Michael Collins – Four myths surrounding the death of the Irish independence leader

Michael Collins was an Irish leader who helped his country achieve independence. However, a few years after the Irish Republic was proclaimed, Collins was dead. His death remains a mystery. Here, SM Sigerson, an author of a book related to the assassination, tells us about four myths surrounding his death. 

Michael Collins, his life and times, command an inexhaustible fascination for people everywhere. This is perhaps because they are a sort of microcosm of a political predicament that continues to repeat itself all over the world.

An ancient, semi-feudal oppressor. A people literally dying for self-determination.  A vigorous new generation, chomping at the bit to ‘have a go’. A wealth of new thought and thinkers, transforming political debate, intellectual and cultural life.

Among the best and brightest, a young leader steps into the breach: with the genius, vision and courage that turns the key and brings it all together. Spearheaded by him, his people sweep all before them.

Such popular leaders are sometimes fortunate, and live to rule; shepherding the people through the pangs of establishing their republic. Others fall in the conflict; tragically cut off in their prime, setting their world back decades.

Michael Collins addressing a crowd in Dublin, 1922.

We've seen this drama replayed in many nations. If mythology was created to teach us of classic dilemmas that may be cyclically repeated by humanity down through the ages, perhaps this is one of the key dilemmas.

No wonder that Collins' story has so much to say to us even now. If it's the stuff that dreams are made of, it has also been plagued by myth making in every sense. Mythology can have two potential functions: to illuminate the facts, or to obscure them. Some myths give meaning. They help us understand our mysteries. Another sort may simply be disinformation: concocted expressly to prevent understanding.

Because there has never been any full, official inquiry in to the death of Collins, his story is not much more than a folk tale. A number of myths about it have taken on a powerful life of their own; often tolerated and even disseminated by official sources.

In “The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?” eleven popular misconceptions are listed which, almost without exception, have served to mislead the public about what really happened.

Most of these are easily traceable to sources by no means entirely objective or disinterested - when not to actual political opponents of the man whose death they seem to trivialize. We are going to consider a few such myths here.

Myth 1:  That there is an "official story"; that we know what happened.

Myth 2:  The anti-Treaty side did it.

Myth 3:  "No, stop and we'll fight them."

Myth 4:  Collins died because he was "careless of personal danger"

Myth 1: That there is an "official story"

Origin: Anecdote, folklore, irresponsible commentators.

Translation: "No investigation necessary."

That there never has been any official, public inquiry into the death of Michael Collins [1] is a glaring omission that cannot be excused in any modern democracy.

We haven't even the basic dignity of an official story to pull to pieces. We have only the illusion of one. Unexamined anecdote, conflicting testimony and rumor have been allowed to stand in its place. In reality, there is no official story.

As matters stand there is no real evidence to show what caused his death, and we can only presume it was caused by gunshot. There is no evidence to show that Collins didn't die of a heart attack, or that he was not poisoned and that the wounds were not inflicted afterward. [2]

The eyewitness reports are highly contradictory. None of those present were ever formally questioned by the authorities. There is no autopsy report that we can read. All we know for certain is that shots were exchanged at Béal na mBláth and that only Collins died.

Yet inquests were held in the death of Cathal Brugha, Harry Boland, Sean Hales, Liam Lynch "and a host of others who died from gunshot wounds... Contemporary newspapers show inquests in the deaths of soldiers as well as officers killed in action were commonplace." [3] The authorities' failure to convene any such examination in Collins' death is more than a regrettable oversight.

Myth 2: The anti-Treaty side did it

Origin: Popular assumption, based on contemporary press reports.

Translation: "Case closed."

The assumption that the anti-Treaty soldiers (that is, those who did not support the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that led to Ireland coming into being) shot Collins is no more than that.  As such, it is directly attributable to the lack of any official investigation.

Allegations that he was shot by someone other than the ambushers is not a far-fetched theory, but originates with corroborated eyewitness testimony.

Myth 3: "No, stop and we'll fight them."

Origin: Emmett Dalton.

Translation: "Dalton was not to blame. Collins (i.e. the victim) was to blame."

How many discussions of the events at Béal na mBláth turn on references to these words? How many of the journalists, politicians and others who've quoted this famous line have any idea of its provenance?

Like so much conventional wisdom about Béal na mBláth, this anecdote originates in the account given by one single witness only. It is the version of events given by Dalton. Significantly, it is the version which most seems to excuse Dalton's failure, as chief bodyguard, to keep his priceless charge alive. It is not corroborated by any other source.

This should be enough to restrain prominent commentators from quoting it as gospel.

Myth 4: "Careless of personal danger"

Origin: Folklore, well-meaning biographers.

Translation: "Collins (i.e. the victim) was to blame."

Where courage and judgment are equally required, I would rather send in a clever coward, than a stupid hero.

-  Michael Collins, 1922 [4]

No one survives the kind of attention that the British secret service focused on Michael Collins by mere ‘luck’. In the course of several years on their ‘most wanted’ list, he survived continuous, organized, sophisticated efforts, by the world's most formidable imperialist war machine, to infiltrate his organization, capture and/or kill him.

Running an army entirely dependent on volunteers and constantly recruiting them, he was particularly exposed to such assailants. A number of operatives joined the movement, distinguished themselves, and managed to penetrate quite near him. Expressing a keen desire to meet Collins, some were ultimately exposed and executed.

This sent a very clear message indeed: trying too hard to find Collins was a short way to end in a ditch with a hole in the head. Then there are the many eyewitness reports, scattered throughout his life in Dublin, of his stunning skill in swiftly dispatching the occasional lone armed attacker, with his bare hands and championship wrestling skills.

These were dangerous times. The Irish were playing for high stakes, and had their eyes on the prize: the golden ring of national freedom, which had eluded their forebears for centuries. The struggle required great physical courage in its combatants, and a willingness to take risks.

Yet no one in Collins' position could have survived the War of Independence, had he been ‘careless of personal danger’.

