The Whalebone Theatre, by Joanna Quinn - Sue Purkiss

 

I first read The Whalebone Theatre a couple of years ago. Lots of people had enjoyed it, and I did too, but it probably suffered a bit from something akin to 'tall poppy syndrome': do you know what I mean? It's when you hear so many good things about a book/film/place that when you eventually read it/see it/visit it, there's no way it can live up to all those high expectations. Also, I read very quickly, and I think I probably raced through it for the story and didn't accord it the time and attention it so richly deserved.

So I'm glad that Penny Dolan (another History Girl) mentioned earlier this week that she had read it recently, and, already having it on my Kindle, and being in search of a book to read while away on holiday, I was able to dive straight into it.

Reader, I'm so glad I did. It is a remarkable book. Of course, that's already established - it's been a huge best-seller - but it's one thing people telling you a book is good, and quite another to find it out for yourself.

In case you haven't come across it, it's a family saga, a little bit in the vein of Elizabeth Howard's Cazalet Chronicles, in that it tells the story of the fortunes of a well-to-do (to start off with) family, starting just after the end of the first world war, and finishing after the second. In particular, it focuses on Cristabel, a small child at the beginning, a grown woman by the end. But no character is neglected: each is gradually revealed in all his/her complexity - all reveal hidden depths, or indeed levels of shallowness. 

And because of the range of characters, Joanna Quinn is able to explore what is happening on both the national and international stages, in what seems like a perfectly believable and natural way. Old family friend Colonel Perry is key in this. He is a significant figure in one of the intelligence organisations, so he knows what's going on, and is also able to propel some of the other characters into particularly interesting places - notably, into wartime France. He's cool and perceptive, and clearly very fond of the Seagrave family - an enigmatic, pivotal character, though at first he seems like a bit of a bystander.

The writing is subtle and beautiful. I loved the way the author described the slowly unfolding relationship between Flossie, Cristabel's younger half-sister, and a German prisoner of war. They are two gentle characters, and theirs is not a dramatic affair, but it's a very moving one. And the descriptions of the Dorset landscape are simply gorgeous. (I'm sorry for not quoting in illustration of this, but useful as Kindle is, it doesn't easily lend itself to finding quotes.)

But it's not all gentle. Cristabel is a wild creature, prickly and tough: not surprisingly as her mother died at her birth, and her stepmother, Rosalind, ignores her as much as she can. The last section of the book, when she becomes an SOE agent in France, is very powerful - particularly towards the end, when she is searching for her beloved brother, Digby, in Paris, as the allies are marching to liberate the city. There were tears, I must confess, and it's a while since a book has made me cry.

Apart from this being a really good read and a beautifully written book, though, it made me think how valuable fiction can be in shining a spotlight (appropriate: I haven't mentioned about Cristabel's interest in the theatre) on historical events. Because history isn't just about the figures who set great events in motion: it's also about the countless millions of ordinary people who are affected - and often suffer - as a result. People sometimes ask writers which book they would like to have written: well, I would most certainly love to have written this one.

This week's post

 The History Girls regret there is no new post this week, due to illness. Normal service will be resumed next Friday, 13th June.

Birds of Blackfriars - Michelle Lovric

I love birds and have lived within chirping distance of Blackfriars Bridge for two decades. Yet I only quite recently realized that it’s a twitcher’s paradise.

From the road, you’d never suspect it. You have to lean over the parapet to see the full, strange spectacle. Each column, east and west, is adorned with life-size sculptures of sea and river birds rendered in Portland Stone. Many beaks and wings are sadly eroded by the uncontrolled emissions of vessels on the Thames (a long and interesting story for another time). But some of the birds are still magnificent and even magnificently eccentric.

The bridge, the second on this site, was designed by Joseph Cubitt. (Cubitt also built the first Blackfriars Rail Bridge, now visible only in attractive iron columns poking out of the water.)

The sculptures are the work of John Birnie Philip (1824 – 1875). a London-born sculptor who worked extensively for the architect George Gilbert Scott. Philip’s daughter Beatrix married James McNeill Whistler in 1888.

The bridge was opened by Queen Victoria in November 1869, and it is said that members of the public booed her. This may have been because many homes were demolished to create the run-up to the bridge. Or it may have been the public expressing their anger at her disappearance from public view in the previous eight years, following the death of her husband Prince Albert.

The sculpted birds, at least, deserved a better reception. They are very hard to photograph, and I’m a poor photographer at the best of times, but a few images follow to give you an idea of their charms. Probably the best way to photograph them would be from the water below ... but the Thames, with its six metre tides, is not a place where that can safely be accomplished. Filming on the river is in any case controlled by the Port of London Authority ...

There birds on the west side are fresh-water creatures. Those on the east, facing towards the estuary, are sea-birds. One explanation for this choice is that Blackfriars was the place where the river turned from salt to sweet. However, technically that is a moveable feast depending on freshwater flows from the west and tides from the east.

Going south to north on the west side of the bridge, you’ll see herons, swans with waterlilies, crows.

And on east side, going north to south, there are black back gulls, or albatrosses, Canada and other kinds of geese.

And here are a few images. I urge you to lean carefully over the parapet next time you find yourself on the bridge. It really is a delightful sight.

