Dr Peter Lindfield

3^rd October 2022

George Shaw: Antiquarianism and faking Tudor furniture

On Monday 3^rd October we met for our first lecture of the 2022/23 programme. We had postponed the meeting in September due to the death of Elizabeth II, so it was great to start the year with another fascinating lecture. We welcomed Dr Peter Lindfield who was discussing George Shaw.

Dr Lindfield began by introducing the very interesting character of George Shaw and his background. He was born in the parish of Saddleworth, on the border of Lancashire and Yorkshire, in 1810. He was the son of a cloth merchant so was very well acquainted with the textile industry. His teenage diaries (1829) record the various places he had been to and his interest in antiquarianism, especially that of ancient Britain and the Tudor period.

Dr Lindfield then introduced us to an image relating to the family of the Earls of Derby. ‘Sir Thomas Stanley’s Bed’, from the late 15^th century, includes carvings of his coat of arms – the eagle and child – alongside the royal coat of arms. This is a controversial piece of furniture as the footboards that it contains are clearly Victorian. Much of the furniture that did exist was destroyed during the Civil War and consequently, a complete bed from the Tudor period simply does not exist.

The Thomas Stanley Bed

Shaw did have access to furniture at Rochdale manor and simply copied it. This was the period of the ‘gothic revival’, which helped to develop the idea of recreating the past. Shaw was simply able to apply his learning and interests to develop such furniture.

Nevertheless, Shaw’s career was varied. He built a church in Saddleworth in the 1850s in the gothic style. This clearly illustrates his love of ancient architecture and design. At St Chads, Rochdale, Shaw refurbished the woodwork in this style, using treacle like varnish which was the current fashion of the 1840s.

The love of antiquity was not a new theme in the 1840s. Charles Locke Eastlake had made brand new furniture and passed it off as antique, some of which exists at Gawthorpe Hall in Lancashire. Such ‘antiques’ would be advertised in the Gentleman’s magazine, which was a monthly periodical. Dr Lindfield showed the audience 3 images of such sales from the 1840s. He went on to describe anything that had been original as “Frankenstein furniture” or “Cut and Shut”, whereby pieces had been taken from existing furniture and added to new. The key test of genuity is to ask, “did this exist at the time it is supposed to originate from?”

Dr Lindfield then returned us to the image of the Stanley Bed. Is it genuine? Shaw clearly was tapping into the love of antique and was establishing this as his business. Shaw found that he could ‘add on’ coats of arms to furniture, and his heraldic shields imitate the style of the 15^th century.

Shaw found imitating this style natural. During his youth he had visited many ancient country houses, including Tabley Old Hall, making sketches and notes of what he found there. He was able to apply this knowledge to create something new, in an ancient style.

With this knowledge, Shaw began to produce and repair new ‘antique’ furniture.  For example, Shaw claimed when he went to see the Radcliffe bed (1842) at Huddersfield, that he would be able to repair and with his knowledge of heraldry make it into the “finest bed”. He was therefore clearly making changes. Dr Lindfield focused on his use of coats of arms and describes the carving of animals as ‘naïve’, and demonstrate a range of inconsistencies. The bed was sold for some £62,000 and is now on display at Ordsall Hall, in Salford.

The George Shaw bed that can be seen at Ordsall Hall in Salford.

Shaw clearly saw an opportunity in the 1840s to sell ‘missing furniture’ to the aristocracy. As previously stated, much of Tudor and Jacobean furniture had been destroyed during the Civil War, including that of the Derby family. Shaw used his knowledge to create new materials and then contacted families of ancient lineage to sell them what he made, passing it off as original antique. These include the 4^th Duke of Northumberland, the 2^nd Earl of Bradford and the 13^th Earl of Derby.

Our programme often refers to the Derby family of Lathom House, in Lancashire. Attenders of our programme may remember Dr Jonathan Spangler’s lecture last year, which included the story of Charlotte de la Tremoille, who married the 7^th Earl of Derby, and was the defender of a siege led by Thomas Fairfax during the Civil War. It was because of this conflict that much of the Stanley furniture had been destroyed. Shaw here was trying to claim, in the 1840s, that he could get some of this furniture back. Of course, the 13^th Earl was very interested.

None of the furniture that Shaw offered the Earl had a clear provenance, the originator was anonymous. The letters that he had sent the Earl reveal that he offered to sell him pew ends for £60. What Shaw was doing was to batch produce furniture and then added coats of arms. He often copied ancient motifs.

However, Dr Lindfield claims that by the late 1840s this had clearly backfired. It appears that he had been rumbled by the Duke of Northumberland, however there were no legal proceedings as this was not something that the Duke was willing to admit. It was at this point that Shaw began to focus on his building, including the Church at Saddleworth, and architectural work using cast iron.

Our next lecture will be on 7^th November 2022, where Professor Catherine Fletcher will be delivering a lecture on “Guns and Gunpowder in Early Modern Europe.” We hope to see you there!  

Dr Jonathan Spangler, Manchester Metropolitan University

7^th February 2022

A Queen, a Spy, a Warrior: Three French Women in England in the Reign of Charles I

On Monday 7^th February we welcomed back Dr Jonathan Spangler. Dr Spangler had delivered a fantastic virtual lecture last year, comparing the television production ‘Versailles’ with the real Versailles. He has recently completed his book, ‘Monsieur’, which focuses on the role of the younger brothers of French kings between 1550 and 1800.

Dr Spangler began his lecture by outlining the lives of the three French women that were the focus of the discussion. Firstly, Henrietta Maria, who married Charles I in 1625; secondly Marie de Rohan, Duchess of Chevreuse, who met two interesting British travellers in Paris in 1623; and finally, Charlotte de la Tremoille, who married James Stanley, Lord Strange and later the 7^th Earl of Derby.

Their backgrounds are particularly interesting. Marie de Rohan, the eldest, claimed to be descendent from the Kings of Brittany. She married Charles d’Albert, duc de Luynes in 1617. She became the superintendent of the Queen Anne’s (Queen of France) Household in 1618. She became a widow in December 1621 and went on to marry Claude de Lorraine, Duc de Chevreuse in 1622. At the time there were factions at court, including the ultra-Catholics. The Regent, Marie De Medici was now out of favour and the queen, at this stage, having had no child had no power.

The first event came about in 1623. De Rohan met two British men under the names of Thomas and John Smith. Thomas was of course Charles, prince of Wales (later Charles I) and John was the Duke of Buckingham. They were on their way to, as it turned out unsuccessfully, court a Spanish bride for Charles. The story of this journey was later embellished by Dumas in his book ‘The Three Musketeers’.

Later Marie de Rohan meets English ambassadors, Henry Rich Earl of Holland and James Hay, Earl of Carlisle, who had been sent by Charles I to Paris to negotiate a marriage. Rich met de Rohan at the Hotel de Chevreuse, near the Louvre, which was a hot bed of English and French of gossip and plotting.

