There’s a petition over at the London Historians’ Blog, which can also be found in our right sidebar under “Amusing Blogs.” They are feverishly trying to save the Cleveland Street Workhouse, which is thought to be Dickens’ inspiration for the workhouse in Oliver Twist, from demolition. Please take a moment to log onto their site and sign this document in the hopes of saving an important part of London’s disappearing history. Thank you!
 |
| Fitzroy Somerset, later Lord Raglan |
From The Letters of George Canning:
A letter written by Lt.-Col. Lord FitzRoy Somerset to Wellesley Pole dated Thursday, February 12, 1818.
My Dear Mr. Pole,
You have so often expressed apprehensions for the Duke’s safety, that you will be more shocked, than surprised to learn, that he was shot at, the night before last, just as his carriage was entering the Porte Cochere of his house (The Duke’s house was in the Rue Champs Elyses. It was from this house that the first shot was fired by Le Grange in the Revolution of 1848. It was subsequently pulled down by order of Napoleon III). Fortunately the shot missed entirely; but however one may exult at his escape on this occasion, the fact that it is intended to take away his life is so clear, that one cannot but dread that another attempt may be more effectual.
 |
| Ivory coach pass belonging to William Wellesley Pole, Master of the Royal Mint 1814-1823 |
It appears by the evidence of the coachman and footman, that as the carriage passed by the Hotel d’Abrantes, which you may recollect is at the entrance of the Rue des Champs Elysees, they observed a man standing opposite to it, who, on the approach of the carriage moved on and kept pace with it till he reached the nearest sentry box at the Duke’s door, when he stopped and as the carriage was in the act of turning into the gateway the villain fired his pistol. Upon hearing the shot, the horses rather quickened their pace, which the coachman had checked to go more easily over the gutter, and the Duke arrived without accident at the house, totally unaware that he had been fired at, till the footman opened the door and said ‘J’espere, Monseigneur, que votre Excellence n’est pas blesse’.’ He had conceived that one of the sentries’ muskets had gone off by accident. Upon ascertaining how the fact stood, the Duke ordered the assassin to be pursued, but as no step had been taken till he gave the directions to that effect, the scoundrel of course made his retreat good. If however, the sentries had been as indeed they ought to have been outside the Porte Cochere, instead of being in it, or if the footman (a Frenchman) had had his wits about him, and upon seeing the man fire, had immediately jumped down and run after him, or had even cried out he must have been taken; for two of the Duke’s English servants were at the moment coming down the street, and heard the report of the pistol, and whilst they were debating upon what was the cause of the shot at such an hour (it was after midnight) they met the man running: and as one of them had said that the shot might have been fired at the Duke’s carriage they had a great mind to stop him, but hearing no alarm they thought it most prudent to let him go by without molestation.
Shortly after, some of the guard detached from the Duke’s came up to them and asked them if they had seen anybody, to which they replied in the affirmative, and immediately joined with the soldiers in the pursuit. One of the servants ran so fast, that he thinks he saw the same man go into a house in the Rue de la Madeleine, and stay at the door till he came up, when it was slammed in his face. This house was afterwards examined some hours after, I believe, and it appears that the only lodger is a laquais-de-place now in the service of an Englishman. The soldiers and servants continued their researches but ineffectually. The whole of yesterday was occupied by the police in the examination of everybody who could throw any light upon the affair, and in the evening a man came forth who had formerly lived as servant to Burgh, who acknowledged himself the author of an anonymous letter he had addressed Sir Ulysses about a month ago, who had communicated it to the Duke stating that he had been offered a sum of money to assassinate him. He now said that he had no personal acquaintance with the man who had made the proposition to him, but that he should know him if he were to see him, and that he was apprehensive that his own life was in danger in consequence of his refusal to undertake the murder. This laquais had been in the army and had afterwards lived with General Exelmans where he was probably remarked by the villain who wanted to induce him to perpetrate the crime. Nothing else has transpired which may tend to the discovery of the assassin, with the exception of a letter from Lord Kinnaird to Sir George Murray which you will receive through Sir Charles Stuart.
 |
| Charles, 8th Lord Kinnaird of Inchture (1780-1826) |
 |
| Duke of Wellington |
Measures are taken to guard the Duke’s house and to watch the streets immediately leading to it, and he will have an Aide-de-camp always in the house, and he will have a person armed though not in uniform with his carriage. He has promised also never to go about alone and will not make use of his own carriage which is so well known.
Should I hear anything further before the messenger is dispatched I will communicate to you.
Yours most affectionately,
FitzRoy Somerset.
Fashions for females in the Georgian Era changed dramatically, from wide skirts and narrow waists, high-piled coiffures, and fussy decoration to simple, high waisted gowns — and back again in the space of a few decades. Marie Antoinette (1755-1793), Queen of France, right, might have been the most extreme. She was painted in 1778 by Elisabeth Vigee le Brun (1755-1842) in a huge hooped skirt and hair powdered, drawn high and topped off with a fountain of feathers. In an upcoming post, we will look at some of the fashion plates from various lady’s magazines of the Georgian era. In this post, however, we will indulge in the representations of fashion shown in portraits by celebrated artists.