"The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened at Béal na mBláth?" by SM Sigerson is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

If you found this article interesting, tell the world. Like it, share it, or tweet about it by pressing one of the buttons below…

Notes

1) He is referred to herein as "Collins"

2) John M Feehan The Shooting of Michael Collins: Murder or Accident?  Mercier Press, Cork, Ireland, 1981

3) Ibid.  Tim Pat Coogan, in his authoritative biography Michael Collins, seems to err in asserting that no inquests were held in deaths that occurred during "military action."  Arrow Books, London, 1991

4) Hayden Talbot, Michael Collins: His Own Story Hutchinson & Company, London, 1923

The Spark that Caused Devastation – The Outbreak of World War I

Rebecca Fachner continues her series of articles on World War I by looking at how an assassination in an age of assassinations led to the outbreak of one of the most destructive wars of all time. You can read Rebecca’s first article in the series on Royal Family squabbles here.

Just a couple of days ago, June 28, marked the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, a city that was then a (reluctant) part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Franz Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne and his assassin was Gavrilo Princip, a young Serbian nationalist who was part of a terrorist syndicate called the Black Hand, who were determined to assassinate the Archduke. It is important to note that some members of the Black Hand were quite closely associated with members of the Serbian government, and it is possible that Serbia knew about and even funded the assassination attempt. At least that is what Austria-Hungary chose to believe in the aftermath of June 28. Ironically, the assassination attempt was almost a complete failure. Several members of the Black Hand were stationed along the Archduke’s tour route, and the first attempt on him was a bomb thrown toward his touring car. The bomb killed several soldiers and onlookers, but did not harm the Archduke or his wife. After recovering from their ordeal, the Archduke and his wife insisted on visiting the victims in the hospital, and as they headed to the hospital their car stalled. Princip happened to be in a café across the street, heard the commotion and seized his moment. 

Gavrilo Princip assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand. By Achille Beltrame and published in the Domenica del Corriere newspaper.

ELEVATED STATUS

By all rights, neither Ferdinand nor Princip should have gone down in history. The assassination, while of course tragic and potentially politically destabilizing, should have remained an internal Austro-Hungarian matter, making the two men at best a minor footnote in European history. Moreover, it was an age of assassination. In the fifteen years prior to 1914, the kings of Italy, Greece and Spain had been assassinated in addition to the Grand Vizier (Prime Minister) of the Ottoman Empire as well as the Prime Minister of Japan, and the President of the United States. Who outside of their own countries can now identify any one of these men? With so many assassinations taking place in this period, why is it this one that is remembered?

The memory of Princip and Ferdinand looms large because of what followed from the assassination. This particular assassination has gone down in history as the short-term cause of the First World War, setting off a chain of events that led Europe into war. It really wasn’t a cause so much as an excuse; Europe was poised for war, many wanted war, even if they wouldn’t have admitted it, and there had been several incidents in the recent past that almost resulted in war. With Europe primed and ready, it was only a matter of time before something finally sparked a fight, and this was it.

Austria-Hungary was stunned and distraught by the assassination, not unreasonably, but the leadership dealt with their grief and indignation by looking for revenge. Austria-Hungary wanted to make the Serbians pay, and within a month issued a set of demands designed to bring Serbia to heel, and gave them forty-eight hours to comply or risk war. Serbia did not want war, but the Austro-Hungarian demands were simply too intrusive, as they were certainly designed to be, and Serbia rejected the most egregious of Austria-Hungary’s demands. Both Austria-Hungary and Serbia had sought assistance from their much larger allies/protectors, Germany and Russia, respectively, so both knew that if it came to war they would not be fighting alone. Russia, enjoying its role as Slavic protector, actually called for a partial mobilization first, but insisted that it was only a mobilization against Austria-Hungary. Germany begged Russia to halt its mobilization, and then declared war on Russia. Two days later, on August 3, Germany declared war on Russia’s ally, France.

THE ESCALATION CONTINUES

Germany was then faced with a serious dilemma, albeit one completely of its own making, as there was no good way for them to invade France without going through Belgium. Germany asked Belgium for permission to march their army through Belgium into France, which seemed from a German perspective to be a reasonable request. Amazingly, the Belgians did not agree, and politely declined to allow a massive foreign army to run roughshod through their sovereign territory. Germany invaded anyway. This alerted the British, who had signed a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, and Britain declared war on August 4. While this was all going on there were frantic letters and telegrams being written between the major powers, visits being arranged, peace conferences proposed, all in an effort to stop or slow down the march to war.

Three days after Britain declared war, on August 7, the British Expeditionary Force arrived on the continent, and the Battle of the Frontiers began. The Battle of the Frontiers was a complex affair that took place in several stages and ultimately lasted until mid-September. In the East, by contrast, events moved at a significantly slower pace. The Russians were a formidable enemy, but a very slow moving and technologically backwards one, and it took several weeks for their mobilization to be complete. By August 17, the Russians had fully mobilized and began invading eastern Germany. On August 23, the Battle of Tannenberg began, lasting for a week and becoming the first in a long line of humiliating Russian defeats. 

By August 23, therefore, less than two months after the assassination of the Archduke, Europe was completely at war. Germany was dug in on two fronts, and massive battles were taking place on a continent that had been completely at peace less than 60 days prior. And over what? A dead heir to the throne of a middle tier power, some national pride, and several very itchy trigger fingers. There are so many points along this timeline in which events could have conceivably, even plausibly, gone a different way. Austria-Hungary could have reacted differently, Germany and Russia could have stayed out of each other’s way, Germany could have ignored France or forced them to be the aggressor, or Germany could have avoided Belgium and therefore the British.

The likelihood is that it wouldn’t have mattered if things had gone slightly or even very differently; war was virtually inevitable and if this series of events had not brought about a conflict, something else would have done. Nonetheless, one wonders whether Princip, spending the war in his prison cell, felt responsible for the carnage, or if he even realized his role in starting the greatest war Europe had ever seen.

Did you find this article interesting?

As always, your feedback is welcome. If you have the time to leave a comment below, we’d really like to hear what you thought about the article.

The long-lost words of Jackie Kennedy

Jacqueline Kennedy was one of the most high-profile -and private - women of the twentieth century, and her marriage to John F. Kennedy remains the source of intense speculation. While the public rarely heard her voice during her lifetime, letters and interviews released since her death have provided insights into who she was and, as Wendy Loughlin recounts here, how she felt about JFK.

She was famous for wanting privacy and famous for not getting it, becoming instead the object of an intense public fascination that has outlived her by 20 years. Jacqueline Kennedy followed her husband into the spotlight reluctantly, and then spent nearly half her life fighting its glare without him. 