This video gives a few more glimpses of the birds: Secrets of Blackfriars Bridge - YouTube

Michelle Lovric’s website is www.michellelovric.com

Garbo and the Swedish Queen by Elisabeth Storrs

The life of Greta Garbo, the Swedish-American actress, is a rags to riches story. Born in Stockholm in 1905 as Greta Gustafsson, she earned her living as a ‘lather girl’ in a barber shop before becoming a fashion model, and then an accomplished actress who graduated from the Royal Dramatic Training Academy.

‘Discovered’ in Sweden in 1925 by Louis B Maher, the famous chief executive of Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM), Greta came to Hollywood with frizzy hair, crooked teeth and no English. She was transformed into a stunning beauty known for her charisma and magnetism throughout the silent screen era then into the ‘talkies.’ Maher first marketed her as a vamp in a series of steamy movies. Her role in Flesh and the Devil catapulted her to box office stardom with her sizzling on screen chemistry (and off-screen romance) with her co-star, John Gilbert. Garbo later became famous for her melancholic portrayal of tragic characters such as the dying Camille or doomed Anna Karenina. She was praised for her subtle acting style where ‘worlds could turn on the movement of her eyes.’

Unable to speak fluent English during the silent era, she was reluctant to convert to sound films until she mastered the language. Her debut speaking role in Anna Christie, (1930) was billed with the tagline ‘Garbo talks’. Her famous first spoken line was ‘Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side, and don’t be stingy, baby.’ The movie became the highest grossing film of the year and ‘Garbomania’ ensued. When she starred in Mata Hari, crowds were so rowdy that police reserves were called in to control the mob waiting outside the theatre. After appearing in the Oscar winning film Grand Hotel, Garbo was dubbed ‘the greatest moneymaking machine ever put on screen.’

In 1932, her contract with MGM expired and she returned to Sweden. However, she was lured back to Hollywood on the condition she could make a movie about the Swedish Queen Christina. The 1933 film was marketed with great fanfare as ‘Garbo Returns’. She earned a salary of $300,000 which equates to approximately 7 million today.

Queen Christina depicts the life of the unorthodox C17th Swedish queen who ascended to the throne at age 7 (although she wasn’t crowned until she turned 18). She was one of the most erudite women of her time, and has been described as the ‘Minerva of the North’ due to her strong support of arts and academics, the magnificent library she established, and her extensive art collection. Unfortunately, her extravagant lifestyle pushed the state to near bankruptcy and caused public unrest.

Her scandalous conversion to Catholicism, and refusal to marry, led to her abdication and move to Rome at age 29. Pope Alexander VII described Christina as ‘a queen without a realm, a Christian without faith, and a woman without shame.’

Christina’s father educated his daughter in the style of a prince. She wore men’s clothes and participated in fencing, horse-riding and bear hunting. She was said to be hirsute and masculine in features. Biographers vary in classing her as gay, bisexual, asexual or intersex. Christina herself wrote she was ‘neither Male nor Hermaphrodite, as some People in the World have pass'd me for.’ She was said to be romantically involved with women, in particular, Ebba Sparre. She maintained a close friendship with Cardinal Decio Azzolino (whom she made her heir) but it is doubtful theirs was a physical relationship.

Christina died at 62 having lived a life crammed with scandals, high culture and unconventional behaviour. However, the queen portrayed in Garbo’s movie was far removed from reality. The scriptwriters correctly portrayed Christina as being raised as a son who wore male clothes but the reason for her abdication is contrived. Her determination to remain celibate and convert to Catholicism is ignored. Instead, she leaves the throne for the love of a Spanish nobleman (played by John Gilbert). Garbo herself was troubled by the film’s historical inaccuracies and absurdities. She dreaded what her fellow Swedes would think. Nevertheless, the movie is famous for two scenes. The first incurred the ire of the censors as Garbo, dressed as a man, kisses Ebba. The other is the final sequence where Christina sails from Sweden to Spain after her lover has died. She stands stoically at the bow of the boat looking into the middle distance as though a living figurehead on a prow. The film became a box-office triumph and was the highest-grossing film of the year.

Garbo retired at 36 having made 28 films over 16 years. She was nominated three times for a best actress Oscar but never won. However, in 1954, she was awarded an Academy Honorary Award ‘for her luminous and unforgettable screen performances’. She failed to show up at the ceremony, and the statuette was mailed to her. The American Film Institute ranked her fifth on their list of greatest female stars in the classic golden years of cinema. In her personal life she appeared to suffer from depression and led a reclusive life. She also was said to be bisexual. Like Christina, she was an avid art collector. She is forever associated with the quote ‘I want to be alone’ when in fact she later clarified she said ‘I want to be let alone.’ She was denied her wish. To this day people rake over the details of her life, intrigued by one of the most iconic screen goddesses of the 20th century.

Elisabeth Storrs is the author of A Tale of Ancient Rome series. She is also the founder of the Historical Novel Society Australasia. Find out more at www.elisabethstorrs.com

Images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Many Faces of Anne Boleyn.

 Anne Boleyn – home-wrecker, whore, wicked stepmother, scheming bitch, witch, the woman responsible for encouraging the early years of the English reformation – or simply a woman whose fate was determined by the love or hate of a King?

 

 About the author:

Wendy J. Dunn is an Australian writer obsessed by Tudor History. She is the award-winning author of two Anne Boleyn novels, Dear Heart, How Like You This? and The Light in the Labyrinth and The Duty of Daughters and All Manner of Things. Shades of Yellow, Wendy's fifth novel, will be published on September 7th.

