City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2019 Who Owned Waterloo? Wellington’s Veterans and the Battle for Relevance Luke A. L. Reynolds The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3318 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] WHO OWNED WATERLOO? WELLINGTON’S VETERANS AND THE BATTLE FOR RELEVANCE by Luke Alexander Lewis Reynolds A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2019 ii ©2019 LUKE REYNOLDS All Rights Reserved iii Who Owned Waterloo? Wellington’s Veterans and the Battle for Relevance By Luke Reynolds This Manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in History in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ______________________ _________________________________________ Date Timothy Alborn Chair of Examining Committee ______________________ _________________________________________ Date Joel Allen Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Benjamin Hett Simon Davis Robert Johnson THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv ABSTRACT Who Owned Waterloo? Wellington’s Veterans and the Battle for Relevance By Luke Reynolds Advisor: Timothy Alborn This dissertation examines the afterlife of the battle of Waterloo in the collective memory of Great Britain as well as the post-war lives of officers who fought there. Using a variety of techniques associated with cultural, social, and military history, it explores the concept of cultural ownership of a military event and contextualizes the relationship between Britain and her army in the nineteenth century, both at home and abroad. It argues that, almost immediately after the dust settled on the field of Waterloo, a variety of groups laid claim to different aspects of the ownership of the memory of the battle within Great Britain, resulting in a nationalization of the victory that was often complex and marked by overlapping claims. Over the thirty-seven years between the battle in 1815 and the Duke of Wellington’s funeral in 1852, those groups employed histories, memoirs, patronage, tourism, relic collecting, annual commemorations, performances, social interactions, and a variety of art and literature to celebrate Britain’s victory, further craft and delineate their own identities, and incorporate the battle into the wider creation myth of Great Britain. To best explore Britain’s relationship with its army and with the victory at Waterloo, this dissertation is divided into two sections, the first comprising four chapters and the second three. The first section charts the cultural history of the British officer corps and the collective memory of the Battle of Waterloo, allowing for a detailed exploration of the question of ownership of a military victory, both within Britain and internationally. The first chapter contrasts military memoirs with civilian v histories. The second examines Waterloo itself as a pilgrimage destination, while widening the question of ownership to include physical items and monuments. The third discusses military and civilian commemorations and celebrations of the Battle of Waterloo, from 1815 until the 1850s. The concluding chapter explores depictions of officers in the popular culture and media of the day. The second section begins with a chapter on the army at home (including Ireland), which discusses the change from wartime to peacetime service. The second chapter examines the involvement of officers in politics, focusing on veterans who followed Wellington’s lead and entered parliament. The third chapter covers veterans appointed by London to positions in the imperial service. The dissertation concludes with an epilogue on Wellington’s state funeral in 1852, arguing that this event served as the culmination of many of the cultural and social trends discussed throughout the work. vi Acknowledgements In the four years that I have been working on this dissertation, I have benefited from the help and kindness of so many people that listing them would rival the dissertation itself. There are some, however, whose contribution has been significant enough that they must be thanked. First and foremost, I owe a massive debt of gratitude to my advisor, Professor Timothy Alborn, who has been unfailingly supportive, has answered my random questions and read my drafts far more quickly than any student has a right to expect, and whose good humor, superb scholarship, and sometimes wry, but always excellent guidance has helped me not only finish this dissertation but also grow as a scholar. I don’t know how I managed to find the ideal advisor, but somehow, I did. I must also thank my second reader, Professor Benjamin Hett, who has always been willing to provide advice, read a draft, or just chat and listen. I remain incredibly grateful for your advice and feedback, and I apologize for how many of your lunch breaks I interrupted with my questions. The third member of my committee, Professor Simon Davis, deserves my thanks for his cheerful flexibility in the face of his extremely busy teaching schedule and his excellent feedback and suggestions (and for catching a crucial spelling mistake in at least one Regiment’s name). Finally, there is my external examiner, Dr. Robert Johnson of Pembroke College, Oxford, who has supported my work with unending enthusiasm and delight. I owe all four of them more than I can possibly say. In addition to my committee, I have been fortunate enough to spend the last four years in two very collegial and supportive academic environments: the History Departments of the Graduate Center and Hunter College. Everyone at those two institutions deserves my thanks, but I would be remiss if I did not mention a few people in particular. Marilyn Weber, without whom the Graduate Center’s History Department would crumble, has helped me navigate various bureaucratic hurdles for more than half a decade, and has always been ready with a smile and a kind word. It is because of her that I know how to format this document and had a room booked for its defense. Her assistant, Huber Jaramillo Gil, has also gone out of his way to answer questions and generally make my life easier. The two Executive Officers I have had the pleasure to work with, Professor Helena Rosenblatt and Professor Joel Allen, have done all they can to encourage my work during my time at the GC. At Hunter, I am grateful to John Jones, Professor Mary Roldán, and Professor Eduardo Contreras, all of whom have ensured that my teaching schedule complemented, rather than conflicted with, my dissertation work. I must also thank my colleagues in the two Dissertation Seminars I have participated in, under the leadership of Professor Julia Sneeringer and Professor Jim Oakes. I am also grateful for all the feedback and hard work of my own reading group (every burgeoning academic should have at least one), and so must thank Dr. Scott Ackerman, Krystle Sweda, and John Winters. In researching this project, I have been lucky enough to receive funding from a number of sources. I am deeply grateful to the Graduate Center for funding my work through the Florence J. Bloch Dissertation Fellowship, and two Doctoral Student Research Grants, and to the GC’s History Department for a Graduate Teaching Fellowship and a Judith Stein Memorial Fellowship. Outside of the Graduate Center, I must thank the Masséna Society for granting me a Dissertation Research Fellowship, and the North American Conference on British Studies for a Stern Grant. This dissertation necessitated travel to archives in three countries, and would have been a great deal poorer, if not impossible, without the aid of the staffs of the Graduate Center’s Mina Rees Library (especially their Inter-Library Loan department), the New York Public Library, the British National Archives, the British Library, the National Archives of Scotland, the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, the Library and Archives Canada, McGill University, vii the University of Southampton’s Hartley Library, Jane Branfield, Archivist to Stratfield Saye House and the Duke of Wellington, and others too numerous to name. I am grateful to The Journal of Victorian Culture for giving me the opportunity to explore some of my work on the Waterloo Banquets in article form, and especially to Dr. Jane Hamlett and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, many of which have been included in the full dissertation. I am also thankful to various conferences, most notably the Society for Military History, the North American Conference on British Studies, the Northeast Conference on British Studies, the Consortium on the Revolutionary Era, and the North American Victorian Studies Association for giving me the opportunity to present my work and receive feedback from a wide range of scholars. Finally, there are personal debts to acknowledge. As with every paragraph that precedes this, there are too many people to thank. I am very lucky to have friends and family that are vocal in their support of what I have chosen to do, and I wish I had the time and space to thank each and every one of you. Despite this, there are those who have gone above and beyond, and must be acknowledged. I am grateful to Miranda Dubner for reading portions of this work, for always being willing to serve as a sounding board for a particular word or phrase choice, and for her cheerleading, energy, and deep, unflagging kindness. To Sara Robertson for her willingness to function as my base of operations whenever I visit Edinburgh, and her tolerance for being dragged to regimental museums.