Jackie and JFK in May 1961.

The doe-eyed young Jackie who was terrified of the crowd that assembled outside the church on the day she married John F. Kennedy is not the Jackie we came to know later—not Jackie O, the persona, the jetsetter who hid behind dark sunglasses and silence. But it’s the young Jackie whose voice we heard—or partially heard—after a Dublin church unearthed and nearly auctioned off a cache of her letters last month.

She wrote the letters to Irish priest Joseph Leonard over the course of fourteen years, from 1950 to 1964—years in which she met, married and lost JFK. Excerpts were first published in the Irish Times and quickly re-printed by publications around the world. And while the letters must have included her thoughts on a number of different topics, it’s telling that the passages chosen for release focus almost exclusively on John F. Kennedy.

Portrait of a Marriage

History has repeatedly been revealed through letters, but the letters of first ladies are often compelling in intimate, as much as historical, ways; at their core, they tell us about a marriage. The Kennedy marriage, with its mixture of glamour and tragedy, hearsay and scandal, has captured the public’s imagination for half a century.

They say she was intelligent with a rapier wit, that she could size people up in a single meeting, that she made JFK laugh. We see it in footage from the 1962 America’s Cup dinner, when she leans across the table toward him as if no one is watching. She’s wearing a strapless Cassini gown, looking conspiratorial as she rocks her chair in his direction, oblivious to the puffs of smoke from his cigar. He bends toward her easily, listens intently, smiles. 

But mostly, we don’t see it; and her silence after his death, alongside rumors and revelations about his philandering, left a vacuum that has been filled with countless books and articles full of an almost feverish speculation about the true nature of their relationship. Ironically, her quest for privacy deprived her of it, made people clamor for her all the more, more than for any other first lady in history. Which is why the letters are so titillating.

It may be also why reading the letters feels like an invasion of privacy, why it probably is and why even a public usually hungry for a glimpse behind the scenes of Camelot felt uncomfortable with their release. A few weeks after the story broke, the Kennedy family intervened and the letters were removed from auction on May 21.

Another photo of JFK and Jackie from May 1961.

Public Figure, Private Thoughts

Still, the letters don’t feel any more intimate, any more telling about the Kennedy marriage than parts of Jackie’s 1964 oral history interviews with historian Arthur Schlesinger, which were released by Caroline Kennedy in 2011. Like when Jackie recounts what she said to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis: “If anything happens, we're all going to stay right here with you... I just want to be with you, and I want to die with you, and the children do, too—than live without you.” Or how, after the death of their newborn son, Patrick, “he sobbed and put his arms around me.”

But as Caroline notes in her introduction to the interviews, Jackie knew she was on the record when she spoke with Schlesinger, knew her words would shape history and one day become part of the public domain. When she began writing to Father Leonard in 1950, a 21-year-old Jackie Bouvier certainly could not have imagined this, could not have known what lay ahead for her—that ten years later, she would become first lady. “I feel as though I had just turned into a piece of public property,” she told Time magazine on the eve of her husband’s inauguration. “It’s really frightening to lose your anonymity at 31.”

This is not the first time Jacqueline Kennedy’s private letters have turned public, nor even the first time her letters have provided a glimpse at her feelings about John Kennedy. “I loved you from the first day I saw you,” she wrote to him a month before his death, “and if I hadn’t married you my life would have been tragic because the definition of tragedy is a waste. But ten years later, I love you so much more.”

The letter, which ran seven pages long, found its way into the hands of a private collector in the late 1990s, and excerpts from it have been published several times since. As with the Irish letters, the Kennedy family objected to its release. Yet this letter in particular may be the most compelling argument against the most persistent negative rumors about their marriage—that she only married him for his money, or that he only married her because he needed a first lady.

In fact, they loved each other—and the handful of times we hear her in her own words, that’s what she tells us. Is that fact historically significant? Perhaps not. But it’s still nice to know.

Now, click here to read our article on John F. Kennedy and the Tsar – The parallel lives of two fatherless boys.

Problems and Violence at the World Cup – Image of the week

The soccer/football World Cup is currently taking place in Brazil. In commemoration, we have a few images from an infamous old match sixty years ago.

It was June 27, 1954 in Bern, Switzerland, and Hungary faced Brazil in a World Cup soccer/football match. They were two of the best teams in the world at the time and a titanic battle was expected. But, the game descended into something of a farce and became known as the Battle of Berne…

What the above and below pictures show are the results of violence. For the match almost descended into a running battle. Three players were sent off the field as Hungary won 4-2. More alarmingly, after the match the Brazilian team attacked the Hungarians in their dressing room.

Let’s hope no matches end like that in this year’s World Cup.

Have you heard of History is Now magazine? If not, click here to find out about a great new interactive history magazine.

Image sources

http://www.betshoot.com/blog/football-history-the-battle-of-berne/

http://www.thescore.com/news/500807

What do you know about the Tudors? An Introduction to Henry VIII’s dynasty

How familiar are you with the Tudors? In this article, Jennifer Johnstone introduces us to some of the key events and people in the period including bloody religious change, kings and queens, and King Henry VIII’s six wives.

Everyone is familiar with the Tudors. Or at least, most people know about Henry VIII, and his six wives: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, and finally Catherine Parr, alongside another one of England’s longest serving monarchs: Elizabeth I. The first Tudor royal was King Henry VII (1485-1509), then his son, Henry VIII (1509-1547), then to the boy King Edward VI (1553), briefly Lady Jane Grey sat on the throne in 1553, to be ursurped by Mary I, sometimes referred to as ‘Bloody Mary’ (1553-1558), and finally, the last of the Tudor monarchs was Elizabeth I (1558-1603). In the television program The Tudors, Catherine of Aragon describes Anne Boleyn as ‘the scandal of Christendom’; however, it seems like an accurate description of the Tudors themselves, as they divided a country religiously, broke with Rome, and reformed England in a way that changed the country forever.

King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn

Family divisions

The Tudors did not only divide the country of England religiously, between Catholic and Protestant, but they were divisive amongst themselves too. They were a family of intense division.

