British Masculinities on Trial in the Queen Caroline Affair of 1820

Gender & History ISSN 0953-5233Louise Carter, ‘British Masculinities on Trial in the Queen Caroline Affair of 1820’Gender & History, Vol.20 No.2 August 2008, pp. 248–269.

British Masculinities on Trial in the Queen

Caroline Affair of 1820

Louise Carter

She was not to his taste-What car’d he for the ‘form’?

‘To love and to cherish’Could not mean reform:

‘To love’ meant, of course, nothing elsebut neglect;-

‘To cherish’ to leave her, and shew disrespect.1

‘If the age of chivalry were past, I have lived to see it renewed’.2

Two opposing visions of masculinity were represented in the deluge of pamphlets,articles, satires and sermons published in response to George IV’s attempt to divorcehis wife Caroline in 1820. In one seam of analysis, commentators fretted that a sectionof British manhood, symbolised by George IV and his ministers, had become selfish,arrogant and disrespectful to women; while in the other the general male populaceof Britain was congratulated for the demonstration of just, honourable, stalwart andchivalrous behaviour in defence of the injured queen.

The insatiable public appetite for information and comment on the proceedingsagainst the queen has left an extraordinarily rich seam of material for historians toexplore.3 Previous studies have noted many of the themes evident in this ephemeralmaterial: the radical and political aspect of opposition to the king;4 the assertion ofmiddle- and lower-class values in opposition to aristocratic vice;5 the utilisation ofmelodrama;6 and the novel involvement of women in a public debate.7 The influenceof masculine gender ideals in shaping attitudes towards this incident has also beenhighlighted by Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, who noted popular concern thatGeorge IV be ‘a proper father to his country’ by fulfilling his domestic duties; and byAnna Clark, who highlighted the melodramatic depiction of George IV as a dastardlyvillain tormenting a damsel in distress and the increasing importance of private virtueas a component of masculine political authority.8 However, the printed commentaryand debate that surrounded this episode in 1820 was so extensive and fulsome that itpresents a remarkable opportunity to study the construction of Georgian masculinitiesin greater depth, and therefore warrants still further investigation. This article usesthe ephemeral material surrounding the Queen Caroline Affair as a case study of the

C© The author 2008. Journal compilation C© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA.

British Masculinities and the Queen Caroline Affair 249

manner in which masculine gender ideals were created, contested and utilised withinthe public arena at this time.

The idea has persisted that, while gendered concerns were a prime motivationfor female opposition to the royal divorce, the king’s marital woes were simply anopportunistic political device utilised by radicals and other opponents to further calls forpolitical reform. Robert Shoemaker, for example, explicitly characterised the affair as ‘awoman’s cause’ and concluded that, while issues such as marriage and gender proprietyanimated women, ‘men were mostly attracted to the movement for different reasons’,namely that ‘it offered an opportunity to criticise the King’.9 Political opportunismwas clearly a factor motivating many radicals and others in their condemnation ofthe king’s marital failings, yet it is unsatisfactory to assume that politics and genderwere separate and divisible entities. As Matthew McCormack has argued, ‘politicsand masculinity were inseparable in this period: manliness was important in politicalsituations but politics was also central to the business of being a man’.10 Moreover,George IV’s detractors had other fronts on which they could and did attack him, such asthe excessive burden his lifestyle placed on public finances, suggesting that the decisionto focus greater attention on his masculine standing and reputation was not simplyexpedient, but reflected its status as an issue of genuine and meaningful concern.11

The opposing visions of masculinity embedded in the ephemeral material surroundingthe Queen Caroline Affair were therefore not only enjoyable melodrama, opportunisticcriticisms of the king or the self-aggrandising fantasies of an aspirant middle class, theywere also deeply political assertions of masculine citizenship and supposed nationalsuperiority. They were also an attempt to recast the nature of patriarchal authority andto deliver its benefits to a broader section of British men.

The Queen Caroline Affair first erupted when Caroline of Brunswick returnedto Britain in 1820, expecting to join her husband George IV at his coronation. Aftera marriage devised for pecuniary advantage and characterised by mutual distaste, thecouple had separated in 1796, after just one year of marriage and the birth of a daughter.George’s ongoing harassment of his wife eventually drove her to move abroad in1814. However, upon hearing news of George III’s death, Caroline returned to Britaindetermined to claim her place as George IV’s queen, sparking her estranged husband’sinitiation of a House of Lords investigation intended to dissolve the royal marriageupon satisfactory proof of Caroline’s adultery.12 George IV’s plans did not run smoothlyhowever, as public opinion resolutely opposed the notion of a royal divorce, and rejoicedin the queen’s return. Astonished and shaken by the depth of public opposition to theproceedings, the government advised the abandonment of Caroline’s trial after justfour months, cautioning the king that a guilty verdict against Caroline might provokeserious public disorder.

This article will look first at the opposition to George IV and the role that contem-porary ideas about masculinity played in shaping opposition to his divorce; and second,at the alternate characterisation of British masculinity symbolised by those men whoopposed the queen’s trial and what this discourse reveals about the relationship betweenpolitics, gender and national identity.

Although it was Caroline who faced judicial interrogation in the House of Lords, itwas George IV who found himself on trial within in the public arena, and it was almostexclusively his failings that the press and populace debated. This reversal was reflectedon the frontispiece of the popular pamphlet Non Mi Ricordo (Figure 1), which portrayed

C© The author 2008. Journal compilation C© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

250 Gender & History

Figure 1: Frontispiece, Non Mi Ricordo, (London: William Hone, 1820) by WilliamHone with illustrations by George Cruikshank



George IV as the one under scrutiny in the dock of a courtroom.13 The pamphlet wenton to present a mock trial of the king, with George IV undergoing a vigorous cross-examination of his actions and motivations but giving only frivolous or vague answersto each question, frequently echoing the notorious refrain of Theodore Majocci (thechief Italian prosecution witness in the Queen’s trial) in replying ‘Non mi ricordo’ (Ido not recall).

