This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. “Wee Reign in Heaven”: The Representation, Commemoration and Enduring Memory of the Deceased Prince under the Stuart Monarchy. Catriona Murray Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy History of Art Department University of Edinburgh, 2012 Vol. I 1 Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification, except as specified. Signature: . Date: . 2 Abstract This thesis examines the consequences and implications of the premature deaths of royal heirs in seventeenth-century Britain. In just four generations between 1603 and 1700 the Stuart dynasty suffered the loss of over twenty-five legitimate offspring before their twenty-first year. Several of these deaths had significant political repercussions, threatening both the continuity of the royal line and consequently the security of the nation. The cultural memory of these lost heirs continued decades and even centuries later. My work seeks to establish the historical significance of their long-lasting appeal by assessing their princely representation in life and analysing its development after death. This study is firmly located within visual culture. However, definitions and classifications of the “visual” are necessarily broad. The emphasis is upon the consideration of seventeenth-century British art as part of a wider cultural process. The opening chapter addresses an apparently obvious, though somewhat neglected, issue - the critical importance of royal heirs. Through examination of the imagery and ceremonial attached to Stuart childbearing and christenings, it asserts the real symbolic significance of princely progeny. Chapter Two develops the study of youthful princely representation. It assesses the portrayal of Stuart heirs as they matured and seeks to identify the principal characteristics. Specifically, it is argued that, from a young age, the projection of Protestantism and martial aptitude was crucial to the formation of their personae. Chapter Three analyses how deceased Stuart heirs were commemorated in the months and years immediately after their deaths. It is contended that the enduring memory of these princes was the result, not of official commemoration, but of the large-scale public response to their deaths. The loss of an heir not only threatened the future of the dynasty but also the stability of the realm. The fourth chapter explores how, through visual and cultural propaganda, the surviving Stuarts attempted to re-group and to assuage social and political anxieties. Chapters Five and Six assess the long-term legacy of these princes in the decades and centuries after their deaths, as well as the political circumstances which gave rise to their enduring memory. These concluding chapters reveal the extent to which memories of deceased Stuart princes lingered, asserting that their representations were often employed for negotiation of the issues and anxieties of later ages. Throughout, my work seeks to establish the importance of these lost heirs and protectors of the Stuart Protestant line. I have endeavoured to retrieve the reputations of princes who came to represent potent symbols of both promise and loss. 3 Acknowledgements Many people have contributed towards the completion of this thesis. Special thanks go to my supervisor, Professor David Howarth, for his time, encouragement and support throughout. In particular, as the end came into sight, his advice, criticism and enthusiasm were of great help in developing and honing my thesis. I am grateful to my second supervisor, Dr. Tom Tolley, for many stimulating and productive discussions. David Taylor, formerly of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and now Curator of Paintings and Sculpture at the National Trust, has shown a sustained interest in my work and I have enjoyed our (often heated) conversations and debates. For their assistance and encouragement in many forms, I am also indebted to Dr. Ulrike Weiss of the University of St. Andrews; Dr. Michael Ullyot of the University of Calgary; Catharine MacLeod and Clare Gittings of the National Portrait Gallery, London; Daniel Bell and Penny Russell of the Royal Collection; Noreen Marshall, formerly of the Victoria and Albert Museum of Childhood; and Amanda Kohn of the Portland Art Museum. I have accessed primary and secondary source material at a range of libraries, archives and collections. I would like to thank the staff of the National Library of Scotland; the British Library; the Bodleian; the National Archives; the Heinz Archive at the National Portrait Gallery; the Ashmolean Museum; and the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum. In particular, I am grateful to Robert Yorke, the archivist of the