One of the divisions in the Tudor court came from the contentious relationship Mary I had with Anne Boleyn. It is said that they hated each other, and even tried to kill one another. The Imperial Ambassador of the time, Eustace Chapuys, claimed that Anne tried to poison Mary. But there is a lac k of evidence to suggest that Chapuys’ claim is true. Chapuys wasn’t an impartial figure in the Tudor court; he is said to have supported Lady Mary and her mother Catherine of Aragon. But it is also claimed that Anne said to her brother George that, “she would consider putting Mary to death if the King ever left her as Regent while he was away in France.” Perhaps there is some truth to the claim that Anne thought that it would have been easier on her if Mary was out of the equation, but to accuse her of murder without strong evidence, doesn’t give us an accurate picture of what Anne really thought of Mary.

So, what did Mary think of Anne? Well, Mary seems to have resented the new Queen. And that she even rejoiced when Anne did not and could not produce a son for Henry. Mary seemed to blame Anne for her parents’ divorce, and the ill treatment by her father towards her. It’s possible that Anne could have been partly to blame for Henry’s mistreatment towards Mary, but Henry stripped Mary of being a princess of his own accord; she was in favor one minute and banished the next minute from court. Henry also had the notion that a son was more important to the Tudor’s future; seeing Mary as inferior in this way must have affected her psychologically too. Indeed, Mary later became a bitter, resentful, and brutal Queen.

Henry VII

The divisions which were rife throughout the Tudor period can be seen from the dawn of the Tudor period as Henry VII came to power in a divided country. The country was at civil war when Henry VII defeated King Richard III in battle. The civil war was called the 'The War of the Roses', a battle between two families, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster (the Tudor Rose), hence the name 'Roses'.

Henry VII is know for his ruthless taxes on the populace. With the money taken from these taxes, Henry VII was able to leave a fortune to his son Henry VIII. Henry VII also reformed laws, and the powers of the King. All told, although Henry VII came to power with a bang, nothing terribly noteworthy happened in his reign, hence why some regard Henry VII as an unmemorable ruler. But, we do not have that problem with his son.

Henry VIII

Henry VIII succeeded his father to the throne on April 21, 1509, and his coronation took place on June 24, 1509. He is well known for forming the Church of England at the expense of the Catholic Church. This was partly because the Pope would not grant Henry an annulment on his first marriage, to enable him to marry again. The establishment of his own church gave Henry the chance to marry a total of six times. Interestingly, his marriage with Anne of Cleaves lasted only six months, but he remained friends with Anne for the duration of their lives. Catherine Parr had understandable reservations about becoming Henry's Queen - who of us would want to marry a King who easily tired of his wives, and was prepared to chop off their heads? They say the only one that Henry really loved was Jane Seymour. Perhaps this was because she gave him the son that he desperately wanted.

But Henry seemingly had several other sons, albeit ‘bastard’ (illegitimate) ones. They were Henry FitzRoy, Thomas Stukley, and Richard Edwards. Considering that Henry VIII had many affairs, and the social stigma that surrounded 'bastard' children, there were very likely more children of Henry's too. Of his three sons, only one was recognized by Henry VIII. The rest were not. In short though, Henry VIII can be seen as a self-serving King, particularly during the Reformation.

The Reformation

The Reformation brought scandal to Christendom across Europe. But was the English Reformation about political and religious rule for Henry? Or was it just about Henry VIII seeking to remarry?

The answer is a mixture of both.

The Lutheran Reformation, which began in 1517, was focused on challenging clerical power and educating the public about the bible, including encouraging them to read the bible in English. Another factor were the resented taxes imposed by the Catholic Church on the people of England. The Catholic Church had a lot more power over countries in those days; Cardinals were the politicians of their day. Cardinal Wolsey would be a perfect example; he had a lot of power in Henry VIII’s day.

Usually in history it's a collection of elements that spur these political breaks, so it would be naïve of us to think that the break with Rome was just an issue of Henry wanting to remarry.

Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn is often seen as one of the main driving forces of the English Reformation; this is indeed true. Her faith in Protestantism was strong. She adhered to the Lutheran doctrine, a point that one of Anne's Boleyn's biographers argues. In her book on Anne Boleyn Joanna Denny argues that Anne was a passionate reformer. She writes: “Her views were evangelical, many would say Lutheran. She read the bible daily, and believed that everyone should be able to read the bible in a language they understand.” Therefore, it can be seen that Anne, as well as Henry, were both in favor of bringing the Reformation to England. However, they were not alone; there were plenty of powerful figures in the Tudor court that supported the English Reformation, such as Thomas Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell.

So, a country that Henry VII united, was divided again by the Reformation, into two main religious ‘ideologies’: Catholicism and Protestantism. After Henry's VIII’s reign, Mary I burnt Protestants at the stake, while after her Elizabeth I burnt Catholics at the stake.

But to end, let us consider Henry VIII’s own words:

''Alas, how can the poor souls live in concord when you preachers sow amongst them your sermons of debate and discord... here will see these divisions extinct, and these enormities corrected.''

You can find out more about the Tudors as part of our English Civil War blog post series. Read the first article in the series by clicking here.

Is American Independence Day actually on May 15?

Was America’s independence really on July 4? Or was it actually on July 2? Or maybe May 15? Here, William Bodkin looks at John Adams’ life in 1776 and explains why American Independence Day may not really be on July 4…

The beginning of July brings with it the United States of America’s foremost holiday, Independence Day, on July Fourth. Some contrarians like to note, however, that the U.S. celebrates on the Fourth because it is the date written on the Declaration of Independence, while actual independence occurred on July 2, 1776, when the Continental Congress voted to approve the resolution declaring independence.

Voting for Independence during the Second Continental Congress.