Why did you marry?To pay my debts.Then why did you part?Because my debts were paid.I ask you again the cause of your separation.She left me.On what account?I did not like her and I told her I’d have nothing to do with her anymore.If your marriage oath has not bound you, can you expect people to believe you if ever you shouldtake a solemn public oath?More yes than no.How many wives does your church allow you?Non mi ricordo.How many have you had since you separated from your own?Non mi ricordo.14

The thrust of this portrayal highlighted George IV’s own marital failings as a fargreater cause for national concern than Caroline’s alleged indiscretions, and was typicalof many contemporary analyses. George IV’s failure to honour his marriage vows wasperceived to hold serious and direct implications for his ability to discharge his publicduties, and to reflect poorly on his underlying character. Particularly since, as JohnTosh has argued, in the period 1750 to 1850 ‘adult gender for men involved forminga household, maintaining it, protecting it and controlling it’.15 Failure to establish andmanage a harmonious household was therefore not simply a private shortcoming butan indication of a lack of adult character and manly responsibility. This focus on thedomestic dimension of masculine responsibility was not entirely new.16 However, inthe early nineteenth century a renewed emphasis on demonstrable familial leadershipbecame a key component of masculine identity as both the middle and working classesembraced the rhetoric of domesticity as a means to bolster their political and commercialreputations,17 or to promote the importance of their patriarchal status as breadwinners.18

One contemporary conduct manual summarised this outlook remarking, ‘the Christiangentleman is in his best estate and properest attitude as a family man’.19

As Philip Carter has argued, this emphasis on private character reflected a subtleshift in attitudes towards the construction of masculine identity at the beginning of thenineteenth century.20 While in the eighteenth century criticisms of men were usuallycouched in terms of their performative failure within their profession, religion, rankor nationality, by the nineteenth century inner virtue and strength of character hadbecome increasingly pertinent to their social reputation. Middle-class commentators inparticular sought to establish the idea that character rather than status was the best judgeof a man’s worth, and that all areas of a man’s life should be able to withstand publicscrutiny. A gentleman’s character should be ‘independent of place or time’ and in everyarea of his life he should ‘maintain no distinction’ opined one contemporary conduct



manual.21 ‘A man’s real rank and value in life is best estimated by his behaviour’,argued another.22

George IV’s failure to steward his domestic responsibilities left him out of stepwith the general opinions of his subjects, and in breach of Christian teaching. Accordingto contemporary interpretations of the Bible, marriage had been designed by God forthe purpose of procreation and to prosper human society and, according to God’slaw and accepted custom, a husband was therefore entrusted with certain obligationstowards his wife.23 The most fundamental of these was his duty to protect her since,as The New Whole Duty of Man explained, she was ‘the weaker vessel’.24 A husband’sprotection was also regarded as a wife’s recompense for her marital submission since‘the authority intrusted with the husband by Almighty God is designed for the direction,the preservation, and well-being of the wife’.25 The fact that George IV had deviatedfrom this principle from the outset of marriage to Caroline was repeatedly emphasisedin the debate, as was the opprobrium due to any man who could so injure a woman.Moreover, to disregard and aggrieve Caroline so publicly was viewed as an even moreshocking and depraved deviation from his husbandly duty than private ill-treatmentalone, since it left her exposed to public humiliation and shame in addition to herpersonal woes. The editor of the Times cautioned, ‘had we the ear of the sovereign weshould say “Protect Sir, Protect with all your legal power and might your wife fromsuch an ominous and ill boding course of proceedings”’.26 Churchmen also argued thattrue masculinity was inextricably linked to the proper performance of a husband’s dutyto safeguard his wife. One minister wrote:

a man who can unjustly put away his wife and see her persecuted, and held up to public contempt,and never attempt to deliver her out of the hands of her inveterate and malignant foes, is not worthythe name of man, and ought never to be allowed to associate with women again. 27

Women’s perceived dependence on men for protection served to tarnish the reputationof any man who abused ‘the weaker sex’ and to frame him as a coward, a bully andultimately as less of a man. Any man who failed to treat women with the care andrespect they deserved was furthermore deemed unworthy of enjoying the benefit offemale company and attention, as this ballad declared:

Then let England, and Ireland and Scotland aloud,For the rights of woman declare,May the man who would wrong them be branded and shunned,As unworthy the smiles of the fair.28

In addition to sheltering a wife from all harm, a further marital obligation incum-bent upon a husband was his duty to love his wife. Spousal love was not seen as amatter of inclination according to The Complete Duty of Man, but of divine command:

the Christian husband must love his wife, not only for the charms of her person, the sweetness ofher manners, or even the affection he knows she bears him, but above all because their SupremeBenefactor, the Lord of Heaven and Earth hath said, Husbands, Love Your Wives.29

George IV’s contempt for his obligation to love Caroline was made clear in a letter hesent to her in 1796, at the time of their initial separation, which was widely reprintedin newspapers. He excused his departure from the marriage on the basis that ‘ourinclinations are not in our power, nor should either of us be held answerable to the



other because nature has not made us suitable to each other’.30 This flimsy explanationfor abandoning the marriage appalled many when published, and several commentatorsalluded to this letter in their attacks on the king. ‘Marriage’ stated one author:

is the great moral chain by which society is held together . . . it cannot perish by ‘inclination’ but bycrime, and if there is any difference between the Prince and the peasant who invoke its obligation, itis in the more enlarged duty entailed upon him to whom the Almighty has vouchsafed the influenceof an example . . . Has any man a right to square the solemnities of marriage according to hisrude caprices? Am I your lowly subject to understand that I may kneel before the throne of Godand promise conjugal fidelity till death, and self-absolve myself whatever moment it suits my‘inclination’?31

Many observers viewed George IV’s public disregard for the traditions believed tobuttress the foundations of a civilised and Christian society as a threat to both thenational reputation and the very fabric of society itself. A diminution in the observanceof correct gender behaviour was seen as a prelude to the collapse of all morality andethics, and many commentators noted their apprehension that the dismantling of onebulwark of morality might threaten the rest. This fear heightened in the wake of theFrench Revolution. As one pamphleteer worried:

Revolutions in manners are as frequent as revolutions in government; and whilst an example is heldup to every ruffian in the land to abuse and insult the wife that he promised to cherish and protect;is it unreasonable to apprehend the degeneracy and decay of our national morals?32

George’s elevated station in life, as both monarch and head of the Church of England,was seen to make his duty to observe God’s laws all the more severe, and his transgres-sion of these laws all the more grievous, since his reckless example might encourageother men to ill use or abandon their own spouses with potentially devastatingconsequences for society. In a sermon preached at a Baptist church in Manchester,the minister chastened the king and urged him to remember that,

in proportion to the nature of the sphere of life a man fills in the world, so will his base example beseriously felt by the community at large; the greater and more splendid the office he fills, the greaterand more dangerous is the crime, and the greater is the disgrace he brings upon the country.33

