Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735: Religion, Political Culture, and Patronage (Queenship and Power) 3031388127, 9783031388125

Citation preview

Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735 Religion, Political Culture, and Patronage

Edited by Eilish Gregory Michael C. Questier

Queenship and Power

Series Editors Charles E. Beem, University of North Carolina, Pembroke, NC, USA Carole Levin, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA

This series focuses on works specializing in gender analysis, women’s studies, literary interpretation, and cultural, political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. It aims to broaden our understanding of the strategies that queens—both consorts and regnants, as well as female regents— pursued in order to wield political power within the structures of male-dominant societies. The works describe queenship in Europe as well as many other parts of the world, including East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Islamic civilization.

Eilish Gregory · Michael C. Questier Editors

Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735 Religion, Political Culture, and Patronage

Editors Eilish Gregory Durham University Durham, UK

Michael C. Questier Durham University Durham, UK

ISSN 2730-938X ISSN 2730-9398 (electronic) Queenship and Power ISBN 978-3-031-38812-5 ISBN 978-3-031-38813-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Jean Audran This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Acknowledgments

The editors would like to express their gratitude to all of the (other) contributors for having worked so hard to get their essays to us, and for dealing with the numerous emails that we sent them—particularly in term time when almost everyone is dealing with the burdensome bureaucratic requirements of teaching and other departmental duties. An undertaking of this kind is very much a collective effort, and we learned a great deal from working together as a team. We would like to thank the department of History at Vanderbilt and the Department of Theology and Religion at Durham for helping to sustain the project in its early stages. We express our appreciation for the assistance rendered to us at the research archives and libraries where we have worked and to the museums and repositories which have given permission to us to reproduce images over which they have copyright. We are grateful also to the production team at Palgrave for taking us through the steps from typescript to finished volume. We also acknowledge the support of Carole Levin and Charles Beem and owe them a great deal for commissioning the volume. Estelle Paranque has been a source of help and advice all the way through. We are grateful to Kenneth Fincham for discussions of dowager privy councils and also to Chelsea Reutcke for her thoughts about Catherine of Braganza’s transition from consort to dowager. Alexander Courtney was very generous in sending us unpublished material on the political influence of Anna of Denmark, and Johanna Strong provided technical assistance on submission day. At a v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

number of key stages Andrew Foster offered thoughtful commentary on the broader issues concerned with the study of queenship. It remains to say only that we hope that this focus on, relatively speaking, a neglected area of study proves to be a useful contribution to the current literature on the court during the Restoration period and after the Revolution of 1688; and that it situates these Stuart queens in the broader context of later Stuart history, patronage and religion.

Note on the Text

In the text, dates are given Old Style and, where appropriate in citing continental sources, Old Style/New Style but the year is taken to begin on 1 January.

vii

Contents

1

1

Introduction Eilish Gregory and Michael C. Questier

2

The Reputation of Dowager Queen Henrietta Maria and the Legitimacy of the Restoration Monarchy Carolyn Harris

19

Catherine of Braganza, Queen Dowager of England, 1685–1692: Catholicism and Political Agency Eilish Gregory

45

3

4

Dynastic Politics: Dowager Queen, Catherine of Braganza, and the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, 1693–1705 Fleur Goldthorpe

5

Mary Beatrice of Modena: Patronage, Poetry, and Power Mindy Williams

6

Contesting Catholic Motherhood: Mary Beatrice of Modena, the “Glorious Revolution,” and Queenly Agency Susannah Lyon-Whaley

7

Mary II, Panegyric and the Construction of Queenship Edward Taylor

71 97

121 149

ix

x

8

9

10

11

12

13

CONTENTS

World of Interiors: Mary II, the Decorative Arts, and Cultural Transfer Amy Lim

175

The Architectural Works of Hampton Court Palace Under the Reigns of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne Emily Birch

203

‘Sickly and Spent’: Reassessing the Life and Afterlife of Anne of Great Britain Jessica L. Minieri

221

“The Crown Can Never Have Too Many Liveings:” Queen Anne’s Patronage of the Clergy, 1702–1714 Jennifer Farooq

237

“La Terrible Catastrofe”: Political Reactions to the Estrangement of Maria Clementina Sobieska and James III, 1725–1727 Stephen Griffin “A Crown of Everlasting Glory”: The Afterlife of Maria Clementina Sobieska in Material and Visual Culture Georgia Vullinghs

257

279

Bibliography

311

Printed Primary Sources

317

Index

355

Notes on Contributors

Emily Birch is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of History at the University of Hull. Her doctoral research looks at Gender and Space in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries at Hampton Court Palace. Emily’s broader research interests are focused on women from the late medieval and early modern period, with particular focus on the queens and royal family of England and Great Britain in the period 1350–1700. Dr. Jennifer Farooq is a Research Associate at the University of Regina and the Project Manager for GEMMS (Gateway to Early Modern Manuscript Sermons). Her primary interests include preaching, the publishing and reception of sermons, and religious and political culture in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Britain. She is the author of Preaching in Eighteenth-Century London (Boydell, 2013) and has published articles on sermons and religious culture in England, including “Preaching for the Queen: Queen Anne and English Sermon Culture, 1702–1714,” Journal for Eighteenth-century Studies (2014). Dr. Eilish Gregory is Postdoctoral Little Company of Mary Fellow at the University of Durham. She is an historian of religion and politics in early modern Britain and received her Ph.D. in History at University College London in 2017 on Catholic sequestrations during the English Revolution. She has held associate lectureship posts in History at the Open University, Anglia Ruskin University, the University of Reading, was tutor for the Oxford Department for Continuing Education, and Postdoctoral

xi

xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Research Associate for the Royal Historical Society. She has published extensively in early modern history, including in The Seventeenth Century journal and Parliamentary History, and in edited collections published by Routledge, Palgrave Macmillan, and Brill, while her first monograph Catholics during the English Revolution, 1642–1660: Politics, Sequestration and Loyalty was published by Boydell in 2021. Dr. Stephen Griffin is a former recipient of the Richard Plaschka predoctoral fellowship, OeAD, Vienna and the Rev. Liam Swords Foundation Bursary, Centre Cultural Irlandais, Paris. He completed his doctoral dissertation on Count Owen O’Rourke and the Stuart diplomatic presence in Vienna, 1727–1743 at the University of Limerick between 2016 and 2020 and he is currently developing this into his first monograph. He has been published in The Historical Journal, Royal Studies Journal, History Ireland, and History Scotland and has several articles and chapters both forthcoming and under peer review. He is an Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Fleur Goldthorpe is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of History at the Australian National University undertaking the project “Women of the British Portocracy: Port Wine Dinastias, Family and Transcultural Lives, 1678–1807.” Prior to commencing her postgraduate research, Fleur worked for nearly a decade as a senior executive in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, translating research outputs into new products and services. She holds a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Otago in New Zealand. Dr. Carolyn Harris is an author, historian, royal commentator, and instructor in History at the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies. She received her Ph.D. in European History from Queen’s University at Kingston. Her dissertation compared popular perceptions of Queen Henrietta Maria and Queen Marie Antoinette. She is the author of three books: Magna Carta and Its Gifts to Canada; Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette; and Raising Royalty: 1000 Years of Royal Parenting; and she is the co-editor of English Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty, a four-volume history of English and British royal consorts. Dr. Amy Lim is an art historian and curator, and a tutor at the Oxford University Department for Continuing Education. In 2022, she completed her D.Phil., “Art and Aristocracy in late Stuart England,”

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

in an AHRC Collaborative Doctoral Partnership with the University of Oxford and Tate, where her research supported the exhibition ‘British Baroque: Power and Illusion’ (Tate Britain, February-March 2020). Her research centres on the fine and decorative arts of the long eighteenth century, patronage, and the intersection of history and art history. She was a contributor to the Paul Mellon Centre’s online publication “Art & the Country House” (2020), and has also contributed to The Georgian Group Journal, Furniture History, and First World War Studies, among other publications. She is curator at Buscot Park, Oxfordshire, and the Stanley Spencer Gallery, Cookham. Susannah Lyon-Whaley has recently completed a Ph.D. in Art History at the University of Auckland. She has a Masters in English Literature and has published articles in Journal of New Zealand Literature, Ka Mate Ka Ora, Backstory, and The Court Historian. Her doctoral thesis examines Catherine of Braganza and the “culture” of nature. Jessica L. Minieri is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of History at Binghamton University. She previously studied medieval and early modern history at the State University of New York at New Paltz where her undergraduate dissertation examined the place of Queen Anne of Great Britain in the historiography of female rulership in Europe. Her doctoral work similarly focuses on queenship in European history through the examination of the role of the histories of violence and imprisonment in the lives of royal women in Mallorca, Sicily, and Aragon. Jessica’s doctoral dissertation, “Stolen Bodies and Hollow Crowns: Imprisonment and Abduction in the Lands of the Crown of Aragon, c. 1200–1415,” examines the use of forced confinement and marriage by the Crown of Aragon to facilitate its expansion into Southern Italy and the wider Mediterranean world. Michael C. Questier was formerly professor of History in the University of London, and Research Chair at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. He is currently Honorary Chair in the Centre for Catholic Studies, University of Durham. Edward Taylor works on news, communication and political culture, in both English and neo-Latin, in early modern Britain. He completed a B.A. in History and M.Phil. in Early Modern History at Clare College, Cambridge. He wrote his Ph.D. thesis, “Commenting on the News: The

xiv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Serial Press and Political Culture in Britain, 1641–c.1730,” at the University of Warwick. He subsequently worked for two years as postdoctoral research fellow at University College London on Dr. Victoria Moul’s Leverhulme-funded project “Neo-Latin Poetry in English Manuscript Verse Miscellanies, c.1550–1700.” He will take up a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship at the University of Birmingham in 2024, working on the project “Bilingual News: Latin and Vernacular Media in Early Modern Britain, c.1580–1730.” He has published on themes including the place of comment in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century press, early modern pamphlet collections, later Stuart political satire in Latin, and Jacobite Latin verse. Dr. Georgia Vullinghs is Assistant Curator of Modern and Contemporary History at National Museums Scotland. Her chapter is based on research conducted as part of an AHRC funded Ph.D. project at the University of Edinburgh: “Loyal Exchange: the Material and Visual Culture of Jacobite Exile, c.1716–c.1760” (2021). In addition to the study of Jacobitism and Jacobite material culture, Georgia works on the material culture of Scotland, and women’s histories. Mindy Williams is a Ph.D. candidate at Purdue University in early modern European history, with a M.A. degree in medieval history from Marquette University. Mindy’s research focuses on considerations of power and gender in queenship, incorporating cultural, historical, and literary approaches. Her dissertation explores Mary of Modena’s political agency as an exiled queen. She is the winner of the 2021 Graduate Student Research Award from the Southern Conference of British Studies.

Abbreviations

AAE Add. BL Bodl. CJ CSPD CSPV CTB HMC HMSO LJ ODNB RA RO s. n. SP TNA

Archives des Affaires Étrangeres, La Courneuve, Paris Additional British Library Bodleian Library, Oxford Journals of the House of Commons (13 vols, London: HMSO, 1802-1803) Calendar of State Papers Domestic Calendar of State Papers, Venetian Series William A. Shaw and F.H. Slingsby (eds), Calendar of Treasury Books (32 vols [for 1660-1718], London, 1904-1962) Historical Manuscripts Commission His Majesty’s Stationery Office Journals of the House of Lords (42 vols, London: HMSO, 1767-1830). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Royal Archives, Windsor Record Office no name of publisher State Papers The National Archives, Kew

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3

Fig. 6.4

Fig. 6.5

Isaac Beckett, The Queen Dowager, c.1680–1688, mezzotint (Credit © The Trustees of the British Museum) Catherine of Braganza’s Bemposta Palace, Lisbon (Credit © Eduardo Montenegro, 2021) Catherine of Braganza’s Coat of Arms, Bemposta Palace, Lisbon (Credit © Eduardo Montenegro, 2021) Methuen’s Commercial Treaty of 27th December 1703 SP 108/393 (Credit © The National Archives, Kew, UK) Jan Smeltzing, Netherlands, 1688. British Museum, G3,EM.72 (Credit © The Trustees of the British Museum) Naissance de Louis XIII à Fontainebleau, engraving on paper, 1601 (Credit National Library of France) Anthonis Mor, Mary I, 1554, oil on panel, 109 × 84 cm, (P002108) (Credit © Photographic Archive Museo Nacional del Prado) Sano de Pietro, The Birth and Naming of St. John the Baptist, 1450–1460, tempura and gold on wood, 20.6 × 42.9 cm, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975.1.44 Jan Luyken, De geboorte van de prins van Wales, 1689, engraving on paper, 18.2 × 13.1 cm. Rijksmuseum, RP-P-1896-A-19368-704

73 84 85 86 129 131

132

133

134

xvii

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 6.6

Fig. 6.7

Fig. 6.8

Fig. 6.9

Fig. 6.10

Fig. 6.11

Fig. 8.1

Fig. 8.2

Fig. 8.3

Fig. 8.4

Fig. 8.5

[Incomplete pack with 51 of 52 playing cards illustrating events leading to the Revolution of 1688], c. 1688–1689. Bristish Museum, 1896,0501.920.1-51 (Credit © Trustees of the British Museum) Benedetto Gennari, The Holy Family, 1682, oil on canvas. Birmingham Museums Trust, 1974P12 (Credit Photo by Birmingham Museums Trust, licensed under CC0) Benedetto Gennari, Sainte Famille, 1685, 240 × 188 cm. Palais Fesch-musée des Beaux-Arts, MFA 852.1.75 (Credit Palais Fesch-musée des Beaux-Arts) Benedetto Gennari, Portrait of the Prince of Wales, 1689, oil on canvas, 129.5 × 96.5 cm. Stonyhurst College (Credit By permission of the Governors of Stonyhurst College) Benedetto Gennari, Faith, c. 1658, oil on canvas, 95.8 × 78.2 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 405558 (Credit Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2022) Alexis-Simon Belle, Prince James Francis Edward Stuart with his sister, Princess Louisa Maria Theresa, 1699, oil on canvas, 188.1 × 131.5 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 401175 (Credit Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2022) Attributed to Daniel Marot (designer) and William Farnborough (maker), Table from the Hampton Court Water Gallery (1692), carved and gilt wood, Carrara marble top. Peter Moores Foundation, Compton Verney Adriaen Kocks, Pyramid flower vase (c. 1692), tin-glazed earthenware (Royal Collection Trust © His Majesty King Charles III 2023) Daniel Marot (designer), Adriaen Kocks (maker), Milk Pan (c. 1694), tin-glazed earthenware (© V & A Museum, London) Lacquer-panelled room from the apartment of Princess Albertine Agnes of Orange-Nassau, consort of the stadholder of Friesland, Leeuwarden (before 1695) (© Rijksmuseum) Design for a porcelain room from Daniel Marot, Oeuvres (The Hague, 1703)

135

141

143

144

146

147

187

189

190

193 194

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 9.1

Fig. 13.1

Fig. 13.2

Fig. 13.3

Fig. 13.4

Fig. 13.5

Fig. 13.6

Fig. 13.7

Fig. 13.8

Sir Godfrey Kneller, Frances Whitmore, Lady Middleton (c. 1666–94), 1690–1691, oil on canvas, 233.7 × 143.0 cm, Royal Collection Trust. RCIN 404727 (Credit Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2022) Rocco Pozzi (after Panini), Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1702–1735. Wife of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, SNPG SPL 66.3 (Image © Scottish National Portrait Gallery) Balthasar Gabbugiani (after Pannini), Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1702–1735. Wife of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, (1735), SNPG SPL 66.2 (Image © Scottish National Portrait Gallery) Michael Sorello after Agostino Masucci, Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1702–1735. Wife of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, (1737), SNPG SP III 77.3 (Image © Scottish National Portrait Gallery) Monument to Clementina Sobieska in St Peter’s Basilica, 1742, commissioned by Pope Benedict XIV, by Filippo Barigioni, Pietro Bracci, and Pietro Paolo Cristofari (Image Author’s own) Medal commemorating the completion of the monument to Clementina Sobieska in St Peter’s, 1742, H.1962.919 (Image © National Museums Scotland) J. Russel, Plate II. Vol.II, Letters from a Young Painter, 1750, printed engraving of Russel’s illustration of the monument to Clementina Sobieska in St Peter’s Basilica. With thanks to the University of Edinburgh Special Collections J. Russel, Plate I. Vol.II, Letters from a Young Painter, 1750, printed engraving of Russel’s illustration of the tomb in St Peter’s Basilica and monument to Clementina Sobieska in SS XII Apostoli. With thanks to the University of Edinburgh Special Collections Portrait Ring, NMS X.2015.105.3 (Image © National Museums Scotland)

xix

210

280

284

294

295

297

301

302 307

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Eilish Gregory and Michael C. Questier

This collection brings together studies of the later Stuart queens regnant and queens consort—Henrietta Maria as queen dowager for two periods after the Restoration (1660–1661 and 1662–1665); Catherine of Braganza, who married Charles II in 1662; Mary Beatrice of Modena, the second wife of James, duke of York; Mary II and Anne, and, finally Maria Clementina Sobieska, the wife of the titular King James III, otherwise known as the Pretender. Mary II exercised royal authority as the heir of James II and while her co-sovereign William III was away on campaign.

E. Gregory (B) · M. C. Questier Centre for Catholic Studies, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Durham, UK e-mail: [email protected] M. C. Questier e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_1

1

2

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

Anne ruled as sovereign in her own right.1 Maria Clementina never actually set foot in Britain, but her marriage alliance to the Stuart family was vital for the survival of the Jacobite cause in Europe. As far as royal reputations are concerned (and perhaps this is even more true for queens than for kings), historians of the early modern period have often been inclined to dichotomise. As William Charles Russell put it, back in the 1850s, reviewing the extant literature on Mary, Queen of Scots, “all the early biographers” of Mary “have been partisans” one way or the other. “From Buchanan or Bishop Leslie, down to Chalmers and Sharon Turner, there is, among the historians of this eventful reign, but little disguise of the character of the advocate.”2 In some ways, not much has changed since the mid-nineteenth century. It is all too easy to follow an established line of thought about this or that sovereign—particularly when the prejudices of this or that contemporary partisan seem to be in accord with what we take nowadays to be liberal and progressive accounts of politics and government. Un- or subconsciously, therefore, modern-day scholars replicate the claims of earlier historians who at least had an excuse for their partisanship—nineteenthcentury titans such as Thomas Babington Macaulay and John Lingard whose politics and published historical writing were invariably inseparable. Obviously, this tendency to dichotomise is not an exclusively gendered process. Consider some of the recent renderings of the reign of Charles I. Kevin Sharpe’s vast study of the personal rule of Charles, that is during the years between 1629 and 1640, has been described as an account of the world as Charles himself would have seen it “on his good days.”3

1 See esp. J. van den Berg, “Religion and Politics in the Life of William and Mary,” in Paul Hoftijzer and C. C. Barfoot (eds), Fabrics and Fabrications: The Myth and Making of William and Mary (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), 17–40; Edward Gregg, Queen Anne (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001); Tony Claydon and W. A. Speck, William and Mary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Kevin Sharpe, Rebranding Rule: The Restoration and Revolutionary Monarchy, 1660–1714 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013), chs 10 and 15; Judith Lissauer Cromwell, Good Queen Anne: Appraising the Life and Reign of the Last Stuart Monarch (Jefferson (NC): McFarland and Co., 2019). 2 [Charles William Russell], “The History of Mary, Queen of Scots,” Dublin Review 32 (1852), 135. 3 Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992); Peter Lake, “From Revisionist to Royalist History; or, Was Charles I the First Whig Historian,” Huntington Library Quarterly 78 (2015), 663.

1

INTRODUCTION

3

By contrast, David Cressy’s successive articles and books on Charles I as a political (bad) actor seem at various points to mimic if not actually reproduce the fury of the king’s critics through a good deal of his reign.4 However, in the case of women who had royal status, this dichotomy of praise and blame often seems to be even more pronounced than in the case of kings and (male) princes. In part this is because historians are inclined to reproduce contemporary perceptions of the discrepancy between, on the one hand, the actual position of a queen, especially of a queen consort, and, on the other, the lack of formal authority, in the sense of holding royal office. Frances Dolan’s influential account of the problem of popery and gender in the political hostility towards, among others, Henrietta Maria, argues cogently that, for a variety of reasons, “anti-Catholic polemic often represents its object as feminine,” that is, as part of a claim that popery subverts the proper holding and exercise of influence and authority. Catholicism “inappropriately empowers women, spiritually, symbolically and socially.” This “vocabulary of gender inversion figures the triumph of Catholicism as a disaster simultaneously apocalyptic and domestic.”5 Thus, while dynastic matches contracted by the house of Stuart with European royal families whose religion was Roman Catholic (that is, the mainstream Christian tradition in the Western Church) were sought and obtained primarily for completely logical secular purposes and advantage, contemporary Protestant understandings of popery allowed critical voices to allege that these female consorts were agents of corruption.6 The stock polemical figure here, of course, was the Whore of Babylon in the book of Revelation. The imagery associated with the Whore allowed for “corporeal denunciations of the Church’s corrupt and feminised body.” This could be extended to and infect the exercise of political authority. Protestant polemicists claimed that the Church of Rome was corrupted by the undue influence of (the wrong sort of) women; and that polemical model could with relative ease be extended to queens regnant

4 See e.g. David Cressy, Charles I and the People of England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 5 Frances E. Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-Century Print Culture (Ithaca (IN): Cornell University Press, 1999), 8–9. 6 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 48.

4

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

and queens consort.7 Female resort to the services of male clergy constituted an additional layer of corruption, personal and sexual as well as, potentially, political. As Professor Dolan remarks, “the charge that priests invariably seduced the penitents who confessed to them worked to discredit priests, women and the intimacies between them.”8 Here, queens and queens consort were in a not dissimilar situation to royal mistresses who were of course very open to accusations that they exerted undue influence on royal decision-making. The review by Sonya Marie Wynne of the astonishing court career of Louise de Kéroualle, duchess of Portsmouth allows one to see how visible that sort of influence could be. The duchess negotiated the fall of Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington in 1673, the ambitions of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, and James, duke of York, the priorities of the French court and the complex business of the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis, and then the postExclusion remainder of Charles II’s reign. At various points the duchess, whose only claim to anything at all resided in the king’s affection for her and the money that she clawed out of him, looks a good deal more influential than many, if not most, male courtiers.9 This volume is, of course, not about royal mistresses but about queens. Yet, the same sorts of claims about female corruption could be made against both. However, as Professor Dolan points out, the Protestant cultural misogyny that was deployed against women whose identity was primarily a Catholic one also served to invest them with a cultural and political significance that otherwise they would not have had, just as they, in their turn, appropriated overtly Catholic modes of worship and iconography in order to defend themselves against the defamatory barrage directed against them in the popular press and through the rumour-mill of contemporary politics. The best-known cases of this are located earlier in the period than the post-Restoration focus of this volume. Principally one thinks here of

7 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 53. 8 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 61–72, 85–94 (quotation at 90). 9 ODNB, sub “Kéroualle, Louise Renée de Penancoët de, suo jure duchess of

Portsmouth and suo jure duchess of Aubigny in the French nobility (1649–1734)” (article by Sonya Marie Wynne). For royal mistresses in the Restoration context, see Sonya Marie Wynne, “The Mistresses of Charles II and Restoration Court Politics, 1660–1685” (PhD, University of Cambridge, 1997); Linda Porter, Mistresses: Sex and Scandal at the Court of Charles II (Basingstoke: Picador, 2020).

1

INTRODUCTION

5

Mary I and Mary, Queen of Scots and indeed, Henrietta Maria in the years before 1640 and then during the civil wars. They were targets of popular revulsion in their own time and even afterwards. But they had their supporters too, and later they found their champions among historians who rehabilitated them by picking up on and recycling the claims made on their behalf by their contemporary admirers.10 Of course, a queen in the post-Reformation period did not have to be overtly a Roman Catholic in order to be subjected to these assaults. There was virtually nothing said by Anne Boleyn’s detractors in the mid-1530s about her alleged sins that could not, appropriately transposed, have found its way into the anti-popish tradition that accumulated around, say, Mary, Queen of Scots. But, equally, the reputations and public persona of queens regnant and queens consort could rise and fall depending on circumstances. Thus, as Eric Ives says, “for twenty years after May 1536, Anne Boleyn was a nonperson” and “people who had known her said nothing.”11 It was not in most people’s interest to refer to what she might or might not have done before the regime put her on trial for treason. In that respect, John Foxe, who made her into, if not exactly a Protestant saint, then a heroic spreader of the Gospel, was something of an outlier.12 Yet, as things turned uglier for Elizabeth’s government in the 1580s, with the approach of war and the final showdown with the Scottish queen, the reputation of Anne Boleyn was up for negotiation (again). On the one hand, a certain sort of Catholic activist recycled and added to the lurid earlier tales about Henry

10 For Mary I, see e.g. Judith M. Richards, “Defaming and Defining ‘Bloody Mary’ in Nineteenth-Century England,” in Peter Nockles and Vivienne Westbrook (eds), Reinventing the Reformation in the Nineteenth Century: A Cultural History (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 90: Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014), 287–303; Eamon Duffy, Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009); David Loades, “The Reign of Mary Tudor: Historiography and Research,” Albion 21 (1989), 547–558. For Mary, Queen of Scots, see e.g. John Guy, My Heart Is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (London: Fourth Estate, 2004). 11 Eric Ives, Anne Boleyn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 419. 12 Thomas Freeman, “Hands Defiled with Blood: Henry VIII in Foxe’s ‘Book of

Martyrs’,” in Thomas Betteridge and Thomas S. Freeman (eds), Henry VIII and History (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 88–89.

6

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

VIII’s second queen, and, by extension her daughter, Elizabeth.13 But others may have tried to restore the memory of Henry VIII’s second wife. The scientific dating of one of the National Portrait Gallery’s portraits of Anne Boleyn to c. 1584 may well be significant. If that date is right, it could point to an attempt at a favourable representation of Anne at a time when Elizabeth was under threat from several directions.14 Right at the end of Elizabeth’s reign, the Jesuit Robert Persons complained that Protestant historians “suppress many facts concerning Anne Boleyn, for they do not want to offend Elizabeth.”15 The tropes associated with anti-popish attacks on Stuart queens are, we might think, little more than vehicles for tabloid-style misogynistic abuse. As Dolan says, disdainful accounts of Henrietta Maria—as “personally motivated, partisan, or ‘bigoted’”—“participate in a more general habit of depicting Catholic women in seventeenth-century England as beneath politics.” Thus, it was that “foreign queens and papist mistresses” could be taken to have distracted “men from political action rather than participating in it fully and legitimately themselves.”16

13 Peter Lake, Bad Queen Bess? Libels, Secret Histories and the Politics of Publicity in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). 14 National Portrait Gallery 668 (Anne Boleyn, by unknown English artist; oil on panel, late sixteenth century, based on a work of circa 1533–1536); Richard Brooks, “No Seducer …,” Observer (12 February 2023). We are very grateful to Charlotte Bolland of the National Portrait Gallery and to Owen Emmerson of Hever Castle for their advice on this point. 15 Joseph Simmons, Robert Persons S.J . Certamen Ecclesiae Anglicanae (Assen, 1965),

55. 16 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 130; see also Charles Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 1–3, 6, 7; idem, “The Tragic Queen: Dynastic Loyalty and the ‘Queenships’ of Mary Queen of Scots,” in Caroline Dunn and Elizabeth Donnelly Carney (eds), Royal Women and Dynastic Loyalty (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 111–121; Carole Levin, ‘The Heart and Stomach of a King’: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power (Philadelphia (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994). These contemporary judgments filtered through easily into the magisterial Whiggish sayings of, for example, S. R. Gardiner who wrote Henrietta Maria off by saying that she was “completely ignorant” about politics: Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 130, citing Samuel R. Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642 (10 vols, London: Longmans, 1884), vi, 367. It is worth adding that Nadine Akkerman makes a similar case about historical mis-readings of Elizabeth Stuart (wife of the elector palatine, Frederick V), that is, as shallow in political terms: Nadine Akkerman, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Hearts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2021), introduction, esp. at 6–9.

1

INTRODUCTION

7

The thrust of recent research is that Henrietta Maria, like Anna of Denmark (queen consort of James I) before her, was remarkably politically adept, and fully aware that she was the linchpin of a mixed confessional dynastic union.17 Malcolm Smuts has demonstrated that for much of the 1630s, Henrietta Maria kept in communication with those court peers who might be termed puritans. It was only in the crisis at the end of the decade that her new court alliances, recruited in the face of the disintegration of royal authority, allowed her to be incorporated completely into a narrative of popish corruption at court, one that was rejected, of course, by the royalist reaction against what was described by the king’s supporters as a puritan conspiracy.18 At the same time, the narrative of the dysfunctions caused by the wrong sort of female influence over the exercise of sovereignty, as much over the household as over the nation state, was undeniably a part of contemporary politics—part of mainstream political discourse. It is unhistorical to ignore it, just as it is unhistorical to ignore these queens’ construction of their own identity—that is, the way that they presented themselves when they engaged with contemporary culture—not just in, for example, the profession of a certain kind of religious observance but also via their expenditure on architectural projects and their patronage of artists and writers. These investments in contemporary culture were unlikely to be ideologically neutral. As Professor Dolan observes, Henrietta Maria “maintained two chapels in London,” and those venues hosted liturgical rituals which were themselves a kind of performance, just as the queen herself took part in “theatrical performances.” Her “entertainments were indistinguishable from her devotions, both because of a 17 For Anna of Denmark, see Helen Payne, “Aristocratic Women and the Jacobean Court, 1603–1625” (PhD, Royal Holloway, University of London, 2001). For Henrietta Maria, see e.g. Sara Wolfson, “Aristocratic Women of the Household and Court of Queen Henrietta Maria, 1625–1659” (PhD, Durham, 2010); Karen Britland, Drama at the Courts of Queen Henrietta Maria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); idem, “Recent Studies of the Life and Cultural Influence of Queen Henrietta Maria,” English Literary Renaissance 45 (2015), 303–321. 18 Malcolm Smuts, “The Puritan Followers of Henrietta Maria in the 1630s,” English Historical Review 93 (1978), 26–45; idem, “Religion, European Politics and Henrietta Maria’s Circle,” in Erin Griffey (ed.), Henrietta Maria: Piety, Politics and Patronage (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 13–38; see also Michael C. Questier (ed.), Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 1631–1638, Catholicism and the Politics of Personal Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Historical Society, 2005); Michelle A. White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).

8

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

long tradition of attacking Catholicism for its theatricality and because of practices that did indeed blur the distinction between liturgy and performance.”19 As Dolan also says, referring to Protestant scorn for perceived Mariolatry in condemning Henrietta Maria, “Catholic writers responded to attacks on their queens of heaven and of England” together, and they “justified and celebrated women’s authority and influence.”20 The case made in the essays published in this volume is that these queens’ engagement with contemporary culture was a potent expression of their political influence. Published work by Adam Morton, Anna-Marie Linnell, Peter Leech, and Edward Corp has already shed considerable light on Catherine of Braganza’s and Henrietta Maria’s contribution to cultural politics and courtly fashions through patronage of art and music in the Restoration court, with Catherine stamping her influence on the court after Henrietta Maria returned to France.21 Like Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza and Mary Beatrice of Modena outlived

19 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 99–100. 20 Ibid., 102. There is a link here with the way that James II’s daughter, Mary II

(Mary Stuart), was turned into a paragon of martial valour and yet also wifely loyalty. In Henrietta Maria’s case, as Dolan notes, royalists pointed to “the conjunction of the marital and martial in the queen’s role as generalissima housewife.” The championing of Mary II’s role matches earlier royalist “discussions of Henrietta Maria’s substantive interventions … on behalf of Catholics and especially in the royalist war effort.” Here, defences of the queen’s access to the king and the equal partnership between them, in a bond of trust via marriage, could take place as much in various kinds of cultural performance as in, e.g., the prosecution of national foreign policy and military effort: Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 128–129, citing Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 288; see also Carolyn Harris’s essay in this volume. 21 Adam Morton, “Sanctity and Suspicion: Catholicism, Conspiracy and the Representation of Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza, Queens of Britain,” in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2017), 172–201; Anna-Marie Linnell, “Greeting the Stuart Queens Consort: Cultural Exchange and the Nuptial Texts for Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza, Queens of Britain,” in Watanabe-O’Kelly and Morton, Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, 153–171; Peter Leech, “Musicians in the Catholic Chapel of Catherine of Braganza, 1662–92,” Early Music 29 (2001), 153–171. Eilish Gregory’s recent research on Catherine’s relationship with her Catholic household has uncovered the ways in which courtiers sought to gain favour and positions from Catherine, and how she sought to protect them from persecution during the Popish Plot in the late 1670s: Eilish Gregory, “Catherine of Braganza’s Relationship with her Catholic Household,” in Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque (eds), Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage (London: Routledge, 2018), 129–148.

1

INTRODUCTION

9

their husbands, and their influence and patronage links did not drain away when their husbands died. In exile, Mary Beatrice was able to negotiate, for example, a suitable marriage match for her son James. In very difficult circumstances, Maria Clementina Sobieska dealt with the problems that accumulated as a result of her marriage to James III in Italy in 1719, and set up her own court in the 1720s.22 During and after the civil wars and the (temporary) fall of the British monarchies, the Stuart court had mounted a fairly sustained counterattack against its enemies. After the emergence in the 1640s and 1650s of new religious and political ideas, the failure of a variety of republican experiments had led to a period of military rule. For a variety of reasons, that style of government, for all of Oliver Cromwell’s negotiation and accommodation with different constituencies, including Catholic ones, could not renew itself, at least not in the way that was conventional in contemporary politics, that is to say, in states in which the default mode of government was a monarchical one. This eventually made it possible and necessary to restore the previous ruling dynasty and a monarchical court, and the restoration of many of the facets and mechanisms of pre-civil war court culture. As a result, the queens regnant and queens consort of the Restoration period and after were not likely to have been, or to have been regarded as, mere ciphers. Carolyn Harris’s essay in this volume deals with the way that Henrietta Maria tried to refashion her image and political reputation, that is, after the reputational injury that she had suffered during the civil wars and Interregnum, and indeed the catastrophic damage to her wider family in

22 For the Stuarts in exile, see esp. Eveline Cruickshanks and Edward Corp (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande (OH): Hambledon, 1995); Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), The Stuart Courts (Stroud: Sutton, 2000); Edward Corp (ed.), The Stuart Court in Rome: the Legacy of Exile (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003); idem, A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689–1718 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); idem, The Stuart Courts in Exile (London: Royal Stuart Society, 2005); idem, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719–1766: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); idem, “The Alternative to the House of Hanover: The Stuarts in Exile, 1714–45,” in Andreas Gestrich and Michael Schaich (eds), The Hanoverian Succession: Dynastic Politics and Monarchical Culture (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), 251–260; Edward Corp, Paul Monod, Murray Pittock and Daniel Szechi (eds), Loyalty and Identity: Jacobites at Home and Abroad (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Claire Walker, “‘When God Shall Restore Them to Their Kingdoms’: Nuns, Exiled Stuarts, and English Catholic Identity, 1688–1745,” in Sarah Apetrei and Hannah Smith (eds), Religion and Women in Britain, c. 1660–1760 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 79–97.

10

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

the wake of the regicide in England and the Frondes in France.23 While Henrietta Maria inevitably did not exercise the same amount of political influence in her son’s reign as she had enjoyed during that of Charles I, she was nevertheless restored to her formal status and allowance as queen dowager. In addition, Dr Harris argues, the continuing attacks on the queen dowager and her reputation allowed Charles II to launch a series of dry-run defences of her, and of legitimist ideals, which prefigured aspects of the court’s response to the Exclusion Crisis in the later 1670s. Eilish Gregory’s essay on Catherine of Braganza looks at this queen consort’s political influence during her dowagership in Britain.24 Here a predominantly Catholic culture among the courtiers about her allowed for the creation of a patronage network which survived the politics of exclusion. Dr Gregory also scrutinises Catherine’s relationship with James II, and with her niece Queen Mary II, who with William III, took the throne from James in 1688. With Catherine as, in some sense, the squarest of proverbial square pegs after 1688, this chapter looks at the way that she continued as a queen dowager as the Stuart family dynastically broke apart. Catherine’s pragmatism and political shrewdness are further explored by Fleur Goldthorpe, whose chapter recovers Catherine’s Anglophile political influence in Portugal after she returned to her brother King Pedro II’s court in 1693. This describes how Portugal’s foreign policy over the issue of the Spanish Succession was influenced and reorientated by Catherine during her regencies there in the early eighteenth century, principally via her challenge to entrenched Francophile attitudes. Susannah Lyon-Whaley’s chapter on Mary Beatrice of Modena describes her sending clear political messages to the public as she made

23 See also ODNB, sub “Henrietta Maria [Princess Henrietta Maria of France]

(1609–1669)” (article by Caroline Hibbard); Dagmar Freist, “Popery in Perfection?: The Experience of Catholicism: Henrietta Maria Between Private Practice and Public Discourse,” in Michael J. Braddick and David L. Smith (eds), The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain and Ireland: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 33–51; Karen Britland, “Exile or Homecoming? Henrietta Maria in France, 1644–69,” in Philip Mansel and Torsten Riotte (eds), Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 120–143. 24 Forthcoming research by Sara Wolfson will address the continuities between Henrietta Maria’s court before the civil war and in the Restoration, and the ways in which her court during the Restoration supplied precedents for that of Catherine of Braganza.

1

INTRODUCTION

11

ready in 1688 to do what, of course, Catherine had not been able to do—to provide for a succession in the direct line. Looking back from the perspective of the collapse of the regime in 1688, and the claims about the “warming pan,” it is easy to forget what a high-stakes game this was, that is, if the child was male and it survived. Here was a vivid demonstration of the truism that, in a personal monarchy, the personal was political, and vice-versa. The implications of all this can be read off in reverse from the redescription of Mary Beatrice, post-Revolution, as Messalina, wife of the emperor Claudius, with all the obvious polemical associations of that claim—including the mounting of a succession conspiracy against the emperor, spurred by sexual excess. Lyon-Whaley describes Mary Beatrice’s Catholicising of the process whereby she was going to extend the Stuart line, even as the king’s critics then tried to redescribe the process of pregnancy and birth as an elaborate fraud—“Mary Beatrice’s contested pregnancy admitted that the queen’s body was a potent political symbol and weapon for assuring a Catholic succession.”25 There is a bridge here to the revisionist rewriting of some of the political narratives of the seventeenth century—and in particular the arguments against the inevitability of the rise of parliament as an institution. Conrad Russell’s witty coda (“The Catholic Wind”) to his collection of essays entitled Unrevolutionary England imagined that the Williamite intervention had, in effect by chance, failed in 1688, leaving contemporaries to wonder why it was that they had ever thought that there could have been any other outcome than the triumph of the Stuart dynasty’s senior line. Though humorous in tone, Russell’s counterfactual piece, written in the style of a school textbook, conveys what was at stake in the period’s ideological battles (“those Protestant ministers who talked constantly about the ‘seductive’ force of Catholicism surely recognised that they were fighting a force, spiritual and psychological, against which they could manage no more than a rearguard action”). Russell does not in fact mention the birth of Prince James but his essay conveys something of the deadly seriousness of the succession battle of the late 1680s.26 Inevitably, then, for all the potential pitfalls associated with the historiography of competing royal reputations, we do address the question of

25 Quotation from Susannah Lyon-Whaley’s essay in this volume. 26 Conrad Russell, Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642 (London: Hambledon Press,

1991): ch. 17, quotation at 307.

12

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

the reputations of the later Stuart queens. Jessica Minieri’s essay on Queen Anne revisits the historical legacy of the last Stuart monarch to sit on the British throne and argues that Anne’s reign needs to be seen, in part, in the context of recent developments in queenship studies. The circulation of news and gossip about her physical ills was obviously politically significant. One only has to think of Richard III’s scoliosis and link it to the account of him as a hunchback monster. Early modern physiognomy linked the outward appearance to inward reality.27 Undoubtedly, some contemporaries made the connection between Anne’s physical difficulties and her function as sovereign. But this should not be allowed to obscure the evidence about the structural politics of the court. To this end, Jennifer Farooq’s chapter on Anne’s ecclesiastical patronage reviews the evidence for Anne’s active engagement in directing the huge fund of patronage constituted by appointments to benefices in the Church of England. This was not, of course, a process uninflected by the petitioning and advice of a range of counsellors, lay and clerical. Nor would it have been possible for Anne to ignore the competing demands of day-to-day political factors that recommended, or militated against, the promotion of this or that candidate. (It would have been quite extraordinary if the queen had not taken such factors into consideration.) But the case is made here that to visualise Anne’s exercise of those aspects of her prerogative which were available to her personally in the context of, say, some of the recent portrayals of Anne in popular culture, notably in film, is completely a-historical. The essays by Stephen Griffin and Georgia Vullinghs bring the historiographically neglected Maria Clementina Sobieska back to the forefront of later Stuart and early Georgian historiography. The political scandal surrounding her flight in the 1720s to the Convent of Santa Cecilia is the central focus of Griffin’s contribution to this volume. The Polishborn queen consort’s taking refuge in a convent not only raised questions about her right to control her household and the education of her son; it also prompted discussions, within the Jacobite exiled community and the European ruling houses, about whether the estrangement of the queen from James III would jeopardise the Jacobite cause. Here the pettiness of disagreements and fallings out within the household mapped onto larger geopolitical issues. Amidst reports of public arguments, accusations of 27 Rosalind Jana, “Unfinish’d Sympathy: Can Literature Get over Reading Disability Morally?,” Guardian (5 September 2022).

1

INTRODUCTION

13

mistreatment, and rumours of infidelity, there was a risk indeed of the wider Jacobite movement fracturing altogether. As Maria Clementina in effect went into political separation from her family, James’s agents were trying to bring about an alliance between Austria, Spain, and Russia, in an effort to secure his restoration. Competing and incompatible versions of how the household had ruptured were spread across Europe. Vullinghs examines how Maria Clementina was immortalised after her premature death aged thirty-two in 1735 through material/visual means. Vullinghs focuses on the funeral ceremonies for the exiled queen and on how, through her death, the Jacobites constructed Maria Clementina as a holy queen, as the site of her memorial tomb in Rome became a place of pilgrimage for Jacobite supporters. In turn, her refurbished reputation was exploited by James for the purpose of securing and retaining support. Items associated with Maria Clementina, including bodily relics, were imbued with the power to connect loyal Jacobites with this deceased Stuart family member. Commemorative objects such as the magnificent memorial tomb in St Peter’s Basilica secured Maria Clementina’s presence within Rome and Britain despite her bodily absence. With perhaps a certain cynicism, she was recruited in death, almost as a Jacobite saint, in order to serve the dynasty’s earthly political needs.28 The later Stuart queens’ patronage of the arts and culture is explored in several of the chapters in this collection. Mindy Williams shows how Mary Beatrice of Modena’s appointments of poets and writers to court positions bolstered her authority as a patron during her years as duchess of York and later as queen. Patronage is here redefined so as to include inspiration, encouragement, and appointment in addition to the more traditional identification of patronage as primarily a matter of monetary reward. Poetry and print dedicated to or depicting the queen are treated as one of the currencies of contemporary politics. The intersection between the patronage of poetry writing and mainstream politics could become very apparent at certain points. The future Jacobite Bevil Higgons’s first publication was a series of verses to celebrate the birth

28 For the retention of relics of James II, James III, and Maria Clementina among the relic collections associated with the Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation, see e.g. Archivum Britannicum Societatis Jesu, MSB/83 (Notes and Letters on Relics of the English Martyrs, irregular foliation; Sr Maria Teresa of the convent of Mount Carmel, Chichester to John Pollen SJ, 25 February 1907).

14

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

of Prince James, designed for inclusion in the collection of poetry sponsored by the University of Oxford in 1688 (Illustrissimi principis ducis Cornubiae).29 It was the diametric opposite of, for example, the notorious playing card which subsequently portrayed Mary Beatrice in an act of gross Mariolatry, praying to the Virgin for the birth of a son.30 Edward Taylor likewise identifies Mary II as an object for the attention of contemporary poets and as an active consumer of, for example, spoken and sung verse by figures such as Dryden, Tate, and Purcell at public occasions in playhouse, chapel, and court. She was also the subject of verse compositions from the time of her marriage to William of Orange in 1677 to her enthronement as queen as part of an innovative double monarchy in 1689, and ultimately her death in 1694. Poems about Mary II were written in both English and Latin, reflecting a literary culture that in the late seventeenth century remained multilingual. They were variously penned in panegyric and satiric modes—some praised her for her piety; others criticised her for her filial disloyalty. They had complex patterns of transmission, as they circulated in oral, manuscript, and printed forms, including ballads, university anthologies, printed broadsides, and scribal lampoons; and they were disseminated in France and the Netherlands, as well as the British Isles.31 As Taylor says, these pieces were likely to have very considerable resonances. Interpretations of Mary’s queenship framed the political settlement after the Revolution. She was essential for Tories who were offended by the ejection of James II, and yet there had to be an arrangement via which William III was accorded executive authority. Through the means afforded by these verse forms, it was possible both to express complex political ideas and to gloss over rather difficult political realities. 29 ODNB, sub “Higgons, Bevil (1670–1736)” (article by W. Courtney, rev. by Eveline Cruickshanks); Illustrissimi principis ducis Cornubiæ et Comitis Palatini, & c. Genethliacon (Cambridge: John Hayes, 1688). 30 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 154. 31 Edward Taylor builds upon the recent work on Mary and literature by Hannah

Smith and Elaine Anderson Phillips; see Elaine Anderson Phillips, “Creating Queen Mary: Textual Representations of Mary II,” Restoration: Studies in English Culture, 1660–1700 37 (2013), 61–75; Hannah Smith, “Court Culture and Godly Monarchy: Henry Purcell and Sir Charles Sedley’s 1692 Birthday Ode for Mary II,” in Justin Champion, John Coffey, Tim Harris and John Marshall (eds), Politics, Religion and Ideas in Seventeenthand Eighteenth-Century Britain: Essays in Honour of Mark Goldie (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2019), 219–238.

1

INTRODUCTION

15

Mary’s Netherlandish tastes were visible in her patronage of art and architecture, something that is scrutinised in Amy Lim’s and Emily Birch’s essays. Lim assesses how Mary’s predilections in decorative arts were inspired by French and Dutch influences during her years in the Netherlands. Mary’s taste in Asian imported goods of lacquer, textiles, and porcelain became fashionable and gave rise to the popularity of “chinoiserie.” There were links here with the rise of the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company. Birch’s essay deals with the architectural works undertaken at Hampton Court by Mary and Anne. The works commissioned during their time were often, in part, a response to political events. After Mary’s death in 1694, Anne brought some of her extant commissions to completion, including the staircase and Queen’s Drawing Room, using different artists to finish the work. This collection of essays is not, therefore, just a series of perspectives on female sovereignty but, we argue, stands also as a contribution to current debates about the Restoration and the Revolution of 1688 more generally. Our impression is that much of the “mainstream” historical literature on the period rarely focuses on queens and queenship. Not, of course, that it is obliged to do so. But, in that it seeks to tap into the politics of public opinion, and in that the (confessional) politics of the court was often at the centre of political argument about (good) government and royal authority, it seems counter-intuitive not to incorporate the ways in which political messaging could be undertaken by queens regnant and queens consort. This itself raises the question of the political status of the court in the later seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries. In the search for evidence of systemic change in the Restoration period and after, it has been argued, far from implausibly, that the real revolution in government in Britain came not so much in late 1688 with the ejection of James II but, instead, when the post-Revolution British State moved onto a war footing against the French monarchy—in other words, when government expanded exponentially so as to incorporate the new and expensive military requirements of confronting Louis XIV. The monarchy itself was certainly transformed when the king was an often-absent military supremo. The trade-off for the financial wherewithal to fight the French was a massive surrender of sovereignty to the legislature. Guarantees of supply made regular parliamentary sessions a necessity. For Angus McInnes, William was “the arch-saboteur, the quintessential fifth-columnist.” This

16

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

was a trend that continued after William was gone. Crucially, in the reigns of Anne and those who came after her, there was not the “kind of royal counter-offensive that had characterized the reigns of Charles II and James II.”32 Here, Anne’s “limited” capacity to exercise sovereign authority was taken up with trying to manage the rage of party politics. She “was also throughout her reign an ailing queen, often appearing in public swathed in bandages and in extreme pain.”33 On this account, the court to some extent recedes into the background as the personal powers of the wearer of the crown were pegged back, that is, when MPs started to deploy their “new financial strength” to insist on “redress of grievances before the voting of the annual supplies of cash needed by the crown.”34 But there is also a case to be made that the post-1688 settlement did not witness the immediate relegation of the court as a political entity. Even if the war against Louis XIV, combined with periods of female rule in Britain, did shift the epicentre of government away from the court, it remained the venue for the transaction of a good deal of political business in ways that were distinctly reminiscent of earlier times.35 This is a point argued strongly by Amy Lim in this volume, taking up Adam Morton’s case about the construction of politics through culture. Here she traces the cultural influences imported from the Netherlands by Mary II and shows how those tastes in material things were part of Mary’s political character.36 The same point can, of course, be made for the court in exile—the prominence of which would be hard to explain if the claims made for the senior Stuart line were not being taken seriously by contemporaries, that is, despite the vigorous ridiculing of the exiled Stuarts by their critics. Here the work of Paul Kléber Monod on the popular political culture associated with Jacobitism is crucial. He argues that “Jacobite

32 Angus McInnes, “When Was the English Revolution?,” History 67 (1982), 392, 390. See also Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009), esp. chs 5–7. 33 McInnes, “When Was the English Revolution?,” 391. 34 Ibid., 390. 35 For the making of this case, see esp. Robert O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), and the discussion of this point in Amy Lim’s chapter in this volume. 36 See Amy Lim’s chapter in this volume; see also Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2017).

1

INTRODUCTION

17

political culture should be interpreted as a language, with its own internal logic or grammar” and also that “Jacobitism cannot be wrenched out of the wider culture of which it was a part.” One potent reason for this was that “the threat of a restoration remained real as long as a viable Stuart candidate breathed, and a foreign power was prepared to advance his claims.” But the debates about the contested and competing rights of existing claimants could not be kept separate from more quotidian expressions of contemporary culture. As Professor Monod says, “polemical prose, poetry and material artefacts provide relatively accessible means by which to examine the patterns of Jacobite political culture.”37 Of course, Monod’s emphasis here is largely on popular culture, and in particular the evidence of Jacobite popular political protest. But a not dissimilar case can be made for the influence of elite culture and expressions of sovereign authority focused on the court. This, we argue, is where the emphasis of the present volume lies. We do not claim simply to have produced a gendered version of Restoration and post-1688 politics, but the essays in this volume go some way to thinking about that topic in a gendered context. Here we have a range of women right at the centre of the court whose power was not exercised through office-holding but who, nevertheless, were crucial to more than a few possible (though often irreconcilable) futures. Here, even the supposedly monolithic Catholicism of the Stuart queens consort could point in different directions. As Eilish Gregory indicates, Catherine’s brand of Catholicism, as queen dowager, was regarded, by some, in a different light from that of her brother-in-law. If not, one would have expected far more attacks on her and her household both in 1685–1688 and then after the Revolution. As Dolan points out, “in 1688, after James II and Mary had both left Whitehall but before William and Mary were in residence, rioters attacked” the chapels at St James’s and Whitehall but they did not assault the chapel at Somerset House, that is, where Catherine was resident though it seems that a mob gathered outside.38 Inevitably, we remain prisoners of the archives. It is difficult to gauge, for instance, how those who witnessed the construction of major courtbased architectural projects reacted to them. For the most part, we cannot 37 Paul Kléber Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, 1688–1788 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 10–12. 38 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 153–154. See Simon Thurley, Somerset House: The Palace of England’s Queens, 1551–1692 (London: London Topographical Society, 2009), 72.

18

E. GREGORY AND M. C. QUESTIER

easily recover this, just as we cannot fully ascertain the public impact of, for example, verse publications and performances of plays on those who read and witnessed them. But there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a real connection between, on the one hand, the cultural manifestations of sovereignty (and, in the case of these essays, specifically of queenship) and, on the other, the more immediately visible and formal functions of monarchy. These cultural accoutrements of queenship, prefiguring aspects of the supposedly polite society of the eighteenth century, inflected the traditional functions of queens in a dynastic personal monarchy that had not necessarily changed as quickly as some scholars tend to assume.

CHAPTER 2

The Reputation of Dowager Queen Henrietta Maria and the Legitimacy of the Restoration Monarchy Carolyn Harris

Introduction The Restoration of the English monarchy in 1660 resulted in the return of the exiled King Charles II and the re-establishment of an extended royal family. Unlike Queen Elizabeth I and King James I (King James VI of Scotland), who had ascended to the English throne without living siblings, parents or step-parents, Charles II had numerous family members whose place in the new political order was uncertain. The new king’s two younger brothers, James, duke of York and Henry, duke of Gloucester, widowed sister, Princess Mary of Orange and unmarried sister, Princess Henrietta Anne (the future duchess of Orléans) inspired little political

C. Harris (B) University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_2

19

20

C. HARRIS

or popular opposition.1 They received pensions, honours, or dowries as appropriate to their new circumstances without controversy. By contrast, the social, political, and financial restoration of Charles II’s mother Queen Henrietta Maria (1609–1669), the widow of the executed King Charles I, provoked parliamentary and popular opposition inspired by the queen dowager’s Roman Catholic faith, French origins, and rumours of sexual impropriety.2 Her unpopularity placed additional political pressure on the newly restored sovereign. Prior to the restoration of her eldest son as King Charles II in 1660, there had not been a living mother of an adult English sovereign active at court since Margaret Beaufort, countess of Richmond, who held the position of “My Lady the King’s Mother” at the court of her only child, King Henry VII from 1485 to 1509, and there would not be another until the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 placed the duchess of Kent (born Princess Marie Louise Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld) in the position of mother to the queen.3 Henrietta Maria was also an anomaly within the larger history of European monarchy and revolution. Unlike Queen Marie Antoinette of France (1756–1793) or the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia (1872–1918) who were killed in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution respectively, Henrietta Maria survived her husband by twenty years.4 Charles II’s determination to restore his mother to the income, property, and social status she enjoyed prior to the English Revolution not only demonstrates that 1 Henry, duke of Gloucester was especially popular because he resisted his mother’s efforts to convert him to Roman Catholicism in 1654. See Nicole Greenspan, “Public Scandal, Political Controversy, and Familial Conflict in the Stuart Courts in Exile: The Struggle to Convert the Duke of Gloucester in 1654,” Albion 35 (2003), 398–427. 2 A recent popular biography of Henrietta Maria states that, during the reign of Charles II, “envy and spite prompted rumours that Henry Jermyn [first earl of St Albans] was more than a friend – that he was [Henrietta Maria’s] lover.” See Leanda de Lisle, Henrietta Maria: Conspirator, Warrior, Phoenix Queen (London: Chatto and Windus, 2022), 336. 3 For a recent biography of Margaret Beaufort, see Nicola Tallis, Uncrowned Queen: The Life of Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudors (New York: Basic Books, 2020). The duchess of Kent is discussed in numerous books about Queen Victoria’s early life including Kate Williams, Becoming Queen Victoria (New York: Ballantine Books, 2010) but she is the focus of only one stand-alone biography: Dulcie M. Ashdown, Queen Victoria’s Mother (London: Robert Hale and Company, 1974). 4 See Carolyn Harris, Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

21

Henrietta Maria retained her political significance throughout her long widowhood but that the restored king was determined to uphold the principles of hereditary legitimacy for the extended royal family from the beginning of his reign, long before the Exclusion Crisis of 1679–1681.5 The question of hereditary right within the English royal family would become one of the most controversial issues during the reigns of the later Stuart monarchs as demonstrated by the Exclusion Crisis of 1679–1681, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the Act of Settlement passed in 1701. Current historians of Charles II’s reign typically structure their analysis of the king’s support for hereditary legitimacy with his support of his brother James’s succession rights during the Exclusion Crisis, presenting this determination to uphold James’s position as heir to the throne as the king’s most radical departure from the pragmatic and conciliatory policies that were a hallmark of his reign.6 Charles’s defence of his mother’s place at his court in the face of continued elite and popular opposition demonstrates that he supported hereditary legitimacy from the beginning of his reign. His eventual support for James during the Exclusion Crisis reflected a longstanding belief in the importance of preventing factional divisions by presenting a unified image of the royal family to his subjects that included his siblings and his controversial mother, Henrietta Maria, regardless of popular attitudes towards her reputation.7 The Exclusion Crisis and the Popish Plot continued debates associated with the late 1630s and 1640s, and Charles II was determined to ensure the lasting legitimacy of the monarchy.

5 For a historiography of the Exclusion Crisis see the introduction to Mark Knights, Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678–1681 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3–28. 6 See John Miller, Popery and Politics in England 1660–1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1973), and Tim Harris, Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society 1660–1715 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 80–116. 7 Charles II found both formal and informal methods of demonstrating support for his mother’s position during the Interregnum and Restoration, and his courtiers and advisers recognised this policy. For example, although he opposed the political alliances proposed by Henrietta Maria, Edward Hyde, first earl of Clarendon frequently sought the queen’s favour, despite Charles II’s jest at a French court masque that he was “the naughty man who did all the mischief and set him against his mother.” See Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, ed. William Warburton, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Together with an Historical View of the Affairs of Ireland (7 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1847), ii, 806.

22

C. HARRIS

Henrietta Maria had always between a controversial figure in England because she was a French princess and a Roman Catholic but the nature of popular, diplomatic, and pamphlet press criticism of the queen shifted significantly from the reign of her husband, Charles I, to the reign of her son, Charles II.8 During Charles I’s early reign and period of personal rule (1629–1640), the queen’s religious and political influence received extensive scrutiny amidst wider anxieties concerning recusant Roman Catholic wives in otherwise Protestant families.9 During the English civil wars, concerns regarding her military influence were added to these existing critiques because she styled herself as “she-majesty generalissima” and employed mercenaries for the royalist cause.10 Following her impeachment by the House of Commons in 1643, scattered allusions to personal impropriety by the queen begin to emerge in diplomatic correspondence, the pamphlet press, and seditious speech cases and these rumours continued during the Interregnum.11 Charles II’s own reputation for licentious behaviour at the Restoration court resulted in the gossip about his mother’s sexual impropriety becoming a dominant theme in English criticism of the queen dowager during the 1660s. Through his support for his mother’s prominence at court, Charles II was not only defending the hereditary legitimacy of his family but also his own public image as king. Although Charles II enjoyed broad popular support at the time of his Restoration, some of the factions that emerged during the civil wars and 8 See Michael C. Questier (ed.), Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 1631–1638 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), and Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina Press, 1983). 9 For more about anxieties concerning recusant wives, see Frances Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender and Seventeenth Century Print Culture (Notre Dame (IN): University of Notre Dame Press, 2005). Henrietta Maria, however, cultivated a more diverse social circle, which included Protestants. See R. M. Smuts, “The Puritan Followers of Henrietta Maria in the 1630s,” English Historical Review 93 (1978), 26–45; and Malcolm Smuts, “Religion, European Politics and Henrietta Maria’s Circle,” in Erin Griffey (ed.), Henrietta Maria: Piety, Politics and Patronage (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), 13–38. 10 Michelle Anne White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars (Farnham: Ashgate, 2006), 85. 11 Laura Lunger Knoppers notes “that some of the most strident criticism of Charles I in the 1630s and 1640s focused on a sexualized royal marriage.” See Laura Lunger Knoppers, Politicizing Domesticity from Henrietta Maria to Milton’s Eve (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 37–38.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

23

Interregnum were motivated to use Henrietta Maria’s dubious reputation as a weapon to undermine her son’s political legitimacy. During the 1660s, Charles faced two modes of political attack based on his mother’s reputation, which coincided with Henrietta Maria’s two periods of residency in England. From 1660 to 1661, various English men and women outside court circles who opposed monarchical rule challenged the very premise of “Restoration” by accusing Henrietta Maria of being unchaste, a tactic dating from the defeat of Charles I in the 1640s.12 If widespread doubt was cast on the paternity of Charles II and his siblings, the validity of the Restoration would be equally questionable. From 1662 to 1665, when Henrietta Maria presided over a splendid and well attended court at Somerset House, rumours spread in elite and diplomatic circles that she had recently married her private secretary, Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans, following an alleged longstanding affair and illegitimate child.13 Charles II’s paternity was not directly challenged here as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Restoration but the Jermyn rumours still damaged the reputation of the monarchy. These rumours were an attempt to undermine both the perceived influence of both Henrietta Maria and the earl of St Albans over Charles, and to diminish the attraction of the queen dowager’s splendid court, which appeared to promote French and Roman Catholic interests.

Henrietta Maria’s Reputation During the English Revolution and Interregnum When the future Charles II learned of the execution of his father, Charles I, in January 1649, one of the first issues he had to address was the public role of his widowed mother Henrietta Maria within the context of his nascent court in exile. Throughout the 1640s, the queen had been the target of attacks in the pamphlet press that were primarily political and religious in nature including accusations of inciting the Irish

12 For examples, see John Cordy Jeaffreson (ed.), Middlesex County Records: Volume 3, 1625–1667: Indictments, Recognizances, Coroners’ Inquisitions Post Mortem, Orders and Memoranda from temp. 1 Charles I until 18 Charles II (London: Centre for Metropolitan History, 1888), 302–309. 13 Samuel Pepys, ed. Robert Latham and William Matthews, The Diary of Samuel Pepys (11 vols, London: Bell and Hyman, 1970–1983), iii, 303.

24

C. HARRIS

Revolt,14 prolonging the civil wars by hiring foreign mercenaries with the proceeds of her pawned jewels,15 and imposing Catholicism on both her own family and her husband’s subjects.16 For example, a 1643 pamphlet declared: The Queen has now attained to a great height of power as formidable as she is to us, in regard of her sex, in regard of her nation, in regard of her disposition, in regard of her family, in regard of her religion, and lastly, in regard of her engagements in these present troubles; some think she has absolute unlimitable power over the King’s sword and sceptre.17

Her military activities precipitated her impeachment for high treason by parliament in 1643 though the exact meaning and consequences of this declaration were never entirely resolved.18 A May 1643 pamphlet summarising the proceedings of parliament reported: And it manifestly appearing that the Queen hath brought over foreign forces, set up her standard in the North and doth raise and maintain forces

14 Some Special and Considerable Passages from London, Tuesday, December 13, 1642 (London: H. Blunden, 1642), Issue 19, 3. 15 “The Houses received letters, informing that the Queen is upon coming over from

Holland and intends to come to Newcastle, and brings great provisions of War along with her, and some men, whereof the Lord Digby, Jermyn, and Piercy are much suspected,” in Perfect Diurnal of the Passages in Parliament (London: W. Cooke, 1642), Monday, June 27, Issue 3. 16 See the statement that “in the House of Commons, it was this week voted, That all papists that have been in actual war against the Parliament be protected against as Traitors and profest enemies to the state and kingdom, and their estates to be sequestered: unto which the honourable house of peers have concurred. And it manifestly appearing that the Queen hath brought over foreign forces, set up her standard in the North and doth raise and maintain forces of armed men in this kingdom against the parliament, and thereby a great army of papists are raised in the North to destroy the Parliament and the Protestant religion, which his Majesty hath so often protested to defend and maintain,” cited in Continuation of Certain Special and Remarkable Passages from Both Houses of Parliament (London: Coles and Leach), Thursday, May 18, 1643 (London), Issue 46, 4. 17 Henry Parker, Contra-replicant, His Complaint to His Majestie (London: s. n., 1643). 18 Sir Simonds d’Ewes wrote on the matter of Henrietta Maria’s impeachment on 5

June 1643 that “some conceived they meant to go no further with her but to have her out of the public prayer but others were of another opinion.” See BL, Harleian MSS, 164, fo. 395. For more about the impeachment of Henrietta Maria by the House of Commons, see Harris, Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe, 155–191.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

25

of armed men in this kingdom against the parliament, and thereby a great army of papists are raised in the North to destroy the Parliament and the Protestant religion…. And being taken into serious consideration, the House of Commons have drawn up an impeachment against the Queen’s Majesty, and presented it to the Lords.19

The diplomatic correspondence and seditious speech cases of the period, however, demonstrate that alongside these political accusations, rumours concerning the queen’s perceived infidelities were spread verbally in a diverse range of social settings from court circles to public houses. This gossip was fuelled by Henrietta Maria’s long separations from her husband in the early 1640s, the breakdown of press censorship during the civil wars, and by the inversion of established gender roles represented by the royal consort’s perceived dominance over her husband’s policies.20 Gerolamo Agostini, Venetian Secretary in England noted that popular rumours of the queen’s immorality gave parliament a potential strategy to offer the crown to Charles Louis, the exiled Prince Palatine, if Charles I did not agree to their demands.21 The ambassador wrote on 26 August 1644 that: It is believed that [Parliament] intend[s] to give his Majesty a short period to decide, and if he objects, they will declare him incapable of rule, and his offspring suspect owing to the unchastity with which they charge the queen, feeling sure that the people will consent easily, since the blood royal is not shut out.22

The Journals of the House of Lords contain detailed discussion concerning Henrietta Maria that combines negative rumours regarding her political activities with insinuations about her fidelity to the king. The examination of Captain James Chudleigh, who was involved in the 1641 Army Plots, provided the House of Lords with allegations that political conspiracies were taking place at Whitehall Palace, and that the unnamed 19 Continuation of Certain special and remarkable passages from both Houses of parliament (Coles and Leach) (London), Thursday, May 18, 1643, Issue 46. 20 Jason Peacey, Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 21 Charles Louis was the eldest surviving son of Charles I’s sister, Elizabeth, the exiled Queen of Bohemia. 22 CSPV 1643–1647 , 130.

26

C. HARRIS

conspirators were smuggled into the queen’s bedchamber without the king’s knowledge.23 The English royal bedchamber was not a public ceremonial space in the same manner as its French counterpart, and Chudleigh’s testimony therefore suggests some degree of impropriety committed by Henrietta Maria. In comparison to his father James VI and I, Charles I emphasised private spaces and decorum at his court; he had dismissed French servants of Henrietta Maria who behaved comparatively informally soon after their marriage in 1625. The political implications of these secret meetings received the immediate attention of the popular press but the insinuations regarding the queen’s chastity would not receive a greater degree of popular attention until later in the civil wars.24 The possible involvement of the queen in a royalist plot against parliament received more attention prior to the outbreak of hostilities. After Henrietta Maria’s final separation from Charles I in 1644, and the publication of royal correspondence in The King’s Cabinet Opened (following the royalist defeat at the Battle of Naseby in 1645), rumours about the queen’s infidelities were expressed by ordinary English people, described in court records as “yeomen,” “spinsters,” and “labourers.” In 1646 “around Michaelmas,” Thomas Beeyers, a dyer resident in Thurleston, Yorkshire, was indicted for commenting, “that the Queene was gone over into Holland to play the whore.”25 In Middlesex, the following year, the yeoman Thomas Beres was fined a hundred marks because he “maliciously spoke these scandalous words in the presence and hearing of very many of the king’s lieges and subjects, to wit, ‘The Queene is a whore, and that shee left a bastard at Newarke-uponTrent’.”26 A spinster of the same parish, Anne Smith, was also fined a hundred marks when she publicly proclaimed in 1648 that “The King’s children are bastardes, and that the Queene was delivered of a child 23 LJ , v, 140. 24 For example, the pamphlet entitled A copy of the letter of Father Philips, the Queen’s

confessor, which was thought to be sent into France, to M. Montague, discovered and produced to be read in the House of Commons, by Master Pym, the 25 of June 1641 (London: s. n., 1641), makes numerous references to messengers sneaking up back staircases to the queen’s chambers, but only highlights the potential for political intrigue in this scenario without mention of the implications for the queen’s sexual reputation. 25 James Raine (ed.), Depositions from the Castle of York Relating to Offenses Committed in the Northern Counties in the Seventeenth Century, 40 (Durham: Surtees Society, 1861), 6. 26 Jeaffreson, Middlesex County Court Records, iii, 101.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

27

at Oxford, when the Kinge had not beene with her a twelvemonth before.”27 These examples of seditious speech reflected a long tradition of attacking the king’s government by spreading doubts about the queen’s character, including the controversy surrounding King Henry VIII’s divorce from the popular Queen Catherine of Aragon and remarriage to the widely criticised Anne Boleyn.28 These instances of seditious speeches from the late 1640s demonstrate several common themes. Henrietta Maria’s periods of separation from Charles I, in Holland from February 1642 to January 1643, and in France from the summer of 1644 onwards, were perceived by some of her husband’s subjects as unnatural for a proper wife and as opportunities for adultery. If such immoral behaviour was taking place abroad, it reflected her activities throughout her marriage and cast doubt on the paternity of the royal children. The vigorous prosecution of this seditious speech by local royalist authorities demonstrates that supporters of the Stuart dynasty recognised the rumours about the queen’s chastity had the potential to threaten the legitimacy of the English monarchy. In the event of a royalist victory or monarchical restoration, Charles II’s right to succeed to the throne had the potential to be challenged based on rumours about his mother’s perceived adultery.29 There is evidence that the royal family was aware of the rumours concerning the queen’s perceived improprieties and that rifts that emerged between Henrietta Maria and her children in exile inadvertently fuelled this speculation. This created an atmosphere of rumour and innuendo that undermined the future King Charles II’s legitimacy, as demonstrated by the correspondence of members of the royal court in exile. Lord Christopher Hatton wrote to Sir Edward Nicholas in 1650 that: 27 Ibid., 103. 28 See Andy Wood, “The Queen Is “a Goggyll Eyed Hoore”: Gender and Seditious

Speech in Early Modern England,” in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The English Revolution, c.1590–1720: Politics, Religion and Communities (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 81–84. 29 Accusations of illegitimacy or disputed paternity had been useful political weapons

during the Wars of the Roses and would be employed again during the Glorious Revolution to undermine the claims of James II’s son to the English and Scottish thrones. See Kristen Geaman, “A Bastard and a Changeling? England’s Edward of Westminster and Delayed Childbirth,” in Valerie Schutte (ed.), Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 11–33.

28

C. HARRIS

[Henrietta Maria] lately told a lady that the Duke of York had said the Queen in his and the opinion of all the world loved and valued Lord Jermyn [later Earl of St Albans] more than she did her children… [The Queen said] the King was of a better nature than the Duke of York.30

When Prince Charles learned of his father’s execution in 1649, he sought to present a harmonious relationship between mother and son. Charles’s immediate decision to consult Henrietta Maria openly regarding his plans to regain his father’s throne had the potential to challenge rumours concerning the queen’s “unchastity” and restore his mother’s reputation.31 Within weeks of the execution of Charles I, Prince Charles wrote to his mother, to ask that “you will assist and guide me by your advice and counsel,” and, he said, just as “never [a] son had greater obligations and bonds of duty and gratitude to a mother, so never a mother received a more full and entire submission and obedience from a son….”32 This expression of filial submission and obedience was not confined to comparatively private correspondence between

30 G. F. Warner (ed.), The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State (4 vols, London: Camden Society, 1886–1920), i, 196–197, cited in John Miller, James II: A Study in Kingship (London: Billing and Sons Ltd., 1977), 13. 31 Tim Harris does not make any mention of Henrietta Maria in his study of the Restoration while Ronald Hutton briefly discusses her political failures during the 1660s, such as her initial opposition to the marriage of James, duke of York to Anne Hyde, the daughter of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. N. H. Keeble and Anna Keay expand their brief discussions of Henrietta Maria’s influence into previously unexplored issues. Keeble analyses how perceptions of Henrietta Maria as an “unruly woman,” who helped to cause the civil wars, contributed to Restoration attitudes towards women. Comparatively, Keay mentions the social rivalry between the queen dowager’s court and the circle of her daughter-in-law, Catherine of Braganza. The impact of these issues concerning Henrietta Maria’s influence on Charles II’s policies, including his attitude towards hereditary legitimacy, is not discussed in these works and merits further scholarly attention. See Tim Harris, Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms 1660–1685 (London: Allen Lane, 2005); Ronald Hutton, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658–1667 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 149–150; N. H. Keeble, The Restoration: England in the 1660s (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), 194–195; and Anna Keay, The Magnificent Monarch: Charles II and the Ceremonies of Power (London: Continuum, 2008), 126. 32 Bodl., Clarendon MS 37, fo. 4.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

29

mother and son.33 Charles also issued instructions through intermediaries such as Titus Silius, one of his grooms of the bedchamber, ordering that Henrietta Maria be consulted regarding such politically significant matters, such as his 1650–1651 Scottish campaign, and the suitability of potential dynastic marriage partners.34 French pamphlet literature reinforced the popular perception of unity between Charles and his mother, publishing supposed correspondence between mother and son in which they consoled each other on the death of Charles I with titles such as Réponse de la Reine d’Angleterre au Prince de Galles son fils.35 While James appears to have paid little attention to the political implications of rumours concerning his mother’s reputation, perhaps because of his youth and position as second-in-line to the throne, Charles made the public display of unity within his family a priority from 1649. Maintaining this unity was a challenge for Charles during the early years of the Interregnum. The influence of Henrietta Maria over the Scottish campaign was well known to his supporters and adversaries. An anonymous manuscript newsletter dated 19 August 1651 reported that “the queen is unusually troubled by [Charles’s defeat at Fife], she taking the affairs of Scotland the more to heart, because she was the principal actor of the king’s going thither, and the contrary faction of royalists impute the ill success to her.”36 The newsletter already referred to the existence of a Louvre Group of royalists associated with Henrietta Maria, including Sir Kenelm Digby, revealing that whatever unity amongst royalists that Charles had attempted to foster in the immediate aftermath of his father’s execution had already broken down during the Scottish campaign. The Scottish campaign itself was a favoured project of the Louvre Group and its failure exacerbated tensions within the already divided royalist court in exile.37

33 As The King’s Cabinet Opened demonstrates, correspondence between members of the royal family was vulnerable to seizure or interception. 34 BL, Egerton MSS 1533. 35 For example, see Réponse de la Reine d’Angleterre au Prince de Galles son fils (Paris:

Robert Feuge, 1649), 3. 36 CSPD Charles II (36 vols, London: Longman, 1860–1947), iii, 311. 37 For more about the activities of the Louvre Group, see Stefania Tutino, “The

Catholic Church and the English Civil War: The Case of Thomas White,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 58 (2007), 232–255.

30

C. HARRIS

In Scotland, the hostility of the Presbyterian lairds towards Henrietta Maria’s Roman Catholicism, and the toleration of her faith within the royal household, forced Charles to temporarily abandon his policy of public unity between himself and his mother in the hope of becoming King of Scotland and gaining additional support there for military campaigns in England. A letter received by Secretary of State Edward Nicholas, who opposed the Louvre Group faction surrounding the queen as he believed some its members to be untrustworthy and opposed Henrietta Maria’s plans to seek financial support for her son’s restoration from Roman Catholics in France and Ireland,38 described how Charles had been obliged to atone for the perceived sins of his parents, arguing that “he humbled himself before God for his father’s opposition to the Covenant, by which so much blood of God’s people had been spilt, and for the idolatry of his mother, the toleration of which in his house is a great provocation to God….”39 Despite Charles’s acceptance of this declaration, his Scottish campaign ultimately failed, and he returned to a public policy of unity between himself and Henrietta Maria, even as personal and political relations between mother and son became increasingly strained during the 1650s because of Henrietta Maria’s efforts to convert her youngest son to Catholicism.40 Charles’s defence of Henrietta Maria’s position within the royal family and the larger principle of hereditary monarchy persisted although mother and son did not visit each other between the Gloucester Affair of 1654— when Henrietta Maria unsuccessfully pressured her third son Henry, duke of Gloucester to convert to Catholicism—and the Restoration in 1660. Charles’s approach failed to convince all supporters of a restoration of the monarchy that Henrietta Maria could be successfully reintroduced to the English people as a viable queen dowager. The diplomatic correspondence of 1660 reveals the various methods that English parliamentarians employed to attempt to dissuade Charles from restoring his mother to the income, patronage, social position, and religious freedom that she expected under the terms of her 1625 marriage contract. The Sieur Bartet, an envoy working on behalf of Cardinal Mazarin noted, in May 1660, just before King Charles II’s return to England, that parliament was

38 ODNB, sub “Nicholas, Sir Edward” (article by S. A. Baron). 39 CSPD Charles II , ii, 1650, 324. 40 See Greenspan, “Public Scandal,” 398–427.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

31

willing to grant lands and incomes to the king’s brothers, James, duke of York and Henry, duke of Gloucester, but was unwilling to do the same for Henrietta Maria because there was not any past precedent concerning the financial position of a king’s mother.41 Much of the queen’s property had been bought or claimed by supporters of the Protectorate, another circumstance that contributed to parliament’s reluctance to honour the income granted the widowed Henrietta Maria by her marriage contract.42 Palace servants and wardrobe keepers had been “extorted” to provide the Protectorate with Henrietta Maria’s “valuable goods” from her residences at Wimbledon, Greenwich, Oatlands, and Somerset House, and these goods had been sold to a variety of buyers in London and its environs.43 Parliament also opposed Henrietta Maria’s request for liberty of conscience for English Catholics, and particularly for the members of her own household. The potential for hundreds of French Catholics to take up residence in England as members of the queen dowager’s household created anxieties concerning national and religious subversion.44 This popular reaction mirrored the opposition to the arrival of her original French Catholic household when she first entered England as a fifteenyear-old bride in 1625 and widespread Protestant popular approval for the expulsion of much of her French household.45 Parliament clearly recognised the potential for Henrietta Maria’s return to England as a propertied Roman Catholic queen dowager with a household containing foreign Catholics to undermine popular support for Charles II’s restoration and therefore threaten the stability of the new government.

41 TNA, PRO 31/3/107, fo. 36. 42 See BL, Egerton MSS 2542, fo. 518, “Considerations touching the sale of the

lands sould [during the rebellion] by the names of Kings, Queenes and Princes lands,” endorsed “Sir Edmund Sawyer, circ. 1660.” Also, see TNA PRO 31/3/106, fo. 143. The document states that, “for the lands in the Queen’s jointure, it is to be considered whether or not any satisfaction is fit to be given to the purchasers her Majesty being but tenant for life.” 43 Erin Griffey, On Display: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Magnificence at the Stuart Court (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 186. 44 See Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II, Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration Until the Exclusion Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 74. 45 BL, Harleian MSS 383, fo. 33 (a newsletter expressing concerns that the young queen’s household might spread Catholicism and spy for the papacy and the Catholic powers).

32

C. HARRIS

Henrietta Maria’s Reputation at The Restoration Court Despite what Monsieur Ruvigny, the French ambassador, described as “the repugnance of the King’s ministers for her residency in England,”46 because they feared Henrietta Maria might influence her son to abandon his policies of moderation and compromise,47 Charles prevailed over the concerns raised by these ministers and negotiated a substantial financial settlement for his mother, following the terms of her marriage contract from 1625.48 Charles also invited his mother to join the other members of the restored royal family in London.49 The king also kept his mother informed of political events in England and Scotland, sending her a digest of the negotiations for his marriage to Catherine of Braganza, the infanta of Portugal, in April 1661.50 One of the most prominent artists at court, Peter Lely, painted a portrait of the queen dowager in the style of the Van Dyck paintings that shaped her public image as queen consort.51 The king’s generous treatment of his mother was likely influenced by both his past support for the principles of hereditary monarchy and the expressed displeasure of his cousin, King Louis XIV of France, concerning parliament’s treatment of his aunt, Henrietta Maria.52 The queen’s financial settlement and her intention to exert political influence as an intercessory figure at her son’s court were public knowledge. A letter received by the political economist and demographer William Petty from John Graunt, dated 3 November 1660, the day after 46 TNA, PRO 31/3/106, fo. 149. 47 Ibid., fo. 155. 48 Griffey, On Display, 185. Despite the granting of this settlement, Henrietta Maria would spend much of the 1660s involved in court cases to recover specific items, such as pieces of furniture and paintings that had been seized after Charles I’s execution. See BL, Add. MS 34262, fo. 88v, “Declaration in a suit of the Queen Mother Henrietta Maria against Daniel Norman, and others, for the recovery of property, including furniture, pictures, jewellery, etc., belonging to her, 10 Dec. 1665, 6 Chas. 11. [sic], in the parish of St Mary le Savoy, co. Middlesex, and casually lost out of her possession; with inventory”; and Griffey, On Display, 179–200. 49 All of Charles II’s surviving siblings joined him in England in 1660. Mary, Princess of Orange and Henry, duke of Gloucester both died of smallpox later the same year. 50 Bodl., Clarendon MS 74, fos 311–312. 51 This portrait is now part of the collection of the Musée Condé in Chantilly, France. 52 TNA, PRO 31/3/107, fo. 119.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

33

Henrietta Maria’s arrival in London, provides an example of popular speculation concerning the queen dowager’s potential political role. Graunt’s letter asserted that: It is beleaved that the Queen Mother will become a Mediatrix for the condemned pris[o]ners now in the Tower, his Maiesty hath under the broad seal, confirmed the Queen Mothers Joynter, and so augmented it, that her Maiesty hath power to lett leases for 3 lifes or 21 years, which is suposed will raise in present money 2000000 & upwards.53

Henrietta Maria was, therefore, reintroduced to the English people as a wealthy queen dowager who was perceived to have the ability to influence Charles II’s decisions. Although the early concerns expressed by Charles’s ministers at the time of the Restoration focused on religion, political influence, and property, the arrival of Henrietta Maria in England and her perceived wealth and influence intensified rumours concerning of her sexual reputation. These critiques intersected with opposition to the restoration of the monarchy and concerns about Charles’s public image.54 Ordinary English men and women who opposed the restoration of the monarchy for various reasons, including the alleged promotion of Catholicism at court, perceived sexual immorality within the royal family, and the possible economic setbacks for those who had acquired crown property during the Interregnum speculated about Henrietta Maria’s behaviour. In many of the seditious speech cases, Charles’s public acknowledgement of his mistresses and illegitimate children is described in the same context as Henrietta Maria’s perceived past and present infidelities as evidence of widespread sexual immorality at the Stuart court. Arrests for spreading rumours relating to the queen dowager’s reputation spiked soon after the Restoration. The Cavalier Parliament, which would remain in session from 1660 to 1679, passed numerous seditious speech bills in the early years of

53 BL, Add. MS 72850, fo. 88. The actual value of the jointure was 60,000 pounds with the potential for this income to increase by 10,000 or 20,000 through the improvement of her lands. See CSPD Charles II (36 vols, London: Longman, 1860–1947), i, 7. 54 For more about Charles II’s efforts to shape his public image, see Matthew Jenkinson, Culture and Politics at the Court of Charles II 1660–1685 (Rochester (NY): Boydell & Brewer Ltd., 2010), 86–87.

34

C. HARRIS

the Restoration, making it a crime to call the king a Catholic or to denigrate royal authority.55 The scandalous tales concerning the royal family, that were acceptable in the 1650s, became grounds for prosecution under the restored Stuart dynasty. Gossip concerning the queen dowager’s chastity directly challenged Charles’s position as the legitimate son of the executed Charles I and was, therefore, judged by municipal justices of the peace to be seditious speech. On 3 July 1660, William Shepley of Skidbroke, Lincolnshire, was examined as a witness concerning one Mr Vincent, minister of Cawthorpe and Covenham, Lincolnshire, who allegedly kicked dirt into bonfires celebrating the restoration of the monarchy while shouting “Stay, the rogue is not yet come over!”56 Although Vincent did not mention the queen dowager in his tirade, Shepley’s examiners learned from their informant that rumours concerning Henrietta Maria had circulated in Lincolnshire prior to the Restoration. A local parson named Mr Mawer had “called the Queen a whore and her children bastards.”57 Since both Vincent and Mawer were Protestant clergymen,58 they may have been concerned that Henrietta Maria’s arrival in England would encourage the toleration of Catholicism.59 Whatever their motives, their positions in their communities provided the opportunity for their opinions concerning Henrietta Maria’s reputation and therefore the legitimacy of the Restoration to spread widely. Additional examinations of witnesses who listened to seditious speech in 1660 demonstrate that discontented subjects of the restored monarchy regarded Charles II’s disputed paternity as licence for violence against the king. In Middlesex, it was noted on 12 August 1660 that William Fenne, a labourer in St Martins-in-the-Fields, had spoken against Charles II and Henrietta Maria “about five weekes last past” in the presence of fellow labourers and various widows and spinsters of the parish. The four witnesses from the community testified that Fenne had made a number

55 David Cressy, Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious and Treasonable Speech in PreModern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 211. 56 CSPD Charles II, i, 109. 57 Ibid., 109. 58 The seditious speech cases do not state whether the two clergymen were members of the Church of England or dissenters. 59 See Miller, Popery and Politics, 96-7.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

35

of treasonable remarks, including “that he hoped to wash his hands in the King’s blood; and heere is an old rusty sword, I wish it were up to the hilt in his heart; and that the Queene was a whore; and said that, if the King were in the roome, he would runne a sword that was there upp to his heart.”60 In this case, accusations against the queen dowager’s chastity were spoken amidst threats against the king’s life, and the four witnesses were ordered to give evidence when Fenne was brought to trial for sedition. Henrietta Maria’s arrival in London provided opportunities for Charles’s subjects to express their hostility towards the queen dowager, which, as the Vincent and Fenne cases demonstrate, was also a means of expressing opposition towards the restoration of the monarchy. Samuel Pepys noted the absence of popular enthusiasm for Henrietta Maria’s return to England in his diary. He wrote on 2 November 1660 that “I observed this night very few bonfires in the City, not above three in all London for the Queenes coming; whereby I guess that (as I believed before) her coming doth please but very few.”61 Charles appears to have been aware of this negative reaction and chose to greet his mother and youngest sister Henrietta Anne privately instead of commissioning a public welcoming ceremony.62 During the months following Henrietta Maria’s arrival, there is evidence that Charles sought to suppress the rumours concerning his mother’s behaviour and his own paternity. The language of the investigations of seditious speech changes sharply between early 1660 and mid-1661. Instead of conducting an “examination” that simply stated a witness’s account of the rumours circulating in a particular parish without mention of the implications of this speech, municipal authorities in 1661, such as justices of the peace and other local magistrates, ordered those accused of spreading these rumours to stand trial for sedition.63

60 Jeaffreson, Middlesex County Records, iii, 306. 61 Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, i, 282. 62 Rugge’s Diurnal cited in Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, i, 282. 63 “Charles II, 1661: An Act for Safety and Preservation of His Majesties Person and

Government Against Treasonable and Seditious Practices and Attempts,” in Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628–80, ed. John Raithby (no place of publication: Great Britain Record Commission, 1819), 304–306.

36

C. HARRIS

In London, on 22 January 1661,64 Edward Chard, justice of the peace, ordered Jaine Blunston, the wife of a Whitechapel leather seller, to answer to what “shall be objected against her by Elizabeth Wright [the wife of a Whitechapel seaman] who accuseth hir of speaking dangerous and treasonable wordes against his Majestie, vizt., That the Queene is the whore of Babilon, the King is the sonne of a whore, and the Duke of Yorke is a rogue.”65 Although the example of Blunston’s seditious speech includes insults spoken against Henrietta Maria and both her two surviving sons, the court records describe the attacks against all three members of the royal family as treason against the king. The Restoration state apparatus, including the local courts, reflected Charles’s longstanding public policy of unity amongst his family. Any implication that Henrietta Maria had committed infidelities during her marriage to Charles I was, therefore, not considered to be merely slander against the queen dowager, but a direct attack on the king’s sovereignty and therefore liable to prosecution. Charles II sought to reinforce his mother’s place as a legitimate and accepted member of the royal house. The king issued a warrant that the prayers spoken in churches for the royal family should be supplied with the words: “our gracious Queen Katherine, Mary the Queen Mother, James Duke of York and all the royal family” and also that these words should be printed in all editions of the prayer book until further order.66 Charles also assisted with Henrietta Maria’s attempts to recover possessions confiscated during the English Revolution. He wrote in December 1661 to Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans and the council of the queen mother, authorising them to send for persons in possession of the queen mother’s goods, make composition of the restitution of said goods, and proceed against those who refused to co-operate with these proceedings.67 This united stance between mother and son implicitly challenged 64 This year is significantly described in the court documents as the twelfth year of King Charles II’s reign, demonstrating the degree to which the Restoration parliament sought to delegitimise the successive modes of government which exercised authority in England and Scotland between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the restoration of Charles II in May 1660. 65 Jeaffreson, Middlesex County Court Records, iii, 310. 66 CSPD Charles II , i, 384. Charles I anglicised his wife’s name as “Mary” upon

their marriage but she continued to sign her own correspondence “Henriette-Marie” throughout her life. See White, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars, 144–147 for more about the impact of the name Mary on Henrietta Maria’s reputation. 67 Ibid., ii, 184.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

37

any negative rumours concerning Henrietta Maria’s role as widow of the deceased sovereign and mother of the king. During the 1650s, Charles’s public policy of a united royal family attempted to disguise conflicts between Henrietta Maria and her children but, by the early 1660s, the public image reflected a real improvement in personal relations between the surviving Stuarts. The achievement of the common political goal of restored monarchical government and the shared grief at the sudden deaths of two of Henrietta Maria’s adult children, Princess Mary of Orange and Henry, duke of Gloucester within a few months of one another in the last months of 1660, appears to have facilitated personal unity amongst the surviving members of the royal family. Before her return to France in 1661 for the wedding of her daughter Henrietta Anne to Philippe, duke of Orléans, Henrietta Maria agreed to bless the morganatic marriage of her son James to Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon’s daughter Anne Hyde, which she had previously opposed but Charles was willing to accept.68 Charles demonstrated his own conciliatory attitude towards his mother in a 1662 letter to his youngest sister, Henrietta Anne. He told his sister that “the truth is, never any children had so good a mother as we have, and you and I shall never have any disputes but only who loves her best, and in that I will never yield to you.”69 These sentiments demonstrate that the personal relationship between Henrietta Maria and her eldest son had improved significantly since the Interregnum as the queen dowager acted as a valued intermediary between the English and French courts.