But to be a real contrarian, one could argue that “Independence Day” came not even in the month of July, but on May 15, 1776.  No less an authority than the Second President of the United States, John Adams, would likely agree, since he called a resolution the Congress passed on May 15, 1776 the “most important resolution that was ever taken in America.”[1]

What was the May 15 resolution? It was the preamble to a resolution that the Congress had previously passed on May 10, 1776.  It read:

Whereas his Britannic Majesty, in Conjunction with the Lords and Commons of Great Britain, has, by a late Act of Parliament, excluded the Inhabitants of these united Colonies from the Protection of his Crown and Whereas No Answer whatever has been given or is likely to be given to the humble Petitions of the Colonies for Redress of their Grievances and Reconciliation with Great Britain: but on the Contrary, the whole Force of the Kingdom, aided by foreign Mercenaries, is to be exerted for our Destruction

And Whereas it is irreconcileable to Reason and good Conscience, for the People of these Colonies to take the oaths and affirmations, necessary for the Support of any Government under the Crown of Great Britain and it is necessary that the Exercise of every Kind of Authority under the Said Crown should be totally Suppressed, and all the Powers of Government under the Authority of the People of the Colonies, exerted for the Preservation of internal Peace, Virtue and good order, as well as to defend our Lives, Liberties, and Properties, from the hostile Invasions, and cruel Depredations of our Enemies. Therefore, Resolved that it be recommended to the several Assemblies and Conventions, to institute such Forms of Government as to them Shall appear necessary, to promote the Happiness of the People.[2]

WHY MAY 15?

The prose is unmistakably Adams: bombastic and strident. The May 15 resolution indicts Great Britain’s King George III for his treatment of the colonies and sets forth the remedy that colonial citizens could institute new governments to promote the happiness of its people. But why May 15, 1776? The answer lies in the ongoing battle of wills between those colonial leaders, like Adams, who were vociferously promoting Independence, and those, like John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, who opposed it.

On May 10, 1776 Adams and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduced a resolution meant to support pro-independence colonists working to overthrow the colonial government of Pennsylvania, which, like its representative Dickinson, opposed Independence. Pennsylvania was a pivotal colony, as it strongly influenced the votes of the other middle colonies (New York, New Jersey, and Delaware). Since it opposed independence, writing and voting on a Declaration was close to impossible.[3]  As pro-independence militias prepared to march, Adams maneuvered to get the May 10 resolution passed. The May 10 resolution stated:

Resolved, That it be recommended to the respective assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.[4]

Dickinson saw through Adams’ scheme. Instead of opposing it, however, he embraced it, arguing that the resolution could not possibly apply to his colony. Pennsylvania had a working representative government in place, one firmly committed to the rights of its citizens (but not independence from Great Britain). The resolution passed, with the understanding that Pennsylvania was exempt.[5]

But the Congress also agreed to the appointment of a three member committee to draft a preamble to the resolution made up of Adams, Lee and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina. May 10 was a Friday. Adams worked through the weekend, and on Monday, May 13, he returned with a draft of the May 15 resolution. The preamble clearly, unmistakably defined a “non-working” colonial government as one that was loyal to the King and his government. James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued against it, claiming that the Continental Congress was overreaching and that there would be uprisings in the streets of Philadelphia, where, of course, the Congress was assembled. Dickinson, who had so effectively thwarted the intent of the May 10 resolution, was absent from the Congress. Wilson’s arguments were in vain.[6]

A PLACE IN HISTORY

Adams, as always, was uniquely aware of his role in this unfolding history.  Following passage of the May 15 Resolution, he wrote to his wife Abigail:

[Great Britain] has at last driven America, to the last Step, a compleat Seperation from her, a total absolute Independence, not only of her Parliament but of her Crown, for such is the Amount of the Resolve of the 15th.

Confederation among ourselves, or Alliances with foreign Nations are not necessary, to a perfect Seperation from Britain. That is effected by extinguishing all Authority, under the Crown, Parliament and Nation as the Resolution for instituting Governments, has done, to all Intents and Purposes. Confederation will be necessary for our internal Concord, and Alliances may be so for our external Defence.

I have Reasons to believe that no Colony, which shall assume a Government under the People, will give it up. There is something very unnatural and odious in a Government 1000 Leagues off.  A whole Government of our own Choice, managed by Persons whom We love, revere, and can confide in, has charms in it for which Men will fight.[7]

May 15, 1776 was an important day in America’s walk toward independence, but was it the definitive one?  Perhaps, but Adams was perhaps more effusive in his assessment of July 2, 1776 and the passing of the resolution declaring independence, stating in a letter to his wife Abigail that

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.[8]

And while Adams was right about the annual celebrations commemorating American Independence, he was, of course, off by two days, due in no small part to Thomas Jefferson’s peerless prose in the Declaration of Independence, which defined the Americans’ struggle for the wider world and served as a foundational document for the burgeoning republic. Adams’ assessments of the events as they unfolded were not wrong, they simply serve to illustrate the difficulty, if not outright futility, of assessing history as it unfolds to determine which day will be viewed by subsequent generations as the definitive one of an era.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

1. Letter, John Adams to James Warren, May 15, 1776.  Papers of John Adams, Digital Collection, Volume 4 (www.masshist.org/digitaladams ).

2. Id.

3. Was May 15, 1776 Independence Day? Hysteriography, William Hogeland’s commentaries on populism, liberalis, and conservatism in American history, politics, and poetics (http://williamhogeland.wordpress.com)(“Hogeland”).

4. The Resolutions and Recommendations of Congress, Continental Congress May 10, 1776 (www.digitalhistory.uh.edu, Digital History ID 3940).

5. Hogeland

6. Hogeland

7. Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 17 May 1776 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. (http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/).

8. Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. (http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/).

Killing the King – The English Civil War

In the final in the English Civil War series of articles, Myra King looks at how the English Civil War progressed, finally leading to King Charles I being put on trial by Oliver Cromwell’s government.

In this series on the English Civil War, we have previously considered the Divine Right of Kings, and Henry VIII and bloody religious change, how the Gunpowder Plot may have been a Protestant-led conspiracy, and Scotland and the lead up to the English Civil War.

“I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me... Warts and everything,”

These were the words of Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell. This inspired the saying, “Warts and All,” meaning taking the bad with the good. Which, when looking at Cromwell, that is exactly what you have to do. Despite having no military and political training he was quickly promoted to one of the principal commanders of the Parliamentary army. He had the support of most of those in the towns and cities, while nobility and landowners backed King Charles I.

Each side gathered more supporters and more hatred until eventually tensions rose too high and complaints were too grievous.

In August 1642, in the town of Nottingham, war was declared against the King who had, one too many times, raised his royal standard and declared his intent to rule England however he saw fit.

Cromwell at the Battle of Naseby, 1645. By Charles Landseer.

