Introduction: the Royal Character in the Public Imagination 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction: The Royal Character in the Public Imagination 1. I use the words “royal” and “monarch” (and their variants, “royalty,” “monarchy,” “monarchical,” etc.) interchangeably. By the late eigh- teenth century both terms in common usage referred equally to kings and to those who ruled (queens, regents). “Royal” also referred, and still does, to near relatives of the monarch, as in “royal family,” and I use it in this sense also. 2. Austen’s conservatism is famously unstable. Feminist critics espe- cially have suggested that a feminist subtext undercuts or at least tempers the conservative trajectories of her novels. In Equivocal Beings, Claudia Johnson provides a comprehensive discussion of the conservative reading of Emma as well as its implicit feminist critique (192–96). 3. Unlike Pride and Prejudice, in which she was revising an earlier draft, Austen wrote Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion after 1810. She began writing Mansfield Park in February 1811, the same month in which the Regency began (Sturrock 30; see also Tomalin 223–24). 4. Clara Tuite suggests that Mansfield Park can be read as “a provincial deflection of the wider national issues of responsible hereditary gov- ernment” (Romantic Austen 132). 5. The phrase “Queen Caroline affair” historically refers to the events of 1820 and 1821, when the uncrowned King attempted to divorce his wife by Act of Parliament. Although Caroline was technically Queen, supporters of the new King used a variety of means, some political, some rhetorical, to contest her legitimacy. Similarities as well as an evident continuity between this episode and the Prince’s first attempt to obtain a divorce, some fifteen years earlier, have often led scholars to refer to their marital disputes before, during, and after the Regency as the Queen Caroline affair. 6. There was no expectation that the King should remain chaste outside marriage. The legitimacy of succession depended on only the Queen’s chastity, a fact that was always an anxious subtext of discussions about dissolving the Prince’s marriage. Nonetheless, the King’s celebrated monogamy made him a prototype, especially in the nostalgic imagi- nation of the Regency, for an ideal bourgeois husband and father. 180 Notes 7. Mole uses this term in Byron’s Romantic Celebrity to describe the transaction whereby intimate contact with celebrated figures is both mass marketed and offered as “an escape from the standardised impersonality of commodity culture” (25). Turner suggests that, during the Restoration, the King’s sexuality “made it difficult to sep- arate him into ‘two bodies’, and mingled the public realm of politi- cal authority with the private emotions aroused by illicit sexuality: jealousy, excitement, furtive identification, and shame” (106). In this case, however, Charles II’s absolutism meant that the spectacle of his profligacy cooperated with and augmented, rather than substituting for, his political power. 1 Chronicles of Florizel and Perdita 1. As the title suggests, Garrick’s liberal adaptation focuses on the young lovers, omitting the first three acts, and minimizing the importance of Leontes and Hermione to the action. 2. The Prince’s letters to Robinson have been destroyed, but he wrote the next day to his sisters’ governess, Mary Hamilton, that he had seen, the night before, “the most beautiful Woman, that I ever beheld. Her name is Robinson” (quoted in Byrne 100–01). 3. Robinson insisted that she was not selling the letters to the Prince but was simply returning them in exchange for the settlement she was entitled to. When the Prince’s representative refused to autho- rize more than 5,000 pounds, however, she made a veiled blackmail threat to Malden, claiming that the Prince’s “ ‘ungenerous and illib- eral’ treatment was justification for ‘any step my necessities may urge me to take’ ” (quoted in Byrne 153). Malden passed this threat on to Colonel Hotham, who was acting for the Prince, but he held firm on the 5,000 pounds. 4. In legal terms, reversionary interest refers to the ownership rights of an individual to whom a property will revert after the expi- ration of an intervening interest such as a trust or a life- interest. Eighteenth-century political writers commonly used the phrase to refer to a Prince of Wales’s alliance with the political opposition, and their expectation of patronage when he succeeded his father to the throne—their reversionary interest in a government that was tem- porarily in the hands of the other party. In the Introduction to his edition of George III’s letters to Lord Bute, Sedgwick explains the metaphor, which may have originated with Robert Walpole: “with an heir-apparent in opposition and bidding against the King, the influ- ence of the Crown was divided against itself, and equalled on balance only the difference between the actuarial value of the King’s life- interest and the successor’s reversion. This difference automatically diminished as the value of the life-interest fell with the increasing Notes 181 age of the reigning monarch, while the political promissory notes and post-obits of the heir-apparent, issued at a discount, redeemable on accession, and taken up for capital appreciation, correspondingly improved” (xi–xii). 