An advice manual similarly urged a strict observance of Christian doctrine by those inauthority arguing ‘the British statesman or senator cannot be truly great in separationfrom Christian piety’.34 George IV’s blatant disregard for God’s laws appeared notonly extremely arrogant to many but also foolhardy, as he was repeatedly warned toconsider the ultimate price his actions might incur. One commentator cautioned theking:

believe me, Sire, when all the tongues that flattered you are mute, and all the pageants that deceivedyou are not even a shadow, an awful voice will ask in thunder, did your poor wife deserve thistreatment merely from some distaste of inclination?35

Divorce was exceedingly rare in Georgian society and was regarded as an actionof absolute last resort. In line with biblical teaching, the law allowed divorce only inexceptional circumstances, namely if a wife was found guilty of adultery, and eventhen only at a price which extremely few men could afford.36 Yet, despite this glaringdouble standard in law, by which only men could divorce their wives for adultery andnot vice versa, male fidelity within marriage was still regarded as highly desirable. In



The New Whole Duty of Man, the author warned that a Christian marriage requiredmutual marital fidelity and cautioned husbands to consider that:

to this fidelity men are equally obliged with the women. A man may perchance be so far gone infavour to himself as to think slightly of his own offences: in this case let him consider whether hewould not think his mother or daughter injured if their husbands should wander from their bed inpursuit of unhallowed pleasures.37

The king’s poor record in this regard was directly attacked in Divine Maxims andMorals in which reference was also made to his clandestine first marriage to the widowMrs Fitzherbert, later declared illegal and annulled under the Royal Marriages Act of1772.38 The author asked:

If a man (whether King or otherwise), marries a woman, (whether a Fitz-ite or otherwise), andafterwards during their cohabitation as those whom the Holy Priest hath joined together, such Kingor other person should, (for the liquidation of his debts, whether contracted in the house of gaming orwh—dom, or for any other political purpose) marry another woman, and when he had, (by such lastmarriage), gained his political object, should desert and cruelly abandon his last married wife, andwantonly run after other lovers, would not such a man (even if he were a King), be a whoremonger,fornicator and an adulterer?39

This stinging attack on the hypocrisy and immorality of the king illustrates thecontempt with which his actions were viewed by many contemporaries. The notorioushistory of the king’s many affairs and licentious behaviour undermined any attempt toportray George as an innocent cuckold, and disqualified him in the eyes of many fromseeking redress should his wife have now strayed. Indeed, while some appear to havedefended Caroline because they believed her innocent of all charges,40 others arguedthat, regardless of Caroline’s innocence or guilt, George’s initial abandonment of herand his own infamous reputation for womanising, meant that a divorce would beunjust. Many viewed the greater authority entrusted to the husband as placing himunder an equally enhanced responsibility to behave well, to guard his wife againstharm, to maintain the marriage and, crucially, to face greater culpability when themarriage went wrong. George IV’s very failure to honour his marital duties was there-fore seen to diminish his right to claim redress if Caroline had subsequently goneastray. Thus, even those who were swayed by the accusations of Caroline’s adulteryoften found fault with George for abandoning her in the first place and held himculpable for putting her in a situation where she could to fall into harm. As JaneAusten wrote in a letter (regarding one of several earlier attempts by George to brandCaroline an adulteress), ‘I am resolved at least always to think that she would havebeen respectable, if the Prince had behaved tolerably by her at first’.41

The view that a husband was culpable for any moral failure on the part of hiswife if he abandoned her appears to have been a considerable factor in the oppositionto George’s attempt to divorce Caroline. The Revd John Walker, a vicar and lawyer,published his thoughts on the matter based on Matthew 5: 32, ‘Whosoever shall putaway his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery’, andargued:

it being notorious that the Queen was put away by her husband, and not for the cause of fornication,but because the King was pleased to say to her, ‘our inclinations are not in our power; nor shouldeither of us be held answerable to the other because Nature has not made us suitable to each other’;I conceive according to the above text of scripture that, by thus putting her away, he made himself



responsible for her subsequent conduct . . . and he shall not be entitled to redress for what he himselfcaused or neglected to take every reasonable and proper means of preventing.42

Consequently, he argued, since George IV had been the cause of exposing Caroline tothe difficulties and temptations which she had faced, he had no right to claim redressif she had indeed fallen as a result of his neglect and desertion.43 Another minister inManchester similarly argued that, even if Caroline was guilty of adultery, the ultimateblame for her actions lay with George on the basis that he had left her without theprotection of a male guardian. It was therefore argued that she deserved pity ratherthan further punishment. Even if Caroline were guilty, asked the minister, ‘where arewe to look for the cause; her husband had denied her her marriage rights in putting heraway from his bosom and his bed. Christ says ‘he is the cause’, therefore he must bearthe blame’.44 The queen’s defence barrister Henry Brougham took a similar line in histrial speech, highlighting that it was the king who had driven Caroline away and lefther without a male guardian, and consequently that the King’s desertion of his wifeand his adultery left his hands far from clean in this matter.45

Moreover, these sentiments appear to have found currency across the social spec-trum, as Stuart Wortley noted to Lord Liverpool in 1820:

The minds of a very great proportion of the better sort of people revolt at anything like harshnessto the Queen, because they think that it arises from the King’s personal feelings towards her, andthat his conduct to her from the beginning has left him no right whatever to complain of any part ofhers.46

Such sentiments make it clear that George IV’s contemporaries placed as much stressupon a husband’s duties as his privileges and, it would seem, that a sizeable sectionof the population wished to see the royal marriage preserved because they believedGeorge’s responsibilities to Caroline were independent of the issue of her innocence orguilt in adultery. If she was innocent, she had been unjustly abandoned and submitted topublic humiliation and slander; if she was guilty, her fall only highlighted her husband’sfailure to guide and protect her.

As previously noted, George IV’s private life was of greater concern than mostin this regard precisely because he was the monarch. The king was expected to be therepresentative face of the nation and to reflect the best qualities of his people, justas George IV’s father was believed to have done. Indeed, it was against the exampleof George III as much as any abstract ideal of British manhood that George IV wastried during this episode, and against which he was again found wanting. George III’sdeath in 1820 provoked a large number of eulogies, many of which referred to hisharmonious domestic arrangements as the hallmark of his reputation as ‘a good man’and his subsequent popularity.47 The sheer length of George III’s sixty-year reign meantthat the image of a harmonious, domestic monarchy that he and his wife had establishedhad become the only model of monarchy that most people could remember or wanted.48

