Will They or Won't They?

Amazing, is it not, how the Star already knows what Kate will be wearing when she marries Prince William when the rest of the world hasn’t yet heard that they’d become engaged? William and Kate: A Royal Love Story premiers tonight at 10 p.m. on TLC and seeks to answer that burning question – when is Prince William going to get engaged to Kate Middleton? TLC’s press release reads:

“Showcasing the definitive love story between a Prince who will be King and the woman who may one day be his Queen, this brand new documentary unveils Prince William and Kate Middleton’s intriguing royal courtship that began in college eight years ago. Theirs is an unlikely story – Kate is an attractive young woman, but grew up well outside the realm of royalty. William is the embodiment of centuries of royal breeding and tradition. As he is being groomed for kingship with Kate at his side, this special reveals the added pressures William will face as he is expected to restore the reputation of the tarnished House of Windsor, a royal house severely damaged by his parents’ broken marriage and his mother Princess Diana’s untimely and tragic death.”

One would think that TLC, and the press at large, would have learned their lesson by now and, in order to avoid a repeat of the mad dog-like press attention given to Diana, they’d lighten up on William. But as he’s the future king, that’s doubtful. And to be honest, if they put the show on t.v., we’ll watch it.

In my opinion, William’s got an even tougher road to hoe than his father, Prince Charles. For the most part, the world has given up on Charles being an effective king. He’s dismissed as being a tree hugging, adultering whacko or it’s assumed that he’ll be too old to be of any real use once he assumes the throne and that his reign will just have to be got through until the reins are passed to William. In addition, Charles is too closely associated with all the scandals and drama of the past few royal decades. William, poor devil, is seen by some as the last hope for restoring the cache of the monarchy. Personally, I think Charles will make a fine king. One has only to recall the words of the Duke of Wellington, who said that the sons of King George III were “the greatest millstone ever hung round the neck of government” to see that as Prince of Wales, Charles is a vast improvement over Prinny. I’d much rather have a Prince who is too green than one who is too purple.

Like they did with his father and mother, the press are touting William and Kate’s courtship as a fairy-tale romance. One can only hope that this pair will live happily ever after. In addition to the press, Ladbrokes is also getting in on the proposal action, speculating that Prince William is most likely to propose in December and offering 7/4 odds that that’s when Clarence House will officially announce his engagement to Kate Middleton.  Meanwhile, rival bookmakers Paddy Power make the first two Saturdays in August the likeliest for a Royal Wedding with 13th August 2011 as the date likeliest for the couple to be spliced, with odds of 3/1 about the wedding taking place that day.

Alas, while abhoring the possibility that the young lovers will be beset by the media, and the bookies, the moment they announce their engagement, I’ll also be watching TLC tonight at 10 p.m. Well, okay, I’ll be flipping back and forth between that and Sherlock Holmes on PBS . . . does the fact that I have absolutely no intention of betting on the Royal nuptials mitigate things at all?

The Death of Princess Charlotte, 6 November 1817

Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales lived a short and largely unhappy life.  But she was always popular with the people and the outpouring of public grief following her sad demise was immense.  Some have compared it to an early 19th century version of the widespread mourning over the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997.

Above, Princess Charlotte by artist George Davis, c. 1817, in the royal collection.

Last year on this date, we posted an extensive story about Princess Charlotte — click here to read the whole story.


While researching my recent talk “The Sensible Regency Wedding” for the 2011 JASNA AGM in Ft. Worth, I found the account Princess Charlotte wrote to her friend Margaret Mercer Elphinstone about reading Sense & Sensibility, Jane Austen’s first published novel, which came out on October 31, 1811.

In her letter of January 22, 1812, the Princess wrote: ” ‘Sence and Sencibility’ I have just finished reading; it certainly is interesting, & you feel quite one of the company. I think Maryanne & me are very like in disposition, that certainly I am not so good, the same imprudence, &c, however remain very like. I must say it interested me much.”