The bride in question was, of course Princess Henrietta-Maria de France, officially called Marie by the English as they disliked the name Henrietta. Born in 1609, she was the daughter of Henry IV, known as the ‘peoples’ king’ who ended the French Wars of Religion and Marie de Medici. Henrietta-Marie left Paris in 1625 after undertaking a proxy wedding, whereby the duc de Chevreuse stood in for Charles I. By 1626, all of her French ladies were sent back to France, but de Chevreuse soon came to be at her London residence, Denmark House. This was a place for pro-French aristocrats to meet and became a hot-bed of intrigue.

However, this plotting doesn’t come to anything and there is a shift to the pro-protestant faction at court. This is exemplified by the English support of protestants at La Rochelle. Soon, the duc de Chevreuse was asked to go home.

Following this outline of the intertwining stories of Henrietta Maria and Marie De Rohan, Dr Spangler began to discuss the third figure in his lecture, Charlotte de Tremoille. Charlotte had very eminent parents.  Her father, Claude de la Tremoille and her mother Charlotte Brabantine of Orange-Nassau were from protestant families. Claude de la Tremoille therefore, because of his religious background, had few connections but was political savvy.

Charlotte makes a marriage into the English aristocracy in 1626. Her husband, James Stanley 7^th Earl of Derby and Lord of Man was based in Cheshire and South West Lancashire. He was a very influential man and made great play of his title Lord of Man. The Isle of Man claimed independence but there was little in the way of ‘paper work’. Derby plays on this ambiguity and emphasises this claim to enhance his own power. This is evident in his coat of arms, which deliberately displays all of his connections.

So why does a French woman marry an English Earl? Due to the family’s Protestantism, Charlotte is unlikely to make any way into the French court. Elizabeth, the exiled Queen of Bohemia, known as the “Winter Queen” (and sister of Charles I) plays a key role here. She enjoyed making matches and had been involved in trans-national marriages along English, French, Dutch and Protestant lines.

Henrietta Maria, however, disliked Charlotte from the start and she was never given a position at court. In fact, Henrietta-Maria went as far as to publicly criticise her.  By the 1630s Lord and Lady Strange (Stanley had not yet acquired the Earldom) were based at Lathom Castle in Lancashire. Charlotte was clearly well liked as she was given a formal entrée into the city of Chester by all the local gentry, something that was usually reserved for a queen. Dr Spangler shared with us a painting by van Dyke, which is full of symbolism. There is the Isle of Man in the background, emphasising the claim outlined above, and her daughter is wearing an orange dress, a link to her Dutch connections.

Dr Spangler then took us back to France, where Marie de Rohan had returned and again became involved in intrigue. She acted as a go-between in a political plot involving the queen and Anne of Austria with the King of Spain, and as it unravelled she was forced into an informal exile, where she fled to Spain and then later came back to London.

Here she came to the English court and tried to draw England into a war between France and Spain. It was said that Marie, duchess of Chevreuse was “a law unto herself” demonstrating her ability to ferment difficulties at a diplomatic level.

Dr Spangler then returned to Charlotte and her remarkable story of her actions during the Civil War period. Her husband, the Earl of Derby was a royalist fighting in the civil war (this is the same Earl of Derby who was executed in 1651 at Bolton, a subject for our first lecture in this years’ programme) and she remained at Lathom House. In 1644 she was under siege by the Parliamentarians and this was broken by Prince Rupert. However, by Christmas 1645, Lathom House under siege again had run out of food, and Charlotte was forced to surrender. She then moves to the Isle of Man and shows great political skill in being able to claim and develop lands, despite confiscations by the parliamentarian government. She manages to recover any lost Stanley property.

She again demonstrates a steely resolve in her defence of the Isle of Man. Man was key for the control of the Irish Sea and she managed to defend Rushden Castle, in a similar way to Lathom, by holding out for several months. By 1651 this remarkable woman was a widow and a foreigner in England, and began to concentrate on the needs of her children and as previously stated recovers any confiscated property for the.

Dr Spangler then began to conclude the talk. He summarised by stating that by 1660 the three French women were three mothers and three widows. Charlotte dies in 1664, having restored the Stanley estates and setting up her daughter and sons into marriages. Henrietta Maria had escaped to France during the Civil War and dies in 1669. Marie de Rohan dies in France in 1679, but by this time the French court lived in fear of her and her influence.

Our final lecture will take place on 6th March 2022, where Dr David Brown will be delivering his talk on ‘The Black Abolitionist Mission to the British Isles during the Civil War.’ We hope you are able to join us.

Dr Fiona Pogson

10^th January 2022

Presidency, Power and Pestilence: Thomas Wentworth’s government of the north in the 1630s

We welcomed Dr Fiona Pogson to our branch on Monday 10^th January who delivered a wonderful lecture on the position of Thomas Wentworth in the North of England during the 1630s. The lecture focused on the early career of Wentworth (who was later Deputy of Ireland and the Earl of Strafford) and then went on to discuss his role in the pestilence in York of 1631.

Wentworth had become more prominent in the north of England by the end of the 1620s.  After he had been freed from confinement after refusing to pay a forced loan, he held the Yorkshire county seat as an MP, where he had wanted to press the Petition of Right, and then had been appointed to the presidency of the Council of the North in 1628. By December 1630 he was also Keeper of the Roles, a senior Justice of the Peace on the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Wentworth as Earl of Strafford with his secretary, Sir Philip Mainwaring, by Anthony van Dyke

After this introduction, Dr Pogson took the audience back to Wentworth’s early life. She stated that his father had died in 1614, and Wentworth had inherited his lands. By this time, he was already in Parliament. He developed a rivalry with the Duke of Northumberland and was appointed to the Council of the North in 1619. He was also in parliament in 1621. The Mid 1620s were less impressive. Wentworth failed to take opportunities and he also failed to win the county seat. He criticised the Duke of Buckingham, the king’s favourite, and this resulted in his appointment as Sheriff of Yorkshire. At this time this was seen as a punishment.

However, the assassination of Buckingham smoothed Wentworth’s way in to office. When news of Buckingham’s assassination reached Wentworth, he was at Doncaster in the service of the Duke. He had met Buckingham earlier in his life in Paris, while on the gran tour.

King Charles I had said of Wentworth that he as an “Honest Gentleman” and crucially as he was not a puritan, the king believed that he could be employed in the king’s service. He was soon appointed President of the Council of the North (1628), having previously criticised how it had been functioning.

The position of President had been created in 1537 in response to the Pilgrimage of Grace, where the authority of Henry VIII had been challenged in the North. This had built upon the established Council of the North which had been created by Richard III and had covered all areas of the North, with the exception of Lancashire, with York as its centre. Subsequently, Wentworth was housed in the king’s manor in York, which had formerly been the Abbots lodging.