Defiled is my name full sore

Through cruel spite and false report,

That I may say for evermore,

Farewell to joy, adieu comfort.

For wrongfully you judge of me

Unto my fame a mortal wound,

Say what ye list, it may not be,

Ye seek for that shall not be found.

Anne Boleyn.

(Believed written the night before her execution.)

 

Anne Boleyn – home-wrecker, goggled-eyed whore, wicked step-mother, scheming bitch, witch, the saintly woman responsible for encouraging the early years of the English reformation – or simply a woman whose fate was determined by the love or hate of a King? Dead for over 400 years, Anne Boleyn arouses passions even today. People either love or hate her.

Many long years ago, Anne of the Thousand Days (Geneviève Bujold evoking Anne so brilliantly) was my first introduction, to the vibrant and intelligent mother of my favourite Queen, Elizabeth I. For most of my life I have been an advocate of Anne Boleyn, speaking up in her defence. 

The continuing interest in Tudor history over the last decade or more has also resulted in returning to centre stage the second and probably most infamous wives of Henry VIII. Anne Boleyn well liked the centre stage – but she deserves it for better reasons than the alternative histories presented in many films and novels.

Anne Boleyn has a ‘Public Relations’ problem. It started in her own times and remains in place even today. For centuries, writers loved misunderstanding Anne Boleyn, shaping and distorting her to their own devices. With their constant merry-go-rounding, it is difficult to determine Anne’s true face. Even Alison Plowden, a writer of many respected Tudor histories, falls into the trap of believing Nicholas Sanders – a man writing years after Anne’s death and only a young child at the time of her execution. Sanders, a devout Catholic, described Anne Boleyn as six-fingered, jaundiced, buck toothed and please let’s not forget the unfortunate large facial mole, situated under her chin in the view of all – deformities which would have identified her to the superstitious people of this period as a witch. I can't believe Henry VIII, a fastidious man of his time, could have ever been smitten with such a vision of loveliness.

Today, historians and writers of history debate about Anne Boleyn’s true character — something now shrouded in the mists of time. We don’t even know if any of Anne’s so-called portraits really depict her. 

Philippa Gregory, a very respected and awarded fiction author, reinforced Anne Boleyn’s bad press in her best-selling novel “The Other Boleyn Girl.” Gregory – despite saying she believes in Anne’s innocent of the charges resulting in her execution, as well as five men accused of being her lovers – shapes a totally ambitious Anne Boleyn. Gregory suggests in her novel Anne, desperate for pregnancy to ensure she remains Queen, beds and becomes pregnant with her own brother, one of the men executed with Anne during those blood-bathed days of May, 1536.

Similarly to the Anne painted in the dispatches of Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador to Henry VIII’s court and one of the reporters of this period in Tudor history, Gregory’s fictional Anne is a woman with barely any redeeming features. But Chapuys’ diplomatic news-sheets to Spain reflect his stance as a loyal friend and champion of Katherine of Aragon, whilst Gregory writes as a fiction writer with a story to tell.

Despite his six marriages, Henry VIII was never very good at dealing with wives who forgot to be “gentle, humble and buxom,” their expected place in Tudor society, and spoke their minds. It shocked him when his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, became short-tempered about being expected to be welcoming and “wifely”. He had decided to relax in the comfort of her chambers, and well away from his very stressed mistress, when they all were living in a kind of ménage à trois.

When the bewildered king complained to Anne Boleyn of Katherine’s behaviour, he found her offering little comfort. Anne did a bit of straight talking, saying she feared he planned returning to Katherine, followed by her frustration at remaining in the role of “the other woman”: 

         “I have been waiting long and might in the meanwhile have contracted some advantageous marriage, out of which I might have had issue, which is the greatest consolation in this world, but alas! Farewell to my time and youth spent to no purpose at all.”(1)

Some years later, Henry discovered a permanent way of chopping his wives down to size. But in this period, before his first ‘divorce’, these two very intelligent and strong women often rendered Henry wordless. No wonder when it came time to selecting a third bride he chose the wisely humble and obedient Jane Seymour.

But was Anne Boleyn really a home wrecker? Katherine and her daughter Mary, who never forgave Anne for what she did to her mother and her own early life, probably saw her as such, as did many other women of the time. Before she became Henry’s queen, a group of women threatened to lynch Anne. (2)

 The people of England loved Katherine of Aragon, taking her into their hearts when she first arrived in England as a sixteen-year-old princess to marry Arthur, the first-born son of the first Tudor King. Marrying Henry, Arthur’s brother, on his ascension to the throne, it didn’t seem to matter to the populace that, twenty years later, she had failed to provide her second husband with a living son. Queen Katherine had given them Mary, and they accepted her as her father’s heir, no doubt an offshoot of the great love they bore her mother. Like the struggle to accept Camilla in Princess Diana’s place, the English people’s great love of Katherine made it difficult for them to accept Anne as their queen.

All England had to do a lot of accepting to do before that moment arrived. In the first days of Anne and Henry’s relationship, nobody guessed Anne’s destiny lay as a crowned Queen of England, consort of Henry VIII. Her own family would have viewed the prospect beyond their wildest fancies.