WAR

There were only three major battles in the English Civil War: Edge Hill (1642), Marston Moor (1644) and Naseby (1645).

The battle of Edge Hill has the interesting ability to claim no victor. Both sides cried that they were winners but neither really won. The following year saw many more small engagements; the Cavaliers won more often than not. But these battles were not big enough to dent the Parliamentarian army nor make any hedge way to winning the war.

Although it did give Dr William Harvey the ability to camp on the battlefields and study the anatomy of the dead. It is thanks to the fallen soldiers and the brave doctor that we know that blood circulates through the body in a continuous loop. It was at the second major battle, Marston Moor, that the tide began to turn against the King. The Cavalier army had set up camp on a field just west of York. With only an hour left of sunlight, Prince Rupert and the rest of the dukes, settled down to dinner and expected to hunker down for the night once it was done. To them, it seemed preposterous that the Parliamentarians would attack them with the dark night so imminent. This decision proved Royalist stupidity or it showed that Parliamentarians did not practice gentlemanly war.

Either way, before the aristocracy was done with their leg of lamb, the Parliamentarians attacked. The unprepared Cavaliers were slaughtered where they stood. This was the first true victory for the Parliamentarian Roundheads.

Charles had officially lost the north of England.

But the fatal blow came in June 1645 when Cromwell desecrated any hope of victory for the Royalists. They were beaten and broken at the battle of Naseby.

They did not recover and the entire cause was lost.

Charles, ever the sneak, decided to surrender himself to the Scottish rather than Parliament. He was banking on the shaky alliance between Cromwell and the Scots collapsing under this new deceit. He did not bank on the idea that the Scottish were just as sneaky. They simply sold Charles to Parliament for £400,000 in January 1647.

Although, that brought its own problems. What on earth was parliament supposed to do with a defeated king?

Luckily for them, King Charles paved the road to doom all on his own.

RULE BRITANNIA

The song “Rule Britannia” was performed for the first time on August 1, 1740, one hundred years after Charles’s defeat. But the chorus of this patriotic song might as well have been written as the wretched king walked the land.

“Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!”

The English had had enough.

They were done with their tyrant kings who seemed to serve only themselves. The first Civil War had proved how quickly and effectively the people would take up arms against the king.

They would no longer be slaves!

But in November 1647, Charles escaped from Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight. He ran back to the Scots and begged them for an army. This led to the second Civil War. Unfortunately for Charlie, he was easily defeated.

One has to wonder why this was. Were the Scots purposely leading him to his downfall or were they simply just not all that interested in winning, since this would mean continual war with the English? Or was it a simple case of the angry English having so much firepower that the mighty Scots were no match?

Whatever it was, the result was that Charles, now twice defeated, had proved that he could not be trusted. He was tried at Westminster Hall in January 1649. He was found guilty of the crime of “traitorously and maliciously” levying war against Parliament and the people.

THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY

He was executed on January 30, 1649. A king finally cut down for his crimes against England.

It was, of course, the most controversial trial of the century. There were no laws for the trial of a monarch. The English had to bring in a Dutch lawyer who based his work on ancient Roman law. This law stated that a military body (i.e. Parliament) could legally overthrow a tyrant (now you know why so many Roman emperors met their end at the hands of the Praetorian Guard!).

During the trial, Charles refused to recognize the legality of the court. He also refused to take off his hat as a sign of respect to the judges. We assume that he was aiming for an air of royal pride. In reality, all it did was confirm to the judges that Charles was arrogant and dangerous. He was executed on a cold Tuesday afternoon. He had been allowed a last walk through St. James’ Park with his dog. His last meal was a paltry slice of bread and glass of wine. His executioner refused the job at the last moment. And so did his replacement. And his replacement. And also his replacement. And then his replacement. Eventually someone was found and offered £100 for the job. A hefty salary, almost one hundred times the original payment. At 2pm, Charles was led to the block. He wore two shirts as he didn’t want the cold to make him shiver and have that misconstrued as fear.

Once he was dead, spectators stole his blood in superstitious belief of its healing qualities.

On February 6, 1649, the monarchy of England - something that had existed since just after the Roman period - was abolished.

The Civil War was not so much a war as it was a revolution. The beaten masses rose up as one against their tyrannical leader. Some would say that Charles was simply replaced by another tyrant as Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector. Although the Puritan Cromwell abolished Christmas, sport and theatre, he was an extremely popular leader within his own time. He ruled England well and took it from strength to strength. Unfortunately he never had the foresight to lay down a constitution so that his ideas of government, which served the country well, were preserved. These ideas went to the grave with him. Without their Lord Protector, England was simply lost.

Although they had fought a war in order to abolish the monarchy, within years of Cromwell’s death, England invited the royal family back.

Charles’s eldest son, Charles II, became king under one condition: Parliament had the most say in every decision.

Did you enjoy this article? And would you like to read more in-depth history articles? Well, take a look at History is Now Magazine! It is available instantly and is free for at least one month if you subscribe today! And what’s more, there is no obligation to pay anything if you’re not 100% satisfied with the magazine…

Click here for information on the iOS/Apple edition

Click here for information on the Android edition

References

Slimy Stuarts by Terry Deary

www.britannica.com

www.bbc.co.uk/thebishopswar

www.battlefieldstrust.com

www.historyofwar.org

British History by Miles Kelly

Philanthropy in 19th Century Britain – Humble Beginnings

Britain in the nineteenth century was in many ways a dark and discouraging place; however there were shining lights in the gloom of working class life in the form of philanthropists. In this series, Lindsey Buteux will be looking at key philanthropists whose dedication to their cause brought many hundreds of individuals out of poverty and into education, better health, better living conditions and allowed them to experience the life that that their peers did not have access to.

Society did not have a particularly charitable attitude towards the poor so philanthropy at the start of the nineteenth century was not a common sight, but this had greatly changed by the end of the century. A hymn published in 1848 comments upon these social differences: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, and order’d their estate.”

So what makes certain individuals act differently to their peers, why did women such as Angela Burdett-Coutts and men such as Titus Salt, Joseph Rowntree and Charles Dickens challenge the social norm and act above and beyond in the care of the poor? Can we look to these people for inspiration in a society that is becoming increasingly insular and reluctant to be generous and giving of spirit as well as material goods?

Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1814-1906

Angela Burdett-Coutts is the first philanthropist who we will be looking at. Recognized for her charitable work by Queen Victoria in 1871, she was a friend of Charles Dickens and known as ‘Queen of the Poor’, but Burdett-Coutts was not put off by her lack of access to the family business of banking (due to being the last child of six and her gender), and instead channeled her enthusiasm into her philanthropic work.

Angela Burdett-Coutts.

Amongst her charitable donations, Burdett-Coutts supplied Florence Nightingale with the equipment she needed when treating soldiers in the Crimea and thus changed the face of nursing. Burdett-Coutts was concerned with the needs of many and in many areas such as housing, water supply, supporting military wives, child labor and education.

An 1834 report on the Poor Law made it clear that there was a “duty to promote the religious and moral education of the laboring classes” with an emphasis on literacy in order for all people to understand their “responsibilities as citizens”. There had already been plenty of work done in this area through legislation such as Sir Robert Peel’s Factory Act in 1802 which had ensured employers provided instruction in the “Three R’s” during at least some of the seven year apprenticeship however the quality of this instruction varied hugely from factory to factory. It is a wonder that by the 1830s, any form of mass education had been introduced despite the addition of more voters, as the criticism of this mass education was so brutal. MP Davies Giddy comments in 1807 that “it would teach them (laboring classes) to despise their lot in life, it would render them factious and refractory.” He also argued that the cost of this mass education would be “incalculable”.

So we learn that the role of the philanthropist in educating the “laboring classes” is invaluable in not only funding schools for the poor, orphaned and homeless children but in fighting for the cause of education. Burdett-Coutts funded schools and evening classes for children from deprived backgrounds to enable them to learn skills that would enable them to earn a living. Of course, Burdett-Coutts was not the only Victorian citizen interested in children and education. Thomas Barnardo first started his Ragged School in 1867 but just three years later had expanded into providing housing for young boys and developed a ‘no child turned away’ policy after the death of a boy who had been turned away when the shelter was full. Within seven years Barnardo had acquired tens of properties with one of his wedding gifts in 1873 being a 60-acre site to house a Girls Village.

Angela Burdett-Coutts’ giving was not limited to the poor in England, her giving extended into other parts of the Empire by providing vast sums to relieve the suffering in Ireland during the Potato Famine. Not only did she provide goods such as corn, flour, tea and sugar, but she paid for boats and equipment in an attempt to stimulate the fishing industry - something that is considered to be a very modern approach to charity, providing the needy with the tools to better their situation themselves rather than the nineteenth century tradition of giving only what the poor needed when they came begging.

Clearly this charitable nature ran in the family as her father became the first politician to fight against animal cruelty by sponsoring the first act against cruelty to animals brought to the House of Commons. She was made President of the Ladies Committee of the RSPCA in 1870.  Angela Burdett-Coutts also sponsored scientific discovery by sponsoring the Royal Marsden Hospital, David Livingstone in his African exploration and Charles Babbage in his attempts to develop an early computer.

Most significantly, Burdett-Coutts kept her giving discreet as so many of her gifts were donated anonymously. She was one of the wealthiest women of her time and it is estimated that she donated around £350 million.

What encouraged her to become so philanthropic?

So why did this young woman, of massive fortune who was well read and well travelled, decide that she would dedicate her life to improving the lives of others, most of whom she would never meet or interact with? Her contact with politicians such as William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli surely had an impact as despite their opposing political views, both political leaders acted to pass legislation to protect the vulnerable and needy through the allowance of Trade Unions in 1871 and the demolition of slums in 1875 under Gladstone and Disraeli respectively. Most significantly has to be her relationship with Charles Dickens: known philanthropist and author who used his gift to share the situation that disgusted him so greatly and to encourage middle and upper class readers to take on charitable roles. Burdett-Coutts was aware of the problem of prostitution but Dickens had an action plan to create houses for women where they could be taught, become grounded in religion and train them in a steady, firm yet cheerful and hopeful manner. Burdett-Coutts gave Dickens almost “free rein in setting it up” according to author Claire Tomalin.

Burdett-Coutts’ strength of character is shown here as her very close friend, and some would say, lover or even secret husband, guided her against becoming involved with Dickens’ project to house and reform prostitutes. The Duke of Wellington, as explained in one biography: “could not understand her enthusiasm for social reform, for popular education, clearing slums and sewers, all these were outside his comprehension”. The view of the Duke of Wellington was most definitely the popular view and one that her peers would have shared especially with regards to ‘fallen women’ who had allowed themselves to fall to the depths of society and showed no moral fiber as per Victorian values.

Angela Burdett-Coutts is not one of the most well known philanthropists, in part due to her discretion, there are no hospitals named after her or modern charities bearing her name (just one small primary school in central London), but she was surely a pioneer, not only for women but for all nineteenth and twentieth century philanthropists. She did not seek fame and gave away a significant percentage of her vast fortune, she made alliances with key politicians, authors and members of the nobility who all gave her the knowledge that she sought and the opinions she valued, even if she did not agree with them. So, if you are ever in London, take a walk around Victoria Park and spend a moment at the Burdett-Coutts fountain that was generously donated at a cost of £6,000 in 1862 to ensure that people living in the East End of London had access to clean water.

Want to read more? Click here to read our article on the contrasting lives of the rich and poor in Victorian Britain.

References

• http://philanthrocapitalism.net/bonus-chapters/victorian-giving/ 
• http://www.fergys.co.uk/Blogs/BritPMs.php 
• http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/london/122.html
• http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_history/thomas_barnardo.htm
• http://www.coutts.com/private-banking/coutts-institute/philanthropy-and-social-investment/angela-burdett-coutts/#
• http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter02.html#01

A French gift to America. The Statue of Liberty – Image of the week

The Statue of Liberty arrived in America on this day over 125 years ago, so its our image of the week.

The Statue of Liberty is today one of the great symbols of New York city. But it wasn’t always so. The statue was famously built in France before being transported to America. And it arrived today (June 17) in 1885. The statue was designed by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi, and was a gift from France to America that was produced having been a vision for many years.

Our image of the week is a lithograph of the statue from 1885, one year before the statue was actually stood upon the plinth on which it was to be placed. In the image, the statue is lit up in gold against the background and in large letters underneath it says:

The great Bartholdi statue,

Liberty enlightening the world,

The gift of France to the American people.