Since its creation the position of President had transitioned through some challenging periods. Despite good relations with Queen Elizabeth in the 1570s – the president being the Queen’s cousin – by the early 17^th century it began to face some difficulties. It’s function as a court of law dealing with local authority and disputes was opposed by the law courts and Yorkshire’s JPs.

Once appointed as President, Wentworth made a speech, probably on 30^th December 1628 where he declared that royal power was the “keystone” to good government and that there was danger if this was “shaken”. He was clearly enforcing royal rights were and insisted that the JPs always owed account to the Council. This reinvigorated the position of the council.

Charles I

The enforcement of such a policy met with mixed responses and highlights Wentworth’s abrasive manner. For example, if the insistence that JPs should be guided by the council was challenged, the JPs would simply be fired. The Bishop of Durham’s traditional authority was also challenged by the prominence of the Council.

The example of Henry Belasyse, the son of Lord Fauconberg failing to take off his hat in the presence of Wentworth, demonstrates something of Wentworth’s forceful character. The refusal was taken as a deliberate slight. Belasyse ended up in front of the Privy Council, refused to offer an apology, but was later forced to.

Wentworth was also responsible for the collection of recusant fines. In 1633 Sir David Foulis claimed that Wentworth had not paid into the treasury everything that he had collected. This was damaging for Wentworth and demonstrates that he had made enemies, through his forceful actions.

Despite this Wentworth has persuaded Charles to give the council the powers to arrest people. After a dispute with Lord Eure, the Sheriff of Yorkshire had asked for Wentworth’s assistance to remove Eure from Malton Castle. Wentworth arranged for cannon to be brought from Scarborough to blast holes into the wall.

Furthermore, the city of York requested Wentworth’s assistance during the 1630s in order to support the city’s request to the king for a revision of the royal charter and to support York in disputes with Hull and other towns. Wentworth was made steward of York in 1640.

He was also given the northern authority to deal with recusancy. This was a wide area and also included Lancashire, Staffordshire and Derbyshire. This demonstrates Wentworth’s increasing authority (although in Lancashire he was reliant on the Bishop). During the 1630s he paid £110,000 in recusant fines into the exchequer. This raised Wentworth’s standing in the eyes of the king, but demonstrates his abrasive, aggressive character. This helped him to gain a seat on the Privy Council in 1629 and this was the early part of the King’s personal rule.

Wentworth was clearly in a very powerful position at this point. This was particularly the case since regional knowledge was essential for extending the king’s authority to distant places like the north. Therefore, the council was of central importance in the absence of Parliament. Wentworth therefore divided his time between York and London and his estates before his appointment in Ireland.

Dr Pogson then moved onto the pestilence which struck York in 1631. Wentworth’s response to provides further examples of his character.  In June there was notification that plague was spreading in Yorkshire. Wentworth’s children were at the king’s manor in York and were removed for the rest of the year. He had joined them in August (at this time he had been approached about the Deputyship in Ireland)

Lord Mayor Robert Hemsworth (with Wentworth) provided eleven instructions on 31 August 1631, many of them will resonate by our own recent experiences. Firstly, everyone had to inform the mayor of any new cases. Secondly, no one was to have any visitors and they had to quarantine. Thirdly no one was allowed to move. Fairs and public performances were prohibited, but churches and markers were allowed to be open for spiritual and nutritional nourishment. Honest old people were to be appointed as searchers. Tents were to be provided outside of the city to house the ‘meaner sort’. People who disobeyed these orders were to be reported to the mayor, the Lord President and council (poor people would be whipped). Servants and children were to remain indoors. Physicians were to give advice for remedies. There was to be detailed reporting of cases and finally provision of food and other needs was to be made for those who were infected.

How typical was this response? Plague did have an impact on other towns in 1631 including Preston, Lincoln, Shrewsbury and Norwich. However, plague did appear regularly, although 1631 was particularly severe. In 1604 in York, all but a few had fled. The court and council had moved out and there was not support provided by the authorities. By 1631 there were, however, well established responses. The order to “shut upp” was used frequently and temporary shelters such as huts and cabins were used. This was common in Liverpool and Manchester and there are examples of searchers being appointed in Newcastle in 1636.

So, what is striking about Wentworth’s instructions was that households did not “flit” (flee), he followed the instructions himself, leading by example. A letter from Wentworth to the Secretary Dorchester dated 22^nd September 1631 emphasised to the Privy Council and the King that he (Wentworth) had stayed at his post. He had provided regular detailed reporting.

Dr Pogson concluded by summarising how Wentworth’s reputation in the north had been noted by his friends and enemies. There was talk of his “Yorkshire spirit” and that he had created a “Northern bastion to southern courtship.” However, the Earl of Pembroke referred to him as a “northern clown” and “parliament breaker.” What is clear however is that his experience and actions of the plague year in York shaped key features of his role in governing Ireland.

Our next lecture will be on Monday 7^th February 2022, where Dr Jonathan Spangler will continue with our 17^th century theme. He will be delivering a lecture entitled “A Queen, a Spy, a Warrior: Three French Women in England in the Reign of Charles I.” We hope to see you there!

Professor Alan Sharp

6^th December 2021

Drawing the First World War to a conclusion: cartoonists and the Versailles Settlement

On Monday 6^th December we welcomed Professor Alan Sharp to the branch, who delivered a fantastic lecture focusing upon cartoons and what can be learned from them about the Versailles settlement of 1919.

Professor Sharp began by describing the situation in 1919 as a laboratory, where the future of Europe and the world following the First World War was complex and unclear. There continued to be lots of ‘little wars’ in the Balkans and the former Russian Empire. Furthermore, the impact of the collapse of four empires – Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany and the Ottoman Empire – meant that peace making would take longer.  

Despite greater attention being drawn to the settlement with Germany at Versailles on 28^th June 1919, there were further settlements with other countries between 1919 and 1923 – 10 September 1919 Saint-Germain-en-Laye with Austria; 27 November 1919 Neuilly with Bulgaria; 4 June Trianon with Hungary; 10 August Sevres with the Ottoman Empire; and 24 July 1923 Lausanne with Turkey.  

In order to emphasise the political changes following these settlements, Professor Sharp shared two maps of Europe with the audience. The first a map of Europe before the First World War of 1914, which illustrates the expanse of European empires. The second map highlighted how these had separated, independent countries now appearing or reappearing on the map of Europe.

The lecture’s focus on cartoons began with “Reconstruction: A New Year’s Task” from Punch (Figure 1). This pessimistic image displays a broken globe with a figure who has very simple tools to ‘piece it back together’, implying that this task is not going to be easy. But what made this lecture really interesting was the differing perspectives of the peace and how these changed over time. The next example highlighted the German perspective before the peace discussions began (Figure 2). It portrays the German leader Friedrich Ebert with Germania on his arm, being welcomed back into the European hall. Germany, having replaced Wilhelmine Germany with a new democratic republic, was clearly expecting to be involved in the peace negotiations.