Left is Grace Dalrymple Elliott, subject of Jo Manning’s excellent biography. My Lady Scandalous: The Amazing Life and Outrageous Times of Grace Dalrymple Elliott, Royal Courtesan. She was painted by Gainsborough in the late 1770’s. One of the outstanding features of Gainsborough’s portraits is the depiction of the sumptuous silks and satins worn by his subjects. Again, the hair-do is exaggeratedly high and powdered to a pewter shade rather than the white powdering of a few years earlier. Imagine how many hours had to be spent by these ladies while their minions teased each strand up and over whatever bird-cage-like platform was used.
In the 1780’s and 1790’s, the styles became simpler, perhaps bucolic. Even the French Queen favored a version of the simple muslin chemise. The mode, color and fabric were copied by aristocrats on both sides of the Channel. Hair is more naturally arranged, though still powdered a little, and one could hardly say the hat would be worn by a peasant. Again, the painter is Vigee le Brun.
 |
| Jane Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, 1797 by John Hoppner Tate Britain |
Gradually the gowns evolved into looser skirts with high waists just below the bosom. The two portraits below by Sir Henry Raeburn(1756-1823) show the exact changes.
 |
| Mrs. Eleanor Urquhart, 1795 National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.  Elizabeth Campbell 1812 During the nine years of the Regency, fashions became more elaborate with fancy work and embellishments for the sleeves and around the hems. After about 1800, the hair powder is gone for good and the styles are simpler. By the official end of the regency in 1820, waistlines had begun to sneak back to their natural spot. In the 1820’s, the corseted waist and wide skirts returned, and in the 1830’s, the hair rose again. Below are two portraits by Thomas Sully (1783-1872), born in England but who lived most of his life in the United States.
 Abby Ann King Turner Van Pelt, 1832 Sir Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830) painted many portraits throughout the regency and afterwards. Here are a few of his portraits, showing the change from the late 18th century to several decades into the 19th.  Queen Charlotte, 1789, National Gallery, London
 Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales, 1798, Victoria and Albert Museum, London  Mrs. Jens Wolff, 1815  Julia Hankey, later Lady Bathurst, c. 1825  Hair has remained unpowdered throughout the late Georgian period, but by the 1830’s, there were some fantastic top-knot arrangements, as seen below. Not to mention the fantastic hats that came back into style. To the left is a portrait of Fanny Kemble (1809-1893) with her aunt Sarah Siddons (1755-1831) painted by Henry Perronet Briggs (1791-1844) in 1831, shortly before Sarah went to her considerable reward.  The print to the right is Princess Victoria, later Queen, based on an 1833 painting by Sir George Hayter (1792-1871). Fanny and the princess share a top-knot hair style. Below is a feathered hat even Marie Antoinette would have loved. The painting hangs in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg; Sir George Hayter portrays Countess Vorontsova in 1832. Another hat the ill-fated queen might have enjoyed wearing is shown in a portrait of Julia, Lady Peel, nee Floyd (1795-1859) by Sir Thomas Lawrence; the real thing can be viewed at New York City’s Frick Collection. So the fashion cycle comes full circle in about seventy years from the 1760’s to the 1830’s.   |
Drawing on the current resurgence in sewing, gardening and cooking and the historical roots of the domestic arts within the home, this exhibition at The Women’s Library in London runs until April 1 and explores the ways in which household crafts have traditionally been the domain of women, their role as sources of knowledge and self-expression shared between generations and communities, and as cultural experiences nurturing the creative spirit is celebrated in the displays. Curated by Carol Tulloch, this timely exhibition will allow visitors to explore and learn the stories of crafts and the women involved in them through personal tales and fun interactive projects.
The Women’s Library is a cultural centre housing the most extensive collection of women’s history in the UK. We run exhibitions and events in addition to the Reading Room Service. The Women’s Library has an extensive Printed collections cataloguesearch online. (books, pamphlets, periodicals and videos). Most of the Library’s books, pamphlets, periodicals and videos are catalogued and available to use. The collections cover a variety of topics, such as women’s rights, suffrage, sexuality, health, education, employment, reproductive rights, the family, and the home. The emphasis is primarily on women in Britain, but some international material is included.
The Library houses over 500 archives (arranged in 11 strands) that document women’s lives and the issues that have concerned and interested them. They date primarily from the mid-nineteenth century to the present day and extend in size from one file to hundreds of boxes. Included are the personal papers of a wide variety of individuals, ranging from the papers of the famous suffragette Emily Wilding Davison to the papers of 2nd wave feminist Sheila Rowbotham. The records of societies and associations are also covered, including female emigration societies, women’s suffrage associations, societies for the abolition of the state regulation of prostitution, societies for the suppression of traffic in persons, women’s employment organisations and a myriad of other pressure groups and campaigning organisations on issues as varied as peace, single parenthood, women clergy and home economics. The records of research and oral history projects are also collected.
An online catalogue is available for searching the archives.
Two hundred years ago today, the English Regency began. George, Prince of Wales, swore his allegiance to King George III followed by oaths of office as Regent according to Parliamentary Acts, and as protector of the Protestant religion. The solemn ceremonies at the Prince’s residence, Carlton House, were attended by the Royal Dukes, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Parliamentary ministers led by the Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval. |
| Jane Austen, NPG |
 |
| The Duke of Wellington, Waterloo victor |
 |
| Lord Byron, mad, bad and dangerous to know |
 |
George “Beau” Brummell, fashion arbiter
 Princess Lieven, by Lawrence, c. 1813  Earl Grey, led the Whig opposition  Sir John Soane, brilliant architect  Sir Thomas Lawrence, self-portrait; he painted them all |