Anne’s father, Thomas Boleyn (originally Bullen), who later became the Earl of Ormonde and Wiltshire, held only the rank of knight at the time of her birth. The eldest son of a man whose own father, Sir Geoffrey Boleyn, a self made man who became mayor of London, stood even lower on the rungs of English society. Thomas Boleyn, the ambitious father of Anne Boleyn, continued the uphill society climb of his grandfather.

The Tudors lived in a patriarchal society, which considered women as little more than property. The King controlled Anne’s life and that of her family; Henry’s obvious interest in her left her no other choice but to play interested, too. But Anne showed her own daughter’s characteristic of using her sex well to her own advantage. By keeping the King’s passion hot by refusing to bed with him, Anne soon showed her mettle as a different kettle of fish to his usual easy catch.

Having watched the king bed and discard her sister, Mary, Anne unsurprisingly desired to avoid a similar fate. Indeed, Anne never set out to catch a king. Rather, it seems she first wanted to wed the twenty-year-old Henry Percy, later Earl of Northumberland. George Cavendish, a gentleman of the cardinal’s household, documented this relationship, as well as later brought up during the trial for Anne’s life.

Showing all the hallmarks of young man and woman’s ‘first true love,’ both of Anne and Henry embarked upon their relationship as if unaware of how their place in Tudor society dictated their lives. There are even strong hints suggesting Anne and Percy may have pre-contracted themselves to one another, casting in shadow the legality of any future marriage entered by Anne and Percy to another party. (2) Disregarding Percy’s loud protests concerning his commitment to Anne Boleyn, Wolsey broke up their relationship, Percy’s father dragging his son back to home to marry an heiress in quick haste – a marriage doomed to failure from the start.

As for Anne and Percy?

History suggests this break-up hit them hard, and they never forgot what happened. It seems more than just a simple coincidence that the man leading the party to arrest Wolsey for treason was Percy. Anne said later that she rather had been Henry’s Countess (meaning the wife of Percy) than Henry’s Queen. When they delivered the verdict at her trial, Percy, a judge at her trial, fainted and they had to carry him out.

Cavendish believed the King commanded Wolsey to cause the original break-up after he decided on a fresher Boleyn girl to warm his bed. But people of this period rarely blamed the King for the break-up of his marriage. They saw Anne Boleyn as the young hussy, out for all she could get and aiming to replace Katherine of Aragon as queen. Henry was always good at staying in his subjects’ good books by shifting the blame to another person.

At the beginning of 1536, the heartbroken Katherine of Aragon died. The year’s beginning also saw Anne Boleyn, married to the king for three years and ‘big-bellied’ with probably her third pregnancy. Anne was an intelligent woman. She knew this pregnancy needed the result of a living son. That and only that would secure her position as Henry’s consort and keep her safe. With Katherine’s demise, and a question mark lingering even to this day over the legality of her marriage to the king, if she failed to give her husband a living son, then a death knell would sound over her time as queen. Anne Boleyn would not have realised failure to give the King a living son also death knelled her own life.

As the king’s wife, Anne experienced firsthand the same pain of Katherine of Aragon, For those born noble, Tudor mindset didn’t encourage sex through the long months of a pregnancy, so Henry VIII habitually took a mistress during the pregnancies of his wives.

Henry was a conservative man; he had done his bit, got his wife pregnant, now it was up to her to do what was expected of her and hatch out his prince. Henry probably thought a mistress was the best solution all round. For Anne, a jealous and now very insecure woman, this was hard to come to terms with; she had rudely awakened to the fact that her true worth as his queen equated to her success in the birthing chamber.

Just thirteen weeks into her pregnancy, on the very day they buried Katherine, Anne miscarried the son she hoped would save her marriage and protect her. His lustful gaze and hands already resting on Jane Seymour the previous year, Henry now lusted for a bon fide marriage to another woman,

Henry VIII said, after Anne lost her baby and her last chance to hold the king, “I was seduced into this marriage and forced into it by sorcery.”

 Anne Boleyn was no witch, white or black. Protestant bishops held her in great esteem; the men dying with her were not her lovers but men staying loyal to her even when it was obvious the tide had turned against her. Sir Thomas Wyatt, the elder, the man I endeavored to give voice in Dear Heart, How Like You This?, my first Tudor novel, once said, “I could gladly yield to be tied forever with the knot of her love.”

Anne was a woman who loved her daughter, a woman who said children were the greatest consolation in the world.cShe wasn’t perfect. But none of us are. Anne had many terrible moments as step-mother to Mary, the eldest daughter of the King. But the relationship probably reflected much of Anne’s frustration in her efforts to solve the problem. The one time she tried to achieve a better rapport with Mary, Catherine of Aragon’s loyal and loving daughter slammed the door on Anne’s attempt. For Mary, there reigned only one Queen in England, and it wasn’t Anne Boleyn.

Shortly before her execution, knowing she had failed in her duty of care of Mary, Anne fell on her knees, entreating the wife of the Tower’s Constable to go in her place and beg Mary’s forgiveness. She didn’t want to die with a weight of guilt on her soul about her treatment of Mary.

I believe a lot of Anne’s ‘bad’ behaviour stemmed from living on her ‘nerves,’ grappling with the immense insecurities as consort to the king. She lacked the training of Katherine of Aragon, a daughter of a ruling queen who had ensured her daughter’s readiness to assume her own queen’s mantle. But Katherine and Anne shared a similarity. Both of them acted like lionesses with claws out when it came to ensuring their daughters’ rights.