Figure 1

Figure 2

The French take on this position is very interesting. The French cartoon (Figure 3)that Professor Sharp shared shows how the Germans, being presented with the destruction of France by the Wilhelmine Empire respond with “Maintenant, nous sommes une amiable Republique” (one moment we are a kind republic). This highlights the French fear that Germany was trying to absolve itself of responsibility, something which fuels the French desire to enforce a war guilt clause. The French desire to punish Germany is highlighted by the carefully chosen date for the conference. – 18^th June 1919, a Saturday, was the anniversary of the 1871 declaration of the German Empire at Versailles in 1871.

Figure 3

Professor Sharp then moved on to discuss the role of President Wilson in the peace process. He had the difficulty of needing to be at Versailles as well as dealing with domestic issues in the US. He believed in the fundamental goodness of people and had remarked as early as 1916 that “The peace of the world must henceforth depend upon a new and more wholesome diplomacy.” He was of course the most dominant character at Versailles and his approach was dominated by his 14 points, which included a League of Nations. The expectation of Wilson was therefore very high, seeing Wilson as almost ‘messiah-like’.

However, by mid-1919, this reputation had collapsed. The British cartoon “A Home from Home” (Figure 4) from Punch highlights the difficulties that Wilson faced in spinning the plates of domestic and foreign policy.  The French were optimistic that if they could highlight (Figure 5) to Wilson the atrocities and damage that had been caused by the war in the regions, then he would be more likely to support French demands from the Treaty. However, Wilson feared that he could not become emotionally involved and therefore the French were left disappointed. Furthermore, in Germany Wilson’s reputation had also collapsed. Their hopes of being represented at Versailles were dashed and Wilson was now seen to be part of the attack on Germany than someone who could offer support.

Figure 4

Figure 5

Wilson’s big idea was, of course the League of Nations. The idea was to prevent war from happening in a like the rapid escalation of 1914. This was to be done through the creation of barriers before war would start. Many had little faith in it, which is expressed by the Punch cartoon, “Overweighted” (Figure 6). The major problem was that there was tremendous opposition to the League in the USA. Wilson failed to gain a two-thirds majority in congress, partly due to ill health, which meant that the US failed to join the organisation. This therefore left a declining and weakened Britain and France to lead the League. David Lloyd George remarked that “You cannot have a League of Nations without America; it would not be the least use”.

Figure 6

Figure 7

France felt ultimately it needed security and French demands and attitudes at Versailles highlight their vulnerability. The French cartoon “Comment M Clemenceau voit en réve la Conference de la Paix” (Figure 8) illustrates the perception of how Clemenceau thought the peace discussions should be undertaken. Indeed, he was keen to maintain the alliance with Britain and America, but faced pressure from the French President Poincare and Marshall Foch to take territory from Germany. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, but the French were demanding the boundaries of 1814 and the Saar region. Britain had the Channel as a natural defence, why could the French not use the river Rhine for the same purpose? This of course led to the demilitarization of the Rhineland.

Figure 8

The Cartoon “En Alsace Libérée” (Figure 9) highlights issues with the reintegration of territories to the French state. The question was about the issue of the Catholic religion. In 1905 the French government had separated the Church from the State. Alsace-Lorraine had not been through this process. How could this problem be efficiently resolved?

Figure 9

Professor Sharp then moved onto discuss the position of Poland following the conference. In 1914 there had been no expectation of an independent Poland, then split between the German, Austrian and Russian empires. With the collapse of these empires an independent Poland became a reality. The Polish leader, Paderewski was portrayed in cartoons, usually as a pianist- due to his ability to play.  The cartoon “Paderewski chez les quarte” (Figure 10) shows Paderewski playing the piano and while the ‘big four’ fall asleep.

Figure 10

As we moved towards the end of the lecture, Professor Sharp shared with the audience a wide range of cartoons that contextualise the Paris Conference for the main players. For example, “The new aero-gun service between London and Paris” emphasised the problem that Lloyd George faced in dividing his attention between domestic issues and the conference. This was further emphasised by “The distractions of an indispensable” (Figure 11) which shows Lloyd George attempting to ride the two diverging horses “Labour unrest” and “Paris Conference”. However, Lloyd George must have been fairly satisfied as British security was good following the conference.

Figure 11

The issue of reparations was a great problem. The magnitude of what Germany had to pay was highlighted by cartoons such as “The Reckoning” and the “Let’s see you collect it” (Figures 12 and 13).

Figure 12

Figure 13

Further cartoons were then used to highlight reflections on the Treaty such as “The Finishing Touch”, the “Ghosts of Versailles” and “Aprés la signature…”, all demonstrating a great dissatisfaction. It need not have been like this. The 1920s did have lots of problems caused by the treaty, including the economic collapse of 1929, and a lot of these problems originated in the lack of trust between countries. The last cartoon “Le Framage” (Figure 14) illustrated this. It illustrates how the terms of the treaty have been eroded by mice. It is clear that some mice have a German cross on their backs. However, it is also plain to see that the mice drawn with Union Jacks, indicates a divergence between Britain and France in the 1920s. Britain appears to be more sympathetic towards Germany, favouring compromise, whereas France is much more in favour of coercion; shown in their actions around the Rühr crisis of 1923.

Figure 14

Our next lecture will be on 10^th January 2022, where Dr Fiona Pogson will be discussing “Presidency, Power and Pestilence: Thomas Wentworth’s government of the North in the 1630s.

Cresse son of Genta: A forgotten medieval Jew

Dr Dean Irwin

8^th November 2021

On Monday 8^th November, Bolton Historical Association welcomed Dr Dean Irwin to our programmed event and what a treat it was! An entertaining and fascinating lecture about medieval Anglo-Jewry, with a focus on Cresse son of Genta: a forgotten medieval Jew.

Dr Irwin began by setting the context of the Jewish presence in England. The first Jewish communities grew up at some time after the Norman Conquest of 1066 and there is certainly records of this presence during the reign of William II, the conquerors son.

Dr Irwin

Dr Irwin continued by discussing his introduction the theme of Anglo-Jewry through an old A-level question that referred to ‘rising Antisemitism’ and ‘crusading fervour’. However, he emphasised the point that this particular course and indeed the narrative of Anglo-Jewish history at this time tends to focus on this ‘rising Antisemitism’ and the various attacks on Jewish people. However, there are significant gaps between these attacks, so the question is, what was happening then?

It is easy of the narrative sources to focus on the development of Antisemitism in medieval England. For example, the case of William of Norwich, a 12-year-old apprentice tanner who was found murdered in 1144, led to the first case of blood libel (made famous in the writing of the monk Thomas of Monmouth). This was where the Jewish community were blamed for the murder, which took place, it was claimed as part of a ritual sacrifice associated with Easter. There were a further 12 similar cases in England before the expulsion in 1290.