The affection in which George III continued to be held throughout the Queen Carolinedebate suggests that, far from this being an anti-monarchy protest, the British publicin general were simply too attached to the model of domestic monarchy established byGeorge III to allow his son to besmirch it. George IV was therefore urged to follow hisfather’s example of domestic steadiness and to abandon his campaign against Caroline.As one minister urged, ‘Let also the wealthy, and those of exalted rank, follow the



chaste example of departed Royalty; let them, as he did, shun every proceeding thatmight disgrace their dignity, or stain a fair reputation’.49 Charles Phillips, the author ofone hugely popular pamphlet, similarly cautioned George to be mindful of the strengthof public attachment to the model of domestic monarchy established by his father, andto remember that ‘other crowns may be bestowed by despots and entrenched by cannon,but the throne we honour is the people’s choice. Its safest bulwark is the popular heartand its brightest ornament, domestic virtue’.50

Thus, while George III’s reputation for moral and manly behaviour was held up asthe hallmark of his wisdom and his success as a king, George IV’s failure to be a goodhusband was seen to ill-befit a monarch and to undermine his legitimacy in the eyes ofhis subjects. Further damaging comparisons were also made between George IV andanother less revered king, Henry VIII. In 1820, Henry VIII’s reputation amongst mostBritons was that of an ‘ogre’ or ‘monster’ as a consequence of his notorious executionand divorce of numerous wives.51 George IV was warned that his current persecutionof Queen Caroline recalled such odious behaviour, and many pamphlets made a pointof stressing that the modern British public would no longer tolerate such mistreatmentof a royal female.52

The disparity between George IV and idealised models of British manhood wasfurther emphasised through the portrayals of each during this debate. A typical portrayalof the national character asserted that, ‘the English are a plain, homely, unsophisticatedrace – straightforward honesty, unaffected candour, plain, simple, obvious integrity, arethe strong and remarkable features of the national character’.53 George, by contrast,was portrayed as neither plain, homely, honest or unaffected. In one satirical print a‘missing’ advertisement was placed for ‘an infirm and elderly Gentleman in a PublicOffice’ who had ‘lately left his home after dreadfully ill-using his wife about half aCrown’. It caricatured the king with the description:

he may be easily known by his manners. He fancies himself the politest man in Europe becausehe knows how to bow, and how to offer a pinch of snuff; and thinks himself the greatest man inEurope because people have humoured him and let him have his own way. He is so fond of tailoringthat he lately began a suit that will take him his life to complete. He delights in playing at soldiers,supposes himself a cavalry officer, and makes speeches that others write for him, in a Field Marshal’suniform.54

This portrayal of a vain, shallow man who had only the outward appearance of agentleman, who was duped by the sycophants that surrounded him, and who lackedany talent, purpose or virtue of his own, was in stark contrast to those images of Britishmasculinity which were held up as admirable at this time. It contrasted the virtues ofthe industrious classes against the dissolute and parasitic lifestyles of the aristocracyand found the latter severely wanting. Similarly unflattering portrayals of the king canbe found in most contemporary pamphlets.55 One, for example, described the king as ‘aplaister of Paris figure, pretty well polished outside, quite hollow within, and coveredall over with trinkets’,56 while another attacked the king’s character saying:

Wheresoever he goes he is valued as nought;Because he’s deficient in action and thought.All he thinks of is eating and getting dead drunk;And putting his friends in a deuce of a funk.57



The king’s failure to behave as a British man was expected to, also led him to be depictedas an eastern despot in such pamphlets as Kouli Khan or Sultan Sham, in which he wasportrayed as more at home in the seraglio than in the domestic monogamy usual inBritish custom.58 His credentials as a Briton were further attacked on the basis of hisunmanly behaviour by a ballad that contrasted the gallantry of the ordinary Britishseaman against the cowardice of the Hanoverian king saying:

This is the TAR,Who indignant had seen,A LOW HANOVERIAN insulting his Queen;And challeng’d the Villain,Who dastardly fled,For fear of the vengeance held over his head.59

That George IV’s behaviour became a matter of comment abroad further embarrassedmany Britons. An editorial in the Times noted ‘we positively blush and sink with shamewhen we reflect that these proceedings are to go forth into the world and that foreignnations are to know what a state we are in in this country’.60

The king’s ungentlemanly behaviour was seen to reflect poorly on the nationalreputation and to degrade Britain’s international image. The Morning Chronicle noted:

the eyes of foreigners are now exclusively fixed on us and we are by turns the object of their pity andridicule . . . what Englishman does not feel mortified that his country, once the pride of every native,and the admiration of every stranger, should now, by this investigation, be the subject of universalridicule? 61

As with British coverage, one of the most prominent aspects of the affair scrutinised byforeign commentators was George IV’s failure to act as a man should. The Americannewspaper, the National Advocate, spoke of George IV possessing ‘the total absenceof every virtuous and honourable quality’,62 while an editorial from another Americannewspaper argued that:

her sex at least, ought, even if there had been grounds for suspicion, ought to have induced herpersecutors to have treated her with some appearance of delicacy . . . if her husband really had been,as his admirers say, ‘the most accomplished gentleman in Europe’, he could not have done less,consistent with that character, than to have drawn a veil over her errors.63

Indeed, outside of the House of Lords, the king’s own circle and devoutly loyalistpublications such as John Bull or the Courier, disapproval of his conduct appearsto have been so widespread that, although a few pamphlets took an equally dimview of both the king and queen,64 exceptionally few pamphlets even attempted tocounter the aspersions cast on the masculine character of the monarch. One of the rareattempts to support George IV relied on the precarious defence that to suggest that ‘aman of polished education and manners, of amiable mind, of elevated notions of deli-cacy and honour’ might ‘causelessly desert an innocent, virtuous and estimable wife’had to be rejected as an argument since ‘such conduct, in such a man, would indeedbe so gross and palpable a transgression of the common laws of nature that unlessby the most perverted intellect, the idea cannot for a single moment be received orentertained’.65

The idea that reports of the king’s purported behaviour had to be a fabrica-tion, simply because the notion of their being accurate was too heinous even to



contemplate, was hardly the most convincing rebuttal imaginable. One other ill-conceived attempt to buttress the king’s position relied on the equally unconvincingpresentation of George IV as the unfortunate victim of his devotion to royal duty,unfairly saddled with an unfaithful wife that he had married solely for the good ofthe country.66 Such attempts to defend the king’s behaviour were uncommon howeverand, as Fulcher has demonstrated, the majority of loyalists focused on the easier taskof smearing the queen’s reputation and the need to defend the institution of monarchy,rather than attempting a defence of the king’s personal conduct.67 Thus, although thereremained those within the House of Lords and the king’s own aristocratic circles whoheld that a man’s private and public lives were rightly separate entities, and that a man’soutward performance of polish, politeness, manners and learning were still paramount,few in the wider world were prepared to defend such sentiments. Indeed, while populardefences of the king were somewhat scarce and limited, pamphlets that were criticalof the king, by contrast, appear to have gone through multiple re-prints during 1820,and to have achieved enormous popularity, suggesting that the public readily identifiedand connected with the critical concerns expressed.