Henrietta Maria’s Second Period of Residence at the Restoration Court: 1662–1665 The personal rapprochement between Henrietta Maria and Charles II in the 1660s caused a degree of unease within elite circles reminiscent of the concerns regarding Charles I’s perceived reliance on the queen during the 1630s and 1640s. The widespread view of Charles II as more concerned with his mistresses such as Barbara Palmer, Lady Castlemaine than the 68 John Callow, The Making of James II: The Formative Years of a Fallen King (Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing, 2000), 91. 69 Charles II to Henrietta Anne, duchess of Orléans, September 8, 1662, reprinted in Ruth Norrington, My Dearest Minette: The Letters Between Charles II and His Sister Henrietta, Duchesse d’Orleans (London: Peter Owen, 1996), 57.

38

C. HARRIS

business of government, coupled with Henrietta Maria’s extended period of residence in England from 1662 to 1665, created the conditions for a second series of rumours concerning the queen dowager.70 During this second visit to England as queen dowager to meet Charles II’s new consort Catherine of Braganza, Henrietta Maria presided over a populous household and lavish court at Somerset House, which had been one of her principal residences during her marriage to Charles I.71 The diarist Samuel Pepys recorded a description of the queen dowager’s court as a place of amusement and mirth, in contrast with the more austere circle surrounding her daughter-in-law, Catherine of Braganza.72 The queen mother celebrated her arrival in London with a lavish banquet for the royal family73 ; and her son Charles continued to be a frequent visitor throughout her period of residence in Somerset House.74 In February 1664, Pepys noted the “magnificent and costly” architectural commissions for Somerset House, which included a new suite of state rooms overlooking the Thames and a restored Catholic chapel.75 That same month, a printed petition addressed to parliament demanded the reduction of the queen dowager’s jointure. The petition implied immorality within her household, complaining, as it did, of “the money spent on the Queen Mother and on the King’s mistresses.”76 The conflation of Charles’s mother with his mistresses suggested that Henrietta Maria was not considered an accepted member of the royal family in certain circles and that those who circulated this petition regarded her

70 Bodl., Clarendon MS 78, fos 63–64. 71 The annual wages for the household amounted to 34,819 pounds, 13 shillings and 4

pence: Bodl., Clarendon MS 78, fos 249–254. Catherine of Braganza received Somerset House and numerous other properties belonging to Henrietta Maria upon the Queen Mother’s death in 1669. See Gabriel Glickman, “Christian Reunion, the Anglo-French Alliance and the English Catholic Imagination, 1660–72,” English Historical Review 128 (2013), 263–291. 72 Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, iii, 298–299. For more about Henrietta Maria’s court at Somerset House, see Griffey, On Display, 201–219 and Keay, The Magnificent Monarch, 126. 73 TNA, PRO 31/3/113, fo. 355. 74 TNA, PRO 31/3/114, fo. 214. 75 De Lisle, Henrietta Maria, 336–337. 76 CSPD Charles II , viii, 217.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

39

financial settlement to be as frivolous a use of royal funds as the incomes granted to the mothers of Charles II’s illegitimate children.77 Throughout Henrietta Maria’s second period of residence in England as queen dowager, the circumstance that attracted the greatest number of rumours concerning her immorality was the conspicuous presence of her secretary and longstanding favourite Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans, in her household. Jermyn had been a gentleman usher in Henrietta Maria’s household since 1627, becoming her vice-chamberlain in 1628 and master of the horse in 1639.78 In his capacity as vice-chamberlain, Jermyn was in close contact with the queen, screening petitioners who sought audiences and handling her most important correspondence.79 While the wealth and patronage he gained from his prominent position in the royal household had the potential to attract negative comment, his involvement in political and sexual intrigues at Charles I’s court made rumours of an intimate relationship with the queen more plausible to observers. In 1633, Jermyn was temporarily banished from court by Charles I for his refusal to marry the pregnant Eleanor Villiers, niece of the assassinated George Villers, duke of Buckingham, and for spreading rumours that Villiers had slept with two other men besides himself.80 Jermyn regained his position at court through Henrietta Maria’s direct intervention in 1636.81 During Henrietta Maria’s first visit to England as queen dowager in 1660–1661, Jermyn was present because Charles had appointed him ambassador extraordinary to the court of Louis XIV (he was promoted in the peerage to the earldom of St Albans in April 1660), charged with 77 For a recent work on Charles II’s mistresses, see Linda Porter, Mistresses: Sex and Scandal at the Court of Charles II (New York: Picador, 2020). 78 For more about Jermyn’s significance in Henrietta Maria’s household, see Ida Ashworth Taylor, The Life of Queen Henrietta Maria (2 vols, London: Hutchison & Company, 1905), ii, 417–419. 79 In the 1641 examination of Lord Goring in the House of Lords, Goring states that he met Jermyn first in the queen’s drawing chamber to request permission for a private audience. See LJ , v, 150. When Henrietta Maria composed a message to the House of Commons in response to parliamentary opposition to her soliciting financial support for Charles I’s Scottish campaign from prominent English Catholics, the letter was sent by Jermyn. See BL, Harleian MSS 1219, fo. 104. 80 For Henry Jermyn and Eleanor Villiers, see Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of King Charles I (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996), 212. 81 ODNB, sub “Jermyn, Henry” (article by Anthony R. J. S. Adolph).

40

C. HARRIS

the negotiation of Henrietta Anne’s marriage to Louis XIV’s brother Philippe, duke of Orléans.82 During Henrietta Maria’s second period of residence in England, however, he was an integral member of her household. The diplomatic correspondence of the mid-1660s demonstrates that St Albans was closely associated with Henrietta Maria’s attempts to wield political influence over Charles II, particularly her opposition to the earl of Clarendon, and her desire for the king to increase the financial settlement awarded to her at the time of the Restoration.83 Newsletters and diaries of the period reveal that they were frequently seen in each other’s company by ordinary Londoners in circumstances that supposedly suggested undue intimacy between them. Pepys recorded in his diary that during the course of a visit to St James’s Palace in July 1663, “I met the Queene-Mother walking in the Pell Mell, led by my Lord St Albans.”84 These frequent opportunities to pair the queen dowager’s name with that of the earl of St Albans facilitated the spread of rumours concerning their supposed intimate relationship. Pepys’s diary reveals the relationship between popular unease concerning the prominence of Henrietta Maria’s court at Somerset House and the spread of rumours concerning her relationship with St Albans. On 26 November 1662, a few months after Henrietta Maria’s arrival in England, Pepys recorded that on “this day Mr Moore told me that for certain the Queene Mother is married to my Lord St Albans, and he is like to be made lord treasurer.”85 The recent marriage choices and negotiations within the English royal family, combined with St Albans’s frequent attendance on the queen dowager gave this rumour credence in elite circles. In 1659, rumours had circulated in diplomatic circles concerning a royal remarriage for Henrietta Maria to the newly crowned Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I, but Venetian diplomats quickly recognised the unsuitability of this match, arguing that “they calculate that there are only six princesses at the present time who are suitable for him. One of these is the queen of England but as she was brought up in the French fashion, she is not adapted to their genius here.”86 The 82 CSPV , xxxii, 167. 83 For examples, see TNA, PRO 31/3/111, fo. 91; and CSPV , xxxiv, 230. 84 Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, iv, 229. 85 Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, iii, 263. 86 CSPV , xxxii, 26.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

41

fact that Henrietta Maria was thirty years Leopold’s senior undoubtedly also contributed the unsuitability of this potential marriage. If a suitable royal alliance could not be arranged for the widowed queen, the marriage of her second son, James, duke of York to the earl of Clarendon’s daughter, Anne Hyde, demonstrated that Charles II was willing to accept marriages between members of the gentry and royal personages, though Hyde was ennobled very shortly after the marriage.87 It would, therefore, have been plausible to Pepys’s friend Mr Moore that Charles had sanctioned a marriage conducted under similar circumstances between Henrietta Maria and the earl of St Albans. As Henrietta Maria’s court attracted greater prominence, the rumours concerning her conduct became more elaborate. On 31 December 1662, Pepys wrote in his diary that “the Queene Mother is said to keep too great a Court now; and her being married to my Lord St Albans is commonly talked of, and that they had a daughter between them in France. How true, God knows.”88 Pepys was not the only diarist to record these rumours. The Yorkshire baronet Sir John Reresby, who had attended Henrietta Maria’s court in exile, recorded in his memoirs that he heard from one of his English cousins in the 1660s of the supposed relationship between the queen mother and St Albans, suggesting that “he was married to her or had children by her, as some have reported, I did not then believe, though the thing was certainly so.”89 The fact that these rumours were so widely believed, even by those who attended Henrietta Maria’s court, reflects the influence of the seditious speech that circulated in the months immediately following the Restoration. The existence of an illegitimate daughter was so widely believed that when Randal MacDonnell, first marquess of Antrim made efforts to regain his Irish estates following the Restoration, Pepys’s contacts assumed that “[Antrim] hath obliged himself, upon the clearing of his estate, to settle it upon a daughter of the Queene-Mother’s (by my Lord Germin, I suppose) in marriage, be it to whom the Queene pleases;

87 The circumstances of the marriage of the future King James II and Anne Hyde, the parents of the future queens Mary II and Anne, are discussed in Edward Gregg, Queen Anne (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 1–4. 88 Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, iii, 303. 89 Sir John Reresby, The Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby (London: Edward

Jeffery, 1813), 163.

42

C. HARRIS

which is a sad story.”90 In this account, Henrietta Maria’s perceived sexual misconduct and her desire for political patronage and influence over Charles II were combined to suggest that she desired property and influence for a secret illegitimate child, as well as to enhance her own position. The rumour also served to discredit the Catholic faction based at Somerset House who supported Lord Antrim in the same manner as past discussion of an inappropriate relationship between Henrietta Maria and Jermyn helped parliament to exploit the discovery of the first Army Plot of 1641. During the 1660s, the rumours concerning a possible illicit affair and/ or marriage between Henrietta Maria and the earl of St Albans spread outside the courtly circles known to Pepys to the diplomatic corps and ordinary subjects of Charles II residing outside London. The Venetian ambassadors did not report rumours of a marriage between the queen dowager and her private secretary but noted the frequent attendance of the earl on Henrietta Maria.91 In contrast, the French ambassador, Gaston Jean Baptiste, Comte de Comminges addressed these rumours directly in an April 1663 letter to Henrietta Maria’s nephew, Louis XIV, stating that he had been asked, “if it is true that the marriage of the Queen Mother of England and the Count of St Albans has been announced?”92 This letter demonstrates that the rumours about this supposed marriage were so widespread at the English court that Comminges thought his master should be aware of them. At the other end of the social spectrum, a seditious speech case dating from August 1660 demonstrated that the idea of a sexual relationship between Henrietta Maria and the earl of St Albans had entered the popular imagination. Ordinary English people, who would have had little opportunity to see the queen dowager in the company of her private secretary, repeated rumours concerning their supposed illicit affair. In this case, John Rogers and Mary Davies of Newcastle-on-Tyne testified that John Wilson and Thomas Calvert “called the King a bastard, and his mother Jermyn’s whore.”93 This statement combines the popular negative perceptions of Henrietta Maria predominant during her first and

90 Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, v, 57–58. 91 CSPV , xxxiii, 130, 135, 146. 92 AAE, Serie Angleterre, 79, 140. 93 CSPD Charles II , i, 179.

2

THE REPUTATION OF DOWAGER QUEEN HENRIETTA …

43

second period of residence in England as a Restoration queen dowager. From 1660 to 1661, Henrietta Maria’s perceived immorality served as a means of expressing opposition to Charles II’s kingship. In the mid1660s, rumours concerning the queen dowager’s relationship with the earl of St Albans spread beyond seditious speech cases to courtly and diplomatic elites, serving as a means of expressing unease with Henrietta Maria’s lavish household and closer relationship with Charles, as well as the licentious atmosphere of the Restoration court.

Conclusion Henrietta Maria returned to France in 1665 to escape the plague and remained resident there until her death in 1669. The Venetian State Papers suggest that the queen dowager initially only intended to spend six months taking the waters at Bourbon and visiting her daughter the duchess of Orléans before returning to England.94 However, she would remain abroad until her death. Following her departure from London, her perceived relationship with St Albans gradually ceased to be a matter of popular interest. Rumours concerning her reputation as a wife and widow continued to circulate even after her death, as a Yorkshire seditious speech case prosecuted in 1677 demonstrates.95 The first historians to address her legacy, including Henrietta Haynes and Quentin Bone, would focus on her religious and political reputation. The parliamentary debates, pamphlet literature, diplomatic correspondence, and seditious speech cases discussing her perceived Catholicism have therefore dominated historical discourse to the exclusion of other forms of negative perceptions of the queen including those arising from her gender or nationality. The relationship between the spread of rumours concerning the queen dowager’s sexual reputation, her periods of residence in England, and the purpose for which this gossip was employed, suggest that Charles II’s support for hereditary legitimacy did not strengthen his position

94 CSPV , xxxiii, 26; CSPV , xxxiv, 125, 161. 95 John Ellis of Burnsall, yeoman, was indicted at York for saying, on the 20 of June

1677 that “The old Queen had severall children in the absence of her husband: one att Pontefract, when her husband had not been with her of a twelve moneth. The King mynds nothing but women.” See Raine, Depositions from the Castle of York, 6.

44

C. HARRIS

as king during his mother’s lifetime. Instead, Henrietta Maria’s prominent position in England encouraged English people of various social classes to express doubts about the queen’s chastity, first as a way of questioning Charles’s legitimacy as king from 1660 to 1661, then of criticising his social circle and decision-making process from 1662 to 1665. The existence of widespread gossip concerning Henrietta Maria’s chastity during the Restoration demonstrates that Charles and his mother were unable to successfully negotiate the position of a queen dowager at the English Court. Henrietta Maria’s two periods of residence in London instead encouraged speculation that critiqued the legitimacy of Charles’s sovereignty and his court. Charles II’s steadfast support for Henrietta Maria’s social and financial prerogatives as queen dowager, however, set clear precedents for political circumstances that would emerge later in his reign. By inviting his mother to join the Restoration court as a wealthy, prominent, and accepted member of the royal family in the face of widespread opposition to her residence in England, Charles demonstrated his support for hereditary legitimacy. Although the king would make numerous conciliatory gestures towards his political opponents, his support for the status and privileges of all members of the royal family would remain steadfast throughout his reign. Charles’s later determination to preserve James’s place in the line of succession during the Exclusion Crisis demonstrated the same concern for hereditary legitimacy as his previous efforts to grant Henrietta Maria full honours as queen dowager.

CHAPTER 3

Catherine of Braganza, Queen Dowager of England, 1685–1692: Catholicism and Political Agency Eilish Gregory

Introduction On 6 February 1685, King Charles II died after a sudden illness, which had left him debilitated in his final days.1 One of the figures who remained constantly by his side was his wife and queen consort, Catherine of Braganza. She allegedly became hysterical when she heard the news that

1 Ronald Hutton, Charles II: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 443; John Miller, Charles II (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991), 381. It is speculated that the king experienced a stroke or may have been suffering from chronic glandular kidney disease.

E. Gregory (B) Centre for Catholic Studies, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Durham, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_3

45

46

E. GREGORY

her husband was dying, to the point that she pleaded for his forgiveness when she had to temporarily leave his side.2 The queen’s trials and tribulations within the marriage were obvious—caused by Charles’s many infidelities with (but not limited to) the royal mistresses Barbara Palmer, Lady Castlemaine, later duchess of Cleveland, Nell Gwyn, and Louise de Kéroualle, duchess of Portsmouth. Politically, and personally, though, Charles and Catherine had what one might call a good relationship. Catherine was devastated at his death. Almost immediately, she performed the mourning ceremony of reclining on her bed in her bedchamber to receive visitors and ambassadors offering their condolences. Her bed and windows were hung with black velvet curtains, and the bedchamber was artificially lit by tapers. This ritual established her official position as the chief mourner, that is, above all the king’s mistresses.3 Upon Charles’s death, Catherine became queen dowager of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. It would naturally be assumed that Catherine moved quietly into the background in deference to the new king and queen consort, King James II and Queen Mary Beatrice of Modena. Indeed, Edward Corp has suggested that after Charles’s death, Catherine “ceased to have any useful role in England,” and, as the first childless queen dowager since Catherine Parr in 1547, her role at court was very different, with her household reduced at Somerset House and preparations made for her to return to Portugal.4 In fact, Catherine continued to be an active agent in the promotion of a certain style of Catholicism, during what turned out to be a period of political and religious turmoil. This chapter assesses Catherine’s political exercise of her queen dowagership from her widowhood in 1685 until 1692

2 Lillias Campbell Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, Infanta of Portugal, & QueenConsort of England (London: John Murray, 1908), 372–374. Davidson’s biography continues to be remain one of the best accounts on the queen. 3 It has recently been noted by Maria Hayward that this ritual was similar to the ceremony performed by queens who received witnesses to the birth of their children in their bedchambers. See Maria Hayward, “‘The Best of Queens, the Most Obedient Wife’: Fashioning a Place for Catherine of Braganza as Consort to Charles II,” in Erin Griffey (ed.), Sartorial Politics Early Modern Europe (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019), 237; Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 388; Janet Mackay, Catherine of Braganza (London: John Long Limited, 1937), 252–253. 4 Edward Corp, “Catherine of Braganza and Cultural Politics,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 65.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

47

when she left England to return to Portugal. Catherine’s new position as queen dowager offered her fresh prospects in her adopted homeland. Her brother-in-law James was an openly Catholic monarch, having converted to Catholicism at some point in 1669, although very little is known about when he exactly changed religion.5 During James’s brief reign, Elizabethan and Jacobean anti-Catholic penal laws—which were regularly enforced during Charles II’s reign—were suspended. James’s determination to push through religious toleration across the kingdoms, including packing parliament with Catholic sympathisers and permitting Catholic officers into the army, allowed for the expression of resistance to royal authority on the grounds that the king was introducing popery and arbitrary government, and threatening the viability of the established Church.6 Most scholarly attention has focused on James’s style of Catholic profession, whilst Catherine of Braganza’s role in this narrative has been largely overlooked. Notwithstanding that she was a foreign-born Catholic princess who had no royal offspring, Catherine’s status as queen dowager 5 See John Miller, James II (New Haven (CT): Yale University Press, 2000); idem, “James II and Toleration,” in Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), By Force or Default? The Revolution of 1688–1689 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1989), 8–27; W. A. Speck, James II (London: Longman, 2002); John Miller, James II: A Study in Kingship, rev. edn (London: Methuen, 1989); Andrew Barclay, “James II’s ‘Catholic’ Court,” 1650–1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era 8 (2003), 161–171; Michael A. Mullett, James II and English Politics, 1678–1688 (London: Routledge, 1993); John Spurr, “Religion in Restoration England,” in Lionel K. J. Glassey (ed.), The Reigns of Charles II and James VII and II, 1660–1689 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), 90–124; John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: Heinemann, 1972), 16, 32. 6 Robert Beddard, “James II and the Catholic Challenge,” in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. 4: Seventeenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 907–954; Gary S. De Krey, “Reformation and ‘Arbitrary Government’: London Dissenters and James II’s Polity of Toleration, 1687–1688,” in Jason McElligott (ed.), Fear, Exclusion and Revolution: Roger Morrice and Britain in the 1680s (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 13–31; Mark Knights, “‘Meer Religion’ and the ‘Church-State’ of Restoration England: The Impact and Ideology of James II’s Declarations of Indulgence,” in Alan Houston and Steve Pincus (eds), A Nation Transformed: England After the Restoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 41–70; Mark Goldie, “The Damning of King Monmouth: Pulpit Toryism in the Reign of James II,” in Tim Harris and Stephen Taylor (eds), The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy: The Revolutions of 1688–91 in Their British, Atlantic and European Contexts (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2013), 33–56; William T. Gibson, James II and the Trial of the Seven Bishops (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009); Leo Gooch, “Catholic Officers in the Navy of James II,” Recusant History 14 (1978), 276–280.

48

E. GREGORY

and as one of the most senior female ranking royals in the realm, meant that she exercised considerable influence at court.7 For the first time in over a century, Catholicism was openly practised across the British Isles. As queen dowager, Catherine did not discontinue her already extensive patronage of British and Irish Catholics.8 During the seven years after the death of Charles, Catherine lived under the rule of three monarchs— James II, William III, and Mary II. The change of regime in 1688 inevitably altered her capacity to offer patronage to Catholics in her adopted nation. This chapter examines the tensions that Catherine and “her family” faced after James fled England in 1688, when Catherine’s household were accused of Jacobite sympathies and conspiracies.

Catherine of Braganza on the Eve of Widowhood During Charles II’s reign, Catherine had periodically experienced hostility from the public, not least during the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis, 1678–1681, when she, her Catholic household, and priests were accused of having been involved in the murder of a justice of the peace, Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, and in a plot to assassinate the king, with speculation that Godfrey had been murdered at Somerset House.9 The death of her husband in 1685, however, reversed the public’s perception of her. Poems were dedicated to Catherine, which expressed public respect and sympathy for her recent widowhood. The royalist Joshua Barnes, Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and a renowned Greek scholar, dedicated a portion of his poem, The Apotheosis of the Most Serene and Illustrious Monarch Charls [sic] the II , to the late king’s widow.10 He lamented how the English people do “Piously Condole, and lend relief” 7 John Miller, Popery and Politics in England, 1660–1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 203–205. 8 Eilish Gregory, “Catherine of Braganza’s Relationship with Her Catholic Household,” in Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque (eds), Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019), 129–148. 9 For further information, see Kenyon, The Popish Plot, 109–115; Gregory, “Catherine of Braganza’s Relationship with Her Catholic household,” 135–141. This subject is also covered in my article, “Catherine of Braganza During the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis: Anti-Catholicism in the Houses of Commons and Lords, 1678–81,” Parliamentary History 42 (2023), 195–212. 10 ODNB, sub “Barnes, Joshua (1654–1712)” (article by Kristine L. Haugen).

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

49

to this “sole Good Queen” who “With Loyal Art to Your Exub’tant Grief” are “drown’d in Tears.” Barnes assured Catherine that in Charles’s death “all Englands Widow’d too. / You lost an Husband and the best that ere / Did th’ Honourable Chains of Wedlock wear,” an overt reference to Catherine putting up with Charles’s numerous mistresses.11 The royalist playwright and poet Aphra Behn consoled Catherine in A Poem Humbly Dedicated to the Great Patern [sic] of Piety and Virtue Catherine Queen Dowager, in which she claimed that the realm shared in her grief: While we to Charles Sacred Relict bow Half the great Monarch we Adore in You: The rest, our Natural Devotions grant; We Bless the Queen, and we Invoke the Saint: Nor fades your Light with Englands Worship’d Sun, Your Joys were set, but still Your Glory shon.12

Previously, scholars have argued that, upon Charles’s death, Catherine planned to stay in England only temporarily. She was apparently eager to return to Portugal and be with her brother, King Pedro II. Lillias Campbell Davidson suggested that Catherine “longed for nothing else than to return to her own country,” and that at Somerset House, she chose to live “soberly and with dignity, indulging no more in dancing, or in the gaieties she had loved” as queen consort.13 Janet Mackay claimed that during James’s reign, “life flowed uneventfully” for the queen dowager, with Catherine’s life devoted to performing prayers for several hours a day, awaiting the days when she could return to the warmth and sunshine of Portugal.14 It seems highly likely, however, that whilst Catherine had no more time for dancing, her attentions were diverted elsewhere, that is, to political matters. Catherine of Braganza’s impact as a political agent has often been taken to have ended with her years as queen consort. It was thought 11 Joshua Barnes, The Apotheosis of the Most Serene and Illustrious Monarch Charls [sic] the II. With an humble Address to His Most Sacred Majesty King James the II. And a Poem to the Queen Dowager (London: s. n., 1685), 7. 12 Aphra Behn, A Poem Humbly Dedicated to the Great Patern [sic] of Piety and Virtue Catherine Queen Dowager. On the Death of Her Dear Lord and Husband King Charles II (London: s. n., 1685), 2. 13 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 391, 393. 14 Mackay, Catherine of Braganza, 257–258.

50

E. GREGORY

that, because Catherine had no offspring with Charles, she wielded no serious influence at the Restoration court, especially when compared to her mother-in-law Henrietta Maria. The French queen consort had been involved quite intensively in court politics during Charles I’s Personal Rule in the 1630s, and during her years in exile on the Continent.15 But, in recent years, Catherine’s patronage of art and music has been given serious attention.16 Additionally, the recent work done by the Marrying Cultures: Queens Consort and European Identities 1500–1800 project, has considered different political, religious, and cultural impacts of Catherine’s queen consortship.17 At the Restoration, Henrietta Maria’s return to England as queen dowager witnessed the renewal of a style of Catholic activism at her residences—Queen’s House, Greenwich, and at Somerset House. This included the re-opening of her Catholic chapel at Somerset House, and the revival of the social evening “circles” that she presided over as hostess, in which Catherine initially participated during the early months of her marriage, before establishing her own independent courtly circle

15 See Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina Press, 1983); Michael C. Questier (ed.), Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 1631–1638: Catholicism and the Politics of Personal Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Historical Society, 2005); Karen Britland, “Exile or Homecoming? Henrietta Maria in France, 1644–1669,” in Philip Mansel and Torsten Riotte (eds), Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 120–143; Sara Joy Wolfson, “Aristocratic Women of the Household and Court of Queen Henrietta Maria, 1625–1659” (PhD, Durham University, 2010), chs. 4 and 6. I would like to gratefully thank Dr Wolfson for sharing her doctoral thesis with me. 16 Corp, “Catherine of Braganza and Cultural Politics”; Peter Leech, “Musicians in the Catholic Chapel of Catherine of Braganza, 1662–92,” Early Music 29 (2001), 570– 588; Anna-Marie Linnell, “Greeting the Stuart Queens Consort: Cultural Exchange and the Nuptial Texts for Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza, Queens of Britain,” in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2017), 153–171; Adam Morton, “Sanctity and Suspicion: Catholicism, Conspiracy and the Representation of Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza, Queens of Britain,” in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, 172–201. 17 “Catherine of Braganza,” in Marrying Cultures: Queens Consort and European Identities 1500–1800. http://www.marryingcultures.eu/research/catherine-braganza [date accessed 30 April 2022].

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

51

in her apartments at Whitehall.18 Recent research on Catherine has shown that, despite the dominating presence of her mother-in-law, she managed to assert her own influence in promoting Catholicism during the Restoration, and established her own Catholic court, which shielded and promoted a certain sort of Catholic activism. Gabriel Glickman and Chelsea Reutcke have pointed to the Catholic print networks associated with Somerset House, with Reutcke uncovering how Catherine supported the printing and distribution of unlicensed Catholic books when she inherited the palace after Henrietta Maria’s death in 1669.19 Not unlike Henrietta Maria, both as queen consort and as queen dowager, Catherine of Braganza was in a unique position, in that she legally was permitted to practise her faith in accordance with her marriage articles, but in turn pushed against the boundaries of the conformist requirements that supposedly constrained her subjects, that is, when she permitted them to carry out illegal activities on her premises. At times, this had caused problems for Charles’s privy councillors, who tried regularly to impose restrictions on Catholics who were determined to visit Somerset House and attend religious services at her chapel.20 Catherine was now theoretically in a position to openly promote and encourage Catholicism at her court and display her faith more openly without any repercussions. Her new role as queen dowager also offered her fresh opportunities to extend her patronage network.

18 Anna Keay, The Magnificent Monarch: Charles II and the Ceremonies of Power (London: Continuum, 2008), 126; Christoph Ketterer, To Meddle with Matters of State: Political Sermons in England, c. 1660–c.1700 (Hamburg: V&R unipress, 2020), 73–78. 19 Chelsea Reutcke, “Royal Patronage of Illicit Print: Catherine of Braganza and Catholic Books in Late Seventeenth-Century London,” in Nina Lamal, Jamie Cumby and Helmer J. Helmers (eds), Print and Power in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 239–256; Gabriel Glickman, “Christian Reunion, the Anglo-French Alliance and the English Catholic Imagination, 1660–72,” English Historical Review 128 (2013), 268. 20 Miller, Popery and Politics, 21–22.

52

E. GREGORY

Catherine of Braganza’s Political Agency in the Dowager Court After Charles’s death, Catherine remained temporarily at Whitehall in the queen consort’s apartments, having been permitted to do so by James and Mary Beatrice, before returning to Somerset House in April 1685.21 Although no longer queen consort, Catherine still possessed extensive political powers in her role as queen dowager. Catherine took her duties as queen dowager seriously, and maintained her own privy council in her dowager court, made up of councillors who had long served her and her late husband.22 As outlined by Erin Griffey in her work on the queen dowager Henrietta Maria, “household” has been used by modern historians to encompass the “whole entourage of officers and servants who served in the chamber, chapel, wardrobe, stables and kitchen as well as secretarial and administrative roles,” whereas in the early modern period, “household” referred to those working “below the stairs,” whilst the management of her “court” was conducted by an active council, which had a clerk that attended daily. This included councillors for the administration of her revenues, senior officers, a lord chamberlain and vice-chamberlain, secretary, master of the horse, and ladies of the bedchamber.23 Similarly, Robert Beddard has shown how Henrietta Maria’s dowager court at the Restoration was fully operational. A surviving list for 1662/1663 gives her household and officials; it includes her Catholic chaplains, Capuchins, and her lord almoner, Walter Montagu.24 Catherine’s dowager court is comparable to Henrietta Maria’s; it also functioned like a formally constituted body. Surviving

21 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 390. 22 Ibid., 394–395. 23 Erin Griffey, “Restoring Henrietta Maria’s English Household in the 1660s: Continuity, Kinship and Clientage,” The Court Historian 26 (2021), 189–190. 24 Bodl., Clarendon MS 78, fos 249–254, “An Establishment of Ordinary Wages, Fees allowances and Pentions yearly allowed by us unto our Officers and Servants of our Chamber and others of our Howsehold and Stables and to the Officers and Servants of our Revenue…,” 1662–1663; Robert Anthony Beddard, “Queen Henrietta Maria’s Mission and the Re-opening of the Catholic Chapel Royal in Restoration England,” in Jean-Louis Quantin and Jean-Claude Waquet (eds), Papes, Princes et Savants dans L’Europe Moderne Mélanges a la Mémoire de Bruno Nevu (Geneva: Droz, 2007), 211–212. I am indebted to Professor Kenneth Fincham for this reference and for discussions about the specific role of queen dowager courts and their privy councils after the Restoration.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

53

accounts for her waged household officers at Somerset House in 1687 and 1692, before she embarked for Portugal, list her servants at that point, including her lord chamberlain, vice-chamberlain, master of the horse, secretary, gentlemen ushers, and pages, whilst “greenes [herbs] and flowers” were purchased for seventeen shillings for Catherine’s “councill chambers” in late spring 1689, possibly to fumigate the chambers when council and courtly proceedings were taking place.25 Catherine’s Privy Council contained prominent Protestants as well as Catholics. Her councillors included: Louis de Duras, second earl of Feversham; Sir Richard Bellings; Richard Graham, first viscount Preston; Sir John Arundell of Lanherne; George Sayers; Thomas Belasyse, first earl of Fauconberg; Robert Shirley, first Baron Ferrers; Philip Stanhope, second earl of Chesterfield; James Butler, first duke of Ormond; Sidney Godolphin, first earl of Godolphin; Henry Frederick Thynne; William Mountagu; Henry Thornhill; Francis Roper; and Sir William Killigrew; and there were others too.26 Interestingly, several of Catherine’s privy councillors also served in James II’s court. Amongst them was Ormond; he held the office of lord steward for the king, in addition to his duties as councillor to the queen dowager. Feversham also served as one of the king’s gentlemen of the bedchamber; Francis, Lord Viscount Newport was both a treasurer of the king’s household and a privy councillor in Catherine’s household; Preston was both the king’s and queen dowager’s privy councillor, as well as Catherine’s chancellor and keeper of her Great Seal. Likewise, Godolphin was both a privy councillor to the king and Catherine, as well as lord chamberlain to the new queen Mary Beatrice; and Fauconberg, Clarendon, Lawrence Hyde, earl of Rochester, and Chesterfield all served as privy councillors to both James and Catherine.27 Many of Catherine’s privy councillors had been in her service for a long time. The earl of Feversham, Catherine’s lord chamberlain, was a

25 BL, Add. MS 28721/B, “An establishment of ordinary wages fees allowances and pencions yearely allowed by us unto our officers and servants of our chamber and of our houshold, [sic] and to our officers and servants of our stables…,” 1686–7; TNA, LR 5/ 86; LR 5/90; I would like to thank Susannah Lyon-Whaley for the TNA references and for further discussions about Catherine’s privy council and court as queen dowager. 26 Edward Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia: Or, the Present State of England Compleat, Together with Divers Reflections Upon the Ancient State Thereof , 16th edn (London: s. n., 1687), 211–212. 27 Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia, 146, 152, 166–167, 204–205, 211.

54

E. GREGORY

Huguenot. He previously served in James’s household from the early 1660s before joining Catherine’s household in 1679. He attended first as her master of the horse before becoming her lord chamberlain in 1680, a position he held until Catherine’s death in 1705.28 Although not a Catholic, Feversham was unwaveringly loyal to both James and Catherine, and he was one of two Protestants, alongside John Granville, first earl of Bath, who witnessed Charles’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism.29 Catherine was undoubtedly close to Feversham; unsubstantiated rumours circulated that she and Feversham were lovers, with Feversham referred to as the “King-Dowager.” Henrietta Maria herself had been the target of similar accusations when she was queen dowager, that is, when she had grown dependent on the advice of Henry Jermyn, earl of St Albans.30 The Irish-born Catholic, Sir Richard Bellings had long served Catherine as her principal secretary and master of requests; he briefly followed her to Portugal when she finally embarked for her homeland in 1692, although he later returned and settled at Somerset House.31 Bellings was the sonin-law of Catherine’s former master of the horse, Sir John Arundell; Bellings married Arundell’s daughter Frances, who served as the queen dowager’s dresser and keeper of the Sweet Coffer.32 Henry and Johanna Thornhill had served for a long time in Catherine’s household; Johanna Thornhill was awarded a £100 pension by Catherine when she was still queen consort in October 1682, and remained in her household as a pensioner, whilst her husband acted as the queen dowager’s surveyor

28 ODNB, sub “Duras, Louis, second Earl of Feversham (1641–1709)” (article by Stuart Handley). 29 Philip Rambaut, “A Study in Misplaced Loyalty: Louis de Durfort-Duras, Earl of Feversham (1640–1709),” in Matthew Glozier and David Onnekink (eds), War, Religion and Service: Huguenot Soldiering, 1685–1713 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 47–58. 30 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 395–396; Hebe Elsna, Catherine of Braganza: Charles II’s Queen (London: Robert Hale, 1967), 292; see esp. Carolyn Harris’s essay in this volume. 31 Toby Barnard, “Sir Richard Bellings, a Catholic Courtier and Diplomat from Seventeenth-Century Ireland,” in Brian MacCuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland 1550–1700: Colonization and Its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011), 326–347; Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia, 211. 32 Barnard, “Sir Richard Bellings,” 329; Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia, 208.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

55

and woodward-general.33 Thynne and Killigrew held positions as officers of the queen dowager’s revenue, with Killigrew well-known as a playwright and for his theatre company at the New Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, which famously had Charles II’s mistress Nell Gwynn acting in the company.34 Primarily, Catherine’s councillors were charged with maintaining the daily affairs of all her lands, rents, and revenues of lands held across the country, to settle disputes with tenants, as well as to preserve the lands to which she was entitled. According to the renewal of the appointments of her councillors on 2 February 1689, including George Savile, marquis of Halifax, and her ministers listed above, they were appointed to provide “the faithfull and provident counselling and advising of us in all things that doe or may any way concerne any honors, castles, lordships, mannors, parks, forrests, liberties, possessions [and] fee farme rents,” as well as “lands, tenements, annuities, pensions and hereditaments whatsoever granted or belonging unto us, or which hereafter at anytime shall happen to be granted or to be belonging unto us.” Her councillors were expected “to heare and determine all causes, controversies and differences which shall depend arise or grow amongst any of our tenants, or which may any way concerne our said revenue or any of the premisses.” They were additionally given the power and authority to hear, receive, and take a “true and perfect account” to give to the treasurer and receiver-general, as well as auditor-general of all the revenues in their charge “for which they or any of them stand accountable to us.”35 However, Catherine’s council also reported on various other matters to her, not least the political situation for Catholics living across the country. Despite James’s Catholicism and open desire for liberty of conscience for all his subjects, reports of Catholics still being prosecuted for their recusancy reached the ears of the queen dowager.36 For example, on

33 Bodl., Tanner MS 35, fo. 109, “Warrant by Catherine of Braganza for a pension of 100 pounds to Lady Johanna Thornhill,” 18 October 1682; Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia, 210–211. 34 Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia, 210–212; Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 231. 35 Nottinghamshire Archives, DD/SR/1/D/9/12, “Appointment by the Queen

Dowager of George Marquis of Halifax and others to be her Counsellors,” 2 February 1689. 36 See Beddard, “James II and the Catholic Challenge,” 907–954; Knights, “‘Meer religion’ and the ‘Church-State’ of Restoration England,” 41–70.

56

E. GREGORY

23 November 1685, Catherine’s council heard Sir Henry Goodricke’s complaint against one Mr Calvert. Goodricke, an MP for Boroughbridge and a justice of the peace for the West Riding of Yorkshire, alleged that Calvert had prosecuted two constables at Boroughbridge after they had, by warrant of the justices of the peace, searched and seized “the vestments & goods of preists.” Catherine’s council ruled that Calvert was to attend their board the following week, and that Goodricke was to be present.37 Similarly, in October 1687, Catherine and her council intervened in a dispute referred to the council by Basil Feilding, fourth earl of Denbigh concerning himself and Edward Lamplugh. Denbigh wrote to William Aldworth to say that, at the audit in Carlisle, a dispute had arisen between Lamplugh—a steward of Holme Cultrams manor (a former Cistercian monastery in Cumbria)—and Denbigh, who was the receiver, over who should pay the clerk of the court’s annual fee of £1.11s.8d. Denbigh and Lamplugh asked the queen dowager’s council “which of us should pay itt,” and that “wee humbly begg of yow to give judgment in itt as soone as possible yow can.”38 Although it is unclear who wrote the postscript to the letter, it is possible that, in her capacity as queen dowager, Catherine authorised a decision regarding the dispute between Denbigh and Lamplugh, although further investigation is needed to determine whether this action was a one-off, or if Catherine’s and her privy council’s opinions were often sought after in order to settle disputes. As queen dowager, Catherine also received a petition from Sir William Killigrew, who complained about the behaviour of his sister-in-law, Mrs Charlotte Killigrew, keeper of the Secret Coffers, when his wife Mary— a dresser to the queen—died in attendance on the queen at Somerset House in 1681.39 In the petition, Killigrew claimed that his sister-inlaw, “without any culler of right, or authority,” stole his late wife’s keys after she died, and removed his wife’s goods, which had been under the queen’s protection at Somerset House, to Hampton Court and had been put into the possession of Sir William’s son, Sir Robert Killigrew, and his 37 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. [hereafter FSL], V.b. 333 (35), “Decision of the Queen Dowager’s Council regarding Sir Henry Goodricke’s complaint against Mr. Calvert,” 23 November 1685. 38 TNA, SP 31/3, fo. 151. 39 ODNB, sub “Killigrew, Sir William (bap. 1606, d. 1695)” (article by J. P. Vander

Motten); Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 310–311.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

57

wife. The property, which included the “richs [sic] points furniture for a bed,” her chinaware, and “all the broaken gold in altering your jewells,” was earmarked to be sold to pay off more than £200 worth of debts that his late wife had accrued.40 He alleged that all of this was “done by the consent, and aprobation of the whole court, (from the highest to the lowset [sic]) who pittied his sonnes condition.”41 Killigrew claimed that he did not seek “revenge nor any punishment” against those who had done him all these injuries, but saw it as his duty to acquaint her of the matter so that “you may observe who they were that did countenance, and incourage this insolent affront, and openfaced robbery” of the petitioner “in your Maiesties house.”42 Although it is not clear what the outcome was for Killigrew, the petition reveals that he believed that Catherine would take action about the stolen property, especially as the alleged theft would have cast a shadow on the queen dowager’s own reputation. Catherine and her dowager court thus offered for some figures an opportunity to air grievances—religious, political, or personal— in the hope that she and her officers could offer solutions and reconcile tensions. This would suggest that Catherine’s powers as queen dowager were perhaps far greater than have previously been thought.

The Queen Dowager and Religious Agency As queen consort, Catherine of Braganza was not only openly Catholic but was also entitled to practise her religion without fear of prosecution. From the date of her marriage in 1662, Catherine’s chapel at St James’s Palace became an overtly Catholic venue. Here, sermons were preached in the vernacular, and this may have encouraged native visitors to the chapel.43 The marriage treaty between Catherine and Charles had granted the queen the free exercise of her religion in her own personal

40 Kresen Kernow [formerly Cornwall Record Office], AR 33/9/113, “The humble petition of Sr William Killigrew your Ma[jes]ties Servant,” c. 1685. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 David John Peter Baldwin, “The Politico-Religious Usage of the Queen’s Chapel, 1623–1688” (MLitt, University of Durham, 1999), 30–32, 132–133; Miller, Popery and Politics, 21; A.S. Barnes, “Catholic Chapels Royal Under the Stuarts-III,” Downside Review 20 (1901), 232–241; Leech, “Musicians in the Catholic Chapel,” 570–588.

58

E. GREGORY

private chapel, which was to be upheld throughout her marriage and if she outlived the king, which she did by more than twenty years.44 Even before her marriage, Catherine was seen as a focus for lobbyists in favour of liberty of conscience. During the Anglo-Portuguese marriage negotiations in late 1661, several unnamed Irish lords had “humblie desired” that Catherine would give her opinion on the duke of Ormond “in relation to the Catholiques of Ireland” for the future of the kingdom. The unnamed lords provided Catherine with a list of Ormond’s accomplishments, including that “he is designed for the great worke of the setlement [sic] of Ireland, and the establishing of his Majesties Catholique subiects there in their rights, whoe have for their loyaltie and affection to his service suffered soe much both at home and abroad.” They added that: if there bee any thing in present agitation here or in Ireland wch may disable him from performing that obligation which is on his Ma[jes]tie shee assures her selfe he will have a timely care both to prevent and remove anie such obstruction.45

The fact that Catherine was sought out by the Irish lords suggests that they thought that their future queen could influence the future security of Ireland and political appointments, especially when Charles II was negotiating a settlement upon the government and religion of Ireland.46 Furthermore, just a year after her marriage, in 1663, Richard Bellings was sent on a private mission on behalf of Catherine to Rome. This came to light when George Digby, second earl of Bristol drew up

44 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 58. 45 Ushaw College Library, Durham University, LC/P6/8, “A Request to her Ma[jes]tie

uppon the Duke or [sic] Ormonds going in to Ireland,” c. November 1661. 46 For more information on the situation for Catholics in Restoration Ireland, see Coleman A. Dennehy (ed.), Law and Revolution in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts, 2020); idem, “The Earl of Arlington and Restoration Ireland,” in Robin Eagles and Coleman A. Dennehy (eds), Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, and His World: Restoration Court, Politics and Diplomacy (London: Routledge, 2020), 52–68; Eoin Kinsella, Catholic Survival in Protestant Ireland, 1660–1711: Colonel John Browne, Landownership and the Articles of Limerick (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2018); Ted McCormick, “Restoration Politics, 1660–1691,” in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland: Volume II, 1550–1730 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 96–119.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

59

treason charges against Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon for the promotion of popery and for trying to obtain a “cardinal’s cap” for Ludovic Stuart, sieur d’Aubigny. Catherine and her mother-in-law, queen dowager Henrietta Maria, commissioned a “gentil homme Anglais” to travel to the papal court to request this favour.47 In April 1663, Cardinal Decio Azzolino wrote to Cardinal Jean François Paul de Gondi de Retz that on that very morning the pope had “tould me what had passed between him and Mr Bel. uppon this Subject,” and that whilst it “was nott the proper methode of treating a businesse of this consequence, yett that trust [about the cardinal’s cap for d’Aubigny] had bid Mr B. tell the Queenes, that the necessary conditions preceding, he would incline to satisfy their Ma[jes]tys.”48 Catherine’s active promotion of Catholicism did not cease with her widowhood. If anything, there were, after 1685, even fewer restraints upon this aspect of her life in England. It seems likely that this was associated in the public mind with her active engagement in other political activities. Newsletters sent to John Fenwick reported in late June and early July 1686 that Catherine had accompanied the king and queen at Hounslow Heath to inspect the army. These newsletters described how the queen dowager dined with their majesties in a tent on the field, and that she had observed the king exercise his troops for several hours, alongside James’s daughter Princess Anne and her husband Prince George of Denmark.49 Likewise, in a newsletter sent to Sir Richard Newdigate, dated 14 April 1686, it was narrated that both the king and queen dowager had donated money to French Huguenots who had fled to England to escape persecution after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by King Louis XIV in October 1685, with James donating £200 and Catherine £300.50 However, although James ordered the collections of

47 TNA, SP 29/76, fo. 110, “Articles of High Treason, propounded by the Earl of Bristol, against Lord Chancellor Clarendon…,” 10 July 1663; Bodl. Carte MS 222, fo. 376, advice sent from Paris to James Butler, duke of Ormond, 3 January 1663. 48 Bodl., Clarendon MS 84, fos 124–125, Cardinal Decio Azzolino to Cardinal de

Retz, 23 April c. 1663. Although no year is given, the discussions of d’Aubigny and getting him a cardinal’s cap would suggest that the year was 1663. 49 E. K. Timings (ed.), CSPD James II, 1685–1689 (3 vols, London: HMSO, 1960–72), ii, 190, 193, 197. 50 FSL, L.c. 1648, Newsletter sent to Sir Richard Newdigate, second baronet, 17 April 1686.

60

E. GREGORY

aid for Huguenots in England, his Catholicism and apparent reluctance to openly help Huguenot refugees meant that he was hardly committed to reversing Louis’s policy in this respect.51 Like the new king and queen, Catherine authorised the select publication of sermons that were preached before her, her court, and occasionally in the presence of James and Mary Beatrice, at Somerset House. These included sermons by her own chaplains, such as Dr Thomas Godden and the Jesuit Edward Scarisbrick (alias Neville), as well as the king’s chaplains, Thomas Codrington, John Betham, William Hall, and the Benedictine monk Philip Ellis.52 Between 1686 and 1688, fourteen sermons were published by Catherine’s command, although one of these sermons—preached by Godden—was a reprint of his 1686 sermon on Matthew 16:18: “And I say unto thee, that Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.”53 This sermon, about the foundation of the true Church and also the authority of the papacy, provoked some clergymen in the established Church of England to publish polemical replies to Godden’s words, including one from the future archbishop of Canterbury, William Wake, and another from the future bishop of Chester, Nicholas Stratford.54 Catherine herself was regularly cited in the titles of 51 Tim Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London: Allen Lane, 2006), 185–186; Ketterer, To Meddle with Matters of State, 312–313. 52 Geoffrey Holt, “Edward Scarisbrick 1639–1709: A Royal Preacher,” Recusant History 23 (1996), 159–160. 53 Thomas Godden, A Sermon of St Peter, Preach’d before Her Majesty the QueenDowager, In Her Chappel at Somerset-House, on the Twenty ninth of June, 1686. Being St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day. Published by Her Majesties Command (London: Henry Hills, 1686); idem, A Sermon of St Peter, Preach’d before Her Majesty the Queen-Dowager, In Her Chappel at Somerset-House, on the Twenty ninth of June, 1686. Being St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day. Published by Her Majesties Command (London: Henry Hills, 1686) Wing/ G920; idem, A Sermon of St Peter, Preach’d before Her Majesty the Queen-Dowager, In Her Chappel at Somerset-House, on the Twenty ninth of June, 1686. Being St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day. Published by Her Majesties Command (London: Henry Hills, 1688), Wing/ G920A. 54 William Wake, A Continuation of the Present State of the Controversy, Between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, being A Full Account of the Books that have been of late Written on Both Sides (London: s. n., 1688); Nicholas Stratford, A Discourse of the Pope’s Supremacy. Part I. In Answer to a Treatise intituled, St. Peter’s Supremacy faithfully Discuss’d, according to Holy Scripture, and Greek and Latin Fathers. And to a Sermon of S. Peter, Preached before her Majesty the Queen Dowager, on St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day, by Thomas Godden, D.D. (London: s. n., 1688).

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

61

sermons that were later published, that is, after they were preached before the new king and queen in the Catholic private chapel at St James’s Palace in 1685 and 1686.55 Equally, Catherine’s attendance at formal religious services and occasions was cited in contemporary newsletter material. On 5 February 1687, the second anniversary of Charles II’s death, newsletters reported that Catherine participated in a “solemn service” at Somerset House, whilst James and Mary Beatrice held separate services at Whitehall and at St James’s Palace.56 Catherine’s involvement in helping to reconcile England to Rome after James took the crown has been overlooked by most historians. Infamously, James’s attempts to secure an accommodation with the papacy, via the separate embassies of John Caryll and Roger Castlemaine between 1685 and 1687, proved fruitless.57 However, whilst Catherine’s involvement in Anglo-Roman diplomacy seems to have diminished during the later years of Charles’s reign, no doubt because of the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis, her endeavours appear to have revived upon James’s accession. In a letter written to Catherine by her lord almoner, Cardinal Philip Thomas Howard from Rome in October 1685, the cardinal wrote that the bearer had “delivered his commission by breeve as well as word of mouth” from Pope Innocent XI to Catherine, which he hoped would “helpe me to expresse my desires” of her commands, and that he would at least “in some smale part endeavour to shew my readines in obaying them.”58 Similarly, in a brief letter written by Howard to Catherine’s secretary Sir Richard Bellings in August 1688, he narrated that, at his 55 Chelsea Reutcke, “Catholic Print Networks in Restoration England, 1660–1688” (PhD, University of St Andrews, 2020), Appendix C. I would like to thank Dr Reutcke for generously sharing her research findings with me. 56 CSPD James II , ii, 359. For further information about both James’s and Catherine’s promotion of Catholicism in her chapels, see Ketterer, To Meddle with Matters of State, esp. 73–78 for Catholic sermons preached in Catherine’s chapels as queen consort, 122–30, ch. 6; and Eilish Gregory, “‘Published by Her Majesties Command’: Sermons Preached before Catherine of Braganza, Queen Dowager, 1685–88,” English Historical Review (forthcoming). 57 Margery Corbett, “John Michael Wright, An Account of His Excellence Roger Earl of Castlemaine’s Embassy, from His Sacred Majesty James the II d King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland & to His Holiness Innocent XI ,” Antiquities Journal 70 (1990), 117–120; D. F. Allen, “James II and the Court of Rome: John Caryll’s Contribution,” Durham University Journal 84 (1992), 21–27. 58 Kresen Kernow, AR/33/10/1, Cardinal Philip Howard of Norfolk to Catherine, Queen Dowager, 5 October 1685.

62

E. GREGORY

first audience with the pope, he delivered Catherine’s letter to him “which was receaved with all the markes of kindnesse & esteeme [as] could bee expected.”59 Although tentative, these letters suggest that Catherine was more involved in helping to negotiate the reconciliation of England to Rome than has previously been recognised. While Catherine enjoyed greater religious freedoms to practise her faith openly under James II, she and her household still faced hostility from sections of the public. Catherine’s chapel was a particular target for theft. One newsletter reported on 3 February 1687 that on “Tuesday night last the queen dowager’s chapel at Somerset House was like to be robbed” but that the robbers “were frighted away, leaving their ladders behind them.” The newsletter said that the sentinel had since been looking for the robbers and had offered a £100 reward and pardon “to anyone that shall find out the persons.”60 Catholic chapels were also targeted between 12 and 14 December 1688, when rioters attacked and pillaged Catholic houses and chapels after it became known that James had left London, although he briefly returned to the capital on 16 December.61 Somerset House faced threats from the mob during this stormy period. At the height of the mob violence, the queen dowager apparently requested that a troop of thirty horse should protect her, her court, and Somerset House, whilst entreating that Feversham should stay to protect her should the mob reach her.62 Catherine’s chapel at St James’s Palace was only just saved from being destroyed by a violent crowd that had assembled outside the palace. Government officials stopped a mob which was in the process of physically dismantling the organ and altar.63

59 Kresen Kernow, AR 33/10/2, Cardinal Philip Howard of Norfolk to Sir Richard Bellings, 14 August 1688. 60 CSPD James II , ii, 355. 61 Paul Kléber Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, 1688–1788 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1989), 166. 62 William L. Sachse, “The Mob and the Revolution of 1688,” Journal of British Studies 4 (1964), 38. 63 Simon Thurley, Somerset House: The Palace of England’s Queens, 1551–1692 (London: London Topographical Society, 2009), 72.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

63

The Glorious Revolution and Jacobitism The so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 saw William of Orange land at Torbay on 5 November. James II and Mary Beatrice, with their infant son James Francis Edward, fled to the Continent at the end of year. Between 1689 and 1714, there were several attempts to restore James and later his son—known as the “Pretender” or as James III—to the throne, by supporters across Britain and Ireland, and also by the exiled Jacobite court in St Germain. Although these attempts failed, the Ailesbury Plot in 1691–1692, the 1694 Lancashire Plot, and the 1695–1696 Fenwick Plot, which was an assassination plot against William III, kept Jacobitism in the public eye.64 Whilst there were Catholics amongst the ranks of the Jacobites, most active Jacobites were non-jurors and high Anglicans who, despite not supporting James’s measures for liberty of conscience, nevertheless believed that he was the rightful king and had been usurped.65 Consequently, the early years of William’s and Mary’s rule were when they were at their most vulnerable, and at a time when the queen dowager was still living in England. Understandably, the immediate attention of the Convention Parliament concentrated on smoothing over the political and monarchical transition from James’s “abdication” until William and Mary were formally declared joint monarchs in February 1689, but attention soon turned towards the queen dowager. Catherine’s position as the only remaining Stuart Catholic royal in the British Isles in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution put her and her household in a precarious position. Initially, relations between William and Catherine were very cordial. In a newsletter sent to Mary Fenwick in Newcastle, dated 20 December 1688, it was reported that William had the day before visited the queen dowager, “who being not well kept her bed” with William staying with her for half an hour.66 William even released Catherine’s beloved Feversham from prison; he had been incarcerated by William after he was outraged by a letter penned by James II to him, with Feversham in the role of go-between. William had done this

64 Daniel Szechi, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), 54–57. 65 Eveline Cruickshanks, “Attempts to Restore the Stuarts, 1689–96,” in Eveline Cruickshanks and Edward Corp (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995), 1–2. 66 CSPD James II , iii, 381.

64

E. GREGORY

as he had found Catherine “sitting idle and sad” when he went to revisit her at Somerset House at the end of December where, after asking why she was not playing her basset, Catherine replied that she was not playing as Feversham had “kept the bank.” William released Feversham shortly afterwards and he was restored to Catherine’s household.67 Catherine’s relationship with Mary II, however, was very frosty. Mary made it clear upon her return to England in early 1689 that she did not trust her aunt.68 Catherine for instance, had been one of the witnesses to her half-brother’s birth in June 1688, and was even present at the council meeting at Whitehall on 22 October, the printed publication concerning which had listed the queen dowager second in precedence to the king, and said that she had sat “in a chair placed on the kings right hand.”69 Mary undoubtedly believed that Catherine remained loyal to James. For example, in 1690, Mary reported to William that an unnamed parson had been examined after it was reported that he had been prevented by Feversham from “saying ye prayer for your successe, at Somerset House.” The parson claimed that Feversham had told him that “if ye Q: [Catherine] hears this prayer is used she may take yt for a pretence to forbid any prayers at all in yt place.” This was especially because, he claimed, the queen dowager “is not obliged to have any thing but Masse there.”70 In another letter written by Mary to William in September 1690, Mary wrote, rather sardonically, that she had the night before received a compliment from the queen dowager, which she believed was sent “with ye better heart because Limerike is not taken” by him.71 Catherine tried to keep a low profile, yet there was a Jacobite shadow over her final years in England as suspicions grew that her household harboured sympathy for the exiled Stuarts. Catherine appeared to make a substantial concession to William and Mary by formally visiting them at Whitehall on 13 February 1689—the day they were officially pronounced 67 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 423–4; Mackay, Catherine of Braganza, 273–274; Elsna, Catherine of Braganza, 177–178. 68 Elsna, Catherine of Braganza, 178. 69 England and Wales, Privy Council, At the Council-Chamber in Whitehall, Monday

the 22th. of October, 1688 This Day an Extraordinary Council met…by His Majesties Desire and Appointment… (London: Charles Bill, H. Hills, and Thomas Newcomb, 1688). 70 TNA, SP 8/7, fos 111–114, Queen Mary II to King William III, 21 June/1 July 1690. 71 TNA, SP 8/7, fo. 357, Queen Mary II to King William III, 8/18 September 1690.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

65

monarchs by the Convention Parliament—although she was conspicuously absent at their coronation on 11 April 1689.72 But the new monarchy was soon under significant pressure. William was fighting on several fronts across Ireland and Scotland; these years saw the battle of Killiecrankie in July 1689, the battle of the Boyne in July 1690, and the siege of Limerick which surrendered to William in October 1691.73 Parliament had attempted to clampdown on Jacobite and Catholic challenges. On 22 December 1688, the House of Lords issued an order requiring that all papists and reputed papists were to leave London and Westminster and not to travel more than five miles from their dwellings “excepting such as are in the actual service of the Queen Dowager, ambassadors, foreign ministers and their foreign servants,” as well as foreign merchants and Catholics who engaged in trade.74 There was indeed evidence of Jacobitism in Catherine’s household. For example, Viscount Preston, Catherine’s privy councillor and chancellor and keeper of her Great Seal, financed Jacobite political activism and held meetings with Jacobite supporters and sympathisers in London in 1690.75 On 28 March 1689, both houses of parliament had a consultation about provisos originally sent up from the Commons to the Lords about the bill for removing “papists” ten miles outside of the city of London and Westminster. Whilst the Lords agreed to the Commons’ amendments, they disagreed with the provisos, particularly the one concerning the queen dowager and the number of Catholic servants permitted in her household. As stipulated in her and Charles’s 1662 articles of marriage, Catherine was to be permitted Catholic servants in her household both during and after her husband’s lifetime. These articles of marriage had been discussed a decade before during the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis, when her servants were accused of conspiracy against Charles II, with parliament attempting to remove her Catholic servants from her

72 Lois G. Schwoerer, The Revolution of 1688–1689: Changing Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 101; Mackay, Catherine of Braganza, 276. 73 Cruickshanks, “Attempts to Restore the Stuarts,” 2–3. 74 TNA, SP 31/4, fo. 214, “An Order of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, Assembled

at Westminster, in the House of Lords, December 22. 1688”; CSPD James II , iii, 382. 75 ODNB, sub “Graham, Richard, first Viscount Preston (1648–1695)” (article by John Callow).

66

E. GREGORY

court.76 With history almost repeating itself in 1689, Catherine relied on those sympathetic to her cause to honour her rights to have Catholic servants. The lords argued that: Because Her Majesty the Queen Dowager hath for so many years made such moderate use of the said Articles [of marriage], that there hath not been any just occasion of complaint in her enjoyment of them; and it may seem at this time to be a kind of severity to Her Majesty, to have those Articles still restrained, by virtue of that act which was made for the preservation of the person of the king her husband, which reason now ceases; and ’tis evident that in the time of the late King James, when Her Majesty might have been encouraged to entertain more persons of her own religion, most of her servants and those in the most considerable places continued, and also others received into her Family though Protestants; and it is conceived it may be of ill consequence, if Her Majesty, by not living easily here, should be obliged to retire into foreign parts.77

The House of Commons divided in a vote, with the Noes winning the vote on the bill 138 to 118.78 The fraught political situation caused by Catherine’s servants was relayed to the public, with one newsletter reporting on 2 April that the Commons had considered, but “did not agree,” to the proviso suggested by the Lords that “the queen dowagers servants should be excused from takeing the oaths,” and that a committee had been ordered to “draw up the reasons” of their disagreement.79 Both Houses continued to battle over the provisos concerning Catherine and her Catholic household. On 8 April 1689, after a conference between the two Houses concerning the bill to remove papists from London, the earl of Rochester relayed to his fellow peers that, because there was no new clause concerning the queen dowager “in lieu of that in the bill,” the Commons imposed “no new condition upon Her Majesty; it being the same that is enacted in the 30th of King Charles the Second, in the act for the more effectual preserving the King’s person and government.” The Commons further argued that, if they made an alteration to 76 For more information on these debates, see Gregory, “Catherine of Braganza During the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis,” 195–212. 77 LJ , xiv, 164; CJ , x, 69. 78 CJ , x, 69. 79 FSL, L.c.1997, Newsletter received by Richard Newdigate, second baronet, 2 April 1689.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

67

the law as it currently stood, it “may look like some kind of countenance to those of that persuasion, at a time when the Lords themselves have judged the resort of papists to London to be of so dangerous consequence to the government.” The Commons suggested that the “papists are not less active at this time in their designs and practices to disturb the peace and quiet of the kingdom” as they had been since the Popish Plot, and that the law was enacted to preserve the king from the attempts of papists and his successors “by restraining them [papists] from resorting to their presence, or places of their residence.”80 As a resolution, the Lords proposed to the Commons that “the Queen should have thirty servants of the King’s English subjects,” which was to be offered to them at a conference when the Houses next sat after William’s and Mary’s forthcoming coronation.81 There seems to have been some leeway in retaining Catherine’s Catholic servants. Days later, on 15 April 1689, Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham reported to the Lords that the committee dealing with the bill for removing papists had considered the Commons’ proviso concerning the queen dowager, before suggesting their own condition, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the Commons, on the following day.82 Their condition was that: the Queen Dowager may retain in her family so many popish servants of the King’s subjects as Her Majesty shall think fit, not exceeding the number of thirty, so as none of the said servants be a priest, monk, or friar; any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding.83

Two days later, on 17 April, after another conference between the two Houses, it was agreed that the number of the queen’s servants could be increased from nine to thirty.84 In autumn 1689, Catherine’s household was still suspected of harbouring Jacobitism. On 28 October 1689, Feversham received a message from Charles Talbot, thirteenth earl of Shrewsbury in Whitehall giving him notice—apparently out of “defference” towards the

80 CJ , x, 83–4; LJ , xiv, 171–172. 81 LJ , xiv, 171–172. 82 CJ , x, 90. 83 LJ , xiv, 175. 84 LJ , xiv, 179; CJ , x, 92–93.

68

E. GREGORY

queen dowager—that he had issued a warrant to search Somerset House. Shrewsbury explained that this was because weapons, along with “treasonable papers,” had been found concealed in the lodgings of one named Haynes in Somerset House yard. Shrewsbury hoped that Catherine would “readily acquiesce in a matter of so great importance” to both William and Mary in complying with the investigation, although it is unclear what the result was from the search.85 This was not the only instance of Shrewsbury providing Feversham with advance warning. In late January 1690, Shrewsbury gave Feversham notice that he was issuing a warrant after receiving information that two priests, Sylvester Jenks and Alexander Thursby O.P., were hiding on the premises of Somerset House. Again, this was out of respect for the queen dowager, who he hoped would “readily acquiesce in it” as the king was greatly concerned by this information.86 It was during this period that Catherine attempted to make formal arrangements to return to her motherland. As outlined earlier, before the Glorious Revolution, Catherine had toyed with the idea of returning to Portugal. James II even reported in a letter to his future usurper William III, dated 31 January 1688, that the queen dowager was “preparing to go for Portugal so sone [sic] as her brother sends an embassador hither to conduct her thether,” although he admitted it was “uncertain” when this would happen.87 Several weeks later, James’s physician Charles Scarborough reported to Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland and lord president of James’s council from Lisbon, that it was “now publickly owned” that the queen dowager was coming over, which had given “generall satisfaction here,” as “the people” had “a great esteem of her.”88 In the aftermath of the 1688 revolution, Catherine was keen to leave England, even though her finances were still not secured. This was especially the case after Mary accused Catherine of hosting political meetings at Somerset House and tried to force her to move to Windsor from 85 TNA, SP 44/97, fo. 175, Charles Talbot, thirteenth earl of Shrewsbury to Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham, 28 October 1689; Mackay, Catherine of Braganza, 282–283. 86 TNA, SP 44/97, fo. 242, Charles Talbot, thirteenth earl of Shrewsbury to Louis de Duras, second earl of Feversham, 22 January 1690. For Jenks, see Godfrey Anstruther, The Seminary Priests (4 vols, Ware and Great Wakering, 1968–1977), iii, pp. 114–117. 87 TNA, SP 8/4, fo. 123, 31 January 1688. 88 TNA, SP 89/16, fo. 345, Charles Scarborough to Robert Spencer, second earl of

Sunderland, 13/23 March 1688.

3

CATHERINE OF BRAGANZA, QUEEN DOWAGER …

69

London, which Catherine refused to do, requesting instead that William provide her with ships to return to Portugal.89 However, obstacles arose that prevented her from leaving the country. One newsletter reported on 8 August 1691 that King Louis XIV had refused a passport for the queen dowager to pass through France to Portugal by land, whilst at the end of March 1692, when William finally granted Catherine his assent to leave, Catherine was hoping to embark from Dover to Calais “on a vessell of her owne providing,” although she ended up being stuck at Dover “expecting fairer weather.”90 In the end, Catherine made different arrangements on 7 April 1692 to go from Dover to Dieppe rather than Calais, which required more vessels to transport her safely. In fact, Mary gave her approval for more men-of-war ships to her get safely “within sight of Diepe [sic].”91 Catherine, it seems, was not going to be forced out in a publicly ignominious way, though it was virtually certain that she would never return.

Conclusion Between 1685 and 1692, Catherine of Braganza, as queen dowager, was far from invisible in the religious politics of the later Restoration and postRevolution settlement. As we have seen, her court at Somerset House had a mixed religious character—in this respect, she was rather similar to Henrietta Maria, though her predecessor was a good deal more influential, not least because she had provided for succession in the direct line, and had been confronted with a civil war. Catherine’s promotion of Catholics and of Protestants within her court, as well as a publicly Catholic style of religious observance there, and her assertion of her rights regarding her indentured lands, suggest that she did not fade into the background. In fact, after 1685, her dowagership allowed her to promote a species of Catholicism in a way that she

89 Elsna, Catherine of Braganza, 179. 90 CSPD William and Mary, 1689–1702 (11 vols, London: HMSO, 1895–1937), ii,

476; TNA, SP 32/4, fo. 35, R. Yard to Sir Joseph Williamson, 29 March 1692; SP 32/ 4/40, R. Yard to Sir Joseph Williamson, 5 April 1692; Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 469–472. 91 CSPD William and Mary, iii, 223, Louis de Duras, earl of Feversham to Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham; TNA, SP 44/98, fo. 423, Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham to the Commissioners of the Admiralty, 18 April 1692.

70

E. GREGORY

had not been able to do during her late husband’s reign. Moreover, she did not concede her status even during James II’s increasingly fraught time as king, and when she was faced with increasing hostility under William’s and Mary’s rule. Even after she left England in 1692 to embark on her long journey by land back to Portugal, Catherine continued to wield her authority in England, with Somerset House still held in her name and staffed until her death in December 1705 at the age of sixtyseven, having served her final years as queen regent on the behalf of her brother Pedro.92

92 For more information, see Fleur Goldthorpe’s chapter in this volume.

CHAPTER 4

Dynastic Politics: Dowager Queen, Catherine of Braganza, and the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, 1693–1705 Fleur Goldthorpe

Tho’ Saturn almost has a Circle run, Since the Infanta left her native Sun, The Portuguese with Wonder will behold, Their Princess’s Wisdom, and not see her old…1

The gilt inscription on the marble tomb of Catherine of Braganza’s (Fig. 4.1) final resting place, the Monastery of São Vicente de Fora in

1 Poem entitled “Upon the Queen Dowager’s Departure for Portugal,” author unknown, no date of publication, reproduced in Paul Davis, “An Unrecorded Collection of Restoration Scribal Verse Including Three New Rochester Manuscripts,” in Peter Beal (ed.), Discovering, Identifying and Editing Early Modern Manuscripts: English Manuscript Studies 1100–1700, Volume 18 (London: British Library, 2013), 158.

F. Goldthorpe (B) Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_4

71

72

F. GOLDTHORPE

Lisbon, reads: R.NHA DE INGL.RA D. CATHARINA 1638–1705.2 This engraving reveals the Anglo-Portuguese identity that Catherine came to embrace with the spelling of her name as Catharina, being a combination of Catarina, her Portuguese name, with the “h” from the anglicised version Catherine. Notably, she herself used the spelling, Catherina.3 As regent, Catherine self-styled her identity as: “Queen of Great Britain, Infanta of Portugal, [and] as Regent of these Portuguese Kingdoms and their Dependencies.”4 This dual persona was shaped during her lifetime as a Stuart queen consort and dowager, and as Portuguese infanta princess and regent in the royal courts of England and Portugal. 275 years before Catherine’s marriage, the English princess Philippa of Lancaster wed the Portuguese King João I in 1387. Their marriage treaty, the Treaty of Windsor of 1386, began the perpetual Anglo-Portuguese alliance between their two nations of England and Portugal.5 The Infanta’s nuptials to Charles II in 1662 reciprocated that of Philippa’s and would be the only other royal marriage under this alliance. The union promised to reinvigorate the alliance following the period of Spanish Habsburg rule over Portugal from 1580 to 1640, thereby helping to establish the Braganza family as the new ruling dynasty of Portugal.6 Her father, João IV, founded the dynasty when he came to the throne in 1640

2 R.NHA DE INGL.RA means “Rainha de Inglaterra” or “Queen of England.” Catherine was initially buried at the Jerónimos Monastery, Lisbon and in 1855 was reinterred in the House of Braganza mausoleum in the Monastery. 3 For example, see, BL, Egerton 1534, fo. 42, letter 21, Catherine of Braganza to Pedro II, October 28, no year given; BL, Add. MS 29548, fo. 22, letter 14, Catherine of Braganza to Queen Anne, 2 May 1702; for her privy council deposition attesting to her attending the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart to Queen Mary, see Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, revised edn (6 vols, London: Bell & Daly, 1872), iv, 97. I am grateful and give thanks to Matthew Kidd for accessing the British Library sources cited in this chapter on my behalf. 4 Baron François Nicolaas Fagel, The Baron de Fagel’s Account of the Campagne in Portugal of 1705 (London: John Morphew, 1708), 5. 5 The Anglo-Portuguese alliance was subsequently renewed by treaties of 1643, 1654, 1660, Catherine’s marriage treaty of 1661, 1703, and 1815; see Edgar Prestage, “The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 17 (1934), 69– 100. 6 The House of Braganza ruled Portugal for 270 years from 1640 until 1910. See Malyn Newitt, The Braganzas: The Rise and Fall of the Ruling Dynasties of Portugal and Brazil, 1640–1910 (London: Reaktion, 2019).

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

73

Fig. 4.1 Isaac Beckett, The Queen Dowager, c.1680–1688, mezzotint (Credit © The Trustees of the British Museum)

by coup d’etat against Philip IV of Spain. Charles’s reasoning behind his choice to marry Catherine and form a dynastic marriage was as follows: [O]ne of the principal advantages we propose to ourself by this entire conjunction with Portugal is the advancement of the trade of this nation and the enlargement of our own territories and dominions….7

7 Charles II to Richard Fanshawe, 23 August 1661, Whitehall cited in HMC, The Manuscripts of J. M. Heathcote, Esq., Connington Castle (Norwich: HMSO, 1899), 18.

74

F. GOLDTHORPE

Catherine’s 1661 marriage treaty included a sizable dowry comprising two million gold crowns or cruzados, and the territories of North African Tangier and Indian Bombay.8 This dowry, however, was only partially paid at the time of the wedding and resolving its settlement led to simmering tensions between the two nations until the late 1670s.9 This chapter traces the state of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance upon Catherine of Braganza’s return to Portugal from 1693 until her death in 1705 based on her relations as Charles II’s queen dowager with the subsequent reigning Stuart monarchs. It explores Catherine’s interposition in the Portuguese corte, including the circumstances where she could use her Anglophile counsel and influence, as neither her public life nor her dynastic duties ended with the death of her husband in February 1685. The epigraph almost serves as an oracular tale. As this chapter will show, Catherine’s wisdom, in concert with Queen Anne, culminated in a treaty which gave rise to the most significant Anglo-Portuguese trade expansion since the alliance began—from the Portuguese wine trade. The historiography dealing with Catherine is most scant on her life in Portugal before and after her thirty years in England, with the exception of Joana Almeida Troni’s 2008 landmark study, Catarina de Bragança (1638–1705).10 To date, other than in the Portuguese scholarship, historians have offered mixed views, sometimes with minimal substantiation, regarding her Anglophile influence over Portugal, her role in the AngloPortuguese alliance, and conjecture on her involvement in the 1703

8 “Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal, signed at Whitehall, 24 June 1661,” in Clive Parry (ed.), The Consolidated Treaty Series (243 vols, New York: Oceania Publications, 1969), vi, 327–336. 9 Eilish Gregory, “Catherine of Braganza During the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis: Anti-Catholicism in the Houses of Commons and Lords, 1678–81,” Parliamentary History 42 (2023), 195–212. 10 Joana Almeida Troni, Catarina de Bragança (1638–1705) (Lisbon: Edições Colibri,

2008). Much of the remaining historiography consists of biographies; the most scholarly of these remains Virginia Rau, Dona Catarina de Bragança, Rainha de Inglaterra (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1941). See also Lillias Campbell Davidson, Catherine of Bragança: Infanta of Portugal & Queen-Consort of England (London: John Murray, 1908) and Janet Mackay, Catherine of Braganza (London: John Long, 1937).

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

75

Methuen treaties.11 In Catherine’s Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, S. M. Wynne alleges that there was little to indicate she had any involvement in the Methuen treaties, but does ascribe a series of military victories to her during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701– 1714) whilst she was regent for her brother, King Pedro II.12 Conversely, L. M. E. Shaw characterises her as “the chief spokesperson in Lisbon” for the alliance, and Malyn Newitt claims that Catherine swayed her brother’s foreign policy in a “more Anglophile direction,” culminating in the events of 1703.13 Finally, Edward Corp asserts that her political influence in Portugal, particularly as regent, exceeded any that she had wielded as a Stuart queen consort by drawing upon Catherine’s anti-Francophile sentiment in Portuguese foreign policy even though this put her at odds with her exiled Stuart family, the deposed James II, Mary Beatrice of Modena and their son, who were supported by the French crown.14 As a foreign consort with an exotic dowry, Catherine has gained a historical reputation as England’s “first tea-drinking queen” and for popularising the beverage’s culture there.15 But, it was actually Queen Henrietta Maria who first discovered tea (from India) in 1660 and used it

11 Troni, Catarina de Bragança; Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, “Os séquitos das

Rainhas de Portugal e a influência dos estrangeiros na construç¯ao da ‘Sociedade de Corte’ (1640–1754),” Penélope: Revista de História e Ciências Sociais 29 (2003), 49–82; idem, Casa, Corte e Património das Rainhas de Portugal (1640–1754): Poderes , Instiuições e Relações Sociais (4 vols, PhD, Universidade de Lisboa, 1999), ii, 354–392. I would like to give sincere thanks to Professor Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço for sharing her scholarship with me. 12 ODNB, sub “Catherine [Catherine of Braganza, Catarina Henriqueta de Bragança] (1638–1705), Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Consort of Charles II,” (article by Sonya Maria Wynne). 13 L. M. E. Shaw, Trade, Inquisition and the English Nation in Portugal, 1650–1690 (Manchester: Carcanet, 1989), 97; Newitt, The Braganzas, 95–96. 14 Edward Corp, “Catherine of Braganza and Cultural Politics,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture and Dynastic Politics (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 67. 15 Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, iv, 382.

76

F. GOLDTHORPE

remedially.16 Catherine emulated her mother-in-law by taking tea medicinally and enjoyed it recreationally upon her return to Portugal.17 In fact, it was the development and trade of the two Portuguese fortified wine styles, Port and Madeira, that Catherine’s royal patronage should be recognised for. Three Anglo-Portuguese treaties were executed in 1703: two were political treaties of 16 May which brought Portugal into the Grand Alliance, and the commercial treaty of 27 December, which is commonly known as the “Methuen Treaty” (Fig. 4.4).18 G. M. Trevelyan called these treaties “the most important group of diplomatic documents signed between the Grand Alliance in 1701 and the Peace of Utrecht,” as they affected the allies’ war aims and strategy with access to the Iberian Peninsula from Portugal’s ports and frontiers, and Britain’s strategic power in Mediterranean Europe until the subsequent peninsular war (1807–1814), and its foreign trade until the 1830s.19 The commercial treaty provided trade reciprocity, which saw the exchange of English cloth for Portuguese wine under the most favourable custom duties. Port, produced in the Douro Valley in northern Portugal, became the country’s most famous wine. The trade began in 1678, when the first shipments of 408 pipe barrels of wine left Oporto for England.20 It swiftly became the “Englishman’s wine,” and dominated British wine imports until the mid-nineteenth century.21 Madeira wine was produced on its namesake Portuguese island and became a commodity of the Atlantic trading system being primarily shipped from the island’s capital 16 Alison Plowden, Henrietta Maria: Charles I’s Indomitable Queen (London: Sutton, 2001), 239. 17 Susana Varela Flor, “‘The Palace of the Soul Serene’: Queen Catherine of Braganza and the Consumption of Tea in Stuart England (1662–1693),” e-Journal of Portuguese History 19 (2021), 171–191. 18 “Defensive and Offensive Alliance between the Emperor and Portugal (and Spain), and Great Britain and the Netherlands, signed at Lisbon, 16 May 1703,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, xxiv: 375–407; “Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and Portugal, signed at Lisbon, 27 December 1703;” ibid., xxv, 37–43. 19 G. M. Trevelyan, England Under Queen Anne (3 vols, London: Longmans, 1948), i, 299–300. 20 James Warre, The Past, Present, and Probably the Future State of the Wine Trade (London: J. Hatchard and Son & J. M. Richardson, 1823), Appendix M, 95. 21 Charles Ludington, The Politics of Wine in Britain: A New Cultural History (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 145, 230, 234.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

77

city, Funchal, to all thirteen colonies of British America and then, to the new United States of America.22 The commercial treaty influenced the British wine trade for more than a century. French wines were excluded from the British market until the Anglo-French Treaty of 1786 and Portuguese wines enjoyed lower duties than those of France until 1831 when the duties on all European wines were equalised by the Exchequer.23 The historical actuality of the formation of the Methuen Treaty has long vexed scholars, particularly regarding who sought it—the British or Portuguese or both—and why.24 To date, historians have not located any instructions in British or Portuguese archives given to the two negotiators and signatories of this treaty: John Methuen, England’s ambassador extraordinary to Portugal, and Manuel Teles da Silva, the marquis de Alegrete. A recent discovery amongst the correspondence of Tory politician Daniel Finch, the second earl of Nottingham, at the Northamptonshire Record Office sheds new light on the creation of this treaty.25

England: 1685–1692 Catherine remained in England long after her husband’s death in February 1685 and she finally left Somerset House for Portugal under ceremonial gun salute from the Tower of London on 30 March 1692.26 She had always known that if she outlived her husband she could choose to return to Portugal. When her mother, Luisa de Gusmáo, brokered her marriage contract, she included several terms to give effect to this.27 In particular, Article 10 confirmed that if “Her Majesty…shall then desire to return to Portugal, or any other country, she shall have the liberty

22 David Hancock, Oceans of Wine: Madeira and the Emergence of American Trade and Taste (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). 23 Ludington, The Politics of Wine in Britain, 167, 243. 24 Paul Duguid, “The Making of Methuen: The Commercial Treaty in the English

Imagination,” História 3 (2003), 10–11. 25 Provenance by deposit of Guy Montagu George Finch-Hatton, the ninth earl of Nottingham, in 1930 and purchased by the archive in 2003. 26 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 472–473. 27 “Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal, signed at Whitehall, 23 June 1661,” in

Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, vi, 327–336.

78

F. GOLDTHORPE

so to do.”28 What Catherine seemed unaware of was that her transportation was at the British crown’s cost.29 Following her husband’s death, she began intimating in her letters to her brother, Pedro, that she wished to leave England because she felt the climate was deleterious to her health.30 Catherine openly asked him to support her return home in mid-1687, when she sought to accompany her new German sister-in-law, Maria Sophia of Neuberg, escorted by an English fleet.31 She did not let her brother-in-law, James II, know of her plans to return home until early 1688.32 Part of the confusion was likely because the English court had no Portuguese ambassador.33 Catherine was also detained in England when she brought a case against her treasurer, Henry Hyde, earl of Clarendon in 1688 in the Court of Exchequer to recover £998. 5s. 5d. regarding the interpretation of “all rights, profits, privileges and advantages,” belonging to that office as she felt Clarendon’s emoluments were more generous than those of his predecessor, one Mr Hervey.34 Catherine was on cordial terms with James and his consort Mary Beatrice of Modena, as duke and duchess of York and during their short three-year-reign. They were fellow Catholic royals; Catherine was appointed godmother to their son, James Francis Edward Stuart—born in June 1688—and four months after her husband’s death, James II granted Catherine an additional annuity of £6,000.35 Conversely, when the Calvinist Stadtholder of Holland, William of Orange and his wife Mary, Catherine’s niece and James II’s daughter by his first wife Anne Hyde, 28 Ibid., 332. 29 Ibid., Article 10. 30 BL, Egerton 1534, letter 51, Catherine to Pedro II, 13 September 1686, London,

in Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 401. 31 BL, Egerton 1534, letter 14, Catherine to Pedro II, 4 April 1687, London in Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 404–405. 32 S. W. Singer (ed.), The Correspondence of Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon and of His Brother Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester with the Diary of Lord Clarendon from 1687 to 1690 (2 vols, London: Henry Colburn, 1828), i, 158–159. 33 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 410. 34 Ibid., 395; Edward Jones, Index to Records Called, The Originalia and Memoranda

on the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Side of the Exchequer (2 vols, London: s. n., 1793–1795), ii, addenda “Scire Facias.” 35 TNA, E 156/20, “Grant to Catherine of Braganza, Queen Dowager, of an annuity or pension of £6,000,” 17 June 1685; “Entry Book: June 1685, 1–10,” in CTB, viii, 206.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

79

acceded to the throne in February 1689 following the so-called Glorious Revolution in late 1688, her relationship with the crown changed.36 Pedro became concerned for his sister, feeling that, whilst William was initially amiable towards Catherine, “it appears to me that the period of fine weather passes rapidly to storm.”37 Catherine likely shared with her brother concerns for her financial security upon learning that her sisterin-law’s income and marriage portion were illegally sequestered.38 Pedro reassured Catherine that he would financially support her in Portugal, “because there it would be possible for [him] to assist [her]” should the new sovereigns “not fulfil their engagements completely,” that is, for example, if they were to sever her jointure.39 Whilst Catherine did formally acknowledge her niece and nephew as the new king and queen of Britain in February 1689, she did not attend their coronation.40 Even as a princess, Mary was not cordial with Catherine.41 In 1690, William tried to remove Catherine from her English palace, Somerset House, asserting that “there were great meetings and caballings against his government,” and that she should go “at least ten or twelve miles from London.”42 She retorted, in surprise at the request, that her palace was her only house in England which she retained for her life under her marriage treaty.43 In response, William withdrew his request.44 Catherine made multiple appeals to William and Mary for transport home and when the monarchs finally did provide

36 See also Eilish Gregory’s essay in this volume. 37 BL, Egerton 1534, letter 47, Pedro II to Catherine, 22 March 1689 in Davidson,

Catherine of Bragança, 424–426. 38 Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, 499. 39 BL, Egerton 1534, letter 47, Pedro II to Catherine, 22 March 1689 in Davidson,

Catherine of Bragança, 424–426. 40 Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England, 499. 41 See 15 November 1677 entry, in Edward Lake, ed. George Percy Elliott, Diary

of Dr Edward Lake, Archdeacon and Prebendary of Exeter, Chaplain and Tutor to the Princesses Mary and Anne, Daughters of the Duke of York, Afterward James the Second: in the Years 1677–78 (London: Camden Miscellany, 1846), 10. 42 BL, Egerton 1534, letter 55, Catherine to Pedro II, 4 June 1690, in Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 452–454. 43 Article 8. “Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, vi, 332. 44 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 452.

80

F. GOLDTHORPE

ships to allow Catherine and her attendants to return to Portugal, it was only for the short trip across the English Channel to Dieppe in northern France.45 Isolated and vulnerable, any doubts that Catherine may have had in leaving England were likely dispelled by these Protestant monarchs’ measures.

Portugal 1693–1705 Catherine and her retinue’s journey by land across France and Spain took nearly nine long months, and they finally arrived in Lisbon on 20 January 1693 to be met by festivities and celebrations.46 Upon her return, Catherine set up her own corte separate from that of her brother, the king, which she managed by “the continuance of all the English customs,” such as maintaining large salaries for her courtiers and discharging the porteros or doormen as her attendants had unrestricted access.47 After thirty years away, she “continue[d] like a stranger to admire all the customes and manners here and thinks her selfe obliged either to justify or excuse them but often finds them [the customs and manners] such that she owns she can doe neither.”48 But two royal cortes caused issues. Catherine refused to acknowledge the queen of Portugal, Maria Sofia of Neuberg, as her superior and to give precedence to her, due to her own rank as queen dowager. On 3 February 1693, Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting—Margaret Plunket, Countess of Fingall, and her daughter Lady Emily Plunket— refused to kiss the queen’s hand in deference to their mistress. Catherine supported her female attendants when she told her brother that they would not do so and he advised her to manage this issue of protocol herself as he would not involve himself in these matters.49 Maria Paula

45 BL, Egerton 1534, letter 55, Catherine to Pedro II, 4 June 1690, in Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 473. 46 Davidson, Catherine of Bragança, 473–477. 47 BL, Add. MS 75364, John Methuen to Lord Halifax, 2 May 1693, Lisbon;

Lourenço, Casa, Corte e Património, ii, 360; Kent History and Library Centre [hereafter KHLC], Maidstone, U1590, John Methuen to Alexander Stanhope, 27 January 1693. I would like to thank and acknowledge Gillian Rickard for accessing sources held in the KHLC on my behalf. 48 Ibid., John Methuen to Lord Halifax, 27 August 1693, Lisbon. 49 Visconde de Santarém, Quadro Elementar das Relações Politicas e Diplomaticas de

Portugal (19 vols, Pariz: Em casa de J. P. Aillaud, 1844) iv, pt. 2, 351.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

81

Marçal Lourenço found, in a study of the influence of foreign retinues in the construction of Portuguese corte society, that Catherine’s ladies influenced fashion, protocol, and social life through the exchange of habits, beliefs, and ideas.50 Even outside of the Stuart court, William III ostensibly wielded financial persecution against Catherine. In 1695, he ceased payment of her additional £6,000 annuity from James II on the basis that he was “not in a condition at present to pay; but when he is an application may be made for it.”51 He did not give a reason for not being able to meet this expense; he could plausibly have used the excuse of the costly Nine Years’ War. He also delayed the payments of her annual £30,000 jointure.52 When she left England, William required that her treasurer, Henry Thynne, provide a notarised certificate that she was still alive every English quarter day to continue to receive this income.53 Whilst in France, on her return journey to Portugal, she experienced difficulties in adhering to this stipulation, probably because she could not find a suitable notary. She sought the assistance of England’s envoy to Portugal, John Methuen, asking that he might intercede and request that instead he “might from time to time give [assurance] of her life,” which “might be less troublesome & more satisfactory.”54 William agreed and gave Methuen standing instructions to this effect.55 By 1696, William then sought to control the remittance of Catherine’s funds to Portugal by directing that only the money she was entitled to under the articles of marriage could be forwarded with the remainder to stay in England to pay her Somerset House servants.56 Notwithstanding that Catherine had already set aside £10,000 yearly for her English servants and entrusted her lord chamberlain, Louis de Duras,

50 Lourenço, “Os séquitos das Rainhas de Portugal;” idem, Casa, Corte e Património. 51 “Minute book: May 1695, 1–15,” CTB, x, 1371. 52 Secured by Articles 8 & 10, “Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, vi, 332. 53 TNA, SP 89/17, fo. 367, John Methuen to Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham, 11 January 1693, Coimbra. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid, TNA, SP 104/196, fo. 27, Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham to John

Methuen, 31 January 1693, Whitehall. 56 “Treasury Calendar: May 1696,” in CTB, xi, 18.