It is therefore important to not only start with the sources relating to Antisemitic attacks if we are to gain a greater understanding of the Anglo-Jewry of medieval England. Dr Irwin focused his PhD thesis on the acknowledgement of debts associated with Jewish moneylending at this time. He emphasised the importance of looking at different records by referencing the medieval historian CR Cheney who said “records only speak when spoken too”.

Through this approach, Dr Irwin has studied 348 documents which is a collection that comprises of a range of people, both creditors and debtors. Through this it is possible to see lending and borrowing patterns. Within this collection of documents there are 150 references to Cresse of son of Genta, but who is he? These include him making loans of £10, a significant sum in the thirteenth century when the average labourer earned 2 ½ d per day. So, it is possible to create a biographical study of Cresse, but this project will need some thought.

Previous lay studies of Anglo-Jewry, since the 19^th century, have focused on three areas. Firstly, the richest members of Anglo-Jewish society, such as Aaron of Lincoln (the richest man in England, second only to the King) in the twelfth century. Secondly, the intellectual elite such as Rabbi’s and thirdly members who had become infamous because of crimes, for example the murder of Little St Hugh of Lincoln in the thirteenth century.

Jews were in a very unique position legally. Under the protection of the king, they could be taxed as much as the monarch wanted and under Henry III this was greatly accelerated. Henry III taxed Jewish communities some £100,000 and the established narrative is that this enhanced decline in the community.

Dr Irwin has been able to use records of such taxation to create graphs (which he kindly shared during our lecture) about Cresse which can be used to ascertain his approximate age. Since the minimum age for tax payment was twelve, Cresse appears to be in his late teens by 1239. The taxes were assessed at third of property and this gives us an idea about the size of the estate being taxed. The fact that during this period, Cresse, a middle ranking Jew, appears to grow in his accumulation of property challenges the narrative of decline.

His connection with another Jew, Elias over the period helps to explain his growth. He also had access to the levers of power through the notorious Abraham, who after strangling his wife was forced to leave London. Cresse spent time as a lawyer and acted in this with trust as his fortunes grew in the 1260s and 1270s. Furthermore, Cresse helped with Elias’ divorce indicating his access to the higher community.

Furthermore, there is evidence of deals taking place between Cresse and Adam de Stratton, a powerful member of the middle rank of government. De Stratton, it would appear, would take on debts owed to Cresse, pay Cresse and then take the lands that had been forfeited because of the debt. This meant that de Stratton became wealthier through the accumulation of land from debtors, and Cresse likewise became wealthier from the payment for the said lands. This further helps to see how Cresse’s fortunes grew.

The challenge is, how can a biography of Cresse be fully constructed. Dr Irwin suggested that it may be easier to see this as a family biography. We do not know who Genta was, but through the records we can establish three generations which gives us a flavour of family life. It is also worthy to note that the names on charters are written alphabetically, not based on when they were born. There are nine names that can be constructed from this, but it is possible that there are others.

The records also show that in 1290, at the time of the expulsion, Cresse’s daughter owned a house. They also indicate that some time after 1282, debtors were buying back their homes. What is striking is that Cresse’s daughter was also a money lender, emphasising that in thirteenth century England this (and the ownership of property) was not just confined to men.

The final records for Cresse are from 1287, 1288 and 1289 which indicate that Cresse was at least 65 years old at the time of the expulsion, having lived through a turbulent period of Anglo-Jewish history. Any biography of this ‘middle-ranking’ Jew, would provide a fresh perspective on this history, particularly with the fact that the History of England’s Jews in Medieval England has been based on the same 20 Jews since the 19^th century.

Our next lecture will be on Monday 6^th December, when Professor Alan Sharp, Emeritus Professor of International History at Ulster University will be focusing on WWI cartoons: Drawing the First World War to a conclusion. We hope to see you then!

Karianne Robinson, Lancaster University

4^th October 2021

Mines and men’s bodies: the intergenerational formation of British coal miners’ masculinity in the 20^th century

On Monday 4^th October Karianne Robinson, a PhD student from Lancaster University, delivered an excellent talk about the coal industry and the development of masculinity in the early 20^th century.

She began the talk by introducing herself as being from a family that had been involved in coal mining and therefore had a keen interest in the subject. Despite the frustrations associated with accessing the archives over the last two years due to the pandemic (it was discussed how folk songs, for example, could enhance this research), the talk was based upon 55 published autobiographies of miners, which gave an insight into the subject.

Since 1842 women had been banned from working underground in the mines, which meant that coalmining, with the exception of the ‘pit brow lasses’ in Wigan, became predominately about men. This had an impact upon the perception of miner’s sexuality.

Robinson explained that Ronnie Johnston and Arthur McIvor have conducted work on the impact of heavy labour on men’s bodies as well as dust and disease. A further example was Stephanie Wards’ work on miners’ bodies. This work highlighted the hereditary nature of the work whereby fathers would be followed by sons. Furthermore, the autobiographies also make it clear the impact it had on the childhood perception of working life.   

The authors of these autobiographies were born in a period of change in education (1880-1930). By1880 everyone was entitled to an elementary education and by 1921 the school leaving age was 14, with exceptions to this rule stopped. Consequently, literacy rates increased and this has led to an increase in autobiographies.

Nevertheless, Robinson made it clear that when analysing these autobiographies, caution is needed. There is an overrepresentation of trade union leaders, politicians, which therefore skews the sample when trying to assess the normalities of the ordinary miners’ experience. It has also been claimed by Vincent that these autobiographies should be seem more as pieces of literature and not analysis. However, Robinson emphasised that her research was not really looking at the ‘truth’ but the author’s perception of life at this time.

So, what did boys know about work before they ventured to follow their fathers into the pit? The miner’s perception of the home was nostalgic, furnished with familiar objects which was rather comforting. Their father was strongly associated with labour and the children would see that the work was dirty and physically demanding. GAW Tomlinson, a coal miner, recollects the association of strength and fatigue.

Jack Lawson in ‘A men’s life’ also emphasises the dangers of the pit and the role of his mother in the family working ritual. He states that his mother felt the need to get up “for it might be the last she would see of us”. This emphasises the fears of the dangers that the miners faced when they went to work.

The risks that the miners faced were uppermost in children’s minds before they entered the pit themselves. Deaths rarely fell below 1000 per year and personal tragedy gave the mining families a distinctive awareness of danger.

Robinson’s concluding remarks outlined how this reinforced the notion of popular masculinity and young boys began to construct this version of masculinity and would take this with them when they entered the pit themselves. Working in the pit therefore marked the transition between boyhood and manhood.

Thursday 14 October, at 7.30pm (online)

John Balshaw’s Jigge by Dr Jenni Hyde – online book launch of the latest Lancaster University Regional Heritage Centre publication (joint event with Friends of Lancashire Archives)

The new book presents the first published transcription of a little-known manuscript, originating in 17^th century Lancashire and now held by the British Library (Add. MS  68891). 