Engraving of Charlotte and Leopold at their 1816 wedding
As can be deduced from the quotation above, the Princess, who had just turned age 16, was not yet completely at ease with grammar or spelling! Her life was difficult, a pawn between her waring parents, George, Prince of Wales, the Prince Regent (later George IV) and Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales.
my photo of an engraving of Margaret Mercer Elphinstone at Bowood, after a portrait by Hoppner

Mercer, as Charlotte called her, was herself an heiress and well-connected in London society. Her father was Admiral Lord Keith of the British Navy. The correspondence between Princess Charlotte and Meg Mercer lasted from 1811 until just before Charlotte’s death in 1817.  Although requested to return the letters to the Prince Regent, Mercer kept them in her possession.  Through her daughter, who became the Marchioness of Lansdowne, the letters were held at Bowood House in Wiltshire. They were published in 1949, in a volume edited by Professor Arthur Aspinall (1901-72).

Princess Charlotte’s wedding gown, 1816

The letters reveal a lively mind, if somewhat flighty, and a great interest in affairs of government on Charlotte’s part.  The last 18 months of her life, after her marriage to Leopold of Saxe Coburg in 1816, were generally happy, we are pleased to say.  RIP, Charlotte.

The Burney Society in Portland, Oregon


Victoria here, just back from the meetings of The Burney Society and the Jane Austen Society in Portland, OR.  We went out a day early in order to take in the Columbia River Gorge.  Sadly, it was raining, but not very hard. In fact, it reminded me of most English rain, not quite a mist but not a downpour either.  At right is Multnomah Falls, most spectacular of the many waterfalls along the gorge.
                                                                                                                                                .
Fanny Burney (1752-1840) was the daughter of a celebrated musician and composer Dr. Charles Burney.  Her half sister, Sarah Harriet Burney, was also a successful author of seven novels.  Fanny Burney grew up in a household that often hosted brilliant circle of artistic and literary leaders. She kept a famous journal throughout most of her life and wrote four novels, many plays and other works.
Our friend Hester Davenport, (see our posts about visiting her in Windsor last June) is a leading member of the UK’s Burney society and the author of Faithful Handmaid, which relates the story of Burney’s position as a Keeper of the Robes for Queen Charlotte from 1786 to 1791.  The position, while prestigious, gave Burney little time to pursue her writing career. We reported on our days with Hester Davenport on July 16 and 18, 2010 posts.

At left is my picture of a plaque on the castle wall in Windsor commemorating the lives of Mrs. Delaney (see our posts of  9/30 and 10/6/10) and Fanny Burney and their roles in the royal court.
The Burney Society was proud to dedicate a window in Westminster Abbey to Frances Burney a few years ago.  Our president for sixteen years has been Paula Stepankowsky (see photo below), whose leadership has been outstanding. This year the society has grown large enough to separate the UK and North American branches. Click here for more information on the McGill University  Burney Center.
For information on the North American Burney Society and the upcoming meetings of the group, click here.   Fanny Burney’s first novel might be her most famous, the coming of age story of Evelina, a delightful tale with incredibly detailed accounts of late 18th century life in Britain. My favorite is Camilla, perhaps because I read it first and loved every page. All this is a long way of introducing the conference in Portland. The subject was “Burney and the Gothic.”  Many speakers adressed aspects of this fascinating subject in Burney’s novels, finding many gothic references where I had entirely missed them! But viewed in the context of the popular genre of gothic novels in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, of course all of these arguments made obvious sense (not to mention sensibility!).
Our intrepid leader, Paula LaBeck Stepankowsky, president of The Burney society for 16 years, has been a true inspiration to all of those who love Burney, from reader/writers like me, to fond fans, to academic specialists in 18th century fiction. Paula is leaving her office and everyone was both disappointed that she will no longer be our active leader, but happy that she completed so many years of service and is moving on to a new role, which she promised would definitely include her love of Frances Burney.

                                                                         In 

Portland Public Library
addition to her role in guiding the Burney Society, Paula has amassed a stellar collection of first editions and memorabilia of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many displayed at a special exhibition at Portland’s beautiful public library, a short walk from the conference hotel.