82

F. GOLDTHORPE

second Earl of Feversham, with the management of her palace in her absence.57 At the end of the seventeenth century, in addition to managing her affairs in England and Portugal, Catherine’s duties multiplied and her domestic power was increased. Following the death and funeral of Queen Maria Sofia on 4 August 1699, she was granted guardianship over the Casas das Rainhas from 9 September.58 This institution, which developed in the medieval period, was a dower or arras settled on the newly married queen which allowed her to run an autonomous household. It comprised municipalities and manorial estates together with the income, taxes, jurisdiction, administration, and privileges of these crown lands. In addition to the Casa Real, or Royal House, it was one of three institutions which together formed the Casas da Familia Real or Houses of the Royal Family.59 The king instructed the late queen’s ministers of finance and State that “they will continue and dispatch the Junta, consulting all business with the Queen of Great Britain, my very beloved and dear sister and passing the orders on her behalf.”60 Nonetheless, as Catherine was not a Portuguese royal consort, the arrangement was a custodianship not an endowment; Pedro signed off on all of her orders and resolutions for the Casas das Rainhas except when she was regent and she could do this on her own volition.61 She was also responsible for the expenses of the infante princes and infanta princesses as these were managed by the Casas das Rainhas and the education of her nephews, heir apparent Jo¯ao, Francisco António, and Manuel.62 So, with these new responsibilities by 1700, she had ingratiated herself as “a most considerable part of the Portuguese court.”63 Catherine lived in multiple noble residences until she finally built her own Baroque palace and chapel, Paço da Bemposta, on Santana Hill, in

57 Mackay, Catherine of Braganza, 292. 58 Lourenço, Casa, Corte e Património, ii, 363–364. 59 The Casas da Famila Real also comprised the Casa de Bragança and Casa dos

Principes e Infantes. 60 Cited in Troni, Catarina de Bragança, 239. 61 Ibid., 240; Lourenço, Casa, Corte e Património. ii, 364. 62 Troni, Catarina de Bragança, 241. 63 John Colbatch, An Account of the Court of Portugal, Under the Reign of the Present King, Dom Pedro II (London: printed for Thomas Bennet, 1700), 125.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

83

the centre of Lisbon which she resided in from 1702 (Fig. 4.2). Over the doorways of the porte-cochère or coach gate, her coat of arms was installed (Fig. 4.3). However, constructing a palace of her own after the sickness and death of the queen of Portugal was a controversial decision. Whilst Catherine had temporarily moved her court into Ribeira Palace after the loss of Maria Sofia to support her brother and his children during their mourning, Pedro wanted her to make this relocation permanent.64 Whilst Catherine kept the king’s residence in the Portuguese fashion—in all probability out of respect for him and his corte—she probably did not want to do this for the rest of her life, and she sought to maintain her independence (Fig. 4.4).

War of the Spanish Succession, 1701–1714 The predicament of the childless Carlos II, king of Spain (r. 1665–1700) and his succession represented the most significant threat to Portugal’s independence since the Braganza family’s rule began. Several western European states had an interest in the course of the succession to the sizable empire of Spain and its colonial possessions long before Carlos finally died in late 1700. With no unanimously acceptable candidate, partitioning the empire was seen as a solution to maintaining the peace and the existing balance of power. England, France, and the United Provinces signed Partition Treaties in 1698 and 1700 to achieve this.65 At the time of the second partition treaty, Carlos’s cousins—the French King, Louis XIV, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Leopold I—each proffered a nominee for the succession: Philippe, the duke of Anjou, and the Archduke Charles of Austria, respectively. Carlos then decided he wanted to preserve his empire intact and, in his last will dated 3 October 1700, he bequeathed the crown to the sixteen-year-old Philippe with the stipulation this had to be accepted by Versailles.66 The so-called “Sun King” abandoned his partition treaty undertakings and accepted the bequest to Anjou. Philippe left the French court for Madrid within a month of

64 KHLC, U1590, Paul Methuen to Alexander Stanhope, 11/18 August 1699, Lisbon. 65 Linda Frey and Marsha Frey, A Question of Empire: Leopold I and the War of Spanish

Succession (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), 10. 66 John C. Rule, “Louis XIV, Roi-Bureaucrate,” in John C. Rule (ed.), Louis XIV and the Craft of Kingship (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970), 83.

84

F. GOLDTHORPE

Fig. 4.2 Catherine of Braganza’s Bemposta Palace, Lisbon (Credit © Eduardo Montenegro, 2021)

Carlos’s death on 1 November 1700. He took the Spanish throne on 19 February 1701, at the Buen Retiro palace in Madrid, as Philip V.67

67 David Francis, The First Peninsular War 1702–1713 (London: Ernest Benn, 1975),

406.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

85

Fig. 4.3 Catherine of Braganza’s Coat of Arms, Bemposta Palace, Lisbon (Credit © Eduardo Montenegro, 2021)

In April 1701, William III unexpectedly recognised Philip as king of Spain by writing to him to congratulate him on his accession.68 In his roles as Stadtholder, captain general, and admiral in the United Provinces, he was now concerned about French hegemony over the Spanish Netherlands which threatened Dutch independence. Since 1697, Dutch soldiers were garrisoned at several Spanish-held border fortresses.69 One of Philip V’s first actions as king of Spain was to ask Louis XIV to dispatch French soldiers who, a few months earlier in February, captured these frontier fortresses with Louis assuring the Dutch through diplomatic channels that this was not an act of aggression.70 In recognising Philip’s succession to the Spanish throne, William was seeking to maintain the independence of the Dutch Republic. This news, together with the vote of the English 68 Thomas Henry Dyer, The History of Modern Europe: From the Fall of Constantinople to the Crimean War (4 vols, London: s. n., 1864), iii, 174. 69 Frey and Frey, A Question of Empire, 21. 70 Ibid., 22; Rule, “Louis XIV, Roi-Bureaucrate,” 84.

86

F. GOLDTHORPE

Fig. 4.4 Methuen’s Commercial Treaty of 27th December 1703 SP 108/393 (Credit © The National Archives, Kew, UK)

House of Commons to support the Dutch, was seized upon by the French faction of the Portuguese court.71 This unofficial bloc had developed from Bourbon support for the Braganzas during the War of Restoration (1640–1668) with Spain and Pedro’s first wife and queen of Portugal, Marie Françoise Élisabeth of Savoy, a French princess.72 Many of the nobility took French wives, including the foremost noble and leader of this faction, Nuno Álvares Pereira de Melo, Duke of Cadaval, who had twice married French women.73 Pedro needed to ensure the safety and security of his kingdom in this highly charged political climate. Seeking neutrality and to appease the 71 KHLC, U1590, Paul Methuen to Alexander Stanhope, 21 June 1701, Lisbon. 72 She was twice queen consort of Portugal after marrying Pedro’s older brother, King

Afonso VI in 1666 and following an annulment in 1668 went on to marry Pedro. 73 Francis, The First Peninsular War, 67.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

87

Francophile faction within his corte, he began liaising with Louis XIV through his ambassador at Lisbon, Pierre de Rouillé.74 Becoming aware of Portuguese–French negotiations, William issued instructions in April 1701 to John Methuen’s son, Paul, who was now the English ambassador in Lisbon.75 Paul was to make an offer for Portugal to join a defensive alliance with the maritime powers, England, and the United Provinces. But William provocatively expected Portugal to initiate the negotiations for this arrangement by sending a minister or proposal to England or The Hague or bargaining with Paul Methuen directly. Nonetheless, Pedro’s negotiations with Rouillé were too far advanced. The king of Portugal allied with France and Spain by signing two treaties on 18 June 1701.76 Some of the terms of these treaties were indicative of the poor state of the ancient Anglo-Portuguese alliance and became public in July in London newspapers, such as the English Post .77 Notably, they reported that Pedro had agreed to close Portuguese ports to all ships of any power at war with France or Spain and treat such powers as enemies of his realm. Secondly, the allied crowns would reconstitute Catherine’s annual pension in equal thirds in the likely event that England would suspend payment in case of war or because of the alliance. Thirdly, France and Spain agreed to assist Portugal in reducing debts that the Portuguese crown owed to England and the United Provinces. William sought repayment of the English debt from Portugal giving standing instructions to both John Methuen and his son Paul, as envoys of England, to solicit it from Pedro.78 As Stadtholder, it was likely he was also exploiting the Dutch diplomats in Lisbon to compel the king to repay 74 Andrew Stephen Szarka, “Portugal, France, and the Coming of the War of the Spanish Succession, 1697–1703” (PhD thesis, Ohio State University, 1976), 221. 75 TNA, SP 104/196, Instructions for Paul Methuen, 22 April 1701, Whitehall. 76 “Treaty of Alliance and Guarantee of the Will of Charles II between France and

Portugal, signed at Lisbon, 18 June 1701,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, xxiii, 435–446; “Treaty of Mutual Alliance between Portugal and Spain, signed at Lisbon, 18 June 1701,” in idem, 187–190. 77 For example, see English Post (London), no. 118, 11–14 July 1701; The Post Man and the Historical Account (London), no. 858, 12–15 July 1701. 78 See Charles Talbot, twelfth duke of Shrewsbury, Private and Original Correspondence of Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, ed. William Coxe (London, 1821), 473; James Vernon, ed. G. P. R. James, Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III from 1696 to 1708 Addressed to the Duke of Shrewsbury (3 vols, London: Henry Colburn, 1841), i, 160.

88

F. GOLDTHORPE

that nation’s debt. The English debt pertained to unilateral reparation to English merchants and mariners for goods sequestered at Portuguese ports from a naval war during the Interregnum in the 1650s. The principal debt, and three percent per annum interest, was payable by Portugal withholding half of the custom duties paid by English merchants, but compliance was intermittent and the debt totalled £700,000.79 The Dutch debt arose from arrangements which the Republic had agreed in 1661, and which were confirmed in 1669, to recognise Portuguese imperial sovereignty over Dutch Brazil if Portugal agreed to pay four million cruzados in bullion or goods such as salt and sugar in compensation over sixteen years for the losses suffered by the Dutch West India Company.80 When Anne became queen in March 1702, she immediately took action to ameliorate Anglo-Portuguese relations. By this stage, they were almost non-existent following the actions of her sister and brother-inlaw over the last fourteen years of personal and financial persecution of Catherine and debt recovery from the Portuguese treasury. Anne reinstated the pension her father had established for Catherine and back paid the arrears of £67,000.81 Anne also sought to improve diplomatic communication with the court of Portugal. William had brought together an anti-French coalition with the United Provinces and Austria, known as the Grand Alliance, on 7 September 1701.82 Paul Methuen was, as we saw, the resident English minister to Portugal, having taken over that posting from his father, John, in 1697.83 Anne had then handpicked John Methuen for the task of negotiating to free Portugal from its FrancoSpanish alliance and recalled him from his new role as lord chancellor

79 L. M. E. Shaw, The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance and the English Merchants in Portugal, 1654–1810 (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 1998), 77–81, cited in Szarka, “Portugal, France, and the Coming of the War of the Spanish Succession,” 80, 225. 80 “Treaty of Peace and Alliance between Portugal and the Netherlands, signed at The Hague, 6 August 1661,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, vi, 375–394; “Treaty of Alliance and Commerce between Portugal and The Netherlands, signed at The Hague, 30 July 1669,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, xi, 187–208. 81 The arrears were for eleven years and seventy-three days from Christmas 1690 to 8 March 1700–1701. “Civil List Debt: Exchequer Account,” in CTB, xvii, 948–981. 82 “The Second Grand Alliance between the Emperor, Great Britain and the Netherlands, signed at The Hague, 7 September 1701,” in Parry, The Consolidated Treaty Series, xxiv, 11–28. 83 Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 67.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

89

of Ireland to go back to Lisbon as England’s ambassador.84 She knew he was well respected and had the confidence of both Catherine and Pedro.85 Anne personally handwrote John’s instructions of 6 April 1702 and he arrived in Lisbon at the end of that month.86 She directed John to see if Portuguese ports were still accessible by treaty which allowed six man-of-war ships to be admitted at any one time or if the king would consider allowing free entry to the Grand Alliance fleet that summer. If not, due to Portugal’s Franco-Spanish alliance, he was to convey that she felt “it will be impossible for him to expect the continuance of our friendship.”87 Contemporaneously, on 27 March, Catherine met with Paul and conveyed to him that “she hoped the Queen my mistress was too well assured of the greate kindness and esteeme she had always had for Her Majesty …[and] being desirous to continue and encrease a friendship that had already lasted so long.”88 It took John over a year to repair Anglo-Portuguese relations under the rule of William III. First, he sought to find a way for Portugal to break from its Franco-Spanish alliance, and within a month, Pedro agreed that if the allied fleet arrived in Lisbon’s ports before the French fleet which Louis XIV promised for the protection of Portugal, he would renounce the 1701 treaty.89 On 20 August 1702, a fleet of fifty British and Dutch ships appeared off the Portuguese coast and the king honoured his word. Portugal became politically neutral once again.90 Bringing Portugal into the Grand Alliance was more multi-faceted, involving a “double negotiation,” where John conferred in concert with the Dutch plenipotentiary minister, Francis Schonenberg, and Portuguese ministers, and then with the king alone.91 John sailed for England on 11 April 1703,

84 BL, Add. MS 29588, fo. 219, Richard Warre to Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham, 14 September 1702, Cockpit. 85 Ibid. 86 BL, Add. MS 29590, fo. 434, Queen Anne’s instructions for Mr Methuen, 6 April

1702, Whitehall. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid., fo. 6, Paul Methuen to Richard Montagu, third earl of Manchester, 2 May

1702, Lisbon. 89 Francis, The First Peninsular War, 36. 90 Ibid., 43. 91 Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 159–160.

90

F. GOLDTHORPE

having successfully brought Portugal into the Grand Alliance.92 He left his son Paul behind, who finalised the negotiations and the Offensive Quadruple Treaty and the Defensive Triple Treaty were signed on 16 May between Britain, Portugal, Holland, and Austria. When John learned that he would not return to Ireland, but instead would remain in his Portuguese posting, he asked to be given the higher rank of ambassador extraordinary.93 Queen Anne agreed on the basis that it would be a great compliment to the Portuguese monarchy, despite it not being customary to give this title to diplomats who were to remain in residence in a foreign court. On 13 August 1703, she issued new instructions and credentials to John and sent him back to Lisbon. He was “to enter into any other treaty and concert any further measures which may be most beneficial and advantageous to the common cause or to the interest of both nations according to such instructions as you shall receive from us as there shall be occasion.”94 Anne also gave John a letter addressed to Catherine where she assured her of her respect and esteem and directed him to deliver it to her together with his letters of credentials.95 In Anne’s eyes, the AngloPortuguese alliance could be stronger than just a diplomatic and offensive alliance against their enemies and she sought Catherine’s influence to realise this. John arrived back in Portugal in mid-September. He met with Pedro at his Alcântara home on the outskirts of Lisbon on October 5 and the king appointed the marquis de Alegrete as his liaison. John’s audience with Catherine to pass on Anne’s correspondence was delayed until 10 October as she was ill with kidney stones.96 Whilst we do not know exactly what actions Catherine took with her brother to persuade him to consider another Anglo-Portuguese treaty, we do know that in 1705 she offered Schonenberg the opportunity for the Dutch to 92 Ibid., 164–176. 93 BL, Add. MS 29589, fo. 76, Sidney Godolphin to Daniel Finch, third earl of

Nottingham, 4 August 1703, Windsor; BL, Add. MS 29595, fo. 243, Sidney Goldolphin, Lord Treasurer to Daniel Finch, third earl of Nottingham, 5 August 1703, Whitehall. 94 Northamptonshire Record Office, Northampton, FH/F/A/E/0280, Mr. Methuen’s Instructions, 13 August 1703. 95 Ibid., Queen Anne to Catherine of Braganza, queen dowager, 13 August 1703, St James. 96 BL, Add MS 29590, fo. 353, John Methuen to Daniel Finch, third earl of Nottingham, 11/22 October 1703, Lisbon.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

91

have an equivalent Methuen treaty which was signed on 7 August.97 Methuen and Alegrete concluded their negotiation on 7 December and a short treaty of just three articles was signed on 27 December.98 The treaty provided that Portugal would lift the pragmatic sanctions restricting the import of English woollens and cloths in exchange for Britain limiting the duty payable on Portuguese wines to always being a third less than those imposed on French wines. The signed treaty was forwarded to London immediately for ratification. Anne submitted it for the Commons’ approval because it pertained to customs duties. On 20 January 1703, the treaty in Latin, with an English translation and an explanatory letter from John Methuen, was placed in front of the House.99 John learned from Secretary of State, Sir Charles Hedges, of the House’s approval of the treaty on 23 February 1704 and he received the ratification a month later.100 A few days afterwards, Pedro issued a royal decree to lift the embargo on the importation of English cloth into Portugal.101 Anne set an example for her subjects by placing an order for Portuguese wines in December 1703, which included two pipes of white and eight pipes of red port wine.102

Regency, 1704–1705 Catherine was twice regent of the kingdom of Portugal—in 1704 and 1705. In 1704, Pedro needed a regent whilst he was undertaking a military campaign. Philip V declared war against the allies by royal decree on behalf of Spain on 13 April 1704.103 In May 1703, Queen Anne and her

97 Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 210. 98 Kenneth Spencer [hereafter KS], Kansas, MS E82, John Methuen to William Spencer,

7 December 1703, Lisbon. I would like to thank the archivists at KS for supplying a copy of this manuscript to me. 99 CJ , xiv, 289–291. 100 TNA, SP 89/18, fo. 81, John Methuen to Secretary of State Charles Hedges, 23

February 1704, Lisbon; ibid., SP 89/18, fo. 89, John Methuen to Daniel Finch, third earl of Nottingham, 22 April 1704, Lisbon. 101 Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 199. 102 Francis, The Wine Trade, 123. 103 “Filipe V declares war on the Allies,” in W. N. Hargreaves-Mawdsley (ed.), Spain

Under the Bourbons, 1700–1833: A Collection of Documents (London: Macmillan, 1973), 19–21.

92

F. GOLDTHORPE

Grand Alliance had declared war on France and Spain. Archduke Charles had arrived in Lisbon in March 1704 in his new self-proclaimed role as Charles III of the disputed Spanish crown to join Pedro on the offensive at the Portuguese–Spanish border. With only youthful sons and bereft of his wife, his sister was the only other family member he could turn to. On 7 May 1704, Catherine was made regent of the Portuguese kingdom until Pedro returned in the autumn.104 On 1 January 1705, King Pedro II suffered an apoplectic stroke, and that evening was given the sacrament of extreme unction in the belief that his death was imminent.105 The king’s eldest son, João, was then sixteen and, according to the laws of Portugal, old enough to take the crown.106 Unlike other European monarchies, a Portuguese monarch was not anointed and did not have a formal coronation at their accession.107 Instead, a ceremony was held for the impending ruler to be acclaimed, comprising the corte, the royal household, and the nobility.108 This had been held for João on 1 December 1697. He was sworn in as heir to the crown of Portugal, with the nobility pledging an oath of allegiance and concluded with all the ministers, bishops, grandees, fidalgos, and burgeses kissing the hand of the king and princes in succession.109 There was support amongst the nobility for João to become regent, but it was his father’s resolve to appoint Catherine instead whilst he was incapacitated by illness.110 Pedro was likely swayed by Catherine’s experience and her international royal pedigree which the corte required at this juncture. On 7 January 1705, Catherine became regent of Portugal again.111 Despite Pedro’s decision, she was not universally accepted as regent with 104 Troni, Catarina de Bragança, 252; Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 261. 105 KS, MS E82, John Methuen to William Simpson, 7 January 1704/1705, Lisbon. 106 Ibid. 107 This is the generally accepted position amongst historians. See Ana Maria S. A.

Rodrigues, “The Queen Consort in Late-Medieval Portugal,” in Brenda Bolton and Christine Meek (eds), Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 131–146. 108 Roderick J. Barman, “King, Court and Nobility in Portugal Under the Braganzas, 1640–1834,” The Court Historian 18 (2013), 2. 109 KHLC, U1590, Paul Methuen to Alexander Stanhope, 3 December 1697, Lisbon; idem, Jezreel Jones to Alexander Stanhope, 3 December 1697, Lisbon. 110 KS, MS E82, John Methuen to William Simpson, 7 January 1704/1705, Lisbon. 111 Troni, Catarina de Bragança, 252.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

93

“the French faction labour[ing] very hard to create misunderstanding in that court,” between her and the infante João, since Catherine was not favourable to the French court.112 Her regency was the last and she was one of only four women who ruled on behalf of a brother, son, or grandson in Portugal’s monarchical tradition of nearly 800 years.113 In Portugal, whilst both genders had an equal right to transmit and inherit the throne there was a history of male relatives instigating revolts against, and forcefully overthrowing, female heirs with the support of the nobility and the commons.114 Whilst not ousted from her regencies, Catherine faced considerable political opposition. Whilst Catherine was regent, Portugal was engaged in war against France and Spain and the country was used by its allies to berth their manof-war ships and to launch incursions across the Spanish frontier. During her 1705 regency, she oversaw the allied war effort by managing soldiers, subsidies, and strategy.115 She was supported by the major Braganza government councils, again by the Conselho de Estado and also by the Conselho de Guerra. Around this time, John Methuen reflected that Catherine’s governance “proves more to the advantage of our [English] affairs then I could promise myself.”116 She achieved the first Iberian military victories for the allies with the capitulation of the Spanish border towns of Valencia de Alcántara and Albuquerque.117

112 The Post Man and the Historical Account (London), no. 1416, 16–19 June 1705. 113 The kingdom of Portugal existed from 1139 to 1910. Eleonor of Aragon (1402–

1445) was regent for her son, Catherine of Austria (1507–1578) for her grandson Sebastian and Catherine’s mother, Luisa de Gusm¯ao (1613–1666) for her son Afonso VI. Allyson M. Poska and Kirsten Schultz, “Women and Gender: Structures and Roles (1400–1820),” in Fernando Bouza, Pedro Cardim, and Antonio Feros (eds), The Iberian World 1450–1820 (London and New York: Routledge, 2020), 169. 114 Rodrigues, “The Queen Consort in Late-Medieval Portugal,” 133. 115 TNA, SP 89/17, fo. 217, John Methuen to Charles Hedges, 15 February 1705,

Lisbon. 116 TNA, SP 89/18, fo. 218, John Methuen to Charles Hedges, 20 February 1705, Lisbon. 117 Ibid., fo. 248, John Methuen to Charles Hedges, 16 May 1705, Lisbon; KS, MS E82, John Methuen to William Spencer, 29 May 1705, Lisbon.

94

F. GOLDTHORPE

Weary, and with her own health ailing, Catherine resigned the regency on 21 September 1705.118 Pedro had not fully recovered but took back the government of Portugal though he had to give orders from his bedchamber for the last allied military campaign of the season—the siege of Badajoz.119 He had not made Catherine’s regency particularly easy, since he constantly interfered and undermined her and was observed to be “willful & neither will govern nor let ye queen [dowager]” do so.120 Often there was no common understanding and agreement between them.121 But a watershed moment occurred between the siblings when Catherine sought the dismissal of the papal nuncio, Michelangelo Conti, after he was involved in a dispute with the Jesuits about payments owing from their order to Rome and the king refused.122 She died in her palace aged sixty-seven on 31 December 1705.

Conclusion Catherine of Braganza never produced any heirs with King Charles II and was not able to consolidate the Anglo-Portuguese alliance by a Braganza-Stuart bloodline. She did, however, advance her dynastic marriage politically and commercially with Queen Anne. Anne’s ascension to the British throne and Catherine’s presence and influence in Portugal proved critical to the union being revived and strengthened by the three 1703 treaties. This chapter’s revisionist account of the formation of the commercial Methuen treaty demonstrates it was a genuinely Anglo-Portuguese venture. This treaty led to Portuguese wines, namely the styles of Port and Madeira, becoming an indomitable fixture of the British wine trade for over a century. Catherine demonstrated that a queen consort’s political participation did not necessarily cease with the death of her king. On her return to Portugal, she asserted her status as queen dowager of Britain in her brother’s corte. This was an integral part of her royal power in Portugal. Her decision to establish and maintain her

118 TNA, SP 89/18, fo. 314, John Methuen to Charles Hedges, 19 September 1705, Lisbon. 119 Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 301, Francis, The First Peninsular War, 223. 120 BL, Add. MS 28056, John Methuen to Sidney Godolphin, 20 April 1705, Lisbon. 121 KS, MS E82, John Methuen to William Simpson, 11 April 1705, Lisbon. 122 Francis, The Methuens and Portugal, 285.

4

DYNASTIC POLITICS: DOWAGER QUEEN, CATHERINE …

95

own corte and ultimately build her own palace, Bemposta, allowed her to preserve Anglophile customs, counsel, and influence. As regent and a female sovereign, she confronted internal Francophile political resistance and reigned over Portugal during the war of Spanish Succession, in an untraditional role of military leader overseeing the advance of the allies on the Iberian front for the Grand Alliance, achieving this coalition’s first military triumphs.

CHAPTER 5

Mary Beatrice of Modena: Patronage, Poetry, and Power Mindy Williams

Patronage was a key mode of exercising influence available to medieval and early modern queens.1 Queen Mary Beatrice of Modena, consort to James II/VII, who reigned from 1685 to 1688, deployed such an influence in art and literature, although up to this point it has perhaps

1 For patronage as power, see: Lisa Benz St John, Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); Theresa Earenfight, “Medieval Queenship,” History Compass 15 (2017); Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002); idem (ed.), Queenship in Europe, 1660–1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Stephen Perkinson, “Portraits and Their Patrons: Reconsidering Agency in Late Medieval Art,” in Colum Hourihane (ed.), Patronage, Power, and Agency in Medieval Art (Amherst: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 257–274.

M. Williams (B) Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_5

97

98

M. WILLIAMS

attracted little attention.2 Mary commissioned paintings, staged plays at court, and nurtured literary creativity during her tenure as duchess of York (1673–1685) and as queen. Artistic patronage typically refers to monetary transactions between a patron and artist, generally in the form of official commissions. However, patronage frequently included other types of connections with the artist which were not always monetary. This chapter examines Mary Beatrice of Modena’s influence throughout her lifetime by expanding the definition of patronage to include appointment, a specific form of remuneration not tied to monetary payments, encouragement, and inspiration. Mary nurtured the creative community in her realm by appointing writers and artists to court positions, provided encouragement to writers seeking favour, and she inspired written works as a kind of creative muse. By examining poetry and print dedicated to, or depicting the queen, we can uncover the extent of Mary Beatrice of Modena’s role as a literary patron within what some have seen as an emerging public sphere of printed texts.3 This chapter uncovers the interconnected and reciprocal relationship between the queen and participants within the literary public sphere by expanding the definition of patronage in the late seventeenth century. Like other medieval and early modern queens, Mary Beatrice of Modena’s power was expressed and exercised through royal rituals, her self-fashioning as a virtuous and devoted wife and queen, and literary

2 The most recent biography of Mary Beatrice was written in 1962 by Carola Oman, but she does not cite her sources or provide more than an overview of Mary Beatrice’s life. Oman relied heavily on the Victorian writer Agnes Strickland’s Lives of the Queens of England, which is known by queenship historians for presenting and judging queens within her age’s gender expectations. Andrew Barclay wrote a chapter on Mary Beatrice in Orr’s edited volume on early modern queens in England, putting the case that Mary Beatrice’s patronage was relatively insignificant when compared to that of male court patrons during her reign. See Carola Oman, Mary of Modena (Suffolk: Hodder & Stoughton, Ltd, 1962); Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, Volume 9 (12 vols, Philadelphia: Lee and Blanchard, 1847); Andrew Barclay, “Mary Beatrice of Modena: The ‘Second Bless’d of Woman-Kind’?” in Campbell-Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837 , 74–93. 3 Considering the seventeenth century as the locus for an emerging public sphere is a debated topic. Jason Peacey argues, for example, that we should take “great care” in labelling this period as such because some printed works, whilst appearing independent, were in fact, “subject to political manipulation”: Jason Peacey, “Print and Public Politics in Seventeenth-Century England,” History Compass 5 (2006), 85–111.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

99

patronage.4 Mary Beatrice supported writers and poets by appointing them to court positions; she encouraged their creativity and inspired both poetry and prose. I argue that Mary Beatrice of Modena exerted more patronage than previous treatments of her life have considered. For example, Andrew Barclay contends that others at court eclipsed the artistic patronage that Mary Beatrice of Modena exercised by offering larger commissions. His analysis of Mary Beatrice’s patronage was that it was “neither trend-setting nor even particularly distinctive.”5 This may well be right. However, this chapter looks at the kind of patronage associated with Mary Beatrice to see how it might alter aspects of the received wisdom about her in mainstream accounts of the period.

Patronage and Queenship The three major avenues of power for queen consorts were motherhood, intercession, and patronage.6 Patronage traditionally consisted of cultural exchange by providing support for artists, authors, and architects. In the late seventeenth century, patronage as a monetary transaction was arguably becoming less important for professional writers. In his analysis of theatre patronage during the Restoration and up to the end of James VII/II’s reign, David Roberts argues that female elite monetary patronage for the arts dwindled to near non-existence due to a cultural change in the Restoration court that tended to be fickle and casual about literary accomplishment.7 He argues that either non-monetary enthusiasm or simple indifference replaced patronage to become the primary means of interaction between aristocratic women and the creation and presentation of drama.8 However, lack of monetary reward does not 4 There are many studies of queens consort and their traditional expressions of power. For example, see: Benz St John, Three Medieval Queens; Orr, Queenship in Europe, in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton, (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2016); Ana Rodrigues Oliveira, “Philippa of Lancaster: The Memory of a Model Queen,” in Elena Woodacre (ed.), Queenship in the Mediterranean: Negotiating the Role of the Queen in the Medieval and Early Modern Eras (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 125–144. 5 Barclay, “Mary Beatrice of Modena,” 87–89. 6 Benz St John, Three Medieval Queens, 13. 7 David Roberts, The Ladies: Female Patronage of Restoration Drama 1660–1700

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 100–101. 8 Ibid., 119.

100

M. WILLIAMS

necessarily imply indifference. In early modern England, patronage in this respect also took, for example, the form of court appointments, such as that of Poet Laureate. Additionally, patronage might be offered via invitations to society gatherings that might, in turn, lead to commissions. Finally, patronage took the form of inspiration to produce more art. Mary Beatrice of Modena engaged in all of these forms of patronage. Expressions of patronage diversified during the early modern period. According to Dustin Griffin, by the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, patronage encompassed several categories, including patronage by appointment to a position at court, patronage by encouragement, and patronage by protection from censure, as well as monetary patronage.9 Patronage was not solely an economic exchange, where the patron granted “favours, protection, and help” to a client who granted “material assistance, services, loyalty, and political allegiance” in return.10 Literary patronage by appointment could manifest itself in the post of Poet Laureate, held by John Dryden from 1668 to 1688.11 A post such as this one provided both a connection to the court and a source of financial stability for the poet, allowing them to continue writing, unfettered by practical concerns such as housing or food costs. Other appointments for writers included clerks, private secretaries, or Maids of Honour in a royal household. Patronage by encouragement, according to Griffin, implied a promise or pact between a patron and a client for continued support, whether financial or otherwise. Often patrons would grant encouragement in the form of invitations to court or for dinner, a place to stay, or introductions to other notable figures accompanied with a rise in social status. Dedications were one method that authors used to seek encouragement and to link themselves with those who held power and influence. Whilst not always successful, dedications were frequently included in poems and plays across the early modern literary world.12

9 Dustin Griffin, Literary Patronage in England, 1650–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5. 10 Verena Burkolter, The Patronage System: Theoretical Remarks (Basel: Social Strategies Publishers Cooperative Society, 1967), 1. 11 John Dryden, ed. Stephen Zwicker, John Dryden: Selected Poems (London: Penguin, 2001), x. 12 Griffin, Literary Patronage, 19–29.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

101

Griffin’s categories provide a useful framework to consider patronage. The role of creative muse should be considered an additional form of patronage by inspiration. Mary Beatrice’s public image inspired numerous poems and odes, which in turn further disseminated the image she constructed of herself as being learned, virtuous, and a champion of the Catholic faith. All of these forms of patronage are politically charged and, therefore, are related to power, as expressed by Mary Beatrice of Modena through her public image.

Mary Beatrice of Modena: Life of a Catholic Queen Mary Beatrice of Modena, born Maria Beatrice d’Este in 1658, was England’s only Italian queen. She was the eldest daughter of Alfonso IV d’Este, duke of Modena and Laura Martinozzi d’Este, duchess of Modena. A fervent Catholic all her life, Mary was forced to abandon her aspirations of entering the convent. Instead, Mary married James, duke of York, brother of King Charles II of England, by proxy in 1673 at the age of fifteen and made the long journey to England to become duchess of York the same year. The marriage was confirmed by the bishop of Oxford, Nathaniel Crew, in Dover on 5 December 1673.13 She was given the use of the private chapel at St James’s Palace, which she remodelled by commissioning devotional images painted by the Italian artist Benedetto Gennari of Bologna.14 Even Mary Beatrice’s critics admired her. Sandra Jean Sullivan argues that, after initially denouncing the new duchess for her religion and foreignness, many prominent English figures, including Henry Mordaunt, second earl of Peterborough, and George Granville, Lord Lansdowne, came to accept her and she became popular, perhaps more so than her husband.15 Favourable opinions of the duchess are also preserved in letters written by courtiers such as Edward Conway, third viscount Conway. He wrote, “she hath very good eyes, very good features, and 13 CSPD Charles II (28 vols, London: HMSO, 1860–1939), xvi, 338: Sir Peter Wyche to Joseph Williamson, of the privy council, 5 December 1673. 14 Barclay, “Mary Beatrice of Modena,” 79; and see Susannah Lyon-Whaley’s chapter in this volume. 15 Sandra Jean Sullivan, “Representations of Mary of Modena, Duchess, Queen, and Exile: Images and Texts” (PhD, University College London, 2008), 26.

102

M. WILLIAMS

a very good complexion.”16 Samuel Newton, alderman of Cambridge, recorded in his diary on 28 September 1680 that she was “a very graceful person, with a good measure of beauty.”17 Naturally, her supporters took these positive attributes much further in poetry depicting her, as discussed below. However, Catholic hostility escalated with the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis in 1678–1681. The Plot was fabricated by a renegade cleric, Titus Oates, who convinced the government that there was a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate the king. The invented plot led to the deaths of forty Catholics by its end in 1681, including Mary’s personal secretary, Edward Coleman.18 The Whig leadership in Parliament demanded that James be removed from the royal succession because of his Catholicism and because of the widespread fear that his rule would resemble the absolutist style of the Catholic King Louis XIV of France. Some Protestants “felt that at any moment their city would be set ablaze, their wives raped, their babies skewered on pikes … should the king’s brother, a Catholic, ascend the throne.”19 As a result, the duke and duchess were sent into exile in Scotland, returning in 1682 because Charles had a serious illness and refused to alter the succession. Charles had dissolved parliament in 1681.20 Charles II died on 6 February 1685 without a legitimate heir; his brother James succeeded to the throne as king and Mary Beatrice as his queen consort. However, their reign was short-lived. By 1688, James II’s religious policies had alienated even some of those who had been loyal to him for years, including Laurence Hyde, first earl of Rochester, 16 Marjorie Hope Nicolson and Sarah Hutton (eds), The Conway Letters: The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and Their Friends, 1642–1684 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 372. 17 Samuel Newton, ed. J. E. Foster, The Diary of Samuel Newton, Alderman of Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 1890), 80. 18 John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (Middlesex: Pelican, 1972), 232, 312; Jonathan Scott, “England’s Troubles: Exhuming the Popish Plot,” in Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie (eds), The Politics of Religion in Restoration England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 108–131, 118–119; Andrew Barclay, “The Rise of Edward Colman,” Historical Journal 42 (1999), 109–131. 19 Melinda S. Zook, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), xi. 20 Barry Coward, The Stuart Age: England 1603–1714 (London: Longman, 1994), 334–336.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

103

who was James’s brother-in-law from his first marriage to Anne Hyde.21 James’s admiration for Louis XIV, his packing of parliament and the army with Catholic officers, and his Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 for Catholics and Protestant nonconformists increasingly antagonised a range of members of the Church of England.22 The Declaration was unpopular with many Anglican bishops, who refused James’s order that it should be read from the pulpit. In June 1688, James imprisoned seven of these bishops, including the archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, after they submitted a petition against the declaration, stating that it could not be legal because it abrogated the Test Act, passed in 1673.23 Mary Beatrice’s close ties to, and regular correspondence with, Louis XIV were also a source of suspicion; many members of the English court and Parliament feared the French king’s influence on James and Mary Beatrice.24 Together, both Mary Beatrice and James appeared to pose a threat to the religious settlement and to those who were fearful of French and Catholic influences on the kingdom. Mary Beatrice of Modena gave birth to a healthy baby boy, James Francis Edward, on 10 June 1688 after years of apparent infertility, sparking a storm of controversy.25 Normally a celebratory event, the birth of a male heir to the throne led instead to the invasion by Prince William of Orange in November 1688. From the outset, doubts were expressed concerning both Mary’s pregnancy and the birth despite many recorded witnesses, including queen dowager Catherine of Braganza (later collected into a declaration presented to Parliament in October 1688).26 Rumours about the newly born Prince of Wales spread beyond 21 John Miller, James II (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 152. 22 Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press,

2009), 133–137. 23 Tim Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London: Penguin, 2007), 256. 24 For example, Mary wrote to King Louis XIV thanking him for his assistance in securing a cardinalate for her uncle: RA, SP/M/15 fo. 95, Mary of Modena to Louis XIV (1687). 25 Susannah Lyon-Whaley, “Queens at the Spa: Catherine of Braganza, Mary of Modena and the Politics of Display at Bath and Tunbridge Wells,” The Court Historian 27 (2022), 24–41; see also Susannah Lyon-Whaley’s essay in this volume. 26 James II, The Several Declarations Together with the Several Depositions Made in Council on Monday October 22, 1688, Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales (London: s. n., 1688).

104

M. WILLIAMS

St James’s Palace and into public discourse across London. Princess Anne, James II’s second daughter from his first marriage to Anne Hyde, enthusiastically participated in the rumour mill against her stepmother and deliberately left the capital just before the birth in order to avoid witnessing it.27 Prince William of Orange, husband of James’s eldest daughter Princess Mary (and also his nephew), seized the moment in order to launch an invasion.28 William was invited by six high-ranking nobles and a bishop to enter the country because they were “generally dissatisfied with the present conduct of the government in relation to their religion, liberties and properties (all which have been greatly invaded).”29 James and Mary Beatrice of Modena fled England for France by Christmas 1688, and William and Mary were proclaimed King William III and Queen Mary II after the Convention Parliament in February 1689 declared that James had abandoned the throne.30 Instead of royal motherhood becoming a source of power for Mary of Modena, it provided the catalyst for her removal from formal monarchical power.

Mary Beatrice’s Patronage It can, however, be argued that Mary Beatrice of Modena had exercised various forms of soft cultural power before she was overtaken by these events. It may well be true, as Andrew Barclay argues, that male courtiers such as Sir Thomas Isham or John Cecil, fifth earl of Exeter, offered larger commissions. However, Dr. Barclay is concerned primarily with officially commissioned works such as altarpieces and family portraits— from artists such as Benedetto Gennari and Peter Lely. If the definition of patronage is expanded to include additional categories such as appointment, encouragement, and inspiration, a case can be made that Mary

27 Sullivan, “Representations of Mary of Modena,” 284. 28 Mary E. Fissell, Vernacular Bodies: The Politics of Reproduction in Early Modern

England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 230–231. 29 Harris, Revolution, 271; Andrew Browning, English Historical Documents, 1660–1714 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1953), 120. The seven signatories were: Charles Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury; William Cavendish, earl of Devonshire; Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby; Richard, viscount Lumley; Henry Compton, bishop of London; Edward Russell, earl of Orford; and Henry Sydney, earl of Romney. 30 Harris, Revolution, 347.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

105

Beatrice’s patronage extended much further than it has sometimes been thought.31 One of the most prominent methods of early modern patronage, other than monetary gifts, was patronage by appointment. An artist or poet’s appointment to a court position provided them with the necessary resources to produce an income. Not all positions were as illustrious as John Dryden’s Poet Laureate position, but other writers held court positions that could encourage their creative energies. Mary Beatrice of Modena’s court placed a particular emphasis on the creative arts. As both duchess of York and as queen consort, Mary Beatrice encouraged members of her household to engage in literary activities including acting in plays, translating literary texts, and creating their own work.32 For example, Princess Anne’s and Mary Beatrice’s ladies acted in Nathaniel Lee’s play Mithridates , King of Pontus on 15 November 1681, during the duke and duchess of York’s exile in Scotland.33 Mary Beatrice additionally utilised patronage by appointment for the members of her court. Anne Finch, countess of Winchelsea, was Mary Beatrice’s Maid of Honour from 1682 to 1684. Mary Beatrice directed Anne’s education in French and Italian whilst at court, and passed to Finch her own love of poetry, particularly Tasso and Ariosto.34 The guidance that Mary Beatrice provided to Anne Finch helped to develop her knowledge of languages and literature, which probably shaped the young woman’s poetry. The heroic tradition of Tasso is found throughout Finch’s works, particularly when she wrote about her patron.35 To Finch, the Stuarts embodied the heroism outlined in classical epics. She published her first stand-alone poem as an anonymous ode to James upon his death in 1701, titled Upon the Death of King James the Second. The author is simply acknowledged as “a Lady.” Mary Beatrice makes an appearance in this ode as a silent hero in the depths of sorrow: 31 Barclay, “Mary Beatrice of Modena,” 87–89. 32 Carol Barash, English Women’s Poetry: Politics, Community, and Linguistic Authority

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 15. 33 James Kinsley, “A Dryden Play at Edinburgh,” The Scottish Historical Review 33 (1954), 129–132. 34 Carol Barash, “The Political Origins of Anne Finch’s Poetry,” Huntington Library Quarterly 54 (1991), 330. 35 Helen Briggs, “Tasso’s Theory of Epic Poetry,” The Modern Language Review 25 (1930), 457.

106

M. WILLIAMS

But draw the Vail, nor seek to paint the Grief, Which knows no Bounds, nor Meditates relief Maria weeps with unexhausted Tears No Look that Beauteous Face, but sorrow, wears And in those Eyes, where Majesty was seen To warn Admirers, and Declare the Queen, Now only reigns incurable Distress (137–145).36

This excerpt presents a part of a heroic ode not just to the late James, but also to his grieving widow. Finch may have been influenced by Aphra Behn’s 1685 poem dedicated to the queen consort Catherine of Braganza upon the death of her husband, Charles II.37 Both poems utilise descriptions of the queens as virtuous in their sadness and were beautiful despite the pain of loss. However, whilst Behn relied on Christian imagery to describe Catherine (for example, “Methinks I see, You like the Queen of Heav’n / To whom all Patience and all Grace was giv’n”), Finch focuses on heroic language when describing both James and Mary Beatrice, praising James’s military prowess and Mary Beatrice’s faithfulness.38 Whilst composed in a similar vein to Behn’s ode to Catherine of Braganza, Finch’s elegy utilised the instruction on heroic poetry gained during her tenure as Maid of Honour. Translation of Italian heroic poetry was frequently undertaken at Mary Beatrice’s court; this probably influenced Finch’s own poetry.39 She used the heroic ode to make a political statement in favour of the Stuart dynasty and her patron, Mary Beatrice. For example, Finch’s description of Mary Beatrice’s eyes in line 141 declared her Majesty to be a true queen, even though they are filled with tears. That Finch still uses Mary Beatrice as the image of an ideal majestic queen, even though she is in exile, was a powerful statement of dissatisfaction with the government of William III. Finch elaborated further on Mary Beatrice as the image of ideal queenship with On the Death of the Queen, an unpublished poem written in 1718 within a manuscript of 36 Barash, “Political Origins,” 335. Barash reprinted the entire poem in her article, from one of only two remaining copies of the published work, which is now housed at the New York Public Library. 37 Aphra Behn, A Poem Humbly Dedicated to the Great Patern [Sic] of Piety and Virtue, Catherine, Queen Dowager on the Death of Her Dear Lord and Husband, King Charles II (London: s. n., 1685). 38 Behn, A Poem Humbly Declared, 106–107; Barash, “Political Origins,” 331, 336. 39 Barash, English Women’s Poetry, 262.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

107

poetry compiled late in the author’s lifetime. Finch wrote about Mary that “…if perfection but in her was seen / And Her least dignity was England’s Queen.” Mary Beatrice of Modena, according to Finch, was a paragon of queenly virtue both in England and in exile. She nostalgically described Mary Beatrice’s court as a time of “superior sense” where “thro’ a woman’s wit the world obey’d.”40 Whilst this poem remained unpublished, it is clear, in both the elegy of James II and the ode to Mary Beatrice, that her loyalties remained with the exiled Stuart monarchs. John Caryll, first baron Caryll of Durford, was a Catholic poet and Jacobite statesman appointed as Mary Beatrice of Modena’s private secretary in 1685 during her reign as queen, and who followed the royal family into exile where he was later granted his peerage.41 A successful playwright in the early Restoration, he produced two plays to critical acclaim: The English Princess (1666), and Sir Salomon or the Cautious Coxcomb (1671). His poetic works showcased his Catholic and royalist religiopolitical position, particularly in light of the 1678 Popish Plot that sent the duke and duchess of York to Scotland for several years. Caryll himself was imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1679 after being named by Oates as a conspirator in the plot.42 He was released in May 1680 because there was not enough evidence to convict him.43 In his position as private secretary, Caryll continued to write poetry and translate texts.44 Most importantly, beginning in 1699, he compiled James’s memoirs for the years 1652–1677.45 As the king’s health deteriorated in 1701, Mary Beatrice began to direct the progress of this project. An abridged version of the memoirs to 40 Anne Finch, On the Death of the Queen (Wellesley: Wellesley College, Margaret Clapp Library, MS., 1718), 68–71. 41 Gabriel Glickman, The English Catholic Community, 1688–1745: Politics, Culture, and Ideology (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009), 23. 42 Kenyon, Popish Plot, 94. 43 Howard Erskine-Hill, The Social Milieu of Alexander Pope (New Haven: Yale

University Press, 1975), 44–45; Kenyon, Popish Plot, 229–230. 44 John Caryll, The Psalms of David Translated from the Vulgate (Paris: William Weston, 1700). This work was published anonymously in 1700 but was later attributed to Caryll. Other works include A Summary of Revealed Religion (c. 1690), and The Duumvirate (1706), which was a satire of Queen Anne. 45 James II, Lewis Innes, and John Caryll, The Life of James the Second, King of England, Collected Out of Memoirs Writ of His Own Hand (2 vols, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1706).

108

M. WILLIAMS

commemorate the king’s death was published the same year. In a letter that she wrote to Caryll from Bourbon in May 1701, she told him that: the King would have had me som[e] time ago [to] have writ on purpose to you to put you in mind of his Memoire, but Mr. [Lewis] Innesse has assured us that you are hard at work about them, so that now wee only owe you thanks, and we give them to you most heartily, begging of you to go on till you perfect the worke.46

Lewis Innes was a Catholic priest and the principal of the Scots College at Paris; he was also involved in the project. The Scots College was part of a European-wide network of colleges, students, and alumni, who frequently served the Stuart dynasty throughout the seventeenth century. Innes, appointed queen’s almoner in 1690, worked with the exiled court of James and Mary Beatrice to align the college with the Jacobite cause by supporting Jacobite diplomatic missions to the papal court.47 Additionally, under Mary Beatrice’s direction, Caryll served on the committee to create an abridged biography of the late king from the compiled memoirs, which was translated into French and published in 1703 in Paris, and in its original English in London, interestingly by a common press at Maidstone in Kent in 1704.48 The publication was likely intended to counter the predominant narrative of James that he was “weak” and “superstitious,” causing England to fall into “darkness and disgrace.”49 After a long interlude, the memoir for the rest of James II’s life (1677–1701) was restarted in 1707. It built upon Caryll’s work, but, because he was by then eighty-two years old, the writing task was passed onto Mary Beatrice’s treasurer, William Dicconson, a member of the prominent Lancashire Catholic Dicconson

46 BL, Add. MS. 28224. fos 36v-37, Mary of Modena to John Caryll, 19 May 1701. 47 Adam Marks, “The Scots College and International Politics,” in Liam Chambers

and Thomas O’Connor (eds), College Communities Abroad: Education, Migration, and Catholicism in Early Modern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 115–141. 48 Edward Gregg, “New Light on the Authorship of the Life of James II,” English Historical Review 108 (1993), 953. 49 Gilbert Burnet and Thomas Stackhouse (ed.), An Abridgement of Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Times (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1910).

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

109

family, long noted for their loyalty to the Stuart line.50 The completed memoirs were finally published in 1816.51 Without Mary Beatrice’s and James’s continued patronage of appointment, Caryll may not have had the resources to produce many of his later works. Because he was a Jacobite and a Catholic, he lost his English landholdings after William III and Mary II acceded to the throne in 1689. Although not entirely dependent on the queen for financial support (he had investments in the Hotel de Ville, Paris’s city hall), Mary Beatrice was Caryll’s patron, providing him with a salary of 197 livres and an additional monthly pension as a “favoured servant.”52 This financial security of the appointment Mary Beatrice provided for him probably enabled Caryll’s continued creative output in exile until his death in 1711.53 Mary Beatrice of Modena’s patronage of Anne Killigrew included patronage by appointment, but it also illustrates her patronage by encouragement. Like Anne Finch, Killigrew was a Maid of Honour to Mary Beatrice of Modena as duchess of York from 1683 until her death from smallpox in 1685. In her role, Killigrew was part of a court that encouraged the work of female artists and writers such as fellow Maids of Honour Anne Finch and Sarah Jennings, later duchess of Marlborough.54 As patron, Mary Beatrice gave Killigrew access to this inner circle of accomplished and creative ladies that made up her court and augmented her own status. Mary Beatrice encouraged her to become an active member of a close-knit literary society for elite women in her household, where she functioned as both a poet and an artist. During her brief life, Anne painted numerous portraits of Mary Beatrice and her family. One painting of James from 1685 is part of the royal collection, currently hanging in Hillsborough Castle in county Ulster, Northern Ireland. A photograph copy of a painting of Mary Beatrice as duchess of York exists in the Romers Portrattatelje in Djursholm, Sweden. Although surviving examples of her work are scarce, Dryden’s ode to Killigrew in the 1685 published collection of her poetry mentions other paintings, but she only

50 Gregg, “New Light,” 954. 51 James II, Innes, and Caryll, The Life of James the Second. 52 Edward Corp, A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689–1718 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2009), 119. 53 Ibid., 231. 54 Barash, English Women’s Poetry, 150.

110

M. WILLIAMS

painted portraits of James and Mary Beatrice.55 In portraiture, Mary Beatrice was able to control the public presentation of herself and her power as duchess of York. One of the last works that Killigrew composed was a poem to the queen that appears to request a new appointment in Mary Beatrice’s court as queen in 1685. Although she was currently a Maid of Honour to Mary Beatrice as duchess, all attendants needed to reapply to join Mary Beatrice’s household in her new role as queen consort.56 In her poem, To The Queen, she called Mary Beatrice her muse and praised her for her ability to champion Catholicism and virtue: Alone she stands for Vertues Cause, When all decry, upholds her Laws: When to Banish her in the Strife, Keeps her unexil’d in her Life Guarding her matchless Innocence From Storms of boldest Impudence; In spite of all the Scoffs and Rage, And Persecutions of the Age, Owns Vertues Altar, Feeds the Flame, Adores her much-derided Name: While impiously her hands they tie, Loves her in her Captivity (45–56).57

Killigrew’s sympathy for her queen shines through in this poem. She lauded Mary Beatrice for standing against the Protestant voices in England that denounced her and called for her and her husband’s banishment because of their association with Catholicism.58 She also pledged 55 For Killigrew’s poetry and paintings, see Barash, English Women’s Poetry, Laura

Alexander, “Anne Killigrew: A Spiritual Wit,” in John Baker, Marion Leclair, and Allan Ingram (eds), Writing and Constructing the Self in Great Britain in the Long Eighteenth Century (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 27–43; Sullivan, “Representations of Mary of Modena.” Surviving portraits include James II (1685) part of the UK Royal Collection, and a photograph of The Duchess of York (1685), in Romers Portrattatelje in Djursholm, Sweden. Dryden’s ode to Killigrew mentions both portraits, in addition to her other paintings on classical subjects such as Venus. John Dryden, “To the Pious Memory of the Accomplished Young Lady Mrs. Anne Killigrew,” in Poems by Mrs. Anne Killigrew (London: Samuel Lowndes, 1686), stanza VII. 56 Greer, Kissing the Rod, 302. 57 Ibid., 301. 58 Miller, James II , 74.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

111

her allegiance to Mary Beatrice wherever she might go, promising to love her faithfully “in spite of all the scoffs and rage” from critics. Killigrew honed her poetry and painting talents because of Mary Beatrice’s patronage by appointment and encouragement. In doing so, the duchess also became a muse, both patron and a source of inspiration. Dedication pages provide additional examples of Mary Beatrice’s patronage by encouragement. Whilst Michael Foss, amongst others, has assumed that dedications were directly tied to seeking monetary patronage, others, such as Paul Korshin, argue that dedications rarely generated a significant source of income.59 Alternatively, dedication pages could be utilised by poets who sought encouragement from a potential patron in the form of invitations to access elite social circles.60 Arthur Marotti argues that dedications were included to seek or acknowledge endorsement of authors’ works to gather proximate prestige to themselves.61 The Victorian historian Thomas Macaulay, however, saw dedication pages as an example of a “traffic in praise,” meaning that they were a reflection of the author’s vanity, leaving them with questionable morals.62 Whether considered a negative or positive use of the poet’s skills, dedications may well have had more than one purpose. John Dryden frequently employed dedication pages in his interactions with patrons. His use of dedications was so prolific that one critic accused him of “sell[ing his] lying praises for money.”63 However, Griffin points out that Dryden did not generate much income from private sources of patronage, but instead mastered the “art of pleasing,” which indulged patrons for their encouragement of his work.64 Within dedication pages,

59 Michael Foss, The Age of Patronage: The Arts in England, 1660–1750 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), 110–137; Paul Korshin, “Types of Eighteenth-Century Literary Patronage,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 7 (1974), 467. 60 Alexander Pope to Martha Blount (1716) in George Sherburn (ed.), The Correspondence of Alexander Pope (5 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), i, 338: “I am to pass three or four days in high luxury, with some company at my Lord Burlington’s.” 61 Arthur Marotti, “Patronage, Poetry, and Print,” The Yearbook of English Studies 21 (1991), 1–2. 62 Thomas Babington Macaulay, Selected Writings, ed. John Clive and Thomas Pinney (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 320–321. 63 Henry Wheatley, The Dedications of Books to Patron and Friend (London: Stock, 1887), 120. 64 Griffin, Literary Patronage, 72–73.

112

M. WILLIAMS

writers sought both encouragement to create and to express gratitude for patronage by encouragement already received. Dryden’s dedications to Mary Beatrice of Modena were numerous, which is not surprising due to his appointment as Poet Laureate to Charles II in 1668. However, Mary Beatrice’s demonstrated love and appreciation for poetry and her court’s literary activities may have led Dryden to seek her encouragement more directly.65 Dryden penned his first dedication to Mary Beatrice in 1674 after she recently arrived in England as duchess of York, attached to an intended, but never performed, opera entitled The State of Innocence and the Fall of Man, that was published in 1677. The dedication begins: Ambition is so far from being a Vice in Poets, that ’tis almost impossible for them to succeed without it. Imagination must be rais’d, by a desire of Fame, to a desire of Pleasing: And they whom in all Ages Poets have endeavour’d most to please, have been the Beautiful and the Great. Beauty is their Deity to which they Sacrifice, and Greatness is their Guardian-Angel which protects them. Both these are so eminently join’d in the Person of Your Royal Highness, that it were not easie for any, but a Poet, to determine which of them out-shines the other.66

The dedication’s praise for the new duchess continues for five pages, and even includes a poem in Italian. Particularly highlighted are her faith, honour, beauty, and mind. However, this dedication was more than simply flattery; it was, in fact, Dryden’s “audition” to Mary Beatrice for her encouragement.67 It appears that Dryden was flexing his poetic ability to its utmost to impress the new duchess and gain her patronage to support his continued appointment at court and his creative works, and to gain entry to her social circle. Throughout the dedication, beautiful turns of phrase invoke the mythological Virtues and Graces, religion, and love of country.68 With Mary Beatrice as inspiration for this masterful ode, 65 Martin Haile, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1905), 51; Barash, English Women’s Poetry, 330. 66 John Dryden, The State of Innocence and Fall of Man; An Opera, Written in Heroique Verse and Dedicated to Her Royal Highness, the Dutchess (London: s. n., 1677). 67 Griffin, Literary Patronage, 70. 68 Paulina Kewes, “Dryden’s Theatre and the Passions of Politics,” in Stephen Zwicker

(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 142–143.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

113

Dryden laid out all of his considerable skills for her to see, appreciate, and encourage.69 Aphra Behn, probably the best-known English female poet and playwright in her lifetime, supported herself entirely by her writing from 1671 with her first play, The Forc’d Marriage, until her death in 1689.70 A Stuart loyalist and “Tory writer,” her writing was politically charged and sympathetic to both the royal family and Catholicism. Many of her works paint the Stuart monarchy as heroic and those who opposed it, particularly during the Exclusion Crisis, as villains.71 Behn similarly dedicated an entire poem to Mary Beatrice of Modena seeking the queen’s encouragement for future paid commissions. In 1685, she wrote a series of Pindaric poems (an ode style named after the Greek poet Pindar), to the king and queen and other nobility, including A Pindaric Poem on the Happy Coronation of His Most Sacred Majesty James II and His Illustrious Consort, Queen Mary.72 These poems use dedications as a tool for seeking patronage by encouragement in a similar way to Dryden’s dedications, even if in this case they were unsuccessful. The poem explicitly written for Mary Beatrice is titled A congratulatory poem to Her Most Sacred Majesty, on the universal hopes of all loyal persons for a Prince of Wales by Mrs. A. Behn (1688). Instead of a standalone dedication page or pages, the entire poem acts as a dedication, seeking creative encouragement from the poem’s subject: Mary Beatrice. However, the verses serve other purposes as well. First, the poem is a vehicle of praise and flattery of Mary Beatrice: And you, bless’d Queen, to whom all hail belongs From Angels, rather than from Mortal Tongues; Whose Charms of Beauty, Wit and Vertue join’d To chuse you Second Bless’d of Woman-kind. (ll. 30–33).73 69 John Barnard, “Dryden and Patronage,” in Zwicker, Cambridge Companion to John Dryden, 202. 70 Mary Ann O’Donnell, “Aphra Behn: The Documentary Record,” in Derek Hughes and Janet Todd (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Aphra Behn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 1. 71 Susan Wiseman, Aphra Behn (Plymouth: Northcote House, 1996), 3. 72 Aphra Behn, A Pindarick Poem on the Happy Coronation of His Most Sacred Majesty

James II and His Illustrious Consort Queen Mary by Mrs. Behn (London: s. n., 1685). 73 Aphra Behn, A Congratulatory Poem to Her Most Sacred Majesty, on the Universal Hopes of All Loyal Persons for a Prince of Wales by Mrs. A. Behn (London: s. n., 1688).

114

M. WILLIAMS

Secondly, it praised Mary Beatrice’s Catholic religion with its Marian imagery, likening the queen to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Marian imagery was frequently used to describe queens in order to emphasise their piety and virtue.74 The Virgin as mother was also likened to the queen as a mother to the nation, and as the centre of the Catholic faith. Both Mary I and Henrietta Maria were depicted thus.75 Whilst Protestant queens such as Elizabeth I utilised Marian imagery, the timing of Behn’s use of a figure so central to the Catholic faith when fear of “popery” ran rampant across England is a clear sign of her sympathy with the queen’s religion76 : Like the first sacred Infant, this will come With Promise laden from the Blessed Womb, To call the wand’ring, scatter’d Nations home. Adoring Princes shall arrive from far, Inform’d by Angels, guided by his Star, The New-born Wonder to behold, and greet; And Kings shall offer Incense at his Feet (ll. 13–19).77

Lastly, the poem serves as a political statement favouring the royalist cause against Protestant dissenters who favoured the Protestant Prince William and Princess Mary of Orange, James’s daughter: Where are ye, O ye once officious Nine, That on a Theam so glorious, and sublime, Your Voices are not tun’d to noblest Song But, Oh! your Lutes are on the Willows hung Your lov’d Britania [sic] listens now no more; Mars frights her from the soft Castalian Shore (ll. 44–49).78

74 Sonja Drimmer, “Beyond Private Matter: A Prayer Roll for Queen Margaret of Anjou,” Gesta 53 (2014), 95–120. 75 William Wizeman, “The Virgin Mary in the Reign of Mary Tudor,” Studies in Church History 39 (2004), 245; Susan Dunn-Hensley, Anne of Denmark and Henrietta Maria: Virgins, Witches, and Catholic Queens (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 35. 76 Helen Hackett, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen: Elizabeth I and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995). 77 Behn, A Congratulatory Poem. 78 Ibid.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

115

Behn condemns the people of Britain who were no longer listening to the Stuart monarchy’s noble and glorious song, or rather, their rule. She also condemned other poets, “ye once officious nine,” for not having written about Mary Beatrice’s pregnancy, probably because of the public anxiety surrounding the birth of a Catholic heir.79 She placed her request for encouragement at the end of the poem, requesting the infant prince’s support and, by extension, his mother: He the faint Muses shall a-new inspire. And from his Beams kindle their useful Fire: His Right Hand Crowns, his Left shall Lawrels give; And Poets shall by Patron Princes live (ll. 66–69).80

This ode depicted Behn seeking encouragement from Mary Beatrice as a potential patron by three different methods—flattery, Catholic imagery, and political solidarity. Behn was loyal to the royalist cause throughout all of her writings, and whilst she would have wished to express such congratulatory sentiments for the queen’s pregnancy regardless, her ill health and precarious financial situation after 1685 lead one to believe that this poem was more than simply another work of royalist propaganda.81 Finally, patronage by inspiration encapsulates the queen as a muse, with poets and writers utilising her body, features, or political position to create literary works. In particular, Mary Beatrice served as a source of inspiration in poetry. Positive imagery within these poems links back to Mary Beatrice’s display of majesty, or power through presentation and representation. Through her patronage of inspiration, Mary Beatrice acted as a muse not only to the author, but also to the reader, reaching a wider audience than official propaganda would necessarily allow. Mary Beatrice as a mother was one point of inspiration for poets. Because Mary Beatrice had such a difficult time producing an heir, the meaning of the symbolism may have run deeper. For example, for the 1685 coronation of James and Mary Beatrice, Henry Purcell composed a

79 Melinda S. Zook, “The Political Poetry of Aphra Behn,” in Derek Hughes and Janet Todd (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Aphra Behn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 58. 80 Behn, A Congratulatory Poem. 81 Greer, Kissing the Rod, 263.

116

M. WILLIAMS

series of anthems to celebrate the event.82 One of these pieces, entitled My Heart is Inditing , incorporated the imagery of Mary Beatrice as a mother to her people: My heart is inditing of a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made unto the King. At thy right hand did stand the Queen all glorious within Her clothing is of wrought gold, in raiment of needlework. The virgins that follow her bear her company. With joy and gladness shall they be brought and shall enter into the King’s palace. Hearken, O daughter, consider, incline thine eare, Forget thine own people of thy father’s house, Instead of thy fathers thou shall have children Whom thou maiest make princes in all lands. Praise the Lord O Jerusalem, Praise thy God O Sion, For Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and their queens thy nursing mothers.83

In her study of Protestant female political dissenters, Melinda Zook describes “nursing mothers” as “nurturing the faith and fortifying the faithful.”84 These women cared for their fellow dissenters by supporting them in prison, helping the families of the imprisoned, and encouraging the foundation of more nonconformist churches. Whilst Mary Beatrice of Modena was not an activist like the women described by Zook, the allusion to the new queen as a nursing mother could have been used for similar reasons. Purcell referenced the queen’s role as mother and her duty to bear children and further the Stuart dynasty, but also alluded to more than physical motherhood. Mary Beatrice was a spiritual authority for her subjects and a symbolic figurehead for the Catholic faith, and in this capacity, she nurtures her children, the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland.85 82 British Library, Henry Purcell’s My Heart in Inditing, Collection Item description. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/henry-purcell-my-heart-is-inditing. 83 BL, R.M.20.h.8, fos 53v-63v; Henry Purcell, Symphony Anthems (1690). 84 Melinda Zook, Protestantism, Politics, and Women in Britain, 1660–1714 (London:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 16. 85 Barash, English Women’s Poetry, 195.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

117

Mary Beatrice’s physical body also provided inspiration in poetic verse. She was frequently lauded in poetry for her beauty. For example, Edmund Waller praised Mary Beatrice’s virtue and beauty in his dedication To the Duchess When he Presented this Book to her Royal Highness, enclosed in a gift copy of his poetry from either 1677 or 1678. He cited Mary Beatrice’s beauty as a source of his poetic inspiration: Madam! I here present you with the rage, And with the beauties, of a former age; Wishing you may with as great pleasure view This, as we take in gazing upon you. Thus we writ then: your brighter eyes inspire A nobler flame, and raise our genius higher. While we your wit and early knowledge fear, To our productions we become severe; Your matchless beauty gives our fancy wing, Your judgement makes us careful how we sing (ii. 1–10).86

Mary Beatrice’s “brighter eyes” are emphasised as providing inspiration. Additionally, her “matchless beauty gives our fancy wing,” stated clearly that her physical attractiveness was also a source of inspiration. Through this dedication, he not only sought Mary Beatrice’s patronage in a conventional sense but acknowledged the patronage by inspiration that she already provided in her role as muse. Another admirer of Mary Beatrice’s beauty was George Granville, Lord Lansdowne, who was inspired to compose verses for the duchess when she visited Cambridge in 1674.87 Young George, not yet twelve years old, recited his specially written poem Those Auspicious Lights, Your Eyes : Radiant Eyes, whose irresistless Flame Strikes Envy dumb, and keeps Sedition tame. They can to gazing Multitudes give Law Convert the Factious, and the Rebel awe,

86 Edmund Waller, (ed.) Thorn Drury, The Poems of Edmund Waller (2 vols, London: Routledge, 1901), ii, 71, 212. According to the editor G. Drury, Waller presented this collection of poems to Mary in 1677 or 1678, shortly after the death of her son Charles, who lived only one month. 87 Elizabeth Handasyde, Granville the Polite: The Life of George Granville, Lord Landsdowne, 1666–1735 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 9.

118

M. WILLIAMS

They conquer for the Duke, wher-e’er You tread, Millions of Proselytes, behind are led (ll. 1–6).88

Like Waller, Granville utilised Mary Beatrice’s physical attributes as a source for his inspiration in this poem. Mary Beatrice’s eyes were, according to Sullivan’s interpretation of the poem, “James’s secret weapon against the bitter hostility the marriage had provoked in England.”89 The English people were initially against the choosing of Mary Beatrice, an Italian Catholic, to become duchess, but once she arrived, allegedly, she was remarkably popular until she and James were swamped by anti-popish hysteria.90 For Granville, Mary Beatrice’s eyes were the catalyst for the public’s initial change of heart. In later poems such as The Progress of Beauty (1701), Granville likened the exiled Mary Beatrice to the famous beauty, Helen of Troy. Even though cast out from England, Mary Beatrice remained for the poet “Queen of our hearts, and charmer of our sight / A Monarch’s pride, his glory and delight,” long after she was forced into exile.91

Conclusion As an appointer, encourager, and source of inspiration, Mary Beatrice’s presence in poetry during her reigns as both duchess and queen was significant, particularly for the authors examined here. Her influence as a patron is revealed when considered using the more expanded definition of patronage, which goes beyond simply monetary rewards. Whilst

88 George Granville, “Spoken by the Author, Being Then not Twelve Years of Age, to Her Royal Highness the Dutchess (sic) of York, at Trinity College in Cambridge,” in The Genuine Works in Verse and Prose of George Granville (3 vols, London: s. n., 1736), i, 5–6. 89 Sullivan, “Representations of Mary of Modena,” 70. 90 Haile, Queen Mary of Modena, 42, 51. In a letter from Prince Rinaldo d’Este,

Mary’s uncle who accompanied her to England at her marriage, to Mary’s brother Duke Francesco of Modena, he stated that, “the Duchess of York has wonderful success, she is … praised by the court and respected by that evil party of Parliamentarians…” Haile also mentions that the historian James Macpherson wrote, “as for the people, their prejudices were gradually removed by her behaviour. The uneasiness conceived on account of her religion was soon forgot.” 91 George Granville, “The Progress of Beauty,” in The Genuine Works in Verse and Prose of George Granville, i, 59.

5

MARY BEATRICE OF MODENA: PATRONAGE, POETRY …

119

patronage by encouragement and appointment have been considered in a literary context, it is also important to acknowledge that patronage by inspiration is a key facet of patronage more generally. Mary Beatrice’s ability to support the literary community through appointment, encouragement, and inspiration made her the centre of a literary community, extending beyond her female circle to include many male writers as well. Patronage was not merely an exchange of money. It placed a personalised stamp on an art form, creating opportunities for writers to expand the genre. Mary Beatrice’s role as queen enabled her to encourage dedication and creative expansion, and through patronage she exercised power by granting appointments, offering commissions, and presenting herself as a cultured, kind, and elegant royal woman, who was also devoted to her faith. Given these roles, it is fair to say that Mary Beatrice of Modena’s patronage was greater than historians have previously recognised. Future studies that consider a broader interpretation of patronage will allow for a truer sense of a queen consort’s patronage extended beyond a simple monetary transaction.

CHAPTER 6

Contesting Catholic Motherhood: Mary Beatrice of Modena, the “Glorious Revolution,” and Queenly Agency Susannah Lyon-Whaley

Introduction On the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot in 1673, the “youths of the Citty” of London paraded and burned the pope’s effigy with a topical grievance in mind. They were “displeased at the D[uke] for altering his Religion, & now marrying an Italian lady.”1 Mary Beatrice of Modena, who arrived in London on 6 December, was hardly the first Catholic Stuart consort, having been preceded by Anna of Denmark (who converted secretly in Scotland), Henrietta Maria, and Mary Beatrice’s own sister-in-law Catherine of Braganza. She was, however, the first to marry a Catholic husband. In early 1674, a French opera, Ariane, ou, 1 John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer, The Diary of John Evelyn (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), 594.

S. Lyon-Whaley (B) University of Auckland Waipapa Taumata Rau, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_6

121

122

S. LYON-WHALEY

le Mariage de Bacchus, celebrated her marriage to James, duke of York. The prologue presented the nymphs of the Thames, Seine, Tiber, and Po; the Po brought the duke a bride from its “feconde” countryside.2 The rivers of Catholic Italy and France flowing into England struck a discordant note with Protestant viewers, especially given the French king Louis XIV’s strong support for the marriage, and raised the possibility of a Catholic heir.3 The fifteen-year-old duchess had already experienced her first miscarriage, becoming pregnant again within weeks, though none of her children born before 1688 survived past the age of three.4 In February 1685, her husband succeeded his brother as James II despite attempts by parliament to bar a Catholic monarch from the throne during the Exclusion Crisis in 1679–1681. The birth of James Francis Edward in June 1688 crystallised Catholicism’s spectre in England. Courtiers, politicians, and the queen’s stepdaughters, Mary and Anne, accused her of staging her pregnancy. That November, William of Orange landed in England with his Protestant army, occasioning the family’s flight to France in December.5 As a queen consort giving birth to a healthy son, Mary Beatrice was central to the events of 1688. However, studies have given little room to her role beyond being a physical vessel for bearing heirs.6 At fourteen, she planned to enter the Order of the Visitation, founded by the Genevan bishop St Francis de Sales and housed in Modena in a convent constructed by her mother, Duchess Regent Laura Martinozzi d’Este, and 2 Louis Grabu, Ariane, Ou, Le Mariage De Bacchus Opera… (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1674). 3 For reception, see Jocelyn Powell, Restoration Theatre Production (London: Routledge, 1984), 48. For Louis XIV’s involvement, John Condren, “The Dynastic Triangle in International Relations: Modena, England, and France, 1678–85,” The International History Review 37 (2015), 701–702. 4 Catherine Laura was born in January 1675. 5 See “Revolution” in Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 2009), 221–302. 6 Recently, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones has presented her body as “fetishized” with no “voice of its own”: Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, “Mary Beatrice of Modena: A Queen Observed,” in Aidan Norrie, Carolyn Harris, J. L. Laynesmith, Danna R. Messer, and Elena Woodacre (eds), Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, Dynasty (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 293. Another recent discussion of Mary Beatrice’s literary representation as duchess and queen suggests that her appearance in satires is “reassuringly ludicrous”: Anna-Marie Linnell, “Queenship and Exile: Representations of Mary Beatrice of Modena in England,” Women’s History Review 30 (2021), 861.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

123

attached to the ducal palace.7 Her decision to become James’s bride was influenced by a personal appeal from Pope Clement X to the effect that her marriage could help recover the Catholic faith in England.8 En route to London, she visited the Order’s convent in Lyon. Notwithstanding her impending nuptials, the princess wrote to the mother superior in Modena that after viewing the rooms where De Sales died, she took courage to consecrate herself to him. She later assured the same mother superior that her suffering in England—her “cross”—was brightened by her husband’s newly avowed Catholicism.9 By then, it must have appeared likely that Charles’s wife of eleven years—the Portuguese infanta, Catherine of Braganza—would never have children.10 From the beginning of her life in London, Mary Beatrice’s womb was a contentious space. Her fight to accustom herself to a life unlike that she had once intended was rooted in determination to fulfil God’s will. This chapter spotlights the role that Mary Beatrice played in the spectacle of her own contested motherhood. It argues that her efforts to enact conception through performances of devotion and Catholic ritual, her association with the Virgin Mary, and prior Stuart and preReformation Catholic queens in practice and visual iconography made her even more of a conscious player in the dynastic game than she otherwise might have been. Andrew Barclay suggests that Mary Beatrice’s faith was conventional and that it never “occurred” to James that a wife who was twenty-five years his junior “might seek a political role.”11 Nevertheless, Elizabeth L’Estrange has argued that aristocratic women’s commitment to reproduction was motivated by similar dynastic and political reasons

7 Martin Haile, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters (London: J. M. Dent & Co. 1905), 17. 8 Ibid., 21. 9 22 October 1673 (Lyon) and 8 January 1674 (London). Emilia Rowles Campana

Di Cavelli (ed.), Les Derniers Stuarts à Saint-Germain en Laye: Documents Inédits et Authentiques Puisés aux Archives Publiques et Privées (2 vols, Paris: Didier, 1871), i, “Documents: Première Série,” 119, 132–133. Author’s translations. 10 Erin Griffey, “‘O Sacred Vessel, fraught with England’s store’: Stuart Maternity, Infertility, and Dynastic Politics,” unpublished article, forthcoming. 11 Andrew Barclay, “Mary Beatrice of Modena: The ‘Second Bless’d of Womankind’?” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 78–80.

124

S. LYON-WHALEY

to those of men.12 In a forthcoming article on Stuart queens’ fertility, Erin Griffey closes with the statement that these queens were conscious participants in the continuation of dynasty.13 This chapter expands that statement in relation to Mary Beatrice, the first Catholic consort in more than a century who could expect to raise an heir in her own faith, an opportunity sought by her predecessor Henrietta Maria. Though her popular epithet, “Queen Over the Water,” has defined her legacy, Mary Beatrice had fifteen years to become attached to England and Scotland, assimilate their models of queenship, and express her investment in a Catholic succession that she promoted through artistic patronage in England and France.14

Enacting Conception Months before the announcement of Mary Beatrice’s pregnancy in late 1687, public performances associated with her conception were evidently provocative, beginning with the pilgrimage of her mother, then duchess dowager, to the famous Virgin’s shrine at Loreto (in the Basilica della Santa Casa) to pray for her daughter, before her death in July 1688. Mary Beatrice then travelled to Bath to bathe in its healing mineral waters in August; at the same time, her husband visited the chapel and waters at St Winefride’s Well in Holywell, Wales.15 These journeys followed Catholic tradition, evoking European involvement in the Stuart succession that 12 Elizabeth L’Estrange, Holy Motherhood: Gender, Dynasty and Visual Culture in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008), 53, 66–67. 13 Griffey, “Sacred Vessel,” np. 14 James II was known amongst Jacobites as the “King Over the Water.” “Queen

Over the Water” is the title of a biography of Mary Beatrice: Mary Hopkirk, Queen Over the Water: Mary Beatrice of Modena, Queen of James II (London: John Murray, 1953). Studies often suggest that Mary Beatrice had more cultural and political influence in France: Barclay, “Mary Beatrice,” 90; Edward Gregg, “France, Rome, and the Exiled Stuarts, 1689–1713,” in Edward Corp (ed.), A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689–1718, with contributions by Edward Gregg, Howard Erskine-Hill, and Geoffrey Scott (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 25. 15 See Anonymous, The Amours of Messalina, Late Queen of Albion. In Which Are Briefly

Couch’d Secrets of the Imposture of the Cambrion Prince … (London: John Lyford, 1689), 26. On polemical literature before and after 1688: Malcolm Smuts, “Royal Mothers, Sacred History, and Political Polemic,” in Paulina Kewes and Andrew McRae (eds), Stuart Succession Literature: Moments and Transformations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 295–299.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

125

Protestants viewed as unwelcome. Sir John Wildman, in his printed justification of the invitation sent to William of Orange, remarked caustically that “solemn prayers for her belly were made at Rome.”16 Though James was Catholic, Mary Beatrice’s presence was, like her mother-in-law before her, a gateway between the king and the pope.17 For Protestants, connections between her and the Virgin’s supernatural maternal authority highlighted the corruptions following on from the admission of a Catholic consort into the king’s bed.18 Yet for Mary Beatrice and other Catholics, Marian devotion reinforced her image as queen. The Virgin was a model of queenship and fertility with whom Stuart consorts strongly associated “as an intercessor and role model.”19 For Catholics, the Virgin’s decision to carry Christ was more than acquiescence; it was “an assertion of agency.”20 Visiting Loreto, the duchess of Modena’s investment in her daughter’s conception highlights the power of a female Catholic network engaged in the continuation of dynasty, both through conventional devotion to the Virgin and in the action of a mother to aid her daughter. Marie de Medici had shown similar support for Henrietta Maria’s attempts to conceive when she sent her a heart necklace after her first miscarriage, which the latter believed brought her “good fortune.”21 Although not outwardly devotional, the gift highlights another example of an astutely political and religiously-minded queen

16 Sir John Wildman, An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry’s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England (London: Nathanael Ranew and Jonathan Robinson, 1688), 10. 17 An Italian account of James’s Vatican embassy (1687) was presented to Mary Beatrice and an English translation with her portrait in it dedicated to her, publicly linking the queen with overtures to Rome: John Michael Wright, An Account of His Excellence, Roger Earl of Castlemaine’s Embassy from His Sacred Majesty James II d , King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, &c. to His Holiness Innocent XI Published Formerly in the Italian Tongue… (London: Thomas Snowden, 1688). 18 See “The Command of Mary: Marian Devotion, Henrietta Maria’s Intercessions, and Catholic Motherhood,” in Frances E. Dolan, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-Century Print Culture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 95–156. 19 Griffey, “O Sacred Vessel.” 20 Frances Dolan, “Marian Devotion and Maternal Authority in Seventeenth-Century

England,” in Naomi J. Miller and Naomi Yavneh (eds), Maternal Measures: Figuring Caregiving in the Early Modern Period (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), 282, 285. 21 Mary Anne Everett Green (ed.), Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria, Including Her Private Correspondence with Charles the First (London: R. Bentley, 1857), 33.

126

S. LYON-WHALEY

helping her daughter manage reproductive difficulties. L’Estrange draws attention to the community of “holy mothers”—including St Anne, St Elizabeth, and the Virgin—called upon to aid conception and delivery who “mirrored the group of women” caring for the mother in the birth chamber.22 In doing so, she highlights the strong female bonds of devotion and reproduction between Catholic queens that not only relied on saintly models like the Virgin, but each other. As mentioned, Mary Beatrice visited Bath, its waters known for making women fruitful, almost immediately after receiving news of her mother’s death. Though not an ostensibly Catholic location, it marked her active commitment to conception and provided a stage for her piety. At Bath, the queen attended church in the Abbey—presumably a Catholic Mass, which would have been provocative—where her prayers no doubt recalled her mother’s prayers for her at Loreto. James, who accompanied her before leaving on progress, touched for the King’s Evil with Catholic rites.23 Healing scrofula signified the king’s right to rule, conflating Catholicism and the monarchy in a location strongly associated with royal fertility.24 Mary Beatrice took her confessor and almoner Marco Antonio Galli, the highest paid religious member of her household, to whom £166 was paid at Bath by the “Queenes order.” The account of the queen’s costs reveals a payment of £40 to “4 fathers for their journey to preach at Bath.”25 Thus, Mary Beatrice provided for her spiritual needs and her court’s, and supplied an opportunity for others to engage in Catholic worship. Despite the waters’ noted chemical properties, they evoked preReformation journeys to holy springs. Their connection with Catholicism and the birth as divine providence was elevated by a monument erected by John Drummond, earl of Melfort, in the Cross Bath where Mary Beatrice bathed, depicting the holy spirit descending and proclaiming her, as Barclay affirms, as the second Virgin.26 Whilst Mary Beatrice took the waters at Bath, James, as we saw, visited St Winefride’s Well, where a chapel had been built by Henry VII’s mother

22 L’Estrange, Holy Motherhood, 67. 23 Carola Oman, Mary of Modena (Suffolk: Hodder & Stoughton, 1962), 103–104. 24 On the royal touch: Stephen Brogan, The Royal Touch in Early Modern England:

Politics, Medicine and Sin (Woodbridge: Boydell 2015), 1–22. 25 Kent Archive and History Centre, U1015/O47/3. 26 Barclay, “Mary Beatrice,” 25.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

127

Margaret Beaufort. It was this chapel Mary Beatrice obtained through royal grant and intended to have “repaired & putt to a good [Catholic] use.” In May 1687, she upset the local Anglican magistrate Sir Roger Mostyn by charging him with “giving present possession in my name of the said chappell” to the Jesuit Thomas Roberts, and to “aford him y[ou]r favour & protection that he may not be molested nor disturbed.”27 Though James was present at the shrine, Mary Beatrice likely planned the visit herself. Francesco Terriesi, Tuscan ambassador, wrote of the queen’s intention to visit Bath, adding “perhaps during her voyage, she will pass by the waters of St Winefride, having still greater confidence in them,” also highlighting Mary Beatrice’s responsibility for the Catholic rituals of conception.28 At the well, James made offerings that included “the very shift in which his great-grandmother, Mary Stuart, lost her head.” Griffey points to the significance here of “the shared Catholic faith of Mary Stuart and James.”29 A century before, Mary, Queen of Scots, had provided in her own person an alternative political and religious future. The relic foregrounded James’s descent, but also a new, Catholic Mary in his queen whose issue could drastically change the confessional landscape. St Winefride’s Well was visited by Plantagenet kings, and the chapel adorned with the Tudor arms, making it a “dynastic icon.”30 The journey to a shrine further linked Mary Beatrice to Elizabeth of York, Margaret Tudor, and Catherine of Aragon: English, Scottish, and Spanish royal women who undertook pilgrimages in order to conceive.31 Following efforts to ban the shrine from use, visiting it remained “a powerful symbol of Catholic defiance” throughout the seventeenth century.32 Mary Beatrice’s use of the chapel was incendiary because of its dynastic nature and her own position, establishing continuity between her Catholicism and a previous line of kings and queens. Terriesi stated boldly that unless she provided a male heir, or died so James could remarry, “the Catholics and their religion will 27 Thomas Allen Glenn and Lord Mostyn, History of the Family of Mostyn of Mostyn (London: Harrison and Sons, 1925), 148–149; also Griffey, “O Sacred Vessel,” np. 28 Cited in Haile, Life and Letters, 166. 29 Griffey, “O Sacred Vessel,” np. 30 Alexandra Walsham, The Reformation of the English Landscape: Religion, Identity and Memory in Early Modern Britain and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 52. 31 Maria Hayward, Dress at the Court of Henry VIII (Leeds: Maney Pub., 2007), 196. 32 Walsham, Reformation of the English Landscape, 103, 105, 144.

128

S. LYON-WHALEY

be utterly ruined.”33 Her performance of her religion and her dedication to St Francis de Sales prior to her marriage recasts her childbearing efforts as motivated by the desire to strengthen the Stuart realms in the Catholic faith. Naming her long-awaited son “Francis” signalled something of her original dedication to De Sales and perhaps a belief that the saint had finally interceded for her.34

Visualising the Queen in Bed In the court, pregnancy was a performance, with the queen its primary player. Mary Beatrice’s “apparent hopes” of pregnancy were affirmed by proclamation on 23 December 1687.35 Yet as early as November, the diplomat Narcissus Luttrell reported the queen “2 months gone.”36 Before any royal pregnancy was announced or even proved, garrulous chamber women, laundresses, doctors, and prying eyes constantly surveyed the queen’s “breasts, belly, her look, or any other symptom, by which women in that condition are easily distinguished,” though for Mary Beatrice many gazes were motivated by suspicion, not joy.37 Princess Anne’s letters to her sister Mary of Orange expressed concern about her stepmother’s “great belly” in March, and accounts after the birth demonstrate the necessity for Mary Beatrice to physically embody her pregnancy to legitimise it, one questioning the swelling of her breasts and the appearance of her belly from the front, back, and sides.38 Another Catholic queen, Mary I, had shrewdly presented herself under her cloth of estate with swollen belly “that all men might see.”39 As if recognising the need to reaffirm the queen’s fecundity, a medal minted by James’s envoy to The Hague, Ignatius White, celebrated the birth with the highly unusual—in 33 Cited in Haile, Life and Letters, 166. 34 Barclay points out “Francis” might refer to de Sales. “Mary Beatrice,” 81–83. 35 James II, By the King, a Proclamation Appointing a Time of Publick Thanksgiving

and Prayer Throughout the Kingdom (London: s. n., 1687). 36 Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1857), 422. 37 Anonymous, Amours of Messalina, 57. 38 14 March 1688. Beatrice Curtis Brown (ed.), The Letters and Diplomatic Instructions

of Queen Anne (London: Cassell, 1968), 34; Wildman, Account of the Reasons, 19–20. 39 Karen Hearn, Portraying Pregnancy: From Holbein to Social Media (London: Paul Holberton, 2020), 30.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

129

English iconography—depiction of Mary Beatrice’s childbed.40 Opposite the king’s bust surmounting a dynastic Tudor rose, the queen sits in a richly plumed and canopied bed, her arms around her child, emblazoned with the legend “Felicitus Publica” (Public Happiness) (Fig. 6.1). A queen’s bed was her “real throne,” symbolising her role as wife and mother.41 In the medal, Mary Beatrice’s bed is luxurious, coroneted with fleur-de-lys and roses delineating a royal birth. In an Italian engraving also depicting the Sala Reggia (queen’s room), the foreground represents the papal nuncio Ferdinand d’Adda presenting the newborn to the king, suggesting that the prince’s arrival was ordained by God.42 However, the bed with its tiny queen provides the focal point. Her face is turned towards an attendant who offers her refreshment, adding naturalism to the grandeur. In a semi-contemporary French engraving of Louis XIII’s birth, Marie de Medici is similarly depicted in bed, whilst

Fig. 6.1 Jan Smeltzing, Netherlands, 1688. British Museum, G3,EM.72 (Credit © The Trustees of the British Museum)

40 Pierre Bertrand discusses such representations of royal women in France: “Graver la naissance au XVII e siècle,” Ethnologie française 26 (1996), 330–333. 41 Fiona Downie, She Is But a Woman: Queenship in Scotland: 1424–1463 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2006), 129–130. 42 Arnold van Westerhout, L’Altezza Reale di Giacomo Prencipe di Wallia Primogenito di Giacomo Secondo …, c. 1688–1690. British Museum [hereafter BM], 1870,0514.2960.

130

S. LYON-WHALEY

women wash her soiled bedsheets (Fig. 6.2). Pierre Bertrand draws attention to such scenes’ effect in asserting a royal child’s legitimacy.43 In comparison to a portrait of Mary I, holding a rose and alluding to her pregnancy in a style acceptable in English portraiture (Fig. 6.3), medals and the Italian print depicting Mary Beatrice were far-reaching, dramatic scenes invested with royal authority, allowing viewers to peek inside the royal birth chamber.44 Their composition, depicting the mother in bed, mirrored Catholic childbed scenes illustrating the birth of saints, especially St John the Baptist (Fig. 6.4).45 The print and medal were produced outside England, but they accord with the increased focus in 1688 on the queen’s swelling, lactating body. By October, James felt compelled to call witnesses to testify before the privy council, printing their declarations, including the laundress’s assertion that the bedsheets taken from the bed were “foul” and “hot,” materialising the birth’s veracity. The queen’s midwife, ladies, and the men described Mary Beatrice’s “pain and trembling,” the breaking of her waters, the sighting of the navel string and afterbirth, and the queen’s “vehement” cries: “Oh, I die; you kill me.” Afterwards, the king’s physician stated that the queen was “wearied and panting,” publicising intimate—rather than simply generic—aspects of the prince’s birth.46 Dutch engravings presented similar lavish, crowded scenes. Two of them particularly connect royal birth and theatre: one belonged to a series titled Engelants Schouwtoneel (England’s Stage); the other depicts the “door behind the bed” through which a child is carried by a woman wearing a garment resembling a nun’s wimple (Fig. 6.5), again alluding

43 Bertrand, “Graver la naissance,” 330–333. 44 Hearn, Portraying Pregnancy, 29–31. For pregnancy portraits of Henrietta Maria, see

Erin Griffey, On Display: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Magnificence (London: Yale University Press, 2015), 135–137. An Italian medal picturing England’s reconciliation with the Catholic church, in which Mary I’s stomach swells, highlights the politicoreligious relevance pregnancy had in visual culture (Giavanni da Cavino, “The Pope raises suppliant England,” 1554, BM, M.6825); see esp. Peter Stiffell, “No Less their Mistress than of her own Crown of England,” Kings and Queens 11 (Royal Studies Network, 29 June 2022). 45 Amongst limited English examples is the the birth of St Edmund the Martyr, king of East Anglia, BL, Harleian MS 2278, fo. 13v. 46 England and Wales, Privy Council, At the Council-Chamber in Whitehall, Monday the 22th. Of October, 1688 this Day an Extraordinary Council Met…by His Majesties Desire and Appointment… (London: Charles Bill, H. Hills, and Thomas Newcomb, 1688).

