Love and Loyal Actions': Ritual Affect and Royal Authority, 1688-1760
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2017 Love and Loyal Actions': Ritual Affect and Royal Authority, 1688-1760 Amy Oberlin Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Oberlin, Amy, "Love and Loyal Actions': Ritual Affect and Royal Authority, 1688-1760" (2017). Dissertations. 2835. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2835 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright © 2017 Amy Oberlin LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO "LOVE AND LOYAL ACTIONS": RITUAL AFFECT AND ROYAL AUTHORITY, 1688-1760 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN HISTORY BY AMY B. OBERLIN CHICAGO, IL AUGUST 2017 Copyright by Amy Oberlin, 2017 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of a large number of people. My dissertation supervisor, Robert Bucholz, took me on as his student shortly after I entered the Ph.D. program in 2010. However, his influence and inspiration in my life began at the very start of my graduate studies when I took his Early Modern England class as a new graduate student studying for my Master's degree in medieval history. His passion for his topic reignited my own interest in the period. His kindness and dedication to all of his students was evident and inspiring from the beginning. I could seriously write an entire essay on what this generous and brilliant man has meant in my life. He has been a demanding but kind mentor, and, whether he intended to or not, a life coach. He is the exemplar of a diligent, dedicated and brilliant scholar, as well as a kind and patient person. In short, he is a model human being and I am more grateful than I can express that he agreed to be my mentor. Professor John Donoghue's dedication to his own work and the role of history in furthering social justice in broader society should serve as an inspiration to all aspiring historians. I am proud to have him on my committee and grateful for his input in this project - and the copious amounts of cheerleading he has provided over the course of my graduate career. iii I also want to thank Ellen McClure for agreeing to serve on my committee, even though I ended up abandoning the French portion of the research, which I imagine interested her most. Her input will be invaluable as I endeavor to turn this dissertation into a book. The History Department at Loyola certainly has some amazing professors, who apparently attract some of the most wonderful students, many of whom have also contributed to this project over the years. There are too many to name here, so I'll start by thanking all of my fellow graduate students with whom I've had the pleasure of discussing classes, hashing through research or venting about schedules. Dr. Thomas Green took me under his wing when I was a rookie M.A. student, who had no idea what I was getting into. Over the years he provided support and mentorship as I navigated the often alien landscape of graduate study. I can't thank him enough for both his guidance and his friendship. Dr. Andrew Donnelly has also been a wonderfully supportive friend throughout my graduate career. I want to thank Dr. Steven Catania, my fellow Bucholz-mentee, for the many discussions of our research that helped me flush out aspects of this project and for last-minute edits that helped me meet deadlines. Dr. Anthony Di Lorenzo, Dr. Peter Kotowski both organized and participated in the English Atlantic Writing Group, which drew an excellent group of scholars, including Professor Jim Sack and others already mentioned here, and expanded my perspective on my own work and on the field more broadly. Dr. Amelia Serafine, Will Ippen, Katie Macica, Hope Shannon, and all the others who attended the Dissertation Writing Group have been especially patient in reviewing my rough drafts and are wonderfully supportive colleagues and friends. Last, but certainly not least, is Dr. Erin Feichtinger, whose energy and passion is contagious. From our 2014 research trip to London to this very moment when she is helping me format this dissertation so that I don't curse myself sick, Erin has been a wonderful colleague, editor, drinking buddy and friend. She is iv brilliant, generous and kind. If you are fortunate enough to call her friend, you are one lucky bastard. But fortune has certainly blessed you, if you have had the opportunity to perform The Rocky Horror Picture Show with her in your living room. Despite the support of all my wonderful colleagues and friends, a dissertation does not get written on beer and sympathy alone. I want to thank Loyola University for providing me with both fellowships and teaching opportunities to help me meet the monetary demands of adult life, while pursuing my studies. For