Works of Mary Robinson, 1st edition

Letters of Frances Burney,  Madame D’Arbly
First editions of Emma and Mansfield Park beside a shawl,
of linen, according to family tradition, embroidered by Jane Austen



Emma, a first edition, in the collection of Paula LaBeck Stepankowsky

Above, copies of three of Paula’s fascinating collection of Regency-era prints and charicatures by James Gillray and Thomas Rowlandson.

What a marvelous two days. Soon, I will tell you about the following days at the Jane Austen Society of North America’s Annual General Meeting: Jane Austen and the Abbey: Maystery, Mayhem, and Muslin in Portland.  Stay tuned.





The Prize Fighter Buried in Westminster Abbey

A prize fighter buried in Westminster Abbey? Can this be true? The pugilist in question is no other than Jack Broughton (at left), who is often described as the founder of the British School of Boxing. “Broughton’s Rules ” were long held sacred in the prize-ring, and are still regarded as the alphabet of pugilistic law.

Born in I704, Broughton began his career as a Thames waterman, and he was the first man who won Doggett’s Coat and Badge. He made his appearance as a professor of self defence at George Taylor’s famous booth at the “Adam and Eve ” at the head of the Tottenham Court Road. There he defeated his master, and was encouraged to set up a larger and more convenient amphitheatre on his own account. Seceding from the Tottenham Court Road establishment, he rapidly built a new prize-ring adjoining the Oxford Road, near the spot where Hanway Street, Oxford Street, now stands, and opened it on March 10, I743. From prints in the British Museum, it appears that this building was somewhat similar to Astley’s original circus and riding school in the Westminster Road; there were boxes, pit, and a gallery; a stage for the combatants in the centre of the ring, and the tout ensemble bore some resemblance to the pictures of the Old Fives Court in Windmill Street.

The most significant sign of Broughton’s success was the promulgation of his own “Code” for the guidance of combatants, and the satisfaction of the judges. This was produced by Mr. Broughton, for the better regulation of the amphitheatre, and approved of by the gentlemen, and agreed to by the pugilists, August 18th, 1743. These rules lasted in perfect integrity from the period of their date until 1838, when after the fight between Owen Swift and Brighton Bill, the ” New Rules of the Ring ” superseded Broughton’s. We here give the original

BROUGHTON’S RULES

(I) That a square of a yard be chalked in the middle of the stage; and every fresh set-to after a fall, or being parted from the rails, each second is to bring his man to the side of the square, and place him opposite to the other; and till they are fairly set-to at the lines, it shall not be lawful for the one to strike the other.

(2) That, in order to prevent any disputes, the time a man lies after a fall, if the second does not bring his man to the side of the square, within the space of half a minute, he shall be deemed a beaten man.

(3) That, in every main battle, no person whatever shall be upon the stage, except the principals and their seconds; the same rule to be observed in bye-battles, except that in the latter, Mr. Broughton is allowed to be upon the stage to keep decorum, and to assist gentlemen in getting to their places; provided always, he does not interfere in the battle; and whoever presumes to infringe these rules, to be turned immediately out of the house. Everybody is to quit the stage as soon as the champions are stripped, before they set-to.

(4) That no champion be deemed beaten unless he fails coming up to the line in the limited time; or that his own second declares him beaten. No second is to be allowed to ask his man’s adversary any questions or advise him to give out.

(5) That, in bye-battles, the winning man to have two-thirds of the money given which shall be publicly divided upon the stage, notwithstanding any private agreements to the contrary.

(6) That, to prevent disputes, in every main battle, the principals shall, on the coming on the stage, choose from among the gentlemen present two umpires, who shall absolutely decide all disputes that may arise about the battle; and if the two umpires cannot agree, the said umpires to choose a third, who is to determine it.

(7) That no person is to hit his adversary when he is down, or seize him by the ham, the breeches, or any part below the waist; a man on his knees to be reckoned down.