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

131

Fig. 6.2 Naissance de Louis XIII à Fontainebleau, engraving on paper, 1601 (Credit National Library of France)

to the agency of Catholic female networks and correlating the illegitimate baby and the illegitimate Catholic woman in the royal bedchamber.47 The Protestant Dutch Republic had a religious and political investment in portraying the birth as false; James’s flight left the Stuart crown to his eldest daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. These queenly performances are farcical, the queen hidden beneath bedsheets or glimpsed through partially closed curtains. In England, a playing card departed with convention similarly to depict “The Queen … brought to bed of a Boy,” or “Reported so” (Fig. 6.6). Neither the queen nor the midwife’s upper half is visible, the foot curtains are closed, and a rail separates the bed from the chamber. Usually intended to protect mother

47 Pieter Pickaert, Geboorte van de prins van Wales, c. 1689, engraving on paper, 152 × 195 cm. Rijksmuseum, NG-1087-6.

132

S. LYON-WHALEY

Fig. 6.3 Anthonis Mor, Mary I, 1554, oil on panel, 109 × 84 cm, (P002108) (Credit © Photographic Archive Museo Nacional del Prado)

and child and mark a ceremonial occasion, here the bedrail suggests subterfuge and secrecy.48 Though the semi-public birth was a queenly ritual, modesty and natural discomfort prevented Mary Beatrice being laid “bare” with “so many men [to] look on her;” at the height of her pains she asked her husband “to hide her face with his head and periwig.”49 But sight was key to truth. Theophilus Hastings, earl of Huntingdon, saw fit to affirm “I stood on that side of the bed that had

48 Griffey, On Display, 106, 112. 49 24 July 1688. Brown, Letters and Diplomatic Instructions, 40.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

133

Fig. 6.4 Sano de Pietro, The Birth and Naming of St. John the Baptist, 1450– 1460, tempura and gold on wood, 20.6 × 42.9 cm, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975.1.44

the curtains drawn open.”50 Focusing on what was unseen, the Dutch prints and English playing card evince how visualisations of the prince’s birth could be undermined by those claiming to present a fuller—and more truthful—picture.51 Mary Beatrice’s contested pregnancy admitted that the queen’s body was a potent political symbol and weapon for assuring a Catholic succession. If a queen’s pregnancy was a proclamation of dynastic strength and legitimacy enacted via rituals of betrothal, marriage, and lying-in, those accusing Mary Beatrice of faking her symptoms or even bearing an illegitimate child subverted established codes of display. Satires stressed the “dark chambers, secret passages, trap-doors and dark corners” of St James’s Palace where the birth occurred.52 Sir John Wildman, in his printed justification of the invitation sent to William of Orange, wrote that

50 England and Wales, At the Council Chamber. 51 Likewise, Linnell expands on Mary Beatrice’s literary representation within the genre

of “secret history texts” targeting supposed Stuart secrets and recalling accusations of interference levelled at her Catholic mother-in-law, Henrietta Maria. “Queenship and Exile,” 861. 52 Anonymous, Amours of Messalina, 59, 61.

134

S. LYON-WHALEY

Fig. 6.5 Jan Luyken, De geboorte van de prins van Wales, 1689, engraving on paper, 18.2 × 13.1 cm. Rijksmuseum, RP-P-1896-A-19368-704

all “was done in the dark,” associating the covert nature of the queen’s labour with the “blind zeal (always nourish’d by the Romish Church).”53

53 Wildman, Account of the Reasons, 21–22.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

135

Fig. 6.6 [Incomplete pack with 51 of 52 playing cards illustrating events leading to the Revolution of 1688], c. 1688–1689. Bristish Museum, 1896,0501.920.1-51 (Credit © Trustees of the British Museum)

Throughout her pregnancy, commentators lambasted Mary Beatrice’s refusal to “satisfy the world” of her condition.54 Princess Anne stated she retired to a private room to change her clothes, not allowing her stepdaughter to see her belly.55 Targeting the queen as a Catholic conspirator, such accusations allowed those challenging the prince’s succession to avoid subscribing openly to republican notions, in which true religion might be asserted in such a way as to eclipse blood right inheritance and succession. The queen’s reticence to show her doubting stepdaughter her belly presents her as out of touch with the gravity of the claims levelled against her. As John Carmi Parsons attests, fertility was a queen’s primary 54 Ibid., 19–20; Gilbert Burnet, Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Time … In Four Volumes (4 vols, London: A. Millar, 1753), ii, 474–475. 55 20 March and 18 June 1688, to Mary of Orange: Brown, Letters and Diplomatic Instructions, 35, 37.

136

S. LYON-WHALEY

asset, thus a “knowing queen advertised” its proof.56 However, those accusing Mary Beatrice of hiding her body undeniably supported their own claims. By contrast, Frances Stewart, duchess of Richmond, recalled coming across the pregnant queen in bed, who “throwing down the Bed clothes to the middle of her Stomach,” showed “her Smock upon her Breast … very wet with her milk.”57 Mary Beatrice’s lying-in provided another opportunity for display. Admittedly, some ceremony afforded to earlier consorts was absent. Owing to a miscalculation of her due date, she only withdrew to her chamber the evening before her labour, which together with her lastminute decision to lie at St James’s Palace rather than Windsor was commented on as part of the “trick” making it difficult for those harbouring suspicions to prepare themselves to observe her.58 Not expecting the prince’s arrival, she gave birth “in the bed she lay in all night,” her “great bed” having not been aired.59 Yet, staying in London meant keeping herself in the public eye, a likely motivation for her change to St James’s. It followed the precedent of Henrietta Maria’s births; Griffey describes the consort giving birth there as if on a stage, with magnificent trappings prepared for her chamber in line with Tudor precedent.60 Announcing the change, a London periodical assured readers that “all things are providing [at St James’s] for that purpose.”61 The birth was celebrated with cannons, bells ringing, bonfires, and public prayers—performative protocols and political rituals.62 When the chapel at the Tower failed to read the declaration of the prince’s birth, it was closed.63 Mary Beatrice was an active presence beyond her birth chamber, 56 John Carmi Parsons, “The Pregnant Queen as Counsellor and the Medieval Construction of Motherhood,” in John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler (eds), Medieval Mothering (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1996), 44. 57 England and Wales, At the Council Chamber. 58 Burnet, History of His Own Time, ii, 477. 59 Anne to Mary of Orange, 24 July 1688: Brown, Letters and Diplomatic Instructions, 41–43. 60 Griffey, On Display, 109–115. 61 Henry Care (ed.), Publick Occurrences Truely Stated, no. 17 (12 June 1688), n. p. 62 James had sought to ban similar traditional celebrations of anti-Catholic senti-

ment: David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989), 185. 63 Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation, 442–443, 445.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

137

dining in public on 7 July “for the first time since she was brought to bed” twenty-seven days before, and publicly receiving well-wishers two days later.64 She did not appear at the sitting of the privy council at which witnesses, including the queen dowager Catherine of Braganza, testified to the birth.65 However, she performed the queenly rituals of pregnancy—conception, lying in, and reintegration into court life – that marked her contribution to this dynastic turning point. The childbed medal, accusations, and depositions put “the natural naked and true shape of her Majesties body,” usually reserved for those in the birth chamber, on the printer’s table in a manner previously unimaginable, even considering precedent for public enquiries into the legitimacy of births in Europe.66 In the case of the playing card, the queen’s body was literally passed hand to hand. Mary Beatrice may not have given birth on a scaffold, as one Jacobite author imagined would satisfy critics, but did so—to the best of royal ability—within bookshops and homes.67 To ascertain her pregnancy’s credibility, both sides compared the queen’s breasts, belly, and labour to those of other women. Asserting the importance of that body, it also demystified it, turning the queen from an unimpeachable figure into “a woman like other women,” which mirrored Protestant attacks on the Virgin Mary.68 Presenting her as an unchaste wife and unnatural mother, satire attacked her biological motherhood and her ability to act as mother to her subjects. In thus denigrating the queen, satires also acknowledged fears of her power.

64 Henry Care (ed.), Publick Occurrences Truely Stated, no. 21 (10 July 1688), n. p.; John Reresby, Memoirs of Sir John Reresby: The Complete Text and a Selection from His Letters (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991), 502. 65 England and Wales, At the Council Chamber. 66 Wildman, Account of the Reasons, 19–20. See Erica Bastress-Dukehart, “Negotiating

for Agnes’ Womb,” in Charles Lipp and Matthew P. Romaniello (eds), Contested Spaces of Nobility in Early Modern Europe (Burlington: Ashgate, 2011), 50–51. 67 BL, Additional MS 33286 fo. 20, cited in Rachel Weil, Political Passions: Gender, the Family and Political Argument in England 1680–1714 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008), 86. 68 Dolan, “Marian Devotion,” 282–283.

138

S. LYON-WHALEY

Performing Marian Fecundity A month after the Prince of Wales’s birth, a fireworks display costing thousands of pounds, and “prepar’d for the Queenes up-sitting,” took place on the Thames before the queen, king, and “many thousands of spectators.”69 Foregrounding the queen’s fertility in overtly Catholic tones was a figure: resembling a beautiful woman … vested in an azure robe, richly adorned, on her head a crown, with her right hand grasping the British Oak; twined about with ivy branches and berries, standing upon a pedestal; at her feet, on one side a hare, on the other side a hen and chickens, each on a little pedestal, being all emblems of Foecundity, and alluding to her Majesty’s happy fruitfulness, expressed by the figure of Foecundity; over whose head, at three foot distance, burned a motto in fiery letters, of twenty-seven foot and a half long, and two foot and a half high, expressing these words, Fausta Foecunditas [fortunate fecundity]; which figure in her left arm held a child, representing the PRINCE of WALES.70

Twelve-feet high, the blue-robed, Madonna-like figure was a spectacular tribute to the fruitful queen. Comparisons between Mary Beatrice and the Virgin, mother of the Saviour of the world, were doubly pertinent to the mother of a son who could restore England to the “true” faith. This Madonna on the water was directly attacked in a manuscript poem on the fireworks that Rachel Weil argues portrays Mary Beatrice as a “pseudo-Virgin, miraculously begetting heirs without the aid of a husband,” and facilitating the expansion of the Church.71 In this verse, the Virgin/Mary Beatrice is surrounded by “Naked Sprawling Infants” and “Hares Engendering,” parasitic rather than nurturing images that disrupt the Thames, a traditional location for pageants proclaiming royal and national identity. Particularly worrying is the figure’s Catholic female agency as the “Nursing Mother, th’Infants We,” and Mary Beatrice’s cipher that appears next to that of the mistrusted Jesuit order.72 As 69 Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation, 451; Evelyn, Diary, 885. 70 Martin Beckman, A Description of the Royal Fireworks, Prepared for Celebrating the

Universal Joy, for the Inestimable Blessing Afforded by God… (London: s. n., 1688). 71 Weil, Political Passions, 95. 72 Bodl., MS. Rawl. Poet. 159, fos 15–18.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

139

mentioned, for Protestants the spectre of the Madonna evoked female power. Acting as intercessor between the faithful and God, the Virginturned-queen exerted power over her husband, diminishing links between the king and his subjects.73 For a Catholic consort, the Virgin was an appropriate model of queenship; for Protestants, she indicated the dangers of a Catholic succession. Mary Beatrice deliberately cultivated connections with the Virgin’s fertility in her artistic patronage. Her commissioning of artworks in England and France is virtually unanalysed as part of her cultural programme, yet evinces religious, dynastic, and queenly identity.74 Similarly to Henrietta Maria and Catherine of Braganza, Mary Beatrice took an aesthetic and semiotic interest in the decoration of her spaces: Antonio Verrio’s design for her “round banquetting roome or closett” at Windsor in 1686–1687 was “approved of by her Ma[jes]ty.”75 Dismissing her art commissions as “devotional rather than aesthetic” perhaps underplays the significance of Catholic art in a Protestant kingdom more recently acknowledged in relation to Henrietta Maria and Catherine.76 Like these predecessors, Mary Beatrice’s commissions highlighted motherhood through the Virgin and child. The Holy Family altarpiece by Benedetto Gennari for her St James’s oratory depicted Mary, St Joseph, and the Christ child (Fig. 6.7).77 Charlotte Maria, Mary Beatrice’s last living child as duchess, died at two months old in October 1682, the same year as the commission, which was likely ordered after Mary Beatrice’s return to London in May following

73 Dolan, Whores of Bablyon, 97, 131–133. 74 Previous engagements with these commissions include Edward T. Corp (ed.), La

Cour des Stuarts à Saint-Germain-en-Laye au Temps de Louis XIV (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1992); idem, The King Over the Water: Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile After 1689 (Edinburgh: Trustees of the Scottish National Galleries, 2001); Barclay, “Mary Beatrice,” 83–89; Tabitha Barber, “The Religious Interior,” in Tabitha Barber (ed.), British Baroque: Power and Illusion (London: Tate, 2020), 51–62; David Baldwin, “The Politico-Religious Usage of the Queen’s Chapel, 1623–1688” (MLitt, University of Durham, 1999), 147–149. 75 RA, SP/ADD/1/158. 76 Barclay, “Mary Beatrice of Modena,” 86; Erin Griffey, “Picturing Confessional Poli-

tics at the Stuart Court: Henrietta Maria and Catherine of Braganza,” Journal of Religious History 44 (2020), 467. 77 London list, no. 81, in Prisco Bagni, Benedetto Gennari e la Bottega del Guernico (Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1986), 155.

140

S. LYON-WHALEY

three years of semi-exile in Brussels and Edinburgh during the Exclusion Crisis. Even briefly, the painting and the pregnant/postpartum queen overlapped. In the painting, the Virgin reaches towards her child, her other hand moving to draw her garment away from her breast. The inclusion of the Madonna Lactans (the breastfeeding Virgin) in depictions of the Holy Family represented Mary’s and Joseph’s joint commitment to Christ’s care. In Gennari’s painting, Joseph assists the child reaching to be fed. Yet positioned before the altar, which displayed Christ’s body and blood, Cecelia Dorger argues that the breastfeeding Virgin engages with Christ’s rebirth in the Eucharist.78 The altarpiece in Mary Beatrice’s chapel thus signifies the nourishment of the child and the congregation, associating images of the Virgin, Mary Beatrice, and the Church. It takes on political resonance owing to the timing of its commission: not only when Mary Beatrice was pregnant, but when her husband’s place in the succession had just been confirmed. On becoming queen, Mary Beatrice commandeered St James’s public Catholic chapel, which Catherine had refused to relinquish to her in 1673. Prepared for Henrietta Maria and serving as a space for Catholics to celebrate in the heart of London, it drew Catholicism and royal authority together, particularly in the display of royal arms.79 Its paintings were “showpieces for the Catholic religion.”80 Mary Beatrice’s first commission for this space in 1686 was another altarpiece from Gennari of the Holy Family (Fig. 6.8), who are drawn together by gaze: St Joseph’s on a book (likely a Bible), and the Virgin and Christ’s towards him. The Bible substitutes the mother’s breastmilk, once again providing a backdrop for the ceremony of the Eucharist and expressing the role of mother and father in teaching their son. By extension, the newly crowned couple teach their congregation, alluding to the conversion of their realms. James’s collusion in Marian iconography is apparent. He ordered a scene of the Annunciation from Gennari in 1686 for his chapel at Whitehall, and a new altarpiece in time for the announcement of Mary Beatrice’s pregnancy at Christmas 1687, which Gennari described as a nativity. Immediately after, a bust of the Virgin copied from Mary Beatrice’s 1682 altarpiece

78 Cecelia Dorger, “Maria ‘Lactans’ in Depictions of the Holy Family,” Marian Studies 66 (2015), 227–228, 239–241. 79 Baldwin, “The Politico-Religious Usage,” 31, 147. 80 Barber, “The Religious Interior,” 51.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

141

Fig. 6.7 Benedetto Gennari, The Holy Family, 1682, oil on canvas. Birmingham Museums Trust, 1974P12 (Credit Photo by Birmingham Museums Trust, licensed under CC0)

was installed in the king’s sacristy.81 In essence, these paintings indicate the vision of monarchy the couple hoped to effect. Mary Beatrice’s

81 London list, nos. 132, 134, 161, in Bagni, Benedetto Gennari, 160–161.

142

S. LYON-WHALEY

1686 altarpiece showed the Virgin as “a traditional model of queenship with whom [she] closely identified.”82 It further emphasised her own Catholic motherhood. Her commissions publicise a commitment to nurturing heirs in the Catholic faith. It was in this chapel, perhaps before this very painting, that James Francis Edward was controversially baptised in October 1688—the first legitimate child of a king to receive Catholic baptism since the infant Mary I.83 Religious continuity stressed by the Holy Family, with its promise of Christ’s role as saviour, attained heightened resonance after the royal family’s flight to France in December 1688. When the prince was fifteen months old, Mary Beatrice commissioned a portrait of him for her rooms at the palace of St Germain-en-Laye; another copy was sent to an unspecified recipient in England (Fig. 6.9).84 Providing a likeness and claiming descent, the portrait was a political statement.85 The prince wears a white lace gown, his status magnified by the crimson curtain and cushion fringed with gold, and a plumed crown bearing the Prince of Wales’s motto, Ich Dien (“I serve”). The parrot perching on his hand has symbolic resonance as a messenger of revelation, frequently depicted in Renaissance art with the Virgin. A parrot’s raised foot—as appears here— indicated the conveyance of a message such as the annunciation.86 In this context, the parrot draws attention to the child’s—and by extension his mother’s—purity, continuing the association of both with the Virgin and Christ child. Another depiction of mother and son together, originally intended for James, was sent to Mary Beatrice’s brother Franceso II d’Este, duke of Modena, presumably to be put on show to his court and its visitors.87 These commissions manifested and were indeed part of her vigorous efforts for her husband’s and son’s restoration.

82 Barber, “The Religious Interior,” 53. 83 See Baldwin, “The Politico-Religious Usage,” 161–162. 84 “Nota autografa di Benedetto Gennari dei quadri eseguiti a St. Germain-en-laye dal

1689 al 1692” [St. Germain list], nos. 6, 7, in Bagni, Benedetto Gennari, 163. 85 Edward Corp, “Les peintres a la cour de Saint-Germain-en-Laye,” in La Cour des Stuarts, 106. 86 Heather Dalton, “A Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo in Fifteenth-Century Mantua: Rethinking Symbols of Sanctity and Patterns of Trade,” Renaissance Studies 28 (2014), 683–686. 87 St Germain list, no. 8, in Bagni, Benedetto Gennari, 163.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

143

Fig. 6.8 Benedetto Gennari, Sainte Famille, 1685, 240 × 188 cm. Palais Fesch-musée des Beaux-Arts, MFA 852.1.75 (Credit Palais Fesch-musée des Beaux-Arts)

An equal—if not greater—priority for the queen was her children’s religion. She attested to trying to baptise her children whilst duchess, and affirmed her belief they would not survive unless they were brought

144

S. LYON-WHALEY

Fig. 6.9 Benedetto Gennari, Portrait of the Prince of Wales, 1689, oil on canvas, 129.5 × 96.5 cm. Stonyhurst College (Credit By permission of the Governors of Stonyhurst College)

up Catholic.88 In France, she commissioned paintings of her family for the convent of Chaillot, founded by Henrietta Maria and occupied by nuns of St Francis de Sales’s order.89 A canvas begun by court artist Pierre Mignard before his death in 1695 and completed by Pierre Gobart

88 Falconer Madan, Stuart Papers Relating Chiefly to Queen Mary of Modena and the Exiled Court of King James II (2 vols, London: J.B. Nichols and sons, 1889), i, 462–463. 89 Cavelli, Les Derniers Stuarts, i, 59–62; St Germain list, no. 15, Bagni, Benedetto Gennari, 164.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

145

reportedly depicted James II directing the gaze of their daughter Louisa Maria (1692–1712) towards the figure of Religion.90 Religion’s open book displayed Psalm 45, calling a bride to her husband’s house, and Proverbs 21:1: “The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: hee turneth it whithersoever he will.”91 An angel carrying a chalice with a floating host must have resembled Gennari’s Faith (c. 1658) (Fig. 6.10). As James allowed himself to be led by God, so his daughter was encouraged to approach Christ’s house. A portrait that Mary Beatrice gifted to the convent in 1716 depicted the pair ascending into heaven and was displayed in the gallery alongside portraits of English and French royalty.92 Another portrait, possibly commissioned for Chaillot in 1699, portrays the Prince of Wales as a guardian angel leading his younger sister (Fig. 6.11).93 In all likelihood commissioned by Mary Beatrice, it testifies to the queen’s investment in strengthening and displaying her children’s faith. Portraits visualised Mary Beatrice’s ongoing role as a Catholic mother. A second painting Mary Beatrice gifted to Chaillot in 1716 depicted the queen as another Christian mother, St Helen, holding Christ’s cross, which she presented to her son James III as the emperor Constantine.94 St Helen was credited with finding the true cross as part of her son’s quest to establish a Christian empire. Henrietta Maria owned a relic of this cross, reportedly given to King Edward III, an object conflating English monarchy and Catholic piety that she kept during her exile in France.95 Another piece given to Mary, Queen of Scots by “a Pope” was sighted by Samuel Pepys when he visited the house, chapel, and monastery built at

90 Cavelli, Les Derniers Stuarts, i, 60. 91 King James Bible (London: Robert Barker, 1611), n. p. 92 Cavelli, Les Derniers Stuarts, i, 60. 93 Corp, King Over the Water, 44. 94 Cavelli, Les Derniers Stuarts, i, 60. 95 See Erin Griffey: “Personal Devotion, Political Investment and Emotional Optics: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Catholic Devotion,” Devotions, Objects and Emotions Symposium, University of Melbourne, 16 March 2018.

146

S. LYON-WHALEY

Fig. 6.10 Benedetto Gennari, Faith, c. 1658, oil on canvas, 95.8 × 78.2 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 405558 (Credit Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2022)

St James’s for Catherine’s friars in the mid-1660s.96 The possible reference to either in Mary Beatrice’s portrait highlights religious and dynastic continuity: a surviving fragment depicts the queen wearing the black and white head-covering of a nun, yet with a pearl necklace and low neckline of a Stuart widow.97 A popular literary tradition stated that Helen was the daughter of the English King Cole, “S. Helen our contry woman,” 96 The cross’s survival in England suggests that Mary may have received it from Pius V, Gregory XIII or Sixtus V after her imprisonment. 23 January 1667, in Robert Latham and William Matthews (eds), The Diary of Samuel Pepys (11 vols, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), viii, 26. 97 Reproduced in Corp, King Over the Water, 52.

6

CONTESTING CATHOLIC MOTHERHOOD: MARY BEATRICE …

147

Fig. 6.11 Alexis-Simon Belle, Prince James Francis Edward Stuart with his sister, Princess Louisa Maria Theresa, 1699, oil on canvas, 188.1 × 131.5 cm. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 401175 (Credit Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2022)

so Mary Beatrice’s comparison with St Helen had dynastic as well as political import.98 These notably fine works of art highlight Mary Beatrice’s commitment to her faith, her children, and subjects, investing the figure of the Madonna on the water with an active role in the birth of the Prince 98 Richard Broughton, The Ecclesiasticall Historie of Great Britaine Deduced by Ages… (Douai: s. n., 1633), 217.

148

S. LYON-WHALEY

of Wales in 1688 and fully confirming Frances Dolan’s claim that she was the last Stuart queen to act as an “active agent” for Catholicism.99

Conclusion Mary Beatrice may have been “the good Catholic girl who had wanted to retreat from the world to the simple certainties of a convent,” but that she did not—even after James’s death—highlights her religious and political motivations.100 Two weeks before she gave birth to Louisa Maria in 1692, she wrote to the mother superior of Chaillot that she was “languishing waiting for the time of my delivery … I tremble with fear, but I wish that the child would come, so as not to tire myself and all the rest of the world in this expectation.”101 These words present a queen aware of “all the world” looking at her. The last portrait of Mary Beatrice with her son (two years before her death in 1718) could almost be seen as passing on her “cross” (the one she wrote of carrying as a duchess newly arrived in England) to her son. It conveyed her firmness in her faith, and portrayed her son as the Christian emperor of Britain, asserting Catholicism and the Stuart cause to the last.

99 Dolan, Whores of Babylon, 153. 100 Barclay, “Mary Beatrice,” 81. On putting off her retirement, see Haile, Queen Mary

of Modena, 434. 101 14 June 1692, to the Reverend Mother Catherine Priolo, in Madan, Stuart Papers, i, 15. Author’s translation.

CHAPTER 7

Mary II, Panegyric and the Construction of Queenship Edward Taylor

Introduction The queenship of Mary II (1689–1694) had the most complex character of all later Stuart queenships. To begin, its very existence was contested: it was founded on the tumults of the Glorious Revolution, when Mary’s husband, William of Orange, invaded England and deposed her father, James II. However, it was also indispensable for the new regime that her hereditary right to succeed, as James’s daughter, should be recognised, as this was critical for soothing Tory consciences that were uneasy about the Revolution. This itself cut against a parallel need to de-emphasise Mary’s queenship, to ensure William appeared as a full executive king, not merely his wife’s subordinate. The tension between these two impulses lay behind the revolutionary settlement’s innovative solution of a dual monarchy

E. Taylor (B) University College London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_7

149

150

E. TAYLOR

that nevertheless accorded William sole executive power, leaving Mary’s queenship suspended ambiguously between the traditional models of queen regnant and queen consort.1 After 1689, Mary’s queenship was then further complicated by William’s frequent absences abroad, when she formally served as queen regent—a third model of queenship. An additional difficulty is how to relate these various formal models to Mary’s actions in practice as queen, which included directing ecclesiastical appointments, spearheading a national programme of moral reform, taking executive decisions as regent, and presiding over court ceremonial.2 Any queenship can be understood in terms of both representation and reality—how a queen is depicted and what a queen does both contribute to a queenship’s “character”—and the peculiar circumstances of Mary’s reign made her queenship peculiarly multi-dimensional. A useful perspective for navigating these nuances can be found in one of the primary vehicles through which Mary’s queenship was constructed and transmitted: panegyric poetry.3 Panegyric was praise poetry, often highly formalised and traditional in style. A ubiquitous literary mode in early modern Britain, it was a defining medium for writing or speaking to, or about, monarchs, which made it integral to monarchical culture. Well-known royal panegyrists included Sir Thomas More (for Henry VIII), Walter Haddon (for Elizabeth I), Ben Jonson (for James I), and John Dryden (for Charles II and James II), but every monarch

1 A good summary is: ODNB, sub “Mary II (1662–1694), queen of England, Scotland,

and Ireland,” (article by W. A. Speck). 2 For Mary’s active queenly roles, see Melinda Zook, “History’s Mary: The Propagation of Queen Mary II, 1689–1694,” in L. O. Fradenburg (ed.), Women and Sovereignty (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992), 170–91; Robert O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 30–33; Tony Claydon, William III and the Godly Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 70–71; Speck, “Mary II”; Richard Price, “An Incomparable Lady: Queen Mary II’s Share in the Government of England, 1689– 94,” Huntington Library Quarterly 75 (2012), 307–326; Melinda Zook, Protestantism, Politics, and Women in Britain, 1660–1714 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 125–160. 3 For this characterisation of panegyric, see James Garrison, Dryden and the Tradition

of Panegyric (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); Paulina Kewes and Andrew McRae (eds), Stuart Succession Literature: Moments and Transformations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019); Victoria Moul, A Literary History of Latin & English Poetry: Bilingual Verse Culture in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), esp. chs 4 and 9.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

151

attracted substantial panegyric attention.4 Panegyric provides an especially helpful perspective on early modern monarchy because—despite its appearance of being, very often, no more than mere flattery and deliberate misrepresentation—it moved in various ways across the boundary between representation and reality. Partly, it was intended to instruct monarchs, establishing models for emulation; embodying this function, panegyrics were often presented to them directly as books or performances. More importantly in practical terms, panegyrics also mediated between monarchs and subjects, transmitting models of monarchy to wider audiences, usually with the conservative intention of building, or at least constructing the appearance of, harmony between ruler and the ruled. Reality might also shape representation, as panegyrics included refracted versions of monarchs’ “real” actions. In addition, it should be emphasised that panegyric was usually an instrument of political action, designed to be presented in public, not of private reflection. This included a strong oral dimension, as panegyrics were read aloud and sung in court, universities, chapels, playhouses, coffeehouses, and streets, and panegyrics appeared widely in print, which both signalled and maximised their public reach. Panegyric, therefore, provides invaluable perspectives on the construction, operation, projection, and consumption of early modern monarchy. The Glorious Revolution inaugurated the last great age of panegyric in Britain.5 Panegyric’s elevated, conservative style was perfect for casting a dignified veil over the Revolution’s disruptions and contradictions, smoothly repackaging the unconventional as conventional. Within the wider landscape of pro-Revolution panegyric, Mary, in particular, attracted substantial attention from panegyrists due to her essential, but complex, function for the regime.6 Viewed through this lens, this essay 4 For example, this is discussed in Garrison, Panegyric, 69–95 (More, Haddon, Jonson), 141–257 (Dryden). 5 See for example Abigail Williams, Poetry and the Creation of a Whig Literary Culture, 1681–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 93–134; Kevin Sharpe, Rebranding Rule: The Restoration and Revolution Monarchy, 1660–1714 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013), 353–408; John West, “‘A Great Romance Feigned to Raise Wonder’: Literature and the Making of the 1689 Succession,” in Kewes and McRae (eds), Stuart Succession Literature, 114–131. 6 See esp. Lois Schwoerer, “Images of Queen Mary II, 1689–95,” Renaissance Quarterly 42 (1989), 717–748; Zook, “History’s Mary”; Claydon, Godly Revolution, 93–100; Williams, Whig Literary Culture, 121–124; Elaine Phillips, “Creating Queen Mary:

152

E. TAYLOR

argues that Mary’s queenship developed in two stages. In 1689, when the foremost need was to consolidate the Revolution, panegyrists focused on promoting the abstract model of limited queenship established in the settlement, developing various themes that deftly reconciled her superior hereditary right with her secondary political role. After 1689, they reflected and shaped her evolving queenship in practice by fleshing out her role as an active domestic queen, especially as moral reformer and regent. Before the main discussion, some general observations should be made about panegyric in late seventeenth-century Britain. One characteristic, often underestimated, is that panegyric was composed in both Latin and English, in a literary culture that was strongly bilingual; indeed, what follows is partly offered as a case study for an integrated discussion of poems in both languages, as Latin is often overlooked in accounts of early modern poetry.7 Most panegyric was “occasional”: written for “occasions” such as coronations, marriages, victories, and funerals. The panegyric mode occupied various verse genres and forms. There were long poems in a lofty and often classicising style, usually in Latin hexameters or elegiac couplets or English heroic couplets, and frequently printed as pamphlets. These were explicitly part of a literary tradition reaching back to two Roman models—Pliny the Younger’s prose panegyric to Trajan and (especially) Claudian’s verse panegyrics to Honorius, Stilicho, and other late Roman figures—and transmitted through the Renaissance Latin of Erasmus, More, and others into a bilingual Latin-English phenomenon in the seventeenth century.8 An associated form was court odes.9 In the decades after 1660, there gradually developed an annual programme of official odes, written by the poet laureate, set to music Textual Representations of Queen Mary II,” Restoration 37 (2013), 61–75; Sharpe, Rebranding Rule, 383–385; Hannah Smith, “Court Culture and Godly Monarchy: Henry Purcell and Sir Charles Sedley’s 1692 Birthday Ode for Mary II,” in Justin Champion, John Coffey, Tim Harris and Peter Marshall (eds), Politics, Religion and Ideas in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Britain: Essays in Honour of Mark Goldie (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2019), 219–238. 7 The key work changing this picture is Moul, Literary History, drawing on the Leverhulme-funded project, “Neo-Latin Poetry in English Manuscript Verse Miscellanies, c.1550–1700” (KCL/UCL, 2017–2021), on which I held a post-doctoral fellowship. 8 Garrison, Panegyric; Moul, Literary History, ch. 9. 9 Rosamond McGuinness, English Court Odes, 1660–1820 (Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press, 1971); Smith, “Court Culture”; Leo Shipp, The Poets Laureate of the Long

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

153

and performed at court at New Year and the monarch’s birthday. They were usually shorter than pamphlet poems and were part of a broader panegyric ode tradition, usually written in Latin lyric metres, such as sapphics, or English Pindarics.10 Another important site for panegyric was printed verse anthologies issued by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge for occasions such as coronations and royal funerals.11 These poems were mostly in Latin, although often with a shorter concluding section in English, and were composed by university men at all levels from undergraduate to Vice-Chancellor. They included some odes and longer poems, but were primarily epigrams, a genre of short and witty poems widely written in both Latin and English.12 In addition to these “formal” panegyrics, a holistic characterisation of panegyric should also include panegyric ballads, which were simpler in style but often contained similar themes. Panegyric was a broad, organic phenomenon that included some poems embedded in court culture, but many others written and consumed entirely beyond the court: this is not simply a story of court “propaganda.” Nevertheless, one important question is what role the queen herself played in panegyric written about her. For the court odes, direct influence is possible: a well-known story about her 1692 birthday ode indicates that she influenced Henry Purcell’s accompanying music—he incorporated the tune of the ballad “Cold and Raw” into his composition after witnessing Mary’s enjoyment of this song—and their authors were court figures who would have known Mary personally.13 Most panegyric, however, was unconnected with Mary—apart, perhaps,

Eighteenth Century, 1668–1813: Courting the Public (London: Royal Historical Society, 2022). 10 Moul, Literary History, ch. 4. 11 Stella Revard, “The Latin Ode from Elizabeth I to Mary II: Political Approaches

to Encomia,” in Charles S. F. Burnett and Nichola Mann (eds), Britannia Latina: Latin in the Culture of Great Britain from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century (London: Warburg, 2005), 156–69; Henry Power, “‘Eyes Without Light’: University Volumes and the Politics of Succession,” in Kewes and McRae, Stuart Succession Literature, 222–240. 12 See esp. James Doelman, The Epigram in England, 1590–1640 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016). 13 Smith, “Court Culture,” 219.

154

E. TAYLOR

from the indirect influence of Mary’s wider efforts to establish the character of her queenship as dutiful, pious, and moralising.14 In a way, Mary was already her own panegyrist, building an idealised queenship through her conduct, so it is unsurprising that the queenship constructed through panegyric broadly aligned with Mary’s own views and actions, irrespective of any direct connection. Even the most unofficial panegyrics usually shared the court’s essential direction, such that panegyric overwhelmingly functioned collectively, in practice, to bolster the regime in public.

1689: A Limited Queen Mary’s queenship was established between February and April 1689 through a series of events: the quasi-parliamentary Convention’s decision to settle the crown as a dual monarchy (6 February), Mary’s arrival in London after returning from the Netherlands (12 February), William and Mary’s accession via their acceptance of the crown at Whitehall (13 February), the coronation (11 April) and—important for her queenship specifically—Mary’s birthday ceremonies at Whitehall (30 April).15 The formal status of Mary’s queenship was determined through constitutional debates between William and the Convention, which culminated in Tory efforts to establish her as sole queen regnant being rejected in favour of a compromise model of limited queenship, suspended between regnant and consort. However, her queenship’s public character was as much a product of the media through which it was transmitted as of the constitutional settlement. Panegyric played a key role in this process. Early 1689 witnessed a substantial wave of panegyric: various individual printed panegyrics; printed verse anthologies from Oxford and Cambridge; many supportive ballads for the accession and the coronation; and a birthday ode for Mary that was performed at Whitehall.16 The latter aside, these

14 See esp. Zook “History’s Mary;” Claydon, Godly Revolution. 15 A good account is Tim Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy,

1685–1720 (London: Allen Lane, 2006), 308–363. 16 University of Oxford, Vota Oxoniensia Pro Serenissimis Guilhelmo Rege et Maria Regina M. Britanniæ &c. Nuncupata… (Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1689) and University of Cambridge, Musæ Cantabrigienses, Serenissimis Principibus Wilhelmo et Mariæ Angliæ Franciæ & Hiberniæ Regi ac Reginæ (Cambridge: Ex Officina Joann. Hayes, 1689), referred to here as “Oxford anthology” and “Cambridge anthology.”

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

155

were not official panegyrics, but they overwhelmingly supported and explicated the settlement’s model of limited queenship. Overwhelmingly, but not entirely: a few early panegyrics, before the settlement was fully established, took a different perspective, transmitting more maximal representations of Mary’s queenship that tended towards the rejected Tory model of sole queen regnant. One ballad, composed before Mary’s return to England, anticipated her enthronement as the legitimate, divinely ordained queen who would secure Protestantism: May Angels conduct her along, she being next Heir to a Throne, To nourish Religion and Laws, ordain’d by the Heavens Decree, Defending the Protestant Cause, the glory of Britain to be.17

Another ballad depicted Mary, carried to England by a Protestant wind to provide “Royal Aid,” receiving her subjects’ submission: “She’s now Great-Brittains Royal Queen, / the Church and Faiths Defender.”18 Both ballads appropriated for Mary the language of divine mission that was usually associated with William. How far their divergence from the settlement’s model of limited queenship represented early “popular” ideas or defiant Tory interpretations is impossible to judge, but certainly their approaches were unusual, and did not persist after the settlement had stabilised. In a different, but equally unusual, way, Aphra Behn agonised about the settlement from a Tory perspective in her own poem about Mary’s return. Although Behn accepted the Revolution, this was based solely on the hereditary right of Mary, “Whose Eyes… give Laws, / Command the Word, and justifie the Cause.” She addressed Mary thus: The Murmering World till now divided lay, Vainly debating whom they shou’d Obey, Till You Great Cesar’s Off-spring blest our Isle,

17 Anonymous, Great Britains Earnest Desires for the Princess Marys Happy Arrival (London: s. n., 1689). 18 Anonymous, The Princess Welcome to England, Being, the Unanimous Joy of Her Loyal Subjects (London: s. n., 1689).

156

E. TAYLOR

The differing Multitudes to Reconcile[.]19

This had already been superseded by events, so Behn’s poem reflects wistfulness or defiance about a failed Tory model, not a serious attempt to reshape events. Within the wider body of panegyric that operated with the grain of the settlement, various themes were developed through which the model of limited queenship was defended and elaborated. These sometimes cut in slightly different directions, but collectively served to smooth over difficult aspects to present Mary’s queenship in conservative, conventional terms. Before examining these, one theme that is surprisingly not very prominent should briefly be noted: that is, of a Protestant queenship. The new regime was strongly associated with Protestantism, but Mary’s queenship in particular was not usually constructed through panegyric in Protestant terms. This was simply because the primary requirement of panegyric, in relation to Mary, was to consolidate her status as the linchpin of the Revolution’s acceptability, not to provide additional representational support for its Protestantism. In this vein, the first major panegyric theme was to present Mary’s hereditary right in ways that deftly decoupled it from any idea that she ought properly to be sole queen regnant. One poem on the accession, for example, used the genre of psalm paraphrase to offer a reinterpretation of Psalm 45, praising an Israelite king (who stands for William) and his Egyptian-born bride (Mary), who had rightly rejected the mistaken customs of her father, the pharaoh (James). Paraphrasing the psalm’s tenth verse (“Hearken, O Daughter, and consider! Incline thine Ear! forget also thine own People and thy Fathers House!”), for instance, the poem addresses the queen thus: O Egypt’s Glory once! now Salem’s [i.e. Jerusalem’s] Pride! Incline thy Royal Ear! […]. Let no fond Thoughts for Egypt still remain! Let Pharaoh and all his Gods forgotten be!20

19 Aphra Behn, A Congratulatory Poem to Her Sacred Majesty Queen Mary, Upon Her Arrival in England (London: s. n., 1689), 4, 6. 20 Anonymous, A Poem on the Accession of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange to the Imperial Crown of England, Being a Paraphrase on the 45 Psalm (London: s. n., 1689), 3.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

157

Mary might be the heir of a king—who had foreign, Egyptian (i.e. Catholic) ways—but her status as queen derived from marrying a divinely favoured, Israelite (i.e. Protestant) king: a useful biblical model for rationalising away any maximal implications of Mary’s hereditary right. Other poems asserted a balance between Mary’s right as James’s heir and alternative sources of legitimacy that applied to William. One lengthy coronation panegyric made a comparison with Henry VII’s marriage to the Yorkist princess Elizabeth as only one source of legitimacy for the Tudor dynasty: “Like our Seventh Henry you’ve of Titles choice, / Succession, Marriage, War, the Peoples Voice.”21 Another coronation panegyric sidestepped Mary’s superior hereditary right by emphasising that William and Mary were equally “Descended from Great CHARLES’s Line,” as grandchildren of Charles I.22 A poem by Thomas Dunster in the Oxford anthology suggested another balanced formulation: “He claims the crown by merits, she by birth” (“Vendicat Hic meritis, natalibus Illa coronam”). Mary was rightfully queen, but William was also rightfully king; harmonious panegyric style was perfect for expressing both claims simultaneously and brushing away any contradictions.23 Another panegyric solution to the possible implications of Mary’s hereditary right was to represent her queenship in terms of what might be described, paradoxically, as “active passivity.” Mary was depicted as a kind of “first cause” for William’s kingship: her right allowed the Revolution to happen, but she then chose to take a step back and let William govern. Panegyric was, again, ideal for expressing this formulation, as its elevated style could plausibly present Mary floating loftily over the Revolution in a way polemic, for example, might struggle to do. Thomas Rymer, a Whig poet and critic who would be appointed historiographer royal in 1692, composed a poem on Mary’s arrival in this vein. Rymer presented Mary as a goddess who delivered the kingdom from “Vice” and “Despair,” but then presided serenely while William assumed executive power: She turns the mighty Machine of Affairs, Strikes Harmony throughout the jangling Spheres: [...] 21 Anonymous, A Poem on the Coronation of King William and Queen Mary (London: s. n., 1689), 10. 22 Francis Crake, A Congratulatory Poem Upon the Coronation of William and Mary King and Queen of England (London: s. n., 1689). 23 Vota Oxoniensia, sig. F1v. All Latin translations are my own.

158

E. TAYLOR

With Godlike State, above Mechanick sway, She sits, and sees the second Causes Play; [...] The Active Part Her Mighty Consort takes; And, for the Weal of Humane Kind He wakes.24

Thomas Shadwell, a prominent Whig playwright and poet who would shortly be appointed poet laureate, used his own poem on Mary’s arrival to praise her as the means for obtaining William: “we, with Her, have won the Great Nassau, / Whose Sword shall keep the Papal World in awe.”25 An epigram in the Oxford anthology by William Woodyear presented Mary’s majesty being enhanced by her decision to yield power to William: Ipsa licet totam meritis Regina Coronam Vendicat, & sceptris sufficit una suis, Nobilior patrios cum Conjuge miscet Honores, Et socio Regni gaudet, ut ante Tori. Quam cedis, Maria, Viro, Tibi gloria crescit, Et titulis fulges Conjugis atque tuis.26 [Even though the queen herself has a claim to the entire crown by merit, and suffices for her sceptres alone, she more nobly mixes her ancestral honours with her husband, and rejoices in the partner of her kingdom, as before of her bed. As you give way to your husband, Maria, so your glory increases, and you gleam with the titles of your husband and yourself.]

A variation was the idea that it was Mary who had originally urged William to intervene in England. For example, Gregory Parry’s ode in the Cambridge anthology, Ad Reginam (“To the Queen”), addressed Mary as the “saviouress of her yearning homeland” (“Prægestienti Sospita patriæ”) for “charmingly seeking bountiful prosperity and gentle peace for the English” (“almam Anglis salutem / Blanda petens placidamque pacem”) and thereby encouraging William to bring this about.27 24 Thomas Rymer, A Poem on the Arrival of Queen Mary, Feb. the 12 th , 1689 (London: s. n., 1689), 2. 25 Thomas Shadwell, A Congratulatory Poem to the Most Illustrious Queen Mary Upon Her Arrival in England (London: s. n., 1689), 5. 26 Vota Oxoniensia, sig. T1v. 27 Musæ Cantabrigienses , sig. D3v.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

159

Panegyrics also supported Mary’s limited queenship by elaborating on the kind of queen that she should be. One model was of a queen regnant who was overtly feminised, and therefore unthreatening to William’s kingly status. This was prominent in The Queens Arrivall, a long poem by Henry Beeston in the Oxford anthology that represented Mary as a national mother (“She also has Two Children, Church and State… / Ages to come will think it Less t’ have been / Queen-Mother, then a MotherQueen”), and a national healer (“now we have a Ladies Hand / Another kind of Contrectation / To supple, soften, sweeten, heal our Land”).28 Similarly, queenly healing powers were cited as the reason for the Revolution’s perceived bloodlessness in Thomas Newey’s Ad Reginam, in the Oxford anthology: “you soothe furious heats of minds and fierce spirits, and you order the hearts of the Britons to soften” (“Tu sævos animorum æstus, & atrocia mulces / Pectora, Brutigenumque jubes mitescere corda”). A prominent aspect of these representations was making queenly parallels, a common feature of panegyric style. Newey, for example, held that Britannia “burns with desire to submit herself again to womanly sceptres” (“Fæmineisque ardet se iterum submittere sceptris ”), as she “recognises much of Boudicca in you, and much of Eliza” (“Multam in Te Boadiccam, & multam agnoscit Elizam”).29 Elizabeth I was, naturally, the primary positive example of an English queen regnant. As an active queen, however, she presented difficulties for panegyrists in 1689, so was simply invoked generically as an exemplar of good queenship: “Glorious Eliza is in her improv’d: / More lovely, as virtuous, and as much belov’d;” “What will not England hope from such a Reign? / In You, her lov’d Eliza lives again;” “In her the Fair, and Chast Eliza Reigns;” “O greatest ruleress, may Eliza yield to you!” (“Optima Regnatrix, cedat Eliza Tibi!”); “the age of unconquered Eliza is restored!” (“indomitæ renovantur Tempora Elizæ!”).30 Classical and biblical parallels of feminised leadership were also cited. A young Joseph Addison’s poem for the Oxford anthology, for example, presented Mary as “this second wise Pallas, [who] wounds with her beauty” (“sapiens hæc altera Pallas […] forma […] vulnerat Illa”).31

28 Vota Oxoniensia, sigs U1r–X1r. 29 Ibid., sigs E2r–F1r. 30 Poem on the Coronation, 14; Musæ Cantabrigienses , sig. b3v; Vota Oxoniensia, sig. Y1r; Musæ Cantabrigienses, sig. G2r; Vota Oxoniensia, sig. O2r. For Boudicca, see below. 31 Vota Oxoniensia, sig. O2v.

160

E. TAYLOR

More pointedly, The Protestants Ave Mary deployed the Virgin Mary as a model of queenship by neatly reapplying each element of the Catholic “Hail Mary” hymn to Mary II, before acclaiming her: “Thus we, to our Great MARY , pay our Hails… She will hold (guided by th’ Hand of GOD) / The Dovelike Scepter, not an Iron Rod.”32 Queenly parallels were not always precise, but one of panegyric’s strengths was its ability to dignify such representations. An alternative panegyric model for how Mary should act as queen was to present Mary’s queenship as folded into a unified dual monarchy, a harmonious arrangement that allowed Mary to remain queen regnant and William to retain full authority by aligning her wholly with him. A typical example is a poem in the Oxford anthology by Samuel Barwick that addressed William and Mary as a “bless’d pair, both equal, both divine” and an “Auspicious Pair: Joynt Guardians of our Isle.”33 An ode by Thomas Littleford in the Cambridge anthology used Latin second-person plurals to emphasise their unity: Sceptra, quæ vobis, Solio vacante, Sunt data à Divis, teneatis annos Nestoris, dextro Jove, Gulielme, Tuque MARIA. Vestra conservet Britonas Potestas; Nec sinat Gallos dominari inultos: Adsit & Vobis, Dominis, Ierne Supplice voto.34 [May you hold the sceptres, which were given to you by the gods when the throne was vacant, for all the years of Nestor, with Jupiter’s favour – William and you, MARIA. May your power protect the Britons, and not allow the French to dominate unavenged, and may Ireland support you, Lords, with a vow of submission.]

32 Anonymous, The Protestants Ave Mary, on the Arrival of Her Most Gracious Majesty, Mary, Queen of England (London: s. n., 1689). 33 Vota Oxoniensia, sigs X2v–Y1r. 34 Musæ Cantabrigienses , sig. F1v.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

161

Some poems took the theme of unity to its natural conclusion: Thrice happy pair: whom ev’n a very Crown (That source of all divisions) renders one, So jointly one, that England seems to me, Ev’n while two reign to be a Monarchy.35

A classical parallel often cited here was Juno: Mary was “the other glory and hope of your kingdom, a Juno who holds command equally with Jupiter” (“Tui decus & spes altera regni, / Quæ par imperium cum Jove Juno tenes ”), and “Jupiter rules the heavens and Juno the stars” (“Jupiter æthereas regit & Saturnia stellas ”).36 Juno was the wife of Jupiter, king of the gods, and could also be presented as his co-ruler, which lent her easily to being cast as a queen who encapsulated Mary’s own balanced queenly status. A final theme of queenly panegyric in 1689 was to emphasise Mary’s consort-like features as a supportive wife and potential mother. This was another familiar, conservative image, although risked being in tension with Mary’s formal status as queen regnant, so was often presented alongside the model of co-rulership. A good example is a long poem by John Conold, in the Cambridge anthology, that mentions Mary in a single couplet: “May the queen make you [William] father of a secure line, she who shines equally as your partner in command and marriage” (“Regina indubiâ faciat Te Prole Parentem, / Quæ nitet Imperii par Thalamique comes ”).37 Henry Downes’s Pindarick Ode acknowledged Mary simply as: Mary Mary Mary Mary

the her the the

Beauteous Royal Bride! Sex and Nations Pride! Partner of your Bed and Throne! brightest Jewel in your Crown!38

35 Vota Oxoniensia, sig. X2r. 36 Ibid., [1], sig. F1r. 37 Musæ Cantabrigienses , sig. K3v. 38 Vota Oxoniensia, sig. Y1r.

162

E. TAYLOR

Sometimes Mary’s wifeliness was depicted in passive terms—“Your Royal Consorts heavenly prayers / Her groans and sighs and tears”—but she also emerged less meekly through the image of William submitting to Mary through love. One coronation poem, for example, described William as “Th’ Unconquered Prince, that did mankind subdue, / Yeilded, when he first fix’t his Eyes on you.”39 This accorded Mary dignity while keeping her queenship within acceptable bounds. All of these panegyric themes were transmitted through “formal” panegyrics. Their overall effect was paralleled in panegyric ballads, but with Mary’s queenship constructed through a far simpler mixture of representations. Balladeers often sang of William and Mary as equal co-rulers, as in this stanza from a coronation ballad: Then let’s spare for no cost, since the day is our own, And great William and Mary right heirs to the Throne Who throughout the Nation hath popery pul’d down; Then bid’em thrice welcome to Englands brave Crown Let the Conduits run wine and the Bells ring for joy, In the crowning of William and brave Queen Mary.40

Where ballads elaborated on Mary, she was presented as William’s consort, and descriptions focused generically on her feminine virtues. One accession ballad, for example, included a stanza about Mary that began, “May Royal Queen Mary his Consort live long, / For ever be Fruitful, and ever be Young.”41 Another coronation ballad praised “Royal Queen Mary whose looks are Divine” and who was “Far brighter than e’re was the Goddess of Love,” bidding that “Her Charms ever last and admit no delay.”42 By blending representations of co-rulership and consortship, the ballads transmitted a queenship suspended between regnant and consort: the balance intended by the settlement and found in formal panegyrics, 39 Vota Oxoniensia, sig. 2Z2r; Thomas Rogers, Lux Occidentalis: Or Providence Display’d, in the Coronation of King William and Queen Mary… (London: s. n., 1689), 17. 40 Anonymous, Englands Happiness in the Crowning of William and Mary (London: s. n., 1689). 41 Anonymous, The Kingdoms Joy for the Proclaiming King William and His Royal Consort Queen Mary in the Throne of England (London: s. n., 1689). 42 Anonymous, Englands Holiday, or, the Nations Joy for the Happy Coronation of, King William, and His Royal Consort Queen Mary (London: s. n., 1689).

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

163

but without resorting to the complex range of themes developed in the latter. Mary was simply slotted into conventional representations of a monarch and a royal wife, which served just as well. On Mary’s twenty-seventh birthday, 30 April 1689, her first official birthday ode, Shadwell’s “Now Does the Glorious Day Appear,” was performed before the king and queen at Whitehall.43 Shadwell’s ode encapsulates the thematic range of 1689 panegyric. He represented Mary as a first cause of the Revolution—her birthday “did the hope of Liberty retrieve,” and “On this blest day was our Restorer born”—while rendering her queenship acceptably feminised: By beauteous softness mixt with Majesty, An Empire over every Heart she gains, And from her awful Power none could be free She with such Sweetness and such Justice Reigns[.]44

William, meanwhile, was a military hero yielding to her in love: Her Hero too, whose Conduct and whose Arms The trembling Papal World their Force most yield Must bend himself to her victorious Charms, And give up all the Trophies of each Field.45

Finally, Elizabeth was cited as a generic example of female rule: No more shall we the great Eliza boast, For her Great Name in Greater Mary’s will be lost.46

Shadwell’s ode was the culmination of a feverish three months of panegyric, while Mary’s queenship was being formed. Through a creative mixture of representations—contextualising her hereditary right, “first

43 For Mary’s six birthday odes, together with Purcell’s scores, see Bruce Wood, ed., Henry Purcell: Birthday Odes for Queen Mary, Part One (London: Novello, 1993); Part Two (London: Novello, 1998). 44 Wood, Purcell, Part One, p. xix. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid.

164

E. TAYLOR

cause” queenship, feminised rulership, co-rulership, and consortship— panegyric provided substantial support and explication for the unusual model of limited queenship determined in the revolutionary settlement.

1690–1694: A Domestic Queen Although Mary’s queenship was established by mid-1689, its character was not fixed. The most significant development over subsequent years was Mary’s regencies. For forty per cent of her reign (thirty-two out of seventy months, in six periods between 1690 and 1694), Mary formally assumed the role of queen regent, granted under the 1690 Regency Act, while William was in Ireland or on the continent: “whensoever and so often as it shall happen that his Majesty shall be absent out of this realm of England it shall and may be lawful for the Queen’s Majesty to exercise and administer the regal power and government of the kingdom.”47 Mary presided over a council of experienced men who wielded much of the regency’s power in practice, and she referred important decisions to William, but recent scholarship has demonstrated that she did exercise executive powers herself.48 In addition, Mary actively promoted the Church, Protestants and the reformation of manners by issuing proclamations against debauchery and blasphemy, redesigning moral and religious life at court, making latitudinarian ecclesiastical appointments, and supporting Protestants abroad. Together with Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, the regime’s chief propagandist, she made this central to the public image of her queenship to present the regime as divinely favoured and providentially ordained.49 Mary also emerged as the regime’s main ceremonial figure, due to William’s reluctance to engage with ceremony and his frequent absences.50 As a result, Mary’s queenship in practice quickly evolved beyond the settlement and representations of 1689. Panegyric continued to play a key role in the public construction of her queenship. But where the 1689 panegyrics primarily worked to explicate the settlement’s model of limited queenship, later panegyrics also responded to these changing circumstances, incorporating new political

47 Quoted in Speck, “Mary II.” 48 For recent assessments of Mary’s regencies, see ibid.; Price, “Incomparable Lady.” 49 See esp. Claydon, Godly Revolution, 70–71, 93–100; Zook, Protestantism. 50 See esp. Bucholz, Augustan Court, 30–33.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

165

needs and realities into her queenship while retaining a conservative, conventional air. This complex negotiation between representation and reality resulted in panegyrists building on the abstract themes of 1689 to develop a fleshed-out model of domestic queenship: of Mary as an active and effective ruler of domestic affairs. At the heart of the panegyric landscape in these years was the drumbeat of court odes: three a year, for both monarchs’ birthdays and New Year. There were also other formal panegyric occasions, such as a performance of Richard Brome’s Jovial Crew before the king and queen at Whitehall on 15 November 1689 that included a verse prologue by future poet laureate Nahum Tate, and a welcome song sung before them at London’s Guildhall on 29 October 1692.51 There was also a continuing flow of individual printed formal panegyrics and panegyric ballads, and another university anthology, issued by Oxford to commemorate William’s return from Ireland in September 1690.52 Mary’s five birthday odes between 1690 and 1694 provide a good starting point for the shifting panegyric construction of her queenship. Thomas D’Urfey’s 1690 ode, “Arise My Muse,” still presented a passive and generic Mary, focusing on William’s impending absence in Ireland.53 However, she appeared more prominently in the 1691 ode, “Welcome, Welcome, Glorious Morn,” which celebrated the idea that, when William went abroad, “undisturb’d his happy Consort Reigns, / And wisely rules the kingdoms he maintains.” Performed shortly before William’s departure for the continent, this enshrined Mary as a confident queen regent, although it also emphasised her return to a passive, wifely role on his return: “Maria then shall all her Cares unbend, / And she shall still adorn and he defend.”54 Sir Charles Sedley’s 1692 ode, “Love’s Goddess Sure Was Blind,” elucidated Mary’s role promoting virtue at home: “May her

51 Nahum Tate, The Prolouge [sic] to King William and Queen Mary at a Play Acted Before Their Majesties at Whitehall on Friday the 15th of November, 1689 (London: s. n., 1689); Anonymous, A Welcome Song, Perform’d to the King and Queen, at Guild-Hall, October 29. 1692 (London: R. Everingham, 1692). 52 University of Oxford, Academiæ Oxoniensis Gratulatio Pro Exoptato Serenissimi Regis Guilielmi Ex Hibernia Reditu (Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1690), referred to here as the “Oxford anthology.” 53 Wood, Purcell, Part One, xx–xxi. 54 Ibid., xxii–xxiii.

166

E. TAYLOR

blest Example chace / Vice in troops out of the Land.”55 Her virtue was not a passive quality of her character, but an active force with reforming potential. Nahum Tate’s 1693 ode, “Celebrate This Festival,” returned to the theme of Mary’s regency. Tate addressed Britain thus: “CAESAR bears thy Toils of War, / MARIA thy Domestic Care: / Their’s the Trouble, Thine the Blessing.” He further developed the idea of Mary’s virtue as an active influence—“to Disarm approaching Harm, / Repeat MARIA’s Name”—and anticipated William being restored “to MARIA’s Arms.”56 Finally, Tate’s 1694 ode, “Come Ye Sons of Art Away,” emphasised Mary’s virtues and prayers as aspects of her queenly role during her regencies. After claiming that “Maria’s royal zeal / Best instructs you how to pray,” he added: These [prayers] are the sacred charms that shield Her daring Hero in the field: Thus she supports his righteous cause; Thus to his aid immortal power she draws.57

These odes encapsulate the development of a range of new themes that were elaborated in panegyric after 1689. These can now be examined in more detail. The first new panegyric theme was of a queenship that embodied and actively promoted virtue in Britain, as found in Mary’s 1692, 1693, and 1694 birthday odes. This is the theme that features most prominently in recent scholarship about Mary. Tony Claydon has argued that “courtly reformation,” a discourse of godly and moral renewal centred on the monarchy, was the primary theme of court propaganda, with Mary as its agent and symbol.58 Abigail Williams and Hannah Smith have built on this idea to identify Mary’s emergence as a “queen of reformation,” a model that gave her a public queenly role, beyond consortship, that nevertheless protected William’s authority.59 As it was driven from the centre, this theme was especially prominent in court odes. Besides Mary’s birthday odes, it featured, for instance, in the New Year odes of 1693 55 Wood, Purcell, Part Two, xxiii. 56 Ibid., xxiv–xxv. 57 Ibid., xxvi. 58 Claydon, Godly Revolution. 59 Williams, Whig Literary Culture, 121–124; Smith, “Court Culture.”

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

167

(“Ye Graces that resort / To Virtue’s Temple blest MARIA’s Court, / With Incense and with Songs as Sweet”) and 1694 (“Nor of Success can we despair, / Arm’d with his Vertue and her Pray’r”).60 It can also be found elsewhere, such as John Hampden’s The Rising Sun, a long panegyric commemorating Mary’s birthday in 1690. In Hampden’s rendering, Mary instituted a moral and virtuous court that contrasted with its Restoration predecessors: No Scandal, no Offence within her Walls: Under her Care and Conduct all that falls Admits no blemish, all things are secure Under her vig’lant Eye, and all things pure.61

She was also personally charitable and pious: Is any Sick, Distressed, Lame, or Poor? Their natural resort is to her Door. Where Limbs, and Health, and Succor they all find, So like her Saviour’s in her pious Mind[.]62

However, although moral queenship was an important theme, especially in court panegyric, it was not so prominent in post-1689 queenly panegyric more widely. Instead, panegyrists placed greater emphasis on exploring another aspect of Mary’s queenship: her regencies. Mary’s regencies, as featured in the 1691 and 1693 birthday odes, were central to the construction of Mary’s queenship from 1690. Mary was commonly represented as a successful domestic ruler while William was abroad. A typical formulation can be found in a poem written for William’s birthday on 4 November 1690: And Britain all this while is happy seen, Beneath the peaceful Rule of her bright Queen: Whilst her great King his Armies does employ 60 Nahum Tate, An Ode Upon the New-Year, Performed Before Their Majesties (London: s. n., 1693); The Gentleman’s Journal, or, The Monthly Miscellany (London: s. n., Jan–Feb 1694), 5–7. 61 John Hampden, The Rising Sun: Or, Verses Upon the Queens Birth-Day (London: s. n., 1690), 6. 62 Ibid., 7.

168

E. TAYLOR

In Conquering Scepters for his Queen to Sway.63

This was sometimes depicted in surprisingly martial terms, especially in connection with the 1690 Franco-Jacobite invasion attempt, which— despite the defeat at Beachy Head, subsequent invasion panic and French raid on Teignmouth—was presented by panegyrists as a moment of queenly triumph, as the French failed to follow up their early successes. However, where they explored this, panegyrists were also careful to continue casting Mary’s queenship in feminine terms that did not threaten William’s kingship. George Fleming’s epigram in the Oxford anthology, for example, used a Latin feminine form when concluding that “she is a victoress at home, and he a victor overseas” (“Illa domi victrix, victor & ille foris ”).64 Other panegyrists deployed paradoxical formulations: Humphrey Henchman’s poem in the same volume described Mary as a “helmeted Venus” (“galeata Venus ”).65 They also developed longer descriptions of Mary’s martial queenship. A poem by James Annesley, third earl of Anglesey, described Mary’s heroism in encouraging resistance to the invaders: In medios multo venit Ipsa satellite campos, Incipit & roseo fortius ore loqui: Ipsa alacres fidens hortatur in arma Catervas. Auspiciisque jubet bella movere suis. Talis ad attonitas stetit olim interrita ripas Themodoontæi Penthesilea vadi: Talem jam timide rediturus Iberus Elisam Castra inter medium Tilburiana stupet.66 [She comes into the middle of the camps with many attendants, and with rosy countenance begins to speak bravely. Trusting in them, she urges the eager crowds into arms, and bids them make war according to her will. Such an undaunted Penthesilea once stood at the stunned banks of the

63 Anonymous, Poems on Affairs of State: From Oliver Cromwell to This Present Time. Written by the Greatest Wits of the Age…Part III… (London: s. n., 1698), 70. 64 Gratulatio, sig. 5F2v. 65 Ibid., sig. T2r. 66 Ibid., sig. B1r.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

169

River Thermodon; now the Spaniard is to return home in fear, astonished at such an Eliza in the midst of the camp at Tilbury.]

Like the Amazon Penthesilea and the great Elizabeth, Mary was a warrior queen. She followed her rallying cry by laughing at the storms sent against her (“In se equidem missas risit Regina procellas ”), triumphing over the weather as over her enemies.67 As Anglesey’s poem indicates, representations of Mary’s regencies included developments in the use of queenly parallels. Elizabeth was now specifically invoked as a martial figure, as Elizabeth and Mary could both be represented as having dispersed foreign, Catholic, and seaborne threats. Mary’s status as a “second Elizabeth” (“altera Elisa”) in this sense was much repeated, including in the opening contribution to the Oxford anthology by Jonathan Edwards, the Vice-Chancellor, which presented Mary as “more beautiful and no less brave” than her predecessor (“Pulchrior Hæc, & non fortior Illa fuit ”).68 Elizabeth featured alongside another queen in a poem by George Meggott: Dumque foris pugnas, Gallorumque agmina sternis, Pro nobis vigilet pulchra Maria domi. Ipsa satis virtutem, animosque ostendit avitos, Cum stetit in nostris Gallica classis aquis. Quid Boadicca æquum? quid majus fecit Elisa, Agmina cum nostro mersit Ibera freto? 69

[And while you fight overseas and lay waste to French forces, beautiful Maria is watchful for us at home. She displays enough courage and ancestral spirit when the French fleet is stationed in our waters. What equal task did Boudicca accomplish? What more did Eliza do, when the Spanish forces sank in our seas?]

Boudicca was useful because, as a poem by Matthew Morgan explained, Mary was “another Boudicca [who] struck a Roman people” (“Altera 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., sig. 7F2r; sig. A2v. 69 Ibid., sig. U2r.

170

E. TAYLOR

Romanam pepulit Boadicia gentem”): where Boudicca fought Romans, Mary fought Roman Catholics.70 In a different poem, Morgan invoked another anti-Roman queen: So in Zenobia Palmyra’s Queen, Valour and Ingenuity were seen: In Person she her thick Battalions led Like Pallas, born out of the Thunderer’s Head: She with fierce On-sets did the Romans vex, Yet still retain’d the Softness of her Sex[.]71

Zenobia, queen of Palmyra in Syria and leader of a successful invasion of the eastern territories of the Roman Empire during the third century, was another queen who could be depicted as both feminine and martial, besides making possible the obvious Rome/Catholicism link. She was therefore another useful—if somewhat implausible—model for Mary in her post-1689 guise. An important aspect of the panegyric construction of Mary’s regencies was that they were bounded: the product of necessity, beyond her natural feminine abilities, and time-limited. This was important for affirming, as elsewhere, the ultimate primacy of William’s kingship, but also enhanced her own impressiveness for having fulfilled her role as regent so successfully. A poem in the Oxford anthology by a young Ambrose Philips, later a famous Whig poet, represented Mary speaking to William on his return: Ast Ego, per tantos motus, quod Fœmina possit Imbellisque manus, feci; Tu solus habenis Angliacis par Rector ades; sic fata, resignat Illa libens charo solium & sua sceptra Marito.72 [“But I, amid great disturbances, did what a woman and a peaceful hand could: you alone are a ruler suitable for English reins.” Having spoken thus, she freely returns the throne and her sceptres to her dear husband.]

70 Ibid., sig. E2v. 71 Matthew Morgan, A Poem to the Queen, Upon the King’s Victory in Ireland, and

His Voyage to Holland (Oxford: s. n., 1691), 32. 72 Gratulatio, sig. 4F1r.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

171

Mary was also a reluctant regent in a 1691 panegyric by Thomas D’Urfey, burdened by “weighty pressure of a Crown; The Peoples satisfaction not her own.”73 A useful classical parallel was Phoebe, goddess of the moon, as in John Lloyd’s epigram Ad Mariam Reginam (“To Queen Mary”), which began thus: Qualiter aurato cum Phœbe juncta marito, Illa minor, solis lumine mersa latet; Adstans tota tamen solaribus obvia flammis, Lampade tum rutilans splendidiore micat.74

[As when Phoebe is joined to a golden husband, she, being lesser, hides immersed by the light of the sun, but when she stands entirely in the way of solar flames, then reddens and gleams with splendid light...]

The image of the moon combined the idea of real power for Mary during William’s absence (with the sun down and the moon visible) with its disappearance during his presence (with the sun up and the moon invisible): an effective, elegant panegyric veneer for the shape of her queenly role as regent. A final new theme of post-1689 panegyric developed Mary’s role as queen consort. Building on her earlier construction as a wife and potential mother, later panegyrics elaborated a specific wifely role for Mary relating to William’s time overseas: lamenting his departures, worrying about his absences, and welcoming his returns. Panegyrics dwelled on the moments of separation and reconciliation between king and queen, and on the queenly emotions, fluctuating between anguish and joy, that these elicited. One poem featuring all of these emotions was Maria Gulielmo (“Mary to William”), by Robert Hesketh, in the Oxford anthology. It began with Mary praying for William’s return: O! Si vota Tuæ valeant, Gulielme, Mariæ, Anglorum aut possint vota valere, redi […] Sanguinei recolo si forte pericla Boandi, Heu! Miseræ, reditus spes mihi nulla manet.75 73 Thomas D’Urfey, A Pindarick Poem on the Royal Navy (London: s. n., 1691), 8. 74 Gratulatio, sig. F2v. 75 Ibid., sig. 6F1r.

172

E. TAYLOR

[O William, if the prayers of your Maria should avail, or if the prayers of the English could avail, return! ... If I happen to think over the dangers of the bloody Boyne, alas! – no hope of your return remains for me, and I am wretched.]

It ended with both Mary and the country as a whole rejoicing at his homecoming: Sed valuere preces; rediit: gaudete, Britanni, Et renovet plausus Anglia læta suos. Quæ, Britones, quæ me pertentant gaudia? vitam Una dies vobis, & dedit una mihi.76

[But the prayers have succeeded: he has returned. Rejoice, Britons, and let jubilant England renew her applause. What joys seize the Britons, what joys seize me? A single day has given life to you, Britons, and to me.]

In part, poems like this simply fleshed out Mary’s role as a loyal wife. But they also cast Mary’s queenship more broadly as a point of contact between king and people, with the queen leading and reflecting the nation’s reactions to William’s absences. This gave Mary’s domestic queenship an additional role in anchoring the monarchy at home when William was away. Together, these themes contributed to the public construction of a more active model of domestic queenship. As in 1689, the complex representations of formal panegyrics were reflected in simpler ways, but with similar effect, in panegyric ballads. These still used broad representations of co-rulership and consortship, but also reflected on changing circumstances, especially Mary’s regencies, and presented her in less generic terms. Ballads were composed especially at moments of royal separation and reconciliation, often represented directly as dialogues between the monarchs. Sometimes, Mary’s queenship appeared in wholly passive form. The Royal Farewel (1690), for instance, described the king explaining his need to travel to Ireland and the queen weeping as she tried to prevent their parting. She referred, hopelessly, to the “Distractions and Contests at home and abroad, / which are, for a Woman, too heavy a load,” but ultimately gave in: “Then sighing, the Queen in his Arms he did 76 Ibid.

7

MARY II, PANEGYRIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION …

173

take,” as a “modest & meek” queen.77 A different tone was taken in The Royal Resolution (1690), a ballad on the same occasion, in which William explained: While I leave the Realm, at the Royal Helm, Thou my Lady shall placed be; For to Rule and Reign, Justice to maintain, the Subject’s Law and Liberty[.]78

Mary, silent for most of the poem, responded in the final stanza simply by wishing him well. Ballads marking the reconciliation of king and queen after his return from Ireland also took contrasting approaches. The Joy of Protestants (1690) depicted her passively: “his Consort the Queen / She did with unspeakable Joy him receive, / Her Monarch, for whom she so often did grieve.”79 Conversely, The Courtly Salutation (1690) had the queen welcoming William to resume direct rule: Lay by thy weary Armour bright, and take thy Sceptre, Crown and Ball And with thy Nobles take Delight, thou art King, and Lord of all[.]80

In all cases, however, Mary’s queenship was constructed with the primary function of contextualising William’s kingship, both by framing his journey and by temporarily assuming the regency in his absence. In this way, the ballads worked alongside formal panegyrics to advance the developing public representations of Mary’s queenship after 1689. Through a cluster of new themes—active moral queenship, feminised and sometimes martial regency, point of contact between king and nation during 77 Anonymous, The Royal Farewel: Or, a Conference Between Their Present Majesties King William & Queen Mary on Their Parting… (London: s. n., 1690). 78 Anonymous, The Royal Resolution: Or, His Majesty’s Taking Leave of the Queen, at His Departure from the Court for the Expedition of Ireland (London: s. n., 1690). 79 Anonymous, The Joy of Protestants for King William’s Safe Arrival from the Wars of Ireland, to His Gracious Queen (London: s. n., 1690). 80 Anonymous, The Courtly Salutation: Or, the Royal Greeting Between K. William and Q. Mary at His Return From the Irish Wars to His Princely Pallace (London: s. n., 1690).

174

E. TAYLOR

William’s absences—panegyrics shifted towards constructing Mary in less abstract terms as a domestic queen, reflecting the evolution of the actions and needs of her queenship in the years following the settlement.

Conclusion Mary II, the only British queen who was queen regnant, queen consort, and queen regent, had a significance greater than the brevity of her reign might suggest. Mary’s queenship was the linchpin of the Glorious Revolution, providing a veneer of legitimacy to the transfer of power from father to husband that was essential for the new regime’s survival. One of the key vehicles for the public construction of her queenship was panegyric poetry, whose conservative forms were perfect for making the unconventional appear conventional. Through court odes, pamphlet poems, university anthologies, and ballads, in English and Latin, at and beyond the court, a rich body of panegyric was composed to bolster Mary’s queenship in public. In 1689, the establishment of Mary as an innovative kind of limited queen, balanced between the traditional roles of regnant and consort, was accompanied by rich poetic augmentation that explicated and smoothed over the new arrangement. Later, panegyrics shifted towards constructing her as an effective domestic queen by incorporating developments in her queenship in practice, especially relating to moral reform and her regencies, and repackaging them in conventional forms for public consumption. Panegyric was an integral part of early modern monarchical culture and, amid the complexities of postRevolution Britain, imbued Mary’s queenship with meaning and support throughout her reign—and, indeed, beyond. The potency of panegyric about Mary II is perhaps best demonstrated by the way that Mary’s death from smallpox on 28 December 1694, aged only thirty-two, prompted an extraordinary outpouring of panegyric verse, greater than for any individual occasion during her life. This accorded her queenship a kind of posthumous poetic presence that reflected its continuing importance as a legitimising force for the post-1689 regime, even after Mary herself had departed the stage.81

81 See for example Schwoerer, “Images,” 741–746; Phillips, “Creating Queen Mary,” 68–71; Zook, Protestantism, 203–205.

CHAPTER 8

World of Interiors: Mary II, the Decorative Arts, and Cultural Transfer Amy Lim

Introduction When fifteen-year-old Princess Mary was informed on 21 October 1677 of her forthcoming marriage to her cousin William, Prince of Orange, twelve years older than her, five inches shorter, and so physically unattractive that her sister Anne nicknamed him “Caliban,” she was distraught, crying all evening and the following day.1 Mary’s distress was not only at the prospect of marriage to such an unappealing partner, but also of parting from her beloved home country. Four weeks later, on the day of her departure for Holland, she “wept grievously all the morning,” and when her stepmother, Mary Beatrice, duchess of York, attempted 1 ODNB, sub “Mary II (1662–1694), queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland” (article by W. A. Speck).

A. Lim (B) University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_8

175

176

A. LIM

to comfort her, reminding her that she too had taken up the role of consort in an unfamiliar country, the princess retorted, “But, madam, you came into England; but I am going out of England.”2 Eleven years later, contemplating her return to England as queen, Mary’s feelings had reversed, and the sorrow she felt was now for the loss of her adopted homeland. She confided in her memoir: I did not sleep the whole night, but lay thincking [sic] how much I should suffer in leaving a place where I knew how happy I could be, I knew the persons and way of living, I had some reputation in that condition which I did not know if I could maintain in my own country where I was now grown a perfect stranger […] all this together made me very loath to leave Holland.3

Ironically, it was Mary’s deep affection for her husband, as well as her pious sense of duty, that steeled her determination to put her personal feelings aside and face the challenges that lay ahead. Mary was returning under unique circumstances to take up the English throne as co-monarch with her husband, after the forced abdication of her father, King James II.4 Since James’s accession in 1685, his open profession of the Catholic faith, policy of religious tolerance, and increasing use of the royal prerogative had alienated large sections of society.5 The birth of a male heir on 10 June 1688, her half-brother James Francis Edward Stuart, raised the prospect of a perpetual Catholic succession, precipitating the events of the so-called Glorious Revolution. At the invitation of a small group of nobles and senior clergy, William, Prince of Orange landed on the south coast of England on 5 November 1688, and after key members of the elite deserted the king, including his own

2 Edward Lake, The Diary of Dr Edward Lake, Chaplain and Tutor to the Princesses Mary and Anne in the Years 1677–78, (ed.) George Percy Elliott, Camden Miscellany 1 (London: Camden Miscellany, 1846), 9. 3 R. Doebner (ed.), Memoirs of Mary, Queen of England (Leipzig: Veit & Co., 1886),

7. 4 William and Mary’s accession to the Scottish throne was offered separately. She was also queen of Ireland, but since she never visited Scotland or Ireland, this chapter is confined to Anglo-Dutch connections. 5 Tim Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London: Allen Lane, 2006), 30.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

177

daughter Princess Anne, he fled England for France.6 A parliamentary convention was assembled to settle the future of the monarchy, and after bitter debates (over which the prospect of a return to civil war loomed ominously), William was offered the crown in an unprecedented joint monarchy with his wife Mary.7 Although both possessed Stuart blood (William was the grandson of Charles I), Mary’s claim to the throne was more direct than her husband’s, and her position as co-monarch rendered his kingship more palatable to many sections of English society. However, Mary ceded executive power to her husband, though she ruled as regent during William’s annual absences on campaign, a role she undertook reluctantly but competently.8 She thus returned to England nominally as queen regnant but de facto as consort. By bringing new materials and ideas from their homelands to their marital courts, consorts made an important contribution to the cultural life of early modern courts. In their survey of the cultural contributions of queens consort, Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton have emphasised how they acted as conduits of cultural transfer, helping to create and promulgate a pan-European court culture that transcended national boundaries.9 Consorts introduced their native culture through their dress, the luxury goods they brought with them, their foreign entourage, their patronage of artists, musicians, and writers, their religious practices, their customs, and sometimes an entire cultural philosophy.10 Watanabe-O’Kelly and Morton proposed that consorts can be broadly grouped in three categories: agents, who actively facilitated cultural transfer; instruments in the hands of others; or catalysts, around whom change coalesced.11 Following their model, this chapter argues that after eleven formative years spent in the Netherlands, Mary acted as an agent of 6 ODNB, sub “James II and VII (1633–1701), king of England, Scotland, and Ireland”

(article by W. A. Speck). 7 ODNB, sub “William III and II (1650–1702), king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and prince of Orange” (article by Tony Claydon). 8 Speck, “Mary II.” 9 Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer

and European Politics c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2017), 1. 10 See Erica Veevers, Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) for Henrietta Maria’s practical philosophy of the hônnete femme. 11 Watanabe-O’Kelly and Morton, Queens Consort, 3.

178

A. LIM

cultural transfer between the Orange-Nassau and Stuart courts through her patronage of the decorative arts. Mary followed three generations of foreign queens consort, each of whom left their own mark on English court culture. Anna of Denmark, Henrietta Maria of France, Catherine of Braganza in Portugal, and Mary Beatrice d’Este of Modena in Italy contributed to the cosmopolitanism of the court through their patronage of writers, architects, musicians, and artists, and through the goods and practices they brought with them. Many of these practices were synonymous with their Catholic faith (of the last three), which was of greater import than their nationality.12 In the 1660s, the circle of Catholic courtiers around Catherine of Braganza patronised her favoured portrait painter Jacob Huysmans to express their allegiance to the queen, by aligning themselves with her distinctive visual aesthetic.13 When Mary of Modena commissioned Italian artist Benedetto Gennari to paint altarpieces of The Holy Family for her private oratory and later the Queen’s Chapel at St James’s Palace, these devotional images exalting the sainthood of the Virgin Mary added fuel to the flames of anti-Catholic fears14 (see Fig. 6.7 above). The display of goods brought from a consort’s court of origin served as visible reminders of their international connections. The extravagant French furnishings in the Whitehall apartments of Charles II’s mistress Louise de Kéroualle, duchess of Portsmouth, implied her continuing close links with the court of the French king Louis XIV, while the porcelain, lacquer, tea, and textiles in Catherine of Braganza’s trousseau were the product of Portugal’s domination of the East India trade, and specifically the ownership of the strategic port of Bombay, which in itself formed part of her dowry.15 By the mid-seventeenth century, European domination 12 Clarissa Campbell Orr, “Introduction,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain 1660–1837 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 8. Anna of Denmark was Lutheran, the others Catholic. However, in practice, queens could demonstrate a degree of flexibility in their faith. For example, see Albert Loomie, “King James I’s Catholic Consort,” Huntington Library Quarterly 34 (1971), 303–316. 13 David A. H. B. Taylor, “The Restoration Court,” in Tabitha Barber (ed.), British

Baroque: Power and Illusion (London: Tate, 2020), 37. 14 Tabitha Barber, “The Religious Interior,” in Tabitha Barber (ed.), British Baroque: Power and Illusion (London: Tate, 2020), 52; and see Susannah Lyon-Whaley’s chapter in this volume. 15 E. S. de Beer (ed.), Diary of John Evelyn, Volume IV : Kalendarium, 1673–1689 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 343.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

179

of the East India trade had passed from Portuguese to Dutch hands and, as we shall see, these Asian imports subsequently became associated with the House of Orange-Nassau.16 However, there were significant differences between Mary II and previous Stuart queens (and mistresses). She was English by birth, and thus familiar with English court culture, and she was a firm Anglican by confession, traits that helped to make her personally popular.17 Consequently, as this chapter will argue, her tastes in the decorative arts, although characteristically Dutch, were readily adopted by the English elite beyond her immediate circle, helping to form a bridge between the two cultures. On acceding to the throne in 1689, Mary became not only the first (nominal) queen regnant but also the first English queen since the death of Elizabeth I in 1603. However, she and William had acceded to the throne under highly controversial circumstances, and their position continued to be contested throughout their reign. Her husband’s kingship (and to a lesser extent, her own) was openly rejected by some of their subjects, and tolerated by others as a necessary evil.18 Even some of William’s most prominent supporters, such as William Cavendish, fourth earl of Devonshire, were personally ambivalent towards the king.19 Besides the king’s Dutch nationality, his close circle of Dutch supporters, natural taciturnity and dislike of ceremony did not endear him to the

16 John Ayers, Oliver Impey and J. V. G. Mallet, Porcelain for Palaces: The Fashion for Japan in Europe 1650–1750 (London: Oriental Ceramic Society, 1990), 16. 17 Julie Farguson, Visualising Protestant Monarchy (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2021), 313–314. Mary II’s predecessor as queen, Mary Beatrice of Modena, was devoutly Catholic and consequently viewed with suspicion. When duchess of York, she and her husband were advised to leave England for several months during the anti-Catholic hysteria following the Popish Plot of 1678. See ODNB, sub “Mary [Mary of Modena] (1658–1718), queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, consort of James II and VII” (article by Andrew Barclay). 18 A sizeable minority of nobles and clerics refused to swear the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. Among them were William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury and eight other bishops, and John Cecil, fifth earl of Exeter. For the difference between non-jurors and Jacobites (supporters of the exiled James II and his descendants) see Tim Harris, Politics under the later Stuarts (London: Longman, 1993), 12. For the nobility’s lukewarm support of William, see Amy Lim, “For Politics, Progresses, or Posterity? Some Alternative Reasons for Building State Apartments,” in Joan Coutu, Peter Lindfield and Jon Stobart (eds), Politics and the English Country House, 1688–1800 (Montreal & Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2023), 28–46. 19 Ibid.

180

A. LIM

English aristocracy.20 Mary’s English birth, Anglicanism and personal popularity offered a significant opportunity to create support for the new Orange-Stuart monarchy through her cultural practices.21 Together with her husband, the luxurious material environment she created in their royal palaces contributed to a visual splendour that, as Andrew Barclay has argued, was “not mere self-indulgence. Royal magnificence was used by them as a calculated attempt to be taken seriously as monarchs, both at home and abroad.”22 Nor were her everyday activities without significance. The tea-drinking and basset-playing with which the queen occupied her time with were not mere frivolity but a cultural praxis that served to forge and reinforce bonds with the English courtiers.23 In the five short years of her reign, until her early death from smallpox in December 1694, Mary used her patronage of the decorative arts to create a model of Anglo-Dutch queenship that would, she hoped, form the foundation of a future Orange-Stuart dynasty. Unfortunately, childlessness and early death ultimately rendered this redundant. Historians, especially Dutch historians, have for some time argued for the necessity of considering the reign of William and Mary from an Anglo-Dutch perspective. Esther Mijers and David Onnekink considered aspects of William’s rule on both sides of the channel, while Hanneke Ronnes and Merel Haverman argued that William’s and Mary’s architectural patronage must be assessed by considering their Dutch and English works as an entirety.24 Recently, Julie Farguson has posited that on their

20 Claydon, “William III and II.” 21 See Farguson, Visualising Protestant Monarchy for a detailed discussion of William

and Mary’s use of art and ceremony to this end. 22 Andrew Barclay, “William’s Court as King,” in Esther Mijers and David Onnekink (eds), Redefining William III (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 252. 23 Gambling was an established aspect of English court culture. Sebastian Edwards, “‘Very Noble, tho’ not Greate’: The Making of a New Court for William, Mary and Anne,” in Olivia Fryman (ed.), Kensington Palace (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2018), 69. In both England and the Dutch Republic in the late seventeenth century, tea-drinking was associated with elite female sociability and court circles: Markman Ellis, Richard Coulton and Matthew Mauger, Empire of Tea: the Asian Leaf that Conquered the World (London: Reaktion Books, 2015), 38. 24 Mijers and Onnekink, Redefining William III ; Hanneke Ronnes and Merel Haverman, “A Reappraisal of the Architectural Legacy of King-Stadholder William III and Queen Mary II: Taste, Passion and Frenzy,” Court Historian 25 (2020), 158–177.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

181

move to England, “in ceremonial terms, beneath a mask of Stuart tradition, a hybrid form of court culture emerged that reflected William’s and Mary’s Dutch experiences.”25 Specifically relating to the decorative arts, the 1988 international exhibition “Courts and Colonies” emphasised the interconnectedness of Dutch, English, and French court culture under William and Mary, while the catalogue of the 2020 “Koninklijk Blauw” exhibition in The Hague, which addressed Mary’s patronage of delftware, included contributions from English scholars on the display and reception of delftware in the palaces and aristocratic houses of England.26 However, scholarship on Mary’s patronage of the decorative arts in England has been principally driven by individual properties, and as such, has neglected the overarching theme of the Dutch influence on her English interiors.27 As this chapter demonstrates, Mary’s English palace interiors were strongly influenced by the tastes she had developed while furnishing her Dutch palaces. Consequently, her interiors helped to materially visualise the new Anglo-Dutch monarchy, forming a bridge between the two dynasties.

Mary II’s Interiors in the Netherlands and England On leaving England as a young bride in 1677, Mary had probably not expected to live in her homeland again, and certainly not under such circumstances. Although she was then second in line to the throne, it was by no means certain that either her uncle Charles II, or her father James, then duke of York, would not have an heir who would take precedence. During her eleven years in the Dutch Republic, she assimilated into the culture of the House of Orange-Nassau, developed friendships with Dutch aristocrats, and grew to feel a sincere affection for her husband and his homeland.28 The Orange-Nassau court was far removed from 25 Ronnes and Haverman, “Reappraisal of the Architectural Legacy;” Farguson, Visualising Protestant Monarchy, 96. 26 Reinier Baarsen (ed.), Courts and Colonies: The William and Mary Style in Holland, England, and America (New York (NY): Cooper Hewitt Museum, 1988); Suzanne Lambooy (ed.), Koninklijk Blauw (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 2020). 27 For example, Simon Thurley, Hampton Court: A Social and Architectural History (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003); Fryman, Kensington Palace. 28 Doebner, Memoirs of Mary, 7.