Anne was well aware of her many enemies, one her own uncle (the duke of Norfolk) who didn’t take kindly to her Lutheran leanings and independent spirit. Most wives would struggle to behave well if their spouse expected them put up with mistresses. Especially if your husband said, as Henry VIII did when she was heavily pregnant with Elizabeth– “Shut your eyes, do as your betters had done, and endure.”

The Anglican Church owes more debt to Anne Boleyn for its inception than is ever really acknowledged. During her time as Queen, Anne encouraged men such as Cranmer, Parker, Latimer and other Protestant bishops to plant the new church in the soil of England. Latimer and Cranmer, martyred during the reign of Katherine of Aragon’s daughter, planted it with their own blood.

 Yes – Anne Boleyn possessed a temper and forceful personality, a person who often spoke her mind, but as the mother of Elizabeth, could we expect any less? But she tried hard during her time as queen to be a good queen, following the great example of Katherine of Aragon. 

Anne was no witch, despite the excuse flung by Henry VIII to his subjects in 1536, inferring his main reason for marrying her, and the reason to rid himself of her. His words prepared the ground for Anne Boleyn’s juridical murder on trumped-up charges of adultery. During Anne’s trial for her life, when she fought every step of the way to clear her name, Henry himself said, “She has a stout heart.”

Elizabeth I remained silent about her mother. Some writers infer her silence as her way to distance herself from Anne, and that she must have believed the political spin put in place after Anne Boleyn’s death. Yet actions speak louder than words. Throughout Elizabeth’s long reign, Anne Boleyn’s gifted, intellectual daughter surrounded herself with her mother’s kin, making them part of her inner circle. Some of those closest to her were men and women who had also been close to her mother. More poignant than this was the discovery after her death. Until days before her death, when they cut the ring from her finger, Elizabeth wore a ring containing her own portrait as an aged queen and that of a much younger woman—her mother’s portrait. It is a picture worth a thousand words.

 

 

 

 

(1)         Antonia Fraser, The six wives of Henry VIII, page 169.

(2)         Alison Plowden; HOUSE OF TUDOR; page 119

(3)         Antonia Fraser, work cited, page 126

 

References:

Antonia Fraser; The six wives of Henry VIII; Arrow Books, 1998

Alison Plowden; HOUSE OF TUDOR; Sutton Publishing; 2003

George Cavendish; The life and Times of Cardinal Wolsey; Renaissance Electronic texts, Gen. Ed. Ian Lancashire; Web Development Group;

Who do You Think You Are - on the wrong side of the street By L.J. Trafford

Last Christmas I brought my Mum one of those ancestry DNA kits with the hope that it would reveal hitherto unknown mysteries about her/my lineage and thus provide me with a ready-made topic for a History Girls post.
Two months later when the results pinged into her inbox it is fair to say my Mum was a tad disappointed with her report.


Her DNA report revealed that her ancestors came from Cambridgeshire, a county in the East Anglian region of England. Cambridgeshire, East Anglia is also where my Mum currently resides and has done her whole life. Perhaps this adherence to staying put is an inherited trait because according to her DNA report her family had spent the last 350 years in Cambridgeshire, East Anglia. Britain once had an empire that covered an area of 13.7 million square miles and the UK itself is 94,000 square miles, my Mum’s ancestors hadn’t dangled so much as an ankle outside of Cambridgeshire since Charles II was King.


But never mind, I can work with the material given.

Kettle’s Yard

In squeezing a History Girls article out of my Cambridgeshire DNA I decided to take a closer look at the background of my maternal Nanna, I knew that she had grown up in a rough area of Cambridge and I figured that gave me an increased chance of pulling a sexy story out of the bag. Perhaps.


My Nanna was born in 1911 in Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge. Her family, the Lowes had moved into number 2 Kettle’s Yard sometime between the census of 1871 and the census of 1881. In 1881 John Lowe, my great-great grandfather is listed as working a coal porter, my great-great grandmother Emma Lowe is apparently working as a washerwoman whilst somehow looking after her six children; Kate 13, Alice 9, Amelia 7, Emily 5, Ernest 2 and my great-grandmother Harriet Lowe, who was only 2 months old.

When the Lowes lived in Kettle’s Yard it ‘was dank place where twenty-six tiny cottages squeezed into a place suitable for none’.1’

Kettle’s Yard did not have the greatest of reputations, as my Nanna had told me herself when she was alive. She didn’t tell her school friends where she lived, she didn’t want them to know she came from Kettle’s Yard.

But how rough was Kettle’s Yard really during the years that the Lowe family lived there? Armed with an online subscription to the archives of the Cambridge Evening and The Cambridge Weekly newspapers I set off to find out.

Foul of mouth

Typing Kettle’s Yard into the search bar of the local newspaper archives retrieved a number of stories about obscene language. In November 1855 James Rutter was sentenced to seven days in prison for using ‘obscene and profane language’ in Kettle’s Yard. The newspaper report makes mention that it was a Sunday, this may or may not be relevant to the rather harsh punishment dished out to Rutter


In 1899, Frederick Clarke, a labourer and resident of Kettle’s Yard who pleaded not guilty to using obscene language fared better than James Rutter had 45 years before. Clarke was only fined half a crown after being found guilty, perhaps people's sensibilities had changed toward foul language. Or perhaps, not because there are enough newspaper reports of people up before the Magistrate for using obscene language. Between the years 1890-99 there are 677 newspaper reports that mention the phrase ‘obscene language’ versus only 150 between 1850-59.


