Read Royal Romances: Sex, Scandal, and Monarchy Online
Authors: Kristin Flieger Samuelian
Tags: #Europe, #Modern (16th-21st Centuries), #England, #0230616305, #18th Century, #2010, #Palgrave Macmillan, #History
Caroline had given birth to an illegitimate child, but they acknowl-
sitetsbib
edged that her “conduct” must “necessarily give rise to very unfavour-
able interpretations.”3 The Princess was reported to have entertained
men without adequate chaperonage; she dressed revealingly, was “too
familiar” (Perceval 9), especially with naval officers, and allowed her-
self to be laughed at and talked about by the servants (32). If she
did not actually have sex with the men mentioned in the allegations
(and she almost certainly did with at least some of them), clearly she
had behaved badly. The commissioners could not convict her of adul-
tery, but they could convict her, ex parte, of being an incorrigible—if
veconnect.com - licensed to Univer
unpolished—flirt.
.palgra
The motivation behind the commissioners’ conclusions was
probably to provide the Prince with grounds for a legal separation,
om www
a mensa et thoro
.4 But the accusation of unladylike behavior had a
class resonance as well. Although Lady Douglas’s testimony, chiefly
regarded the, ultimately disproved, accusation of illegitimate mother-
hood, it devoted substantial attention to the Princess’s vulgarity and
yright material fr
low behavior. Douglas describes the Princess as “a person without
Cop
education or talents, and without any desire of improving herself”
(Perceval 45); she accuses her of being slovenly in her dress, at times
to the edge of indecency (45), at others inappropriately overdressed
(60). She describes the Princess eating and drinking to excess, and
especially drinking quantities of ale, which, in Douglas’s testimony,
Caroline mispronounces as “ oil” (44). She implies, moreover, that
10.1057/9780230117488 - Royal Romances, Kristin Flieger Samuelian
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 92
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 92
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
Th e N o v e l , R e g e n c y, D o m e s t i c a t i o n o f R o y a l t y
93
the Princess’s irregular sexuality extends to her making unwanted
advances to Lady Douglas herself—as if her chief crime is not her
excesses but their indiscriminate quality:
In a short time, the Princess became so extravagantly fond of me,
that, however flattering it might be, it certainly was very troublesome.
Leaving her attendants below, she would push past my servant, and
run up stairs into my bed-chamber, kiss me, take me in her arms,
and tell me I was beautiful, saying she had never loved any woman so
much . . . and such high-flown compliments that women are never used
to pay each other. (41–42)
veConnect - 2011-04-02
The compound image here is of a large, undisciplined child, who fol-
algra
lows “the impulse of the moment . . . without regard to consequences
or appearances” (52), and an uncolonized exotic. The common
romso - PT
denominator is an unwillingness, even incapacity, to control a variety
of appetites. Perhaps most interesting for my purposes, however, are
her descriptions of Montague House, the Princess’s residence, follow-
lioteket i
ing the supposed birth of her illegitimate child. These descriptions
convey a class inflected distaste that gets at least some of its force
sitetsbib
from the implied (and heavily italicized) contrast between the elegant
features of a royal residence and the domestic squalor superimposed
by the Princess’s illegitimate and uncouth maternity:
. . . from this time the drawing-rooms at Montague House, were liter-
ally in the style of a common nursery. The tables were covered with
spoons, plates, feeding-boats, and clothes round the fire; napkins [dia-
pers] were hung to air, and the
marble hearths were strewed with nap-
veconnect.com - licensed to Univer
kins which were taken from the child
; for, very extraordinary to relate,
this
was a part of the ceremony
Her Royal Highness was particularly
.palgra
tenacious of always performing herself
; let the company be who they
might. (62)
om www
The profaning of the “ marble hearths” with the dirty diapers of a
supposed newborn converts the crime of adultery into a metonym
for the royal marriage itself, when the disappointed Prince George
yright material fr
represented himself as having been struck by what he described as his
Cop
bride’s “personal nastiness,” meaning, apparently, her unwashed and
smelly body (quoted in Fraser 56). In Caroline’s distasteful and dis-
reputable advent, for the Prince and his allies, foreignness stands in for
uncouthness in an overdetermined layering of unpalatable attributes:
she is vulgar, smelly, fat, and loud. The putative birth ten years later
of her illegitimate child, the signifier of her uncontainable sexuality,
10.1057/9780230117488 - Royal Romances, Kristin Flieger Samuelian
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 93
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 93
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
94
R o y a l R o m a n c e s
replicates and confounds her unsavory reputation. Later testimony
refuted the allegations, proving that Willy Austin’s mother was alive
and well, and establishing that he was cared for by a nursemaid in a
nursery that was, as was typical for the time, at the top of the house,
far from the drawing rooms (Fraser 170). But this retroactive correc-
tion does not alter the initial rhetorical effect of the allegations’ color-
ing and context. The implied conclusion of the commission’s report is
that flirting and “[c]onduct unbecoming” (Fraser 171) are adequate
moral, social, and perhaps legal substitutes for adultery. Similarly,
being unwashed, over or underdressed, excessively and inappropri-
ately maternal, and drinking lots of “oil” can stand as determinants
veConnect - 2011-04-02
for being both sexually and socially outside the pale.