-------------

Now, have you heard of History is Now magazine? If not, click here to find out about a great new interactive history magazine.

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Statue_of_Liberty,_1885#mediaviewer/File:Currier_and_Ives_Liberty2.jpg

The Worst King of England? The Story of George IV

King George IV of England was king for only ten years until his death in 1830, but he made a lasting impression. So much so that some have dubbed him England’s worst king. Georgie Broad explains why…

Upon the death of King George IV of England in 1830, The Times newspaper said of him “there never was an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than the deceased king”. Hardly very complimentary, but it was a truth that was felt by the majority of English citizens during his reign and echoed by many historians today. Throughout his tempestuous and turbulent reign, George IV earned a great many enemies and was the butt of many libelous jibes and quips. But just how devastating was his rule, and should he really go down in history as one of the most dismal monarchs in British history?

Mistresses and Marriage

George’s life was not terribly rich in good relationships. He had a strained and poor relationship with his father, King George III, and these rocky relations carried on throughout his life. Even his “extra-curricular” interactions with his mistresses were dysfunctional, and they earned him a lot of unwanted attention. George IV’s father strove to cultivate an era of, as Dr. Steve Parissien puts it, “sexual respectability”, and to reinforce more traditional family values throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s. George IV was able to almost totally subvert his father’s moralistic hard work all by himself… With a little help from his litany of mistresses…

George IV acquired his first mistress at the humble age of seventeen, and was secretly (and illegally) married to one Mrs. Fitzherbert, a staunch Roman Catholic, before he married his wife Caroline of Brunswick. Through these various trysts with other women, George IV ended up fathering a considerable number of children. George did not always keep his mistresses under the radar, and allegedly connected with actresses and members of the aristocracy. This string of affairs led to something of an uncertain and tacky image of the king being created, one that did not sit well with a great many English people at the time. It also stood in stark contrast to the ideals that his father lay out before him.

After much persuasion, and due to the fact he desperately wanted to settle his debts, George married his cousin Caroline of Brunswick in 1795; however the marriage was a train wreck from its beginning to its rather prompt end after the birth of their only child, Princess Charlotte. George may have had problems, but he wasn’t the only one. Caroline rarely washed, was unfit, and so physically repulsive that George turned to copious amounts of alcohol to cope with the idea of marrying her. He was so drunk on their wedding night that he collapsed and remained in that temporary resting place until the next morning. These bad feelings about Caroline were not just confined to the king. Parliament and government disliked her too – to the extent that they offered her £50,000 to stay out of the country, which she hastily ignored before settling in London. Even so, when she was accused of having affairs, she was popular enough with various civilians that they greeted her and her carriage upon its arrival at the House of Lords.

So it seems then that among the dignitaries the marriage was not very popular, although the English people sat a little more on the fence. Alas for George, his problems didn’t confine themselves solely to the women in his life.

A cartoon of George IV and Caroline of Brunswick, reflecting popular opinion of the couple.

Regency and Rule

George IV did not walk right into his kingship. When his father was overcome by a recurrent illness, George IV stepped into the position of Prince Regent, something that allowed him rule of the country… in theory. During his regency and rule, George remained fairly disengaged with politics, instead preferring to leave such proceedings to governors and ministers. In doing so, the new ruler was taking a much less active role in government and the ruling of the country than his father before him. This once again proved quite a jarring difference between the new ruler and his father throughout the minds of the English people, and contributed to a social malaise in the country. In terms of representation throughout the United Kingdom, George IV visited Ireland and Scotland on state visits for the first time in many years. This of course promoted a sense of unity among the United Kingdom; however, in England, George IV was still leaving a lot to be desired.

Instead of looking toward the ruling of the country, George turned his attention to matters of style and culture, echoes of which can still be found in architecture today. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens disliked George IV’s reckless spending, his extravagant coronation was popular throughout the country, and helped him on his reign-long development of the more dramatic, theatrical and pageant-like side of monarchy that we can still see in the international aristocracy today. But his careless and excessive spending did not always strike such a chord in the nation…

The regal and wonderful coronation of George IV.

Drinking, Debt and Dining

The aforementioned debt that drove George to marry Caroline was beyond extensive. Before he became king, his debts reached heights of £630,000 in 1795, which equates to around £55,111,000 today, according to Michael De La Noy in his Pocket Biography of the King. Although various grants were available to help George IV out of his debts, the situation did little to ameliorate his public image. He instead created an image of a lavish and wasteful big spender to add to his womanizing ways, which often left the English public cold, especially due to the less than plentiful economic position of the country at the time.

One of the main things that George liked to spend his money on was drink and good food, a trend that persisted for the entirety of his reign. Toward the end of his rule, his health deteriorated so badly that he didn’t like to make many, if any, public appearances due to the public reactions to his weight though. Not only did these health problems lead to a rapid and irreversible deterioration in George IV’s public image, but it also had severe repercussions on his health. With the litany of health problems that dogged the latter years of the monarch’s life, from gout to suspected mental instability, the king didn’t so much as go out with a royal and regal bang, but instead something of an underwhelming fizzle.

A famous caricature by James Gillray showing George IV in his later, less flattering years

Legacy

Nowadays, we often praise and venerate Georgian style, from clothes to architecture and customs; however the monarch who created many of these trends has gone down in history as one of the worst that Britain has known. Positive reviews can be found of George IV, for example those of the Duke of Wellington, crediting him as “the most accomplished man of his age”, although you need to look through a lot of negative reactions first, including another from the Duke of Wellington detailing how George IV was in fact “the worst man he ever fell in with his whole life”. Contradictory, critical and downright cruel most of the time, accounts from during and many years after the reign of George IV have perpetuated an image of a useless, lazy, and unfit king; being petulant, easily swayed and irresponsible to boot. In that light, we must re-examine George IV and ask ourselves: is it fair to go as far as dubbing him the worst King of England?

Did you enjoy the article? If so, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

Image sources

http://www.historic-uk.com/assets/Images/carolinesecretaryvalet.jpg?1390900293

http://www.georgianindex.net/coronation/CoronationService.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3518/3640/1600/Gillray_Voluptuary_051126.0.jpg