In 1893 Mr EH Douty a reputable surgeon was strolling down Kings Parade in Cambridge at half past eleven at night when he passed two men using ‘bad language in a very loud voice”. Douty listened for a further two minutes to this awful language before whistling for a constable. As the two men were lead away they‘used language worse than ever.’ I bet they did, straight at Mr EH Douty the reputable surgeon and sneak. Douty was praised by the bench for his actions. One of the men, Walter Pilsworth of Kettle’s Yard pleaded guilty and was fined.


Then there is this glorious story. Annie Woodrough a resident of Kettle’s Yard in 1889 is facing charges after she bumped into an acquaintance at ‘about a quarter past seven near the old post office. Defendant made use of a very abusive expression and offered to fight her on the Piece for 10s. Witness was also insulted by her about ten o’clock” Whilst some have got away with mere fines for using obscene language, Annie gets 14 days imprisonment. Chiefly because she is a repeat offender, it is revealed that this is the 3rd time Annie has been up before the magistrate for using obscene language and the 7th time in total she has been before the magistrate that year. Which is all the more impressive when you note the date of the article, 11th February 1889. In less than two months Annie has managed to get herself arrested, charged and brought before a magistrate 7 times. That’s more than once a week


This reads as extremely tough justice for what are essentially only words but there is a sense of fairness in the system in that both the defendant and the claimant are allowed to bring forward witnesses to back up their version of events. In the case of Annie Woodrough her witness caves in under pressure and the sheer number of other people who had all seen Annie effing and blinding her way through the streets of Cambridge’ Woodrough denied the charge saying that she had not been out of her house until some time after the time when she was accused of having misconducted herself, and she called a witness, Annie Hammond, to prove that she had been in her house until after that time. Annie Hammond however when on her oath said that she had seen defendant in St Andrew’s Street at about seven o’clock.’


Two ladies from Kettle’s Yard, Ellen Blackwell and Hannah Haylock had their cases dismissed for using obscene language due to ‘the evidence being of a contradictory character.’


My great-great grandmother Emma Lowe, even appears as a witness in one such case in 1902. She is acting as a witness for the defendant, Mary Ann Wolfe who has been accused by Eliza Hall of having come to her house ‘about one o clock on the day in question. [] Witness had shut the door and the defendant tried to open it. She commenced swearing at witness and it was kept up until 10 o clock at night’

You have to admire Mary Ann Wolfes fortitude for keeping up the torrent of obscene language for nine whole hours. This was the sort of behaviour that attracts attention and Eliza Hall had no difficulty finding witnesses to back up her story.

Enter my great-great grandmother Emma. ‘Emma Lowe, wife of John Lowe [] gave evidence for the defendant. The complainant, she said, abused the defendant, who did no use bad language.’ Which is not much of a defence because it confirms Eliza Hall’s story that there was an altercation between the two, there are very few altercations that don’t involve some bad language. Otherwise, it’s not an altercation, it’s two people having a chat.

Mary Anne Wolfe then piped up that Eliza Hall had only brought the case through spite because she, Mary would not deal with her. The response to this new claim in the case was this. ‘The Chairman said the defendant had been before the court something like 10 times. She appeared to be a very violent woman having no control over herself. She would be bound over in two sums of £5 each to keep the peace for 6 months.’

‘This is cruel treatment,’ said Mary.

It’s not terribly cruel treatment, being bound over meant that Mary merely had to stick to some conditions, presumably not swearing at people for 9 hours, else she be charged £10. £10 was a lot of money in 1902, it was not far short of the annual wage of a scully maid or hall boy, admittedly the lowest rung of domestic servant.


Let’s take a moment to contemplate that my great-great grandmother is hanging around with someone described by an official as ‘a very violent woman’ and a habitual criminal.

Drunk as a Insert animal of choice.

What I didn’t mention about Mary Anne Wolfe’s case was the location of Eliza Hall’s house, the house that she tried to shut Mary out of and which Mary subsequently stood outside and yelled obscenities for 9 whole hours. Eliza Hall was the wife of James Hall, publican of the Beehive Pub. The story makes a whole lot more sense once you realise alcohol was involved.

Alcohol was also a factor in the case of Annie Woodrough. ‘Supt. Turrall complained to the magistrate of the Rose and Tulip public-house. It had been a great nuisance for a long time[] People round the neighbourhood complained of obscene language being used about there and girls of bad character resorted to it to get out the way of proctors.’

Alcohol is a factor in many of the newspaper reports connected to Kettle’s Yard.
In 1891 Thomas Brown admitted he had ‘had a drop of beer and it had made him as giddy as a goose.’ Thomas’ giddiness manifested itself as gazing about in a vacant manner and making peculiar signs with his hands. He’d also assaulted a small boy and was charged by PC Gates with being of unsound mind and wandering at large, as well as being drunk and disorderly.