algra
The composite portrait generated by the delicate investigation and
the discussions surrounding it is of a ribald and slightly ridiculous fig-
ure, a woman who refuses to conform to contemporary expectations
romso - PT
and who is at once an object of sympathy, contempt, and prurient
fascination. Yet, despite the implications of its content, the publica-
lioteket i
tion of the commission report generated more support for Caroline
than condemnation. In a letter dated February 1813, Austen articu-
sitetsbib
lated the prevailing view of the royal marriage, which cut across party
lines in its identification of the Regent as the root cause of his wife’s
misconduct:
I suppose all the World is sitting in Judgement upon the Princess
of Wales’s Letter. Poor woman, I shall support her as long as I can,
because she
is
a Woman, & because I hate her Husband—but I can
hardly forgive her for calling herself “ attached & affectionate” to a
Man whom she must detest—& the intimacy said to subsist between
veconnect.com - licensed to Univer
her & Lady Oxford is bad.—I do not know what to do about it;—but
if I must give up the Princess, I am resolved at least always to think
.palgra
that she would have been respectable, if the Prince had behaved only
tolerably by her at first. (Austen
Letters
208)
om www
The letter Austen refers to was officially from Caroline but was almost
certainly written for her by her attorney Henry Brougham.5 It served
as a kind of introduction to the Book, prefaced by a “ Narrative of
yright material fr
Recent Events” that recounted her three attempts to deliver it to the
Cop
Regent in January of the same year. The letter was delivered in a sealed
envelope and returned unopened each time, although an unsealed
copy was made available to the Prince’s advisors. The narrative does
not report that the whig-leaning
Morning Chronicle
published the
letter on February 10, or that excerpts from “the Regent’s Valentine,”
as it was called, were printed on commemorative china and widely
10.1057/9780230117488 - Royal Romances, Kristin Flieger Samuelian
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 94
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 94
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
Th e N o v e l , R e g e n c y, D o m e s t i c a t i o n o f R o y a l t y
95
sold (Fraser 231). All the world might well sit in judgment on a docu-
ment with such a public life.
Yet the letter itself is neither testimony nor evidence. Its relation-
ship to the documents in the case is tangential. Its approach is extrale-
gal; it is a salvo in a war of words that uses the now-tabled case against
the Princess as leverage. Brougham’s argument in the letter is that the
separation of mother and daughter is a threefold evil. It is a source
of unhappiness to both mother and daughter: “To see myself cut off
from one of the few domestic enjoyments left me—certainly the only
one upon which I set any value, the society of my child—involves
me in such misery, as I well know your Royal Highness could never
veConnect - 2011-04-02
inflict upon me if you were aware of its bitterness” (xi–xii). Separation
algra
is deleterious to the daughter’s development, causing “serious, and
it soon may be . . . irreparable injury” (xii). The crux of Brougham’s
argument, however, is that the division between mother and daugh-
romso - PT
ter fosters a public image of Caroline that ought to have been set
to rest by the conclusion of the commission report, six years earlier.
lioteket i
Because “in the eyes of an observing and jealous world, this separa-
tion of a daughter from her mother, will only admit of one construc-
sitetsbib
tion” (xii), it is the duty of the Regent, “the natural protector” (xi) of
both mother and daughter, to
reflect on the situation in which I am placed: without the shadow
of a charge against me—without even an accuser —after an inquiry
that led to my ample vindication—yet treated as if I were still more
culpable than the perjuries of my suborned traducers represented me,
and held up to the world as a mother who may not enjoy the society
of her only child. (xii)
veconnect.com - licensed to Univer
.palgra
Brougham’s letter sentimentalizes the judgment in Austen’s. Both
judgments are against the Prince. His refusal to accept his natural
om www
responsibility to protect his wife—from the observing and jealous
world or from herself—is for both Brougham and Austen the origin
of all subsequent evils.
The assumptions governing these letters appear in two novels pub-
yright material fr
lished within two years of each other: Thomas Ashe’s
The Spirit of “the
Cop
Book”
(1811) and Austen’s
Pride and Prejudice
(1813). Ashe’s novel
promises a “true” account of the events leading up to and includ-
ing the delicate investigation. Like
The Royal Legend
,
The Spirit of
“the Book”
provides explanations for scandalous royal behavior that
exonerates and sentimentalizes the principals. Heroines and heroes of
romance, the central characters (particularly Caroline) offer readers
10.1057/9780230117488 - Royal Romances, Kristin Flieger Samuelian
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 95
9780230616301_05_ch03.indd 95
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
10/22/2010 6:04:00 PM
96
R o y a l R o m a n c e s
the same opportunity for intimate identification as Richardson’s
Pamela or
The Royal Legend
’s Prince Henry. Ashe’s book, however,
contains none of the satire of
The Royal Legend
. The sentimental-
ity in his novel is continuous with the sentimentality of Brougham’s
letter; although often implausible, it is never ironic. In his depiction
of the Princess, Ashe recognizes the political necessity behind the
hypocrisy for which Austen can hardly forgive her. His Caroline is the
Caroline of Brougham’s letter: a robbed and doting mother, attached
and affectionate to a husband who has never appreciated her manifest