College of Arms, and the volunteer staff at Monteviot House, Roxburghshire and Sint-Sebastiaansgilde, Brugge. Ideas were developed, challenged and refined through presentations to and conversations with fellow postgraduates and academics. Special thanks are owed to Julie Fargusson, Sophie Carney, Maria Anesti, Nicholas Uglow and the audiences of the British History in the Seventeenth Century Seminar at the Institute of Historical Research and the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in Montreal. My research has been supported financially by a series of bursaries and scholarships. The Theodora Bosanquet Bursary provided accommodation for my first foray into the London archives. A year later, another extended research trip to Oxford and London was supported by the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art. The University of Edinburgh has funded my research with a series of maintenance and travel grants, while, more recently, the Institute of Historical Research, University of London, has provided financial and academic support in the form of a Junior Research Fellowship. Finally, I have to thank my friends and family. John and Morag Goldfinch were model landlords during my regular stopovers in London. Their generosity is very much appreciated. For being the perfect antidote to the sometimes lonely world of academic research, I am sincerely grateful to Gordon Morrison. His patience, forbearance and good humour - especially when faced with countless visits to historic houses and art collections - 4 have been truly saint-like. Most importantly, I would like to thank my dad, Peter Murray, for his constant financial, practical and emotional support. His encouragement and understanding have been invaluable to the progress of my research. This thesis is for him, in gratitude. An excerpt from Chapter Two will appear as “The Pacific King and the Militant Prince? Representation and Collaboration in the Letters Patent of James I, creating his son, Henry, Prince of Wales” in The Electronic British Library Journal, forthcoming. Sections of Chapter Three have been published as “Sir Robert Cotton, James VI and I and an English Cenotaph for Two Scottish Princes” in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 139, 2009, pp. 305-313; and “‘Great Britaine, All in Blacke’: The Commemoration of Henry, Prince of Wales in a Portrait of his Father, King James I” in The British Art Journal, Vol. XII, No. 3, 2012, pp. 20-26. 5 Table of Contents Volume I Page Declaration 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 List of Abbreviations 7 List of Illustrations 8 Introduction 15 Chapter 1: “The Cradle of Jove” – Celebrating Royal Infants 28 Chapter 2: “A Terror to God’s Enemies” – Representing the Stuart Prince 58 Chapter 3: “Joy Turned to Mourning” – The Princely Death 104 Chapter 4: “A New Race of Princes” – The Dynasty Recovers 158 Chapter 5: “The Temple of Fame” – Enduring Memories 201 Chapter 6: “The Mere Parade of Truthfulness” – Re-telling the Past 250 Conclusion 276 Bibliography 281 Volume II Illustrations 6 List of Abbreviations B.L. British Library, London. Bod. Lib. Bodleian Library, Oxford. N.L.S. National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh. N.R.S. National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh. TNA The National Archives, Kew. 7 List of Illustrations Figure 1: William Marshall, Charles, Prince of Great Britaine (1630). Engraving, Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, London. Figure 2: Joannes Meyssens, Henrietta Maria, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland (c.1640). Engraving, Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, London. Figure 3: Jacob Gole, Princess Anne of Denmark (1689). Engraving, Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, London. Figure 4: Anon., A View of the Fireworks on the Thames for Englands [sic] Triumphs for the Prince of Wales (1688). Engraving, Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, London. Figure 5: John Michael Wright, James, Duke of Cambridge (1666). Oil on Canvas, Private Collection. Figure 6: Peter Lely, The Youngest Children of Charles I (1647). Oil on Canvas, Petworth House, West Sussex. Figure 7: Peter Lely, Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1647). Oil on Canvas, Royal Collection, London. Figure 8: Anthony Van Dyck, The Five Eldest Children of Charles I (1637). Oil on Canvas, Royal Collection, London. Figure 9: Adriaen Hanneman, Henry, Duke of Gloucester (c.1653). Oil on Canvas, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. Figure 10: Adriaen Hanneman, King Charles II (c.1648). Oil on Canvas, Government Art Collection, London. Figure 11: Wenceslaus Hollar after Anthony Van Dyck, Charles II (1649).