182

A. LIM

the ceremony and licentiousness of the court of Charles II, in which she had spent her childhood and early adolescence. This is not to say that it was austere, despite William’s Calvinism. As Olaf Mörke has shown, the princes of Orange used a large courtly retinue and magnificent material surroundings to augment and uphold their position among the European noble elite. Despite ruling within a republic, they maintained a household of around 200–220 people, similar to those of a medium-sized German princely court.29 Nevertheless, while in the Netherlands, William and Mary had enjoyed a relatively informal and rural life, eschewing their urban residences in favour of country houses, which the Dutch believed to be beneficial to both physical and spiritual health.30 This preference for rural over urban residences would continue in England, where the royal couple spent little time at Whitehall Palace, preferring to reside at Hampton Court and the newly-acquired Kensington House, away from the smoke-laden air of Whitehall.31 During their Dutch years, the Prince and Princess of Orange developed a mutual interest in the applied arts as they purchased, built, and renovated a large portfolio of properties, part of William’s strategy to extend his political influence beyond Holland into the eastern provinces of Utrecht and Gelderland.32 Among other projects, they extended the living quarters at the Binnenhof (site of the offices of the States General and their official residence in The Hague), renovated their hunting lodge at Dieren, commissioned drawings for renovations at Honselaarsdijk, renovated Castle Breda, and purchased Huis ten Bosch in the outskirts of The Hague, former residence of William’s grandmother, Amalia van Solms-Braunfel.33 One of their biggest schemes was the purchase of the hunting lodge of Paleis Het Loo in the Veluwe, where they built a new palace adjacent to the old castle, and laid out formal gardens in the latest fashion. A second phase of works was carried out at Paleis Het Loo in

29 Olaf Mörke, “William III’s Stadholderly Court in the Dutch Republic,” in Mijers and Onnekink, Redefining William III , 229–230. 30 Farguson, Visualising Protestant Monarchy, 94–95. 31 Ibid. 32 Mörke, “William III’s Stadholderly Court,” 235. 33 Ronnes and Haverman, “Reappraisal of the Architectural Legacy,” 163.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

183

1692–1694, though these were supervised remotely from England, and Mary never returned to the adopted country she had grown to love.34 Once in England, the royal couple carried out a similarly extensive programme of rebuilding and refurbishing their royal residences, in which Mary was closely and actively involved. The first of these was the completion of the new lodgings at Whitehall Palace created for Queen Mary of Modena but never fully occupied before her exile.35 However, William’s asthma and the royal couple’s preference for rural living prompted the purchase in June 1689 of Nottingham House, three miles west of Whitehall, from Daniel Finch, second earl of Nottingham. Renamed Kensington House, it was remodelled and extended by Sir Christopher Wren. The initial phase of building works, which took place between 1689 and 1694, included a large suite of private apartments for the queen, comprising a gallery, drawing room, bedchamber, dressing room, and closets.36 Simultaneously, William and Mary commissioned Wren to build a substantial new wing at Hampton Court, the execution of which was largely overseen by the queen during her husband’s absences on the continent during the military campaign season.37 Pending its completion (which was not effected until after her death), Mary also commissioned Wren to remodel a former Tudor water gate in the grounds of Hampton Court into a private retreat known as the Water Gallery.38 It was in this small, detached building that she created one of the most extraordinary and influential interiors of the late-seventeenth century, described by Daniel Defoe as “the pleasantest little thing within doors that could possibly be made.”39 Its exact form is uncertain, since William ordered

34 Ibid. 35 Simon Thurley, Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments,

1240–1698 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 137–141. 36 Lee Prosser, “A Patch’d Building, but … a very sweet villa,” in Fryman, Kensington Palace, 54–56. 37 Mary’s architectural commissions at Hampton Court are also covered extensively by Emily Birch in chapter eight of this volume. 38 Later known exclusively as the Water Gallery, it was interchangeably described in Wren’s building accounts as the Water Gallery and Thames Gallery. “Hampton Court Palace, 1689–1702: Original Wren Drawings from the Sir John Soane’s Museum and All Souls collections,” The Wren Society Volume IV (Oxford: Wren Society, 1927), 25–53. 39 Daniel Defoe, A Tour thro’ the Whole Island of Great Britain, Volume I, Letter III (3 vols, London: G. Strahan, 1724–27), i, 6.

184

A. LIM

its demolition soon after Mary’s death, but on the first floor was a gallery with a balcony opening onto the Thames, in which hung eight full-length “Beauty” portraits by Sir Godfrey Kneller of the ladies of the Queen’s court. Beyond this was another large room off which were four small drawing rooms or closets, each decorated in a different manner, with lacquer, mirrors, and needlework panels under glass.40 On the ground floor there was a bathing room with hot and cold running water, a bedchamber and anterooms, and a dairy. It is evident from account books and Mary’s memoirs that it was the queen herself who was responsible for directing the furnishing of her apartments.41 The Royal Wardrobe registers of orders and bills identify which items were destined for her various apartments. Her commissions included beds, wall hangings, chairs, and other upholstered furniture; cabinets, writing tables, tea tables and mirrors; tapestries, and pictures. In addition, the survival of those bills that were outstanding at her death shows that she also paid for furnishings directly from her Privy Purse, as well as through the Royal Wardrobe, which thus belonged to her personally, rather than to the crown.42 She greatly enjoyed this aspect of queenship, and regularly admonished herself for taking “to[o] much in the convenience of my house and neatness of my furniture,” admitting that “good lodgings” constituted one of her chief vanities.43 Although some aspects of the king’s and queen’s apartments were similar—both shared a taste for French-influenced designs—in other aspects, Mary’s were quite different from those of her husband. In particular, her apartments were filled with large quantities of Asian porcelain and lacquer and delftware, and Sebastian Edwards has observed that the density of furnishings in her apartments was much greater than in those of the king.44 Both the king and queen shared a preference for a French, courtly aesthetic in their interiors, but one with a particularly Dutch slant.

40 Ibid.; Celia Fiennes, Through England on a Side Saddle: in the Time of William and Mary… (London: Field & Tuer, 1888), 47. 41 TNA, LC 9/279 & LC9/280; BL, Add. MS 5751A; Doebner, Memoirs of Mary, 43–44. 42 BL, Add. MS 1571A. 43 Doebner, Memoirs of Mary, 43–44. 44 Edwards, “‘Very Noble, tho’ not Greate’,” 72.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

185

Jonathan Israel noted a distinct increase in the influence of French culture on the Orange-Nassau court in the third quarter of the seventeenth century, part of an attempt to increase the standing and prestige of the House of Orange-Nassau within the international courtly network.45 Although France was the lodestar of courts and elites across Europe, including the English courts of Charles II and James II, the OrangeNassau interpretation of French court culture was mediated through a number of influential individuals, principally French Huguenots, who had migrated to the Dutch Republic in the 1680s to escape religious persecution. Chief among these was Daniel Marot, an engraver who had worked with French court designers Jean le Pautre and Jean Bérain.46 After his migration to the Netherlands in 1686, he was employed by William and Mary as their principal court designer, for whom he worked until William’s death in 1702, playing an important role in designing the interiors at Paleis Het Loo, as well as designing other interiors, gardens, and state banquets and celebrations.47 After the Glorious Revolution, Marot spent some time in England, and although the degree of his contribution to the royal works remains a matter of debate, he was certainly involved in designing some elements of the royal palaces and gardens.48 Mary employed Daniel Marot and his brother Isaac Marot on both sides of the channel, and brought their Franco-Dutch interpretation of the Louis XIV style to her English interiors. Although the precise nature of his work in England is unclear, Daniel Marot received an annual pension of £75 as a member of the queen’s household, so was certainly in her employ at this time.49 Two surviving elements of the furnishings from the Water Gallery are attributed to Daniel Marot’s design: a set of eight satin-stitch hangings that probably hung in one of the closets, and a marble-topped table on a

45 Jonathan Israel, “The Courts of the House of Orange, c. 1580–1795,” in John Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe 1500–1750 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1999), 125–129. 46 Adriana Turpin and K. A. Ottenheym, “Marot family,” Grove Art Online (2003) https://doi.org/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.T054520. 47 Ibid. 48 David Jacques, Gardens of Court and Country (New Haven and London: Yale

University Press, 2017), 168. 49 BL, Add. MS 78269, fo. 66.

186

A. LIM

carved, gilded, and blue and white painted stand50 (Fig. 8.1). The striking design of the table, with its sinuous curves and cabriole legs terminating in hooves, is quite unlike the output of any furniture-makers working in England at the time, but is in keeping with Marot’s designs, which in turn show the strong influence of Louis XIV’s court designer, Jean Bérain.51 The blue, white, and gold colour scheme also recalled the Trianon de Porcelain, built in the gardens of Versailles in 1670 by Louis XIV for his mistress, Madame de Montespan.52 In Mary’s Water Gallery, the picture frames, mirror frames, candlestands, tables, and chairs were painted blue and white “in imitation of China,” and the couches and stools upholstered in sky blue Florence satin and blue Indian damask trimmed with sky-coloured tufted crape silk fringe.53 Other craftsmen and designers were also patronised by Mary in both the Netherlands and England, reproducing the aesthetic of her Dutch interiors in her English palace apartments. Isaac Marot, Daniel’s brother, worked as a decorative painter at Paleis Het Loo between December 1693 and March 1694, and later that same year, came to England to work for the queen, for whom he drew embroidery designs for three large pieces of silk and some ornaments for a bed and cushions.54 Cornelius Gole, a cousin by marriage of the Marot brothers, was another cabinet-maker who had begun his career at the French court until moving to the Netherlands to escape religious persecution, where he supplied furniture to Mary, and then followed her to England.55 The furniture he made for her apartments at Whitehall and Kensington in 1690 and 1691 included a richly carved, engraved, and gilded marquetry table “dolphin fashion,” a decorative motif popular at the French court for its semiotic allusion to the

50 Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 28228. ; Adriana Turpin, “A table for Queen Mary’s Water Gallery at Hampton Court,” Apollo 149 (1999), 3–14. 51 Turpin and Ottenheym, “Marot family.” 52 Cordula Bischoff, “Women Collectors and the Rise of the Porcelain Cabinet,” in Jan

van Campen and Titus Eliëens (eds), Chinese and Japanese porcelain for the Dutch Golden Age (Zwolle: Waanders, 2014), 174. 53 TNA, LC9/280 nos 23, 26, 30, 41, 50, 74. 54 Adriaan Vliegenthart, Het Loo Palace (Apeldoorn: Paleis Het Loo, 2002), 68; BL,

Add. MS 1571A, fo. 116. 55 Adriana Turpin, ‘The Career of Cornelius Gole’, Furniture History 50 (2014), 75–

76.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

187

Fig. 8.1 Attributed to Daniel Marot (designer) and William Farnborough (maker), Table from the Hampton Court Water Gallery (1692), carved and gilt wood, Carrara marble top. Peter Moores Foundation, Compton Verney

dauphin.56 The elaborate French-influenced designs of Daniel Marot and other Huguenot refugee craftsmen defined the court style of William and Mary on both sides of the channel. Delftware was the most characteristically Dutch of all the decorative arts and a key feature of Mary’s interiors in the Netherlands and England. Principally manufactured in the town of Delft near The Hague, this tinglazed earthenware was typically painted blue and white, mimicking the colours and designs of imported Chinese porcelain. However, delftware manufacturers developed a range of forms that were uniquely Dutch, the most characteristic of which was the vases with multiple spouts each designed to hold an individual flower. When Princess of Orange, Mary became a leading patron of delftware, particularly the De Greiksche A manufactory, headed by Samuel van Eenhoorn and subsequently Adriaen Kocks.57 From them she commissioned large urns and flower vases that are among the most recognisable ceramics of the late-seventeenth century. Sherds excavated at Paleis Het Loo show that her collection included 56 TNA, LC9/279, no. 83. 57 Kirstin Duysters, “Voor pronk en gebruik,” in Lambooy (ed.), Koninklijk Blauw,

59–81.

188

A. LIM

flat, fan-shaped, and tall baluster-shaped vases with spouts for individual flowers, while inventories show that she displayed around 300 pieces of delftware at Honselaarsdijk, including tall flower pyramids.58 Once back in England, Mary continued to patronise the De Greiksche works, ordering similar pieces directly from Holland which she used to furnish her English palaces.59 Reflecting her increased stature as queen, some of these pieces were even larger and more spectacular than those she commissioned in Holland. They included large urns topped with imperial crowns, ewer-shaped vases, and a series of spectacular stacked obelisks on square and hexagonal bases60 (Fig. 8.2). When filled with fresh flowers from the Hampton Court gardens, they would have made a magnificent impression.61 Visiting the Water Gallery, Daniel Defoe commented on “her Majesty’s fine Collection of Delft Ware, which indeed was very large and fine,” and the imitations it spawned among the elite, discussed at greater length in the final section of this chapter, suggest that Defoe was not alone in his admiration.62 Besides these decorative pieces, Mary also used delftware in her model dairy at the Water Gallery, a room which continued a tradition of showkitchens among the women of the House of Orange, as well as the Dutch tradition of tiled kitchens and storage cellars.63 At Paleis Het Loo, she installed a cellar-kitchen lined with delftware tiles, which she used for arranging flowers from the garden and for making jams and candied fruit.64 At Hampton Court, Mary took over the dairy that had first been created around 1670 within the old Tudor Water Gate by Charles II’s mistress Barbara Palmer, Duchess of Cleveland, in imitation of the grand

58 A. M. L. E. Erkelens, ‘Delffs Porcelijn’ van koningin Mary II/Queen Mary’s ‘Delft porcelain’ (Zwolle: Waanders, 1996), 24–28. 59 BL, Add. MS 5751A, fo. 99. 60 David Wheeler, “Meesterlijk gemaakt: Delfts aardewerk vazen van Hampton Court,”

in Lambooy, Koninklijk Blauw, 205–223. 61 The flower varieties cultivated by Mary were also symbolic of her dynastic union. See Amy Lim and Renske Ek, “The Orange and the Rose: Horticultural and Decorative Flowers at the English and Dutch Courts of William III and Mary II,” in Susannah LyonWhaley (ed.), Floral Culture at the Tudor and Stuart Courts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). 62 Defoe, A Tour thro’ the Whole Island, Volume I, Letter III , 7. 63 Duysters, “Voor pronk en gebruik,” in Lambooy, Koninklijk Blauw, 60–65. 64 Ibid, 60–61.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

189

Fig. 8.2 Adriaen Kocks, Pyramid flower vase (c. 1692), tin-glazed earthenware (Royal Collection Trust © His Majesty King Charles III 2023)

laiterie built for Louis XIV’s mistress Louise de la Valliere at Versailles in 1663.65 As part of the remodelling of the Water Gallery, Mary fitted it out with delftware tiles and equipment commissioned from De Grieksche A66 (Fig. 8.3). Domestic activities such as butter, cream, and jam-making were fashionable pastimes for wealthy ladies, but were also considered both emblematic and formative of desirable feminine qualities such as purity, patience, gentleness, delicacy, and charity.67

65 Thurley, Hampton Court, 172. 66 Christopher Stevens, “Koningin Mary II en de Water Gallery van Hampton Court

Palace,” in Lambooy, Koninklijk Blauw, 112. 67 Meredith Martin, “Interiors and Interiority in the Ornamental Dairy Tradition,” Eighteenth Century Fiction 20 (2008), 358–359.

190

A. LIM

Fig. 8.3 Daniel Marot (designer), Adriaen Kocks (maker), Milk Pan (c. 1694), tin-glazed earthenware (© V & A Museum, London)

Somewhat paradoxically, Mary’s extensive use of imported luxury goods from Asia in her interiors, including Chinese and Japanese porcelain, lacquer, and textiles, was also highly characteristic of Dutch interiors and in particular those of the House of Orange-Nassau. Earlier in the seventeenth century, porcelain had been distinguished by its rarity, and European collectors had embellished it with gilt or silver garnishes, and displayed their porcelain to emphasise the size and beauty of individual pieces.68 From the mid-seventeenth century, the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC)) wrested dominance of the Asia goods trade from the Portuguese. Some of the choicest pieces of porcelain and lacquer were reserved by the VOC for the women of the House of Orange or presented to them as gifts, but Asian luxury goods also became available on the open market in large quantities; it is estimated that Dutch merchants traded a million pieces of porcelain with

68 Excepting Portugal, where porcelain was widely available in the sixteenth century, and the first porcelain rooms were created.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

191

China at the end of the seventeenth century.69 This widespread availability of porcelain in the Netherlands shifted the focus of display from the individual piece to the ensemble, and the decorative effects created through pattern, colour, and abundance. The massed display of Asian imports was not simply a decorative choice but a visible manifestation of Dutch trade power, and the associated cultural power of the House of Orange-Nassau. The lavish use of porcelain and lacquer in Dutch courtly interiors was spearheaded by Amalia van Solms-Braunfel, wife of Stadholder Frederick Henry of Orange, and grandmother of William III of Orange, England, Scotland, and Ireland. Although quantities of porcelain had previously been displayed in elite French and Dutch interiors, including those of Amalia’s mother-in-law Louise de Coligny, fourth wife of William I of Orange (1533–1584), Amalia’s porcelain cabinet and gallery at Noordeinde Palace in The Hague, created in 1632–1634, were unusual in being dedicated spaces for the display of porcelain. Her porcelain and lacquer cabinet created in 1647 at the Huis ten Bosch, is considered to be pioneering as “the first instance of a room that formed a unified whole, in which the wall coverings, furnishings and porcelain were all in an Asian style.”70 This cabinet was remodelled in or shortly after 1654 to create what is believed to be the first lacquer closet in Europe. Its walls were lined with panels of lacquer taken from boxes, and probably screens, in her possession.71 Amalia’s four daughters, Louise Henriette, Albertine Agnes, Henriette Catharina, and Maria, all of whom married German princes, exported this distinctive style to their new homes, each building a pleasure palace in which they incorporated porcelain rooms and other Asian furnishings that echoed their natal homes72 (Fig. 8.4). Significantly, each was named with the prefix Oranien-: Oranienburg, Oranienstein, Oranienbaum, and Oranienhof. Femke Diercks has argued that the princesses’s display of luxury Asian goods was “an explicit part

69 Maxine Berg, “Asian Luxuries and the Making of the European Consumer Revolution,” in Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger (eds), Luxury in the Eighteenth Century (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 234. 70 Bischoff, “Women collectors,” 172. 71 Ibid., 173. 72 Femke Diercks, “De Duitse connectie: Porselein en aardewerk in de keramiekverzamelingen van de dochters van Amalia,” in Lambooy (ed.), Koninklijk Blauw, 37–57.

192

A. LIM

of the representation of the dynastic ties with the House of Orange.”73 The massed displays of porcelain and lacquer thus transposed a material representation of their natal court to their marital courts. Mary’s assimilation into the House of Orange is evidenced by her adoption of Amalia’s distinctive Asian-inspired interiors during her eleven years in the Netherlands. She acquired an extensive collection of Chinese and Japanese porcelain, principally through retailers in Amsterdam and The Hague, which she displayed across her palaces (Fig. 8.5). She also installed a lacquer-panelled closet with a mirrored ceiling at Honselaarsdijk (another palace close to The Hague), and had planned to install another such cabinet at the Binnenhof.74 On her return to England, she continued to display porcelain, lacquer, and Asian textiles in abundance in her new palaces. Some of these goods, including her extensive porcelain collection, were brought with her from the Netherlands, and she continued to buy from Dutch retailers, including Madame de Süntannelands in The Hague, the purchase of which was handled by her Dutch First Woman of the Bedchamber and Keeper of the Privy Purse, Anne van Goltstein.75 However, she also began to patronise London “India goods” retailers, including Mary Dewitt, Solomon de Medina, and John van Collema, the latter two being Dutch merchants who had migrated to London.76 Although earlier English royalty, including her father, had collected porcelain, the size of Mary’s collection was unprecedented. Daniel Defoe noted in the Water Gallery “a vast stock of fine China Ware, the like whereof was not then to be seen in England; the long gallery, as above, was fill’d with this China, and every other place, where it could be

73 Femke Diercks, “Oranjeprinsessen als keramiekverzamelaars,” in Lambooy, Koninklijk Blauw, 19. My translation from the original Dutch. 74 Ayers, Impey and Mallet, Porcelain for Palaces, 58–59; Erkelens, Delffs Porcelijn, 15. 75 BL, Add. MS 5751A, fo. 99. 76 Ibid., fos 129, 131, and 133. Medina’s family were of Sephardi Iberian Jewish origin. Oskar Rabinowicz, Sir Solomon de Medina (London: The Jewish Historical Society of England, 1974), 2. I am currently preparing an article, ‘John van Collema: an India goods merchant in London,’ to be published in a forthcoming issue of RKD Studies.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

193

Fig. 8.4 Lacquer-panelled room from the apartment of Princess Albertine Agnes of Orange-Nassau, consort of the stadholder of Friesland, Leeuwarden (before 1695) (© Rijksmuseum)

plac’d, with advantage.”77 A large part of her collection—787 pieces— was displayed at Kensington House. Inventories show that it was not concentrated in a single room, but displayed throughout her apartments, 77 Defoe, Tour thro’ the Whole Island, Volume I, Letter III , 7.

194

A. LIM

Fig. 8.5 Design for a porcelain room from Daniel Marot, Oeuvres (The Hague, 1703)

which would have been accessible to courtiers and high-status visitors.78 Porcelain was displayed on mantelpieces, on door lintels, on speciallyconstructed shelves, brackets, and étagères, and some of the largest pieces were placed on carved wooden pedestals. They were arranged symmetrically in pairs, ascending from the smallest pieces on the outside of the row, to a central large showpiece; rows were arranged in ascending height. Jars, beakers, “rolwagens” (a cylindrical narrow-necked vase), cups, bowls, basins, and figurative pieces were mixed together, as were blue and white and polychromed pieces, with the colours arranged to form patterns.79 Although Mary did not concentrate her collection in a single porcelain

78 The 1693 inventory is transcribed by Joanna Marschner in Mark Hinton and Oliver Impey (eds), Kensington Palace and the Porcelain of Queen Mary II (London: Christie’s, 1998), 85–99. 79 Ayers, Impey, and Mallet, Porcelain for Palaces, 64.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

195

room, the manner of its display nevertheless owed much to the traditions of the House of Orange-Nassau. In particular, the stepped shelving and extensive use of mirrors were characteristic of the interiors of her grandmother and aunts in their Dutch and German homes.80 Mary’s apartments were full of mirrors, and besides the mirror closet in the Water Gallery, there was a truly enormous mirror in her closet at Kensington, ten feet tall and seven feet wide, in a carved and gilded frame.81 Expensive items in themselves, the mirrors were strategically placed to reflect the multitudinous porcelain into dazzling infinity.82 Mary was also responsible for introducing Amalia van Solms-Braunfel’s innovative lacquer closet to England. Celia Fiennes, a gentlewoman traveller who visited Hampton Court around 1694, described one of the closets off the Water Gallery’s great room as being “panell’d all w[i]th jappan.”83 Although it is not mentioned specifically in the Hampton Court building accounts, its installation may have been included among the generic joiner’s work.84 The queen certainly possessed the necessary lacquer, since in July 1689, she had purchased a pair of “fine Jappan skreenes” at the phenomenally high price of 400 guineas (£430). These were not in fact from the Netherlands but through London retailers Caleb Carne and Thomas Houghton.85 Perhaps she already had this particular use in mind. Fiennes, though usually accurate, occasionally misremembered what she had seen, but perhaps the strongest argument for the

80 Bischoff, “Women collectors,” 181. 81 TNA, LC9/280, no. 16. 82 In Mary’s new bedchamber at Kensington, there were panels of glass over the mantelpiece and four further large hanging looking glasses, one of which paired with a table and stands all covered with looking glass. The room contained seventy-one pieces of china. Theo Lunsingh Scheurleer, “Documents on the Furnishing of Kensington House,” Walpole Society 38 (1962), 38. Although the inventory does not specify how the furniture was arranged, examples of mirror-lined porcelain rooms belonging to other members of the House of Orange suggest that the mirrors and porcelain would have been arranged in this way. Meredith Martin, “Porcelain rooms,” in Erin Griffey (ed.), Early Modern Court Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 2022), 350–351. 83 Fiennes, Through England on a Side Saddle, 47. 84 For example, “For carpenters employed in lining the walls of the closett at the Water

Gallery,” in “Hampton Court Palace, 1689–1702: Original Wren Drawings from the Sir John Soane’s Museum and All Souls Collections,” The Wren Society (20 vols, Oxford: Wren Society, 1927), iv, 50. 85 TNA, LC9/279, fo. 28.

196

A. LIM

existence of a lacquer closet at Hampton Court is the crop of lacquer closets that appeared in elite interiors over the next few years, discussed at greater length in the final section of this chapter. Besides porcelain and lacquer, Mary also filled her apartments with sumptuous and costly Asian textiles. Her beds were covered with Indian embroidered quilts, the closet adjoining her bedchamber at Whitehall was hung with “rich Indian gold & blew Stuffe,” and in her closet at Kensington, she had a daybed similarly upholstered in blue and gold India silk and fringed with gold and silver.86 Her apartments at Kensington boasted several lacquer cabinets on frames specially made by cabinet-maker Gerrit Jensen, who also cut up other pieces of imported furniture to make tea tables, including, intriguingly, a “large Indian drum.”87 Not since Catherine of Braganza’s arrival in 1662 had Asian goods been seen on such a large scale in English palace interiors, and as with the Portuguese queen, these goods represented the advantageous mercantile connections and consequent economic (and possibly naval) power that were one of the benefits of international royal marriages.88

The Influence of Queen Mary II on English Interiors Queen Mary’s striking, sophisticated, and luxurious interiors are not only of art-historical significance, but also they shed light on a crucial period in the history of the monarchy. The Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689 was quickly followed by a series of measures (among them, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Triennial Act of 1694, and the foundation of the Bank of England, also in 1694) that fundamentally altered the political and economic landscape. This pivotal decade has been considered by some historians, most notably Robert Bucholz, to have contributed to the decline of the court as an institution, from the halcyon days of the Tudor and early Stuart courts to the accession of the Hanoverians, by which time the transition from court to city as centre of politics, business,

86 TNA, LC9/279, nos. 29, 54, 68, 127. 87 TNA, LC9/280, nos. 20, 59, 60, 73. 88 Gertrude Z. Thomas, Richer Than Spices (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), 85.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

197

and culture was complete.89 Scholars of the decorative arts have argued for the continuing importance of the court as a leading centre of fashion during the reign of William and Mary, but their political significance has been largely overlooked.90 Yet, as Adam Morton has argued, politics was in part constructed through culture.91 The rapidity with which Mary II’s interiors were imitated by the English elite indicates not only her cultural leadership, but that also by promulgating goods and styles associated with the House of Orange-Nassau, the queen was creating a new model of Anglo-Dutch queenship that differentiated her from her Stuart (and predominantly Catholic) predecessors. Just as William and Mary used art and ceremony to establish the image of Anglo-Dutch monarchy, so Mary’s use of the decorative arts echoed and reinforced that visual programme.92 The display of delftware pyramids and urns, very similar to the distinctive pieces displayed by the queen, has been particularly associated with courtiers in the circle of William and Mary.93 Although some Dutch delftware was available on the London market, the largest and most complex pieces, and in particular those painted with coats of arms, could only be obtained through bespoke commissions.94 In practice, this meant that they were found in the houses of courtiers and soldiers who travelled with the king to the Netherlands on military or diplomatic business, and consequently had the opportunity to acquire delftware. William Blathwayt, William III’s Dutch-speaking Secretary of State, accompanied the king on his annual visits to the Dutch Republic. He amassed around eighty-five 89 Robert O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993). 90 In particular, Robert P. Maccubbin and Martha Hamilton-Phillips (eds), The Age of William III & Mary II: Power, Politics and Patronage 1688–1702 (Williamsburg: College of William and Mary in Virginia, 1989). 91 Watanabe-O’Kelly and Morton, Queens Consort, 234. This is discussed at further length in my conclusion. 92 See “Chapter 1: Establishing an Anglo-Dutch Royal Image, 1689–90: The beginning of Stuart-Orange Kingship,” in Farguson, Visualising Protestant Monarchy, 50–96 for William’s and Mary’s construction of an image of Anglo-Dutch monarchy. 93 Patricia Ferguson, “Ambassadeur voor Nederland,” in Lambooy, Koninklijk Blauw, 150–151. 94 Delftware painted with a coat of arms was necessarily commissioned. Bills from London retailers show smaller items of delftware such as chamber pots, for example West Sussex Record Office, PHA 287/23, bill from Marij Rijff.

198

A. LIM

pieces of delftware, including flower pyramids, and installed a Delft tilelined dairy in his house, Dyrham Park.95 William Cavendish, fourth earl (later first duke) of Devonshire had been one of the “Immortal Seven” signatories to the letter of 30 June 1688 inviting William to intervene in English affairs; he served William and Mary as their Lord Steward and held the queen in great personal affection. Devonshire demonstrated his allegiance and proximity to the queen by commissioning a large number of delftware flower pyramids and urns from the De Greiksche works, Mary’s favoured supplier. In all likelihood, he commissioned these during his visit to The Hague for the 1691 International Congress, where he was a member of the king’s retinue.96 He displayed the pyramids in the hearths of his country house, Chatsworth, replicating the manner of its display at Paleis Het Loo.97 Contrary to previous assumptions, however, the influence of Mary’s interiors was not limited to her supporters or close associates. Several lacquer closets were installed in elite interiors during the 1690s, some, but not all of which, were in the houses of her courtiers and political supporters. The earl of Devonshire commissioned a “Japan closet,” lined with panels taken from dismantled Chinese “Coromandel” lacquer screens from cabinet-maker Gerrit Jensen in 1692, just a few months after Jensen had installed the mirror closet in Mary’s Water Gallery, and William Blathwayt created a similar lacquer closet at Dyrham around 1700.98 This has led to the supposition that “the taste for lacquer seems to have had personal and political connotations.”99 However, new evidence of other lacquer-panelled closets suggests that the fashion had spread more widely into the homes of aristocrats who were not directly associated with the queen. Elizabeth Percy, countess dowager of Northumberland, installed a “Japan” closet at her home in St James’s 95 Ferguson, “Ambassadeur voor Nederland,” 145. 96 Amy Lim, “Art and Aristocracy in late Stuart England” (DPhil., University of Oxford,

2021), 164–168. 97 Devonshire Collections, Chatsworth, CH 36/7/0; Erkelens, “Delffs Porcelijn,” 18. 98 Devonshire Collections, Chatsworth, CH 37/2 fol. 97E; Emile de Bruijn, “East

Asian Luxury Goods” in Rupert Goulding and David A. H. B. Taylor (eds), Prized Possessions: Dutch Paintings from National Trust Houses (London: National Trust, 2018), 87. Imports of Japanese lacquer ceased in 1693 due to rising costs, and was substituted in the marketplace by cheaper Chinese “Coromandel” lacquer. 99 De Bruijn, “East Asian Luxury Goods,” 87.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

199

Street, London, some time between 1694 and her death in 1704.100 In her seventies and largely retired from court, the countess dowager was neither associated personally nor socially with the queen.101 Similarly, the closet lined with white Coromandel lacquer at Drayton House, Northamptonshire was probably installed by Mary Howard, duchess of Norfolk. During the 1690s, she was subject to divorce proceedings by her husband on the grounds of adultery, and was certainly not welcome at court.102 This suggests that the taste for lacquer closets in England had disseminated beyond the queen’s immediate circle. Similarly, Mary II’s distinctive massed displays of porcelain were emulated by those who were neither political nor personal supporters. Elizabeth Seymour, duchess of Somerset, filled her apartments in her country house at Petworth with massed displays of porcelain, stacked on tiered mantelpieces, on top of cabinets, on specially-made pedestals and over doorways, just as it was displayed by the queen at Kensington.103 From 1692, she began to purchase porcelain in large quantities from the same India goods merchants that the queen patronised, including John van Collema and Solomon de Medina.104 Yet the duchess was far from being a supporter of the queen, assisting her sister Princess Anne when she and the queen argued bitterly in 1692, the same year that the duchess began to collect porcelain in earnest.105 Like the queen, the duchess’s wealth meant that she could afford to buy the large quantity of porcelain required for abundant displays. However, the relatively low price of individual pieces of porcelain, combined with increased availability through London retailers from the 1690s onwards, meant that the fashion for massed displays of porcelain percolated even into gentry families. Daniel Defoe, who bemoaned the growing, and in his view excessive, consumption of Asian textiles and porcelain, attributed it directly to the queen’s

100 Lim, “Art and Aristocracy in late Stuart England,” 65–66. 101 Ibid. 102 ODNB, sub “Howard [née Mordaunt; other married name Germain], Mary, duchess of Norfolk (1658/9–1705), noblewoman and divorcee (article by Rachel Weil). 103 West Sussex Record Office, PHA 6263. 104 Lim, “Art and Aristocracy in late Stuart England,” 69–72. 105 The Duke and Duchess of Somerset loaned Queen Anne Syon House after she

was ejected from her Whitehall lodgings; ODNB, sub “Seymour [née Percy], Elizabeth, duchess of Somerset (1667–1722), courtier and politician” (article by Robert O. Bucholz).

200

A. LIM

introduction of such tastes to England.106 He did not blame “the good Queen [who] far from designing any injury to the Country where she was so entirely belov’d, little thought she was […] laying a Foundation for such fatal excesses,” but when royal precedent led to widespread consumption, it was a cause for concern. Defoe was driven by a protectionist agenda and a fear that luxury imports were draining England of bullion.107 Whether or not his concerns were justified, it is true that the increasing consumption of imported Asian luxury goods was inextricably linked to trade, finance, and foreign policy.108 It was these mercantile and proto-capitalist structures that would morph into England’s exploitative colonial expansion later in the eighteenth century.

Conclusion Mary’s unique position on the English throne meant that she was something of a hybrid: a queen regnant who functioned as a queen consort, and a Stuart who was also a representative of the House of Orange-Nassau. Following Watanabe-O’Kelly’s and Morton’s categorisation, she can be defined as an agent of cultural transfer between courts through her patronage of the decorative arts, although in Mary’s case, she was bringing the culture of her marital court back to her natal court. Watanabe-O’Kelly and Morton also argued that such culture was not a separate, parallel sphere to high politics but was integral to the structures and exercise of power, pointing out that “the strict divide between categories of “hard” and “soft” power […] is anachronistic in the context of the courts in which they operated.”109 Politics was expressed and constructed through culture, from the displays of magnificence that upheld the principle of hereditary monarchy, to the expression of a particular factional or confessional stance. Since Mary acceded to the throne in highly unusual and contested circumstances, and was also formally the ruling co-monarch (if not usually in practice), the material environment she created around herself had an even greater urgency and influence that

106 Defoe, Tour thro’ the Whole Island, Volume I, Letter III , 100–101. 107 Ibid. His views are elaborated in Daniel Defoe, The Advantages of Peace of

Commerce; with some remarks on the East-India trade (London: J. Brotherton, 1729). 108 See Berg, “Asian Luxuries and the Making of the European Consumer Revolution.” 109 Watanabe-O’Kelly and Morton, Queens Consort, 234.

8

WORLD OF INTERIORS: MARY II, THE DECORATIVE ARTS …

201

those of previous Stuart queens. In partnership with her husband and through her independent actions, Mary took an active role in creating a new model of Stuart-Orange monarchy, and one of the ways in which she did this was through the decoration and furnishing of her interiors. Paradoxically, while William downplayed his Dutchness in favour of his Stuart heritage, especially at the beginning of his reign,110 Mary emphasised her assimilation into the House of Orange-Nassau by displaying goods and designs closely associated with the Dutch Republic. The rapid imitation of her interiors by the English elite, beyond her immediate supporters, is a testament to the success of her cultural programme.

110 Farguson, Visualising Protestant Monarchy, 52.

CHAPTER 9

The Architectural Works of Hampton Court Palace Under the Reigns of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne Emily Birch

Introduction The Glorious Revolution of 1688 saw a turning point in the architectural works commissioned at Hampton Court Palace, in line with the changing dynamics in English and British politics. Architectural projects in this period—along with the visual arts—shaped and defined a range of other environments operating beyond London, within the royal palaces, and country houses. So, unsurprisingly, they have often attracted scholarly attention.1 It was the first time in almost a century that a queen regnant 1 Mark Hallett, Nigel Llewelyn and Martin Myrone (eds), Court, Country, City: British Art and Architecture, 1660–1735 (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 21.

E. Birch (B) School of Humanities, University of Hull, Hull, UK e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_9

203

204

E. BIRCH

had directed architectural works commissioned at Hampton Court Palace. Queen Mary II and Queen Anne clearly understood the political impact of visual culture.2 From 1688 to 1714, the palace underwent a transformation from the red brick Tudor structure to one which incorporated the Tudor courtyards into a baroque structure, which can still be seen today from the southern and eastern approaches to the palace. This chapter aims to explore the works commissioned during the reigns of Queen Mary II and Queen Anne at Hampton Court Palace. There have been several studies of Hampton Court Palace over the years, such as Ernest Law’s The History of Hampton Court Palace (1885) and Simon Thurley’s Hampton Court Palace: A Social and Architectural History (2004). There have also been more general works published on the royal palaces, including Simon Thurley’s Houses of Power, as well as Amanda Richardson’s Gender and Space in English Royal Palaces c. 1160c. 1547 . These tend to focus on the male rulers of the early modern period, principally on Henry VIII and William III.3 The cultural influences of Mary’s and Anne’s lives and their architectural commissions predated their queenships. Some of this work is dealt with in the previous chapter by Amy Lim, “A World of Interiors: Mary II’s Patronage of the Decorative Arts,” which focused on the architectural and decorative works commissioned by Mary II in a wider context in England and in the Netherlands. Mary moved to Holland after her marriage to William of Orange in 1677, which meant that she spent the following decade moving around her husband’s numerous Dutch palaces, including Paleis Het Loo, before returning to England in 1689.4 By contrast, most of Anne’s upbringing was in England; only brief periods of her early life were passed in the French court, with her grandmother, Henrietta Maria, and her aunt, Henrietta Anne, duchess of Orléans, as well as time spent in Scotland.5 But these influences, in particular, inspired the completion of the French aspects of Hampton Court Palace, in parallel with the Dutch-inspired alterations there. Many of the “maternal” figures in Anne’s life were destined to leave her at a young age, although her

2 Erin Griffey (ed.), Early Modern Court Culture (London: Routledge, 2022), 8. 3 Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

2013), 2. 4 ODNB, sub “Mary II (1662–1694),” (article by W. A. Speck). 5 ODNB, sub “Anne (1665–1714)” (article by Edward Gregg).

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

205

circle of close confidantes within her household was also instrumental.6 These included John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, and famously his wife Sarah Churchill. William Legge, first earl of Dartmouth, would later remark that the Churchills held so much influence over Anne that the duke of Marlborough would one day rule her as if he were a king, suggesting that it was through fear and expectation that the queen would suffer “ill usage during such a reign.”7 Both queens experienced the culture of the court of their uncle Charles II during their childhood and saw the various architectural works that Charles commissioned during his reign. When both Mary’s and Anne’s parents, James, duke of York and his first wife Anne Hyde, converted to Roman Catholicism in the late 1660s, Charles declared the princesses to be wards of the State to ensure that they were brought up and educated as Protestants; they received theological schooling from Henry Compton, bishop of London.8 Their religious upbringing would later have a significant influence on the architectural works that they commissioned at Hampton Court Palace, including the remodelling of its Chapel Royal. This chapter reviews, therefore, Mary’s and Anne’s use of their patronage to alter the architectural structure of Hampton Court Palace in ways that promoted their queenship and political agenda. The text focuses on Hampton Court Palace and the role which Mary took in the commissioning of the works there—both architecturally and within its grounds. It also considers the impact of her sudden death in 1694, before looking at Anne’s patronage of the works at the palace, with themes explored including religion and gender.

6 Maureen Waller, Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who Stole their Father’s

Crown (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2002), 47. Anne Hyde (mother) died on 31 March 1671, Henrietta Anne (aunt) died on 30 June 1670, and Henrietta Maria (grandmother) died on 10 September 1669. 7 Hallett, Llewelyn and Myrone, Court, Country, City, 178, 192. 8 Waller, Ungrateful Daughters, 49, 58. Anne Hyde had converted to Catholicism by

the time of her death on 31 March 1671.

206

E. BIRCH

Mary II and Hampton Court Mary II travelled to England in February 1689 to join William, shortly before the Convention Parliament passed an act which recognised them as joint monarchs.9 Within weeks, Mary left central London and returned to Hampton Court Palace.10 The reason why both William and Mary decided to refurbish the Tudor palace was because its architecture was outdated, when compared to the dominant baroque style that was fashionable in Europe, particularly in France and Italy.11 In a letter written to her husband at Hampton Court Palace on 5/15 March 1689, Mary noted that it was “a place which has [been] badly neglected, it is about four miles from London but lacks many of the commodities of Dieren, although the house had four or five hundred rooms.”12 Mary’s great enthusiasm for culture, arts, and architecture can be seen by her commissioning the rebuilding of a large proportion of Hampton Court Palace to incorporate these wider European fashions into English architecture. This is why the magnificent baroque structure at the palace, built as an addition to the existing Tudor palace, was initially designed to replace the Tudor red brick structure. The only part of the Tudor building that was earmarked to remain was the Great Hall, but various constraints, as will be outlined in this chapter, meant that a significant proportion of the Tudor palace was incorporated into the new structure.13 Hampton Court Palace was to be transformed into the principal palace of the State

9 The Convention Parliament was assembled between 22 January and 12 February 1689 which transferred the crown from James II to William III and Mary II. More details can be found online: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolution ofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/billofrights/. 10 Simon Thurley, Palaces of Revolution: Life, Death and Art at the Stuart Court (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2021), 391. 11 John Van Der Kiste, William and Mary: Heroes of the Glorious Revolution, new edn (London: The History Press, 2008), 119. 12 Caroline Mechtilde Emma Charlotte Cristiane Louise van Bentinck (ed.), Lettres et Mémoires de Marie Reine D’Angleterre Epouse de Guillaume III: Collection de Documents Authentiques Inédits Conservés aux Archives de Comtes D’Aldenbourg Bentinck et du Baron de Heeckeren de Wassenaer (London: D. Nutt, 1880), 116–118. 13 Howard Montagu Colvin (ed.), The History of the King’s Works: Volume 5, 1660–1782 (London: HMSO, 1976), 156.

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

207

and would become regarded as the English parallel of Dutch residences such as Honselaarsdijk.14 Work commenced at the palace within a year of William’s and Mary’s accession, with Mary taking an active role in the business of construction.15 She examined and surveyed the drawings which had been drawn up by Sir Christopher Wren, the Surveyor of the King’s Works and carefully monitored the progress of the works. Mary’s active interest and involvement in the project gave Wren the opportunity not only to discuss the subject of architecture with the queen, but also to confer on the “other branches of mathematicks, and useful learning” related to the building works,16 though the warrant for Wren’s appointment came from both William and Mary.17 But Mary’s personal involvement is indicated in the note that she sent to Wren “to beautify and add some new building of that fabric” to the existing Tudor palace.18 These issues are recorded by Mary in an exchange with her husband on 12/22 July 1690, in which she complained that “the want of money & Portland stone are a hindrance,” revealing that slow progress was being made of the works at the palace.19 These financial constraints were in part the result of the ongoing cost of war. Parliament was reluctant to provide the necessary grants required to pay for the works—other government projects and departments were also short of funds.20 One of the early changes made at Hampton Court Palace was the removal of the altar in Mary’s private chapel, which was replaced with a communion table.21 This was a continuation of earlier religious reforms where altars had been targeted; the restoration of railed altars, particularly during the 1630s and 1640s, had prompted fears of “popery” and the rise of Catholicism, although railed altars made a comeback in some parishes

14 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 392. 15 Paul Rabbitts, Sir Christopher Wren (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019), 77. 16 Colvin, King’s Works, 20–21. 17 TNA, SP 44/338, fo. 303, “Warrant for the Appointment of Sir Christopher Wren,” 25 April 1689; Colvin, Kings Works, 155. 18 Ibid. 19 TNA, SP 8/7 fo. 190: Mary II to William III, 12/22 July 1690. 20 Colvin, King’s Works, 39. 21 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 396.

208

E. BIRCH

during the Restoration.22 By removing the altar, Mary was signalling her devotion to Protestantism and her rejection of the Catholicism practised by her father, James II. For Mary, this was a sacred space where she could spend many hours in solitary contemplation.23 Mary and William received the holy sacrament alone during the Easter of 1689, and although Mary recorded it in her journal as a “foolish formality,” she took the ceremony seriously and the significance of such an act, with both monarchs later receiving communion publicly at Christmas in Whitehall.24 The re-establishment of Protestantism at William’s and Mary’s court can be followed in the sermons preached in front of both monarchs at Hampton Court Palace in April and May 1689. The true meaning of a sermon cannot necessarily be understood purely from reading it; the impact of it, for contemporaries, might depend in part on the circumstances in which it was delivered.25 The sermons, dated 14 April 1689 and 12 May 1689, were both published by her Majesty’s command. The May sermon promoted “Holiness in the court and in our land” with reference to Matthew 5: 16.26 After her return to England, the queen reflected on her former life in the Dutch Republic, describing it as though she had “led the life of a nun” which contrasted significantly to the life she was now living in England, where she was in a “noisy world full of vanity.”27 One of the compensations in her new role as queen regnant was that she was able to enjoy her greatest loves: building, decoration, and furnishing. Although the main architectural works commissioned by Mary were based at Hampton Court Palace, Mary’s attention also turned to creating a

22 Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of

English Religious Worship, 1547–c.1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1; Kenneth Fincham, “The Restoration of Altars in the 1630s,” Historical Journal 44 (2001), 919; idem, “‘According to Ancient Custom’: The Return of Altars in the Restoration Church of England,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6th series, 13 (2003), 29–54. 23 Waller, Ungrateful Daughters, 114. 24 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 396. 25 Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590–1640

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 16, 65. 26 Robert Brograve, A Sermon Preach’d before the King and Queen at Hampton-court, May the 12th, 1689 (London: s.n., 1689); Hunt, The Art of Hearing, 135–136. 27 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 405.

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

209

pleasure house for herself in the Tudor Water Gallery.28 Mary’s additions to Hampton Court Palace included lacquer work and blue and white Chinese exported china modelled on her rooms at Honselaarsdijk and Huis ten Bosch in the Dutch Republic, illustrating a translation of cultural influence from the years that Mary had lived there.29 The Water Gallery included commissioned portraits by Sir Godfrey Kneller who replicated the famous portraits from Charles II’s reign, known as the Windsor Beauties, with portraits of Mary’s ladies-in-waiting.30 These eight portraits were of English ladies who were considered the fairest members of the court, such as Mary Compton, countess of Dorset, signifying the countess’s new role and status, with Kneller receiving £400 for his efforts31 (Fig. 9.1). By the time these portraits were completed in 1691, Kneller had been appointed royal principal painter under the lord chamberlain’s warrant, and received further payments for his work, which included portraits of both the king and the queen.32 The foundations for the new baroque section of the palace, due to be built on the south-east facing side, were begun in June 1689.33 The new layout of the palace was designed by Wren over approximately six weeks between March and April.34 With the plans for the works due to take immediate effect, Wren attended a meeting with the Treasury lords

28 Ibid. 29 Ibid.; and see Amy Lim’s chapter in this volume. 30 Margaret Hodges, Lady Queen Anne: A Biography of Queen Anne of England

(Toronto: Doubleday Canada Ltd, 1969), 148. 31 Marjorie Bowen, The Third Mary Stuart, Mary of York, Orange & England Being

a Character of Study with Memoirs and Letters of Queen Mary II of England, 1662–1694 (London: John Lane, 1929), 259; ODNB, sub “Kneller, Sir Godfrey [formerly Gottfried Kniller], baronet” (article by John Douglas-Stewart). The Hampton Court Beauties consist of the following ladies: Diana De Vere, duchess of St Albans; Margaret Cecil, countess of Ranelagh; Frances Whitmore, Lady Middleton; Isabella Bennett, duchess of Grafton; Mary Compton, countess of Dorset; Mary Bentinck, countess of Essex; Carey Fraser, countess of Peterborough, and Mary Scrope, later Mrs Pitt. 32 CTB, ix, 1232. Portraits painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller of both William III and Mary II can be found online on the Royal Collection trust website: https://www.rct.uk/ collection. 33 Rabbitts, Sir Christopher Wren, 77. 34 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 402.

210

E. BIRCH

Fig. 9.1 Sir Godfrey Kneller, Frances Whitmore, Lady Middleton (c. 1666–94), 1690–1691, oil on canvas, 233.7 × 143.0 cm, Royal Collection Trust. RCIN 404727 (Credit Royal Collection Trust/© Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2022)

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

211

on 4 May 1689 with an estimate of the cost of the works.35 The architects Daniel Marot and Jacob Roman, who had previously been involved in building projects for William in the Netherlands, arrived in London around December 1689 to aid the work.36 Mary was also involved in the design of some of the gardens at Hampton Court Palace, particularly the pond gardens and the hothouse located adjacent to the pond gardens, on the south-eastern front of the palace.37 Initially, the priority was to complete the works they had started on the gardens at Het Loo, but both William’s and Mary’s attentions turned swiftly to the gardens at Hampton Court Palace.38 This is when Daniel Marot was essential. Marot, a French Huguenot who was previously employed by William back in the Netherlands, was both an architect and a garden landscape designer. Marot popularised the style of gardens and architecture in the Netherlands originally promoted by the French King Louis XIV, including designs at Het Loo for William and Mary when they were Prince and Princess of Orange from around 1684. Upon their accession to the English throne, the gardens at Hampton Court Palace quickly followed suit in style and taste.39 From the study of Bowen’s 1929 research on Queen Mary II’s memoirs and letters, it is clear that Mary had a keen interest in exotic plants, with collections of various trees such as citrons, and the pond gardens’ design was created to provide shelter for plants she had collected from across the globe.40 But with all of the work that was commissioned under the direction of

35 CSPD William and Mary (11 vols., London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1895), i, 76; CTB, ix, 31. 36 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 399. 37 For further information on the layout of the hothouse and pond gardens, see

engraving by John Kipp which shows Sir Christopher Wren’s Lower Orangery building of 1701–1702, which can be found in Terry Gough, “The Exotic Garden: The Restoration of the William and Mary’s Lower Orangery Garden” (2002). Available online: https:// www.buildingconservation.com/articles/exotic/exotic.html. 38 A hothouse is an early form of greenhouse which was used to house Mary II’s tropical plants; Griffey, Early Modern Court Culture, 167. 39 Griffey, Early Modern Court Culture, 291. 40 Further details about Mary’s plants can be found in BL, Sloane MS 3379, especially

fos 1–8, “Catalogue of exotic plants at, by Dr. Gray: 1693”; Bowen, Memoirs and Letters of Queen Mary II of England, 259.

212

E. BIRCH

both Mary and William, it was the creation of the magnificent architectural structure that would function as a space sufficient to host the royal household when they visited the palace.41 Arguably, the lasting impact which Mary II had on Hampton Court Palace was not necessarily the works which she patronised, but the impact caused by her contracting smallpox and dying in December 1694.42 As a consequence of Mary’s death, William lost interest in the building work at Hampton Court Palace.43 He closed Hampton Court Palace and diverted his attention to the completion of the works at Kensington Palace.44 It is evident from the edited volumes of The History of the Kings Works that only maintenance work was carried out at Hampton Court Palace between December 1694 and April 1699, before William decided that the architectural works at Hampton Court should be completed.45 The works had, up until Mary’s death, been in full swing—surprisingly, perhaps, given the financial climate of the early 1690s.46 The financial constraints of the period had influenced work plans up until this point and was remarked upon by Mary herself, who acknowledged that “want of money” was hindering progress there.47 The construction at Hampton Court Palace, along with the architectural work commissioned at other palaces up until December 1694, had only been possible due to Mary’s supervision.48 Throughout the reign of William and Mary, the king was away for months in Ireland and Scotland, dealing with the Jacobite threat, and without the queen’s substantial interest in architecture, these momentous projects would not have been supervised with the same degree of attention.49

41 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 398. 42 Ibid., 407. 43 Speck, “Mary II”; Colvin, King’s Works, 126. 44 Colvin, Kings Works, 163. 45 Ibid. 46 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 407. 47 TNA, SP 8/7, fo. 190. See Amy Lim and Renske Ek, “The Orange and the Rose:

Horticultural and Decorative Flowers at the English and Dutch Courts of William III and Mary II,” in Susannah Lyon-Whaley (ed.), Floral Culture at the Tudor and Stuart Courts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). 48 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 417. 49 Ibid.

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

213

The works that both Mary and William formally commissioned at Hampton Court Palace followed the pattern of regularly updating the architectural designs of royal residences.50 After the death of Mary in December 1694, the rooms on the queen’s side of the palace were incomplete, except for the Drawing Room.51 But by the death of William in March 1702, some of the works originally commissioned by both monarchs had been completed, such as the King’s Apartments. Their architectural legacy was remarked upon by Grinling Gibbons who noted that “the additions made to it [Hampton Court Palace] by King William and Queen Mary do so far excel what it was before, that they show what vast advancements architecture has received since that time.”52 Gibbons himself was a renowned carver, who had a formidable carving technique and created inventive designs for the 1689–1694 phase of the building works.53 It is arguable that Mary’s participation in the design and building works has been vastly overlooked, particularly her active involvement in studying the architectural plans and her discussions with the architects. One wonders what Hampton Court would have looked like if Mary had not died in 1694. The architectural structure, interior design, and landscape surrounding the palace would probably have looked very different to what we see today.

Queen Anne, the Drawing Room, and Chapel Royal Shortly after Queen Anne succeeded to the throne in March 1702, according to Sarah Cowper, mother of William, Earl Cowper there was a hope that the succession of a new queen was a “sign the power of women will increase.”54 Anne had inherited five palaces that William III had 50 Hanneke Ronnes and Merel Haverman, “A Reappraisal of the Architectural Legacy of King-stadholder William III and Queen Mary II: Taste, Passion and Frenzy,” The Court Historian 25 (2020), 158. 51 Cecile Brett, “Revealing Thornhill’s mythological scene at Hampton Court,” The British Art Journal 13 (2012), 3. 52 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 424. 53 ODNB, sub “Gibbons, Grinling (1648–1721)” (article by David Esterly). 54 Anne Somerset, Queen Anne: The Politics of Passion, A Biography (London: Harper

Collins, 2019), 177. Sarah was the mother of William Cowper, Earl Cowper who became the lord keeper of the Great Seal and lord chancellor during the early years of Anne’s

214

E. BIRCH

had at his disposal, which were Hampton Court Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace, St James’s Palace, and Newmarket.55 Under Queen Anne, the ongoing works at Hampton Court Palace were completed, which included two significant spaces: the Queen’s Drawing Room, and the Chapel Royal. Both these spaces were completed and decorated to illustrate aspects of the political and religious functions and culture at the royal court.56 There were parallels here with her uncle Charles II’s use of Hampton Court Palace both as a country retreat and a convenient location where the Privy Council could meet.57 In 1708, the Privy Council had an official membership of fifty-five, and the council often met in the Cartoon Gallery which was sizeable enough to accommodate such numbers.58 One of the consistent factors in the architectural works of Hampton Court Palace and its interiors was the artist Antonio Verrio who had worked at the palace before Anne’s accession. His paintings, such as those located on the King’s Staircase, were completed for the palace and illustrated the royal baroque taste that was gaining popularity across the country, having already been well-established in England by Verrio for Charles II, as well as the wider iconography of the period from 1688 onwards.59 The style was not uncommon for Verrio, with undressed figures often being part of the images, as well as the use of various gods in the paintings.60 Verrio was responsible for the introduction of decorative history painting, a distinctive mode of grand-scale allegorical wall and

reign. Cowper benefitted from having Sarah Churchill, duchess of Marlborough as his patron. For further information, see ODNB, sub “Cowper, William, first Earl Cowper” (article by Geoffrey Treasure). 55 Colvin, King’s Works, 127. 56 Ibid., 174. 57 Thurley, Palaces of Revolution, 426. 58 Walter A. Dyer, “Creators of English Style, Sir Christopher Wren: A Man of Real

Genius, who Stands as England’s Greatest Architect,” Arts & Decoration (1910–1918) 6 (1916), 332–335. 59 Brett Dolman, “Antonio Verrio (c. 1636–1707) and the Royal Image at Hampton Court,” The British Art Journal 10 (2009), 18–19. Verrio had also worked extensively for Charles II. For more details, see Wolf Burchard, “Illusion and Involvement: the lost Baroque architecture of St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle,” Immediations 2 (2011), 99–119. 60 Dolman, Antonio Verrio, 19.

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

215

ceiling decoration, which he painted in the Queen’s Drawing Room.61 In an exchange with William Lowndes, secretary to the queen in the treasury, Antonio Verrio mentioned that he had finished “l’escalier de la Reyne a Windsor avec satisfaction de sa Majesté,” and that he was about to begin work at Hampton Court Palace, but money was in short supply; Verrio asked Lowndes to make representations to the lord treasurer for payment for the staircase on the basis of a report which would be submitted by Wren.62 Arguably, the series of murals added to the Queen’s Drawing Room, in the baroque section of the palace, were some of the most, if not the most, important pieces of Verrio’s work, in addition to the King’s Staircase. This decorative scheme depicted recent land-based military and naval successes, including Blenheim and Gibraltar.63 The mural includes a portrait image of Anne on the ceiling, while Prince George of Denmark features on one of the walls within the four murals of the Drawing Room. Once completed, it was used to entertain Anne’s court and her guests. The Drawing Room looks out towards the great fountain garden which had been designed in a large semi-circular parterre, with several avenues of lime trees, with the central point aligning with the long canal which had been installed under Charles II.64 The portrait of Queen Anne on the ceiling locates her in the centre of the piece; here she is depicted as Astraea-Virgo, the virgin goddess of justice.65 She is shown wearing garter regalia, with a purple dress lined with ermine, holding scales in one hand and the sword of justice in the other hand. Above the head of the queen, a crown is shown being held by Britannia and Neptune, alongside depictions of allegorical figures of peace and plenty in the floating clouds.66 What is significant about this ceiling painting is the portrayal of Anne as justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, with the other three aspects of the virtues—prudence, temperance, and fortitude—also depicted. Other depictions on the mural include 61 Hallett, Llewelyn and Myrone, Court, Country, City, 154. 62 TNA, SP 34/2, fo. 143, Verrio to William Lowndes, Secretary to the Queen in the

Treasury, 10 May 1703. 63 Dolman, Antonio Verrio, 25. 64 Rubeigh James Minney, Hampton Court (London: Cassell & Company Ltd, 1972),

195. 65 Hannah Smith, “‘Last of all Heavenly Birth’: Queen Anne and Sacral Queenship,” Parliamentary History 28 (2009), 141. 66 Minney, Hampton Court, 196.

216

E. BIRCH

Apollo, Diana, Mercury, Vigilance, Fame, and Time unveiling the truth— all figures who are traditionally associated with good governance.67 The symbolism would not have been lost on contemporary viewers. This mural was finished just before the Act of Union in 1707, with Verrio completing it around 1705. Anne’s use of the motto—Semper Eadem—(taken from Queen Elizabeth I) is an obvious reference to the Elizabethan golden age and potentially suggesting a new golden age under Anne.68 It allowed Anne to appropriate some aspects of Elizabeth’s reign and portray herself as Elizabeth reborn.69 Parallels of the two queen’s reigns are cited within the anonymous publication Queen Elizabeth’s Ghost : Or A Dream published in 1706.70 Within this text, the adoption of Semper Eadem is mentioned with Elizabeth apparently informing the author that she “was mightily pleased that her motto….was tak[en] up in this reign” before drawing upon parallels, such as war and religion, witnessed in both their reigns.71 The depiction of Anne, alongside Britannia, within the ceiling mural indicated the importance of the queen’s dominion over land and sea.72 As well as holding the crown over Anne’s head, Britannia is also flanked by religion and reformation. The purple garter regalia, lined with ermine, that Anne is depicted wearing in this mural is similar to regalia featured in other contemporary portraits of Anne and other monarchs, both predecessors and successors. The depiction of Prince George of Denmark in his rank of lord high admiral, of course, emphasised his military authority, but the position of lord high admiral and generalissimo were honorific positions which the prince held by the gift of his wife.73 This allowed for Anne to be 67 Ibid. 68 Smith, Last of all Heavenly Birth, 141. 69 James Anderson Winn, Queen Anne: Patroness of Arts (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2014), xix. 70 Anonymous, Queen Elizabeth’s Ghost: or A Dream (London: s. n., 1706). 71 Ibid. 72 Smith, Last of all Heavenly Birth, 141. 73 Hallett, Llewelyn and Myrone, Court, Country, City, 179; Catriona Murray, “The

Stuart Consorts, 1603–1714: Representation, Agency, and Anxiety,” in Aidan Norrie, Carolyn Harris, J. L. Laynesmith, Danna R. Messer, and Elena Woodacre (eds), Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 355.

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

217

associated, by proxy, with the exercise of military command.74 This particular portrait is accompanied by three other wall paintings which illustrate Anne receiving homage from the four quarters of the world.75 Prince George is depicted as pointing towards the fleet, while Cupid is depicted as being pulled by seahorses over the waves with the British fleet in the background. The presence of Cupid—the god of love—was undoubtedly present in the painting to symbolise the love between George and Anne. Additionally, the painting represents Anne as Queen of the Sea.76 The completion of the Queen’s Drawing Room by Antonio Verrio enabled the projection of Anne’s magnificence to mirror that of William III’s in Hampton Court Palace, that is, on the King’s Staircase. The ancient Roman and Greek gods in Verrio’s murals such as Cupid, Diana, and Neptune are accompanied by hidden messages and allusions to the “virtue” of Britain and the individuals who ruled it.77 These grand murals also illustrated the magnificent piety of the monarchy and Britain’s emergence as an imperial Protestant power compared to the apparently morally corrupt Catholic regimes in Europe.78 The Queen’s Drawing Room at Hampton Court Palace was not the only location in the Palace in which Queen Anne made alterations to the interiors to reflect the changing culture of late Stuart Britain. As with her sister Mary, the Chapel Royal was another space which was changed so as to reflect Anne’s personal religious identity. Anne’s religiosity was established in several proclamations that were printed and circulated to wider British society. For example, one proclamation entitled, By the Queen, a proclamation, for the putting in execution the laws in force against such persons as have or shall endeavour to pervert Her Majesties Subjects to the popish religion, published in 1706, referenced statutes passed in the twenty-third year of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, as well as the “Act for the discovering and repressing of popish recusants” passed under James I in

74 Norrie, Harris, Laynesmith, Messer and Woodacre, Tudor and Stuart Consorts, 356. 75 Minney, Hampton Court, 196. 76 Lydia Hamlett, Mural Painting in Britain 1630–1730: Experiencing Histories (London: Routledge, 2020), 82–83. 77 Brett Dolman, Raphael and Verrio: The Odd couple at Hampton Court Palace (3 July 2020) Available online: https://blog.hrp.org.uk/curators/raphael-and-verrio-the-odd-cou ple-at-hampton-court-palace/. 78 Dolman, Raphael and Verrio.

218

E. BIRCH

1606 in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot.79 These acts represented the ongoing presence of anti-Catholic legislation that had existed in the realm since the late sixteenth century.80 Anne was a devout Anglican who was engaged in a struggle with Catholic superpowers, including Spain, as her predecessor Elizabeth I had been; the development of spaces to facilitate the preaching of godly sermons was a key component in this struggle.81 The Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace had not been altered since the reign of Henry VIII, and the commissioning of the major architectural work and redecoration of this space was decided upon in late 1710 and early 1711.82 Henry Grey, twelfth earl of Kent, who was the lord chamberlain of Anne’s household, authorised Sir Christopher Wren and other officers of the works “to give orders for fitting up her majesty’s chapel at Hampton Court with all convenient speed,” according to the design which they had created for the alterations.83 These important changes to this religious and sacred space reflected Anne’s deep faith; she regularly attended sermons, and patronised a range of preachers at court.84 New pews were introduced to the chapel, and the floor was also changed to incorporate black and white marble paving.85 The private Royal Gallery, which originally contained Henry VIII’s old pew, was transformed for Anne. The alterations created a private space from which the queen could observe and listen to the sermons preached before her and her court, such as the sermon preached by Thomas Brett on 5 November 1711.86 The queen regularly attended these sermons, letting the preacher know if she 79 Queen Anne, England and Wales, By the Queen, a proclamation, for the putting in execution the laws in force against such persons as have or shall endeavor to pervert Her Majesties subjects to the popish religion (London: s. n., 1706). 80 J. R. Tanner (ed.), English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century, 1603– 1689 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), 32. 81 Somerset, Queen Anne, 179. 82 Colvin, King’s Works, 174–175. 83 Ibid. 84 See Jennifer Farooq’s chapter in this collection: “Queen Anne and her Patronage

of the Clergy, 1702–1714.”; see also Jennifer Farooq, “Preaching for the Queen: Queen Anne and English Sermon Culture, 1702–1714,” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 37 (2014), 159–169. 85 Farooq, “Preaching for the Queen.” 86 Ibid.

9

THE ARCHITECTURAL WORKS OF HAMPTON COURT …

219

was displeased with what was delivered, especially if clerics preached on politically controversial topics.87 The changes to the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court mirrored the schemes of church building which had continued after the reign of Charles II. As with the remodelling of the Chapel Royal, Sir Christopher Wren and other officers of the works had been involved in the rebuilding of churches after the Great Fire of London in 1666, as well as the building of new churches as part of the New Churches in London and Westminster Act of 1710 to accommodate London’s growing population.88 The scheme to remodel the Chapel Royal at Hampton Court Palace by Anne in 1711 was done in a similar vein to the fifty churches’ scheme. Anne’s fifty churches’ scheme was her lasting legacy and was continued by her successor, the Hanoverian King George I from 1716 until his death in 1727, with many of the improvements she made still present within the Chapel Royal today.89 Wren began developing the scheme which resulted in the complete redecoration of the Tudor chapel at Hampton Court. This involved the creation of large pendants on the ceiling being painted in a decorative scheme, and the replacement of the old gothic windows with Renaissanceinspired ones, until the old gothic design was restored by Prince Albert in the nineteenth century.90 New pews were installed, which allowed for a congregation within the chapel—namely the household servants and staff who attend the religious services.91 A new addition to the chapel was the organ produced by Christopher Schrider, which was located on the south side of the chapel in a gallery of its own.92 The decoration of the Chapel Royal at the palace was also updated, with the panels in between the windows decorated by Thomas Highmore, who was the serjeant painter to William III.93

87 Ibid. 88 Michael H. Port, The Commissions for Building Fifty New Churches: The Minute

Books, 1711–27, A Calendar (London: London Record Society, 1986), ix–xxxiii. 89 Ibid. 90 Minney, Hampton Court, 198. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 ODNB, sub “Highmore, Thomas (1660–1720)” (article by Jacqueline Riding).

220

E. BIRCH

There is some debate over the role of Sir James Thornhill in the decoration of the chapel, as he was the apprentice to Highmore in the period when the improvements were made to the Chapel Royal at the palace. Thornhill became one of the most successful decorative artists of the baroque style in England, painting numerous ceilings in several large country houses including Wimpole Hall, during a period which was dominated by developments elsewhere in the architectural landscape.94 The gilded cherubs, which can be spotted on the walls of the chapel, were carved by Grinling Gibbons who was also responsible for the carving of the royal pews. In addition to these decorations, there is symbolism which can be directly linked with Anne, such as the royal cypher and the appearance of Anne’s motto “Semper Eadem” which decorated the walls on both the north and the south sides of the chapel.95 Additionally, the engravings of “A. R.” signified Anna Regina and engravings of the Rose (England), Thistle (Scotland), and Shamrock (Ireland) within the chapel are indicative of the nations which Anne ruled over as queen.

Conclusion Between 1689 and 1714, a series of architectural works were commissioned at Hampton Court Palace by the last two female Stuart monarchs, Mary II and Anne, with many of the improvements still visible today. The renovations that Mary had commissioned prior to her early death in 1694 were not brought to completion. Inevitably, this has meant that we are unable to view the finished project which Mary had commissioned. However, both queens left their mark. Recent interest in queenship has directed attention towards royal female patronage and the commissions and their serious impact on early modern architecture. For both queens, their ardently public display of Anglicanism was transferred into their commissions of the building works at Hampton Court Palace.

94 Edward Croft-Murray, Decorative Painting in England 1537–1837: Volume One-Early Tudor to Sir James Thornhill (London: Country Life Ltd, 1962), 69–71. 95 Somerset, Queen Anne, 179.

CHAPTER 10

‘Sickly and Spent’: Reassessing the Life and Afterlife of Anne of Great Britain Jessica L. Minieri

Introduction In 1742, Sarah Churchill, duchess of Marlborough, reflected on the reign of Queen Anne, the last Stuart monarch of Britain and her one-time close ally. Sarah described Anne as “naturally obstinate,” and “overshadowed by the gloom of mental uneasiness and corporal suffering,” yet equally full of a “vindictive spirit.”1 The duchess attributed the failings of the queen’s 1 Sarah Jennings Churchill, ed. William King, Memoirs of Sarah, and Duchess of Marlborough: Together with Her Characters of Her Contemporaries and Her Opinions (New York: Dutton, 1930), 178, 240, 497.

This chapter is dedicated to Professor L. H. Roper and the Department of History at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Without the support of Professor Roper during the stages of research, writing, and editing of this chapter from its beginnings as my undergraduate thesis to its current form in this volume, this chapter would not be possible. His support, guidance, and mentorship since my days at SUNY New Paltz have made this chapter and the beginning of my career as a premodern historian possible.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_10

221

222

J. L. MINIERI

reign to her physical ailments; in particular, her inability to produce an heir after the death of William, duke of Gloucester following a short illness in the summer of 1700. The death of her son placed greater pressure on Anne and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, to produce another heir to secure the succession, and, especially, to combat the claim to the throne of the Jacobite pretender, Anne’s half-brother, James Francis Edward Stuart. Ever since, discussions of Anne’s reign have tended to focus on the queen’s body and her poor health, influenced by the duchess of Marlborough’s personal account. To consider the degree to which Anne’s health influenced her negative historical reputation, it is first important to visit the challenges of Anne’s life and reign in the context of events of the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Anne was born on 6 February 1665 at St James’s Palace, Westminster, to James, duke of York and his first wife, Anne Hyde. The young Princess Anne was never intended to sit on the throne. Her uncle, Charles II, had been restored to his throne only five years previously in May 1660. Anne’s position as a woman and as the second daughter of the reigning monarch’s brother meant that she, like her elder sister, Mary, had little reason to think that she would ever wear the crown. This situation changed dramatically, of course, with the exile of King James II in December 1688.2 Upon the conclusion of the so-called Glorious Revolution, Mary and her husband, Prince William of Orange, formally acceded to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones in 1689 with the expectation that they would pass their position to a living heir, preferably a male one. This hope ended with Mary’s death from smallpox in December 1694, and, as William did not remarry and had no heirs, the throne was destined to pass to his sister-in-law, and Mary’s sister, Anne. Following William’s own death on 8 March 1702, Anne’s accession

J. L. Minieri (B) Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] 2 For more on the Glorious Revolution see: John Miller, The Glorious Revolution (New York: Routledge, 2014); and Eveline Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000).

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

223

confirmed the Protestant Succession as prescribed in the Act of Settlement of 1701.3 The Act stipulated that, following the death of William of Orange, “Her Royall Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the Heirs of Her Body” will succeed to the English and Scottish thrones.4 If Anne could not provide a legitimate heir, Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the “heirs of her body” would succeed to the British throne.5 This chapter reconsiders contemporary views of Anne’s health, historiographical perceptions of her reputation, and the issue of the succession within the context of both her reign and wider discussions of dynasty, especially regarding premodern royal women. It argues that matters of health and the body are important for understanding the negative perception of Anne’s legacy since the early eighteenth century because, like other royal women in early modern Europe, the matter of the royal succession— especially the political difficulties that disruption of the line of succession caused—could shape how contemporaries and modern historians understood the degree to which royal women physically fulfilled their allotted roles or failed to do so.6 Anne’s position as sovereign intensified considerations of health and physical appearance. Her health, body, and reputation raise important questions about Anne and her reign, as well as the queenship of other female rulers in premodern Europe. Specifically, how did health affect the legacy of Anne and the broader legacies of female rulers in premodern Europe? Using Anne as a case study to investigate the ways in which premodern royal women were defined by their bodies and positions as mothers can enable scholars to situate how the body—as a 3 Edward Gregg, The Protestant Succession in International Politics, 1710–1716 (New York: Garland, 1986); Cedric D. Reverand (ed.), Queen Anne and the Arts (Lanham: Bucknell University Press, 2014). 4 “Act of Settlement, 1701,” in Andrew Browning (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1660–1714 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1953), 129–134. 5 “Act of Settlement,” 129. 6 Recent works by historians of queenship and early modern women have discussed the

role of reproduction and dynasty in the lives of royal and aristocratic women: Kristen L. Geaman and Theresa Earenfight, “Neither Heir nor Spare: Childless Queens and the Practice of Monarchy in Premodern Europe,” in Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H. S. Dean, Chris Jones, Zita Rohr, and Russell Martins (eds), The Routledge History of Monarchy (London: Routledge, 2019), 518–534; Mary E. Fissell, Vernacular Bodies: The Politics of Reproduction in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Jo Eldridge Carney, “The Queen’s (In) Fertile Body and the Body Politic,” in idem (ed.), Fairy Tale Queens: Representations of Early Modern Queenship (London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 11–37.

224

J. L. MINIERI

category of analysis and a constant in the lives of royal women—shaped those women’s legacies.

The Reputation of a Queen---Anne and Her Historians In the months and years after Anne’s death, biographers, historians, and political thinkers began to assess her reign and the contributions of her life to the history of Great Britain. Initially, these histories were divided on party lines; positive depictions of her life and tenure were generally written by Tory supporters while those condemning her and her supposed connections to her exiled relatives across the English Channel were written by Whig authors. In some instances, notably—The History of the Reign of Queen Anne Digested into Annals (1703–1713; reprinted in 1722) by the French writer, lexicographer, and Whig supporter, Abel Boyer—a balanced picture of Anne circulated in print from Whig authors.7 Boyer described Anne and her later years as a woman upon whose “health, the happiness of this kingdom, and liberties of Europe, did so much depend.”8 His concern with the relationship between Anne’s health and the political health of Britain recurs throughout his History. For instance, in the weeks following the death of Prince George on 28 October 1708, Boyer pleaded that “we humbly beseech your Majesty to moderate the grief so justly due to this sad occasion, since it cannot be indulged without endangering the health of your royal person.”9 Clearly, for Boyer and many others in the early eighteenth century, Anne’s health and physical appearance were not unreasonably a source of political anxiety. Boyer’s description of Anne’s passing in 1714, went as follows: Thus died Anne Stuart, Queen of Great Britain, a princess of as many virtues, as ever adorned a private life, and as few frailties as ever blemished a diadem. Her person was a middle-sized, and well made, but after she bore 7 Abel Boyer, The History of the Reign of Anne, Digested into Annals. Year the Tenth. Containing, A Full and Impartial Account of all Transactions, Both at Home and Abroad (London: s.n., 1712). 8 Ibid., 259. 9 Ibid., 261.

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

225

children corpulent. Her hair was dark brown, her complexion sanguine and ruddy; her features strong, but regular: And the only blemish in her face, was owing to the defluxion she had in her infancy, in her eyes, which left a contraction in the upper lids, that gave a cloudy air to her countenance.10

As both a figure embodying virtue and strength, Anne remained a “corpulent” and “blemished” figure for Boyer, despite his praises for her elsewhere in his work. She, unlike her sister and other Stuart predecessors, was fit to wear her crown in virtue and right, but not physically in body. Boyer concluded his assessment of Anne by suggesting that her “reign was justly a reflection against the Salic Law,” and “that monarchies are sometimes left administered when women fill the throne because then men govern, whereas when men bear the sceptre, it is generally swayed by women.”11 Boyer’s focus on gender and the role of political parties in Anne’s reign was also the focus of other early assessments of her queenship. For instance, an anonymous 1712 poem entitled A New Song being a Second Part to the Same Tune of Lilibulero declares: Over, over, Hanover, over, Haste and assist our Queen and our State; Hast over, Hanover, fast as you can over; Put in your Claim, before ’tis too late…. Whoe’er is in Place, I care not a fig; Nor will I decide ’twixt High-Church and Low: ’Tis now no Dispute between Tory and Whig, But whether a Popish Successor, or No.12

The discussion of Anne’s position to the House of Hanover and the “dispute between Tory and Whig” in this passage emphasised the degree to which both events—the Protestant Succession and the emergence of two major political parties in Parliament—were at the forefront of Anne’s reign and the criticisms surrounding it. This anticipation by the New Song ’s author of the future demise of Anne and the end of the Stuart dynasty in Britain is similarly presented in other songs, poems, and addresses written between 1714 and 1720 after her successor, the Hanoverian George I, took the crown. For instance, An 10 Ibid., 716. 11 Ibid. 12 Anonymous, A New Song being a Second Part to the Same Tune of Lillibulero, &c (London: s.n., 1712).

226

J. L. MINIERI

Excellent New Ballad (1714) and The Whig Address to His Majesty (1715) both celebrate the end of Anne’s life and the beginning of the new “prosperous reign” of George I. The Ballad, in particular, welcomes George, with the author declaring that “now, now true Protestants rejoyce, stand by your laws and king.”13 This welcome to the Hanoverians at the expense of Anne and her dynasty exploits the negative representations of her in circulation up to the early Hanoverian period by members of the Whig party. The interpretation of Anne’s reign by many of her former rivals—in Parliament and at court—carried forward into the early historiographical presentations of her by Sarah Churchill, and, to a degree, Abel Boyer.14 These early discussions of Anne’s queenship are an essential context for later studies of her reign by scholars such as David Green and G. M. Trevelyan in the twentieth century.15 Trevelyan’s three volume 1930 study, England under Queen Anne, addresses the political and cultural history of eighteenth-century Britain during the reign of Anne. Considering his focus was less on Anne herself and more on the events of her reign—chiefly, the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), the Scottish Union (1707), and the crisis in Parliament after 1710—Trevelyan’s study presents more of a balanced picture of Anne in comparison to later works in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries by Anne Somerset and Edward Gregg.16 For instance, in his first volume, Trevelyan’s positive assessment of the events of Anne’s reign describes them as “involving great issues” that “move among a brilliant society.”17 In focusing on the political events of Anne’s queenship, Trevelyan highlights the ways in which Anne, as a head of state, was significant for events in Britain and on the continent as a series of dynastic wars raged on. This positive assessment, however, does not continue in later biographies. For instance, David Green’s 1970 biography, Queen Anne, opens by presenting Anne as “no ordinary woman. She might appear so. In fact, she was strange as 13 Anonymous, An Excellent New Ballad (London: s.n., 1714). 14 The Whigs Address to His Majesty (London: R. Ward, 1714). 15 George Macaulay Trevelyan, England Under Queen Anne (3 vols., London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1930–1934); David Green, Queen Anne (New York: Scribner, 1970). 16 Edward Gregg, Queen Anne (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980); Anne Somerset, Queen Anne: The Politics of Passion (New York: Vintage Books, 2014). 17 Trevelyan, England under Queen Anne, i, 1.

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

227

any Stuart and, at least towards the end of her reign, as unfathomable.”18 Green describes her reign as “unfathomable” and unordinary because of her ailing health, and that she was not “tutored in queenship.” Anne, in his interpretation, was not raised to be queen compared to other premodern regnant queens.19 For him, Anne lacked the physical, mental, and “queenly” qualifications. More recent scholarship by Dorata Babilas, Rachel Carnell, Hannah Smith, Judith Lissauer Cromwell, James Anderson Winn, and Rachel Weil have begun to shift attention away from this description of Anne and her health and towards her role in culture, art, and political theology/ religion in the early eighteenth century.20 Cromwell’s Good Queen Anne: Appraising the Life and Reign of the Last Stuart Monarch (2019) sheds light on what she labels as the Stuart’s dynasty’s most “underrated” monarch.21 Cromwell argues that recent works which have focused on Anne’s political position—chiefly monographs written by Geoffrey Holmes and Edward Gregg—have overshadowed Anne’s personal life. Comparatively, Cromwell paints a more positive image of Anne as “a popular and sensible head of state, a loving and beloved wife, a woman who indulged in her passion for music, delighted in her gardens, enjoyed hunting and horse-racing.”22 Other works by Hannah Smith, James Anderson Winn, and Dorota Babilas similarly present a newly “rounded portrait” of Anne and her reign in the fields of art history and cultural history. Hannah Smith’s vision of Anne in “‘Last of All the Heavenly Birth’: Queen Anne and Sacral Queenship,” for example, reflects on the ways in which Anne’s position as queen regnant was depicted in the art adorning the ceiling of Hampton Court Palace. Compared to Winn’s 18 Green, Queen Anne, 1. 19 Ibid., 1–2. 20 Rachel Carnell, Backlash: Libel, Impeachment, and Populism in the Reign of Queen Anne (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2020); Judith Lissauer Cromwell, Good Queen Anne: Appraising the Life and Reign of the Last Stuart Monarch (Jefferson (NC): McFarland & Co., 2019); Hannah Smith, “‘Last of All the Heavenly Birth’: Queen Anne and Sacral Queenship,” Parliamentary History 28 (2009), 137–149; Dorata Babilas, ˙ “Queen Anne’s Cultural Afterlife,” in Lucyna Krawczyk-Zywko (ed.), Exploring History: British Culture and Society 1700 to Present: Essays in Honour of Professor Emma Harris (Bern: Peter Lang, 2015), 11–23; James Anderson Winn, Queen Anne: Patroness of Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 21 Cromwell, Good Queen Anne, 1. 22 Ibid., 2.

228

J. L. MINIERI

focus on Anne’s position as a patroness of art, Smith’s focus on art and sacral queenship pushes scholarship on Anne in new directions in the fields of art history and culture.23 Since the 2010s, serious attention to Anne as a cultural and political figure has allowed historical discussions of her reign to look beyond the ways in which her health apparently negatively affected her ability to govern. Anne remains a figure in British history whose reign and significance are overshadowed by discussions of her health, body, and challenges in childbed. While Anne is far from the only British monarch whose image is dominated by discussions of the body, it is apparent that further consideration of her career must look beyond her uterus and gut. As scholars have started to shift scholarly discussions of Anne away from her poor health and physical appearance, new studies that focus on the later Stuart period from 1688 to 1714 must continue to rectify the image of Anne that remains present within some areas of historical scholarship and the media; future scholarship must focus more on Anne as a politician and as a pivotal figure in her own right in the history of early modern Britain.

“Rubicund and Bloated”---Anne in the Eighteenth Century Anne’s afterlife in modern historiography stems largely from contemporary accounts of her health, size, and reproductive troubles by her advisers, allies, and political foes in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. In many instances, the negative depictions of her reign were written by her political enemies—the Whig Party—and their allies. Anne’s quarrels with the Whigs stem from her own Tory political values and her dismissal and replacement of prominent Whig party members— such as John Churchill, duke of Marlborough and Sidney Godolphin—in 1710 with the Tory ministry headed by Robert Harley. As tensions between Anne, her allies, and the Whig party worsened in the aftermath of the replacement of her ministry and the worsening War of the Spanish Succession, criticisms of Anne’s health and physical appearance intensified—especially from those that Anne once held in great esteem.24 23 Smith, “Queen Anne and Sacral Queenship;” Babilas, “Queen Anne’s Cultural Afterlife;” Winn, Queen Anne. 24 Geoffrey Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987), 51–116.

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

229

Most complaints about Anne’s in/ability to rule in her later years centred around discussions of her physical health and the degree to which her illnesses, weight, and childlessness inhibited her capacity as a queen. For example, in Sarah Churchill’s writings—most prominently, the 1742 Memoir and her 1710 “Farewell Message”—Sarah focused on Anne’s size and how it affected her ability to rule at the height of the War of the Spanish Succession, and during the worsening tensions between the Tory and Whig parties. In her Memoir, Sarah claimed that Anne was a “person altogether of an inferior stamp” and was someone whose “importance was…overshadowed” by the divisions within Parliament and the problems of the succession. Sarah’s memoir remarks on Anne’s “shallow mind” and, again, the “peculiar vulgarity and common-place character of Anne’s mind.”25 Sarah’s characterisation of Anne’s intellectual capacity and later inability to rule stems from the breakdown of their personal relationship, ending with Sarah’s dismissal from Anne’s service in 1711. While recounting the early years of her relationship with the queen, the duchess described Anne “as a lady of elevated rank, and, [that] afterwards as ruler [she] possessed some admirable qualities.”26 The duchess of Marlborough’s dislike for the queen in the years following her dismissal appears glaringly in her formal farewell to Anne, published anonymously in 1710, entitled, Sarah’s Farewell to a C—t or a Trip from St. James to St. Albans. In the work, the duchess publicly addressed the queen and her courtiers as she recounted her departure from her positions as the mistress of the robes, keeper of the privy purse, and groom of the stole. She described Anne as a “once fair mistress” while giving greater credit to the Whig politicians that the duchess aligned herself with, describing them as “poor men with zeal that did burn.”27 In comparison with her later Memoirs, the duchess’s writing presents here an image of the queen as a physically failing monarch whose trust in the Tories set her against the “zeal” of the Whigs and their vision of British politics. We are faced here with contemporary views of obesity and the female body, which has been given particular attention in recent years by historians, including Sarah Toulalan. Toulalan analyses the early

25 Churchill, Memoirs, 49, 53, 63, 80. 26 Ibid., 54. 27 Sarah Jennings Churchill, Sarah’s Farewell to a C—t or a Trip from St. James to St. Albans (London, s. n., 1710), 1.

230

J. L. MINIERI

modern tendency to connect obesity, health problems, and sexual reproduction.28 Sarah’s focus on Anne’s size and her childlessness reflected contemporary anxieties regarding Anne’s personal challenges with the succession, and her physical ability to reproduce healthy living heirs. The link between Anne’s reproductive health and physical appearance was similarly discussed by Sir Roger Coke. In his early history of the Stuart dynasty, Detection of the Court and State of England (1719), Coke observed that: She [Anne] was of middle stature and not so personable and majestic as her sister Queen Mary; her face round, rather comely than handsome…her face was somewhat rubicund and bloated.29

Coke’s description of Anne as “rubicund and bloated” was only one of the many negative assessments of Anne that he made in this text. He claimed that, by Anne’s death in 1714, she “had grown monstrously fat, insomuch that the coffin wherein her remains were deposited was even bigger than that of the prince her husband, who was known to be a very fat and bulky man.” Coke argued that the reason for this was due to her consumption of “so much chocolate” in her final years; he deemed Anne’s gluttonous behaviour in her later reign as a significant contributory factor towards the deterioration of her health in her final months of life.30 This sentiment was echoed in the correspondence between Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Strafford (1672–1739), and William Berkeley, fourth baron Berkeley of Stratton in 1712.31 In Wentworth’s description of Anne’s absence from church services in 1712, Wentworth wrote that “the Queen did not go to church but came out after into the drawing room looking very well, though she had not been so the week before with a cold, and the reason of her not going to church was a touch of the

28 Sarah Toulalan, “‘To[o] Much Eating Stifles the Child’: Fat Bodies and Reproduction in Early Modern England,” Historical Research 87 (2014), 66. 29 Roger Coke, A Detection of the Court and State of England, During the Reigns of Kings James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II. As Also the Interregnum (3 vols, London: J. Brotherton and W. Meadows, 1719), iii, 481–482. 30 Coke, A Detection of the Court and State of England, 482. 31 Wentworth was the first earl of Strafford of the second creation after the English

Civil War (1642–1651).

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

231

gout in her foot. I am sorry to see that she grows fatter.”32 Towards the end of her reign, it was clear in the minds of some of her contemporaries, that Anne’s health problems were beginning to seriously impact her ability to rule and function in public. Both Coke’s and Wentworth’s descriptions of Anne’s size and gluttony suggest that they believed that Anne’s obesity and illnesses were central to Anne’s difficulties in her final years as queen. This focus on Anne’s health and its relationship to her ability to rule similarly appeared in accounts of Anne’s dynastic failure to produce healthy living heirs following the death of her son William, duke of Gloucester, who died aged eleven in 1700. Anne’s reproductive troubles lasted for decades. Between her marriage to Prince George of Denmark in 1683 and the death of William in 1700, Anne carried seventeen pregnancies to various stages of gestation—eleven of which ended in miscarriage. With the death of her sister and William III’s acceptance of her as his heir in December 1694, the matter of Anne’s failed pregnancies became crucial. At Anne’s accession to the throne on 8 March 1702, the connection between motherhood, dynasty, and female rule was a prominent theme in the coronation sermon by John Sharp, archbishop of York, published under the title A Sermon Preach’d at the Coronation of Queen Anne, in the Abbey-Church of Westminster. Sharp’s sermon presented Anne as both a “nursing mother” to her subjects (as the head of the Church of England) and as a queen without an heir. This connection between Anne and the idea of motherhood—imagined or in reality—highlighted the heavy pressure placed upon Anne’s shoulders as a female head of state to have more children to secure the crown against being appropriated by the senior Stuart line.33 In discussing Anne’s position as queen regnant, Sharp described her as a “prince above all others” in an effort to compare her place as a childless regnant queen to that of another famous queen (Elizabeth I) who was the mother of her people, and also a staunch defender of the Church of England.34 In his comparison of the two queens, Sharp declared that:

32 Thomas Wentworth and James J. Cartwright (eds), The Wentworth Papers, 1705–1739 (London: Wyman, 1883), 301. 33 John Sharp, A Sermon Preach’d at the Coronation of Queen Anne, in the AbbeyChurch of Westminster, April XXIII. MDCCII. By the Most Reverend Father in God John Lord Archbishop of York (Dublin: Jo. Ray, 1702), 11–12. 34 Ibid., 6.