In 1892 Groom, Daniel Davey was blaming drink for his actions on one December night ‘the prisoner in his defence said he was very sorry for what he had done. He had had too much to drink and did not know what he was doing.’ What he was doing was assaulting Jane Riley who had fled from Kettle’s Yard pursued by Davey who ‘struck the woman in the face, pulled her hair and threatened to kill her.’ Thankfully some passerby's intervened, and Davey was taken away. His stated remorse held no sway given that he’d been arrested for disorderly conduct many times previously. Davey was sentenced to two months hard labour.

Drink was surely behind this incident too, the ‘defendant came to him and snatched half a roll and some butter from him, and then picked up an old herring and threw it at his hat.’


It’s not surprising that there are so many reports of drunkenness around the Kettle’s Yard area for in the streets that surrounded Kettles Yard; Castle Street, Northampton Street, Bridge Street, Pound Hill and St Peter’s Street the 1911 census records there were 40 public houses. In the city of Cambridge in total there were 384 pubs for a population of 40,000 which is a pub for every 102 people and that’s before we factor out the under 10’s of that total population.

To put this in context in 2021 there were 84 pubs for a total population of around 145,000. Which is a pub for every 1726 members of the public, and a much longer queue for last order.

Kettle’s Yard – Asbo central?

It is clear from my brief study of local newspapers that Kettle’s Yard and people who lived in Kettle’s Yard were involved in a fair amount of what we would call anti-social behaviour. Altercations fuelled by easy access to alcohol from the trillion pubs of Cambridge which led to some pretty fruity language.

However, what I didn’t find was much in the way of what we might call serious crimes being committed. Horace Gidney aged 9 of Kettle’s Yard was one of a gang of boys accused of stealing pears, grapes and plums from the garden of Henry John Gray. Richard Todd of Kettle’s Yard was charged with keeping two dogs without a license but didn’t turn up for court to face the charges and thus earned himself an extra charge. Charles Hammond aged 14 of Kettle’s Yard was caught red handed stealing 21lbs of lead piping from a house, however nobody could ascertain who owned the house and thus the lead piping. Therefore, Charles Hammond and his gang were released from remand, although reminded by a court official ‘that they would be liable to be brought up and charged again if the difficulty was cleared up.’

There was one serious crime I could find, it was committed by 17 year old George John Wolfe of Kettle’s Yard, a sexual assault on a 9 year old girl. Wolfe firmly denied the charges claiming that the girl had made a mistake and called on two witness who attested he was elsewhere at the time. When Wolfe was put before a Grand Jury they threw out the bill.

Finally, I stumbled across one further crime committed by a resident of Kettle’s Yard. In 1883 ‘John Lowe, Kettle’s Yard [was] also summoned for disobeying orders to send their children to school.’


Yep, that’s my great grandfather.





Notes


1 The Spinning House’ p125 Caroline Biggs.

The 'Auld Alliance' by Margaret Skea

Some years ago the BBC ran an advert for the 6 Nations Rugby tournament which was pulled following some complaints, and then proceeded to go viral! The punchline was - 

 

‘It’s not who you want to win, but who you want to lose.’

 

No prizes for guessing the answers the Scots, Irish and Welsh fans gave. 

Clever – yes. Amusing – yes. And like all the best humour, based on a grain of truth. But from the Scots perspective at least, it has its roots in ancient history.

The United Kingdom has a common flag - the Union Jack, which symbolizes both the union of the crowns of 1603 and the union of parliaments in 1707. A union that, despite having been challenged in recent years, has nevertheless survived relatively unscathed for over 400 years. 

But Scotland had a prior alliance, with France, which has come to be known as the ‘Auld Alliance.’ It is one of the longest standing treaties in the world (more on that later). Renewed by successive monarchs it was based on a sense of a common enemy, and that enemy was England.

 

In 1579 David Chamber, one of the Lords of Council and Session at Edinburgh claimed that the Auld Alliance dated back to Philip I of France and Malcolm III of Scotland. If it did, no documentary evidence remains. 

 

The earliest extant record of the treaty is dated 23^rd October 1295 which John Balliol concluded with Philip the Fair. Balliol was technically only the Scottish King under the over-lordship of Edward I of England, so the terms of the treaty with France are somewhat surprising. It bound Scotland and France to provide mutual support in the event of war with England. 

                                                                         John Balliol 

An excerpt from the 1326 version of the treaty, between Charles IV of France and Robert I of Scotland, illustrates both the main terms and the tone of the treaty.

 

‘…a meet and necessary thing it is that princes should ally themselves together by bond of friendship and goodwill in order the grievances of those who desire to grieve them more forcibly to refrain; and the tranquility of them and of their subjects more peaceably to secure…with the noble prince Robert, by the grace of God King of Scotland our special friend, against the King of England, whose predecessors have often labored to aggrieve the said kingdoms of France and Scotland in many and sundry ways…’ 

 

Even more strikingly there was provision for what should happen in the event of either country making peace with England –

 

‘…if our kingdom shall make peace or truce with the king of England…the King of Scotland, his heirs shall be excepted; so that such peace shall be null whenever war is waged between the aforesaid kings of Scotland and England  …France shall be bound to make war upon the kingdom of England with all their force…firmly to observe, faithfully to perform and fully to accomplish.’  (Ditto in reverse.)

 

No wriggle room there then! The treaty was renewed at least 12 times between 1295 and 1543 and many of the original documents survive among the charters of France. They can be accessed via an inventory, catalogued by a M. du Tillet and printed in folio in 1588. One significant effect of this on-going treaty was a succession of contracts of marriage, beginning in 1235 with Edward Balliol (son of King John) to Joan, niece of the French King; with the most famous being the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to the Dauphin Francis in 1558.