Yet, despite the king’s failings, most Britons remained attached to the idea ofmonarchy and wished to see the king mend his ways rather than replaced. The king wastherefore urged to adopt more appropriate male behaviour, and in particular to honourhis marriage vows rather than to relinquish his sovereignty: a sentiment summarised inone contemporary ballad that urged:

A Father to thy Nation prove,A Husband to thy Queen,And in safely in thy People’s Love,Reign tranquil and serene.68

Unfortunately, George IV failed to respond to this exhortation and, despite the abandon-ment of divorce proceedings in November 1820, he and Caroline remained estrangeduntil her death in 1821. George’s reputation never fully recovered from the damagecaused during this episode and the question mark over his character remained until hisdeath in 1830 when, in stark contrast to the warm eulogies paid to George III upon hisdeath, the Times remarked of George IV ‘there was never an individual less regrettedby his fellow creatures than this deceased King’.69

In addition to prompting criticism of George IV, idealised notions of British mas-culine identity also motivated large numbers of British men to defend Caroline as anassertion of their own compliance with the manly virtues it advocated. By opposingthe divorce, British men signalled their rejection of George IV’s libertine projectionof British manhood and asserted their own, more sober, vision of national male iden-tity in its place. Indeed, Caroline’s supporters repeatedly cited their possession of truemanly character and national pride as the source of their repugnance over the king’sactions. The men of Norwich described the queen’s trial as ‘a violation of the prin-ciples of justice and the maxims of jurisprudence’, which therefore called upon them‘as men, and as Englishmen, to protest against this unworthy proceeding’.70 Similarly,the male inhabitants of Limehouse declared, ‘We consulted our duties as ENGLISH-MEN and CHRISTIANS and finding them in unison with our feelings as MEN, weendeavoured to wipe away the stain from our national character.’71 Similar sentimentswere expressed at public meetings held to discuss the affair. One speaker at a meeting



held in London declared that ‘as an Englishman he would raise his voice against heraccusers because their attack was odious and unmanly’,72 while at another meeting inNewcastle, Sir John Swinburne described the proposal to send an address of support tothe queen as ‘such as they ought and must approve of, if they had any regard for theirown character as men and as Englishmen’.73 The pamphlet literature surrounding theaffair also reflected this theme, and contained such expressions of patriotic chivalry as,‘I would blush for the British name, I would tremble for fate of every woman in thiscountry, if I did not see arrayed against this foul persecution all the manly virtues ofthe land’.74 Opponents of the royal divorce drew such strong connections between thepossession of manly British virtue and opposition to the queen’s trial for a number ofreasons. Firstly, recourse to the rhetoric of patriotism gave a certain degree of legitimacyto participating in the controversial activity of criticising the king. By drawing on theeighteenth-century conception of patriotism in which a Briton’s foremost allegiancewas to the good of the nation, and not necessarily to the government or monarch ofthe day, Caroline’s supporters were able to argue that the true duty of every Britishman was to defend his country from peril, be it internal or external.75 In this vein, theRevd John Walker described the queen’s trial as ‘odious to every man of true loyalty,to every man attached to our laws and constitution’.76 An address to the queen fromthe gentlemen of Suffolk similarly noted that:

In times of national distress it is the duty of every English gentleman to avow his sentiments withoutfear and to show himself ready to give his support, however humble it may be, in such measures ashe may believe to be best calculated to save or serve his country.77

This call to defend the interests of the nation was also found in commercial Carolin-ite literature, such as a handbill which carried the exhortation ‘England expects thatEvery Man will do his Duty’ echoing the call to service made during the Napoleonicwars.78

Secondly, the protection of women was widely espoused as one of the hallmarks ofa civilised society in this period, and the reputation of Britain as a country in which menrespected and protected women was therefore a central facet of British self-identity.Many concurred with Edmund Burke’s assertion that the respectful treatment accordedto women in Britain was a vital indicator of the civilisation of their society. Accordingto Burke, a spirit of chivalry and a proper respect for rank and sex were the key featuresthat separated European civilisation from other inferior societies.79 This sentimentwas repeated by the anonymous author of a contemporary conduct manual who noted‘when nations emerge from barbarism, every step which they take towards refinementis marked by a more reasonable treatment of women’, and by a pro-Carolinite placardexhibited throughout London which noted that Englishmen were ‘famed for justice,humanity and tenderness towards women’.80 The king’s attack on the queen thereforerepresented a threat to the very reputation of Britain as a civilised Christian countrythat respected women. By opposing the king’s actions, British men thereby sought tore-assert the image of their nation as one where ‘chivalry and courage co-existed’; andto insist that in Britain ‘where the brave man and the free man dwelt, the very name ofwoman bore a charmed sway’.81

The observance of correct gender decorum was held to be a central facet of Britishcivilisation and many commentators therefore felt it necessary to stress that the king’sbehaviour was not representative of the nation at large. ‘It was’, contended one author:



certainly a very novel case in a country where the feelings of women are so justly and so dearlyrespected to see a woman publicly insulted by men. The beauty, the goodness, the very helplessnessof the sex are so many claims on our support, are so many sacred calls to the assistance of every manlyand courageous arm. The ruffians who attack them are . . . objects of general odium and contempt.82

In the absence of an appropriate example from the country’s leaders, many felt thatit was left to the ordinary men of Britain to defend the national reputation for manlycharacter. As the London Magazine remarked:

Since woefully for us all not one minister amongst the several who are now talking of their consci-entious motives and heartfelt regrets, has had integrity enough to act . . . it is for the nation at large tomanifest loudly its indignation at the insult with which it is menaced, and by one strong acclamationof abhorrence to quash this miserable business for ever.83

The magazine therefore called upon ‘all the manly and virtuous sympathies of thenation’ to rally around the Queen’s cause.84 Other commentators were keen to stresstheir optimism over the preservation of national character since so many ordinaryBritish men had opposed the attack on Caroline and proved that ‘the manly virtues ofour country have not yet retired’.85