These rules have been called the groundwork of fair play and manly boxing, and no man, from his experience, was better able to frame such a code than Broughton. To them, says the author of “Fistiana,” we greatly owe “that spirit of fair play which off ers so wide a contrast to the practices of barbarous ages, when every advantage was admissible where brute strength or accidental casualties placed a combatant in the power of his antagonist. It is to be lamented that, even in modern times, the inhuman practices of uncivilised periods have subsisted to a disgraceful extent, and hence we have heard of gouging, that is to say forcing out the eye of an antagonist with the thumb or finger; purring, kicking a man with nailed shoes as he lies on the ground, striking him in vital parts below the waistband, seizing him when on his knees, and administering punishment till life be extinct, and a variety of other savage expedients by which revenge or passion has been gratified; and it is remarkable that in those counties in which pugilism or prizefights have been least encouraged, these horrors have been most frequent ; we refer to -shire in particular, where, even to this day, that species of contest, called up-and-down fighting, that is when a man has got down he is kept down and punished, incapable of motion, is permitted with impunity, unless indeed the death of the victim leads to the apprehension and trial of the survivor.”

To Broughton also the Ring owed the introduction of gloves. He thus announced his new invention in the Daily Advertiser of February 1747 –

Mr. Broughton proposes, with proper assistance, to open an academy at his house in the Haymarket, for the instruction of those who are willing to be initiated in the mystery of boxing, where the whole theory and practice of that truly British art, with all the various stops, blows, cross-buttocks, &c., incident to combatants, will be fully taught and explained; and that persons of quality and distinction may not be debarred from entering into a course of those lectures, they will be given with the utmost tenderness and regard to the delicacy of the frame and constitution of the pupil; for which reason mufflers are provided, that will effectually secure them from the inconveniency of black eyes, broken jaws, and bloody noses.

Broughton, after fighting several years, and maintaining his ascendancy, was at length vanquished by one Jack Slack, a Norwich butcher, in April I750, at Broughton’s Amphitheatre. Some thousands were lost on the unexpected defeat; and nearly 150 pounds were taken at the door, not counting many tickets sold at a guinea and a half each, all of which went to Slack, who is supposed to have gained nearly 600 pounds by his victory. After this defeat Broughton never fought again; and his amphitheatre was shortly after shut up. The Duke of Cumberland, his principal patron and backer, lost 10,000 pounds on this contest.

Broughton died, January 8, I789, at Walcot Place, Lambeth, in his eighty-fifth year.

Captain John Godfrey, who wrote a ” Treatise on the Science of Defence,” thus apostrophises Broughton:

“Advance, brave Broughton! Thee I pronounce Captain of the Boxers.
As far as I can look back, I think I ought to open the characters with him ; I know none so fit, so able, to lead up the van. This is giving the living preference to the rest. What can be stronger than to say that, for seventeen or eighteen years, he has fought every able boxer that appeared against him, and has never yet been beat ? This being the case, we may venture to conclude from it ; but, not to build alone on this, let us examine further into its merits. What is it that he wants ? Strength equal to what is human, skill and judgment equal to what can be acquired, undebauched wind, and a bottom spirit never to pronounce the word ‘Enough.'”

Although many authorities, including the ” Dictionary of National Biography,” once stated that John Broughton was buried in Lambeth Church, the father of modern boxing sleeps peacefully with his wife in the cloister of Westminster Abbey.

How can this be? In the first place it is well to remember that Broughton, after his retirement from the Ring, filled an honourable place in the Yeomen of the Guard, which he held until his death. In Dean Stanley’s “Historical Memorials of Westminster Abbey” it is clearly indicated that Broughton is buried in the West Cloister. His burial here is attested both by a wall tablet and a gravestone in the pavement. Here is the inscription on the wall tablet –

BENEATH THIS TABLET LIES THE REMAINS OF MRS. ELIZABETH BROUGHTON. DIED 7TH DECEMBER, 1784- AGED 59 YEARS. ALSO OF MR. JOHN BROUGHTON, ONE OF HIS MAJESTY’S USHERS OF THE YEOMEN OF THE GUARD. DIED 8TH JANUARY, I789. AGED 86 YEARS.

