Sometimes also called 'The Royal Oak', the tree as it stands today is actually a descendant of the original tree who was named due to their association with King Charles II (1630-1685). The name arises from the story of Charles II allegedly having hid among the tree's branches as he was taking refuge in Boscobel House and the surrounding oak woodland, while on the run from the parliamentarians (Miles, 2013). After the King was restored to the throne the tree became a site of pilgrimage for royalists and those wishing to preserve a memento of Charles' restoration. According to Samuel Pepys in 1702, the tree's popularity eventually rendered it completely without bark, causing the Royal Oak to die sometime in the early 18th century (de Groot, 2016). To preserve the event's history, an acorn from the original Royal Oak was planted as a replacement and has since grown into the modern day 'Son of Royal Oak'.

Because of this, the name of the current tree within the grounds of Boscobel House was adapted to signify its linkages and cultural ties to the previous tree and, I imagine, to retain their royal connections. Interestingly enough, due to this adaptation, the naming of 'Son of Royal Oak' also acts as a kind of organic repurposing of human activities, namely primogeniture — placing significant importance on gendered notions of inheritance, of land, status and class upon the tree.

In 2000, the tree was badly damaged during a violent storm, loosing many of its branches and developing its now characteristic shape. Ten years later, after a review of the tree's health, Son of Royal Oak was also found to have developed large and dangerous cracks. The subsequent fencing and ties that hold a piece of wood against the tree's trunk are to ensure the tree's health and the safety of visitors.