232

J. L. MINIERI

The honor of perfecting that great work was reserved for a Queen. You all know whom I mean, the immortal Elizabeth, whose name will be precious, not only in this nation, but in all of the Reformed countries of Europe, as long as time shall last. Her reign alone will let us see, that it was not without great reason that in my text queens are joined as equal sharers with Kings, in making up the blessing which is here promised to God’s people. And such another Queen we trust God has now given us.35

Sharp makes an explicit comparison between Anne and Elizabeth— their childlessness at the time of their coronations did not prevent them from becoming mothers of their subjects. The hope was that Anne, too, would be a successful model of a queen without an heir and would be a “blessing” befitting the “promise of God’s people.”36 Sharp expanded this idea of Anne as a queenly mother further by describing that this position was given to monarchs so that they may “submit their scepters to that of Jesus Christ and become nursing fathers and nursing mothers to his Church and people.”37 He continuously likened the relationship between the sovereign and subject to that of a parent and child. Sharp argued that “they [the monarch] would look upon the Kingdom as their own family and concern themselves as much for the welfare of their subjects as parents do for their children, or guardians for their pupils.”38 By 1708, when Prince George died, Anne was forty-three years old. In her Memoir, the duchess of Marlborough observed that Anne’s childlessness was a “disappointment.”39 Anne’s refusal to contemplate a second marriage provoked the duchess to remark that the Queen, unsentimental though well intentioned, plunged deeper and deeper in petty political intrigues, after the respectable occupation of tending her invalid husband was at an end. Her grief was edifying as her conjugal affection had been exemplary; yet the parliament, not thinking it too late for such addresses, petitioned her Majesty that she would not allow her grief for the prince’s death to prevent her from contemplating

35 Ibid., 8. 36 Ibid., 8. 37 Ibid., 3. 38 Ibid., 4. 39 Churchill, Memoirs, 147–164.

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

233

a second marriage. But Anne continued to be, or, as some said, to seem inconsolable.40

Even if Anne did contemplate a “second marriage,” as the duchess suggested that she should have done, the possibility of her producing a viable heir to succeed her was minuscule, especially when her past pregnancies and her age are considered. But her physician, Sir David Hamilton, in September 1710, expressed concern to Anne that some in her court, chiefly Simon, Lord Harcourt and her lord chancellor William, first earl Cowper, “feared that she was for the Pretender.”41 In November 1710, Hamilton himself lectured Anne that some at court and in Hanover thought that “care should be taken to secure” the Hanoverian succession.42 Hamilton discussed the Pretender with Anne again in early December 1710 when he mentioned news of a sermon that was preached by Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury to his congregation at Mercers Chapel, London. In his address, Burnet declared that he wished that the king of France, Louis XIV, would “bring in the Pretender even while the queen was alive” to succeed her and be installed as king.43 While Hamilton did not record Anne’s response to this sermon in early December, he does claim that she was deliberately kept “ignorant” by those around her intimate circle. From 14 July to 9 September 1712, Hamilton’s diary records Anne’s rebuff of the court gossip concerning her half-brother. Apparently, Anne told Hamilton that “none might impose upon me such impressions” regarding the designs of James Francis Edward to reclaim his father’s throne.44 These concerns, however, began to take their physical toll on Anne for by the end of September 1712, Hamilton expressed concern regarding the Pretender’s impact on the queen’s health. By 8 October, as Anne’s health remained poor, Hamilton recounted court speculation, encouraged by Lord Cowper, that due to Anne’s illness, “they [advisers and others] endeavoured to make Her believe [that] he [James Francis

40 Ibid., 157. 41 David Hamilton, ed. Philip Roberts, The Diary of Sir David Hamilton (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1975), 17. 42 Ibid., 31. 43 Ibid., 32. 44 Ibid., 42.

234

J. L. MINIERI

Edward] had a right. If he has, he should have immediate actual possession [of the throne].”45 Hamilton’s discussions with Anne regarding the Pretender reached their climax in October 1712 as Anne expressed her frustration with him regarding rumours circulating about the support for the Pretender. According to Hamilton, Anne lashed out at the rumours, lamenting that her ministers must think of her as a “child” to be “imposed upon” by the claims of James Francis Edward and those inclined to support him. Following these events in late 1712, the matter of the Pretender’s movements in France and the Holy Roman Empire raised some concerns due to fears that he might attempt to mount an invasion. By 1713, the Pretender was settled in Lorraine with the Treaty of Utrecht stipulating that James was to move from France and into the Bar-le-Duc region between France and the Holy Roman Empire. The records of the House of Lords from early April 1714 reveal the serious political tensions that Anne and her government were faced with as James secured support from Irish Catholics, his followers in Lorraine, and from others in France. After much debate in the House of Lords on 5 April, the question was posed regarding the safety of the succession. The House of Lords requested that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue her royal proclamation, promising a reward to any person who shall apprehend the Pretender, dead or alive, in case he shall land, or attempt to land, either in Great Britain or Ireland, suitable to the importance of that service, for the safety of Her Majesty’s person, and the security of the Protestant succession in the House of Hanover.46

Looking Beyond the Body---The Future of Studies of Queen Anne Between contemporary portrayals of Anne and recent scholarship, the legacy and life of Queen Anne of Great Britain is still in earnest need of a corrective that focuses on aspects of her reign beyond her physical

45 Ibid., 43. 46 LJ, xix, 646–648. See Daniel Szechi, 1715: The Great Jacobite Rebellion (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 2006), 30–51.

10

‘SICKLY AND SPENT’: REASSESSING THE LIFE …

235

health, and the matter of the succession because of her fertility problems. While these issues are important in understanding the politics of Anne’s reign, the oversaturation of studies that focus solely on the queen’s health problems distracts us from other aspects of Anne’s queenship. Anne’s twelve-year reign oversaw the War of the Spanish Succession, the establishment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707), and the development of two rival parties in parliament. These important events and their impact upon modern British history are often overshadowed by discussions of Anne’s body and physical health throughout her queenship. While these matters are important for understanding Anne’s reign and the passing of the line of succession to the House of Hanover, they should not be the only aspect of Anne’s life that is remembered in modern biographies, films, and scholarship. Moreover, the timeworn image of Anne as a sickly, incompetent, and unintelligent ruler put forward by Churchill and her later critics emphasises the degree to which her gender, health, and physical appearance have played a central role in how modern historians and popular audiences view Anne and the importance of her reign. The fixation on the role of bodies and gender in discussions about Anne and her image highlights the broader challenges in queenship studies regarding the memory of queens deemed controversial or unfit by (some) contemporaries. Anne was, of course, only one among many European royal women to face challenges over dynastic issues and the question of their physical health. A re-examination of the reign of Anne in this context—one cognisant of the ways in which reputation and the body are important for the historical memories of royal women—can allow us to revisit some of the accepted wisdom here, and to consider why and how female rulers were and continued to be read through their health and fecundity. The intertwined issues of the succession and fertility, above all else, have dominated how historians and contemporaries have viewed the successes—and failures—of Anne’s reign and her historical image. Anne has always been a queen defined by her inability to continue the Stuart line and safeguard the throne with Protestant (and preferably) male heirs. Yet, while the degree to which modern scholars view Anne as a “failed” or misunderstood monarch is up for debate, it is important to reflect on the ways in which discussions of Anne’s body, her health, and the matter of the succession have informed modern understandings of her reign and how these reflections can inform the concept of reputation and image for all premodern queens alike.

236

J. L. MINIERI

As recent studies of other early modern queens such as Mary I have attempted to provide, Anne’s life and reign similarly need the same kind of corrective attention that has allowed modern historians to look past the physical flaws of Anne’s predecessors.47 As a queen whose reign created the modern political unification of Britain and settled the dynastic disputes between Bourbon France and Spain, future studies of Anne must look past her bodily infirmities.

47 Valerie Schutte and Jessica S. Hower (eds), Writing Mary I: History, Historiography, and Fiction: Queenship and Power (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022).

CHAPTER 11

“The Crown Can Never Have Too Many Liveings:” Queen Anne’s Patronage of the Clergy, 1702–1714 Jennifer Farooq

Introduction Queen Anne was well-known for her piety and devotion to the Church of England. Thus, it is not surprising that Anne took considerable interest in the crown’s ecclesiastical patronage and was protective of her prerogative to make clerical appointments. Nevertheless, with the large scope of her patronage, Anne depended on some close advisers, particularly John Sharp, archbishop of York, and her ministers for recommendations on

I am grateful to Dr. Hannah Yip for her assistance in researching this essay and to Professor Stephen Taylor for his advice on ecclesiastical crown patronage and for his comments on an earlier version of this chapter. J. Farooq (B) University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_11

237

238

J. FAROOQ

Church appointments. Other patrons and politicians also sought to influence the queen’s clerical patronage, and the political situation sometimes required Anne to compromise in her appointments. Indeed, scholars have paid much attention to how much independence the queen exercised in Church preferments, especially in episcopal nominations and translations.1 In G. V. Bennett’s account of the bishoprics’ crisis of 1707–1708, when Anne rejected the advice of her ministers in bestowing several bishoprics, he portrayed her as “obstinate” at times, but susceptible to the influence of a few advisers, without whose guidance she was “confused and inarticulate.”2 Bennett argued that the queen was influenced by Archbishop Sharp and Robert Harley, who served her in various roles, and these decisions were usually managed by her ministers, particularly Sidney Godolphin, her lord treasurer, who only occasionally “allowed” Anne to choose nominees.3 However, most of this work was written before the significant reappraisal of Anne’s abilities, beginning with Geoffrey Holmes’s British Politics in the Age of Anne (1967), continuing with Edward Gregg’s 1980 biography of Anne and the more recent work of Robert Bucholz, which give the queen more credit for her developing political skills and independence of mind.4 Apart from a recent PhD thesis by Troy Heffernan, these reappraisals of Anne do not focus on Anne’s ecclesiastical appointments in any detail, and Heffernan focuses primarily on Anne’s episcopal nominations. Heffernan recognises Anne’s agency in patronage decisions and her evolving strategies for handling those who sought to influence these appointments. However, he emphasises the short period when the queen compromised

1 G. V. Bennett, “Robert Harley, the Godolphin Ministry, and the Bishoprics Crisis of 1707,” English Historical Review 82 (1967), 726–746; Norman Sykes, “Queen Anne and the Episcopate,” English Historical Review 50 (1935), 433–465; Troy A. Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing, Education, and Their Impact on Her Reign and Influence over the Church of England” (PhD, University of Southern Queensland, 2017), chs 6– 10; A. Tindal Hart, The Life and Times of John Sharp Archbishop of York (London: SPCK, 1949), 238–246. 2 Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 732, 739. See also ibid., 736–737, 741–742, 745 for her

obstinancy. 3 Ibid., 730. 4 On the historiography of Anne, see Robert O. Bucholz, “Queen Anne: Victim of

Her Virtues?,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 94–129.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

239

on crown preferments and concludes that she failed to have much impact on Church leadership during her reign.5 Therefore, recent work on Anne has not fully addressed earlier portrayals of her role in ecclesiastical nominations, and scholars have never systematically analysed the crown’s Church appointments below the ranks of the episcopate. This essay examines the scope of Anne’s ecclesiastical patronage and her primary criteria when making Church appointments. It also considers the degree of independence the queen was able to exercise in these decisions and how much influence her advisers had on her choices. Finally, it analyses Anne’s appointments made not only to the episcopate but also to other higher offices in the Church to illuminate her priorities in these appointments.

Anne and Ecclesiastical Crown Patronage Long before Anne became queen, she was known for her devotion to the Church of England. Her uncle, Charles II, ensured that Anne was brought up in the Church of England and had a high-church education.6 Princess Anne remained committed to the Church of England during the reign of her father, the Catholic James II, when she regularly attended services at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall and heard anti-Catholic sermons in London.7 Anne became a rallying point for Anglicans under James II, and she persisted as a figurehead for the Church under William III, a Dutch Calvinist.8 Anne’s commitment to the Church of England continued to be apparent throughout her reign. She attended the Chapel Royal daily, received the sacrament on the first Sunday of every month and was an enthusiastic hearer of sermons.9 Her piety was widely recognised by her subjects, and she was celebrated by many preachers as a “nursing mother” of the church.10 Anne cultivated this image, which was useful for 5 Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” chs 6–10, esp. 203–205. 6 Ibid., 59–60; Edward Gregg, Queen Anne (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980),

15. 7 Gregg, Queen Anne, 42–49; Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 69–79. 8 Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 88, 98, 113; Gregg, Queen Anne, 49–51. 9 Gregg, Queen Anne, 137; Jonathan Swift (ed.), George A. Aitken, Journal to Stella (2 vols, London: Methuen, 1901), ii, 350; Hart, John Sharp, 246; Jennifer Farooq, “Preaching for the Queen: Queen Anne and English Sermon Culture, 1702–1714,” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 37 (2014), 162. 10 Gregg, Queen Anne, 130, 148; Bucholz, “Queen Anne,” 98–100.

240

J. FAROOQ

distinguishing herself from William III and for defining her role as queen. In her first address to parliament in May 1702, she assured her subjects that she “should be alwaies in the interest of the Church of England, and countenance those who have the truest zeal to support it.”11 With her devotion to the Church of England, it is no surprise that Anne was an enthusiastic clerical patron and protective of her rights of patronage. In a letter to Sarah Churchill, duchess of Marlborough, in July 1706, the queen wrote “I think the crown can never have too many liveings [sic] at its disposal, and therefore though there may be some trouble in it, it is a power I can never think reasonable to part with.”12 At the start of her reign, the queen disbanded William III’s ecclesiastical commission, which had been created after Mary’s death to make recommendations for Church appointments. Instead of relying on a commission, Anne decided to consult individual bishops and her ministers.13 In fact, it was considered normal for the monarch to be advised by their ministers on ecclesiastical patronage. Both Anne’s immediate predecessors and successors consulted their bishops and ministers, particularly their lord chancellors, lord treasurers, and secretaries of state, on Church appointments.14 Indeed, the sheer volume of Church appointments and of requests for preferment would have been impossible for the queen to handle on her own. Avoiding dealing with such solicitations was probably part of William’s motivation for establishing an ecclesiastical commission.15 While Anne was familiar with the bishops, her chaplains, and other 11 Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (6 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1858), v, 177. On Anne’s efforts to portray herself as a pious Anglican queen, see Robert O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 204–207, 213, 224. 12 Beatrice Curtis Brown (ed.), The Letters and Diplomatic Instructions of Queen Anne (London: Cassell, 1935), 211. 13 D. R. Hirschberg, “The Government and Church Patronage in England, 1660– 1760,” Journal of British Studies 20 (1980), 123–124; Gilbert Burnet, History of His Own Time (5 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1823), v, 17. 14 Stephen Taylor, “‘The Fac Totum in Ecclesiastic Affairs’? The Duke of Newcastle and the Crown’s Ecclesiastical Patronage,” Albion 24 (1992), 409–433; Hirschberg, “Government and Church Patronage,” 118, 121–124, 127–139; G. V. Bennett, “King William III and the Episcopate,” in G. V. Bennett and J. D. Walsh (eds), Essays in Modern English Church History in Memory of Norman Sykes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 116–131. 15 Bennett, “King William III,” 124.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

241

clergy at court, she required advice on the merits of candidates for many Church offices, frequently turning to Archbishop Sharp for this service.16 For example, in 1704, when Sarah Churchill appealed for a living for Benjamin Hoadly, the queen advised Sarah that she would “get the archbishop of York to inform himself if he [Hoadly] be proper for it, and if he finds him to be soe, he shall be sure to have it.”17 Before further considering Anne’s approach to Church appointments, we should establish the extent of her patronage. Although the crown was the individual patron for the largest number of posts in the Church of England, this amounted to only 9.6% of livings.18 Furthermore, not all this patronage was in the gift of the monarch. Livings valued at £20 or less per year in the king’s book were in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, amounting to 773 out of 899 parochial livings. Another forty livings were in the gift of the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, leaving only eightysix, albeit the most valuable ones, in the gift of the monarch.19 The significance of the monarch’s Church patronage lay in the fact that the sovereign appointed many of the leaders of the Church. The queen nominated all the bishops, twenty-five deans, all the canons of Christ Church in Oxford, Westminster, and Windsor, along with most of the prebendaries of Canterbury and Worcester and the four residentiary canons of St Paul’s.20 For a few offices, such as the archdeaconries of Colchester and Norfolk and the prebendal stalls at Chichester and Lichfield, the monarch

16 Bucholz, Augustan Court, 162, 173–174; Hart, John Sharp, 239–246; Thomas Sharp, The Life of John Sharp, Archbishop of York (2 vols, London: Rivington, 1825), i, 301–302, 317–319, 332–337. 17 BL, Add. MS 61,416, fo. 158v, Queen Anne to Sarah Churchill, duchess of Marlborough, 17 May 1704. 18 Hirschberg, “Government and Church Patronage,” 111. 19 Ibid., 122; Taylor, “‘Fac Totum’,” 411. Stephen Taylor compiled these statistics on

crown livings for the reign of George II. However, the value of livings in the king’s book, the valuation of church livings from the 1530s, had not been updated, so the numbers would have been much the same during Anne’s reign, apart from any crown livings created during the intervening years. 20 Ibid., 411; Anonymous, The Clergyman’s Intelligencer: Or, a Compleat Alphabet-

ical List of All the Patrons in England and Wales… (London: s. n., 1745), 121–123; Joyce M. Horn (ed.), Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1541–1857 [hereafter FEA]: Volume 7, Ely, Norwich, Westminster and Worcester Dioceses (London: Institute of Historical Research, 1992), http://www.british-history.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1541-1857/vol7., 116–118, 123–125, 128–131.

242

J. FAROOQ

only appointed the clergy periodically, in rotation with other patrons.21 Additionally, the monarch appointed clergy when the original patrons’ rights lapsed and both the bishop and archbishop also failed to appoint someone within six months in each instance.22 The monarch nominated to offices normally within a bishop’s patronage when the bishopric was vacant as well. Anne appointed the archdeacon and a canon of Carlisle in 1702, and prebendaries of Lincoln in 1705, Chester in 1707, and Chichester in 1709, when those episcopal sees were vacant.23 Although Anne had extensive patronage for the highest Church offices, the queen and her ministers desired to expand her patronage further. In 1704, Robert Harley developed a plan for Anne to take over some of the crown patronage of the lord keeper of the great seal (later the lord chancellor), which the queen enthusiastically endorsed. In a letter to Godolphin dated 17 July 1704, Harley outlined his plan: “I wish now her ma[jes]t[i]e would please to begin to recommend so many of each university to [the] l[or]d keeper, (I have scheme for that purpose) this would be of admirable use to her ma[jes]t[i]e.’Tis what is now her right & in her own power.”24 Anne embraced Harley’s plan, and when she appointed William Cowper as the new lord keeper in 1705, Anne negotiated with him to make appointments to some of his benefices. In his diary, Cowper recorded on 13 November 1705, that “I had the Q: leave to bestow my livings of 40l per annum, or under, without consulting her,” and he later mentioned on 25 November a conversation about “the disposing of the livings in my gift, & my having promised the Q: to present as she directed

21 Based on data compiled from the CCEd. 22 W. M. Jacob, The Clerical Profession in the Long Eighteenth Century, 1680–1840

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 75. For examples, see BL, Add. MS 61,619, fos 96v–98, 105, “Petitions to Queen Anne, George I.” 23 Joyce M. Horn et al. (eds), FEA: Volume 11, Carlisle, Chester, Durham, Manchester, Ripon, and Sodor and Man Dioceses (London: Institute of Historical Research, 2004), http://www.british-history.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1541-1857/vol11, 18–23, 50–63; Joyce M. Horn (ed.), FEA: Volume 2, Chichester Diocese (London: Institute of Historical Research, 1971), http://www.british-history.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1541-1857/vol2, 27– 28; Joyce M. Horn and David M. Smith (eds), FEA: Volume 9, Lincoln Diocese (London: Institute of Historical Research, 1999), http://www.british-history.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/ 1541-1857/vol9, 77–79. 24 BL, Add. MS 28,055, fo. 95, Robert Harley to Sidney Godolphin, 17 July 1704.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

243

in all the valuable ones.”25 However, it is not clear which livings were transferred from the lord keeper’s gift to the queen’s because, by statute, he had the gift of livings with the value of £20 (not £40) per year or less, and of some prebendal stalls.26 In any event, the queen embraced every opportunity to nominate clergy for the offices and livings in her gift. Anne had clear ideas about how Church patronage should be bestowed. Unlike some of her courtiers and ministers who unashamedly promoted candidates based on their partisan views, she and Archbishop Sharp professed to be less concerned with clergymen’s politics and argued that Church offices and livings should be granted primarily with respect to the abilities of candidates.27 As we shall see, despite these claims, Anne’s and Sharp’s choices were often influenced by politics. However, the queen did seek to nominate able clergymen, and, occasionally, this trumped partisan concerns. On Sharp’s advice, Anne by-passed partisan considerations, and decided to retain all of William’s chaplains-in-ordinary.28 When defending her choice of bishops in August 1707 to John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, Anne argued that “all the clamour that is raised against them proceeds only from the malice of the Whigs … They are certainly very fit for the station … I think myself obliged to fill the bishops’ bench with those that will be a credit to it.”29 Indeed, the clergy appointed by the queen were virtually always of a high calibre.30 Anne also required that clergy, particularly bishops, would be physically able to perform their

25 William Cowper, The Private Diary of William, First Earl Cowper, Lord Chancellor of England (Eton: E. Williams, 1833), 15, 19. 26 Neither of the brief accounts of this arrangement with Cowper addresses this issue. Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 730; Gregg, Queen Anne, 206. The discrepancy between the £20 and £40 valuations for livings likely was due to the difference between the values in the king’s book and contemporary values (I am grateful to Stephen Taylor for this suggestion), though even this does not clarify which livings were transferred to the queen. 27 Ibid., 146–147; Hart, John Sharp, 238–253; Sharp, Life of John Sharp, i, 317–320. 28 Ibid., i, 315. 29 Brown, Letters and Diplomatic Instructions, 230. For the dating of this letter, see Henry L. Snyder (ed.), The Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence (3 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), ii, 891, n. 1. 30 Gregg, Queen Anne, 146; Bucholz, Augustan Court, 89–90. More than half of the clergy appointed by the queen to higher offices have entries in the ODNB, reflecting the significance of their careers.

244

J. FAROOQ

duties. In 1709, she refused to consider William Hayley, dean of Chichester, for the bishopric of that diocese because he was unable to do the work, “being a cripple and without hopes of remedy.”31 While Anne professed to be non-partisan, she clearly favoured Tory clergymen. For the selection of bishops, partisan considerations were unavoidable because they held seats in the House of Lords, so their positions were inherently political. Anne nominated fourteen Tories as bishops, three of whom she later translated to other bishoprics, making seventeen episcopal appointments in total for the Tories.32 In contrast, she only nominated five Whigs as bishops.33 When she appointed George Bull as the bishop of St Davids in 1705, she told Archbishop Sharp “that she should always desire that the bishops she put in should vote on the side that they who call themselves the Church party,” which she considered to be the Tories.34 Anne’s support for the Tories was tied to her concern for the Church of England. In November 1704, Anne wrote to the duchess of Marlborough that she believed “the Church was in some danger in the late reign [William III’s] … [when] everything was leaning towards the Whigs, and whenever that is, I shall think the Church beginning to be in danger.”35 Nevertheless, the queen had a complicated relationship with more extreme Tories. When Anne did not show unwavering support for the Tories early in her reign, some Tories argued that the Church of England was in danger under her government.36 Even though they targeted her ministers rather than the queen, 31 Quoted in Gregg, Queen Anne, 146. 32 The Tory bishops were Francis Atterbury, William Beveridge, Philip Bisse, Offspring

Blackall, George Bull, William Dawes, Francis Gastrell, George Hooper, Thomas Manningham, William Nicolson, Adam Ottley, John Robinson, George Smalridge, and Sir Jonathan Trewlany. Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 436–438, 440, 442, 448, 453–460. Nicolson was a Tory when he became a bishop in 1702, but soon began supporting the Whigs on most issues. See Ibid., 436–438. 33 The Whig bishops were William Fleetwood, John Moore, Charles Trimnell, John Tyler, and William Wake. Ibid., 439–441, 444–446, 447. 34 Sharp, Life of John Sharp, i, 322–323. For the Tories as the “Church party,” see

Gregg, Queen Anne, 134. 35 Brown, Letters and Diplomatic Instructions, 99. On the dating of this letter, see Gregg, Queen Anne, 133, 426, n. 4. 36 William Nicolson, The London Diaries of William Nicolson Bishop of Carlisle 1702– 1718, Clyve Jones and Geoffrey Holmes (eds) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 283–287, 311–312, 315, 320, 324–325, 331; Gregg, Queen Anne, 145, 177–178, 214.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

245

Anne was deeply offended by this suggestion and was reluctant to favour the high-churchmen who supported this campaign.37 Accusations by the Marlboroughs in 1707 that George Smalridge believed the Church was in danger probably contributed to Anne’s decision to renege on her promise to nominate him as the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, though he regained her favour later in her reign.38 Similarly, although the infamous high-flying preacher Henry Sacheverell was given the crown living of St Andrew’s, Holborn, London by Lord Chancellor Harcourt in 1712, the queen resisted Harcourt’s suggestion that Sacheverell be granted further preferments.39 Anne thus was an enthusiastic patron of the clergy, making the most of her extensive patronage of the higher clergy to promote worthy, able men allied with the “Church party.” However, the queen’s difficult relationship with some high-churchmen occasionally made it difficult to follow her inclinations to favour their party.

Anne and Her Ecclesiastical Advisers Although Anne had clear principles for the exercise of her ecclesiastical patronage, there has been debate about how far her decisions to make appointments to Church livings were really her own. The circumstances of her reign were quite different from her predecessors. The political consequences of the Revolution of 1688/1689 and the following wars meant that monarchs were dependent on parliament for financing their policies.40 Thus, Anne had to give more consideration to the patronage requests of politicians supporting her government than Charles II or James II did.41 The heightened party divisions of her reign also infused many of her patronage decisions with political implications. Contemporaries often speculated about advisers who might be influencing the

37 Nicolson, London Diaries, 332. 38 Report on the Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, Preserved at Welbeck

Abbey (HMC, 10 vols, London, 1897–1931), iv, 320, 388; Gregg, Queen Anne, 244. 39 HMC Portland, v, 228; Geoffrey Holmes, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London: Eyre Methuen, 1973), 259–260; Burnet, History, vi, 165, Dartmouth’s note. 40 Gregg, Queen Anne, 141–142; Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 100–101. 41 For Charles II’s and James II’s patronage, see Hirschberg, “Government and Church

Patronage,” 118–124.

246

J. FAROOQ

queen. In June 1707, Lord John Somers complained about Sharp’s influence on Church appointments in a letter to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, arguing that “the archbishop of York never suffers her [the queen] to rest.”42 Godolphin and the Marlboroughs also were worried about the influence of Harley and Abigail Masham, Anne’s favourite and Harley’s cousin, ascribing the queen’s refusal to compromise in 1707 to their influence.43 In contrast, Harley and Masham were concerned about the Whig influence over episcopal appointments in March 1710, when Masham feared the queen was “giving her best friends up to the rage of their enemies.”44 However, it was common for her favourites and advisers to grumble about their lack of clout. The duchess of Marlborough complained in 1704 about her limited power to influence ecclesiastical appointments: “I have less opinion of my solicitations of that sort than any other.”45 Likewise, Abigail Masham lamented to Harley in March 1710 that in a conversation with Anne about episcopal nominations, “she said very little to me … people think I am able to persuade her to anything I have a mind to have her do, but they will be convinced to the contrary one time or other.”46 In 1703, Godolphin wrote to the duchess of Marlborough about candidates for the bishopric of St Asaph, but he emphasised that “I think whoever had spoken to the Queen for either of these worthy persons would have lost their labour, for though she did not positively say who should, she seemed very well resolved who should not have it.”47 Claiming a lack of influence sometimes would have been useful to favourites and ministers to help lower the expectations of those soliciting for candidates. However, her advisers also recognised the limits of their sway in this patronage. Both Godolphin and John Churchill, duke 42 Quoted in Edward Carpenter, Thomas Tenison Archbishop of Canterbury: His

Life and Times (London: SPCK, 1948), 181. See also Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, ii, 829. 43 Ibid., ii, 884. See also ibid., ii, 811, 824, 830–831, 843, 891, 904; Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 737–743; Bucholz, Augustan Court, 163–166, 170. 44 HMC Portland, iv, 536. See also Bucholz, Augustan Court, 167–169. 45 Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Downshire, Preserved at Easthampstead

Park, Berks. Papers of Sir William Trumbull (HMC, 2 vols, London: HMSO, 1924), ii, 828. 46 HMC Portland, iv, 536. 47 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, i, 184–185.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

247

of Marlborough were upset by their lack of influence during the bishoprics’ crisis in 1707, when Anne was determined to appoint the Tories Offspring Blackall and William Dawes to the bishoprics of Exeter and Chester respectively. Her choices angered the Whig leaders and distressed her ministers who needed the Whigs’ support. In June 1707, Godolphin expressed his frustration to Marlborough about the queen’s episcopal nominees, for “38 [Godolphin] has soe little hopes of their being well filled that he seems resolved to use all his endeavors to keep them vacant till he can have Mr. Freeman’s [Marlborough’s] assistance in those spirituall affairs.”48 Anne’s habit, it seems, was not to rely exclusively on any particular adviser when making ecclesiastical appointments. The archbishop of York was Anne’s most influential adviser on clerical appointments and the only one to enjoy the queen’s favour throughout her entire reign.49 Sharp made at least eight, and as many as twelve, successful recommendations for bishoprics, including for his successor at York.50 He also successfully recommended at least eight clergymen for lesser offices.51 After Sharp, Anne’s most successful ministerial advisers were Sidney Godolphin, her lord treasurer until 1710, and Robert Harley, who served Anne in various roles, most notably as secretary of state for the North, 1704–1708, and as lord treasurer, 1711–1714. Initially, Harley and Godolphin worked closely together, for the lord treasurer often relied on Harley for advice on ecclesiastical preferments because of Harley’s extensive contacts with 48 Ibid., ii, 811; see also ibid., ii, 817, 830–831, 833–835, 844, 849, 884, 907, 932; Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, 180, 181–182. 49 Bucholz, Augustan Court, 173–174; Gregg, Queen Anne, 146–147; Sharp, Life of John Sharp, i, 301–302, 312, 317–320. 50 Sharp successfully recommended William Nicolson in 1702, George Hooper in 1703, William Beveridge in 1704, George Bull in 1705, John Moore in 1707, Offspring Blackall, and William Dawes in 1707–1708 and again in 1714. See Bucholz, Augustan Court, 174; Hart, John Sharp, 238–241, 245–246. He probably influenced the appointments of Philip Bisse, John Robinson, Adam Ottley, and George Smalridge. See Bucholz, Augustan Court, 331, n. 120; ODNB, sub “Smalridge, George (1662–1719),” (article by Richard Sharp). 51 Sharp successfully recommended Joseph Fisher and John Atkinson as archdeacon and

canon of Carlisle respectively, John Mill as prebendary of Canterbury, Humphrey Prideaux as dean of Norwich, Heneage Dering for dean of Ripon, and George Smalridge for dean of Carlisle, canon of Christ Church and later for dean of Christ Church, see TNA, SP 34/1/44A, fos 69–70, archbishop of York to [earl of Nottingham?], 4 June 1702; Sharp, Life of John Sharp, ii, 44–45, 49–50; Hart, John Sharp, 15; Sharp, “Smalridge, George.”

248

J. FAROOQ

the clergy.52 Between 1702 and 1707, Harley and Godolphin successfully influenced at least three episcopal appointments and at least four lesser offices.53 However, Harley’s and Godolphin’s relationship began to deteriorate in 1705 because Godolphin increasingly looked to the Whigs for parliamentary support. Between 1705 and 1708, Godolphin, Archbishop Tenison and the duke of Marlborough, supported by Whig ministers, successfully encouraged Anne to fill five bishoprics with Whig clergy.54 They also secured at least ten lesser offices for Whig clergymen.55 Harley’s influence returned with the new Tory government in 1710, and he worked closely with Anne and Sharp.56 Between 1710 and 1714, they filled seven bishoprics with moderate Tories, all but one with close ties to Harley.57 Harley also successfully recommended clergy for some lesser offices between 1709 and 1713; for example, he assisted John

52 Gregg, Queen Anne, 147, 241; Henry L. Snyder, “Godolphin and Harley: A Study of Their Partnership in Politics,” Huntington Library Quarterly 30 (1966), 255–256. 53 They recommended John Adams as prebend of Canterbury, George Hooper as bishop of St Asaph and then of Bath and Wells, Francis Atterbury as dean of Carlisle, Sir Jonathan Trelawny as bishop of Exeter, and Francis Gastrell and William Stratford, both Harley’s chaplains, as canons of Christ Church. HMC Portland, iv, 50, 63, 72–73, 156, 203, 416; Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath Preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire (HMC, 5 vols, London: HMSO, 1904–1981), i, 57; Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 729, 735–736; R. B. Levis, “Bishop William Nicolson of Carlisle and His Dean, Francis Atterbury: A Case Study of Local Ecclesiastical Politics, 1705 to 1708,” Northern History 58 (2021), 50–51; ODNB, sub “Gastrell, Francis (1662–1725),” (article by Stephen Baskerville). 54 These appointments were William Wake to Lincoln, John Tyler to Llandaff, John Moore to Ely, William Fleetwood to St Asaph, and Charles Trimnell to Norwich. See Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 439–446; Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, 179, 183–184. 55 These appointments were Lancelot Blackburne as dean of Exeter; Edward Chandler as prebendary of Worcester; Chetwood Knightley as dean of Gloucester; Henry Godolphin, the lord treasurer’s brother, as dean of St Paul’s; Francis Hare as canon residentiary of St Paul’s; Samuel Bradford as canon of Westminster; Robert Cannon as archdeacon of Norfolk; White Kennett as dean of Peterborough; and John Potter as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford and canon of Christ Church, Oxford. See Nicolson, London Diaries, 421; G. V. Bennett, White Kennett, 1660–1728, Bishop of Peterborough: A Study in the Political and Ecclesiastical History of the Early Eighteenth Century, 89–90, 97, 99; Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 445, 452. 56 Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 729–732; Hart, John Sharp, 216–217, 244. 57 These appointments were for Philip Bisse in 1710 and 1713, John Robinson in 1710

and 1714, Adam Ottley in 1713, and Francis Gastrell and George Smalridge in 1714: Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, 186. For Harley’s relationships with Smalridge, Robinson,

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

249

Robinson, George Smalridge and Francis Atterbury to secure deaneries, and Smalridge and Thomas Terry to become canons of Christ Church.58 While Sharp, Godolphin, and Harley were Anne’s most important advisers on Church appointments, they all had their failures and were not consulted consistently. Sharp pressed the claims of George Bull, William Dawes, and George Smalridge more than once before securing Bull and Dawes bishoprics and Smalridge a deanery.59 Harley also tried to help Smalridge early in Anne’s reign,60 and he failed to obtain an English deanery or prebendal stall for his political ally Jonathan Swift.61 Similarly, Godolphin and Marlborough proposed Francis Hare and Chetwood Knightley, both Marlborough’s chaplains, for posts several times before securing them preferments.62 The queen ignored the recommendations of Harley, Godolphin, Marlborough, and Tenison at crucial moments. Anne did not consult Harley when she decided to follow Sharp’s recommendation for his successor at York in 1714.63 During the bishoprics’ crisis, she refused even to compromise when Godolphin proposed that she appoint a Whig to Exeter and give Blackall another preferment.64 Even after Anne promised to consult her ministers on ecclesiastical appointments in 1708, Godolphin and Tenison were unable to convince her to nominate the Whig Richard Willis as bishop of Chichester in 1709. Instead, the queen selected Thomas Manningham, a moderate Tory, who was broadly acceptable.65 Even Sharp was sometimes not consulted, for

Bisse and Gastrell, see Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 453–4, 457–60; HMC Portland, iv, 321– 322, 473–474; v, 87, 321–322, 598; ODNB, sub “Bisse, Philip (bap. 1666, d. 1721),” (article by William Marshall); Baskerville, “Gastrell, Francis.” 58 HMC Portland, v, 15, 87, 296, 306; ODNB, sub “Atterbury, Francis (1663–1732),” (article by D. W. Hayton); ODNB, sub “Robinson, John (1650–1723),” (article by John B. Hattendorf). 59 Hart, John Sharp, 240–241; Nicolson, London Diaries, 380–381, 523–525. 60 HMC Portland, iv, 388, 473–474. 61 Elizabeth Hamilton, The Backstairs Dragon: A Life of Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1969), 171, 245; Swift, Journal to Stella, i, 508, n. 4, 660–662. 62 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, i, 184–185; 2: 599–600, 605, 622; ODNB, sub “Chetwood, Knightly (bap. 1650, d. 1720),” (article by Hugh de Quehen). 63 Gregg, Queen Anne, 378. 64 Ibid., 249–250. 65 Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 445, 447–448; Hart, John Sharp, 244.

250

J. FAROOQ

he was surprised when the queen presented Francis Atterbury to the deanery of Carlisle in 1704 instead of his candidate, Robert Boothe, and he was uncertain whether the queen would nominate Dawes as bishop of Chester in 1707.66 While all these advisers enjoyed some success in recommending clergy, their influence on the queen was inconsistent, for she was fully prepared to make up her own mind. Other politicians had limited success in influencing the crown’s ecclesiastical appointments. Anne’s secretaries of state, Daniel Finch, earl of Nottingham; Sir Charles Hedges; Charles Spencer, earl of Sunderland; and William Legge, earl of Dartmouth, helped to secure some preferments for clergymen, as did William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, who was a privy councillor.67 The members of the House of Commons also successfully requested the queen prefer their chaplains in 1705 and 1707.68 More significantly, by the end of Anne’s reign, Harley was losing influence to his more zealous Tory colleagues, Henry St John (Lord Bolingbroke), secretary of state for the North and then the South, and Sir Simon Harcourt, Lord Chancellor.69 In 1713, Harcourt overcame Anne’s reluctance to appoint Francis Atterbury as the bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, even though “she knew he would be as meddling and troublesome as the bishop of Salisbury [Gilbert Burnet].” The queen felt she had to agree because “she had lately disobliged him by refusing the like request for Dr Sacheverel [sic], and found if she did not grant this, she must break with him quite.”70 Most other politicians and courtiers had little success influencing ecclesiastical appointments, for Anne tried to

66 Levis, “Bishop William Nicolson,” 50–51; Nicolson, London Diaries, 193; Hart, John Sharp, 242. 67 For Nottingham, see HMC Portland, iv, 72–73; Sharp, Life of John Sharp, ii, 49– 50; Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, i, 63. For Hedges, see Gregg, Queen Anne, 189. For Sunderland and Devonshire, see Bennett, White Kennett, 97, 99; Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 445. For Dartmouth, TNA, SP 34/12/90, fo. 160, Henry Finch to [Lord Dartmouth?], 5 July 1710; TNA, SP 34/16/48, fos 79–80, archbishop of York to [Lord Dartmouth?], 15 August 1711. 68 Thomas Hearne, Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne, ed. C. E. Doble (11 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885–1921), i, 197, ii, 11; Luttrell, Brief Historical Relation, v, 394, 572. 69 Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, 186–187; Gregg, Queen Anne, 370–371. 70 Burnet, History, vi, 165, Dartmouth’s note.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

251

limit her reliance on lay advice, sometimes even advice from her ministers, in these matters.71 The queen particularly did not respond well to those who tried to pressure her. During the bishoprics’ crisis on 12 September 1707, after months of pressure and threats from Whig politicians, Anne defiantly wrote to Godolphin that “whoever of ye [the] Whigs thinks I am to be hecktor’d or frighted into a complyance, tho I am a woman, are mightely mistaken in me. I… am to[o] much conserned for my reputation to do any thing to forfeit it, as this [going back on her promises to Blackall and Dawes] would.”72 This letter was in response to one by Godolphin in which he lost patience with Anne because he feared they would lose the parliamentary support of the Whigs for the war effort. He asked: “what reflexion will it not cause in the world, that all these weighty things together, can not stand in the balance with … whether Dr Blackall at this time bee made a bishop or a dean or a prebend?”73 However, Godolphin was generally more respectful of Anne and her royal prerogative. When they disagreed, he either accepted her decision, as in the case of the bishopric of St Asaph in 1703, or he attempted to delay the appointment, so that he could continue to try to change her mind. In November 1706, Godolphin wrote to the duchess of Marlborough, referring to the bishopric of Winchester: “I will endeavour to keep the Queen from coming to any resolution upon it, till we have advised with all our friends.”74 Anne’s most influential advisers were those who at least professed to be protective of her prerogative. Archbishop Sharp told the queen that he disapproved of pressure brought on her in favour of those “whom he knew she disliked.” He encouraged her to resist this pressure, for, when discussing a vacant bishopric, he told Anne “that whether she put in any of his naming or no, she should put in one of her own choice, and

71 Gregg, Queen Anne, 147, 249–250; Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 119–

121. 72 BL, Add. MS 52540L, fo. 48v: Queen Anne to Godolphin, 12 September 1707. On her general resistance to pressure, see Bucholz, Augustan Court, 76–82, 156–179. 73 Quoted in Gregg, Queen Anne, 249. In fact, Anne may have welcomed these political conseqeunces of her appointments because she likely had become more skeptical of the foreign policy supported by her ministers and the Whigs by mid 1707. Ibid., 240. 74 BL, Add. MS 61,434, fos 52v–53r, Godolphin to Sarah Churchill, duchess of Marlborough, 9 November 1706. See also Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, ii, 734, 811.

252

J. FAROOQ

not have one put upon her by others.”75 Harley also defended Anne’s prerogative. During the bishoprics’ crisis, he consistently upheld Anne’s authority, and, in a 1707 letter to Lord Chancellor Cowper, he asked if the Whigs intended to take “the dependency of the clergy from the crown.”76 These supportive statements directed at Whigs who sought to pressure Anne may have led the queen to be more receptive to the Tory candidates proposed by the archbishop and her secretary. However, Swift emphasised that this respectful attitude continued during Harley’s tenure as her first minister, when “he could not with any decency press the Queen too much against her nature, because it would be like running upon the rock where his predecessors had split.”77 Anne did, therefore, often rely on the advice of those she evidently trusted (primarily Sharp, Harley and Godolphin). But ultimately, Anne knew her own mind and, when necessary, resisted pressure related to these decisions.

Priorities in Anne’s Ecclesiastical Appointments During her reign, Anne made twenty-three appointments to bishoprics in England and Wales. The queen also made at least seventy-four appointments to the higher ranks of the clergy in England and Wales, including deans, archdeacons, and canons and prebendaries.78 Although scholars have carefully studied Anne’s selection of bishops in the Church of England, there has been no systematic analysis of her other ecclesiastical appointments. These selections reveal some of the queen’s and her minister’s priorities in Church appointments. One such priority was the preferment of Anne’s chaplains-in-ordinary. In 1704, the duchess of Marlborough wrote to an acquaintance: “her Majesty has to[o] many chaplains that are always importuning her for preferment, and have to[o] frequent

75 Sharp, Life of John Sharp, i, 319–320, 334–335, quotations at 319 and 336. See also Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 732. 76 Hamilton, Backstairs Dragon, 98–100, quotation at 99. See also Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 733–745. 77 Quoted in Geoffrey Holmes (ed. W. A. Speck), “Robert Harley and the Ministerial Revolution of 1710,” Parliamentary History 29 (2010), 282, and see also 282–284, 287–288, 299–300, 305 on Harley’s relationship with the queen. 78 I compiled these statistics from the CCEd, and Joyce M. Horn et al. (eds), FEA 1541–1857 (11 vols, London, 1969–2004) British History Online http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1541-1857.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

253

opportunities of making application when anything happens, that I think they have the advantage of every body else.”79 This impression seems to have been accurate. Over forty per cent of Anne’s appointments to the higher clergy went to her current or former chaplains, including one archbishopric, twelve bishoprics, thirteen deaneries, and fourteen prebendal stalls. At the time of her death, the queen also was considering elevating either George Stanhope or Robert Moss, two of her favourite royal chaplains, to the bishopric of Ely.80 Anne presented at least eight of her chaplains to multiple higher ecclesiastical offices.81 Her preference for chaplains is not surprising because Anne would have been familiar with these clergymen, who were required to attend and preach at court,82 and also would have felt particularly obliged to assist them, as her personal servants. Anne’s approach was like that of other monarchs and prominent patrons, who often favoured their chaplains when making ecclesiastical appointments.83 Indeed, Stephen Taylor has argued that, by the 1740s, royal chaplaincies sometimes were viewed “not as preferments in themselves, but as pledges of further royal patronage.”84 Although royal chaplains were not paid, the advantages for clergymen in attending court for attracting potential patrons were clear.85 Queen Anne certainly fulfilled her obligations to her chaplains, for they often were her first choices for preferments. While Anne prioritised the promotion of her chaplains, along with looking for well-qualified, able candidates, these considerations were indeed sometimes overshadowed by partisan concerns. As mentioned above, the political views of clergy were often a top priority in Church

79 HMC Downshire, ii, 828. 80 ODNB, sub “Stanhope, George (1660–1728),” (article by Rebecca Warner). For

Anne’s favourites, see Farooq, “Preaching for the Queen,” 163–164. 81 These chaplains were John Adams, Francis Atterbury, William Dawes, William Fleetwood, George Hooper, Thomas Manningham, John Potter, and George Smalridge. 82 Farooq, “Preaching for the Queen,” 159–160, 163. 83 For the promotion of royal chaplains by William III and George II, see Hart, John

Sharp, 234–235; Taylor, “‘Fac Totum’,” 427–429. For other patrons, see Jacob, Clerical Profession, 84; William Gibson, A Social History of the Domestic Chaplain, 1530–1840 (London, 1997), 66–67, 97–98, 192–193. 84 Taylor, “‘Fac Totum’,” 429. 85 Bucholz, Augustan Court, 135–136. See, for example, Swift, Journal to Stella, vols

1–2.

254

J. FAROOQ

appointments, and there are clear patterns in the queen’s nominations of partisan clergy. Anne undoubtedly preferred Tory clergymen, for they made up sixty per cent of her ecclesiastical appointments, whereas Whig clergymen made up less than a quarter, and the political views of fifteen per cent of the nominated clergy are unknown.86 Furthermore, the trends in partisan appointments closely mirrored the political character of Anne’s government. From 1702 to 1705, when her ministers tried to avoid relying on either party, Tory ecclesiastical appointments greatly outnumbered Whig ones, following Anne’s and Sharp’s preferences, with sixteen appointments for Tories and only three for Whigs.87 As the queen, Godolphin and Marlborough increasingly looked to the Whigs to support the war effort from 1705 to 1709, this balance shifted with twenty clerical appointments for the Whigs and fourteen for the Tories.88 From 1710 onwards, with the return of a Tory ministry and parliamentary majority, the Whigs were completely shut out of crown appointments to the higher ranks of the clergy.89 Although most of the leadership positions in the church went to Tories during Anne’s reign, some scholars have highlighted her apparent loss of control over ecclesiastical patronage after the bishoprics’ crisis in 1707– 1708.90 As a resolution to the crisis, the queen did assure the Whig leaders in December 1707 that, for future clerical appointments, she would consult with her ministers and give the Whigs “full content.”91 However, the actual significance of this promise is not clear. Anne had already promoted five Whigs in 1707. This probably indicated that, while she was determined to appoint the Tory nominees to episcopal sees,

86 I have identified political affiliations for most of the clergy from entries in the ODNB

and contemporary sources, including Burnet, History; Hearne, Remarks; Nicolson, London Diaries. 87 Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 726–729; Gregg, Queen Anne, 133–135, 162–165, 177– 181; Snyder, “Godolphin and Harley,” 244–246, 252–254. 88 On Whig support, see Gregg, Queen Anne, 239–240, 252–256; Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, ii, 817, 830–831, 843; Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 143–147, 152–156. 89 Holmes, “Robert Harley;” Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 187–191. 90 Ibid., 19–21, 171–175, 203–205; Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 745–746. 91 Ibid., 745–746; Burnet, History, v, 300.

11

“THE CROWN CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MANY LIVEINGS:” …

255

she recognised the need to appease the Whigs and her ministers.92 The queen appointed another four Whigs in January and February 1708 at the same time as the elevation of Blackall and Dawes.93 Anne promoted only two other Whigs following this, including nominating one of her favourite chaplains, William Fleetwood, as bishop of St Asaph. During the same period, she appointed a moderate Tory, Thomas Manningham, first as dean of Windsor in 1708 and then as bishop of Chichester in 1709, and she promoted four other Tories to deaneries or canonries.94 Between 1705 and 1708, Anne clearly recognised that she needed to promote more Whig clergymen to appease her ministers and to maintain the support of the Whigs in parliament during these years.95 However, she did not surrender control of her patronage because she continued to appoint some Tories in crucial roles. In addition, most of the Whigs that the queen promoted in 1707 and 1708 were her chaplains, such as Fleetwood, or favourites, such as John Moore, whom she translated to the bishopric of Ely.96 The Whigs she appointed were moderates and enjoyed broad approval, including Charles Trimnell, whom Sharp had praised earlier in his career, and John Potter, who had ties with Harley and was a high churchman in religion, despite supporting the Whigs.97 Thus, while partisan concerns undoubtedly influenced Anne’s ecclesiastical patronage, politicians did not wrest control of this patronage away from the queen. She was politically savvy enough to recognise when

92 These were Francis Hare as residentiary canon of St Paul’s, Chetwood Knightley as dean of Gloucester, John Moore as bishop of Ely, Henry Godolphin as dean of St Paul’s, and Thomas Goddard as canon of Windsor. 93 Bennett, “Robert Harley,” 746; Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 172–173. These appointments were Charles Trimnell as bishop of Norwich, John Potter as a canon of Christ Church and the Regius Professor of Divinity, White Kennett as dean of Peterborough, and Samuel Bradford as a canon of Westminster. 94 Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 446, 448. The other Whig appointed was Robert Brabant as prebendary of Worcester. The Tory appointments were John Adams as canon of Windsor, Robert Booth as dean of Bristol, William Whitfield as canon of Canterbury, and John Robinson as dean of Windsor. 95 For Anne’s political abilities, see Gregg, Queen Anne, 134–144, 402–405; Heffernan, “Queen Anne’s Upbringing,” 164–175, 187–194, 204–205; Bucholz, “Queen Anne,” 113–119. 96 Sykes, “Queen Anne,” 441. 97 Ibid., 445; Sharp, Life of John Sharp, i, 336–337; ODNB, sub “Potter, John (1673/

4–1747),” (article by Rebecca Warner); HMC Portland, iv, 21, 38, 384, 386.

256

J. FAROOQ

she needed to compromise, and to find suitable candidates that were acceptable not only to her advisers and politicians, but also to herself.

Conclusion Queen Anne was an enthusiastic patron of the clergy. She knew the qualities she desired in clerical candidates and sought to prefer clergymen she knew and liked, as well as those who were sympathetic to her high-church Tory views. In her search for well-qualified, able clergy with similar religio-political views to her own, and in her preference for promoting her own chaplains, Anne was like other important ecclesiastical patrons, including her predecessors and successors. As with these other monarchs, she often consulted with her ministers and bishops on ecclesiastical patronage, while also being protective of her prerogative in making these appointments. Queen Anne may even have been more active in clerical patronage decisions than some other monarchs, for she disbanded William’s ecclesiastical commission and embraced the opportunity to expand the number of livings in her gift, taking over some of the lord chancellor’s livings. However, as a monarch dependent on parliament for funding her policies, particularly the war in Europe, the queen sometimes had to compromise on clerical appointments. Several times during her reign, Anne agreed to appoint clergy to appease her ministers or parliamentary leaders, but she generally was able to find clergy who were acceptable to her, even if they would not have been her first choice. With the heightened partisan divisions of her reign and politicians who often underestimated her as a woman with little formal preparation to be queen, Anne may have faced more pressure from ministers and politicians on ecclesiastical appointments than the kings who came before and after her. However, she was not the only monarch who was sometimes persuaded to change her mind on such appointments,98 and she showed considerable fortitude in resisting this pressure on several occasions during her reign.

98 See, for example, Taylor, “‘Fac Totum’,” 422–426.

CHAPTER 12

“La Terrible Catastrofe”: Political Reactions to the Estrangement of Maria Clementina Sobieska and James III, 1725–1727 Stephen Griffin

Maria Clementina Sobieska was the wife of James Francis Edward Stuart from 1719 until 1735. James, recognised as James III of Britain and Ireland by his supporters and dubbed the Pretender by his detractors, spent his life in exile. As the wife of James, Maria Clementina bore the unenviable position of being the queen of the exiled Stuart court, the legitimacy of which was not universally acknowledged by European monarchs. Nonetheless, the Stuarts sought to sustain their sovereignty through maintaining a court with households for the king and queen,

S. Griffin (B) University of Limerick, Limerick, Republic of Ireland e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_12

257

258

S. GRIFFIN

a shadow government, and a knightage and peerage in exile.1 Royal women and queens played an important role in the mediaeval and early modern worlds. Queens and regents could wield influence in their own courts and deal, at the same time, with international politics and diplomacy. Female households provided a means for female rulers to enhance their image as powerful monarchs and to establish networks of artistic and political patronage.2 In November 1725, a dispute arose between Maria Clementina (referred to, in this chapter, by her second name— Clementina) and James over the upbringing of their son Charles Edward and Clementina’s right to control her household. As a result, she took refuge in the Convent of Santa Cecilia in Rome on 15 November. Amidst reports of public arguments, accusations of mistreatment, and rumours of infidelity, it caused some Jacobite supporters to criticise the king while others criticised the queen. This occurrence drew international attention in its day and was what would now be deemed a public relations nightmare for the Stuart court in Rome. Clementina’s estrangement has been well documented by historians of Jacobitism who have made extensive use of the Stuart Papers at Windsor Castle.3 Older accounts of the princess and her actions during

1 Edward Corp, “The Extended Exile of James III,” in Philip Mansel and Torsten Riotte (eds), Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011), 165–180; Edward Gregg, “Monarchs Without a Crown,” in Robert Oresko, G. C. Gibbs and H. M. Scott (eds), Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of Ragnhild Hatton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 382–422. 2 Nadine Akkerman and Birgit Houben (eds), The Politics of Female Households: Ladiesin-Waiting Across Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2014); Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Europe, 1660–1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Anne Walthall (ed.), Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008); Elena Woodacre (ed.), A Companion to Global Queenship (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2018). 3 Edward Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719–1766: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Frank McLynn, Bonnie Prince Charlie: Charles Edward Stuart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Daniel Szechi, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019); A. C. Ewald, The Life and Times of Prince Charles Edward, Count of Albany (2 vols, London: Chapman and Hall, 1875); Martin Haile, James Francis Edward: The Old Chevalier (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907); Andrew Lang, Prince Charles Edward Stuart: The Young Chevalier (London: Longmans, 1903); Alice Shield, Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York and His Times (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1943).

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

259

the estrangement, while sympathetic to her situation, focused predominantly on her temperamental behaviour and religious beliefs which were sometimes framed in fanatical terms. Andrew Lang wrote that James’s religious tolerance “did not suit” his wife, and she was described as “hysterical and jealous” by Alistair and Henrietta Tayler.4 Even more negative was the interpretation of G. H. Jones which described the princess as “a fool” and “ostentatious.”5 In recent years, these interpretations have changed. A more nuanced perspective of Clementina and her behaviour has emerged in the work of Aleksandra Skrzypietz, Aneta Markuszewska, and Edward Corp.6 Further aiding this reinterpretation is the utilisation of primary source material from Eastern Europe. The Sobieski family archive, long thought lost, re-emerged in Minsk in the 1990s following the end of the Cold War. Letters written by Clementina in the 1720s and 1730s are also to be found in the Radziwiłł archive in Warsaw.7 Very few studies of the Stuarts in exile have provided more than passing references to the various reactions of other royal courts to this episode. More recent scholarship has sought to examine other elements of the incident. Markuszewska has drawn attention to the correspondence between Clementina, James, and her father James Louis Sobieski in Oława in Habsburg Silesia, detailing the extent to which this was a result of Clementina’s own determination and strength of will. Neil Guthrie has highlighted how these events were disseminated to the public

4 Alistair Tayler and Henrietta Tayler, The Stuarts Papers at Windsor (London: John Murray, 1939), 60; Lang, Prince Charles Edward, 14; Shield, Henry Stuart, 3. 5 G. H. Jones, The Main Stream of Jacobitism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954), 164–166. 6 Aleksandra Skrzypietz, “Maria Clementina Sobieska in a Web of Court Intrigues,” in Aleksandra Skrzypietz (ed.), Queens Within Networks of Family and Court Connections (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2022), 99–112; Aneta Markuszewska, “‘And All This Because of the Weakness of Your Sex’: The Marital Vicissitudes of Maria Klementyna Sobieska Stuart, Wife of the Old Pretender to the English Throne,” in Almut Bues (ed.), Frictions and Failures: Cultural Encounters in Crisis (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017), 163–178; and Edward Corp, Sir David Nairne: The Life of a Scottish Jacobite at the Court of the Exiled Stuarts (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018); also see Corp, “Clementina Sobieska at the Jacobite Court,” in Richard K. Maher (ed.), The Irish to the Rescue: The Tercentenary of the Polish Princess Clementina’s Escape (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018), 121–145. 7 Markuszewska, “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 163, n. 4; For Clementina’s letters in the Radziwiłł Archive, see, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, Warsaw [hereafter AGAD], Radziwiłł Archive, III.

260

S. GRIFFIN

by publishers in Britain.8 This makes the need for an examination even more necessary, considering that the Jacobites were attempting to obtain political and military support from Habsburg Austria and Bourbon Spain during the time in which this incident took place. Spain has received some minor attention, though this is quite limited.9 This chapter highlights the reaction in Madrid, Versailles, and Vienna to what Clementina called “la terrible catastrophe.” To do so, it provides an overview of the events surrounding the estrangement. It then explains the reactions of each of the three courts, as well as of the Jacobite agents and supporters who were residing there. In doing so, it sets these events against their political backdrop: it illustrates the various reactions of these courts and their monarchs which ranged from impartiality, to feigned neutrality, to direct involvement.

A Wife for the “Pretender” Clementina had first been identified as a potential bride for James in March 1718. In November 1717, Charles Wogan, one of James’s Irish courtiers, had been tasked with finding an eligible princess for James in the Holy Roman Empire.10 Having travelled through Southern Germany, Wogan arrived at the court of Clementina’s father, Prince James Louis Sobieski, in Ohlau (modern-day Oława in Poland) in February 1718. The Sobieskis were a minor fifteenth-century Polish noble family which had, by the seventeenth century, become prominent magnates in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth. They ultimately achieved royal status in 1674.11 From Ohlau, Wogan wrote glowingly of Sobieski’s un-betrothed sixteen-year-old daughter Clementina.12 An official proposal on James’s

8 Markuszewska, “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 163–178; Neil Guthrie, “The Memorial of the Chevalier de St. George (1726): Ambiguity and Intrigue in the Jacobite Propaganda War,” The Review of English Studies 55 (2004), 545–564. 9 Haile, James Francis Edward, 321, 323; Jones, Main Stream of Jacobitism, 167. 10 John Erskine, first duke of Mar to Charles Wogan, 25 November 1717, in Calendar

of Stuart Papers Belonging to His Majesty the King, Preserved at Windsor Castle (HMC, 7 vols, London: Blackburne, 1912), v, 234. 11 Jarosław Pietrzak, “The Sobieskis: a Polish Royal Family in the History of Europe,” in Maher, The Irish to the Rescue, 33–60. 12 Charles Wogan to John Erskine, first duke of Mar, 6 March 1718, in HMC, Calendar of Stuart Papers, vi, 93–96.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

261

behalf was then made in June 1718. As Corp notes, in addition to securing the Stuart succession, it was hoped that the match would also strengthen the Stuart court’s diplomatic position.13 Clementina’s father, James Louis Sobieski, was the son of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland. Her aunt, Theresa Sobieska, was electress of Bavaria. Jan III Sobieski had ridden to the relief of the city of Vienna when it was under siege from a superior Ottoman army in 1683. For his actions, he had earned high praise from his contemporary princes and fellow soldiers and had been elevated to the status of a hero of Christendom throughout Europe.14 Clementina’s mother, Hedwig Elisabeth, was the daughter of Philip William, Elector Palatine. During his reign, Philip William, who has been dubbed the “father-in-law of Catholic Europe,” had produced seventeen children of whom fifteen survived to adulthood.15 Of these, the eldest daughter, Eleanor Magdalene, had married Emperor Leopold I in 1676 and their children would include the future Holy Roman Emperors: Joseph I and Charles VI. Another of Philip William’s daughters, Dorothea Sophie, would become the duchess of Parma. Her daughter, Elisabeth Farnese, became the queen of Spain in 1714 following her marriage to Philip V.16 It is quite clear that Clementina’s was a very prestigious extended royal family. Her paternal grandfather was lauded as a saviour of European Christendom, and both her paternal and maternal family were staunchly Catholic. Clementina’s journey to Italy in 1718 has been narrated many times. The initial plan was to have seen Clementina and her mother travel to Ferrara in Italy where they were to be met by James. However, while en route, Clementina and her mother were detained on the orders of Emperor Charles VI following political pressure from Britain. With Clementina and her mother being held at an inn in Innsbruck, Charles

13 Edward Corp, The Jacobites at Urbino: An Exiled Court in Transition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 92. 14 Joachim T. Baer, “Sobieski in the Eyes of His Contemporaries,” The Polish Review 28 (1983), 7–8. 15 Peter Fuchs, “Philipp Wilhelm,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie (26 vols, Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2001), xx, 384; Josef Johannes Schmid, “Beau-Père de l’Europe: Les Princesses dans la Politique Familiale et Dynastique de Philippe-Guillaume de Neuborg,” Dix-Septième Siècle 2 (2009), 267–279. 16 Henry Kamen, Philip V of Spain: The King Who Reigned Twice (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 94–95.

262

S. GRIFFIN

Wogan then proposed to rescue the princess and to bring her to Italy. Once the plan was approved, Wogan and three officers from the Irish regiments in France—Major Richard Gaydon, Captain Luke O’Toole, and Captain John Misset—together with Misset’s wife Eleonor and her servant, Jeanneton, journeyed to Innsbruck. On 27 April 1719, they successfully retrieved the princess. Jeanneton was able to enter the house in which Clementina and her mother were kept. Clementina exchanged clothes with her and then departed to be met outside by Wogan. The party then escorted her over the Brenner Pass.17 Once in Italy, Clementina was married by proxy on 9 May. A week later, she arrived in Rome. James was not present and had been in Spain in a failed attempt to be restored. When he returned to Italy, the marriage was solemnised in Montefiascone in September 1719.18 James was thirty-one while Clementina was seventeen.

Clementina in Rome Aneta Markuszewska has noted that throughout the early years of the marriage, Clementina showed signs of anxiety and homesickness.19 A matter of contention for the queen was the presence of James’s court favourites: James Murray, the acting secretary of state, Murray’s sister Marjory, and her husband John Hay, the head of the king’s household. Murray and Hay were already disliked by many both within and outside of the court for their arrogant and rude behaviour. Hay had gained the favour of James in the period 1716–1718 and his wife and her brother came to court in July 1718. Thereafter, Murray ingratiated himself with the king and, together with his sister and brother-in-law, upset almost all the king’s servants with rude and haughty behaviour. By 1720, they 17 Corp, The Jacobites at Urbino, 104–105; The details of this episode can be found in: Tony Canavan, ‘“Making a Hole in the Moon”: The Rescue of Princess Clementina,” History Ireland 1 (1993), 19–22; J. T. Gilbert, Narratives of the Detention, Liberation and Marriage of Maria Clementina Sobieska styled Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by Sir Charles Wogan and others (Dublin: Gilbert, 1894); Richard K. Maher (ed.), The Irish to the Rescue: The Tercentenary of the Polish Princess Clementina’s Escape (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018); Peggy Miller, A Wife for the Pretender (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965). 18 Markuszewska “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 166; Corp, The Jacobites at Urbino,

131. 19 Markuszewska “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 167–169.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

263

had come to dominate the court and, for his own part, James would not suffer any criticism of his favourites.20 In February 1721, Murray had been forced to leave Rome as it proved impossible to attract a new secretary of state while he remained. However, tensions continued to fester particularly as James, with Hay’s counsel, would not allow Clementina to have control of her own servants and appointed them for her.21 After the birth of James’s and Clementina’s first son, Charles Edward, in December 1721, Clementina became more dependent on Marjory Hay. However, she could also turn to Charles Edward’s nurse, Dorothy Sheldon, for support. In March 1725, Hay was made James’s secretary of state and created earl of Inverness. Meanwhile, Clementina gave birth to her second son Henry Benedict. James decided that the women at court would now care for the new baby while the elder prince would be entrusted to a governor. In September, Murray returned to court to become Charles Edward’s governor and was made earl of Dunbar. It was reported that the women who had hitherto overseen Charles Edward continued to try and play a role in his upbringing. This culminated in Dorothy Sheldon being dismissed for challenging Dunbar’s authority and for being rude to James. With Sheldon removed from court, it then seemed as though Lady Inverness might be put in charge of Henry Benedict. Following a confrontation in which James refused to succumb to Clementina’s demand that Inverness and his wife be dismissed, the queen entered the Convent of Santa Cecilia.22 Clementina entered the convent on 15 November 1725 and sent letters explaining herself to the monarchs of France and Spain.23 In justifying her actions, Clementina made it clear that she was of a royal house and lineage related to numerous princes throughout Europe. In her correspondence with Franciszka Urszula, the duchess of Radziwiłł, she explained that her actions were motivated by the behaviour of Inverness and his wife: “Mr and Mrs Hay have been with the king a long time and are the absolute masters …. I found myself in so cruel a situation that I would rather die than live in the king’s house with these people

20 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 129–131. 21 Ibid., 131–134, 139–140. 22 Ibid., 137–164. 23 Haile, James Francis Edward, 316.

264

S. GRIFFIN

who have neither honour, nor conscience, nor religion.”24 In a letter to her sister, Maria Karolina, it was claimed that she did not feel like the mistress of her house.25 Clementina’s actions were clearly an exertion of her own independence. Writing under the pen name of Martin Haile in 1907, Mary Hallé saw Clementina as attempting to follow “the example” set by Queen Elisabeth Farnese of Spain in trying to form and act upon her own political strategies.26 On the other hand, James remained steadfast in believing himself to be guilt-free. He actively sought to court public opinion and to paint himself as having been in the right.27 Once Clementina left, he wrote to her father, to the queen of Spain and to Francesco Farnese, duke of Parma.28 Letters were dispatched to all the prominent courts of Europe which explained James’s actions, although he eventually believed that he would have to beg the queen to return.29

The European Reaction It is very important to remember the political situation in Europe in November 1725 when Clementina left the Palazzo de Re. While her actions were a source of embarrassment for the Stuart court, it was also a cause of major international concern. Habsburg Austria and Spain had allied only a few months previously. The representatives of Philip V and Elisabeth Farnese of Spain and of Emperor Charles VI had concluded three treaties of peace, commerce, and trade on the night and morning 24 M R et M me Hay qui sont depuis longtemps auprès du Roi et qui s’en sont rendus les maitres absolus… je me suis trouvé dans une si cruelle situation qu’il m’aurait fallait plutôt me donner la morte que de vivre davantage dans la maison du Roi avec ce genslà qui n’ont ni honneur, ni conscience, ni religion. AGAD, Radziwiłł Archive III, 46 fos 20–1: Clementina to Franciszka Urszula, duchess of Radziwiłł, 1 December 1725. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated; Clementina to Maria Karolina, duchess of Bouillon, November 1725, in Haile, James Francis Edward, 316; Clementina to James Louis Sobieski, 19 January 1726 in Markuszewska “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 171. 25 RA, Stuart Papers 88 fo. 58: Daniel O’Brien to John Hay, earl of Inverness, 17 December 1725. 26 Haile, James Francis Edward, 317. 27 Markuszewska, “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 164. 28 Peggy Miller, James (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971), 277. 29 James Fitz James Stuart, duke of Liria, “Diario de Viaje a Moscovia, 1727–1731,”

in D. José Sancho Rayón and D. Francisco de Zabalburu (eds), Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historio de España (Madrid: Hermanos, 1889), 13.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

265

of 30 April and 1 May 1725 respectively.30 Almost immediately, Europe was awash with unfounded rumours that there were secret articles guaranteeing support for a Stuart restoration and the overthrow of the Hanoverian monarchy. Jacobites in both Madrid and Vienna were actively engaging in intrigue in the hope that Charles VI and Philip V would support a Stuart restoration. In Vienna, they had been actively conferring with the ministers of the Imperial court and the Spanish ambassador, Jan Willem Ripperda, who returned to Madrid and was made the premier minister of the Spanish court.31 In November 1725, the Stuart court in exile believed itself to be close to obtaining the military support it needed to bring about the restoration of James and his family. The estrangement of James and his wife, the cousin of both Emperor Charles VI and Elisabeth Farnese, threw the anticipated plans of the Jacobites into jeopardy. The manifesto, entitled “Memorial of the Chevalier de St. George,” provoked an outcry in both France and Spain. The manifesto, published in 1726, incorporated James’s own account of the confrontation and estrangement, as well as copies of two letters that he had sent to Clementina. Some refused to share the letters at their respective courts believing the content to be too odd and too deprecating of the king. To disclose the contents of James’s letters, they said, would be to do service to the British government which sought to dishonour and criticise the king.32 The king’s agent in Scotland advised him to err on the side of caution.33 Nevertheless, supporters of the Hanoverians were delighted at the news and happy to draw further attention to the very public dispute being played out between the “Pretender” and his wife. Thomas Robinson, the British secretary in Paris, wrote that the couple were entertaining “the good people of Rome with justification pieces that they publish each day against one another, full of recriminations,

30 Derek McKay and H. M. Scott, The Rise of the Great Powers, 1648–1815 (London: Longman, 1983), 127–134. 31 Haile, James Francis Edward, 309–311. 32 Markuszewska, “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 173; RA, Stuart Papers 87, fo. 167:

Owen O’Rourke to Inverness, 8 December 1725. 33 George Lockhart to James, 12 March 1726, in George Lockhart, The Lockhart Papers (2 vols, London: Taylor, 1817), ii, 258.

266

S. GRIFFIN

complaints of neglect, coldness and five years marriage.”34 Of particular delight to those who had endured Jacobite propaganda regarding the infidelities of George I, were the allegations that Lady Inverness was James’s mistress.35 From France, the British diplomat Horatio Walpole asserted that the Jacobites were in a state of confusion. In Paris, they were reported to have been divided into two factions with some on the side of the queen while others attributed the blame to Clementina because of her indiscretion.36 The Jacobite community, which dwelt in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France, had emerged in opposition to Dunbar and the Invernesses in the preceding years.37 John Erskine, earl of Mar had been James’s former secretary of state and had been displaced at court by Inverness and Dunbar. This had led to Mar’s retreat to Paris in the early 1720s. From here, he would form what was known as the Triumvirate with General Arthur Dillon and George Granville, Lord Lansdowne and provided counsel for James while influencing Jacobites who remained in Britain and Ireland. The Triumvirate came to take charge of the Jacobites in Paris. They stood in opposition to Dunbar and Lord and Lady Inverness and led support for the queen. They also had connections with the servants of the court in Rome, particularly with Dorothy Sheldon who had served as nurse to Charles Edward and Henry Benedict and who, it was suggested, had encouraged the queen in confronting James.38

34 TNA, SP 78/182, Thomas Robinson to Charles Delafaye, 22 December 1725; Haile,

James Francis Edward, 318. 35 Daniel Szechi, George Lockhart of Carnwath, 1689–1727: A Study in Jacobitism (East Linton: Tuckwell, 2002), 137–138; The Dublin Weekly Journal reported that James “cuts a gayer figure than ever” in the company of Lady Inverness: The Dublin Weekly Journal, 2 April 1726. 36 TNA, SP 78/182, fo. 202, La Roche (?) To Horatio Walpole, included in Walpole’s dispatches, 15 December 1725; TNA, SP 78/182/202–206, “Unaddressed letter enclosed with dispatches,” 17 December 1725; Daniel O’Brien wrote of “pretended friends” who influenced the opinions of the French nobility: RA, Stuart Papers 88/113, Daniel O’Brien to Inverness, 24 December 1725. 37 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 137–138. 38 Dorothy Sheldon was the niece of Arthur Dillon: Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 144–

145; Edward Gregg, “The Jacobite Career of John, earl of Mar,” in Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759 (Edinburgh: Donald, 1982), 193.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

267

Clementina’s departure had served to further split the already divided Jacobites as the pro- and anti-Inverness factions now took opposing sides in support of either the king or the queen.39 Jacobite circles in both Scotland and England were reported to hold Inverness responsible for what had occurred. He was advised to make amends with the queen though there were other efforts to encourage his removal. Undaunted by his culpability, Inverness adamantly maintained his innocence and chose instead to blame unnamed individuals who advised Clementina.40 Elsewhere, others dismissed the suggestion that Inverness was at fault. Philip Wharton, first duke of Wharton, who had been made plenipotentiary to Vienna in the summer of 1725, was quick to hold Mar responsible. Mar had been discovered cooperating with the British government in the previous year when it was revealed that he had been incriminating Jacobites in return for receiving a government pension.41 Others ultimately laid blame at the door of Cardinal Giulio Alberoni, the disgraced former first minister of the court of Spain. The cardinal had arrived in Rome in 1721 and was secretly in the pay of the British government. He met with Pope Benedict XIII to discuss the estrangement. On other occasions he visited the queen.42 In Spain, some Jacobites believed that, despite Alberoni’s reputation, the Spanish monarchy would approve of his support for Clementina. James Fitz James Stuart, duke of Liria wrote that, if Clementina could be freed from his influence, there would be no

39 Gregg, “John, earl of Mar,” 193. 40 Ibid., 193; Szechi, George Lockhart, 139–140; RA, Stuart Papers 88, fo. 58, Daniel

O’Brien to Inverness, 17 December 1725; RA, Stuart Papers 89, fo. 97, Inverness to Owen O’Rourke, 16 January 1726; George Lockhart to Inverness, 24 July 1726, and Inverness to Lockhart, 20 July 1726, in Lockhart, The Lockhart Papers, II, 296–297, 303–305. 41 Gregg, “John, Earl of Mar,” 189–193; RA, Stuart Papers 87, fo. 168, Philip Wharton, first duke of Wharton to James, 8 December 1725; Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester also held Mar accountable: TNA, SP 78/182, “Unaddressed letter enclosed with dispatches,” 17 December 1725. 42 Wienerisches Diarium, 6 February 1726; The Dublin Weekly Journal, 26 February, 9 April 1726. Szechi, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019), 187; For Alberoni, see, Simon Harcourt-Smith, Cardinal of Spain: The Life and Strange Career of Alberoni (New York: Knopf, 1944).

268

S. GRIFFIN

further cause for concern and the issue within the Stuart household would be resolved.43 At Versailles, the French court was not prepared to become involved in this affair. Since 1716, they had been allied with Britain and had desisted from providing open aid or support to the Stuart court. Therefore, they informed the ministry of George I that they would not make any intervention in the dispute.44 Nonetheless, André-Hercule de Fleury, bishop of Frejus and preceptor of King Louis XV, wrote to the pro-Jacobite Cardinal Filippo Antonio Gualterio to understand what had transpired. Gualterio, who was firmly on James’s side, blamed the counsel which the queen had received from Alberoni and the women of her household. The king, he informed Versailles, was a pious Catholic and, in vindicating both Dunbar and Inverness, Gualterio emphasised the need for a Protestant governor at court to allay any fears amongst Protestants in Britain.45 The French representative in Rome, Cardinal Melchior de Polignac, wrote that Gualterio would not see Clementina, and Alberoni would not see James. Polignac informed Versailles that he would remain impartial. Louis XV approved of his conduct but desired to see the couple reconciled. Polignac’s orders were to “contribute” to this reunion with “secret care” towards both James and Clementina.46 The Jacobites themselves suspected that the cardinal was not presenting events in a true light in his dispatches. Chrysostome Faucher suggested in 1780 that, with support from the French court, Polignac used all his influence in

43 RA, Stuart Papers 92, fo. 139, Philip Wharton, first duke of Wharton to Inverness,

13 April 1726; Liria to Juan Batista de Orendáin, marquis of La Paz, 2 May 1727, in Liria, “Diario de Viaje a Moscovia,” 394. 44 Jean Dureng, Le Duc de Bourbon et l’Angleterre (1723–1726) (Paris: Hachette, 1911), 358. Elsewhere, French nobles such as Charles Godefroy de la Tour d’Auvergne, duke of Bouillon, Clementina’s brother-in-law, spoke approvingly of James’s actions: RA, Stuart Papers 88, fo. 58, Daniel O’Brien to Inverness, 17 December 1725. For the origins of the Anglo-French alliance, see, McKay and Scott, The Great Powers, 101–111. 45 Haile, James Francis Edward, 315–316; Gualterio was reportedly the first to mention Alberoni’s culpability. See Jones, Main Stream of Jacobitism, 166. 46 AAE, Correspondance Politique [hereafter CP], Rome 668, fo. 93, Cardinal Melchior Polignac to Charles Jean-Baptiste de Fleuriau, count of Morville, 27 September 1725; AAE, CP, Rome 668, fo. 270, Morville to Polignac, 8 January 1726.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

269

attempting to bring about a reconciliation. He certainly appeared to devote attention to the queen.47 In Vienna, the news became public knowledge when it was disclosed in the newspaper Wienerisches Diarium on 12 December. The emperor’s court had already been informed of the separation by Wharton several days previously.48 On 19 December 1725, the paper reported that Clementina was in the convent and was being visited by the ladies of Rome.49 After the initial news was made public, updates on the situation became more infrequent as 1726 progressed. According to A. C. Ewald, the emperor was “indignant” at the news and had sent written protests to Rome concerning what had happened. However, within the court itself, the two primary ministers of the emperor, Prince Eugene of Savoy, and Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorf, had reportedly approved of James’s actions. Sinzendorf, the Austrian Court Chancellor, informed Wharton that James would not need to be apprehensive of repercussions from the emperor.50 Despite the apparent nonchalance of the emperor’s court, the Imperial resident in Rome, Cardinal Álvaro Cienfuegos, kept the emperor notified of Clementina’s activities.51 Much more worrying for James was the reaction of the king and queen of Spain which stood in marked contrast to the reaction of the emperor. The Spanish ambassador had had a three-hour conference with James in the first days of Clementina’s departure. He was reported to 47 A report from the French Academy in Rome suggests Polignac’s happiness in Clementina’s finding delight in seeing portraits of the French royal family. In Easter 1727, he also paid a lengthy visit to the convent, and this was observed by the emperor’s representative: Chrysotome Faucher, Histoire du Cardinal de Polignac (2 vols, Paris: Chez d’Houry, 1780), ii, 293–294; RA, Stuart Papers 88, fo. 113, Daniel O’Brien to Inverness, 24 December 1725; Nicolas Vleughels to Louis Antoine de Pardaillan, duke of Antin, 13 February 1727, in Anatole de Montaiglon and Jules Guiffrey (eds), Correspondence sur les Directeurs de l’Académie de France a Rome avec les Surintendants des Batiments, 1666–1793: VII (1724–1728) (Paris: Frères, 1897), 320; Österreichisches Staatsarchiv/Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna [hereafter ÖstA/HHStA], Rom 111, fo. 92, Cardinal Álvaro Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 19 April 1727. 48 Wienerisches Diarium, 12 December 1725; RA, Stuart Papers 88, fo. 1, Philip Wharton, first duke of Wharton to Inverness, 8 December 1725. 49 Wienerisches Diarium, 19 December 1725. 50 Ewald, Prince Charles Edward, i, 31; RA, Stuart Papers 88, fo. 1, Philip Wharton,

first duke of Wharton to Inverness, 8 December 1725. 51 Cienfuego’s dispatches to Vienna during the time of the estrangement can be found in ÖstA/HHStA, Rom 110–112.

270

S. GRIFFIN

have conferred with James again in March 1726.52 That same month, Wharton was sent to Madrid to explain what had happened. Meeting with Spain’s chief minister, Jan Wilhelm Ripperda, he was informed that the Spanish monarchs would not compromise on Inverness’s removal from the household. Ripperda himself believed that James was right to keep Inverness and that Dunbar’s appointment as governor of the prince had been wise.53 As 1726 wore on and there were no signs of a reconciliation between James and Clementina, Philip V and Elisabeth Farnese opted to bring their own influence to bear upon the marital strife at the Stuart court.

The Spanish Intervention Spanish concern with Clementina’s and James’s marriage was a result of the Spanish king’s and queen’s wish to pose as Europe’s leading Catholic monarchs.54 They charged the duke of Liria with bringing an end to the estrangement. Liria has received little attention for his attempts at reuniting James and Clementina though his diary, which he kept during his time as ambassador to Russia, contains several details. He was an illegitimate grandson of James II and the nephew of James himself. An officer in the Irish regiments in the Spanish army, in 1726 he was appointed as the first Spanish ambassador to Russia and departed for Moscow the following year.55 By this time, James had already moved the court to Bologna. This decision had been made in October 1726 and he had visited Clementina to induce her to join him and the princes. There had been hopes that the king and queen would reconcile as James allowed the couple’s eldest son, Charles Edward, to visit his mother in the convent. The meeting between husband and wife was said to have been an amicable one and Clementina noted that James “shows me kindness.” However, she did

52 Wienerisches Diarium, 19 December 1725; The Dublin Weekly Journal, 23 April 1726. 53 RA, Stuart Papers 92, fo. 139, Philip Wharton, 1st duke of Wharton to Inverness, 13 April 1726. 54 Szechi, The Jacobites, 187. 55 For Liria’s biography, see, Rayón and Zabalburu, Colección de Documentos Inéditos,

v–xx.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

271

not wish to return to court because of Dunbar and Lord and Lady Inverness, commenting that, “without them, I may certainly hope to live well with him.”56 It was believed that the queen, while badly affected by the separation, would rather be reduced to poverty than return to court and endure the presence of the king’s favourites.57 On 6 March 1727, Liria had his final audience with the Spanish monarchs and was ordered to travel to Russia via James’s court in Italy so that he could attempt to re-establish good relations between James and Clementina. Upon his arrival in Genoa on 13 April 1727, he was met by Inverness who had decided to leave James’s court in the hopes that the queen would return.58 Liria was now optimistic about the prospect of a reconciliation and was hopeful that it would transpire soon.59 Liria arrived in Bologna in April 1727 and was lodged in James’s house for the duration of his stay there. In their first conversation, they discussed the queen and Liria informed James of his intention to send a letter to Clementina in compliance with his orders from Madrid.60 The letter was written on 2 May and in it, he informed Clementina that the queen of Spain had commanded him to tell Clementina that it was time for the separation to end: The Queen of Spain especially has ordered me to tell you in her name that it is time to end so disagreeable an affair, and that when a husband disgusts his wife in some form, it is prudent to dissimulate and to return to him with a sweet resignation to his will.61

56 Il m’a témoigné de la bonté… sans eux certainement je pourrais espéré de vivre bien avec lui. AGAD, Radziwiłł Archive III, 46, fo. 42, Clementina to Franciszka Urszula, duchess of Radziwiłł, 12 October 1726; Vleughels to Antin, 19 September 1726, Vleughels to Antin, 4 October 1726, in Montaiglon and Guiffrey, Correspondence sur les Directeurs, 289–293; Wienerisches Diarium, 23 October 1726. 57 Vleughels to Antin, 4 October 1726, in Montaiglon and Guiffrey, Correspondence sur les Directeurs, 292. 58 Liria, “Diario de viaje a Moscovia,” 2, 8. 59 Liria to James, 14 April 1727, in ibid., 8–9, n. 1. A Spanish translation is provided

in the main text. I have chosen to use the original French which was included by the editors as a footnote. 60 Ibid., 13. 61 La reine d’Espagne surtout m’a ordonne de vous dire en son nom qu’il estoit temps de

finir une affaire si desagreable, et que quand meme un mari donneroit quelque sujet de degout à sa femme, il est de la prudence de dissimuler et de tacher de le faire revenir par

272

S. GRIFFIN

Liria also stressed the harm which the separation had rendered to James’s affairs on the international stage: The final thing that their Catholic Majesties commanded me when taking my leave was to work, during my stay here, for the reconciliation of your Majesty with the King, ordering me to make your Majesty see the harm that this long separation does to your interest, not only in England but also in all the courts from which we expect the greatest aid in this present juncture …. Permit me, Madame, to represent to your Majesty that all Europe watches your conduct …. Think, Madame, of the harm that your estrangement does to the affairs of the king ….62

Once this was written it was dispatched to Rome. Liria took leave of James on 4 May and continued on his way to Russia.63 After passing through Vienna and meeting with the emperor’s ministers, Liria wrote that they still approved of James’s actions.64 While this transpired, a meeting had been convened amongst the cardinals in Rome with the intention of inducing Clementina to return to James now that the Invernesses were no longer at court. The response of the papacy had been very problematic for James throughout the entire affair. Papal delegates had gone to speak to both Clementina and James almost immediately after she entered the convent.65 Throughout the following year, many cardinals visited the queen but also came to the

une douce resignation à ses volontés; RA, Stuart Papers 106, fo. 82, Liria to Clementina, 2 May 1727. A copy can also be found in: Liria to Clementina, 2 May 1727, in Liria, “Diario de viaje a Moscovia”, 14–15. 62 La derniere chose que LL.MM.CC. m’ont commandé en prenant congé d’eux a eté de travailler pendant mon sejour icy au raccomodement de V.M. avec le roi, m’ordonnant positivement de faire sentir à V.M. le tort que cette longue separation fait à vos interest non seulement en Angleterre, mais encore dans touttes les cours dont on pourroit esperer les plus grands secours dans la juncture presente…. Permettez moy, madame, de representer à V.M. que toutte l’Europe a à present les yeux sur votre conduitte…. Songez, madame, au tort que votre eloignement fait aux affaires du Roi: RA, Stuart Papers 106, fo. 82, Liria to Clementina, 2 May 1727. 63 Liria, “Diario de viaje a Moscovia,” 18. 64 RA, Stuart Papers 106, fo. 120, Liria to James, 14 May–June 1727. 65 The Gazette de Paris states that those present were: Cardinals Albani, Imperiali,

Lercari and Spinola. The cardinals had already met late in 1726 for the same reason. See Gazette de Paris, 24 May 1727; Wienerisches Diarium, 2 October 1726; Wienerisches Diarium, 19 December 1725.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

273

Palazzo del Re.66 Benedict XIII had made it clear that, while Dunbar should be allowed remain at court, his position as governor was a “scandal which must cease.”67 His support for Clementina was clear for all to see. James’s annual pension of 10,000 Roman scudi from the papacy was reduced to 6,000 scudi per annum with the remaining 4,000 scudi set aside for the queen. This had provoked James’s move to Bologna.68 Once James was gone, Benedict invited Clementina to attend a ceremony in which she was given a seat of honour and a payment of 1,000 scudi.69 Now that Inverness had been removed, an envoy was sent to inform Clementina of James’s willingness to reconcile.70 Despite all that had transpired, Clementina did not immediately return. “Although this obstacle is removed” wrote Liria, “Her Majesty does not consider returning.”71 Unfortunately, Clementina’s letters to the duchess of Radziwiłł during this time are sparse and provide no insight as to why she chose to remain in Rome. However, Edward Corp has noted, there was still a question mark surrounding Clementina’s being able to control her own household. Once James had consented to this, the queen agreed to return.72

66 ÖstA/HHStA, Rom 111, fo. 92, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 19 April 1727; Wienerisches Diarium, 9 January 1726; The Dublin Weekly Journal, 12 February 1726; Wienerisches Diarium, 6 March 1726; Wienerisches Diarium, 13 March 1726; Wienerisches Diarium, 15 May 1726; Wienerisches Diarium, 30 October 1726. 67 Haile, James Francis Edward, 313. 68 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 30, 172. 69 Vleughels to Antin, 12 December 1726, in Montaiglon and Guiffrey, Correspondence sur les Directeurs, 306–307. 70 Gazette de Paris, 24 May 1727. 71 Aunque está ya apartado este escollo, no piensa S.M. en volver. Liria to La Paz, 2 May

1727 in Liria, “Diario de viaje a Moscovia,” 393–394. 72 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 184.

274

S. GRIFFIN

Reunion In June 1727, Clementina informed the duchess of Radziwiłł that, with “Mr and Mrs Hay being removed forever,” she had resolved to join James in Bologna.73 She left Rome early on the morning of 8 July under a papal guard and arrived in Bologna on 13 July 1727 where she described living “a life of retired ease. All my satisfaction consists of being with my dear children.”74 Despite returning, she then isolated herself from the rest of the court and reportedly spent most of her time in prayer.75 However, by that time, James was no longer present. George I had died unexpectedly of a stroke while en route to Hanover on 11 June, and upon learning this news, James had departed Italy in a bid to return to Britain and bring about a restoration.76 By September 1727, it was clear that a restoration was not going to take place and James found himself in Avignon, the papal enclave situated in southern France. This had been a move that had sparked French objections. Reports to Vienna from Rome stated that James’s intention was to remain in Avignon.77 From Bologna, Clementina wrote to the duchess of Radziwiłł that it was unclear whether she would soon be leaving to join her husband: “I am still in the countryside in Bologna with my children. The king is at Avignon. I do not know if he will be established.”78 At the same time, the Imperial representative in Rome informed the emperor

73 A l’égard de ma réunion avec le Roi je crois qu’elle se feras dans peu. M r et M e Hay étant éloigné pour toujours: AGAD, Radziwiłł Archive III, 46 fo. 65, Clementina to the duchess of Radziwiłł, 28 June 1727. 74 Ibid., fo. 69, Clementina to the duchess of Radziwiłł, 5 July 1727; Je mène une vie aise retire toute ma satisfaction consistants d’être avec mes chers enfants: ibid., fo. 71, Clementina to the duchess of Radziwiłł, 26 July 1727; Note sur les affaires de Rome, 10 July 1727, in Montaiglon and Guiffrey, Correspondence sur les Directeurs, 358. 75 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 193. 76 Ibid., 187. 77 Liria, “Diario de Viaje a Moscovia”, 17; ÖstA/HHStA, Rom 111, fos 54–55, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 10 November 1727; ibid., fo. 77, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 13 September 1727. 78 Je suis encor a la campagne prez de Bologne avec mes enfants. Le roi est a Avignon, je ne scai sil poura si établir: AGAD, Radziwiłł Archive III, 46, fo. 73, Clementina to the duchess of Radziwiłł, 13 September 1727.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

275

that it would suit James better to remain in Avignon as being in Italy might lead to a second fracture in his marriage.79 In November 1727, it was reported that Clementina had been given papal permission to travel to Avignon.80 She chose not to join James in Avignon until it was clear that France would consent to the Stuarts settling there.81 The French court had made it clear that they would not allow James to reside in Avignon. They were in alliance with Britain and had indicated that they would either obstruct Clementina if she attempted to travel there or would stop James from leaving.82 Ultimately, Clementina opted not to go to Avignon, and this had sparked fears that the royal couple would separate again. In Vienna, James’s representative, Owen O’Rourke, cautioned against disclosing the news lest it gave further ammunition to James’s enemies and detractors.83 Instead, O’Rourke suggested that: If your Majesty has not some particular motives entirely unknown to me, for to continue at Avignon, a coup de maitre would be to go and agreeably surprise the queen with all the tenderness due from a loving husband to a virtuous wife, and with a present indulgence for those persons she seems to cherish more than your Majesty would have it. God will do the rest in due time, as nothing is yet public of Her Majesty’s refusal to join you there. Your Majesty’s joining her where she is, will pass for a piece of policy such as all speculators may glose [sic] upon as they please …. I wrote to my Lord Dunbar last post such a letter as he may communicate to the queen in order to let Her Majesty know what may be said in the world of a second rupture ‘twixt her and your Majesty and what interest she has to prevent it ….84

James left Avignon in December 1727. His departure was reported to the emperor as was his reunion with Clementina in Bologna which took place in January 1728. There had been a reconciliation and they were

79 ÖstA/HHStA, Rom 111, fo. 77, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 13 September 1727. 80 Ibid., fo. 55, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 10 November 1727. 81 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 193. 82 RA, Stuart Papers 111, fo. 99, Daniel O’Brien to John Graeme, 20 October 1727. 83 ÖstA/HHStA, England Varia 8, fos 161–162, O’Rourke to James, 3 December

1727. 84 Ibid., fos 164–165, O’Rourke to James, 10 December 1727.