When it was first erected, the stone showed a gap left after John Broughton’s name. Dean Stanley tells us, on the authority of a communication made by Broughton’s son-in-law to the master mason of the Abbey, that this gap was intended to be filled by the words “Champion of England.” But the Dean objected, and the blank remains.” His headstone did not bear an epitaph for nearly 200 years and it was not until 1988 that Broughton’s request was fulfilled and the words “Champion of England” were engraved on the headstone.

Broughton was buried in the cloister on the lefthand side of his wife (whose burial here in 1784 is itself strong presumptive evidence that her husband was laid here in 1789), but it remarks that whereas “the journals of the day state that he was buried in Lambeth churchyard ” it appears that he was given an honourable interment in the Abbey.’ It will be observed that on the tablet Broughton is described as one of His Majesty’s Yeomen of the Guard. Several such Yeomen are buried in the cloisters, and there is even ground for believing that in his later years Broughton was also a verger of the Abbey. Indeed, Westminster Abbey may be said to contain a statue of Broughton, for the magnificent figure of Hercules in Rysbrack’s monument to Sir Peter Warren in the North Transept was modelled after his gigantic form.

Heads Up On Downton Abbey

ITV will be broadcasing a new costume drama series, Downton Abbey, written and created by Oscar-winning writer Julian Fellowes and starring Maggie Smith as Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham, Hugh Bonneville as Robert, Earl of Grantham and Elizabeth McGovern as Robert’s wife, Cora, Countess of Grantham. By the way, there was a real-life Earl of Grantham, a cousin of William III, but the title became extinct when he died in 1754.
The new series, very much a la Upstairs, Downstairs, is set in an Edwardian country house in 1912 and follows the Crawley family and the servants who work for them. The Earl is married to an American and they have three daughters – a fact which presents all manner of problems when it comes to the vexed question of who will continue the Crawley line.

The fictional Crawleys have  been the Earls of Grantham since 1772 and occupy the upstairs rooms, whilst below stairs are other residents, the servants, as fiercely possessive of their ranks as anyone above. Some of them are loyal to the family and are committed to Downton as a way of life, others are moving through, on the look out for new opportunities or love or just adventure. The difference being that they know so many of the secrets of the family, while the family knows so few of theirs.

Downton Abbey’s writer and creator is Julian Fellowes (at left), who also wrote Gosford Park and The Young Victoria, recently said: “It is no secret that I am fascinated by the extraordinary variety of people that occupied the great country houses. Where men and women worked alongside each other and lived in close proximity, but were separated in their dreams and aspirations by a distance that makes the moon seem close. Television drama often relies on a structure that will involve characters of different backgrounds, any hospital soap opera or detective series can give you that, but there is no narrative base that can provide members of every level of society, sleeping under a single roof, more believably than a great house before the First War. “
Downton Abbey itself will be played by Highclere Castle. Executive Producer and Managing Director of Carnival Films, Gareth Neame said: “Highclere Castle is the perfect location for the family home in our drama. The estate is absolutely breathtaking and the house itself is splendid beyond belief. Julian had Highclere in mind when he was writing the script and we are thrilled that Lord and Lady Carnarvon have agreed to allow us to invade their beautiful home and grounds for the duration of our shoot.”
The village locations were shot in Bampton, Oxfordshire. Producer Nigel Marchant said: “Downton Abbey is supposed to be set in Yorkshire, and we needed to be able to create a fictional village nearer London. Bampton is perfect because it is so well preserved, and you hardly need to do anything in terms of alterations.  There are three big manor houses which make perfect locations and we will be using different parts of the village.”

The series has been airing in seven installments in Britain, which means we probably won’t have the pleasure of seeing it for about a year. It has proved popular across the pond and a second series has been commissioned. However, not all is rosey with the production, as recently Julian Fellowes has been accused of lifting certain plotlines and devices straight from Little Women and other works. In addition, viewers have written to complain about historical inaccuracies, including seeing t.v. aerials on roofs and double yellow lines on the roads. You can read the full story in The Telegraph.