This episode therefore offers an illuminating glimpse into the tensions betweenthe aristocratic model of masculinity adhered to by George IV and his circle, and thatincreasingly espoused by middle- and working-class Britons. While the monarch andhis admirers adhered to a conception of masculine identity in which a fashionableappearance, polished manners and a refined social performance were of the utmostimportance, by the early nineteenth century a more sober vision of masculinitywas gaining ascendancy, in which character, sincerity, respectability, piety, duty anddomestic steadiness were regarded as the greatest priorities.86 A contrast was thereforefrequently drawn between the outmoded morals and attitudes of the nation’s leadershipand the development of new mores amongst ordinary Britons; mores that an increas-ingly large proportion of the population was coming to believe made them worthier ofpolitical participation than their supposed betters. As the queen’s reply to an addressfrom the inhabitants of Spitalfields explained:

the great fault in the Statesmen of modern times and particularly of our own country, has been, thatthey have not kept pace with the increased knowledge and improved sentiments of the age . . . inshort they are still children while the nation has grown up to manhood.87

A similar attitude was expressed by the chairman of a Newcastle committee thatorganised the drafting of an address of support for the queen, when the local MPMr Beaumont refused to deliver the address. His refusal was viewed as evidence ofan astounding lack of proper manly feeling and patriotism by the chairman, who com-mented that, ‘As a young statesman Mr Beaumont may be pardoned for a deficiencyin knowledge, discernment and decision; but as an Englishman, it is difficult to findan excuse for the want of zeal and courage on behalf of a persecuted woman and aninjured queen’.88

Further differences between the sentiments of statesmen and of ordinary Britonswere highlighted by Mr Wooler in a public meeting, when he argued that in his opinion‘the test of respectability was not whether men were in high or low rank, but whetherin whatever class of life they might be placed, they discharged their duty’.89 The king’sopponents drew heavily on the notion that to be worthy of respect, the true British man



should be characterised by his private virtue, his respect for women, his obedience toGod, and his active patriotic citizenship, rather than his station, wealth or appearance.A contemporary conduct manual summarised this position by arguing that:

the qualifications and marks of a real gentleman do not consist in elegant mansions, rural villas,spacious parks, beautiful gardens, treasures of gold, or a numerous retinue of servile attendants –these are only the appendages of grandeur, pomp and parade; but propriety in thinking, justice inacting, and generosity in feeling are characteristic of the gentleman.90

There was clearly a strong element of class assertion and delineation in such statements,articulated through the prism of contrasting visions of masculinity. The attack on theking’s masculinity was inextricably bound up with the attack on aristocratic vice and thecorresponding assertion of the moral and political capital of the emerging middle andworking classes. Opponents of the king argued that, while the aristocratic indulgenceand depravity of George’s actions brought his masculinity into question, the steadfastrepugnance of ordinary British men towards his vices demonstrated both the superiorquality of their patriotic, moral and political worth, and the enhanced character oftheir masculinity. The class and gender elements of this discourse therefore cannot beseen as separate issues, but were inter-related and mutually constitutive. It was notonly Caroline’s fate which was at stake but also that of the middle- and working-classconstruction of masculinity which, if triumphant, would have consequences beyond theprotection of the queen’s marital rights, and would assert the moral right of ordinarymen to participate in national political life and receive a greater share of the patriarchaldividend than had previously been available to them.91

To achieve this unity of purpose, some of the differences between working- andmiddle-class views had to be glossed over. For example, there was less concern over theissue of Caroline’s own guilt or innocence amongst the working classes than amongstmany in the middle classes.92 The manner in which middle- and working-class mendemonstrated their support also differed slightly, with middle-class supporters partici-pating in pro-Carolinite parades in their carriages and finery and sending addresses ofsupport from ‘householders’ and championed by the local mayor or gentlemen of ‘greatrespectability’, whilst artisans and tradesmen such as ‘the mechanics of the metropolis’or ‘the united guildries of Perth’ were more likely to send their own addresses of supportand parade on foot.93 Such differences make plain the tensions of property versus skillembedded within middle- and working-class definitions of masculine identity, yet bothwere able to see the merit critiquing the aristocratic model of manhood and of assertingan alternative vision of manliness based on qualities such as chivalry, independence,sincerity and moral fibre in its place. By recasting the nature of the hegemonic model ofmasculinity to reflect the shared values and aspirations of the industrious classes, thesecampaigners were therefore also performing the politically charged act of attempting toextend access to the status, prestige, political standing, economic benefit and personalcapital to be derived from masculine status within an unequal gender order.

Not all features of the two models of masculinity were drawn in contrast to eachother, some fought over the same ground. For example, while to be a ‘man of feeling’was generally regarded as a sign of refined aristocratic sensibilities, Caroline’s malesupporters laid claim to heightened moral sensibilities themselves. The men whorallied to the queen’s cause were regularly depicted as men of feeling whose emo-tions and sensibilities were naturally stirred by the queen’s unfortunate predicament.



As one author fumed, ‘let any man of ordinary feeling think on her situation at thistrying crisis, and does he not feel his heart’s blood boil within him!’94 Meanwhile,William Carey, in an address to the queen, lambasted the peers of the House of Lordsfor their interrogation of her saying, ‘no being with the heart of a man, viewing theacknowledged unprotected and persecuted state of the illustrious victim, would assailher with the gall of invective’, and contrasted their ill conduct with ‘the moral, inde-pendent, enlightened, thinking, useful and just mass of the country’ who ‘have but onefeeling of affectionate attachment to your Majesty’s person’.95 The Lords were wellaware that the trial exposed them to some vulnerability over the issue of demonstratingjust and manly feeling. The parliamentary debates surrounding the affair are full of dis-putes over whether such a course of action was manly or not, and the vain attempts ofpoliticians to reclaim such ground from their detractors.96 Those defending the queenwere well aware that they had the upper hand on this issue and regularly highlighted thecontrast in their propaganda, as in the queen’s response to a loyal address from Britishseaman:

I am not surprised that British seamen, who are as compassionate as they are brave, should feel formy sufferings, and should be indignant at my wrongs. The wrongs and sufferings of a woman, andthat woman a Queen, must make a deep impression on their generous hearts. It is only the base andthe cowardly that can tamely acquiesce in injustice and inhumanity.97

Such passages again highlight that, by the early nineteenth century, definitions ofmasculinity not only emphasised the importance of the correct external performance ofmasculine duty, but also the appropriate inner virtues and solid opinions which directedsuch actions.