Mary Queen of Scots and Dauphin Francois

While the treaty was mutually beneficial, it does seem that the balance fell in favour of the French, with Scotland regularly providing troops, sometimes in very significant numbers, to aid the French in their wars with England, both on French and on English soil. 

There were notable wins for the Scots – in 1420 they defeated the English at Beange; but notable losses also – in 1326, following the French defeat at the Battle of Crecy, David II attacked the north of England but was routed at what has become known as the Battle of Neville’s Cross.  

Battle of Neville's Cross

The story goes that David, heavily wounded, fled the battlefield and took refuge under the arch of Aldin Grange Bridge on the river Browney. There he was said to have been betrayed by his own reflection in the river and was thus captured by John Coupland. Legend or truth, what is clear is that when Coupland delivered David to the English king, Edward, he was rewarded with  a substantial fee and a knighthood. David was imprisoned in the Tower of London for ten years and finally handed back to the Scots apparently for a ransom that would equate to c £15 million in today’s money.  Whether the ransom was actually paid is however a debatable point.  

Saddest of all the efforts of the Scots was the enormous loss of Scottish lives at the Battle of Flodden in 1513, when James IV attacked England in support of France despite the English King, Henry, being James’ brother-in-law. It was said that ‘the flower of Scottish nobility perished on that day’ and the lament ‘Flowers of the Forest’ commemorates the deaths of James and around 10,000 of his men. There were few of the leading families in Scotland untouched by that tragedy. The site of the battle and the fallen on both sides is commemorated in a memorial cross. It is near where I currently live and walking around the battlefield is incredibly atmospheric. 

                                                                 Site of the Battle of Flooden

 So what did the Scots get in return for centuries of service to France? Quite a bit actually. Many individuals received military, civil and ecclesiastical honours and offices, but most importantly, every Scot was entitled to letters of naturalization – in effect giving them the right to dual nationality. (Handy if you’re in trouble in your home country!)  That right was confirmed by Henry IV as late as 1599, with letters signed by him at the palace of Fontainbleau, and I love the detail - ‘sealed with the great seal in green wax, in a lace of red and green silk.’  This ensured that Scots could be testate in France and could both inherit and dispose of any assets they possessed there.  This is of relevance to my fictional family, the Munros, who are central figures in my Scottish trilogy, set in the real-life feud between the Cunninghame and Montgomerie families, called the 'Ayrshire Vendetta'.  

 

Another important result of the alliance was the establishment of the Gardes Ecossaise in 1418 – an elite troop that was supposed to be comprised entirely of Scots (that was the theory, however there is evidence that others were admitted and both Mary Queen of Scots and James VI are recorded as having made protests on that score.) The Gardes formed the royal bodyguard of successive French kings and their duties ranged from keeping the keys of the King’s bedchamber and assisting at the reception of ambassadors and waiting at coronations, baptisms and marriages of royal children, to carrying the body and guarding the effigy of a (dead) King. One captain of the Gardes was Robert Stewart of Aubigny and both he and the Auld Alliance are commemorated at a ceremony in Aubigny-sur-Neve to this day. 

My own interest in the Auld Alliance stems from researching the Gardes Ecossaise, because the real-life Patrick Montgomerie, one of my favourite historical characters in my trilogy, was a captain in this elite troop. His involvement in the Gardes allowed me to take my fictional family to France.

A  rather elegantly dressed Garde Ecossaise

But perhaps the most important advantage that the Auld Alliance gave to Scots were trading privileges for Scots merchants. They were required to pay only ¼ of the normal duty on all the goods that they imported from France to Scotland and were similarly acquitted from new duties imposed on merchandise they brought to France.  Interestingly these privileges didn’t stop even after the Act of Union in 1707 which formally linked England and Scotland under a single parliamentary system. English merchants continued to be penalized, while Scots merchants were not.

 

Historian Dr Siobhan Talbott has spent some years researching the treaty signed in 1295 and suggests that there is no evidence that it was ever formally rescinded. Others have suggested that it was dissolved by the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560, as a by-product of the reformation in Scotland, but she is convinced that there isn’t anything in the treaty to support that view. Three facts also support her view – that Henry IV again ratified the naturalization of all Scots in 1599, that trading privileges continued even after 1707, and that in 1942 Charles de Gaulle made a speech describing the Auld Alliance as an active agreement; claiming it was the ‘oldest in the world’. If this is indeed true it is now 730 years old, and as such trounces the other contender for ‘oldest treaty’ – that between England and Portugal signed in 1373.  

 

Postscript: In 1906, under the Entente Cordiale, the part of the agreement that meant that Scots had the same rights in France as the native French was rescinded, but not made retrospective. Which means theoretically anyone born before 1906 could still claim dual nationality, even today.  Though, as I’m not aware of any Scots older than 120, it probably doesn’t matter too much now! 

 

Margaret Skea is the author of the prize-winning Munro Scottish Saga, as well as a fictionalised biography of Katharina von Bora, the wife of the reformer, Martin Luther, a contemporary missionary biography, and a collection of short stories.   These are available in selected UK bookshops or direct from Margaret's website at https://www.margaretskea.com and in print and kindle via Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Margaret-Skea/author/B009B9HCUC?ref