5. Pamela, Hunt points out, is “[a] novel of many hundreds of pages” that “could bring out a character over time and do so, moreover, from the perspective of inside the self” (45). Citing correspondence quoted in Richardson’s biography, Hunt points to the heightened emotional identification readers reported upon reading the letters of Pamela and Clarissa, which registered in fits of sleeplessness and pas- sionate bursts of crying (45–46). 6. The affair itself was farcical. The Duke sometimes arrived at assigna- tions not only disguised but pretending to be deranged, so that he became known as “the Fool” (Genuine Copies 51). The testimony at the trial includes an account of the discovery of the couple, partly undressed, sitting on the edge of a bed in an inn where they had been secretly meeting. Lady Grosvenor tried to escape into the next room, but tripped and fell. When a servant went to her assistance, leaving the front door unguarded, the Duke, who had, until this point stood “very much confused” in the middle of the room without speaking, ran out the door. He then called observers to witness that he was not in the room, although at least one witness pointed out that he had just seen him inside (52, 57). 7. A fair example of the absence of spelling, syntax, and sense is this from Lady Grosvenor to Cumberland: “indeed my dear soul you are very prudent in intending to go a little in publick before I came to town, it wou’d really look much too particular just to come out then & might cause remarks which possibly might be conveyed to my Ld & every thing of that sort might rouze him & make him more and more observant to prevent our Meetings, and the best thing we can possibly do now is to make him beleive [sic] all is over between us, and we have really I beleive blinded him for some time at least he has no proof about us, & I hope to God that by degrees his suspicions will be lull’d & then we may form some plans for our meeting happily we must not dispair but look forwards that is the only way to support ourselves under our present unhappy situation & there is probability of many things happening to mend the present, so we think like phi- losophers & believe every thing is for the best & hope we may enjoy better days soon, & indeed I think it very probable my dearest & dear Soul with this idea be happy . .” (34–35). 8. In contrast, The Budget of Love contains the following, doubly ironic, plea from Florizel: “Pray, my dearest PERDITA! keep a lock upon my letters, lest the world should get hold of them; and then they may transform them, as they did my Uncle’s and Lady G – –’s, into nonsense, to render them ridiculous, and to make us the laughing- stock of fools” (53). The fact that we read this demonstrates Perdita’s 182 Notes inability to keep a lock upon his letters, but it is left to us to decide whether the world has transformed them or whether they were always nonsense and their writers laughing-stocks—or, indeed, whether what we are reading is nonsense or is coherent and eloquent, whether the novel’s primary mode is satire or sentiment. 9. His language echoes the King’s own attempts to rein in his way- ward son at around this time. In August of 1780 the King had writ- ten, “you must acknowledge the truth of the position that every one in this world has his peculiar duties to perform, and that the good or bad example set by those in the higher stations must have some effect on the general conduct of those in inferior ones” (Aspinall, Correspondence 34). In December he elaborated on this point: “My inclination is to grant you all the rational amusement I can, and keep you out of what is improper, and so to steer you, that when arrived at the full stage of manhood, you may thank me for having made you escape evils that ill become a young man of rank, but in your exalted situation are criminal: for Princes must serve as examples to others, and though not perhaps always so much copied in their virtues as might be wished, yet if they deserve praise it will in some degree check the improper career of others” (37). The counsel for Lord Grosvenor made this same argument against the Duke of Cumberland ten years earlier, arguing in his opening statement that “no given sum could be punishment sufficient” for the Duke, “as the elevated rank and situation of life he sustained, should the more deter him from setting a bad example to the subordinate classes of society” (53).