The document is the script for a stage jig (basically a 16th century musical) which is sung throughout to ballad tunes, and it was written in Brindle sometime shortly after the Restoration of the monarchy.

John Balshaw’s Jigge is a rare occurrence of the form from the north of England, and possibly the only example which can be attributed to the north west. The text reflects contemporary concerns including the Civil War and the religious and political divisions within Lancashire at the time of the Restoration. 

Documents held at Lancashire Archives were used by Jenni during her research into the context of the Jigge and to try to identify who John Balshaw might have been.

Dr Hyde will give a short talk, explaining the significance of the Jigge; and Dr Bill Shannon, will give us some insights into Brindle at the time that the Jigge was written and, presumably, performed. 

The book is now available to purchase from Lancaster University’s Online Store www.lancaster.ac.uk/regional-heritage-centre

 Please confirm your attendance at this event by contacting the Regional Heritage Centre in advance rhc@lancaster.ac.uk.

They will then send you the zoom link.

Dr Jenni Hyde

Professor Charles Esdaile, University of Liverpool

Stuart spectres and Roundhead revenants: the Bolton massacre and the ghosts of the English Civil War.

13^th September 2021

What a fantastic evening on Monday for the branch! After the last couple of years of dealing with the impact of COVID we were able to meet for the first time, face to face. We had managed to develop a short on-line programme at the beginning of the year, but being able to see and talk to people was so refreshing. The opening lecture was delivered by Professor Charles Esdaile and its focus on local history was very well received.

Professor Esdaile began by discussing the strange parallels of peoples’ reactions to the recent pandemic and the Black Death of 1348 and how the trauma of such events could lead to ghost stories. He then asked the question “Do I believe in ghosts?” His answer was simply “I don’t know”, but that ghost stories are usually associated with trauma, and many have origins in the English Civil War.

Professor Esdaile’s book.

Around 20 years ago, Professor Esdaile began to research a local ghost story and has subsequently written a book – The English Civil War Ghosts of Lancashire and Cheshire. Professor Esdaile then explained that there is a section in the book on military ghosts and this focused on the Battle of Ormskirk and the ghost of the headless horseman. The common story of the headless horseman is a result of war where a cannon ball has taken off the head of the horseman and his body has been upright, propped up by the saddle. These events have developed into ghost stories and are based on folk memory being passed on from generation to generation.

These stories usually centre around periods of trauma and the 17^th century was a period of great trauma. Professor Esdaile cited the example of the old soldier still suffering from nightmares of battle and in the 1680s records and shares the nightmares that he has. These nightmares can easily evolve through the generations to create popular stories. And, of course the easily identifiable images of cavaliers and roundheads of the Civil War period are often reported.

Professor Esdaile then moved on to explain that within these ghost stories there were some common reoccurring themes. Firstly, stories that portray the violence against and the suffering of women. The example provided was of the ghost of Henrietta of the Bluebell at Northgate, Chester. She is often reported to be seen standing looking towards Northgate as she had fallen in love with a soldier who was subsequently killed on the walls. The heartbroken, distraught and pregnant Henrietta then hung herself in the basement.

It is common for ghosts such as these to be reported by powerless women, maid servants and scullery maids. Professor Esdaile suggested that this can be perhaps explained by the hard work they faced, being shouted at all day, and this was a way for them to gain attention and respite from their duties. It may also be an expression of their fears and the vulnerability that they feel in relation to their social position.

Secondly, stories of the ghosts of cavaliers are very popular. They tend to be given a positive light and are portrayed as gallant and heroic with long flowing hair, a beard and moustache, with fine plumes in their hat- instantly recognisable. Of course, this is a complete contrast to the roundhead, whose armour and dark clothes make them appear frightening.

Many cavalier ghost references are about murdered victims of war, usually spies condemned to death or betrayed – the ‘epitome of a lost cause’. In reality the story is stood on its head. Towards the end of the Civil War people were hard pressed and the royalist army was particularly in dire straits. They were in desperate need of money and food and resorted to pillaging. In many areas, it was the royalists that were seen as the plague. Professor Esdaile explained that this is all remembered in a very different light largely because of the events of the restoration of the Stuart monarchy after 1660, which then has an impact on the historical memory.

And it is the memory that is key here. Professor Esdaile explained that you are more likely to remember experiences and feelings. Reports of the ghostly sounds of battle – the noise of the guns, musketry, shouting and the hooves of horses are pressed into memories. For example, at Chester, from the east gate, if you were to turn right towards the cathedral, the area here is well known for the sound of battle. This is supported by the historical evidence about the siege of Chester on 20^th September 1645. Here, Parliamentary forces launched an attack, burst in and fighting went as far as the market cross and today you can still see musket ball holes in the cathedral.

There is also the example from the Battle of Winwick, 1648. Here, following the Battle of Preston, Scottish infantry were caught in battle on the hill side. It is not clear what happened to these stragglers but there are reports of the ghosts of Scottish soldiers hanging from trees on Hermitage Green Lane. Furthermore, pubs also have examples of royalist ghosts who had sought refuge in them.

A parliamentary pamphlet of the ‘massacre’ at Bolton

This brought us to the siege of Bolton, 1644. Bolton was known at this time as the ‘Geneva of the North’ as it was a strongly puritan and therefore a parliamentary town. It had previously beaten off royalist attacks in 1642 and 1643 led by the Earl of Derby, who was known to be an unsuccessful general.

In 1644 Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Charles I’s nephew, led a large army of 14,000- 15,000 men from Stockport, by-passing Manchester, to Bolton. Bolton had approximately 2,000-3,000 men, 500 of whom were regular soldiers. The remainder were the militia, not professionally trained soldiers. They would be volunteers with occupations such as shopkeepers and craftsmen. This was, therefore a rather one-sided encounter.

On 14^th May the Royalists attacked the south part of the town and Bradshawgate. Meanwhile, the cavalry went to the Northgate and forced their way in. Professor Esdaile argued that the ‘Bolton massacre’ wasn’t a massacre at all. Later parliamentary pamphlets, determined to portray this as a slaughter outlined how the town was taken by storm and that the soldiers, in no mood to take prisoners killed people in the streets as they attempted to escape the violence. However, the local records only deal with the names of 78 victims, and only 2 of these are women. It was not a massacre, but simply militia men taking part and getting killed.

Nevertheless, Parliament wanted to make it clear that there had been great carnage at Bolton. This is further demonstrated by the capture of the Earl of Derby at Wigan in 1651. He was sent to Bolton and executed in the town. At the pub, ‘Ye Old Man and the Scythe’ there is a plaque that a cavalier ghost, reputed to be the Earl of Derby is resident.

Remembering the Earl of Derby’s execution.

