.
Bill of Attainder and Monmouth Street.
.
A Bill of Attainder, a law passed by Parliament TARGETED this one man, the 1st Duke of Monmouth as "tainted" so that due process of the courts was not necessary.
.
James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth
In 1685 he led the unsuccessful Monmouth Rebellion, an attempt to depose his uncle, King James II.
.
Monmouth as the son of Charles II, and his Protestantism, opposed James, brother to to Charles II, who was a Roman Catholic.
.
The rebellion failed, and Monmouth was beheaded for treason on 15 July 1685.
.
.
"It is said that before laying his head to the block Monmouth specifically bade
Jack Ketch finish him at one blow, saying he had mauled others before. Disconcerted, Ketch did indeed inflict multiple blows with his axe, the prisoner rising up reproachfully the while - a ghastly sight that shocked the witnesses, drawing forth execrations and groans. Some say a knife was at last employed to sever the head from the twitching body. Sources vary; some claim eight blows, the official Tower of London fact sheet says it took five blows..."
.
.
Picture of execution 1st Duke of Monmoth from wikipedia article:
.
.
3 years later William III, aka William of Orange, aka Willam and Mary fame, took over England, Scotland, Ireland in 1688 The Glorious Revolution restoring Protestant Rule, and the parliament of Ireland passed a law targeting thousands of people for execution, meaning they passed bills of attainder.
.
Bills of attainder, meaning "taintedness" target ONE PERSON or ONE GROUP by the legislature for punishment without trial, thus violating two principles: Separation of Power,and Due Process.
.
A complicated Modern Example of Bill of Attainder:
.
"After the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution in late 2009 barring the community organising group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) from receiving federal funding, the group sued the U.S. government.[48] Another, broader bill, the Defund ACORN Act, was enacted by Congress later that year. In March 2010, a federal district court declared the funding ban an unconstitutional bill of attainder.[49] On 13 August 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded on the grounds that only 10 percent of ACORN's funding was federal and that did not constitute "punishment..."
.
.
.
.