276

S. GRIFFIN

planning a return to Rome.85 Both husband and wife had made some final concessions before they met. As a sign of goodwill, Clementina had sent Dorothy Sheldon to a convent. In return, James had employed a valet-de-chambre in Clementina’s favour.86

Conclusion The political fallout from Clementina’s and James’s estrangement highlights several different issues. In the first instance, it illustrates the fractured politics of the Stuart court and of the wider Jacobite diaspora.87 The court itself was divided between James and his favourites upon the one hand, and Clementina and the remainder of the courtiers and servants, on the other. James’s reluctance to allow his wife to control her own household had hampered the means by which she could exert her queenship, and this led her to take drastic action. Such was the divisive effect of Dunbar and Lord and Lady Inverness that the court in Rome was isolated from the other main hub of Jacobitism at Saint-Germainen-Laye. These divisions eventually evolved into opposing sides which supported either the king or queen. Beyond the Jacobites, the monarchs of Europe each had differing reactions to these events. Despite French assertions that they would remain neutral, Cardinal Polignac was ordered to subtly aid a reunion. As for the court of the emperor, despite Jacobite efforts to the contrary, Vienna always maintained an indifferent relationship with the Stuart court. When they received the news that Clementina had returned, O’Rourke received only “a bow and silence” from the emperor’s ministers.88 Nevertheless, both James’s and Clementina’s activities during this period had continued to be mentioned in dispatches from Rome to Vienna. This suggests that, at the very least, the emperor had some

85 ÖstA/HHStA, Rom 111, fo. 7, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 10 January 1728; ibid., fo. 20, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 24 January 1728; Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 195. 86 Liria to Thomas Gordon, 22 February 1728 in Tenth Report of the Royal Commission

on Historical Manuscripts (HMC, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1885), 166. 87 For overviews of these divisions see Corp, The Jacobites at Urbino, 71–75; Gabriel Glickman, The English Catholic Community, 1688–1745: Politics, Culture and Ideology (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009), 103–114. 88 ÖstA/HHStA, England Varia 8, fo. 127, Owen O’Rourke to John Graeme, 15 July 1727.

12

“LA TERRIBLE CATASTROFE”: POLITICAL REACTIONS …

277

interest in what was happening. As for the Spanish monarchy, their efforts appear to have been the most concerted in aiding the king and queen. If the Spanish intention was to gain prestige and to attempt to bolster its reputation for reuniting James and Clementina it appears to have succeeded to some extent.89 Liria who had been involved in mediation gave himself credit for ending the estrangement: “I confess that the news gave me no little pleasure and no little vanity to think that I had been the motivator of a peace that nobody desired as much as I.”90 However, despite these efforts to induce Clementina to return to James, the relationship between the king and queen never truly mended. In the years that followed, Clementina became increasingly withdrawn from public life. During the early 1730s she adopted a life of strict piety in which she regularly prayed, cared for the poor, and subsisted on a very restrictive diet which historians now believe to have been a symptom of anorexia.91 Clementina’s lifestyle ultimately took its toll, and she died in Rome in January 1735 at the age of thirty-two.

89 Cienfuegos attributed Clementina’s return to Spanish mediation. In his dispatches

he wrote that she had placed herself in the hands of Elisabeth Farnese: ÖstA/HHStA, Rom 111, fo. 136, Cienfuegos to Charles VI, 17 May 1727. 90 Confieso que no me causó poco gusto esta noticia ni poca vanidad el pensar que había sido el primer móvil de una paz que nadie deseaba tanto como yo. Liria, “Diario de Viaje a Moscovia,” 17. 91 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 220; Markuszewska, “The Weakness of Your Sex,” 177.

CHAPTER 13

“A Crown of Everlasting Glory”: The Afterlife of Maria Clementina Sobieska in Material and Visual Culture Georgia Vullinghs

On Sunday 23 January 1735, the city of Rome came to a halt as the corpse of the Jacobite queen in exile, Maria Clementina Sobieska, was transported to St Peter’s Basilica for burial. She had died on 18 January after a period of declining health, at the age of thirty-two. The magnificent procession (Fig. 13.1) consisting of courtiers, representatives of the Scots, English and Irish Colleges, Roman clergy, the household of Pope Clement XII, and the Swiss Guard, accompanied her body through the streets of Rome, while crowds gathered to watch. Looking, as one account reported, “beautiful and majestick, even in death,” the deceased queen, surrounded by 500 torches, moved through the city “like a ray

G. Vullinghs (B) National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2_13

279

280

G. VULLINGHS

Fig. 13.1 Rocco Pozzi (after Panini), Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1702–1735. Wife of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, SNPG SPL 66.3 (Image © Scottish National Portrait Gallery)

of light in the obscurity of the night.”1 Those in attendance mourned, it was claimed, “as if this death had taken away a dear family member or friend.”2 The next day, this Stuart queen was interred within three coffins—cypress, lead, and oak—and entombed in the vaults of St Peter’s Basilica, where she remains today.3 Wife of the exiled James Francis Edward Stuart, the Jacobite king James VIII/III, Maria Clementina Sobieska (referred to, in this chapter,

1 Anonymous, An Account of the Funeral Ceremonies Perform’d at Rome, in Honour of

the Princess Clementina Sobieski. Translated from the Roman Journal of Jan. 29, 1735. No 2729 (Dublin: s. n., 1735), 7; Cardinal Vincenzo Gotti, Parentalia Mariae Clementinae Magn. Britain. Franc., et Hibern.regin. issu Clementis XII. Pont. Max (Rome: Giovanni Maria Salvioni, 1736), 26. I am grateful to Ilaria Marchi for her translation of this text. 2 Gotti, Parentalia, 27. 3 Ibid., 28.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

281

by her second name) was the last widely recognised Stuart queen, albeit in exile, and mother to the final generation of the Stuart dynasty. By examining the material and visual culture surrounding her funeral and afterlife, this chapter reinstates Clementina in Jacobite and Stuart history.4 This chapter considers Clementina’s posthumous image for the exiled Stuarts and their supporters, but also within the context of the Roman curia’s image-making. Death transformed Clementina into a holy queen, and her life was marked on a scale equal to that of contemporary European Catholic royals. Objects associated with Clementina, including bodily relics, were imbued with the power to connect loyal Jacobites with their deceased queen, while commemorative objects, notably a magnificent memorial tomb in St Peter’s Basilica, secured Clementina’s presence within Rome and Britain after her bodily absence. The demand for materials associated with Clementina after her death attests to her success in being identified as a queen, as well as her heightened spirituality. Overall, Clementina provides a fascinating case-study of Stuart queenship. Her particular experience, shaped by her exiled status, sheds light on the role of commemorative practices and material culture in defining queens.

Funeral Clementina’s funeral, hosted and paid for by Pope Clement XII, was certainly a royal one. The ceremonies corresponded with the practices of other contemporary European monarchies.5 It consisted of the three

4 Those who have recently given her particular attention include Edward Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719–1766: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Edward Gregg, “The Exiled Stuarts: Martyrs for the Faith?,” in Michael Schaich (ed.), Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 187–213; Clare Lois Carroll, Exiles in a Global City (Leiden: Brill, 2017), ch. 7; Aneta Markuszewska, “‘And All This because of ‘the Weakness of your Sex’: The Marital Vicissitudes of Maria Klementyna Sobieska Stuart, Wife of the Old Pretender to the English Throne,” in Almut Bues (ed.), Frictions and Failures: Cultural Encounters in Crisis (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2017), 163–177. The present chapter develops my own early work on Maria Clementina Sobieska: Georgia Vullinghs, “Fit for a Queen: The Material and Visual Culture of Maria Clementina Sobieska, Jacobite Queen in Exile,” The Court Historian 26 (2021), 123–143. 5 Paul S. Fritz, “The Trade in Death: The Royal Funerals in England, 1685–1830,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 15 (1982), 291–316; Michael Schaich, “The Funerals of the British Monarchy,” in Schaich, Monarchy and Religion, 424–426. For early modern funeral

282

G. VULLINGHS

main features common to royal funerals across Europe: the lying-instate, funeral procession, and burial and obsequies for the dead. Three published textual sources shed light on Clementina’s funeral. One is a pamphlet published anonymously in Dublin and London, 1735, originally translated from a Roman newspaper account dated 29 January.6 At fifteen pages long, the pamphlet goes into detail about the funeral, including the decoration, those in attendance, and the obsequies. It is unclear how the translation came to Britain; however, it is likely that it was sent with intent to share the details of Clementina’s commemoration for the benefit of audiences in Britain, pro-Stuart and otherwise. Reference to the pamphlet, more than ten years after its publication, by an English Jacobite painter resident in Rome, James Russel, suggests that it succeeded in doing so. In a letter to his mother dated June 1747, he referred to the account as one which he thought she “could not but have seen.”7 Russel offered his own version of the events for the entertainment of his mother, based on an account published in Rome “by the supreme authority,” which was published in 1750 as part of his Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to his Friends in England.8 The source Russel references appears to have been the official record of Clementina’s life and funeral as commissioned by Clement XII, Parentalia Mariae Clementinae, published in December 1736.9 As well as containing a detailed description of the funeral, the Parentalia is a celebration of Clementina’s life, containing accounts of her lineage, marriage, and evidence for her saintly virtues. It offers a textual portrait of the queen as she was seen in Rome, as a person of eminent virtue, piety, and charity. It was written by Cardinal Vincenzo Gotti, who had been Clementina’s confessor in Bologna and prior of the Dominican monastery there.10 Evidence in the Stuart Papers suggests that the Stuart court had a hand in contributing to the text through Sir Thomas Sheridan, a Catholic apparati, see Minou Schraven, Festive Funerals in Early Modern Italy: The Art and Culture of Conspicuous Commemoration (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 1–10. 6 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 1–15. 7 James Russel, Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to His Friends in England, vol.

II (London: W. Russel, 1750), 57, Letter XLVI, Russel to Mrs Russel, 20 June 1747, Rome. 8 Ibid. 9 Gotti, Parentalia. 10 Corp, The Stuarts in Italy, 222.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

283

Irishman, who had been a longstanding member of the exiled court (at Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Rome) and acted as under-governor to her son Prince Charles from 1725.11 Sheridan’s input might be interpreted in a similar vein to the publications of another exiled Irish Jacobite, Charles Wogan, who was instrumental in freeing the young Princess Clementina from capture and delivering her safely to Rome for marriage in 1719.12 As Clare Carroll argues, these textual accounts are central to understanding the experience of the Irish exile, in which faith and national identity were bound up with allegiance.13 Contemporary visual interpretations of Clementina’s funeral ceremonies also survive. The Parentalia contains engraved copies of two paintings made by Giovanni Paolo Panini, a celebrated painter of ancient and modern buildings in Rome, who was commissioned to capture scenes from the funeral.14 One image depicts the lying-in-state of Clementina in the church of Santi XII Apostoli (Fig. 13.2), the court’s parish church, close to the Palazzo del Re. It offers an impression of the decorations, including the enormous catafalque, or bed of state, with a crowned canopy, on which she was placed. A double plate engraving of the funeral procession, by Rocco Pozzi (Fig. 13.1) communicates the scale of the event within the urban space of Rome, depicting a long procession snaking from Santi XII Apostoli to St Peter’s Basilica in the distance. Groups and individuals in attendance are numbered and identified in the key below. These accounts and images ultimately represent an ideal impression of the ceremony and the individual they celebrated, and this should be remembered when using them as sources for the events of the funeral. They are as much a part of the image-making which surrounded Clementina in life and death as the events of the funeral itself. Despite

11 RA, Stuart Papers 192, fo. 85, James III to Lewis Innes, 16 December 1736, Rome. The Stuart Papers are the letters, account books, and other documents of the exiled Stuart court, now held in the Royal Archives at Windsor. 12 Charles Wogan, Female Fortitude, Exemplify’d, in an Impartial Narrative of the

Seizure, Escape and Marriage, of the Princess Clementina Sobiesky As it was particularly set down by Mr. Charles Wogan who was a chief Manager in that whole affair (London: s. n., 1722). 13 Carroll, Exiles in a Global City, 232–256. 14 Corp, Stuarts in Italy, 221; Giovanni Panini, Ferdinando Arisi, & Galleria d’arte “Il

Gotico,” Giovanni Paolo Panini, 1691–1765 (Milan: Electa, 1993).

284

G. VULLINGHS

Fig. 13.2 Balthasar Gabbugiani (after Pannini), Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1702–1735. Wife of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, (1735), SNPG SPL 66.2 (Image © Scottish National Portrait Gallery)

the effort and expense that went into producing royal funerals, they are ephemeral.15 Courts produced more durable textual, material, and visual records of the events, such as funeral books, engravings, and medals, to 15 Schraven, Festive Funerals, 1–2.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

285

replace and extend the influence of the material symbols, words, and gestures of the ceremonies.16 These disseminated a version of the celebrations to those who could not attend, evidenced the splendour of the court, and connected audiences to the royal family. Possibly, and more importantly, they materialised the festivities for posterity.17 James VIII/ III sent copies of the Parentalia to Paris for dissemination amongst supporters in France and from there, Britain.18 He also gifted a decoratively bound version to the Scots College at Paris.19 The college was not only geographically well placed to circulate this information to the exiled Jacobite community living in Paris and at nearby Saint-Germain-enLaye.20 As a place for the education of young Scots, it played a central role in “nurturing and diffusing Jacobite sentiments.”21 Lewis Innes, James’s contact there, was a key political figure, as well as a religious confidant for the exiled Stuarts.22 Overall, gifting the book to the college was a gesture which cemented ties of shared faith, exile, and loyalty to the Stuart cause. As with other royal funerals of the early modern period, during the ceremony, Clementina’s body was “entangled in a web of symbols, images, and texts.”23 As Catriona Murray has argued, with reference to the funeral effigy of another Stuart queen consort, Anna of Denmark 16 Ibid., 3; Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, “Early Modern European Festivals – Politics and Performance, Events and Record,” in J. R. Mulryne and Elizabeth Goldring (eds), Court Festivals of the European Renaissance: Arts, Politics and Performance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 23. 17 Watanabe-O’Kelly, “Early Modern European Festivals,” 19–23. 18 RA, Stuart Papers 192, fo. 85, James III to Lewis Innes, 16 December 1736, Rome;

fo. 34, James Edgar to Lewis Innes, 5 December 1736, Rome. 19 RA, Stuart Papers 192, fo. 85. 20 See Natalie Genet-Rouffiac, “Jacobites in Paris and Saint-Germain-en-Laye,” in

Edward Corp and Eveline Cruickshanks (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995), 15–38. 21 James F. MacMillan, “The Innes Brothers and the Scots College Paris,” in Corp and Cruickshanks (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile, 93. 22 ODNB, sub “Innes, Lewis (1651–1738), Roman Catholic priest and courtier,” (article by James F. McMillan). Innes, a significant figure in Jacobite networks and politics, had been almoner to Mary Beatrice of Modena and James until 1718, and was at one time principal of the College. He was particularly interested in developing the library and archive of the college, his interest in history enhancing the pertinence of the gift. 23 Schaich, “British Monarchy,” 440; Jennifer Woodward, The Theatre of Death: The Ritual Management of Royal Funerals in Renaissance England 1570–1625 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997).

286

G. VULLINGHS

(1574–1619), the material culture of Clementina’s funeral “publicly inscribed her human form….with diverse meaning.”24 At each stage, the use of royal iconography—alongside “materials of magnificence” such as velvet, gold thread, and large quantities of black cloth—claimed and proclaimed the exiled queen’s royal status, and that of the court which buried her.25 While the offices of the dead were performed in the church of Santi XII Apostoli, the embalmed body of the queen, lying open to view upon a catafalque was dressed in royal regalia. The Parentalia specifies that her dress was “according to the English tradition,” emphasising her status as member of the English royal dynasty.26 As the 1735 English account described, Clementina was clothed in robes with rich gold clasps, and laced with gold and ermine, over which was put a mantle of purple velvet, lin’d with ermine, with black tufts, adorn’d with gold lace. Upon her legs were silk stockings, with gold clocks [embroidered decoration at the ankles], and the shoes were of purple velvet, embroider’d with gold; and upon her hands, white gloves adorn’d after the same manner. Upon her head was a bonnet of purple velvet, broder’d with ermine at the edge, under which, her hair, hanging loose about her neck.27

The Parentalia and Russel’s account add that the queen carried royal regalia—a gold crown on her head, gold sceptre in her right hand, and ivory rod in her left—also depicted in Balthasar Gabbugiani’s engraving (Fig. 13.2).28 The English account notes that the regalia were placed at

24 Catriona Murray, “The Queen’s Two Bodies: Monumental Sculpture at the Funeral of Anna of Denmark, 1619,” The Sculpture Journal 29 (2020), 27. 25 Erin Griffey, On Display: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Magnificence at the Stuart Court (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 1–3. Coined by Griffey, the term “materials of magnificence” has been useful to understand the type of material display harnessed by Baroque monarchs to cultivate a certain identity and through it, assert their authority. Griffey argues that “negotiation around magnificent court display … was central to the monarch’s claiming, justifying and maintaining power,” quotation at page 1. 26 Gotti, Parentalia, 20. 27 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 5. 28 Gotti, Parentalia, 20; Russel, Letters, II , 61.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

287

her feet in the coffin.29 The use of magnificent textiles extended beyond the queen’s body to the bed on which she lay and the interior of the church surrounding her. The crowned canopy of the catafalque was made of black cloth laced with gold and lined with ermine.30 The walls of the church were also hung with black, gold-trimmed fabric, as well as white cloths painted to look like ermine (visible in the engraving).31 The purple ceremonial robes of the thirty-two cardinals in attendance would have further added to the splendour.32 If these rich and regal materials identified Clementina Sobieska as a royal person, insignia which surrounded the corpse throughout the ceremonies specifically spoke of her role in the Stuart and Sobieski dynastic successions. Flags or banners carrying the heraldry of Scotland, England, Ireland, and Poland were stationed close to the queen’s body at all times, while the cloth on which she lay was embroidered, in gold thread, with her personal insignia: the united Stuart and Sobieski arms (depicted at the base of Fig. 13.2).33 Inscriptions on banners in the church of Santi XII Apostoli reinforced Clementina’s dynastic connections: she was named threefold as consort of James III (although the two English publications censor this detail in their transcription and translation); granddaughter of the celebrated Catholic hero, John III Sobieski, King of Poland (who led the Catholic League to victory over the Turkish army at Vienna in 1683); and as “excellent mother of the most accomplished princes,” Charles and Henry Stuart.34 As they had for Anna of Denmark, the use of national and dynastic signs in the material culture of her funeral defined Clementina’s “lineal, maternal and transnational identities” as daughter, wife, mother, and queen.35 They celebrated her role in uniting two royal dynasties through marriage, and securing the Stuart succession. Simultaneously, the Stuart dynastic representation at the centre of Clementina’s funeral served to reinforce the royalty and glory of those she left behind.

29 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 9. 30 Russel, Letters, II, 61; Gotti, Parentalia, 20. 31 Gotti, Parentalia, 21. 32 Russel, Letters, II , 62; Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 6. 33 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 7, 9; Gotti, Parentalia, 25; Russel, Letters, II ,

63. 34 Russel, Letters, II, 65; Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 13. 35 Murray, “The Queen’s Two Bodies,” 28.

288

G. VULLINGHS

Alongside—and central to—Clementina’s royal identity, the funeral secured for her a deeply religious one. On the left side of the church, one banner assured mourners of Clementina’s place in heaven: “Not human Greetings, But Angels meet her with Joy, to join in [H]Allelujahs.”36 Inscriptions emphasised her “piety to God, charity to others, and denial to herself,” and claimed that “whilst she liv’d, Rome beheld a mind truly great and Christian.”37 She was presented as “a pattern to posterity,” while the English account ends with an exhortation for “surviving mortals” to “reflect and profit by this great example.”38 The funeral celebrations, and the accounts which described it, reminded the citizens of Rome, the wider Catholic community, and her would-be subjects in Britain, to follow the example of her behaviour. As queen consort, like her Stuart predecessors, this was one of Clementina’s roles in life, and it continued to be so in death.39 One banner reveals the particularly gendered role of queens consort to act as a model of ideal femininity. Read alongside the other banners, a rhetorical question posed to “virgins” and “matrons,” asking “Who now shall guide your steps to honour and to fame?,” implies that the memory of the life of this deceased queen would continue to serve as a role model for women.40 It is notable that, while surrounded by materials of royal magnificence, Clementina’s body was simultaneously dressed with symbols of piety and poverty. The Parentalia, the English account, and Russel’s account all say that while lying in the church before 23 January, and at the point of burial, Clementina was dressed in the habit of the Dominican nuns.41 The Parentalia claims that the choice of robes was Clementina’s own.42 While the reasons for this are not yet wholly evident, a few connections 36 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 16. 37 Ibid., 12–13. 38 Ibid., 15–16. 39 Charles W. Ingrao, and Andrew L. Thomas, “Piety and Power: The Empress-

Consort of the High Baroque,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Europe 1660–1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 110, 119; Michael Schaich, “Introduction,” in Schaich, Monarchy and Religion, 23; Janet Southorn, “Mary of Modena: Queen Consort of James II & VII,” Royal Stuart Papers XL (Huntingdon: Royal Stuart Society 1992), 18; Griffey, On Display, 28. 40 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 14; Russel, Letters, II, 66. 41 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 4, 9; Russel, Letters, II , 60, 64. 42 Gotti, Parentalia, 19.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

289

can be made between Clementina and the Dominican Order. While in Bologna, shortly after having returned to the court after a self-imposed separation between 1725 and 1727, Clementina’s confessor Gotti was prior of the Dominican convent.43 She may have developed a strong relationship with the Order during this difficult period in her life, and at the time when she became increasingly pious. The queen also gifted a relic of St Dominic to the English Dominican convent at Brussels.44 While Clementina was not strictly a nun, she may have been a tertiary, or lay, member of the Order, aiming to live by their teachings of obedience, chastity, and poverty. The habit does reflect the reality of Clementina’s life in which she took great care over her personal religious observances, acted as a patron of a confraternity and churches of Rome, and made charitable donations.45 At certain moments during the funeral ceremonies, through dress, Clementina’s body was defined as a highly devout one, while simultaneously remaining regal. Identifying Clementina with the persona of a nun did not necessarily conflict with contemporary understanding of queenship. The language of the funerary inscriptions surrounding Clementina’s body used the crown as a metaphor to relate Clementina’s earthly royal status with her elevated position in heaven. The inscriptions placed higher value on the place she would occupy in heaven: “the crown she merited, and valued most, she has found in heaven.”46 Similar language was adopted by Jacobites writing their condolences to James VIII/III. Colonel Owen O’Rourke, the Jacobite diplomatic representative in Vienna, was comforted by the prospect that “the Queen now wears a crown of ever lasting glory.”47 Sister Mary Rosa Howard of the English Dominican convent in Brussels was consoled by the thought that the “holy Queen” Clementina’s good

43 Corp, Stuarts in Italy, 222. 44 RA, Stuart Papers 183, fo. 65, Sister Mary Rosa Howard to James III, 13 October

1735. 45 For discussion of Clementina’s nun-like image see Vullinghs, “Fit for a Queen,” 132–135; this was an image which she shared with Henrietta Maria and Mary Beatrice of Modena: Southorn, “Mary of Modena,” 11; Griffey, On Display, 249. 46 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 16. 47 RA, Stuart Papers 177, fo. 60, Mr O’Rourke to James III, 29 January 1735, Vienna.

290

G. VULLINGHS

works had “embellished her crown,” and now she exchanged “an earthly one for a heavenly diadem.”48 Above all this, it was arguably Clementina’s burial within St Peter’s Basilica which spoke most loudly of her identification as a pious royal figure, and the place which she subsequently adopted within the culture of eighteenth-century Catholicism. Buried alongside popes, a fellow Catholic “queen without a realm” who had made her court in Rome, Christina of Sweden (1626–1689), and most notably, the tomb of Saint Peter himself, Clementina entered a pantheon of religious figures celebrated within a significant space for the Roman Catholic Church.49 Pope Clement XII’s decision to have Clementina entombed in the basilica was not only a declaration of her status as a queen (a queen consort in exile) and his personal support for the Stuart claim to thrones of Britain.50 It can also be understood as part of his personal, papal, and institutional aggrandisement. Through the events of the funeral, and in the Parentalia which officially recounted it, Clement’s reign and Clementina’s life and memory were bound together. As the concluding lines of the Parentalia declared: “we will remember how important faith and virtues were under the happy reign of Clement XII … the glorious deeds of one and the other [Clement and Clementina] will be remembered.”51 Clementina’s life was made available to be harnessed for a wider agenda of eighteenthcentury Catholicism. With her physical body entombed within the Basilica of St Peter, Maria Clementina Sobieska became quite literally, as one

48 RA, Stuart Papers 177, fo. 167, Sister Mary Rosa Howard to James III, 17 February 1735. 49 Veronica Buckley, Christina of Sweden (London: Fourth Estate, 2004), 211, 436– 438; Marie-Louise Rodén, “The Burial of Queen Christina of Sweden in St Peter’s Church,” Scandinavian Journal of History 12 (1987), 63–70. Queen Christina was celebrated in Rome, having abdicated the Swedish throne, and publicly converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. She too was granted a royal burial, and Clementina’s funeral was explicitly said to have been based on it: RA, Stuart Papers 177, fo. 24, James III to Colonel O’Brien, 19 January 1735, Rome. 50 Edward Corp, “The Extended Exile of James III,” in Philip Mansel and Torsten Riotte (eds), Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 170; Gregg, “Martyrs for the Faith?,” fo. 202. 51 Gotti, Parentalia, 30.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

291

banner described, an “ornament” of Rome, of the Catholic faith, and of the Stuart dynastic cause.52

Monumental Legacy Considered in the context of eighteenth-century Catholicism, Clement XII’s and, subsequently, Benedict XIV’s contributions to the commemoration of Clementina were arguably part of a broader agenda to fashion an “enlightened” Catholic Church.53 In keeping with the attributes required in eighteenth-century saints, Clementina’s “heroic virtue” and charitable works were celebrated.54 The Parentalia emphasised how, especially later in life, Clementina devoted herself to helping the poor and suffering, pursued a life of religious observations, and denied herself material comforts.55 Her royal marriage could, furthermore, be interpreted as an act of heroism. The text claims that while Clementina would have willingly followed the celibate life of a nun, she was destined, by Divine Providence, to “the marriage bed” as queen consort of James VIII/III.56 Considering how the exile of the Stuart dynasty was bound up with their commitment to the Catholic Church, her fulfilment of her duty as wife and queen might have been interpreted as particularly heroic. As a pious and even saintly queen, Clementina fitted into a female typology of the Catholic Church which included the Virgin Mary—as mother of Christ and queen of heaven—and other more recent exemplary noble female saints such as Catherine de Ricci, and her Stuart consort predecessors.57 Thus, as well as celebrating her individually, Clementina’s

52 Anonymous, Account of the Funeral, 13. 53 Christopher M. S. Johns, The Visual Culture of Catholic Enlightenment (Penn-

sylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015); see also Rebecca Messbarger, Christopher Johns and Philip Gavitt (eds), Benedict XIV and the Enlightenment: Art, Science, and Spirituality (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017). 54 Johns, Visual Culture of Catholic Enlightenment, 62–65. 55 Gotti, Parentalia, 10. 56 Ibid., 6–7. 57 Erin Griffey, “Picturing Confessional Politics at the Stuart Court: Henrietta Maria

and Catherine of Braganza,” Journal of Religious History 44 (2020), 465–493.

292

G. VULLINGHS

posthumous memory was incorporated into a lineage of holy women, part of a progressive narrative for the church.58 Shortly after Clementina’s death there were some reports of miracles being performed through her intercession, and there appears briefly to have been an enquiry into her beatification.59 Although this ultimately never went ahead, in their patronage of her funeral, publication of the Parentalia, and creation of artworks to commemorate her, Popes Clement XII and Benedict XIV pursued activities which resemble the official processes of eighteenth-century sanctification. Their decision to support the posthumous commemoration of Clementina reflects the efforts of the papacy to maintain control over beatification, and the individuals who were selected for that honour.60 The mid-eighteenth-century popes—Benedict XIV in particular—understood the power of images and material culture to shape the narrative of saintly people, and, in turn, the church they represented.61 A posthumous portrait of Clementina by Agostino Masucci, engraved in 1737 by Michael Sorello (Fig. 13.3), depicts the queen kneeling before an altar. She holds a prayer book open and with hand on breast gazes at a monstrance—which contains the consecrated Host—illuminated by divine light. The gesture indicates that Clementina is emotionally touched by this divine inspiration through her devotion. The presence of three putti’s heads hints at her place in heaven, and at the divine experience the queen is undergoing. As in the funeral ceremonies, symbols of Clementina’s earthly status are not absent from the portrait. She wears an ermine trimmed robe and brocade gown, materials appropriate to her social status. The royal regalia, crown, and sceptre, lie at her knees. However, the queen does not look at them, preferring to focus on her religious devotion. A cushion also lies discarded—a nod towards the self-mortification and rejection of comforts which Clementina was said to have pursued later in life. This portrait can be situated within the tradition of “enlightened” saints’ portraits which intended to emphasise

58 Alexander Linke, “What is ‘Typology’?,” in Dagmar Eichberger and Shelley Perlove (eds), Visual Typology in Early Modern Europe: Continuity and Expansion (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 29. 59 Gregg, “Martyrs for the Faith?,” 210. 60 Johns, Visual Culture of Catholic Enlightenment, 75. 61 Ibid., 67–69.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

293

humanity rather than mystic experiences, reminding viewers of the individual’s exemplary virtues and celebrating their “felicity in heaven,” from where they could act as intercessor.62 The parallels between this image, and that of Charles I’s portrait in the frontispiece of the Eikon Basilike (1649) (and its multiple versions) furthermore tie Clementina into a particularly Stuart visual culture of sanctity.63 In both prints, the kneeling royal sitter gazes into divine light, while their discarded crowns announce a new heavenly status. The monuments which were built to Clementina are another significant component of her legacy. Discussing the monumental culture of Restoration Stuart Britain, Murray has argued that “monuments literally recreated the royal body”: they became an extension of the monarch, substituting their bodily presence, and had the ability to command the same sacred power that the monarch themselves had.64 This connection between monarch and monument became more powerful when the monument, as in the case of Clementina, contained that actual body. While, in 1735, Clementina’s body was entombed in the crypt at St Peter’s Basilica, and her precordia (her organs), were placed within a monument in the church of Santi XII Apostoli, in 1739, Clement XII commissioned a second monument for her inside St Peter’s (Fig. 13.4). Designed by Filippo Barigioni, it was sculpted and completed by Pietro Bracci by 1742.65 The monument was placed in the left aisle of the basilica, near to the Baptistery, and built over the doorway leading to the dome. Parallel to the monument for Queen Christina of Sweden, the two exiles, who were separated from their earthly crown by loyalty to the Catholic faith, make their own typology. Carved in marble and porphyry, materials used throughout the monumental scheme of the basilica, the design includes putti who hold up 62 Ibid., 83. 63 Helen Pierce, “Text and Image: William Marshall’s Frontispiece to the Eikon Basi-

like (1649),” in Geoff Kemp (ed.), Censorship Moments: Reading Texts in the History of Censorship and Freedom of Expression (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 79–86; Andrew Lacey, The Cult of King Charles the Martyr (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2003), 76–128. 64 Catriona Murray, ‘Raising Royal Bodies: Stuart Authority and the Monumental Image’, in Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H. S. Dean, Chris Jones, Zita Rohr, and Russell Martin (eds), The Routledge History of Monarchy (London: Routledge, 2019), 352. 65 Antonio Pinelli, Maria Beltramini, and Alessandro Angeli (eds), The Basilica of St Peter in the Vatican, vol. 4 Testi 2 Schede (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2000), 529.

294

G. VULLINGHS

Fig. 13.3 Michael Sorello after Agostino Masucci, Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska, 1702–1735. Wife of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, (1737), SNPG SP III 77.3 (Image © Scottish National Portrait Gallery)

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

295

Fig. 13.4 Monument to Clementina Sobieska in St Peter’s Basilica, 1742, commissioned by Pope Benedict XIV, by Filippo Barigioni, Pietro Bracci, and Pietro Paolo Cristofari (Image Author’s own)

royal regalia, and a female figure sits atop a sarcophagus, holding out the flaming heart of divine love. The monument incorporates a portrait of Clementina in mosaic, after her 1725 Martin van Meytens portrait. She is depicted with her head uncovered and hair powdered, wearing court dress, sash of the Order of the Garter (the English noble order), and jewels, recognisable as a queen. Overall, the monument’s iconography signalled Clementina’s royal status in life and her elevated position in the afterlife. In January 1745, ten years after her death, Clementina’s body was removed to this more public site. James Russel described the ceremony and the monument in a letter to his mother. He expected her (and other readers, since the letter was published) to be much more “entertained” by this “fine piece of modern art” than by other “ancient curiosities”

296

G. VULLINGHS

of Rome.66 Russel explained how the Choir chapel was “hung all over with black velvet, fringed and laced with gold,” as well as “a large canopy of state of the same stuff … supported by four angels.”67 As in her funeral ceremony, Clementina’s corpse was placed under this canopy, “covered with a pall of gold tissue, &c. over which were fixed two little angels, one holding a crown, the other a sceptre.” Once again, the use of rich materials, royal insignia, inscriptions, and candles illuminated the body, emphasising its sacred royalty. In a miniaturised version of her original funeral ceremony, Clementina’s corpse was carried in procession to the monument, attended by cardinals and the nobility of Rome, and deposited in the porphyry urn. As an object which contained and represented the deceased person’s body, the sculpture had the power to remind the viewer of Clementina’s absence, and simultaneously embody her presence. A large, static object, the audience for the monument itself was limited to those who entered the basilica. In the context of the eighteenth-century British “Grand Tour,” with Rome as a principal destination, this included some of the Stuarts’ supporters and would-be subjects.68 Visiting elites (usually young men) seeking cultural capital, artists undertaking training, and pilgrims, amongst others, are likely to have encountered the monument at St Peter’s Basilica. However, through being copied and circulated in alternative media, the commemorative function of the monument was extended beyond the city walls. In 1742, a medal was commissioned by Benedict XIV to celebrate the completion of the monument (Fig. 13.5).69 The obverse depicts a bust of the pope himself and a legend dating the medal. The reverse depicts the monument with the inscription, in Latin, “to the memory of Maria 66 James Russel, Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to His Friends in England, vol. I (London: W. Russel, 1750), 243, Letter XXXVII, Russel to his mother, 16 May 1745, Rome. The dating of the letter several months after the ceremony itself requires us to be cautious as to whether Russel was present in person, or whether his own account is second-hand. However, it does correspond with other accounts quoted by Corp, Stuarts in Italy, 228–229. Overall, Russel offers an impression of the posthumous treatment of Clementina. 67 Russel, Letters, I , 244–245. 68 For more information, see Jeremy Black, The British Abroad: The Grand Tour in the

Eighteenth Century (Stroud: Sutton, 1992). 69 Noel Woolf, The Medallic Record of the Jacobite Movement (London: Spink & Son Ltd, 1988), 88.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

297

Clementina, Queen of Great Britain.” We might think of the medal as a miniature version of the monument. Reproduced in another form of sculpture, it could transport the monument—and the commemoration of Clementina—beyond Rome to Jacobites and Catholics across Europe. The medal not only commemorates Clementina’s death but also celebrates Benedict’s contribution to the memorialisation of her. It fits within the material culture of the centralised eighteenth-century canonisation process. After a successful canonisation, medals, prints, and painted pictures were presented as gifts to a restricted group of recipients to mark the occasion.70 They materialised the official acceptance of the newly sanctified individual into the canon of the faith. Like the funeral, medal and monument can be interpreted as part of Benedict’s efforts to shape

Fig. 13.5 Medal commemorating the completion of the monument to Clementina Sobieska in St Peter’s, 1742, H.1962.919 (Image © National Museums Scotland)

70 Johns, Visual Culture of Catholic Enlightenment, 80, 88–89. Pope Clement XII’s 1738 annual medal similarly depicted the pope’s bust portrait on one side, and representations of the four new saints he had canonised on the reverse.

298

G. VULLINGHS

Fig. 13.5 (continued)

and control the reception of an exemplary figure. While not officially canonised or beatified, the medal commissioned by Benedict XIV, as well as the Masucci portrait, offer examples of the way in which, through material and visual culture, the life and memory of this Stuart queen were appropriated and disseminated for a reformed Catholicism. Jacobites also used the monument for their own commemoration of their queen. A few years after the letter describing the monument to his mother, Russel sent a drawing of it to his sister Clementina, which he thought he “cou’d not send … to any person more proper.”71 She was, it may be assumed, named after the Jacobite queen. The letter also contained sketches of Clementina Sobieska’s original tomb in St Peter’s and the monument for her precordia in Santi XII Apostoli. Russel’s other

71 Jason M. Kelly, “Letters from a Young Painter Abroad: James Russel in Rome, 1740– 1763 [Introduction and Critical Edition of the James Russel Manuscripts],” Walpole Society 74 (2012), 92, James Russel to Clementina Russel, 20 January 1748, Rome.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

299

sister, Elizabeth, received one of the medals commissioned by Benedict XIV.72 These sketches and the medal would have been treasured as objects which tied a family of young Jacobite women to their deceased queen and allowed them to personally participate in the memorial culture of the exiled Stuarts. In this context, the sketches and the medal have a gendered didactic function. They act as a reminder to Clementina’s female subjects to reflect on her life as an example. The Russels were, in fact, a nonjuring Protestant family (their father, a clergyman, refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the Hanoverian monarch), evidence that devotion to the deceased Clementina and the use of material culture to commemorate her extended beyond a shared confessional identity.73 The Russel family exchanges, including the sketches, did not remain private, however. A selection of Russel’s letters was published in 1748 as Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to his Friends in England.74 Jason Kelly has suggested that the Russel family formulated the idea to publish Russel’s letters around 1746, possibly as a “money-making” scheme for his brother William’s new print shop.75 James Russel arrived at Rome in 1740, with the intention of training as a painter, but made a more successful career for himself as cicerone—a tutor/tour-guide/agent figure. Advertised as the private correspondence of a “young painter abroad” to his family and friends, the letters have been carefully selected, and possibly edited, to produce a “didactic” account of Rome.76 The result was a guidebook to the city and its environs. Apparently a success, a second edition of the Letters was published in 1750, in two volumes.77 The second volume contains copperplate engraving reproductions of Russel’s drawings of Clementina’s tomb in St Peter’s Basilica and the two monuments (Figs. 13.6 and 13.7). Correspondence from the Russel family not published in the Letters reveals

72 Ibid., 101, James Russel to Elizabeth Russel, 1 October 1748, Rome. 73 Kelly, “James Russel in Rome,” 62. 74 James Russel, Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to his Friends in England (London: W. Russel, 1748). 75 Kelly, “James Russel in Rome,” 69. 76 Ibid., 70. 77 James Russel, Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to his Friends in England, vol II (London: W. Russel, 1750).

300

G. VULLINGHS

that, in March 1747 and February 1748, Russel’s father had specifically requested sketches of the monuments with the intention of making engravings from them, which he did in Paris in November 1748.78 The published plates were dedicated to Dr John Monro and Roland Holt. James Russel had acted as cicerone, antiquarian, and painter for these men during their travels in Rome and Naples between 1745 and 1747, during which time the group “openly consorted” with James VIII/III.79 Thus, the dedication of these sketches publicly reinforced networks of Jacobite fraternity. But inclusion of the story of Clementina’s death, funeral, and the monuments in the Letters placed Russel’s correspondence about the exiled Stuarts beyond the context of personal devotion to the family. In publishing sketches of the monuments and an account of the funeral in a book about the “curiosities” of Italy, the Russels ensured that the material culture surrounding Clementina’s death reached an audience greater than the Jacobite community in Britain. By doing so, this situated the exiled Stuarts within the landscape of Grand Tour Rome, viewable alongside the ancient and modern cultural artefacts of the city.

Distributing the Queen As James Russel took the initiative in supplying his family with materials relating to the deceased Stuart queen, Jacobites on the Continent and in Britain were diligent in acquiring relics of Clementina. The eighteenthcentury exiled Stuart court had inherited a tradition of royal relic culture, particularly the distribution of hair jewellery, from their seventeenthcentury predecessors, especially around the “martyrdom” of Charles I.80 As Alexandra Walsham states, the concept of the relic is a “slippery, elastic, and expansive” one.81 It can include corporeal remains—such as 78 Kelly, “James Russel in Rome,” 93 (Revd Russel to James Russel, 12 February 1747/8, London), 103 (Revd Russel to James Russel, 4 November 1748, Paris). 79 Ibid., 69; John Ingamells and Brinsley Ford, A Dictionary of British and Irish Travellers in Italy, 1701–1800: Compiled from the Brinsley Ford Archive (London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, Yale University Press, 1997), 668. 80 Hugh Cheape, “The Culture and Material Culture of Jacobitism,” in Michael Lynch (ed.), Jacobitism and the ’45 (London: Historical Association Committee for Scotland and the Historical Association, 1995), 35; Neil Guthrie, The Material Culture of the Jacobites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 116. 81 Alexandra Walsham, “Introduction: Relics and Remains,” Past and Present 206 (2011), 11.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

301

Fig. 13.6 J. Russel, Plate II. Vol.II, Letters from a Young Painter, 1750, printed engraving of Russel’s illustration of the monument to Clementina Sobieska in St Peter’s Basilica. With thanks to the University of Edinburgh Special Collections

hair—and secondary objects associated with and used by the deceased (or otherwise absent) person.82 Due to their association with a holy person, relics have innate ability to work as an “intercessory force,” often manifested in healing.83 There were some reports of Clementina’s relics performing miracles shortly after her death; in September 1735, James VIII/III wrote to Lewis Innes of two “miraculous cures” in Lorraine

82 Ibid. 83 Ibid., 13.

302

G. VULLINGHS

Fig. 13.7 J. Russel, Plate I. Vol.II, Letters from a Young Painter, 1750, printed engraving of Russel’s illustration of the tomb in St Peter’s Basilica and monument to Clementina Sobieska in SS XII Apostoli. With thanks to the University of Edinburgh Special Collections

and in Avignon, which had been “wrought by [Clementina’s] intercession.”84 James himself found “a great deal of comfort” on hearing of the “sudden cure” of a nun, Mme de Soisson, although he was reluctant to

84 RA, Stuart Papers 182, fo. 147, James III to Lewis Innes, 20 September 1735, Rome.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

303

“make a noise” about it until it had been properly authenticated, which it does not appear to have been.85 These, however, are exceptional instances. Influenced by the work of historians of material culture and emotions, here the term relic is used expansively, applied both to objects used in religious and non-religious contexts.86 Desire for relics of the Stuarts was shared by their Catholic and Protestant followers. What is important is that these fragments of Clementina had the capacity to embody her whole, materialising the remembering of her in a way which invoked her presence.87 They were (and potentially still are) “potent objects” which demanded an emotional response, whether to inspire awe, devotion, or even “galvanize people to take dynamic action to transform their everyday lives.”88 Usually small and transportable, as objects which “carry meaning over space as well as allowing it to endure in time,” relics were ideally placed for use by the Jacobites in their expression and practice of loyalty to the exiled Stuarts, as well as for distribution by the court in their attempts to sustain that loyalty.89 As Matthew Martin has suggested of the relics of James VII/II, through the “spatial expansion of the human body, manifesting the same power and presence as the whole” afforded by the relic, the deceased person continued to have agency.90 The material legacy of Clementina as Jacobite queen empowered her to act on and for her supporters in the afterlife.

85 RA, Stuart Papers 182, fo. 149, James III to Lord Inverness, 20 September 1735, Rome; RA, Stuart Papers 183, fo. 30, James III to Lord Inverness, 5 October 1735, Albano. Lord Inverness’s letters in the correspondence do not appear to survive amongst the Stuart Papers. Correspondence about the event stalls after December 1735. 86 Matthew Martin, “Infinite Bodies: The Baroque, the Counter-Reformation Relic, and the Body of James II,” in Lisa Beaven and Angela Ndalianis (eds), Emotion and the Seduction of the Senses, Baroque to the Neo-Baroque (Western Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 2018), 169; Sally Holloway, The Game of Love in Georgian England: Courtship, Emotions and Material Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 75– 91. 87 Walsham, “Relics and Remains,” 13; Marcia R. Pointon, Brilliant Effects: A Cultural History of Gem Stones and Jewellery (London: Yale University Press, 2009), 293. 88 Stephanie Downes, Sally Holloway, and Sarah Randles, “Introduction,” in Stephanie Downes, Sally Holloway, and Sarah Randles (eds), Feeling Things: Objects and Emotions Through History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 13–14. 89 Walsham, “Relics and Remains,” 11. 90 Martin, “Infinite Bodies,” 169.

304

G. VULLINGHS

Some of Clementina’s relics inhabited a place within the religious institutions of exiled British Catholics. These continental colleges and convents held an important role in the Catholic and Jacobite diaspora community, particularly in the education of Catholic youths, provision of accommodation to travellers, and maintaining networks (social and political) between the exiled community on the continent and the community at home in Britain.91 At Sister Mary Rosa Howard’s convent in Brussels, a relic of St Dominic which had been gifted by the queen was given renewed attention after her death, “many coming to see it no less as being sent by so holy a princess as to pay devotion to the s[ain]t.”92 Hearing from Sister Mary Rosa of proposals to build an altar for the relic, James VIII/III made a gift of £25 to the convent, and sent the nun “a little of the Queen’s hair … cut off after her death,” which he expected would be “very agreeable” to her.93 With Clementina’s death, the meaning of the saint’s relic and that of Clementina’s became intertwined. At the request of Lewis Innes, at the Scots College in Paris, Clementina’s hair and a book of devotion she had used joined an existing collection of relics of the exiled Stuarts: the brain of James VII/II, and precordia of Mary Beatrice of Modena and Princess Louise-Marie.94 National Museums Scotland similarly hold a set of lace cuffs and an eighteenth-century bed coat which are alleged to have been sent from the Stuart court to the English convent at Louvain, where significant numbers of Jacobite women were part of the community.95 Within these communities, the deceased queen’s relics added to the practices of a certain brand of Catholic Jacobite devotion. Claire Walker has suggested that such examples of “Stuart memorabilia” were part of 91 Claire Walker, “‘When God Shall Restore Them to Their Kingdoms’: Nuns, Exiled Stuarts and English Catholic Identity, 1688–1745,” in Sarah Apetrei and Hannah Smith (eds), Religion and Women in Britain, c.1660–1760 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 80; Gabriel Glickman, The English Catholic Community, 1688–1745: Politics, Culture and Ideology (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009), 9. 92 RA, Stuart Papers 183, fo. 65, Sister Mary Rosa Howard to James III, 13 October 1735. 93 RA, Stuart Papers 184, fo. 25, James III to Sister Mary Rosa Howard, 11 November, 1735, Rome. 94 RA, Stuart Papers 191, fo. 90, James III to Lewis Innes, 11 November 1736, Rome; RA, Stuart Papers 190, fo. 147, Lewis Innes to James III, 22 October 1736, Paris. 95 National Museums Scotland, A.1991.30 and A.1991.31 A-C. The exact channels of distribution for this set of objects are yet to be uncovered.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

305

a “ceremonial culture of Jacobite worship.”96 Transformed into sacred objects, Clementina’s relics were part of an ideology which claimed for the Stuarts the sacrality of monarchy, which was one of the core principles of their legitimacy to inherit the British crowns.97 They were also part of a culture of sacrifice and shared experience of exile. Particular to the identities of these English nuns, their religious practices united faith, exile, and loyalty to the Stuarts. Sister Mary Rosa Howard also played a role in distributing relics beyond her convent. Throughout 1735–1736, she wrote to the exiled court to make requests for some of Clementina’s hair and any other objects which had belonged to her, having been commissioned by English Jacobites to acquire them. She wrote to James Edgar, the court secretary: “I have letters from our Chief families in England pressing me to get [from] ye any the least thing of our Queen’s out of their veneration to her Majesty’s memory.”98 While the desired objects were more conventional relics such as hair or belongings, Sister Mary Rosa also requested printed portraits of the queen to satisfy the demands of her petitioners, hinting at the power that portraits have, similar to relics, to embody the absent individual.99 Edgar was able to return some hair. Though not as valuable as that which she had previously been sent, Edgar assured the nun that it was the queen’s “veritable hair cut by [her maids] out of her head in her lifetime.”100 In addition to Jacobites in England, Sister Mary Rosa acted as intermediary for the Archduchess Maria Elisabeth, governor of the Austrian Netherlands. Already in possession of several other “curiosities” such as Stuart medals before the queen’s death, in November 1736, she had demanded of Sister Mary Rosa Howard “any thing that had ever belonged 96 Walker, “When God Shall Restore them to their Kingdoms,” 95. 97 Guthrie, Material Culture, 118–119; as Elena Woodacre argues, the power of the

ruler lies in law, religion—the right of “one who has been divinely selected to rule”—or, as in the case of the Stuarts, a combination of both. See Elena Woodacre, ‘Understanding the Mechanisms of Monarchy’, in idem et al., The Routledge History of Monarchy (New York: Routledge, 2019), 4. 98 RA, Stuart Papers 192, fo. 60, Sister Mary Rosa Howard to James Edgar, 11 December 1736. 99 Marcia Pointon, “‘Surrounded with Brilliants’: Miniature Portraits in EighteenthCentury England,” The Art Bulletin 83 (2001), 60. 100 RA, Stuart Papers 192, fo. 62, James Edgar to Sister Mary Rosa Howard, 12 January 1737.

306

G. VULLINGHS

to her Majesty.”101 Sister Mary Rosa herself had only “a small part of her Majesty’s haire, which for all the treasurs [sic] in the world [she] would not part with.”102 The appeal of the deceased, exiled Stuart queen and desire to possess physical relics of her extended beyond those who owed her their allegiance as British subjects. The Stuart court’s willingness to meet those demands may be seen as part of their European diplomacy to garner support for the family.103 A ring containing a miniature portrait of Clementina and a piece of her hair can also usefully be considered in terms of the relic and reliquary (Fig. 13.8). Now in the collections of National Museums Scotland, it belonged to a Scottish Jacobite woman, Isabella Strange, the sister of Andrew Lumisden, secretary to the Stuart court in exile, and wife of Jacobite engraver, Robert Strange.104 Isabella’s will lists the ring, requesting that it should be passed first to her daughter and then to her granddaughter.105 It provides another example of the particularly female-gendered dimension to the culture surrounding the Jacobite queen. Painted in watercolour on ivory, the portrait is copied from one done by Francesco Trevisani, although the only publicly known extant example is an engraved copy made by John Faber Jr in 1737. The miniature portrait is set between two garnets or rubies, and on its reverse is a panel of hair (which we assume to be Clementina’s) and the cipher CR for Clementina Regina in gold wire. Containing various miniatures, or fragments, of Clementina, in the form of the portrait, cipher, and hair, this ring had the power to embody her whole. The portrait and hair could work like relics to form a physical “bridge” between two separated people in affective relationships.106 Encased together in precious materials, this assemblage resembles a reliquary.107 101 RA, Stuart Papers 192 fo. 60, Sister Mary Rosa Howard to James Edgar, 11 December 1736. 102 Ibid. 103 Stephen Griffin, “Between Public and Private Spaces: Jacobite Diplomacy in Vienna,

1725–1742,” Royal Studies Journal 9 (2022), 57–58. See also Stephen Griffin’s essay in this volume. 104 Alexander Pelham Trotter, Catalogue of Jacobite Relics and Family Mementoes inherited by Alexander Pelham Trotter (Salisbury: Teffont, 1933). 105 National Library Scotland, MS 14257, fo. 36, “Will and Codicil from 22 December 1801.” 106 Holloway, Game of Love, 82–84. 107 Pointon, “Surrounded with Brilliants,” 60.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

307

Fig. 13.8 Portrait Ring, NMS X.2015.105.3 (Image © National Museums Scotland)

Similarly, the sketches and medal sent by James Russel to his sisters might also be considered as quasi-relics. Sarah Randles has discussed how mediaeval pilgrim tokens carrying depictions of relics had the potential to act in the same way as the original relic, especially when the token

308

G. VULLINGHS

had been in contact with it.108 As miniature versions of the monument that contained Clementina’s decaying body, the medals—themselves small sculptures—represented the Stuart queen in a moveable, tangible, and durable form. Easily circulated and designed to be carried close to the devotee’s person, the medal and the portrait ring not only prompted memories of the deceased queen but also made for a potent point of contact between her and loyal Jacobites. As objects which could potentially be gazed at, touched, worn, and displayed (on the body and in more directed forms of showing), they both stimulated and supported the emotional practices which underpinned loyalty to the exiled Stuarts amongst Jacobites in Britain. Just as relics facilitate contact with the saintly person and act as a channel for their heavenly powers, they can connect individuals and demand emotional responses in secular terms of love and longing. This dual interpretation is important when examining the “relics” of the exiled Stuarts, where royalty and sanctity, love, and loyalty, were intertwined.

Conclusion The treatment of Maria Clementina Sobieska’s body after death, and the relics which emanate from it, speak of a shared culture which surrounded her. As Walsham argues, objects only become relics by “consequence of the beliefs and practices that accumulate around them.”109 They are evidence of the ability of shared faith—whether in religion or in the Stuart dynasty—to imbue “mundane objects” with meaning and power.110 Ultimately, Clementina’s relics existed and worked only as a result of the collective belief in her divine royal power, her status as exemplary figure, and her position in the Stuart (and Sobieski) dynasty. They speak of her place within a cultural memory not only of Jacobitism but also of the Catholic faith. This cultural memory was shaped and secured by the funerary honours offered to her by Pope Clement XII, carried through in the formal written, visual, and material legacy of the ceremonies, and in

108 Sarah Randles, “Signs of Emotion: Pilgrimage Tokens from the Cathedral of NotreDame of Chartres,” in Downes, Holloway, and Randles, Feeling Things, 46, 50. 109 Walsham, “Relics and Remains,” 14. 110 Ibid., 10.

13

“A CROWN OF EVERLASTING GLORY”: THE AFTERLIFE …

309

monumental sculpture. Throughout, Clementina was consistently identified as a queen who had not only succeeded in securing the Stuart dynastic lineage but had done so as an example of piety and object of loyalty. While celebrating a past life, the commemoration of Clementina had import for the present and future of both the Stuart dynasty in exile, Jacobite aspirations for their restoration in Britain, and the image of the Catholic Church. Attending to the material culture which surrounds the death and afterlife of the last widely acknowledged Stuart queen re-inserts her firmly not only within the narrative of Jacobitism, but also of eighteenth-century queenship, and sacred monarchy of the early modern period.

Bibliography

Archival Sources Archive des Affaires Étrangères, Paris Collection Politique Serie Angleterre

Rom. 668 79

Archivum Britannicum Societatis Jesu, London MSB/83

Notes and Letters on Relics of the English Martyrs, 19th and 20th centuries

Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych [Central Archives of Historical Records], Radziwiłł Archive, Warsaw Warsaw

III, 46

Bodleian Library, Oxford Carte Manuscript Clarendon Manuscripts Rawlinson Manuscript Tanner Manuscript

222 37, 74, 78, 84 poet. 159 35

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2

311

312

BIBLIOGRAPHY

British Library, London Additional Manuscript 1571A Additional Manuscript 28055 Additional Manuscript 28056

Additional Manuscript 28224

Additional Manuscript 28721B Additional Manuscript 29548

Additional Manuscript 29588

Additional Manuscript 29589

Additional Manuscript 29590

Additional Manuscript 29595

Additional Manuscript 34262

Additional Manuscript 52540L Additional Manuscript 61416 Additional Manuscript 61434

Additional Manuscript 61619

Warrants and Accounts of the Royal Household Official Correspondence of Sidney Godolphin, 1701–1710 Original letters from Foreign Princes, English Ambassadors, and others to Sidney Godolphin, first Earl of Godolphin, Lord High Treasurer, 1680–1710 Original Letters from James II of England and his Queen, Mary Beatrice d’Este, to John Caryll, Secretary to the Queen, 1692–1710 Miscellaneous Papers; acquired from time to time during the years 1871–1876 Correspondence and Papers of the Families of Hatton and Finch, 1514–1779 Original Letters addressed to Daniel Finch, Earl of Nottingham, Secretary of State, chiefly upon Political Affairs, 1694–1725 Original Letters addressed to Daniel Finch, Earl of Nottingham, Secretary of State, chiefly upon Political Affairs, 1694–1725 Original Letters from John and Paul Methuen, Envoys at Lisbon, to Charles Montagu, Earl of Manchester, and Daniel Finch, Earl of Nottingham, 1702–1704 Original Letters from Daniel Finch, Earl of Nottingham, to his Father-in-Law, Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton, 1681–1706 Miscellaneous Papers relating to the Island of Jersey, including many connected with the Family of Poingdestre, 1618–1832 Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, 1699–1965 Correspondence and Papers of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, 1702–1705 Correspondence with Sidney Godolphin and Duchess of Marlborough, 1691–1712 Petitions to Queen, Anne and King George I, 1704–1721

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Additional Manuscript 72850 Additional Manuscript 75364

Additional Manuscript 78269

Egerton Manuscript 1533

Egerton Manuscript 1534

Egerton Manuscript 2542

Harleian Manuscript 164 Harleian Manuscript 383

Harleian Manuscript 1219

Harleian Manuscript 2278 Henry Purcell’s My Heart is Inditing, Collection R.M.20.h.8, fos 53v-63v

Correspondence and Papers of Sir William Petty, 1646–1698 Althorp Papers: Letters to Halifax as Lord Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal to the Queen Dowager, Catherine of Braganza, 1691–1694 Evelyn Papers volume CII: Miscellaneous Papers of Sir Edward Nicholas, and of other Generations of his Family; 1560–1706 Papers formerly belonging to Col. Silius or Silius Titus, Gentleman of the Bedchamber to Charles I and Charles II, 17th century Eighty Original Letters of Catherine of Braganza, Queen of Charles II, to her brother Pedro II of Portugal, 1682–1692 List of Persons excluded out of France by the agreement with Cromwell, 1649–1660 Journal of the House of Commons by Sir Simonds D’Ewes, 1641–1643 Correspondence of Simonds D’Ewes with Friends and Family on Current Affairs, 1585–1648 Collections, historical, antiquarian, etc., made by Thomas Astle, 12th–18th century John Lydgate, Lives of SS Edmund and Fremund, 1434–1439 https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/ henry-purcell-my-heart-is-inditing, accessed 26 March 2022 Henry Purcell, Symphony Anthems, 1690

Chatsworth House, Bakewell, Devonshire CH 36/7/0 CH 37/2

Inventory of the Furniture at Chatsworth, 1764 Building Account, 1686–1694

Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. L.c V.b. 333

Newdigate Newsletters Goodricke Papers

313

314

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna Staatenabteilung

England Varia 8, Rom 111

Kenneth Spencer Research Library, Lawrence, Kansas MS E82

Correspondence of John Methuen and Sir William Simpson, 1626–1823

Kent History and Library Centre, Maidstone U1015 U1590

Papillon Manuscripts, 1552–1924 Stanhope of Chevening Manuscripts, c. 1200–1968

Kresen Kernow [formerly Cornwall Record Office], Redruth AR

Arundell Family of Lanherne, Mawgan in Pydar Papers, 1200–1950

The National Archives, Kew E 156 LC 9 LC 9/279 LC 9/280 LR 15 PRO 31/3 SP 8 SP 31 SP SP SP SP SP

34 44 78 89 104

Exchequer: King’s Remembrancer: Original Letters Patent etc., 1268–c. 1820 Lord Chamberlain’s Department: Accounts and Miscellanea, 1483–1901 Lord Chamberlain’s Accounts: Great Wardrobe. Bills, 1689–1690 Lord Chamberlain’s Accounts: Great Wardrobe. Bills, 1690–1696 Office of the Auditors of Land Revenue: Ancient Deeds, 1349–1731 Transcripts from French Archives, 1504–1714 King William III’s Chest, 1670–1698 Secretaries of State: State Papers Domestic, James II, 1685–1688 Secretaries of State: State Papers Domestic, Anne, 1702–1714 Secretaries of State: State Papers: Entry Books, 1660–1828 Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, France, 1577–1780 Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, Portugal, 1577–1780 Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, Entry Books, 1571–1783

BIBLIOGRAPHY

315

Northamptonshire Record Office, Northampton FH/F/A/E/0280

Letters of Earl of Nottingham as to expedition to Portugal in 1702–1704

Royal Archives, Windsor Castle Main Boxes Main Paper Series RA SP/ M/15 fo. 95 SP/ ADD/1/ 158

47, 92,87, 88, 106, 111 Royal Collections Trust

Queen Mary of Modena to Louis XIV, State Papers Online, The Stuart and the Cumberland Papers from the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, 1687 Account Book for Works at Windsor Castle, 1676–1687

Ushaw College Library, Durham LC/P6

Lisbon Archive. Lisbon College Papers and Russell Papers, 1660–1673

West Sussex Record Office, Chichester PHA 6263 PHA 287/23

Inventory of Goods at Petworth, 1749 Duchess of Somerset Bills Paid, 1712

Printed Primary Sources

Anonymous, An Account of the Funeral Ceremonies Perform’d at Rome, in Honour of the Princess Clementina Sobieski. Translated from the Roman Journal of Jan.29, 1735. No 2729 (Dublin. s. n., 1735). ———, The Amours of Messalina, Late Queen of Albion. in Which Are Briefly Couch’d Secrets of the Imposture of the Cambrion Prince, the Gothick League, and Other Court Intrigues of the Four Last Years Reign, Not Yet Made Publick. By a Woman of Quality, a Late Confident of Q. Messalina (London: John Lyford, 1689). ———, The Case of Thomas Eyre Esq; Respondent to the Petition of Thomas Eyre, William Ing, Henry Balgay Esquires, and Other Appealants [sic] (London: s. n., 1685). ———, The Clergyman’s Intelligencer: Or, a Compleat Alphabetical List of All the Patrons in England and Wales, with the Dignities, Livings, and Benefices in Their Gift; and Their Valuation annex’d. To Which Is Added an Alphabetical Index of all the Benefices, and the Page in Which They Are to Be Found (London: s. n., 1745). ———, Continuation of Certain Special and Remarkable Passages from Both Houses of Parliament (London: Coles and Leach, 1643). ———, The Courtly Salutation: Or, the Royal Greeting Between K. William and Q. Mary at His Return From the Irish Wars to His Princely Pallace (London: P. Brooksby, J. Deacon, J. Blare, and J. Back, 1690). ———, Englands Happiness in the Crowning of William and Mary (London: A. Milbourn in Green Arbor in the Little Old-Bailey, 1689).

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2

317

318

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

———, Englands Holiday, or, the Nations Joy for the Happy Coronation Of, King William, and His Royal Consort Queen Mary (London: J. Conyers at the Black Raven in Holborn, 1689). ———, English Post (London). ———, An Excellent New Ballad (London: s. n., 1714). ———, Great Britains Earnest Desires for the Princess Marys Happy Arrival (London: P. B., 1689). ———, The Joy of Protestants for King William’s Safe Arrival From the Wars of Ireland, to His Gracious Queen (London: J. Millet, at the Angel in LittleBrittain [sic], 1690). ———, The Kingdoms Joy for the Proclaiming King William and His Royal Consort Queen Mary in the Throne of England (London: s. n., 1689). ———, A New Song Being a Second Part to the Same Tune of Lillibulero, &c (London: s. n., 1711–12). ———, A Poem on the Accession of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange to the Imperial Crown of England, Being a Paraphrase on the 45 Psalm (London: s. n., 1689). ———, A Poem on the Coronation of King William and Queen Mary (London: Randall Taylor near Stationers Hall, 1689). ———, Poems on Affairs of State: From Oliver Cromwell to This Present Time. Written by the Greatest Wits of the Age, Viz…Part III. With Other Miscellany Poems; And a New Session of the Present Poets. The Whole Never Before Printed (London: s. n., 1698). ———, The Post Man and the Historical Account (London: 1700–1718). ———, The Princess Welcome to England, Being, The Unanimous Joy of Her Loyal Subjects (London: W. Thackeray at the Angel in Duck-Lane, 1689). ———, The Protestants Ave Mary, on the Arrival of Her Most Gracious Majesty, Mary, Queen of England (London: R. Baldin, near the Black-Bull in the OldBaily, 1689). ———, Queen Elizabeth’s Ghost: or A Dream (London: s. n., 1706). ———, Réponse de la Reine d’Angleterre au Prince de Galles son Fils (Paris: Robert Feuge, 1649). ———, The Royal Farewel: Or, a Conference Between Their Present Majesties King William & Queen Mary On Their Parting, When the King Took His Leave, in Order for the Irish Expedition (London: Robert Hayhurst, in Little Britain, 1690). ———, The Royal Resolution: Or, His Majesty’s Taking Leave of the Queen, at His Departure from the Court for the Expedition of Ireland (London: P. Brookshy, J. Deacon, J. Blare, J. Back, 1690). ———, Some Special and Considerable Passages from London (London: H. Blunden, 1642).

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

319

———, A Welcome Song, Perform’d to the King and Queen, at Guild-Hall, October 29. 1692 (London: R. Everingham, 1692). ———, The Whigs Address to His Majesty (London: R. Ward, in the Strand, 1714). Barnes, Joshua, The Apotheosis of the Most Serene and Illustrious Monarch Charls [sic] the II. With an Humble Address to His Most Sacred Majesty King James the II. And a Poem to the Queen Dowager (London: s. n., 1685). Beal, Peter (ed.), Discovering, Identifying and Editing Early Modern Manuscripts: English Manuscript Studies 1100–1700, Volume 18 (London: British Library, 2013). Beckman, Martin, A Description of the Royal Fireworks, Prepared for Celebrating the Universal Joy, for the Inestimable Blessing Afforded by God to the King, Queen, and People of These Realms, in the Happy Birth of the Most Illustrious Prince of Wales, Presented on the Thames Over-Against White-Hall, on Tuesday Night the 17 th of July, 1688, Before Both Their Majesties, the Queen Dowager, the Prince and Princess of Denmark, and the Whole Court (London: s. n., 1688). Behn, Aphra, A Congratulatory Poem to Her Most Sacred Majesty, on the Universal Hopes of All Loyal Persons for a Prince of Wales by Mrs. A. Behn (London: Will. Canning, 1688). ———, A Congratulatory Poem to Her Sacred Majesty Queen Mary, Upon Her Arrival in England (London: Printed by R. E. for R. Bentley in Russel-Street in Convent Garden, and W. Canning at his Shop in the Temple Cloysters, 1689). ———, A Pindarick Poem on the Happy Coronation of His Most Sacred Majesty James II and His Illustrious Consort Queen Mary by Mrs. Behn (London: J. Playford for Henry Playford, 1685). ———, A Poem Humbly Dedicated to the Great Patern [Sic] of Piety and Virtue, Catherine, Queen Dowager on the Death of Her Dear Lord and Husband, King Charles II (London: Printed by I. Playford for Henry Playford, 1685). Bentinck, Caroline Mechtilde Emma Charlotte Cristiane Louise van (ed.), Lettres et Mémoires de Marie Reine D’Angleterre Epouse de Guillaume III: Collection de Documents Authentiques Inédits Conservés aux Archives de Comtes D’Aldenbourg Bentinck et du Baron de Heeckeren de Wassenaer (London: D. Nutt, 1880). Blackburne Daniell, F. H. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles II, 1673–1675 (London: HMSO, 1904). Boyer, Abel, The History of the Reign of Anne, Digested into Annals. Year the Tenth. Containing, A Full and Impartial Account of All Transactions, Both at Home and Abroad (London: s. n., 1712). Brograve Robert, A Sermon Preach’d Before the King and Queen at Hamptoncourt, May the 12th, 1689 (London: s. n., 1689).

320

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

Broughton, Richard, The Ecclesiasticall Historie of Great Britaine Deduced by Ages or Centenaries from the Nativitie of Our Saviour, unto the happie Conuersion of the Saxons, in the seuenth hundred yeare; Whereby Is Manifestly Declared a Continuall Succession of the true Catholike Religion, Which at This Day Is Professed & Taught in, and by the Roman Church (Douai: By the widow of Mark Wyon, at the sign of the Phœnix, 1633). Brown, Beatrice Curtis (ed.), The Letters and Diplomatic Instructions of Queen Anne (London: Cassell, 1935). ———, The Letters and Diplomatic Instructions of Queen Anne (London: Cassell, 1968). Browning, Andrew (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1660–1714 (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1953). Burnet, Gilbert, ed. Thomas Stackhouse, An Abridgement of Bishop Burnet’s History of His Own Times (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1910). ———, Bishops Burnet’s History of His Own Time…in Four Volumes (4 vols, London: A. Miller, 1753). ———, History of His Own Time (5 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1823). Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series (1649–1660) (13 vols, London: Longman, 1875–1886). Calendar of State Papers Domestic of the Reign of Charles II , ed. Mary Anne Everett Green et al. (36 vols, London: Longman, 1860–1947). Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice: And in Other Libraries of Northern Italy, ed. H. F. Brown and A. B. Hinds (38 vols, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, 1864–1947). Care, Henry (ed.), Publick Occurrences Truely Stated. Nos. 1–24 (London, 1688). Caryll, John, The Psalms of David Translated from the Vulgate (Paris: William Weston, 1700). Chamberlayne, Edward, Angliæ Notitia: Or, the Present State of England Compleat, Together with Divers Reflections upon the Ancient State thereof , 16th edn (London: s. n., 1687). Charles I, King of England, The King’s Cabinet Opened: or, Certain Packets of Secret Letters and Papers, Written with the Kings Own Hand, and Taken in His Cabinet at Nasby-Field, June. 14. 1645. By victorious Sr. Thomas Fairfax; Wherein Many Mysteries of State, Tending to the Justification of That Cause for Which Sir Thomas Fairfax Joyned Battell That Memorable Day Are Clearly Laid Open; Together, with Some Annotations Thereupon (London: Robert Bostock, dwelling in Pauls Church-yard, at the sign of the Kings-head, 1645). Churchill, duchess of, Sarah Jennings, ed. William King, Memoirs of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough: Together with Her Characters of Her Contemporaries and Her Opinions (New York: Dutton, 1930).

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

321

———, “Sarah’s Farewell to a C-----t or a Trip from St. James to St. Albans” (London: s. n., 1710). Coke, Roger, A Detection of the Court and State of England, During the Reigns of Kings James I, Charles I, Charles II, and James II. As Also the Interregnum (3 vols, London: J. Brotherton and W. Meadows, 1719). Colbatch, John, An Account of the Court of Portugal, Under the Reign of the Present King, Dom Pedro II (London: Thomas Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St Paul’s Church-Yard, 1700). Colvin, Howard Montagu (ed.), The History of the King’s Works: Volume 5 1660– 1782 (London: HMSO, 1976). Cowper, William, The Private Diary of William, First Earl Cowper, Lord Chancellor of England (Eton: E. Williams, 1833). Crake, Francis, A Congratulatory Poem Upon the Coronation of William and Mary King and Queen of England (London: Randall Taylor, 1689). Crawford, Patricia and Laura Gowing (eds), Women’s Worlds in Seventeenth Century England: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 2000). Defoe, Daniel, A Tour thro’ the Whole Island of Great Britain, Divided into Circuits or Journies. Giving a Particular and Diverting Account of Whatever Is Curious and Worth Observation…With Useful Observations of Upon the Whole. Particularly Fitted for the Reading of Such as Desire to Travel over the Island (3 vols, London: G. Strahan, in Cornhill, 1724–27). ———, The Advantages of Peace of Commerce; with Some Remarks on the EastIndia Trade (London: J. Brotherton, 1727). Doebner, R. (ed.), Memoirs of Mary, Queen of England (Leipzig: Veit & Co., 1886). Dryden, John, The State of Innocence and Fall of Man; An Opera, Written in Heroique Verse and Dedicated to Her Royal Highness, the Dutchess (London: Printed by T. N. for Henry Herringman, 1677). ———, “To the Pious Memory of the Accomplished Young Lady Mrs. Anne Killigrew,” in Anne Killigrew, Poems by Mrs. Anne Killigrew (London: Samuel Lowndes, 1686). Dryden, John, ed. Stephen Zwicker, John Dryden: Selected Poems (London: Penguin, 2001). Dublin Weekly Journal (1725–1752): 6, 12, 26 February 1726; 2, 23 April 1726. D’Urfey, Thomas, A Pindarick Poem on the Royal Navy (London: Randall Taylor, 1691). Dyer, Thomas Henry, The History of Modern Europe: From the Fall of Constantinople to the Crimean War (4 vols, London: s. n., 1864). England and Wales, Privy Council, At the Council-Chamber in Whitehall, Monday the 22th of October, 1688. This Day an Extraordinary Council Met, Where Were Likewise Present, by His Majesties Desire and Appointment, Her Majesty the Queen Dowager, and Such of the Peers of This Kingdom, Both Spiritual and

322

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

Temporal, as Were in Town. And also the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, The Judges, and Several of Their Majesties Council Learn’d, Hereafter Named (London: Charles Bill, H. Hills, and Thomas Newcomb, printers to the King’s most excellent Majesty, 1688). Evelyn, John, ed. E. S. de Beer, Diary of John Evelyn, Volume III & IV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). ———, The Diary of John Evelyn (London: Oxford University Press, 1959). Fagel, Baron François Nicolaas. The Baron de Fagel’s Account of the Campagne in Portugal of 1705 (London: John Morphew, 1708). Fiennes, Celia, Through England on a Side Saddle: In the Time of William and Mary, Being the Diary of Celia Fiennes. With an Introduction by the Hon. Mrs Griffiths (London: Field & Tuer, 1888). Finch, Anne, On the Death of the Queen (Wellesley (MA): Wellesley College, Margaret Clapp Library, 1718). Gazette de Paris: 24 May 1727. The Gentleman’s Journal, or, The Monthly Miscellany (London: R[ichard] Baldwin, 1692–1694). Godden, Thomas, A Sermon of St Peter, Preach’d before Her Majesty the QueenDowager, in Her Chappel at Somerset-House, on the Twenty ninth of June 1686. Being St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day. Published by Her Majesties Command (London: Henry Hills, 1686). ———, A Sermon of St Peter, Preach’d Before Her Majesty the Queen-Dowager, in Her Chappel at Somerset-House, on the Twenty ninth of June 1686. Being St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day. Published by Her Majesties Command (London: Henry Hills, 1688). Gotti, Cardinal Vincenzo, Parentalia Mariae Clementinae Magn. Britan. Franc., et Hibern.regin. issu Clementis XII. Pont. Max (Rome: Giovani Maria Salvioni, 1736). Grabu, Louis, Ariane, Ou, Le Mariage De Bacchus Opera: Compose Par le Sieur P. P. [Pierre Perrin] et Mis en Musique par le Sieur Grabut, Maitre de la Musique du Roi (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1674). Granville, George, The Genuine Works in Verse and Prose of George Granville (3 vols, London: s. n., 1736). Green, Mary Anne Everett (ed.), Letters of Queen Henrietta Maria, Including Her Private Correspondence with Charles the First (London: Richard Bentley, Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty, 1857). Greer, Germaine (ed.), Kissing the Rod: An Anthology of Seventeenth Century Women’s Verse (New York: Noonday Press, 1989). Hamilton, David and Robert Philips (eds), The Diary of Sir David Hamilton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). Hampden, John, The Rising Sun: Or, Verses Upon the Queens Birth-Day (London: s. n., 1690).

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

323

Hardy, William John and Edward Bateson (eds), Calendar of State Papers Domestic William and Mary, 1689–1702 (11 vols, London: HMSO, 1895– 1937). Hargreaves-Mawdsley, W. N. (ed.), Spain under the Bourbons, 1700–1833: A Collection of Documents (London: Macmillan, 1973). Hearne, Thomas, ed. C. E. Doble, Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne, (11 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885–1921). Historical Manuscripts Commission ———, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath Preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire (HMC, 5 vols, London: HMSO., 1904–1981). ———, Calendar of Stuart Papers Belonging to His Majesty the King, Preserved at Windsor Castle (HMC, 7 vols, London: Blackburne, 1901–1924). ———, The Manuscripts of J. M. Heathcote, Esq., Connington Castle (Norwich: HMSO, 1899). ———, Report on the Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, Preserved at Welbeck Abbey (HMC, 10 vols, London: HMSO, 1891–1931). ———, Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Downshire, Preserved at Easthampstead Park, Berks. Vol. 2. Papers of Sir William Trumbull (HMC, London: HMSO, 1924). ———, Tenth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (HMC, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1885). Hyde, Edward Earl of Clarendon, ed. William Warburton, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Together with an Historical View of the Affairs of Ireland (7 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1847). James II and VII, King of England and Scotland, By the King, a Proclamation Appointing a Time of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer Throughout the Kingdom (London: Charles Bill, H. Hills, and Thomas Newcomb, printers to the King’s most excellent Majesty, 1687). ———, The Several Declarations Together with the Several Depositions Made in Council on Monday October 22, 1688, Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales (London: s. n., 1688). ——— and Lewis Innes, and John Caryll, The Life of James the Second, King of England, Collected out of Memoirs Writ of His Own Hand (2 vols, London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1706). Jeaffreson, John Cordy, Middlesex County Records: Volume 3, 1625–1667: Indictments, Recognizances, Coroners’ Inquisitions Post Mortem, Orders and Memoranda from 1 Charles I Until 18 Charles II (London: Centre for Metropolitan History, 1888). Jones, Edward, Index to Records Called, The Originalia and Memoranda on the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Side of the Exchequer (2 vols, London: s. n., 1795). Journals of the House of Commons (13 vols, London: HMSO, 1802–1803).

324

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

Journals of the House of Lords (42 vols, London: HMSO, 1767–1830). Kelly, J. M., “Letters from a Young Painter Abroad: James Russel in Rome, 1740–1763 [Introduction and Critical Edition of the James Russel Manuscripts],” Walpole Society 74 (2012), 61–164. Lake, Edward, ed. George Percy Elliott, Diary of Dr Edward Lake, Archdeacon and Prebendary of Exeter, Chaplain and Tutor to the Princesses Mary and Anne, Daughters of the Duke of York, Afterwards James the Second: In the Years 1677–78 (London: The Camden Miscellany, 1846). Liria, James Fitz James, duke of, “Diario de Viaje de Moscovia, 1727–1731,” in D. José Sancho Rayón, and D. Francisco de Zabalburu (eds), Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historio de España (Madrid: Hermanos, 1889). Lockhart, George, The Lockhart Papers (2 vols, London: Taylor, 1817). Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1857). ———, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (6 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1858). Macaulay, Thomas Babington, ed. John Clive and Thomas Pinner, Selected Writings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972). Madan, Falconer, Stuart Papers Relating Chiefly to Queen Mary of Modena and the Exiled Court of King James II (2 vols, London: J. B. Nichols and sons, 1889). Montaiglon, Anatole de and Jules Guiffrey (eds), Correspondence sur les Directeurs de l’Académie de France a Rome avec les Surintendants des Batiments, 1666–1793: VII (1724–1728) (Paris: Frères, 1897). Morgan, Matthew, A Poem to the Queen, Upon the King’s Victory in Ireland, and His Voyage to Holland (Oxford: Printed by Leonard Lichfield, for John Wilmot, 1691). Newton, Samuel, ed. J. E. Foster, The Diary of Samuel Newton, Alderman of Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 1890). Nicolson, Marjorie Hope and Sarah Hutton (eds), The Conway Letters: The Correspondence of Anne, Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and Their Friends, 1642–1684 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). Nicolson, William, ed. Clyve Jones and Geoffrey Holmes, The London Diaries of William Nicolson Bishop of Carlisle 1702–1718 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Norrington, Ruth, My Dearest Minette: The Letters Between Charles II and his sister Henrietta, Duchesse d’Orleans (London: Peter Owen, 1996). Parker, Henry, Contra-Replicant, His Complaint to His Majestie (London: s. n., 1643). Parry, Clive (ed.), The Consolidated Treaty Series (243 vols, New York, Oceania Publications, 1969–1980).

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

325

Pepys, William, ed. William Matthews and Robert Latham, The Diary of Samuel Pepys (11 vols, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). Perfect Diurnal of the Passages in Parliament (London: W. Cooke, 1642). Philips, Robert, A Copy of the Letter of Father Philips, the Queen’s Confessor, Which Was Thought to Be Sent into France, to M. Montague, Discovered and Produced to Be Read in the House of Commons, by Master Pym, the 25 of June 1641 (London: s. n., 1641). Queen Anne, England and Wales, By the Queen, a Proclamation, for the Putting in Execution the Laws in Force Against Such Persons as Have or Shall Endeavor to Pervert Her Majesties Subjects to the Popish Religion (London: Charles Bill, 1706). Questier, Michael C. (ed.), Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 1631–1638: Catholicism and the Politics of Personal Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Historical Society, 2005). Raine, James (ed.), Depositions from the Castle of York Relating to Offenses Committed in the Northern Counties in the Seventeenth Century (Durham: Surtees Society, vol. 40, 1861). Reresby, Sir John, The Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby (London: Edward Jeffery, 1813). Reresby, Sir John, ed. Andrew Browning, Memoirs of Sir John Reresby: The Complete Text and a Selection from His Letters (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991). Rogers, Thomas, Lux Occidentalis: Or Providence Display’d, in the Coronation of King William and Queen Mary; And Their Happy Accession to the Crown of England: With Other Remarks (London: Randal Taylor, near Stationer’s Hall, 1689). Russel, James, Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to His Friends in England (London, W. Russel, 1748). ———, Letters from a Young Painter Abroad to His Friends in England (2 vols, London, W. Russel, 1750). Rymer, Thomas, A Poem on the Arrival of Queen Mary, Feb. the 12th, 1689 (London: A. Churchil [sic], 1689). Salmon, Thomas, The Life of Her Late Majesty Anne (London: Charles Rivington, 1721). Santarém, Visconde de, Quadro Elementar das Relações Politicas e Diplomaticas de Portugal (19 vols, Paris: Em Casa de J. P. Aillaud, 1842–1860). Shadwell, Thomas, A Congratulatory Poem to the Most Illustrious Queen Mary Upon Her Arrival in England (London: James Knapton, 1689). Sharp, John, A Sermon Preach’d at the Coronation of Queen Anne, in the AbbeyChurch of Westminster, April XXIII. MDCCII. By the Most Reverend Father in God John Lord Archbishop of York (Dublin: Jo. Ray, 1702).

326

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

Sharp, Thomas, The Life of John Sharp, Archbishop of York (2 vols, London: Rivington, 1825). Shaw, William A. and F. H. Slingsby (eds), Calendar of Treasury Books (32 vols, London: HMSO, 1904–1962). Sherburn, George (ed.), The Correspondence of Alexander Pope (5 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956). Singer, S. W. (ed.), The Correspondence of Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon and of His Brother Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester with the Diary of Lord Clarendon from 1687 to 1690 (2 vols, London: Henry Colburn, 1828). Snyder, Henry L. (ed.), The Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence (3 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5, 1628–80, ed. John Raithby (no place of publication: Great Britain Record Commission, 1819). Stratford, Nicholas, A Discourse of the Pope’s Supremacy. Part I. In Answer to a Treatise intituled, St. Peter’s Supremacy faithfully Discuss’d, According to Holy Scripture, and Greek and Latin Fathers. And to a Sermon of S. Peter, Preached Before Her Majesty the Queen Dowager, on St. Peter and St. Paul’s Day, by Thomas Godden, D.D. (London: s. n., 1688). Swift, Jonathan, ed. George A. Aitken, Journal to Stella (2 vols, London: Methuen, 1901). Tanner, J. R. (ed.), English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century, 1603–1689 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928). Tate, Nahum, An Ode Upon the New-Year, Performed Before Their Majesties (London: R. Baldwin, 1693). ———, The Prolouge [sic] to King William and Queen Mary at a Play Acted Before Their Majesties at Whitehall on Friday the 15th of November, 1689 (London: R. Baldwin, 1689). Timings, E. K. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic James II, 1685–1689 (3 vols, London: HMSO, 1960–1972). Trotter, Alexander Pelham, Catalogue of Jacobite Relics and Family Mementoes Inherited by Alexander Pelham Trotter (Salisbury: Teffont, 1933). University of Cambridge, Musæ Cantabrigienses, Serenissimis Principibus Wilhelmo et Mariæ Angliæ Franciæ & Hiberniæ Regi ac Reginæ (Cambridge: John Hayes, 1689). University of Oxford, Academiæ Oxoniensis Gratulatio Pro Exoptato Serenissimi Regis Guilielmi Ex Hibernia Reditu (Oxford, 1690). ———, Vota Oxoniensia Pro Serenissimis Guilhelmo Rege et Maria Regina M. Britanniæ &c. Nuncupata. Quibus accesserunt Panegyrica Oratio & Carmina Gratulatoria, Comitiis in Theatro Sheldoniano habitus, ipso Inaugurationis die XI. April. MDCLXXXIX (Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1689).

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

327

Vernon, James, ed. G. P. R. James, Letters illustrative of the Reign of William III from 1696 to 1708 Addressed to the Duke of Shrewsbury (3 vols, London: Henry Colburn, 1841). Wake, William, A Continuation of the Present State of the Controversy, Between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, Being A Full Account of the Books That Have Been of Late Written on Both Sides (London: s. n., 1688). Waller, Edmund, ed. G. Thorn Drury, The Poems of Edmund Waller (2 vols, London: Routledge, 1901). Warner, G. F. (ed.), The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State (4 vols, London: Camden Society, 1886–1920). Warre, James, The Past, Present, and Probably the Future State of the Wine Trade (London: J. Hatchard and Son & J. M. Richardson, 1823). Wentworth, Thomas, ed. James J. Cartwright, The Wentworth Papers, 1705–1739 (London: Wyman, 1883). Wienerisches Diarium: 12, 19 December 1725; 9 January 1726; 6 February 1726; 6, 13 March 1726; 15 May 1726; 2, 23, 30 October 1726. Wildman, Sir John, An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry’s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England (London: Nathaneal Ranew and Jonathan Robinson, 1688). Wogan, Charles, Female Fortitude, Exemplify’d, in an Impartial Narrative of the Seizure, Escape and Marriage, of the Princess Clementina Sobiesky as It Was Particularly Set Down by Mr. Charles Wogan Who Was a Chief Manager in That Whole Affair (London. s. n., 1722). Wren Society, “Hampton Court Palace, 1689–1702: Original Wren Drawings from the Sir John Soane’s Museum and All Souls Collections,” in The Wren Society Volume IV (Oxford: Wren Society, 1927). Wright, John Michael, An Account of His Excellence, Roger Earl of Castlemaine’s Embassy from His Sacred Majesty James II d , King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, &c. to His Holiness Innocent XI Published Formerly in the Italian Tongue, By Mr. Michael Wright, Chief Steward of His Excellences House at Rome. And Now Made English. With Several Amendments, and Additions (London: Thomas Snowden, 1688).