The natural sympathy that men of feeling were expected to demonstrate for thepitiable situation of a deserted wife was already a well-established theme by 1820.98

As such, the queen’s predicament could also be presented as a test or trial of Britishmasculinity, giving British men the opportunity to assert their manly virtue and todefend the reputation of the nation’s manhood by coming to the queen’s aid, ratherthan allowing the cruel example of her husband to prevail. The queen was thereforeassured by the inhabitants of Limehouse that ‘every feeling heart in the kingdom isthrobbing for your safety’ and that ‘the prayers of virtue and the resolves of manhoodare united in your behalf’.99

As both Anna Clark and Thomas Laqueur have argued, there was undoubtedlya strong element of theatre and melodramatic flourish evident in many of the narra-tives which surrounded the Queen Caroline affair, such as the portrayal of Caroline’ssupporters as the chivalrous, heroic and gallant defenders of the innocent, injuredqueen.100 However, while Laqueur concluded that such melodrama eventually over-whelmed an essentially radical protest and reduced the affair to mere farce,101 Clarkhas more convincingly argued that far from weakening the campaign, melodrama actu-ally politicised and broadened the debate.102 The use of easily recognisable discoursessuch as chivalry certainly enabled the protest to reach the widest possible audience ina format that was readily accessible to all. Moreover, an appeal to the masculinity ofBritish men had a far more elemental and far-reaching power than recourse to politicalargument alone, since it required no allegiance to any particular political position, phi-losophy or class, but rather relied upon men’s basic recognition that it was right thatthey should respond to a damsel in distress.



The idea that British manhood could be asserted by the successful defence ofthe queen was not only drawn in opposition to the example of George IV, however,but also against ideas about the nature of French masculinity. As Gerald Newmanhas demonstrated, English national identity in particular was increasingly assertingitself as morally superior to French national character in this period, and the divergingcharacteristics ascribed to British and French men were frequently alluded to in thisdebate.103 An address to the queen from the householders of Westminster illustratesthis point:

we come before your Majesty with no servility, and will not offend your Majesty with unmeaningwords of adulation, as unbecoming for a Queen of England to hear, as of Englishmen to utter, butwe will come before your Majesty with a sincerity in which we will give place to none.104

This portrayal of Englishmen as plain speaking and sincere was drawn in directcontrast to the manner in which the French were commonly portrayed. The cruelfate of Marie Antoinette was held up the ultimate example of the failure of Frenchmasculine character, and as a means of asserting the superior qualities of British men,who would not allow a similar abuse of their queen.105 In Edmund Burke’s discussionof the execution of Marie Antoinette in Reflections on the French Revolution, he hadexclaimed:

little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallantmen, in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leapedfrom their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalryis gone.106

This phrase of Burke’s was frequently reworked in reference to Caroline. For ex-ample, one pamphlet asserted ‘Ten thousand swords shall leap from their scabbardsto avenge even a look that may threaten her with insult’.107 As early as 1796, theMorning Chronicle had reported that the then Princess Caroline had been applaudedby British gentlemen when she had attended the opera, and had noted that theyendeavoured:

in every possible manner to convince her of their feelings, and it seemed by their ENERGY to provethat Burke had been mistaken, for that the age of chivalry is not passed, but that were it possibleANY ONE should wrong this royal stranger, ten thousand swords were ready to leap out of theirscabbards to her defence.108

By evoking the memory of Marie Antoinette and asserting the endurance of Britishchivalry, British masculinity was proclaimed to be distinct and superior to Frenchmasculinity. While French chivalry had failed Marie Antoinette, British men, it wasargued, would never allow their queen to be so violated. The readiness of British mento defend their queen was seen as a source of immense national pride. Caroline herselfwas portrayed as fully mindful of this support, declaring ‘I knew the magnanimouscharacter of Englishmen too well not to know that my adversities would constitute astrong claim to their regard’.109

One final factor motivating British men’s defence of Caroline was the eagerness ofBritish women that their men should defend the queen. Men’s natural desire to enhance



their standing before women was exploited by a number of campaigners who exhortedwomen to use their influence to ‘make Englishmen act as they ought’.110 The womenof Nottingham therefore called upon their countrymen to prove themselves throughtheir support for the queen, declaring:

all in whom the spirit of the days of chivalry are not utterly extinct, all who would not immolate thebest impulses of our nature on the altar of modern policy, will rally round their Queen, and save herfrom foreign emissaries and spies, and domestic persecutors.111

Since masculine identity was after all enjoyed not only before other men, but beforewomen, the fact that so many women regarded this as a crucial issue undoubtedlyinfluenced male participation. Indeed, it is probable that many men saw their defenceof Caroline as, in part, an assertion of their own claim to patriarchal authority withintheir own domestic situations, again highlighting the political dimensions of this affairthrough its influence on gender politics. By defending women’s interests in this matter,men demonstrated their right and ability to exercise patriarchal authority and to claimfemale subservience in return. The Black Dwarf therefore cautioned men to considerthe personal, domestic consequences that might greet the man who failed to uphold thequeen’s rights, saying, ‘no man would basely forfeit the love and esteem of his wife,his daughters, his sisters or his mistress, by calmly suffering the violation of everyfemale right in the person of his Queen’.112 In Newcastle, one mother even informedher six sons that she expected each of them to sign the address of support for the queensent from that town, and would never acknowledge them again if they failed to doso.113 Participation in the opposition to the royal divorce therefore had consequencesnot only for the image and reputation of British manhood, but potentially for thedomestic stability of individual British households. By defending the queen, Britishmen reassured their wives, mothers, sisters and daughters that their interests were valuedand would be defended. They asserted that, regardless of the poor example set by themonarch, their own defence of Caroline could be taken as evidence of their continuedwillingness to protect and respect women and the continued worth of a patriarchalsystem. Again, such actions can be read as an assertion of the primacy of the modelof manhood espoused by the industrious classes and their right to receive the rewardsassociated with compliance with hegemonic masculine ideals.

Thus, although it was a significant act that some women did engage in the publicprotest against the divorce,114 most women appear to have been content to continueto allow their views to be represented by their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons.It might even be possible to suggest that the widespread participation of British menin defending Caroline may have contributed to women’s continued acceptance of thepolitical and patriarchal status quo in the early nineteenth century, since female interestshad been successfully defended by men.