those times when such support was not possible, I had the great luck of working part-time with a wonderful team at Kroll Associates, Inc. I am especially grateful to Mark Skertic, Jeff Cramer, Lisa Silverman, Stephanie Gardner, Baltazar Vallenilla, Aneta Olszynska, Rachel Robinson and Margot Klepetko for their understanding and support over the years, not to mention their patience with my ever-varying schedules and vast leaves of absence. Finally and most importantly, the person who has undoubtedly borne the brunt of the ups and downs that led to this project is my best friend and partner, Rob Patterson. He has listened to every presentation, every awkward sentence, every half-formed theory and absolutely every single anxiety. He has toasted my achievements and provided a shoulder to cry on. He is the love of my life, and without his love and support, completing this dissertation would have been utterly impossible. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF FIGURES vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION: MONARCHS, PUBLICS 1 AND EMOTIONS, 1660-1760 CHAPTER TWO: "SPRINGS OF EACH VIRTUOUS ACTION": 27 PASSIONS AND PIETY IN EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND CHAPTER THREE: "SHARE WITH ME IN MY GRIEF AND 70 AFFLICTION": ROYAL DEATH AND PUBLIC MOURNING CHAPTER FOUR: "A KIND OF MARRIAGE DAY": 119 ACCESSION, CORONATION AND AFFECTIVE UNITY CHAPTER FIVE: ROYAL MARRIAGE IN THE SEVENTEENTH 164 AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 VITA 232 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Hibernia in Universal Mourning 118 Figure 2: William Kent, The Wedding of Princess Anne 208 vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION MONARCHS, PUBLICS AND EMOTIONS: 1660-1760 This project began with the intent to discover a more precise measurement of the eighteenth-century court's place in the social and cultural shifts of the eighteenth century. Inspired in part by the dominance that emotions have come to wield over modern U.S. politics, I use emotions as a litmus. Through modern news outlets and social media, modern politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere have become master emotional manipulators - at least the successful ones have.1 People were no less gullible in the eighteenth century, but the communication apparatus was far less developed. The explosion of print culture, however, created a new and ever- expanding means through which the monarchy could communicate with the public. This project seeks to understand how the last Stuart and first Hanoverian monarchs, who reigned during the proliferation of print in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, employed this new mode of communication to influence hearts and minds. The story of the British monarchy, especially during this period, is one of change versus continuity. From 1660 to 1760, monarchs and their courts navigated changing political and social circumstances while attempting to maintain the illusion of continuity. This period was a rollercoaster of dynastic change. In 1660, Charles II returned to the throne with much fanfare, following an interregnum of Parliamentary rule. He died in 1685, having produced no legitimate 1 See, Drew Westin, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of a Nation (New York, NY: PublicAffairs, 2007). 1 2 children, so the crown went to his brother James II. James was openly Catholic and his rule was hotly contested.2 In 1688, James' Catholic wife gave birth to a son and rumors swirled that the child was not Mary's, but had been smuggled into the queen's bedroom in a warming pan.3 This, in addition to James' insistence on toleration for Catholics, motivated some members of Parliament to invite the Dutch husband of James' elder daughter Mary to come to England's aid. In late 1688, William III arrived in England with Dutch military support. James sent his wife away and then fled himself in December 1688. Two months later, in February 1688/9, Parliament declared William and Mary king and queen of England.4 Because they had been appointed by Parliament, William and Mary relinquished some of the crown's power, agreeing to a new coronation oath that recognized the power of Parliament.5 Mary died in 1694, and her husband followed in 1701/2, leaving the throne to Mary's younger sister, Anne. Before William died, however, he signed the Act of Succession (1701), which ensured a Protestant succession to the crown. This barred the exiled James Stuart, the infant of the warming pan, from ascending the throne. When Queen Anne died in 1714 leaving no surviving children, her cousin, the 2 On the Exclusion Crisis, see: Mark Knights, Politics and Opinion in Crisis, 1678-1681 (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Melinda S.