There was even a local newspaper report that the new landlord at the pub had been woken in the middle of the night by the sound of breaking glass in the bar and that he had seen the ghost of the Earl of Derby, standing there smashing glass on the floor.

Later, a Chinese research student came to Bolton and claimed to have captured the ghost in a bottle, returned to China and exhibited it. This led to the landlord sending a letter to the Chinese embassy demanding, “We want our ghost back!”

This was a fantastic lecture and a great way to begin our 2021-22 programme. Please join us for our next session at Bolton School on 4^th October 2021 when we have two history ‘shorts’ entitled “’Curing’ homosexuality in India 1970-1999” by Rianna Price and “Mines and men’s bodies: the formation of British coal miners’ masculinity, c1880-1930” by Karianne Robinson.

Dr Christopher Donaldson, Lancaster University

1^st March 2021

Mines and Mountains: Benjamin Franklin’s Tours of Northern England

Last Monday, Dr Christopher Donaldson gave our final online lecture of the current programme. Our online programme has undoubtedly been a great success, and this final instalment about the 18^th century figure, Benjamin Franklin, was a fantastic way to finish.

Dr Donaldson began by introducing an image of a blue plaque, which can be found outside Café Nero in Preston, Lancashire. This plaque states that Franklin:

“American statesman, scientist and journalist lived briefly in a house on this site before leaving for America in 1775”.

Dr Donaldson explained that this commemoration was highlighting Franklin’s visit to the town where he was visiting his family. Richard Bache, Franklin’s son-in-law, had been located to Philadelphia in 1766 and had married Franklin’s daughter, Mary in 1767. Franklin was visiting Preston on the way south from Edinburgh. But why was Franklin in England in the first place?

Franklin was born in 1706 in Boston, Massachusetts but had then moved to Philadelphia at the age of 17. Later, Dr Donaldson explained, Franklin lived in London as a political representative between 1757-62 and 1764-75. He also later lived in Paris between 1776-85, working to gain French support during the American War of Independence.

Benjamin Franklin 1778 by Joseph Duplessis

During his time in London he lived near Whitehall, so as to be near the political centre of Britain. An additional benefit to Franklin was that London was also renowned as a centre of science. Famed for his work on observing electricity in the 1750s, Franklin was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1756. Here he was able to make contacts with notable thinkers of the day such as John Pringle.

Dr Donaldson then went on to share the rich resource and scale of Franklin’s correspondence network, while he was residing in London. These include some 15,000 letters that he sent and received in the period 1757-75. Not only were these a Transatlantic affair, but there is evidence of correspondence to Europe, Scandinavia and Russia, a mark of Franklin’s connections. Thankfully many of these letters are transcribed and available on line. Furthermore, there are copies of Franklin’s letters at local record offices. Dr Donaldson shared one such letter to Humphrey Senhouse of Maryport (31 January 1765), which can be found in the record office at Carlisle. Franklin was responding to Senhouse’s enquiry about the benefits of electro-therapy, to which Franklin admitted that he had not come across any evidence that there was any benefit of such a procedure. The fact that Senhouse wrote to Franklin in the first place is clear evidence of the wide-ranging reputation of Franklin as a scientist, even in the North of England.

As for Franklin’s political involvement, Dr Donaldson went on to discuss some of the evidence available. Born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1706. Franklin saw himself very much as a British subject. So as the American War of Independence approached, Franklin was determined to reach a peaceful resolution. He produced a pamphlet, ‘The Causes of the Present Distractions in America 1774’ that outlined his think of the difficulties facing relations at this time. In 1784 he even wrote that Britain should dissolve its constitution and join the US – although he did joke about the scent of Madeira as he wrote.

Franklin in London 1767 by David Martin. On the table is a bust of Isaac Newton.

It is therefore, clear that Franklin was very industrious while in London, both in the fields of science and politics. But how did he find the time to come to the north of England? Parliamentary recesses gave Franklin the opportunity to get away. But as Dr Donaldson continued to outline, these visits were more sabbaticals than holidays.

During his northern tour of 1771, Franklin spent time in the cities of Manchester and Leeds. He stayed for ten days to visit his nephew Jonathan Williams whose journal Dr Donaldson highlighted, contained a description of a journey they both partook on the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal. This extract demonstrated Franklin’s interest in the working mines of the north. Franklin even ventured down a mine.

On his second northern trip in 1772, which took him to Edinburgh, centre of the Scottish Enlightenment, Franklin returned south via the Lake District. He met up with a fellow member of the Royal Society, William Brownrigg, who was also influential in the Northern Enlightenment. This meeting had been arranged by John Pringle.

William Brownrigg (1711-1800)

Brownrigg was a physician based in Whitehaven who had studied medicine and became an MD in 1736. He was also interested in experiments in coal mines, particularly in pursuit of the safety of the miners. While there, Franklin became acquainted with the Lowther family who had invested in the mine at Whitehaven and had since the 1720s held status as a centre for coal. Furthermore, Franklin made further visits to local mines such as Skiddaw Salt and Pit mine which he outlined in a letter to his wife on 14^th July 1772.

Dr Donaldson then outlined an experiment conducted by Franklin and Brownrigg on Derwentwater, Keswick. Franklin’s interest in science had led him to try to understand the effects of oil on calming water. He had experimented on a small body of water in London and had observed that oil had an instant calming effect on the water. Franklin, however, far from satisfied wanted to experiment on a greater body of water. This led him to try this out on Derwentwater.

We know about this experiment because a Reverend Farish of Carlisle wrote up an account of the Keswick experiment, which was published in the Royal Society journal Philosophical Transactions in 1774. This was also produced as a pamphlet so sold more widely. Dr Donaldson also pointed out the impact that this had on language where the saying to “pour oil on troubled waters”, which also mirrored the political situation of the time. As James Boswell wrote to William Temple, 4 April 1775:

“Franklin has upon stilling the waves of the ocean by oil, as I see you would quiet the turbulent Americans by lenient measures.”

As always, we concluded our lecture with a question and answer session. One question that was asked was about how Franklin was regarded in the North West of England and to what extent was travelling there difficult. As to the first, Dr Donaldson responded that Franklin would have been known in intelligentsia circles, through his connections to the Royal Society and the transatlantic relationship of places like Whitehaven. As to the second, there were some road improvements being made in this period but it certainly would not have been an easy journey. Nevertheless, tourists like Franklin were attracted to places like the Lake District because of the picturesque landscape. Dr Donaldson compared this to the European ‘Grand Tour’.

This was the final lecture in our current programme. Our next programme will begin on 13^th September. Watch out on Twitter @BoltonHistory and Facebook for details

George Goodwin’s book Benjamin Franklin in London.

Dr Jonathan Spangler, Manchester Metropolitan University

1^st February 2021

Versailles: Just television drama? Or very real drama of history?

Our virtual lecture series continued on Monday, when Dr Jonathan Spangler delivered a fascinating lecture about Louis XIV’s Palace of Versailles and its representation in the TV drama series ‘Versailles’.