Printed Secondary Sources Akkerman, Nadine, Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Hearts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2021). ——— and Houben, Birgit (eds), The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-inWaiting Across Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Alexander, Laura, “Anne Killigrew: A Spiritual Wit,” in John Baker, Marion Leclair, and Allan Ingram (eds), Writing and Constructing the Self in Great

328

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Britain in the Long Eighteenth Century (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 27–43. Allen, D. F., “James II and the Court of Rome: John Caryll’s Contribution,” Durham University Journal 84 (1992), 21–27. Anderson, James Winn, Queen Anne: Patroness of Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Anstruther, Godfrey, The Seminary Priests (4 vols, Ware and Great Wakering, 1968–1977). Ashdown, Dulcie M., Queen Victoria’s Mother (London: Robert Hale and Company, 1974). Ayers, John, Impey, Oliver and Mallet, J. V. G., Porcelain for Palaces: The Fashion for Japan in Europe 1650–1750 (London: Oriental Ceramic Society, 1990). Baarsen, Reinier (ed.), Courts and Colonies: The William and Mary Style in Holland, England, and America (New York: Cooper Hewitt Museum, 1988). ˙ Babilas, Dorata, “Queen Anne’s Cultural Afterlife,” in Lucyna Krawczyk-Zywko (ed.), Exploring History: British Culture and Society 1700 to Present, Essays in Honour of Professor Emma Harris (Bern: Peter Lang, 2015), 11–23. Baer, Joachim T., “Sobieski in the Eyes of His Contemporaries,” The Polish Review 28 (1983), 7–8. Bagni, Prisco, Benedetto Gennari e la Bottega del Guernico (Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1986). Barash, Carol, English Women’s Poetry: Politics, Community, and Linguistic Authority (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). ———, “The Political Origins of Anne Finch’s Poetry,” Huntington Library Quarterly, 54 (1991), 327–351. Barber, Tabitha, “The Religious Interior,” in Tabitha Barber (ed.), British Baroque: Power and Illusion (London: Tate, 2020), 51–62. Barclay, Andrew, “James II’s ‘Catholic’ Court,” 1650–1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era, 8 (2003), 161–171. ———, “Mary Beatrice of Modena: The ‘Second Bless’d of Woman-Kind?’,” in Clarissa Campbell-Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 74–93. ———, “The Rise of Edward Colman,” Historical Journal 42 (1999), 109–131. Barman, Roderick J., “King, Court and Nobility in Portugal under the Braganzas, 1640–1834,” The Court Historian 18 (2013), 1–21. Barnard, John, “Dryden and Patronage,” in Stephen Zwicker (ed.), Cambridge Companion to John Dryden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 199–220. Barnard, Toby, “Sir Richard Bellings, a Catholic Courtier and Diplomat from Seventeenth-Century Ireland,” in Brian MacCuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

329

1550–1700: Colonization and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2011), 326–347. Barnes, A. S., “Catholic Chapels Royal Under the Stuarts—III,” Downside Review 20 (1901), 232–249. Bastress-Dukehart, Erica, “Negotiating for Agnes’ Womb,” in Charles Lipp and Matthew P. Romaniello (eds), Contested Spaces of Nobility in Early Modern Europe (Burlington: Ashgate, 2011), 41–60. Beddard, Robert, “James II and the Catholic Challenge,” in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. 4: Seventeenth-Century Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 907–954. ———, “Queen Henrietta Maria’s Mission and the Re-opening of the Catholic Chapel Royal in Restoration England,” in Jean-Louis Quantin and JeanClaude Waquet (eds.), Papes, Princes et Savants dans L’Europe Moderne Mélanges a la Mémoire de Bruno Nevu (Geneva: Droz, 2007), 201–217. Beem, Charles, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). ——— “The Tragic Queen: Dynastic Loyalty and the ‘Queenships’ of Mary Queen of Scots,” in Caroline Dunn and Elizabeth Donnelly Carney (eds), Royal Women and Dynastic Loyalty (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 111–121. Bennett, G. V., “King William III and the Episcopate,” in G. V. Bennett and J. D. Walsh (eds), Essays in Modern English Church History in Memory of Norman Sykes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 104–131. ——— “Robert Harley, the Godolphin Ministry, and the Bishoprics Crisis of 1707,” English Historical Review 82 (1967), 726–746. ———, White Kennett, 1660–1728, Bishop of Peterborough: A Study in the Political and Ecclesiastical History of the Early Eighteenth Century (London: SPCK, 1957). Berg, J. van den, “Religion and Politics in the Life of William and Mary,” in Paul Hoftijzer and C. C. Barfoot (eds), Fabrics and Fabrications: The Myth and Making of William and Mary (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), 17–40. Berg, Maxine, “Asian Luxuries and the Making of the European Consumer Revolution,” in Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger (eds), Luxury in the Eighteenth Century (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 228–244. Bertrand, Pierre, “Graver la Naissance au XVIIe Siècle,” Ethnologie française 26 (1996), 329–339. Bischoff, Cordula, “Women Collectors and the Rise of the Porcelain Cabinet,” in Jan van Campen and Titus Eliëens (eds), Chinese and Japanese Porcelain for the Dutch Golden Age (Zwolle: Waanders, 2014), 171–189. Black, Jeremy, The British Abroad: The Grand Tour in the Eighteenth Century (Stroud: Sutton, 1992).

330

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Bone, Quentin, Henrietta Maria: Queen of the Cavaliers (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972). Bowen, Marjorie, The Third Mary Stuart, Mary of York, Orange & England Being a Character of Study with Memoirs and Letters of Queen Mary II of England, 1662–1694 (London: John Lane, 1929). Brett, Cecile, “Revealing Thornhill’s Mythological Scene at Hampton Court,” The British Art Journal 13 (2012), 3–8. Briggs, Helen, “Tasso’s Theory of Epic Poetry,” The Modern Language Review 25 (1930), 457–473. Britland, Karen, Drama at the Courts of Queen Henrietta Maria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). ———, “Exile or Homecoming? Henrietta Maria in France, 1644–1669,” in Philip Mansel and Torsten Riotte (eds), Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 120–143. ———, “Recent Studies of the Life and Cultural Influence of Queen Henrietta Maria,” English Literary Renaissance 45 (2015), 303–321. Brown, Beatrice Curtis, Anne Stuart, Queen of England (London: G. Bles, 1929). Bruijn, Emile de, “East Asian Luxury Goods,” in Rupert Goulding and David A. H. B. Taylor (eds), Prized Possessions: Dutch Paintings from National Trust Houses (London: National Trust, 2018), 86–89. Bucholz, Robert O., The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993). ———, “Queen Anne: Victim of Her Virtues?,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 94–129. ———, “The ‘Stomach of a Queen,’ or Size Matters: Gender, Body Image, and the Historical Reputation of Queen Anne,” in Carole Levin and Robert O. Bucholz (eds), Queens and Power in Early Modern England (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009), 242–272. Buckley, Veronica, Christina of Sweden (London: Fourth Estate, 2004). Burchard, Wolf, “Illusion and Involvement: The Lost Baroque Architecture of St George’s Hall at Windsor Castle,” Immediations 2 (2011), 99–119. Burkolter, Verena, The Patronage System: Theoretical Remarks (Basel: Social Strategies Publishers Cooperative Society, 1967). Callow, John, The Making of James II: The Formative Years of a Fallen King (Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing, 2000). Campbell Orr, Clarissa (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002).

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

331

——— (ed.), Queenship in Europe, 1660–1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Canavan, Tony, “‘Making a Hole in the Moon’: The Rescue of Princess Clementina,” History Ireland 1 (1993), 19–22. Carnell, Rachel, Backlash: Libel, Impeachment, and Populism in the Reign of Queen Anne (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2020). Carney, Jo Eldridge, “The Queen’s (In)Fertile Body and the Body Politic,” in Jo Eldridge Carney (ed.), Fairy Tale Queens: Representations of Early Modern Queenship (London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 11–37. Carpenter, Edward, Thomas Tenison Archbishop of Canterbury: His Life and Times (London: SPCK, 1948). Carroll, Clare Lois, Exiles in a Global City (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Cavelli, Emilia Rowles Campana Di, Les Derniers Stuarts à Saint-Germain en Laye: Documents Inédits et Authentiques Puisés aux Archives Publiques et Privées (2 vols, Paris: Didier, 1871). Cheape, Hugh, “The Culture and Material Culture of Jacobitism,” in Michael Lynch (ed.), Jacobitism and the ’45 (London: Historical Association Committee for Scotland and the Historical Association, 1995), 32–48. Claydon, Tony, William III and the Godly Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). ——— and Speck, W. A., William and Mary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Condren, John, “The Dynastic Triangle in International Relations: Modena, England, and France, 1678–85,” The International History Review 37 (2015), 700–720. Corbett, Margery, “John Michael Wright, An Account of His Excellence Roger Earl of Castlemaine’s Embassy, from His Sacred Majesty James the II d King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland & to His Holiness Innocent XI ,” Antiquities Journal 70 1 (1990), 117–120. Corp, Edward, “The Alternative to the House of Hanover: the Stuarts in Exile, 1714–45,” in Andreas Gestrich and Michael Schaich (eds), The Hanoverian Succession: Dynastic Politics and Monarchical Culture (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015). ———, “Catherine of Braganza and Cultural Politics,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Britain, 1660–1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 53–73. ———, “Clementina Sobieska at the Jacobite Court,” in Richard K. Maher (ed.), The Irish to the Rescue: The Tercentenary of the Polish Princess Clementina’s Escape (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2021), 121–145. ———, La Cour des Stuarts à Saint-Germain-en-Laye au Temps de Louis XIV (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1992).

332

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

———, A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689–1718 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). ———, “The Extended Exile of James III,” in Philip Mansel and Torsten Riotte (eds), Monarchy and Exile: The Politics of Legitimacy from Marie de Médicis to Wilhelm II (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011), 165–180. ———, The Jacobites at Urbino: An Exiled Court in Transition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). ———, The King Over the Water: Portraits of the Stuarts in Exile After 1689 (Edinburgh: Trustees of the Scottish National Galleries, 2001). ———, Sir David Nairne: The Life of a Scottish Jacobite at the Court of the Exiled Stuarts (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2018). ———, The Stuart Courts in Exile (London: Royal Stuart Society, 2005). ——— (ed.), The Stuart Court in Rome: The Legacy of Exile (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). ———, The Stuarts in Italy, 1719–1766: A Royal Court in Permanent Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Coward, Barry, The Stuart Age: England 1603–1714 (London: Longman, 1994). Cressy, David, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989). ———, Charles I and the People of England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). ———, Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious and Treasonable Speech in PreModern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Croft-Murray, Edward, Decorative Painting in England 1537–1837: Volume OneEarly Tudor to Sir James Thornhill (London: Country Life Ltd, 1962). Cromwell, Judith Lissauer, Good Queen Anne: Appraising the Life and Reign of the Last Stuart Monarch (Jefferson (NC): McFarland & Co., 2019). Cruickshanks, Eveline, “Attempts to Restore the Stuarts, 1689–96,” in Eveline Cruickshanks and Edward Corp (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995), 1–13. ———, The Glorious Revolution (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000). Cruickshanks, Eveline and Corp, Edward (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995). Dalton, Heather, “A Sulphur-crested Cockatoo in Fifteenth-Century Mantua: Rethinking Symbols of Sanctity and Patterns of Trade,” Renaissance Studies 28 (2014), 676–694. Davidson, Lillias Campbell, Catherine of Bragança, Infanta of Portugal, & Queen-Consort of England (London: John Murray, 1908).

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

333

Davis, Paul, “An Unrecorded Collection of Restoration Scribal Verse Including Three New Rochester Manuscripts,” in Peter Beal (ed.), Discovering, Identifying and Editing Early Modern Manuscripts: English Manuscript Studies 1100–1700, Volume 18 (London: British Library, 2013), 137–172. De Krey, Gary S., “Reformation and ‘Arbitrary Government’: London Dissenters and James II’s Polity of Toleration, 1687–1688,” in Jason McElligott (ed.), Fear, Exclusion and Revolution: Roger Morrice and Britain in the 1680s (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 13–31. De Lisle, Leanda, Henrietta Maria: Conspirator, Warrior, Phoenix Queen (London: Chatto and Windus, 2022). Dennehy, Coleman A., “The Earl of Arlington and Restoration Ireland,” in Robin Eagles and Coleman A. Dennehy (eds), Henry Bennet, Earl of Arlington, and His World: Restoration Court, Politics and Diplomacy (London: Routledge, 2020), 52–68. ——— (ed.), Law and Revolution in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts, 2020). Doelman, James, The Epigram in England, 1590–1640 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016). Dolan, Frances E., “Marian Devotion and Maternal Authority in SeventeenthCentury England,” in Naomi J. Miller and Naomi Yavneh (eds), Maternal Measures: Figuring Caregiving in the Early Modern Period (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), 282–292. ———, Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth-Century Print Culture (Ithaca (IN): Cornell University Press, 1999). Dolman, Brett, “Antonio Verrio (c. 1636–1707) and the Royal Image at Hampton Court,” The British Art Journal 10 (2009), 18–28. ———, Raphael and Verrio: The Odd Couple at Hampton Court Palace (3 July 2020). Available online: https://blog.hrp.org.uk/curators/raphael-andverrio-the-odd-couple-at-hampton-court-palace/. Accessed 30/12/2021. Dorger, Cecelia, “Maria “Lactans” in Depictions of the Holy Family,” Marian Studies 66 (2015), 227–258. Downes, Stephanie, Sally Holloway, and Sarah Randles, “Introduction,” in Stephanie Downes, Sally Holloway, and Sarah Randles (eds), Feeling Things: Objects and Emotions Through History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 1–7. Downie, Fiona, She Is but a Woman: Queenship in Scotland: 1424–1463 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 2006). Drimmer, Sonja, “Beyond Private Matter: A Prayer Roll for Queen Margaret of Anjou,” Gesta 53 (2014), 95–120. Duffy, Eamon, Fires of Faith: Catholic England Under Mary Tudor (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009).

334

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Duguid, Paul, “The Making of Methuen: The Commercial Treaty in the English Imagination,” História 3 (2003), 9–36. Dunn-Hensley, Susan, Anne of Denmark and Henrietta Maria: Virgins, Witches, and Catholic Queens (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). Dureng, Jean, Le Duc de Bourbon et l’Angleterre (1723–1726) (Paris: Hachette, 1911). Dyer, Walter A., “Creators of English Style, Sir Christopher Wren: A Man of Real Genius, Who Stands as England’s Greatest Architect,” Arts & Decoration (1910–1918) 6, 7 (1916), 332–335. Earenfight, Theresa, “Medieval Queenship,” History Compass 15, 3 (2017). ———, Queenship in Medieval Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Edwards, Sebastian, “‘Very Noble, tho’ Not Greate’: The Making of a New Court for William, Mary and Anne,” in Olivia Fryman (ed.), Kensington Palace (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2018), 64–91. Ellis, Markman, Richard Coulton, and Matthew Mauger, Empire of Tea: The Asian Leaf That Conquered the World (London: Reaktion Books, 2015). Elsna, Hebe, Catherine of Braganza: Charles II’s Queen (London: Robert Hale, 1967). Erkelens, A. M. L. E., ‘Delffs Porcelijn’ van koningin Mary II/Queen Mary’s ‘Delft porcelain’ (Zwolle: Waanders, 1996). Erskine-Hill, Howard, The Social Milieu of Alexander Pope (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). Ewald, A. C., The Life and Times of Prince Charles Edward, Count of Albany (2 vols, London: Chapman and Hall, 1875). Farguson, Julie, Visualising Protestant Monarchy: Ceremony, Art and Politics After the Glorious Revolution (1689–1714) (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2021). Farooq, Jennifer, “Preaching for the Queen: Queen Anne and English Sermon Culture, 1702–1714,” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 37 (2014), 159–169. Faucher, Chrysotome, Histoire du Cardinal de Polignac (2 vols, Paris: Chez d’Houry, 1780). Fincham, Kenneth, “‘According to Ancient Custom’: The Return of Altars in the Restoration Church of England,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, 13 (2003), 29–54. ———, “The Restoration of Altars in the 1630s,” Historical Journal, 44, 4 (2001), 919–940. ——— and Tyacke, Nicholas, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547–c.1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Fissell, Mary E., Vernacular Bodies: The Politics of Reproduction in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

335

Flor, Susana Varela, “‘The Palace of the Soul Serene’: Queen Catherine of Braganza and the Consumption of Tea in Stuart England (1662–1693),” e-journal of Portuguese History 19 (2021), 171–191. Foss, Michael, The Age of Patronage: The Arts in England, 1660–1750 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972). Francis, A. D., “John Methuen and the Anglo-Portuguese Treaties of 1703,” Historical Journal 3 (1960), 103–124. ———, The First Peninsular War 1702–1713 (London: Ernest Benn, 1975). ———, The Methuen and Portugal 1691–1708 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). ———, The Wine Trade (London: A & C Black, 1972). Freeman, Thomas, “Hands Defiled with Blood: Henry VIII in Foxe’s ‘Book of Martyrs’,” in Thomas Betteridge and Thomas Freeman (eds), Henry VIII and History (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012). Freist, Dagmar, “Popery in Perfection?: The Experience of Catholicism: Henrietta Maria Between Private Practice and Public Discourse,” in Michael J. Braddick and David L. Smith (eds), The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain and Ireland: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 33–51. Frey, Linda and Frey, Marsha, A Question of Empire: Leopold I and the War of Spanish Succession (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983). Fritz, Paul S., “The Trade in Death: The Royal Funerals in England, 1685– 1830,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 15 (1982), 291–316. Fryman, Olivia (ed.), Kensington Palace (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2018). Fuchs, Peter, “Philipp Wilhelm,” in Neue Deutsche Biographie (26 vols, Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 2001). Garrison, James, Dryden and the Tradition of Panegyric (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975). Geaman, Kristen, “A Bastard and a Changeling? England’s Edward of Westminster and Delayed Childbirth,” in Valerie Schutte (ed.), Unexpected Heirs in Early Modern Europe: Potential Kings and Queens (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 11–34. ——— and Earenfight, Theresa, “Neither Heir nor Spare: Childless Queens and the Practice of Monarchy in Premodern Europe,” in Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H. S. Dean, Chris Jones, Rita Zohr, and Russell Martins (eds), The Routledge History of Monarchy (London: Routledge, 2019), 518–534. Genet-Rouffiac, Natalie, “Jacobites in Paris and Saint-Germain-en-Laye,” in Eveline Cruickshanks and Edward Corp (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995), 15–38. Gibson, William, James II and the Trial of the Seven Bishops (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

336

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

———, A Social History of the Domestic Chaplain, 1530–1840 (London: Leicester University Press, 1997). Gilbert, J. T., Narratives of the Detention, Liberation and Marriage of Maria Clementina Sobieska Styled Queen of Great Britain and Ireland by Sir Charles Wogan and Others (Dublin: Gilbert, 1894). Glenn, Thomas Allen and Lord Mostyn, History of the Family of Mostyn of Mostyn (London: Harrison and Sons, 1925). Glickman, Gabriel, “Christian Reunion, the Anglo-French Alliance and the English Catholic Imagination, 1660–72,” English Historical Review, 128 (2013), 263–291. ———, The English Catholic Community, 1688–1745: Politics, Culture, and Ideology (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2009). Goldie, Mark, “The Damning of King Monmouth: Pulpit Toryism in the Reign of James II,” in Tim Harris and Steven Taylor (eds), The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy: The Revolutions of 1688–91 in Their British, Atlantic and European Contexts (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2013), 33–56. Gooch, Leo, “Catholic Officers in the Navy of James II,” Recusant History 14 (1978), 276–280. Green, David, Queen Anne (New York: Scribner, 1971). Greenspan, Nicole, “Public Scandal, Political Controversy, and Familial Conflict in the Stuart Courts in Exile: The Struggle to Convert the Duke of Gloucester in 1654,” Albion 35 (2003), 398–427. Gregg, Edward, “The Exiled Stuarts: Martyrs for the Faith?,” in Michael Schaich (ed.), Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 187–213. ———, “France, Rome and the Exiled Stuarts, 1689–1713,” in Edward Corp (ed.), A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689–1718, with contributions by Edward Gregg, Howard Erskine-Hill and Geoffrey Scott (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004), 11–75. ———, “The Jacobite Career of John, Earl of Mar,” in Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759 (Edinburgh: Donald, 1982), 179–200. ———, “Monarchs Without A Crown,” in Robert Oresko, G. C. Gibbs, and H. M. Scott (eds), Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of Ragnhild Hatton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 382–422. ———, “New Light on the Authorship of the Life of James II,” English Historical Review 108 (1993), 947–965. ———, The Protestant Succession in International Politics, 1710–1716 (New York: Garland, 1986). ———, Queen Anne (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980).

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

337

———, Queen Anne (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). Gregory, Eilish, “Catherine of Braganza During the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis: Anti-Catholicism in the Houses of Commons and Lords, 1678–81,” Parliamentary History 42 (2023), 195–212. ———, “Catherine of Braganza’s Relationship with her Catholic Household,” in Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque (eds), Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019), 129–148. Griffey, Erin, On Display: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Magnificence at the Stuart Court (London: Yale University Press, 2015). ——— (ed.), Early Modern Court Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 2022). ———, “Picturing Confessional Politics at the Stuart Court: Henrietta Maria and Catherine of Braganza,” Journal of Religious History 44 (2020), 465–493. ———, “Restoring Henrietta Maria’s English Household in the 1660s: Continuity, Kinship and Clientage,” The Court Historian 26 (2021), 189–209. ———, “‘O Sacred Vessel, Fraught with England’s Store’: Stuart Maternity, Infertility, and Dynastic Politics,” Unpublished article, forthcoming. Griffin, Dustin, Literary Patronage in England, 1650–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Griffin, Stephen, “Between Public and Private Spaces: Jacobite Diplomacy in Vienna, 1725–1742,” Royal Studies Journal 9 (2022), 46–59. Guthrie, Neil, The Material Culture of the Jacobites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). ———, “The Memorial of the Chevalier de St. George (1726): Ambiguity and Intrigue in the Jacobite Propaganda War,” The Review of English Studies 55 (2004), 545–564. Guy, John, My Heart Is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (London: Fourth Estate, 2004). Hackett, Helen, Virgin Mother, Maiden Queen: Elizabeth I and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995). Haile, Martin, James Francis Edward: The Old Chevalier (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1907). ———, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters (London: J. M. Dent & Co., 1905). Hallett Mark, Nigel Llewelyn, and Martin Myrone (eds), Court, Country, City: British Art and Architecture, 1660–1735 (London & New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016). Hamilton, Elizabeth, The Backstairs Dragon: A Life of Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1969). Hamlett, Lydia, Mural Painting in Britain 1630–1730: Experiencing Histories (London: Routledge, 2020).

338

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Hancock, David, Oceans of Wine: Madeira and the Emergence of American Trade and Taste (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). Handasyde, Elizabeth, Granville the Polite: The Life of George Granville, Lord Landsdowne, 1666–1735 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Harcourt-Smith, Simon, Cardinal of Spain: The Life and Strange Career of Alberoni (New York: Knopf, 1944). Harris, Carolyn, Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette: Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). Harris, Tim, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II, Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration Until the Exclusion Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). ———, Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society 1660– 1715 (London: Longman, 1993). ———, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London: Allen Lane, 2006). ———, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London: Penguin, 2007). Hart, A. Tindal, The Life and Times of John Sharp Archbishop of York (London: SPCK, 1949). Hayward, Maria, “‘The Best of Queens, the Most Obedient Wife’: Fashioning a Place for Catherine of Braganza as Consort to Charles II,” in Erin Griffey (ed.), Sartorial Politics in Early Modern Europe: Fashioning Women (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019), 227–252. ———, Dress at the Court of Henry VIII (Leeds, UK: Maney Pub., 2007). Hearn, Karen, Portraying Pregnancy: From Holbein to Social Media (London: Paul Holberton, 2020). Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill (NC): University of New Carolina Press, 1983). Hinton, Mark and Impey, Oliver, Kensington Palace and the Porcelain of Queen Mary II (London: Christie’s, 1998). Hirschberg, D. R., “The Government and Church Patronage in England, 1660– 1760,” Journal of British Studies 20 (1980), 109–139. Hodges, Margaret, Lady Queen Anne: A Biography of Queen Anne of England (Toronto: Doubleday Canada Ltd, 1969). Holloway, Sally, The Game of Love in Georgian England: Courtship, Emotions and Material Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Holmes, Geoffrey, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). ———, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London: Eyre Methuen, 1973). ——— (ed. W. A. Speck), “Robert Harley and the Ministerial Revolution of 1710,” Parliamentary History 29 (2010), 275–307.

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

339

Holt, Geoffrey, “Edward Scarisbrick 1639–1709: A Royal Preacher,” Recusant History 23 (1996), 159–165. Hunt, Arnold, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590– 1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Hutton, Ronald, Charles II: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). ———, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658–1667 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Ingamells, John, and Ford, Brinsley, A Dictionary of British and Irish Travellers in Italy, 1701–1800: Compiled from the Brinsley Ford Archive (London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, Yale University Press, 1997). Ingrao, Charles W. and Thomas, Andrew L., “Piety and Power: The EmpressConsort of the High Baroque,” in Clarissa Campbell Orr (ed.), Queenship in Europe 1660–1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 107–130. Israel, Jonathan, “The Courts of the House of Orange, c. 1580–1795,” in John Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe 1500–1750 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1999), 118–139. Ives, Eric, Anne Boleyn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986). Jacob, W. M., The Clerical Profession in the Long Eighteenth Century, 1680–1840 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Jacques, David, Gardens of Court and Country (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2017). ——— and Horst, Arend van der, The Gardens of William and Mary (London: C. Helm, 1988). Jenkinson, Matthew, Culture and Politics at the Court of Charles II 1660–1685 (Rochester (NY): Boydell & Brewer Ltd., 2010). Johns, Christopher M. S., “Introduction: The Scholar’s Pope: Benedict XIV and the Catholic Enlightenment,” in Rebecca Messbarger, Christopher Johns, and Philip Gavitt (eds), Benedict XIV and the Enlightenment: Art, Science, and Spirituality (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), 3–14. ———, The Visual Culture of Catholic Enlightenment (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015). Jones, G. H., The Main Stream of Jacobitism (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1954). Kamen, Henry, Philip V of Spain: The King Who Reigned Twice (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). Keay, Anna, The Magnificent Monarch: Charles II and the Ceremonies of Power (London: Continuum, 2008). Keeble, N. H., The Restoration: England in the 1660s (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002). Kenyon, John, The Popish Plot (London: Heinemann, 1972).

340

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

———, The Popish Plot (Middlesex: Pelican, 1972). Ketterer, Christoph, To Meddle with Matters of State: Political Sermons in England, c. 1660–c.1700 (Hamburg: V&R unipress, 2020). Kewes, Paulina, “Dryden’s Theatre and the Passions of Politics,” in Stephen Zwicker (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 131–155. ——— and McRae, Andrew (eds), Stuart Succession Literature: Moments and Transformations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Kinsella, Eoin, Catholic Survival in Protestant Ireland, 1660–1711: Colonel John Browne, Landownership and the Articles of Limerick (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2018). Kinsley, James, “A Dryden Play at Edinburgh,” The Scottish Historical Review 33 (1954), 129–132. Knights, Mark, “‘Meer Religion’ and the ‘Church-State’ of Restoration England: The Impact and Ideology of James II’s Declarations of Indulgence,” in Alan Houston and Steve Pincus (eds), A Nation Transformed: England After the Restoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 41–70. ———, Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678–1681 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Knoppers, Laura Lunger, Politicizing Domesticity from Henrietta Maria to Milton’s Eve (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Korshin, Paul, “Types of Eighteenth-Century Literary Patronage,” EighteenthCentury Studies 7 (1974), 453–473. Lacey, Andrew, The Cult of King Charles the Martyr (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003). Lake, Peter, Bad Queen Bess? Libels, Secret Histories and the Politics of Publicity in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). ———, “From Revisionist to Royalist History; or, Was Charles I the First Whig Historian,” Huntington Library Quarterly 78 (2015), 657–681. Lambooy, Suzanne (ed.), Koninklijk Blauw (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 2020). Lang, Andrew, Prince Charles Edward Stuart: The Young Chevalier (London: Longmans, 1903). Leech, Peter, “Musicians in the Catholic Chapel of Catherine of Braganza, 1662– 92,” Early Music 29 (2001), 570–588. L’Estrange, Elizabeth, Holy Motherhood: Gender, Dynasty and Visual Culture in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008). Levin, Carole, ‘The Heart and Stomach of a King’: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power (Philadelphia (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994). Levis, R. B., “Bishop William Nicolson of Carlisle and His Dean, Francis Atterbury: A Case Study of Local Ecclesiastical Politics, 1705 to 1708,” Northern History 58 (2021), 46–65.

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

341

Lim, Amy, “For Politics, Progresses, or Posterity? Some Alternative Reasons for Building State Apartments,” in Joan Coutu, Peter Lindfield, and Jon Stobart (eds), Politics and the English Country House, 1688–1800 (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2023), 28–46. ——— and Ek, Renske, “The Orange and the Rose: Horticultural and Decorative Flowers at the English and Dutch Courts of William III and Mary II,” in Susannah Lyon-Whaley (ed.), Floral Culture at the Tudor and Stuart Courts (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). Linke, Alexander, “What Is ‘Typology’?,” in Dagmar Eichberger and Shelley Perlove (eds), Visual Typology in Early Modern Europe. Continuity and Expansion (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 23–59. Linnell, Anna-Marie, “Greeting the Stuart Queens Consort: Cultural Exchange and the Nuptial Texts for Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza, Queens of Britain,” in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2017), 153–171. ———, “Queenship and Exile: Representations of Mary Beatrice of Modena in England,” Women’s History Review 30 (2021), 856–867. Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd, “Mary Beatrice of Modena: A Queen Observed,” in Aidan Norrie, Carolyn Harris, J. L. Laynesmith, Danna R. Messer, and Elena Woodacre (eds), Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, Dynasty (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 291–311. Loades, David, “The Reign of Mary Tudor: Historiography and Research,” Albion 21 (1989), 547–558. Loomie, Albert, “King James I’s Catholic Consort,” Huntington Library Quarterly 34 (1971), 303–316. Lourenço, Maria Paula Marçal, “Os Séquitos das Rainhas de Portugal e a Influência dos Estrangeiros na Construç¯ao da ‘Sociedade de Corte’ (1640– 1754),” Penélope: Revista de História e Ciências Sociais 29 (2003), 49–82. Ludington, Charles, The Politics of Wine in Britain: A New Cultural History (Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Lunsingh Scheurleer, Theo, “Documents on the Furnishing of Kensington House,” Walpole Society 38 (1962), 15–58. Lyon-Whaley, Susannah, “Queens at the Spa: Catherine of Braganza, Mary of Modena and the Politics of Display at Bath and Tunbridge Wells,” The Court Historian 27 (2022), 24–41. Maccubbin, Robert P. and Martha Hamilton-Phillips (eds), The Age of William III & Mary II: Power, Politics and Patronage 1688–1702 (Williamsburg: College of William and Mary in Virginia, 1989). MacKay, Janet, Catherine of Braganza (London: John Long Limited, 1937).

342

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

MacMillan, John F., “The Innes Brothers and the Scots College Paris,” in Eveline Cruickshanks and Edward Corp (eds), The Stuart Court in Exile and the Jacobites (London and Rio Grande: Hambledon Press, 1995), 116–125. Maher, Richard K., The Irish to the Rescue: The Tercentenary of the Polish Princess Clementina’s Escape (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2021). Marks, Adam, “The Scots College and International Politics,” in Liam Chambers and Thomas O’Connor (eds), College Communities Abroad: Education, Migration, and Catholicism in Early Modern Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 115–141. Markuszewska, Aneta, “‘And All This Because of the Weakness of Your Sex’: The Marital Vicissitudes of Maria Klementyna Sobieska Stuart, Wife of the Old Pretender to the English Throne,” in Almut Bues (ed.), Frictions and Failures: Cultural Encounters in Crisis (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2017), 163–178. Marotti, Arthur, “Patronage, Poetry, and Print,” The Yearbook of English Studies 21 (1991), 1–16. Martin, Matthew, “Infinite Bodies: The Baroque, the Counter-Reformation Relic, and the Body of James II,” in Lisa Beaven and Angela Ndalianis (eds), Emotion and the Seduction of the Senses, Baroque to the Neo-Baroque (Western Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 2018), 165–185. Martin, Meredith, “Interiors and Interiority in the Ornamental Dairy Tradition,” Eighteenth Century Fiction 20 (2008), 357–384. McCormick, Ted, “Restoration Politics, 1660–1691,” in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland: Volume II, 1550–1730 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 96–119. McGuinness, Rosamond, English Court Odes, 1660–1820 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971). McInnes, Angus, “When Was the English Revolution?,” History 67 (1982), 377– 392. McKay, Derek and Scott, H. M., The Rise of the Great Powers, 1648–1815 (London: Longman, 1983). McLynn, Frank, Bonnie Prince Charlie: Charles Edward Stuart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Mijers, Esther and Onnekink, David (eds), Redefining William III (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). Miller, John, Charles II (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991). ———, The Glorious Revolution, 2nd edn (New York: Routledge, 2014). ———, James II: A Study in Kingship (London: Billing and Sons Ltd., 1977). ———, James II: A Study in Kingship, rev. edn (London: Methuen, 1989). ———, James II (New Haven (CT): Yale University Press, 2000). ———, “James II and Toleration,” in Eveline Cruickshanks (ed.), By Force or Default? The Revolution of 1688–1689 (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1989), 8– 27.

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

343

———, Popery and Politics in England, 1660–1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). ———, “The Potential for ‘Absolutism’ in Later Stuart England,” History 69 (1984), 187–207. Miller, Peggy, James (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971). ———, A Wife for the Pretender (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965). Minney, Rubeigh James, Hampton Court (London: Cassell & Company Ltd, 1972). Monod, Paul Kléber, Jacobitism and the English People, 1688–1788 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Morton, Adam, “Sanctity and Suspicion: Catholicism, Conspiracy and the Representation of Henrietta Maria of France and Catherine of Braganza, Queens of Britain,” in Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2017), 172–201. Moul, Victoria, A Literary History of Latin & English Poetry: Bilingual Verse Culture in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022). Mullett, Michael A., James II and English Politics, 1678–1688 (London: Routledge, 1993). Murray, Catriona, “The Queen’s Two Bodies: Monumental Sculpture at the Funeral of Anna of Denmark, 1619,” The Sculpture Journal 29 (2020), 27–43. ———, “Raising Royal Bodies: Stuart Authority and the Monumental Image,” in Elena Woodacre, Lucinda H. S. Dean, Chris Jones, Zita Rohr, and Russell Martin (eds), The Routledge History of Monarchy (London: Routledge, 2019), 352–373. ———, “The Stuart Consorts, 1603–1714: Representation, Agency, and Anxiety,” in Aidan Norrie, Carolyn Harris, J. L. Laynesmith, Danna R. Messer, and Elena Woodacre (eds), Tudor and Stuart Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022). Newitt, Malyn, The Braganzas: The Rise and Fall of the Ruling Dynasties of Portugal and Brazil, 1640–1910 (London: Reaktion Books, 2019). O’Donnell, Mary Ann, “Aphra Behn: The Documentary Record,” in Derek Hughes and Janet Todd (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Aphra Behn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 1–11. Oliveira, Ana Rodrigues, “Philippa of Lancaster: The Memory of a Model Queen,” in Elena Woodacre (ed.), Queenship in the Mediterranean: Negotiating the Role of the Queen in the Medieval and Early Modern Eras (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 125–144. Oman, Carola, Mary of Modena (Suffolk: Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd, 1962).

344

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Panini, Giovanni, Ferdinando Arisi, & Galleria d’arte “Il Gotico,” Giovanni Paolo Panini, 1691–1765 (Milan: Electa, 1993). Parsons, John Carmi, “The Pregnant Queen as Counsellor and the Medieval Construction of Motherhood,” in John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler (eds), Medieval Mothering (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1996), 39–62. Peacey, Jason, Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). ———, “Print and Public Politics in Seventeenth-Century England,” History Compass 5 (2006), 85–11. Perkinson, Stephen, “Portraits and Their Patrons: Reconsidering Agency in Late Medieval Art,” in Colum Hourihane (ed.), Patronage, Power, and Agency in Medieval Art (Amherst: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 257–274. Phillips, Elaine Anderson, “Creating Queen Mary: Textual Representations of Mary II,” Restoration: Studies in English Culture, 1660–1700 37 (2013), 61– 75. Pierce, Helen, “Text and Image: William Marshall’s Frontispiece to the Eikon Basilike (1649),” in Geoff Kemp (ed.), Censorship Moments: Reading Texts in the History of Censorship and Freedom of Expression (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 79–86. Pietrzak, Jarosław, “The Sobieskis: A Polish Royal Family in the History of Europe,” in Richard K. Maher (ed.), The Irish to the Rescue: The Tercentenary of the Polish Princess Clementina’s Escape (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2021), 33–60. Pincus, Steve, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). Pinelli, Antonio, Beltramini, Maria, and Angeli, Alessandro (eds), The Basilica of St Peter in the Vatican, vol. 4 Testi 2 Schede (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2000). Plowden, Alison, Henrietta Maria: Charles I’s Indomitable Queen (London: Sutton, 2001). Pointon, Marcia, The Commissions for Building Fifty New Churches: The Minute Books, 1711–27, A Calendar (London: London Record Society, 1986). ———, “‘Surrounded with Brilliants’: Miniature Portraits in Eighteenth-Century England,” The Art Bulletin 83 (2001), 48–71. Port, Michael H., Brilliant Effects: A Cultural History of Gem Stones and Jewellery (London: Yale University Press, 2009). Porter, Linda, Mistresses: Sex and Scandal at the Court of Charles II (New York: Picador, 2020). Poska, Allyson M. and Schultz, Kirsten, “Women and Gender: Structures and Roles (1400–1820),” in Fernando Bouza, Pedro Cardim, and Antonio Feros

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

345

(eds), The Iberian World 1450–1820 (London and New York: Routledge, 2020), 166–188. Powell, Jocelyn, Restoration Theatre Production (London: Routledge, 1984). Prestage, Edgar, “The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 17 (1934), 69–100. Price, Richard, “An Incomparable Lady: Queen Mary II’s Share in the Government of England, 1689–94,” Huntington Library Quarterly 75 (2012), 307–326. Rabbitts, Paul, Sir Christopher Wren (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019). Rabinowicz, Oskar, Sir Solomon de Medina (London: The Jewish Historical Society of England, 1974). Rambaut, Philip, “A Study in Misplaced Loyalty: Louis de Durfort-Duras, Earl of Feversham (1640–1709),” in Matthew Glozier and David Onnekink (eds), War, Religion and Service: Huguenot Soldiering, 1685–1713 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 47–58. Randles, Sarah, “Signs of Emotion: Pilgrimage Tokens from the Cathedral of Notre-Dame of Chartres,” in Stephanie Downes, Sally Holloway, and Sarah Randles (eds), Feeling Things: Objects and Emotions Through History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 43–57. Rau, Virginia, Dona Catarina de Bragança, Rainha de Inglaterra (Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1941). Reutcke, Chelsea, “Royal Patronage of Illicit Print: Catherine of Braganza and Catholic Books in Late Seventeenth-Century London,” in Nina Lamal, Jamie Cumby, and Helmer J. Helmers (eds), Print and Power in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 239–256. Revard, Stella, “The Latin Ode from Elizabeth I to Mary II: Political Approaches to Encomia,” in Charles S. F. Burnett and Nicholas Mann (eds), Britannia Latina: Latin in the Culture of Great Britain from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century (London: Warburg, 2005), 156–169. Reverand, Cedric D. (ed.), Queen Anne and the Arts (Lanham: Bucknell University Press, 2014). Richards, Judith M., “Defaming and Defining ‘Bloody Mary’ in NineteenthCentury England,” in Peter Nockles and Vivienne Westbrook (eds), Reinventing the Reformation in the Nineteenth Century: A Cultural History (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 90: Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014), 287–303. Roberts, David, The Ladies: Female Patronage of Restoration Drama 1660–1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). Rodén, Marie-Louise, “The Burial of Queen Christina of Sweden in St Peter’s Church,” Scandinavian Journal of History 12 (1987), 63–70.

346

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Rodrigues, Ana Maria S. A., “The Queen Consort in Late-Medieval Portugal,” in Brenda Bolton and Christine Meek (eds), Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 131–146. Ronnes, Hanneke and Haverman, Merel, “A Reappraisal of the Architectural Legacy of King-Stadholder William III and Queen Mary II: Taste, Passion and Frenzy,” Court Historian 25 (2020), 158–177. Rule, John C., “Louis XIV, Roi-Bureaucrate,” in John C. Rule (ed.), Louis XIV and the Craft of Kingship (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970). Russell, Charles William, “The History of Mary, Queen of Scots,” Dublin Review 32 (1852), 134–184. Sachse, William L., “The Mob and the Revolution of 1688,” Journal of British Studies 4 (1964), 23–40. Schaich, Michael, “Introduction,” in Michael Schaich (ed.), Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1–40. ———, “The Funerals of the British Monarchy,” in Michael Schaich (ed.), Monarchy and Religion: The Transformation of Royal Culture in EighteenthCentury Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 421–450. Schmid, Josef Johannes, “Beau-Père de l’Europe: Les Princesses dans la Politique Familiale et Dynastique de Philippe-Guillaume de Neuborg,” Dix-Septième Siècle 2 (2009), 267–279. Schraven, Minou, Festive Funerals in Early Modern Italy: the Art and Culture of Conspicuous Commemoration (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014). Schutte, Valerie and Hower, Jessica S. (eds), Mary I in Writing: Letters, Literature, and Representation (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022). ——— and Hower, Jessica S. (eds), Writing Mary I: History, Historiography, and Fiction (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022). Schwoerer, Lois, “Images of Queen Mary II, 1689–95,” Renaissance Quarterly 42 (1989), 717–748. ———, The Revolution of 1688–1689: Changing Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Scott, Jonathan, “England’s Troubles: Exhuming the Popish Plot,” in Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie (eds), The Politics of Religion in Restoration England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 108–131. Sharpe, Kevin, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). ———, The Personal Rule of King Charles I (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996). ———, Rebranding Rule: The Restoration and Revolution Monarchy, 1660–1714 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013). Shaw, L. M. E., The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance and the English Merchants in Portugal, 1654–1810 (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 1998).

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

347

———, Trade, Inquisition and the English Nation in Portugal, 1650–1690 (Manchester: Carcanet, 1989). Shield, Alice, Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York and His Times (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1943). Shipp, Leo, The Poets Laureate of the Long Eighteenth Century, 1668–1813: Courting the Public (London: Royal Historical Society, 2022). Simmons, Joseph, Robert Persons S.J. Certamen Ecclesiae Anglicanae (Assen, 1965). Skrzypietz, Aleksandra, “Maria Clementina Sobieska in a Web of Court Intrigues,” in Aleksandra Skrzypietz (ed.), Queenship Within Networks of Family and Court Connections (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2022), 99–112. Smith, Hannah, “Court Culture and Godly Monarchy: Henry Purcell and Sir Charles Sedley’s 1692 Birthday Ode for Mary II,” in Justin Champion, John Coffey, Tim Harris, and John Marshall (eds), Politics, Religion and Ideas in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Britain: Essays in Honour of Mark Goldie (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2019), 219–238. ———, “‘Last of All Heavenly Birth’: Queen Anne and Sacral Queenship,” Parliamentary History 28 (2009), 137–149. Smuts, Malcolm, “The Puritan Followers of Henrietta Maria in the 1630s,” English Historical Review 93 (1978), 26–45. ———, “Religion, European Politics and Henrietta Maria’s Circle,” in Erin Griffey (ed.), Henrietta Maria: Piety, Politics and Patronage (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), 13–38. ———, “Royal Mothers, Sacred History, and Political Polemic,” in Paulina Kewes and Andrew McRae (eds), Stuart Succession Literature: Moments and Transformations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 282–302. Snyder, Henry L., “Godolphin and Harley: A Study of Their Partnership in Politics,” Huntington Library Quarterly 30 (1966), 241–271. Somerset, Anne, Queen Anne: The Politics of Passion, A Biography (London: Harper Collins, 2019). Southorn, Janet, “Mary of Modena: Queen Consort of James II & VII,” Royal Stuart Papers 40 (Huntingdon: Royal Stuart Society, 1992). Speck, W. A., James II (London: Longman, 2002). Spurr, John, “Religion in Restoration England,” in Lionel K. J. Glassey (ed.), The Reigns of Charles II and James VII and II, 1660–1689 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), 90–124. St. John, Lisa Benz, Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). Strickland, Agnes, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, Volume 9 (12 vols, Philadelphia: Lee and Blanchard, 1847). ———, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, Volume 4 revised edn (6 vols, London: Bell & Daly, 1872).

348

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Sykes, Norman, “Queen Anne and the Episcopate,” English Historical Review 50 (1935), 433–465. Szechi, Daniel, George Lockhart of Carnwath, 1689–1727: A Study in Jacobitism (East Linton: Tuckwell, 2002). ———, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1994). ———, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019). ———, 1715: The Great Jacobite Rebellion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). Tallis, Nicola, Uncrowned Queen: The Life of Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudors (New York: Basic Books, 2020). Tayler, Alistair and Tayler, Henrietta, The Stuarts Papers at Windsor (London: John Murray, 1939). Taylor, Ida Ashworth, The Life of Queen Henrietta Maria (2 vols, London: Hutchison and Company, 1905). Taylor, Stephen, “‘The Fac Totum in Ecclesiastic Affairs’? The Duke of Newcastle and the Crown’s Ecclesiastical Patronage,” Albion 24 (1992), 409–433. Thomas, Gertrude Z., Richer Than Spices (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972). Thurley, Simon, Hampton Court: A Social and Architectural History (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003). ———, Palaces of Revolution: Life, Death and Art at the Stuart Court (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2021). ———, Somerset House: The Palace of England’s Queens, 1551–1692 (London: London Topographical Society, 2009). ———, Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments, 1240–1698 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999). Toulalan, Sarah, “‘To[o] Much Eating Stifles the Child’: Fat Bodies and Reproduction in Early Modern England,” Historical Research 87 (2014), 65–93. Trevelyan, George Macaulay, Blenheim: England Under Queen Anne, Volume 1 (London: Longmans, 1948). ———, England Under Queen Anne (3 vols, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1930–1934). Troni, Joana de Almeida, Catarina de Bragança (1638–1705) (Lisbon: Edições Colibri, 2008). Turpin, Adriana, “The Career of Cornelius Gole,” Furniture History 50 (2014), 75–87. ———, “A Table for Queen Mary’s Water Gallery at Hampton Court,” Apollo 149 (1999), 3–14. Tutino, Stefania, “The Catholic Church and the English Civil War: The Case of Thomas White,” Journal of Ecclesiastical Histor 58 (2007), 232–255.

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

349

Van Der Kiste, John, William and Mary: Heroes of the Glorious Revolution, new edn (London: The History Press, 2008). Veevers, Erica, Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Vliegenthart, Adriaan, Het Loo Palace (Apeldoorn: Paleis Het Loo, 2002). Vullinghs, Georgia, “Fit for a Queen: The Material and Visual Culture of Maria Clementina Sobieska, Jacobite Queen in Exile,” The Court Historian 26 (2021), 123–143. Walker, Claire, “‘When God Shall Restore Them to Their Kingdoms’: Nuns, Exiled Stuarts and English Catholic Identity, 1688–1745,” in Sarah Apetrei and Hannah Smith (eds), Religion and Women in Britain, c.1660–1760 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 79–97. Waller, Maureen, Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father’s Crown (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2002). Walsham, Alexandra, “Introduction: Relics and Remains,” Past and Present 206 (2011), 9–36. ———, The Reformation of the English Landscape: Religion, Identity and Memory in Early Modern Britain and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Walthall, Anne (ed.), Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). Watanabe-O’Kelly, Helen, “Early Modern European Festivals—Politics and Performance, Events and Record,” in J. R. Mulryne and Elizabeth Goldring (eds), Court Festivals of the European Renaissance: Arts, Politics and Performance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), 1–25. ——— and Morton, Adam (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (London: Routledge, 2016). Weil, Rachel, Political Passions: Gender, the Family and Political Argument in England 1680–1714 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008). Wheatley, Henry, The Dedications of Books to Patron and Friend (London: Stock, 1887). White, Michelle Anne, Henrietta Maria and the English Civil Wars (Farnham, Ashgate, 2006). Williams, Abigail, Poetry and the Creation of a Whig Literary Culture, 1681–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Williams, Kate, Becoming Queen Victoria (New York: Ballantine Books, 2010). Winn, James Anderson, Queen Anne: Patroness of Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Wiseman, Susan, Aphra Behn (Plymouth: Northcote House, 1996). Wizeman, William, “The Virgin Mary in the Reign of Mary Tudor,” Studies in Church History 39 (2004), 239–248.

350

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

Wood, Andy, “The Queen Is ‘a Goggyll Eyed Hoore’: Gender and Seditious Speech in Early Modern England,” in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The English Revolution, c.1590–1720: Politics, Religion and Communities (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), 81–94. Wood, Bruce (ed.), Henry Purcell: Birthday Odes for Queen Mary, Part One (London: Novello, 1993). ———, Henry Purcell: Birthday Odes for Queen Mary, Part Two (London: Novello, 1998). Woodacre, Elena (ed.), A Companion to Global Queenship (Leeds: ARC Humanities Press, 2018). ———, “Understanding the Mechanisms of Monarchy,” in Elena Woodacre (ed.), The Routledge History of Monarchy (London: Routledge, 2019), 1–19. Woodward, Jennifer, The Theatre of Death: The Ritual Management of Royal Funerals in Renaissance England 1570–1625 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997). Woolf, Noel, The Medallic Record of the Jacobite Movement (London: Spink & Son Ltd, 1988). Zook, Melinda, S., “History’s Mary: The Propagation of Queen Mary II, 1689– 1694,” in L. O. Fradenburg (ed.), Women and Sovereignty (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992), 170–191. ———, “The Political Poetry of Aphra Behn,” in Derek Hughes and Janet Todd (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Aphra Behn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 46–67. ———, Protestantism, Politics, and Women in Britain, 1660–1714 (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013). ———, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England (University Park (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999).

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography References [In the Text, These Biographical Articles Are Cited by Reference to Subject and Author] Adolph, Anthony R. J. S., “Jermyn, Henry [Germain], earl of St Albans (bap. 1605, d. 1684),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14780. Barclay, Andrew, “Mary [Mary of Modena] (1658–1718), Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Consort of James II and VII,” ODNB, https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/18247. Baron, S. A., “Nicholas, Sir Edward,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref: odnb/20097. Baskerville, Stephen, “Gastrell, Francis (1662–1725),” ODNB, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ref:odnb/10442.

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

351

Bucholz, Robert O., “Seymour [née Percy], Elizabeth, Duchess of Somerset (1667–1722), Courtier and Politician,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ ref:odnb/21925. Claydon, Tony, “William III and II (1650–1702), King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and Prince of Orange,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref: odnb/29450. Douglas-Stewart, J., “Kneller, Sir Godfrey [Formerly Gottfried Kniller], Baronet,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/15710. Esterly, David, “Gibbons, Grinling (1648–1721),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10. 1093/ref:odnb/10596. Gregg, Edward, “Anne (1665–1714),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref: odnb/560. Handley, Stuart, “Duras, Louis, Second Earl of Feversham (1641–1709),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/8309. Hattendorf, John B., “Robinson, John (1650–1723),” ODNB, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ref:odnb/23849. Haugen, Kristine L., “Barnes, Joshua (1654–1712),” ODNB, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ref:odnb/1470. Hayton, D. W., “Atterbury, Francis (1663–1732),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10. 1093/ref:odnb/871. Hibbard, Caroline, “Henrietta Maria [Princess Henrietta Maria of France] (1609–1669),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/12947. Marshall, William, “Bisse, Philip (bap. 1666, d. 1721),” ODNB, https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/2476. McMillan, James F., “Innes, Lewis (1651–1738), Roman Catholic Priest and Courtier,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14431. Quehen, Hugh de, “Chetwood, Knightly (bap. 1650, d. 1720),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/5246. Riding, Jacqueline, “Highmore, Thomas (1660–1780),” ODNB, https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/13249. Sharp, Richard, “Smalridge, George (1662–1719),” ODNB, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ref:odnb/25737. Speck, W. A., “James II and VII (1633–1701), King of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14593. ———, “Mary II (1662–1694),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/ 18246. Treasure, Geoffrey, “Cowper, William, First Earl Cowper,” ODNB, https://doi. org/10.1093/ref:odnb/6511. Vander Motten, J. P., “Killigrew, Sir William (bap. 1606, d. 1695,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/15541. Warner, Rebecca, “Potter, John (1673/4–1747),” ODNB, https://doi.org/10. 1093/ref:odnb/22612.

352

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

———, “Stanhope, George (1660–1728),” ODNB, http://oxforddnb.com/ view/article/26246. Weil, Rachel, “Howard [née Mordaunt; other married name Germain], Mary, duchess of Norfolk (1658/9–1705), noblewoman and divorcee,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/68005. Wynne, S. M., “Catherine [Catherine of Braganza, Catarina Henriqueta de Bragança] (1638–1705), Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Consort of Charles II,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4894. ———, “Kéroualle, Louise Renée de Penancoët de, suo jure duchess of Portsmouth and suo jure duchess of Aubigny in the French nobility,” ODNB, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/15460.

Online Resources The Clergy of the Church of England Database 1540–1835. http://www.theclergy database.org.uk. Gough, Terry, “The Exotic Garden: The Restoration of the William and Mary’s Lower Orangery Garden,” Historic Gardens (2002). https://www.buildingc onservation.com/articles/exotic/exotic.html. Horn, Joyce M. et al. (eds), Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1541–1857 (11 vols, London, 1969–2004), British History Online. http://www.british-history.ac. uk/fasti-ecclesiae/1541-1857. Royal Collection Trust [website]. www.rct.uk. Turpin, Adriana and K. A. Ottenheym, “Marot Family,” Grove Art Online (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.T054520.

Unpublished Theses Baldwin, David John Peter, “The Politico-Religious Usage of the Queen’s Chapel, 1623–1688” (MLitt., University of Durham, 1999). Heffernan, Troy A., “Queen Anne’s Upbringing, Education, and Their Impact on Her Reign and Influence over the Church of England” (PhD, University of Southern Queensland, 2017). Lim, Amy, “Art and Aristocracy in Late Stuart England” (DPhil., University of Oxford, 2021). Lourenço, Maria Paula Marçal, Casa, Corte e Património das Rainhas de Portugal (1640–1754): Poderes, Instiuições e Relações Sociais (4 vols, PhD, Universidade de Lisboa, 1999). Payne, Helen, “Aristocratic Women and the Jacobean Court, 1603–1625” (PhD, Royal Holloway, University of London, 2001).

PRINTED SECONDARY SOURCES

353

Reutcke, Chelsea, “Catholic Print Networks in Restoration England, 1660– 1688” (PhD, University of St Andrews, 2020). Sullivan, Sandra Jean, “Representations of Mary of Modena, Duchess, Queen, and Exile: Images and Texts” (PhD, University College London, 2008). Szarka, Andrew Stephen, “Portugal, France, and the Coming of the War of the Spanish Succession, 1697–1703” (PhD, Ohio State University, 1976). Wolfson, Sara Joy, “Aristocratic Women of the Household and Court of Queen Henrietta Maria, 1625–1659” (PhD, University of Durham, 2010). Wynne, Sonya Marie, “The Mistresses of Charles II and Restoration Court Politics, 1660–1685” (PhD, University of Cambridge, 1997).

Index

A Act of Settlement, 1701, 21, 223 Act of Union, 1707, 216 Adams, John, 248, 253, 255 Afonso VI, King, of Portugal, 86, 93 Agostini, Gerolamo, 25 Ailesbury Plot, 63 Akkerman, Nadine, 6, 258 Alberoni, Giulio, Cardinal, 267, 268 Albert (of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), Prince, 178 Albuquerque, 93 Aldworth, William, 56 Alexandra Feodorovna, Empress, of Russia, 20 Alfonso IV d’Este, duke of Modena, 101 Anglo-Portuguese marriage negotiations, articles, and treaty, 1661, 58 Anna of Denmark, Queen, 7, 121, 178, 285, 287 Anne, Queen depicted as Astraea-Virgo, 215

ecclesiastical patronage, 12, 237, 239, 240, 245, 254–256 motto – Semper Eadem, 216, 220 nominations of Tories to the episcopal bench, 238 nominations of Whigs to the episcopal bench, 244 proclamation by: By the Queen, a proclamation … (1706), 217, 218 Annesley, James, third earl of Anglesey, 168 Army Plots, 1641, 25 Arundell, Frances, 54 Arundell, Sir John, 53, 54 Atterbury, Francis, Bishop, 249, 250 Azzolino, Decio, Cardinal, 59 B Babilas, Dorota, 227, 228 Badajoz, siege of, 94 Ballads/coronation ballads. See Panegyric Bank of England, 196

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Gregory and M. C. Questier (eds.), Later Stuart Queens, 1660–1735, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38813-2

355

356

INDEX

Barclay, Andrew, 47, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 123, 124, 126, 128, 139, 148, 179, 180 Barigioni, Filippo, 293, 295 Barnes, Joshua, 48, 49 poem by: The Apotheosis of the Most Serene and Illustrious Monarch Charls [sic] the II , 48, 49 Bartet, Sieur, 30 Barwick, Samuel, 160 Bath, 54, 124, 126, 127 Beachy Head, Sussex, 168 Beaufort, Margaret, countess of Richmond, 20, 127 Beeston, Henry, 159 Beeyers, Thomas, 26 Behn, Aphra play of: The Forc’d Marriage, 113 poems by A Congratulatory Poem to Her Most Sacred Majesty …, 113 A Congratulatory Poem to Her Sacred Majesty Queen Mary …, 156 A Pindaric Poem on the Happy Coronation …, 113 A Poem Humbly Dedicated …, 49, 106 Belasyse, Thomas, first earl of Fauconberg, 53 Bellings, Sir Richard, jnr (d. 1716), 53, 54, 58, 61, 62 Bellings, Sir Richard, snr (d. 1677), 58 Benedict XIII, Pope, 267, 273 Benedict XIV, Pope, 291, 292, 296, 298, 299 Bennet, Henry, first earl of Arlington, 4 Bennett, G.V., 238, 240, 243, 246, 248, 255

Bérain, Jean, 185, 186 Beres, Thomas, 26 Berkeley, William, fourth baron Berkeley of Stratton, 230 Bertrand, Pierre, 129, 130 Betham, John, 60 Beveridge, William, Bishop, 244, 247 Bill of Rights, 1689, 196 Binnenhof, The, in The Hague, 182, 192 Bisse, Philip, Bishop, 244, 247, 248 Blackall, Offspring, Bishop, 247, 249, 251, 255 Blackburne, Lancelot, Dean, 248 Blathwayt, William, 197, 198 Blenheim, battle of, 215 Blunston, Jaine, 36 Boleyn, Anne, Queen, 5, 6, 27 Bombay, 74, 178 Bone, Quentin, 43 Booth, Robert, Dean, 250, 255 Boyer, Abel, 224–226 The History of the Reign of Queen Anne …, 224 Boyne, battle of, 65 Brabant, Robert, 255 Bracci, Pietro, 293, 295 Bradford, Samuel, 248, 255 Brazil (Dutch Brazil), 88 Breda Breda Castle (Kasteel van Breda), 182 Brett, Thomas, 218 Britannia, 159, 215, 216 Brome, Richard work of: Jovial Crew …, 165 Buchanan, George, 2 Bucholz, Robert, 16, 150, 196, 238, 243, 246 Buen Retiro Palace, Madrid, 84 Bull, George, Bishop, 244, 247, 249

INDEX

Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop, 108, 135, 136, 164, 233, 240, 245, 250, 254 Butler, James, first duke of Ormond, 53, 59 C Calais, 69 Calvert, Mr, 56 Calvert, Thomas, 42 Cambridge, university of Cambridge anthology: University of Cambridge, Musæ Cantabrigienses …, 154, 158–161 Cannon, Robert, 248 Capuchins, 52 Carne, Caleb, 195 Carnell, Rachel, 227 Carroll, Clare, 281, 283 Caryll, John, first Baron Caryll of Durford (in the Jacobite peerage) memoirs of James II, 108 plays of Sir Salomon or the Cautious Coxcomb, 107 The English Princess , 107 translation of: The Psalms of David …, 107 Catherine/Katherine of Aragon, 27, 127 Catherine of Austria (1507–1578), 93 Catherine of Braganza, Queen annuity, and cessation/restoration of, 78 articles of marriage, 81 Casas das Rainhas , 82 dowry of, 74, 178 lord almoner of. See Howard, Philip Thomas, Cardinal nephews of, 79, 82 Portugal, regency of, 94

357

(proposal to) return to Portugal, 74 secretary of. See Bellings, Sir Richard, jnr tomb of, 71 Catholicism/popery. See Catherine of Braganza; James II; Mary Beatrice of Modena Cavalier Parliament, 33 Cavendish, William, fourth earl (and first duke) of Devonshire, 179, 198, 250 Cecil, John, fifth earl of Exeter, 104, 179 Chaillot convent, 144 Chalmers, George, 2 Chandler, Edward, 248 Chard, Edward, 36 Charles, archduke of Austria, 83, 92 Charles I, King, 20 Eikon Basilike …, 293 Charles II, King, 1, 4, 10, 16, 19–23, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39–45, 47, 48, 58, 61, 65, 72, 74, 94, 101, 102, 106, 112, 178, 181, 185, 188, 205, 209, 214, 215, 219, 222, 239, 245 Charles II, King, of Spain, 83 Charles VI, Emperor, 261, 264, 265 Charles Louis, Prince Palatine, 25 Chatsworth, 198 Christina, Queen, of Sweden, 290, 293 Chudleigh, James, Captain, 25 Churchill, John, first duke of Marlborough, 205, 228, 243, 246 Churchill, Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, 205, 214, 221, 226, 229, 240, 241 Cienfuegos, Álvaro, Cardinal, 269, 273–277

358

INDEX

Civil war/s (Britain), 5, 9, 10, 22, 24–26, 28, 69, 177 Claudius, 11 Claydon, Tony, 2, 150, 151, 154, 164, 166, 177, 180 Clement X, Pope, 123 Clement XII, Pope, 279, 281, 282, 290–293, 308 Codrington, Thomas, 60 Coke, Sir Roger, 230, 231 Detection of the Court and State of England …, 230 Coleman, Edward, 102 Coligny, Louise de, 191 Collema, John van, 192, 199 Compton, Henry, Bishop, 205 Compton, Mary, countess of Dorset, 209 Conold, John, 161 Conti, Michelangelo, 94 Convention Parliament, 63, 65, 104, 206 Conway, Edward, third Viscount Conway, 101 Corp, Edward, 8, 46, 75, 259, 261, 273 The Courtly Salutation … (1690), 173 Cowper, William, first earl Cowper, 213, 233, 242 Cressy, David, 3 Crew, Nathaniel, Bishop, 101 Cromwell, Judith Lissauer, 227 Cupid, 217

D d’Adda, Ferdinand, Cardinal, 129 Davidson, Lillias Campbell, 46, 49, 52, 54, 55, 58, 64 Davies, Mary, 42 Dawes, William, Bishop, 247, 249–251, 255

Defoe, Daniel, 183, 188, 192, 193, 199, 200 Delft delftware, 181, 184, 187–189, 197, 198 De Greiksche A (manufactory), 187, 198 d’Ewes, Sir Simonds, 24 Dewitt, Mary, 192 Diana, 216, 217 Dicconson, William, 108 memoirs of James II, continued by, 108 Dieppe, 69, 80 Diercks, Femke, 191 Dieren/Hof te Dieren, 182, 206 Digby, George, second earl of Bristol, 58 Digby, Sir Kenelm, 29 Dillon, Arthur, General, 266 Dolan, Frances, 3, 4, 6–8, 14, 17, 22, 125, 137, 139, 148 Dorger, Cecelia, 140 Dorothea Sophie of Neuburg, duchess of Parma, 261 Dover, 69, 101 Downes, Henry, 161 Drayton House, Northamptonshire, 199 Drummond, John, first earl of Melfort, 126 Dryden, John work of: The State of Innocence …, 112 Duke of Anjou. See Philip V, of Spain Dunster, Thomas, 157 Duras, Louis de, second earl of Feversham, 53, 54, 68, 69, 81 D’Urfey, Thomas, 165, 171 Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC)), 15, 190

INDEX

Dutch Republic, 85, 131, 181, 185, 197, 201, 208, 209 E Edgar, James, 285, 305, 306 Edward III, King, 145 Edwards, Jonathan, 169 Eleanor Magdalene of Neuburg, 261 Eleanor of Aragon, Queen, of Portugal, xi, xiii Elisabeth Farnese, Queen, of Spain, 261, 264, 265, 270 Elizabeth I, Queen, 19, 114, 150, 159, 179, 216–218, 231 Elizabeth Stuart, Electress Palatine, 6 Elizabeth of York, Queen, 127 Ellis, John, 43 Ellis, Philip, OSB, 60 English Post , 87 Erasmus, Desiderius, 152 Erskine, John, twenty-third and sixth earl of Mar, and duke of Mar (in the Jacobite peerage), 266 Eugene of Savoy, Prince, 269 Ewald, A.C., 258, 269 An Excellent New Ballad … Exchequer, court of, 226 Exclusion Crisis, 4, 10, 21, 44, 48, 61, 65, 102, 113, 122, 140 F Faber, John, Jr, 306 Farguson, Julie, 179–182, 197, 201 Faucher, Chrysostome, 268, 269 Feilding, Basil, fourth earl of Denbigh, 56 Fenne, William, 34, 35 Fenwick, John, 59 Fenwick, Mary, 63 Fenwick Plot, 63 Fiennes, Celia, 184, 195

359

Fifty churches’ scheme, 219 Finch, Anne, countess of Winchelsea poems of On the Death of the Queen, 106, 107 Upon the Death of King James the Second, 105 Finch, Daniel, second earl of Nottingham, 67, 69, 77, 90, 91, 183, 250 Fleetwood, William, Bishop, 244, 248, 253, 255 Fleming, George, 168 Fleury, André-Hercule de, Bishop, 268 Foxe, John, 5 France, 8, 10, 14, 27, 30, 37, 41, 43, 69, 80, 81, 83, 87, 92, 93, 122, 124, 139, 142, 144, 145, 185, 206, 233, 234, 262, 263, 265, 266, 274, 275, 285 Anglo-French Treaty, 1786, 77 Francesco II d’Este, duke of Modena, 142 Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange, 191 G Gabbugiani, Balthasar, 284, 286 Galli, Marco Antonio, 126 Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, 6 Gastrell, Francis, Bishop, 244, 248, 249 Gaydon, Richard, Major, 262 Gennari, Benedetto, 101, 104 art works by: Faith …, 145 Holy Family (altarpiece), 139, 141, 146, 178 George I, King, 219 George, Prince, of Denmark as lord high admiral, 216 Gibbons, Grinling, 213, 220

360

INDEX

Gibraltar, capture of, 1704, 215 Glickman, Gabriel, 38, 51, 107, 276, 304 Glorious Revolution, 1688, 21, 27, 63, 68, 79, 149, 151, 174, 176, 185, 196, 203, 222 Gobart, Pierre, 144 Goddard, Thomas, 255 Godden, Thomas, 60 Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry, 48 Godolphin, Henry, Dean, 247, 248 Godolphin, Sidney, first earl of Godolphin, 53, 228, 238, 246–249, 251, 254 Gole, Cornelius, 186 Goltstein, Anne van, 192 Goodricke, Sir Henry, 56 Goring, George, first Baron Goring, 39 Gotti, Vincenzo, Cardinal, 282 Parentalia Mariae Clementinae …, 282, 289 Grabu, Louis opera of: Ariane, ou le Mariage de Bacchus , 122 Graham, Richard, first Viscount Preston, 53 Grand Alliance, 1701, 76, 88–90, 92, 95 Granville, George, first Baron Lansdowne, 101, 117, 118, 266 poems of The Progress of Beauty, 118 Those Auspicious Lights, Your Eyes , 117 Granville, John, first earl of Bath, 54 Graunt, John, 32 Great Fire of London, 219 Green, David, 226 Gregg, Edward, 2, 41, 108, 109, 124, 204, 223, 226, 227, 238, 239,

243–245, 247–251, 254, 255, 258, 266, 267, 281, 290, 292 Grey, Henry, twelfth earl of Kent, 218 Griffey, Erin, 7, 22, 31, 32, 38, 46, 52, 123–125, 127, 130, 132, 136, 139, 145, 195, 204, 211, 286, 288, 289, 291 Griffin, Dustin, 100, 101, 111, 112 Gualterio, Filippo Antonio, Cardinal, 268 Guildhall, London, 165 Gunpowder Plot, 121, 218 Gusm¯ao, Luisa de, 93 Guthrie, Neil, 259, 260, 300, 305 Gwynn, Nell (Eleanor), 55

H Haddon, Walter, 150 Haile, Martin (Mary Hallé), 112, 118, 123, 127, 128, 264 Hall, William, 60 Hamilton, Sir David, 233, 234 Hampden, John, 167 Hampton Court Palace Cartoon Gallery, 214 Chapel Royal, 205, 214, 217–220, 239 Drawing Room/Queen’s Drawing Room, 15, 213–215, 217 great fountain garden, 215 King’s Apartments, 213 King’s Staircase, 214, 215, 217 Royal Gallery, 218 sermons at, 208 Water Gallery, 183, 187, 188, 195, 209 works at, 204, 212–214, 218, 220 Harcourt, Simon, first Baron and first Viscount Harcourt, 233 Hare, Francis, 248, 249, 255

INDEX

Harley, Robert, first earl of Oxford, 228, 238, 242, 246–250, 252, 255 Hastings, Theophilus, seventh earl of Huntingdon, 132 Hatton, Christopher, first Baron Hatton, 27 Haverman, Merel, 180–182, 213 Hay, John, first earl of Inverness (in the Jacobite peerage), 262 Hayley, William, dean of Chichester, 244 Hay, Marjory, countess of Inverness, 263 Haynes, Henrietta, 43 Haynes, Mr, 68 Hedges, Sir Charles, 91, 250 Heffernan, Troy, 238, 239, 245, 251, 254, 255 Henchman, Humphrey, 168 Henrietta Anne, duchess of Orléans, 19, 35, 37, 40, 204 Henrietta Maria, Queen allegations of infidelity, and Henry Jermyn, first earl of St Albans, 23, 36, 39, 54 and the personal rule of Charles I, and the civil war/s, 2, 50 Henry VII, King, 20, 126, 157 Henry VIII, King, 6, 27 Henry (Stuart), duke of Gloucester, 19, 30, 37, 222, 231 Hervey, Mr, 78 Hesketh, Robert, 171 Het Loo Palace (Paleis Het Loo), 186 Higgons, Bevil book by: Illustrissimi principis ducis Cornubiae, 14 Hoadly, Benjamin, 241 Holmes, Geoffrey, 227, 238 Honorius, Emperor, 152 Honselersdijk, 182, 188, 192, 207

361

Huis Honselaarsdijk, 209 Hooper, George, Bishop, 244, 247, 248, 253 Houghton, Thomas, 195 Hounslow Heath, 59 House of Commons, 22, 25, 66, 86, 250 House of Lords, 25, 65, 234, 244 Howard, Mary, duchess of Norfolk, 199 Howard, Mary Rosa, 289, 290, 304–306 Howard, Philip Thomas, Cardinal, 61 Huguenots, 54, 59, 60, 185, 187, 211. See also Marot, Daniel; Marot, Isaac Huis ten Bosch, in The Hague, 182, 191, 209 Huysmans, Jacob, 178 Hyde, Anne, duchess of York, 37, 41, 78, 103, 104, 205, 222 Hyde, Edward, first earl of Clarendon, 37, 59 Hyde, Henry, second earl of Clarendon, 78 Hyde, Lawrence, first earl of Rochester, 53 I Innes, Lewis, 108, 285, 301, 304 Innocent XI, Pope, 61 Interregnum, 9, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37, 88 Isham, Sir Thomas, 104 Ives, Eric, 5 J Jacobites/Jacobitism, 13, 17, 63, 65, 67, 258, 260, 265–268, 276, 281, 289, 297, 298, 300, 303, 305, 308

362

INDEX

James I, King, 19 James II, King (formerly duke of York), 46, 176, 222 Declaration of Indulgence, 1687, 103 James III (James Francis Edward Stuart), King/the Pretender, 1 “Memorial of the Chevalier de St George”, 265 Jan III Sobieski, King, 261 Jeanneton, servant of Eleonor Misset, 262 Jenks, Sylvester, 68 Jensen, Gerrit, 196, 198 Jermyn, Henry, first earl of St Albans, 23 allegations concerning himself and Henrietta Maria, 23, 39 Jerónimos Monastery, Lisbon, 72 João I, King, of Portugal, 72 Jones, G.H., 259 Jonson, Ben, 150 Joseph I, Emperor, 261 The Joy of Protestants …, 173 Juno, 161 Jupiter, 160, 161

K Kelly, Jason, 299 Kennett, White, Bishop, 248, 255 Kensington House/Kensington Palace (formerly Nottingham House), 182, 183, 193 Kéroualle, Louise de, duchess of Portsmouth, 4, 46, 178 Killiecrankie, battle of, 65 Killigrew, Anne, 109 poem of: To The Queen …, 110 Killigrew, Charlotte, 56 Killigrew, Mary, 109 Killigrew, Sir Robert, 56

Killigrew, Sir William, 53, 56 The King’s Cabinet Opened, 26, 29 King’s Evil/scrofula, 126 Kneller, Sir Godfrey “Beauty”/Windsor Beauties portraits, 209 Knightley, Chetwood, Dean, 248, 249 “Koninklijk Blauw” exhibition, The Hague, 181 Korshin, Paul, 111

L Lamplugh, Edward, 56 Lancashire Plot, 63 Lang, Andrew, 258, 259 Laura Martinozzi d’Este, duchess of Modena, 101, 122 Lee, Nathaniel play of: Mithridates, King of Pontus , 105 Leech, Peter, 8, 9, 50, 57 Legge, William, first earl of Dartmouth, 205, 250 Lely, Peter, 32, 104 Leopold I, Emperor, 40, 83, 261 Leslie, John, 2 L’Estrange, Elizabeth, 123, 124, 126 Limerick, siege of, 65 Lingard, John, 2 Linnell, Anna-Marie, 8, 50, 122, 133 Littleford, Thomas, 160 Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd, 122 Lloyd, John epigram by: Ad Mariam Reginam, 171 Loreto, shrine at (Basilica della Santa Casa), 124 Louis XIV, King, 15, 16, 32, 39, 40, 42, 59, 69, 83, 85, 87, 89, 102, 103, 122, 178, 185, 186, 189, 211, 233

INDEX

Louis XV, King, 268 Lourenço, Maria Paula Marçal, 75, 80–82 Louvre Group (of royalists), 29, 30 Lowndes, William, 215 Lumisden, Andrew, 306 Lumley, Richard, second Viscount Lumley, 104 Luttrell, Narcissus, 128, 136, 138, 240 M Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 2, 111 MacDonnell, Randal, first marquess of Antrim, 41 Mackay, Janet, 46, 49, 64, 65, 68, 74, 82 Manningham, Thomas, Bishop, 249, 255 Maria Clementina Sobieska, Queen, 1, 9, 12, 257, 279, 280, 290, 308. See also Convent of Santa Cecilia; Masucci, Agostino funeral and monuments/ memorialisation of, 297 Maria Elisabeth of Austria, archduchess, governor of the Austrian Netherlands, 305 Maria Sophia of Neuberg, 78 Marie Antoinette, Queen, of France, x, xii, 20 Marie Françoise Élisabeth of Savoy, Queen, of Portugal, 86 Marie Louise Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, duchess of Kent, 20 Markuszewska, Aneta, 259, 260, 262, 264, 265, 277 Marot, Daniel, 185, 187, 190, 194, 211 Marot, Isaac, 185, 186 Marotti, Arthur, 111

363

Martin, Matthew, 303 Mary I, Queen, 5, 128, 236 Mary II, Queen death of, 14 and Hampton Court Palace. See Hampton Court Palace, works at and panegyric, 14, 160, 174 and patronage of delftware, 181 Mary Beatrice of Modena, Queen (formerly duchess of York) almoner of. See Galli, Marco Antonio birth of James Francis Edward Stuart, 72 marriage to James, duke of York, 9, 122 secretary of. See Caryll, John; Coleman, Edward Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, 127 Masham, Abigail, 246 Masucci, Agostino, 292, 294, 298 posthumous portrait of Maria Clementina, 292 Mawer, Mr, 34 Mazarin, Jules Raymond, Cardinal (Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino/ Mazzarini), 30 McInnes, Angus, 15, 16 Médicis, Marie de, Queen, of France, 10, 125, 129 Medina, Solomon de, 192, 199 Meggott, George, 169 Melo, Nuno Álvares Pereira de, duke of Cadaval, 86 Messalina, Empress, 11 Methuen, John, 77, 81, 87, 88, 91, 93 Methuen, Paul, 87 Methuen treaties, 75 Meytens, Martin van, 295 Mignard, Pierre, 144

364

INDEX

Mijers, Esther, 180 Misset, Eleanor, 262 Misset, John, Captain, 262 Monod, Paul Kléber, 16, 17, 62 Montagu, Walter, 52 Moore, John, Bishop, 255 Moore, Mr, 40, 41 Mordaunt, Henry, second earl of Peterborough, 101 More, Sir Thomas, 150 Morgan, Matthew, 169 Mörke, Olaf, 182 Morton, Adam, 8, 16, 177, 197 Moss, Robert, 253 Mostyn, Sir Roger, 127 Mountagu, William, 53 Murray, Catriona, 216, 285, 286, 293 Murray, James, first earl of Dunbar (in the Jacobite peerage), 262

N Nantes, edict of, 59 Naseby, battle of, 26 National Covenant, Scotland, 30 Neptune, 215, 217 A New Song being a Second Part to the Same Tune of Lilibulero, 225 Newdigate, Sir Richard, 59, 66 Newey, Thomas, 159 Newmarket (Palace), 214 Newport, Francis, first Viscount Newport, 53 Newton, Samuel, 102 Nicholas, Sir Edward, 27 Nicolson, William, Bishop, 244 Nine Years’ War, 81 Noordeinde Palace, The Hague, 191 Nottingham House. See Kensington House

O Oates, Titus, 102, 107 O’Brien, Daniel, 264, 266–269, 275 Onnekink, David, 54, 180, 182 Oporto, Portugal, 76 Order of the Visitation, 122 O’Rourke, Owen, Colonel, 265, 267, 275, 276, 289 Osborne, Thomas, first earl of Danby, 4, 104 O’Toole, Luke, Captain, 262 Ottley, Adam, Bishop, 244, 247, 248 Oxford, university of Oxford anthology: University of Oxford, Academiæ Oxoniensis Gratulatio, 157–159, 165, 168–171 P Paço da Bemposta, Santana Hill, Lisbon, 83 Palmer, Barbara, countess of Castlemaine and first duchess of Cleveland, 37, 46, 188 Palmer, Roger, first earl of Castlemaine, 61 Panegyric, 150–157, 159, 160, 162–167, 170–172, 174 Panini, Giovanni Paolo, 283 Paris, 108, 265, 266, 300, 304 Scots College at, 108, 285 Parliament. See Cavalier Parliament; Convention Parliament; House of Commons; House of Lords Parr, Catherine, Queen, 46 Parry, Gregory, 158 Parsons, John Carmi, 135, 136 Partition Treaties, 1698 and 1700, 83 Pautre, Jean le, 185 Pedro II, King, of Portugal, 10, 49, 75, 92 Penthesilea, Queen, 168, 169

INDEX

Pepys, Samuel, 23, 35, 38, 40–42, 145 Percy, Elizabeth, countess dowager of Northumberland, 198 Persons, Robert, SJ, 6 Petty, William, 32 Philip V, of Spain (formerly duke of Anjou), 84, 85, 91, 261, 264, 265, 270 Philip William of Neuburg, Elector Palatine, 261 Philippa of Lancaster, 72 Philippe, duke of Orléans, 37, 40 Philips, Ambrose, 170 Phoebe, goddess of the moon, 171 Pliny the Younger, 152 Plunket, Emily, 80 Plunket, Margaret, countess of Fingall, 80 Polignac, Melchior de, Cardinal, 268, 276 Popish Plot, 1678–1681, 48, 61, 102, 107. See also Catherine of Braganza; Godfrey, Sir Edmund Berry; Exclusion Crisis; James II; Mary Beatrice of Modena Portugal. See also Methuen, John; Methuen, Paul; Methuen treaties Anglo-Portuguese alliances, 72, 74, 87, 90, 94 Conselho de Estado, 93 Conselho de Guerra, 93 Douro Valley, 76 War of Restoration (1640–1668), 86 wine trade (port and Madeira), 74 Potter, John, 255 Pozzi, Rocco, 280, 283 Purcell, Henry, 14, 115, 116, 153 work of: My Heart is Inditing , 116

365

Q Quadruple Treaty and Triple Treaty, 1703, 90 Queen’s House, Greenwich, 31, 50 Queen Elizabeth’s Ghost , 216 R Radziwiłłowa, Franciszka Urszula, princess/duchess of Radziwiłł, 263 Randles, Sarah, 303, 307, 308 Regency Act, 1690, 164 Réponse de la Reine d’Angleterre au Prince de Galles , 29 Reresby, Sir John, 41, 137 Restoration, 1660, 1, 20, 22, 30, 35, 43 Retz, de, Cardinal (Jean François Paul de Gondi), 59 Reutcke, Chelsea, 51 Ribeira Palace, Lisbon, 83 Richard III, King, 12 Ripperda, Jan Wilhelm, 265, 270 Roberts, David, 99 Roberts, Thomas, SJ, 127 Robinson, John, Bishop, 249 Robinson, Thomas, 265 Rogers, John, 42 Roman, Jacob, 211 Rome, 13, 61, 258, 262, 263, 266, 268, 269, 272, 274, 276, 277, 279, 281–283. See also names of individual popes; Maria Clementina Sobieska, funeral and monuments/memorialisation of Palazzo del Re, 283 Ronnes, Hanneke, 180–182, 213 Roper, Francis, 53 Rouillé, Pierre de, 87 The Royal Farewel …, 172 The Royal Resolution …, 173 Russel, Clementina, 298

366

INDEX

Russel, Elizabeth, 299 Russel, James, 282, 295, 299, 300, 307 Letters from a Young Painter Abroad, 282, 299 Russell, Conrad, 11 Russell, Edward, first earl of Orford, 104 Russel, William Charles, 2 Rymer, Thomas, 157, 158 S Sacheverell, Henry, 245 St Andrew’s, Holborn, 245 St Dominic, 289, 304 St Germain-en-Laye, 142 St Helen, 145, 147 St John, Henry, first Viscount Bolingbroke, 250 St Peter’s, Rome, 13, 279, 284 St Winefride’s Well, Holywell, Wales, 124, 126, 127 Sales, Francis de, Bishop, and saint, 122, 128 Sancroft, William, Archbishop, 103, 179 Santa Cecilia, Convent of, 12, 258, 263 Santi XII Apostoli, church of, 283, 286, 287, 293 São Vicente de Fora in Lisbon, monastery of, 72 Savile, George, first marquis of Halifax, 55 Sawyer, Sir Edmund, 31 Sayers, George, 53 Scarborough, Charles, 68 Scarisbrick, Edward (alias Neville), SJ, 60 Schonenberg, Francis, 89, 90 Schrider, Christopher, 219 Sedley, Sir Charles, 152, 165

Shadwell, Thomas, 158, 163 Sharpe, Kevin, 2, 8, 39, 151 Sharp, John, Archbishop recommendation for promotion to other ecclesiastical posts, 237 recommendations for promotion to the episcopal bench, 238 A Sermon Preach’d at the Coronation of Queen Anne, 231 Sheldon, Dorothy, 263, 266, 276 Shepley, William, 34 Sheridan, Sir Thomas, 282, 283 Shirley, Robert, later first earl of Ferrars, 53 Silius, Titus, 29 Silva, Manuel Teles da, marquis de Alegrete, 77 Simpson, William, 92, 94 Sinzendorf, Philipp Ludwig von, 269 Skrzypietz, Aleksandra, 259 Smalridge, George, Bishop, 244, 245, 247, 249, 253 Smith, Anne, 26 Smith, Hannah, 9, 14, 152, 166, 215, 227 Smuts, Malcolm, 7, 22, 124 Sobieska, Hedwig Elisabeth, 261 Sobieski, James Louis, 259–261, 264 Sobieski, Jan III, King, 261 Sobieska, Maria Clementin. See Maria Clementina Sobieska Sobieska, Maria Karolina, duchess of Bouillon, 264 Sobieska, Theresa, Electress of Bavaria, 261 Soisson, Madame de, 302 Solms-Braunfel, Amalia van, 182, 191, 192, 195 daughters of (Louise Henriette, Albertine Agnes, Henriette Catharina, and Maria), 191

INDEX

Somers, John, first Baron Somers, 246 Somerset, Anne, 213, 226 Somerset House, 17, 23, 31, 38, 40, 42, 46, 48–54, 56, 60–62, 64, 68–70, 77, 79, 81 Sophia, Electress of Hanover, 223 Sorello, Michael, 292 Spain, 13, 73, 80, 83, 86, 87, 93, 236, 260, 264, 265 War of the Spanish Succession, 1701–1714, 75, 83, 226, 228, 229 Spencer, Charles, third earl of Sunderland, 250 Spencer, Robert, second earl of Sunderland, 68 Stanhope, George, 253 Stanhope, Philip, second earl of Chesterfield, 53 Stewart, Frances, duchess of Richmond, 136 Stilicho (Roman general), 152 Strange, Isabella, 306 Strange, Robert, 306 Stratford, Nicholas, Bishop, 60 Stuart, Charles Edward (Charles III/ Young Pretender), 258, 259 Stuart, Henry Benedict, Cardinal, 263, 266 Stuart, James Fitz James, duke of Liria, 264, 267 Stuart, James Francis Edward (King/ the Pretender). See James III Stuart, Louisa Maria (Louise-Marie), 145, 148 Stuart, Ludovic, sieur d’Aubigny, 59 Sullivan, Sandra Jean, 101 Süntannelands, Madame de, 192 Swift, Jonathan, Dean, 239, 249 Sydney, Henry, first earl of Romney, 104

367

T Talbot, Charles, twelfth earl of Shrewsbury, 87 Tangier, 74 Tate, Nahum, 165–167 Tayler, Alistair, 259 Tayler, Henrietta, 259 Teignmouth, 168 Tenison, Thomas, Archbishop, 246–250 Terriesi, Francesco, 127 Terry, Thomas, 249 Test Act, 1673, 103 The Hague, 87, 128, 182, 187, 191, 192 International Congress, 1691, 198 Thornhill, Henry, 53, 54 Thornhill, Johanna, 54 Thornhill, Sir James, 220 Thursby, Alexander, OP, 68 Thynne, Henry Frederick, 53, 55, 81 Tories/Tory party, 14, 229, 244, 248, 254, 255 Toulalan, Sarah, 229, 230 Tour d’Auvergne, Charles Godefroy de la, duke of Bouillon, 268 Trajan, Emperor, 152 Trelawny, Sir Jonathan, Bishop, 248 Trevelyan, George Macaulay, 76, 226 Trevisani, Francesco, 306 Triennial Act, 1694, 196 Trimnell, Charles, Bishop, 244, 248, 255 Tudor, Margaret, Queen, of Scotland, 127 Turner, Sharon, 2 Tyler, John, Bishop, 244, 248

U United Provinces (Dutch Republic), 83, 85, 87, 88

368

INDEX

“Upon the Queen Dowager’s Departure for Portugal” (poem), 71 Utrecht, Peace of (and Treaty/ Treaties of), 76, 234 V Valencia de Alcantara, 93 Vallière, Louise de la, 189 Van Dyck, Anthony, 32 Verrio, Antonio, 139, 214–217 Versailles, 83, 189, 260, 268 Trianon de Porcelain, 186 Victoria, Queen, 20 Vienna, siege of, 261 Villiers, Eleanor, 39 Villiers, George, first duke of Buckingham, 39 Vincent, Mr., 34 Virgin Mary, 123, 137, 160, 178, 291 W Wake, William, Archbishop, 60, 244, 248 Walker, Claire, 9, 304 Waller, Edmund dedication of: To the Duchess , 117 Walpole, Horatio, 266 Walsham, Alexandra, 127, 300, 303, 308 Warming pan scandal, 11 Wars of the Roses, 27 Warsaw, 259 Radziwiłł archive, 259, 264 Watanabe-O’Kelly, Helen, 8, 177, 197, 200, 285 Weil, Rachel, 138, 227 Wentworth, Thomas, first earl of Strafford, 230, 231 Wharton, Philip, first duke of Wharton, 267, 269

The Whig Address to His Majesty …, 226 Whigs/Whig party, 226, 228 Whitehall Palace, 25, 182, 183 White, Ignatius, 128 Whitfield, William, 255 Wienerisches Diarium, 267, 269–273 Wildman, Sir John, 125, 128, 133, 134, 137 William I, Prince, of Orange, 191 William III, King, 1, 10, 14, 48, 63, 68, 81, 85, 89, 104, 106, 109, 191, 197, 217, 219, 231, 239, 240, 244. See also Glorious Revolution, 1688 and Hampton Court Palace. See Hampton Court Palace, works at William, Prince, duke of Gloucester, 103, 104, 114, 222 Williams, Abigail, 151, 166 Willis, Richard, 249 Wilson, John, 42 Wimpole Hall, 220 Windsor Castle, 214, 258 Royal Archives (Stuart papers), 139, 283 Treaty of, 1386, 72 Winn, James Anderson, 227 Wogan, Charles, 260, 262, 283 Wolfson, Sara, 7, 10, 50 Woodacre, Elena, 99, 122, 216, 223, 258, 293, 305 Woodyear, William, 158 Wren, Sir Christopher, 183, 207, 209, 215, 218, 219 Wynne, Sonya Marie, 4, 75

Z Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, Syria, 170