Whenever historical events are depicted in television drama, they do often get people talking, and Dr Spangler began by explaining that ‘Versailles’ was no different. What is interesting about the site of Versailles was that little has been filmed there previously. The Palace are, until recently, very reluctant to allow filming take place there. However, in 2006 Sofia Coppola’s ‘Marie Antoinette’, starring Kirsten Dunst demonstrated the financial benefits of allowing this to happen.

As for the television series, Dr Spangler explained that a lot was filmed at Versailles and some was not. Interestingly, the series was written by an English team, the cast were mostly English actors and the dialogue was in English. The fact that the French version was dubbed rather than subtitled, further ruffled feathers in the French media, as this key piece of French history was not in French originally.

Nevertheless, the series developed a strong twitter following, enthused by the twenty-first century take on the seventeenth century drama. In addition to this the BBC followed series one and two with a twenty-minute commentary about the historical content of the programme afterwards. Unfortunately, possibly due to falling audience numbers, series three did not have the accompanying commentary.

For those who are unfamiliar with the television series, Dr Spangler set the scene. The series begins with 28-year-old Louis XIV’s ‘great escape’ from the dust and filth Paris in 1667 to the small Versailles that he had inherited. This being portrayed as Louis remaking France after being in the Louvre.

The building, with its abundance of mirrors, itself functions as a metaphor; governing the state links to governing of the self. This becomes apparent in the use of mirrors and paintings to reflect the drama of the script. But does the series contextualise the debates or not? Did Louis XIV crush the power of the nobility? What does it meant to be the second son of the king?

As for the later, the series does focus on Louis’ brother, Phillipe Duc d’ Orléans and his homosexual relationship with another Phillipe, Chevalier de Lorraine. The show refreshingly portrays Phillipe as cunning and brave.

Phillipe Duc d’Olreans

As for crushing the nobility, one area of research has focused on Marie de Lorraine, Mlle de Guise. This example highlights that far from being crushed the nobility still demonstrated levels of power, money and rank. Traditionally, Lorraine was a principality outside of France and consequently demonstrated a certain level of autonomy. Dr Spangler signposted an example of this where Louis had written a letter to her of disapproval of her conduct. Her response in summary was to effectively say, I am Marie de Lorraine, I can do what I want!

Marie de Lorrain, Mlle de Guise

Perhaps the most interesting part, as Dr Spangler outlined, was which characters were cut from the production. As television productions will naturally cut characters in order to make the plot easier to follow and ultimately more entertaining, yet some of these choices were interesting and controversial.

For example, Alexandre Bontemps, the Premier Valet de Chambre to Louis XIV was given a powerful role in the storyline. Dr Spangler, believes that the series would have been much stronger and much more entertaining had it included Louis’s best friend Louis de Lorraine, Count d’Armagnac. He had a very important role to play at Versailles, as Minister of the Stables, he would accompany Louis in hunting, on parade and in war.

The series does highlight the importance of the key women at Versailles; namely Louise La Vallière, Henriette (sister of the English King Charles II), Montespan and of course the Queen, Marie-Thérèse. Dr Spangler outlined that the casting of these women could have been improved. For example, Henriette the English princess, appeared to be the most French of the quartet. Furthermore, they were all cast with darker hair. The queen was from the Spanish Habsburg family, who were renowned for their blonde hair and this has been celebrated in many portraits of Marie-Thérèse. If they had changed this feature in the series, not only would it have been more accurate, but it would have been much easier to tell them apart.

Louis XIV’s Queen Marie-Theresa

Dr Spangler than outlined how other stories about Versailles were outlined in the series. One story is of a black baby.  There is a painting of Mlle de Blois and Mlle de Nantes, illegitimate daughters of Louis XIV, situated with a black boy, which adds to the mystery. But as has been illustrated in recent scholarship there were many African people in England and France during this period. Dr Spangler then offered his own theory about this story. Perhaps the explanation was of a still born child who can often at birth be blue-purple or grey.

Additionally, Dr Spangler offered us a painting of Mauresse de Moret, a black nun. Was she an illegitimate child of Louis XIV? There are certainly letters from the king sponsoring her.

Louis XIV’s illegitimate daughters Mlle de Blois and Mlle de Nantes by Phillipe de Vignon

Mauresse de Moret: An illegitimate daughter of Louis XIV?

The use of paintings in the television series do highlight the drama, rather than the history of the period. For example, the painting of Louis’ two illegitimate daughters, described above, is from the late 1680s, but used anachronistically to accompany the drama some 20 years previously.  A further example of this is the attempt to emasculate Phillipe with the use of paintings of Phillipe as a child wearing a dress, juxtaposed with the Louis wearing what may be considered a more masculine outfit. The reality was, however, that all boys of a certain age in this period would wear dresses as children and there are paintings of Louis in such apparel.

Louis XIV and his brother Phillipe. Phillipe is wearing a dress and this has been used in the series to emasculate Phillipe.

A younger Louis and Phillipe, both wearing dresses!

Nevertheless, some of the characters are clearly grounded in historical evidence. One such character, the strong Liselotte – a German princess who was married to Phillipe – points to actual sources. Dr Spangler explained that existing letters written by Liselotte demonstrate her wicked sense of humour, which is evident in the script.

The script writers have also included in their work many famous Louisquatorzian quotes. The two most famous being ‘I am the state’ (‘L’etat et moi’) and ‘ I do not know that man’, where Louis demonstrated his displeasure of a courtier by turning his back on him, and therefore ruined the courtier’s chances of success. Although there is little evidence of Louis saying these things, they are used in the series to demonstrate his power in a simple sentence.

Dr Spangler concluded his talk by stating that there is a growing group on twitter who want a series 4 and that some are even suggesting a spin off about Phillipe!

The question and answer session following the lecture provided some really engaging questions. The first was about Louis XVI’s relationship with Charles II. Dr Spangler was keen to cite the problems facing Charles, who was often in need of money. Louis offered Charles support in the form of ‘cash for Catholicism,’ illustrated in the secret Treaty of Dover. Furthermore, Spangler gave a further example of Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, who was used by Louis as a spy to ensnare Charles. (A study to find the key letters of her spying for France may make a good PhD thesis!)  This all does make it clear that Louis, with his vast resources had the upper hand in the relationship.

A final question related to the themes of the television series and how far they reflect current thinking rather than the thinking of the time. Dr Spangler responded that the themes he had discussed – strong women, the presence of Africans in France and the homosexuality of Phillipe – are all very prominent in the discussion of history in the 21^st century. However, these discussions are largely part of the recovery of the suppression of such themes in the nineteenth century era, not the seventeenth century.

Dr Spangler is currently working on a book about the Duchy of Lorraine. You can also find out more about the history, heritage and genealogy of Europe’s highest-ranking aristocrats at his website https://dukesandprinces.org/