The ephemeral literature surrounding the Queen Caroline Affair presents a snap-shot of opposing visions of British masculinity, pitting the libertine example ofGeorge IV against the more staid and responsible model espoused by middle- andworking-class British men. It also provides a glimpse of what was at stake as thesecompeting constructions of masculinity vied for dominance, namely the very compo-sition and character of patriarchal authority and the group of men who were to haveaccess to its privileges in terms of social and political capital. By outlining the virtuesthat a man entrusted with power and authority ought to possess, the king’s opponents



were not only critiquing George IV’s failings and asserting their own right to partici-pate in the political process, they were also recasting the very substance of patriarchalauthority and the benefits that it ought to deliver to the men who complied with its stric-tures. Within this debate, the trends already highlighted by Philip Carter, John Tosh andAnna Clark are evident.115 The early nineteenth-century man was to be distinguishednot by his rank but by the consistency with which he demonstrated his solid innervirtue in both public and private; he was to honour and abide by Christian teaching, hewas to accept the responsibilities of manhood as well as the privileges, and he was toconduct himself respectfully towards women in general and his own wife in particular.Compliance with this gender ideal was not only seen to be crucial to a man’s individualstanding, but more widely to Britain’s claim to be a civilised and Christian country.While a multitude of competing, overlapping or complimentary constructions ofgender exist in any age, and while the response of individuals to these cultural fabri-cations cannot be assumed, the enormous mobilisation of Britons around this imagesuggests considerable public uniformity on the subject during this episode. Moreover,as Paul Langford and Anna Clark have argued, it was this model of restrained andresponsible manhood which became widely accepted as the ideal model for Britishstatesmen in the decades following this affair.116

Yet, just because one model of masculinity appears to achieve hegemonic statusat a certain point in time, does not mean that it translated into the model that most mencomplied with in reality, or that all men derived equal benefit from this model of genderrelations, as Robert Connell’s work has demonstrated.117 Thus, despite evidence that amore sober and virtuous model of masculinity enjoyed notable currency amongst late-Georgian men, sufficient to motivate their defence of this image, no study of culturalmores should be taken to imply a correlation in actual behaviour. Ample evidence ofthe abandonment of wives, domestic violence, divorce, spousal murders and libidinousstatesmen continued to exist throughout the nineteenth century, and extreme cautionshould therefore be exercised in making any linkage between the idealised model ofmanhood held up in the Queen Caroline Affair and the manner in which men actuallyconducted themselves.118

What this episode does reinforce however, is the argument that, by 1820, privatebehaviour had become as crucial to masculine reputation as it had long been to femininereputation and that, regardless of what may have been occurring in the domestic livesof Britons behind closed doors, it had became increasingly impossible for men whowished to be entrusted with public confidence in political and civic life to openly divergefrom contemporary ideals concerning private conduct. The public man whose privatelife was in disarray undermined his reputation as a wise and judicious man, diminishedthe currency of his word and damaged public trust in his overall competency to fulfilhis office or station. Ideas about male gender were therefore not merely an adjunctto more serious political concerns in the Queen Caroline Affair, they were politicalin themselves. The protests against George IV’s conduct were both a commentaryon changing ideas governing the right to hold and exercise political authority and anattempt to recast the construction of hegemonic masculinity and thereby the proportionof British men able to capitalise on the patriarchal dividend derived from any unequalgender order.119

Cultural constructions of male gender did not float in the cultural ether uncon-nected from public or political life, they shaped the social, political and economic



advantages available to men in Georgian society; the judgements men made aboutother men and their worthiness to exercise authority, hold office or demand respect;and the way that men therefore attempted to present themselves within the public arena.While the debates surrounding the Queen Caroline Affair may not therefore be indica-tive of any change in the actual private conduct of Britons, they do add weight to theargument that a new model of masculinity was in the ascendancy by the early nine-teenth century, and that men wishing to assume positions of public prominence andinfluence were required to be far more attentive to public perceptions of their domesticarrangements than had been necessary even a half century earlier.

NotesI would like to thank Naomi Tadmor, Vic Gatrell, Helen Berry, Kate Retford, Elizabeth Macknight, GeoffCrossick and the anonymous readers for their advice and comments on various drafts of this article, and theeditors of Gender & History for all their assistance.

1. William Hone, The Queen’s Matrimonial Ladder, A National Toy (London, 1820), p. 6. This pamphletcost 6d. and ran to over forty editions.

2. ‘Her Majesty’s Reply to the Address from the Inhabitants of Morpeth’, in Robert Huish, Memoirs of herLate Majesty, Caroline, Queen of Great Britain (London: T. Kelly, 1821), p. 427.

3. In the latter half of 1820, the Times devoted three-quarters of its content to the subject and doubled itscirculation. Pamphlet production similarly went into overdrive, with more pamphlets being producedduring 1820 than the next five years combined. See Dorothy George, The Catalogue of Personal andPolitical Satires Preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, 11 vols(London: British Museum, 1952), vol. 10, p. xx.

4. Iorwerth J. Prothero, Artisans and Politics in Early Nineteenth Century London (London: Methuen, 1981),p. 136.

5. See Tamara Hunt, ‘Morality and Monarchy in the Queen Caroline Affair’, Albion 23 (1991), pp. 697–722; Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English MiddleClass 1780–1850 (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 152; Dror Wahrman, ‘“Middle Class” Domesticity GoesPublic: Gender, Class and Politics from Queen Caroline to Queen Victoria’, Journal of British Studies(1993), pp. 396–432, here p. 402; Anna Clark, ‘Queen Caroline and the Sexual Politics of Popular Culturein London, 1820’, Representations 30 (1990), pp. 47–68.

6. Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, pp. 47–68; Thomas W. Laqueur, ‘The Queen Caroline Affair: Politics as Art inthe Reign of George IV’, Journal of Modern History 54 (1982), pp. 434–83.

7. Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (London: Pimlico, 1994), p. 265; Davidoff and Hall,Family Fortunes, p. 152; Laqueur, ‘The Queen Caroline Affair’, pp. 434–83; Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’,pp. 47–68.

8. Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, p. 53; Anna Clark, Scandal: The Sexual Politics of the British Constitution(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 177–207.

9. Robert B. Shoemaker, Gender in English Society 1650–1850 (Harlow: Longman, 1998), p. 249.10. Matthew McCormack, The Independent Man: Citizenship and Gender Politics in Georgian England

(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 33.11. On the financial profligacy of the prince, see Saul David, The Prince of Pleasure: The Prince of Wales

and the Making of the Regency (London: Little, Brown, 1998), pp. 33, 72; Anon., The Political House thatJack Built (London: William Hone, 1821); Anon., The Joss and his Folly (London, 1821).

12. Proposal to Murder the Queen (London, 1821).13. William Hone, Non Mi Ricordo (London, 1820). This pamphlet went through at least thirty-one editions

in 1820. See also Half-a-Crown Lost! Examination extraordinaire of the Vice R - y of B - d - y Boro! Aliasthe Handsome Gentleman (London, 1820), which also depicted George IV on trial and went through atleast four editions during 1820.

14. Non Mi Ricordo, p. 5.15. John Tosh, ‘The Old Adam and the New Man: Emerging Themes in the History of English Masculinities,

1750–1850’, in Tim Hitchcock and Michele Cohen (eds), English Masculinities, 1660–1800 (Harlow:Longman, 1999), pp. 217–38, here p. 223.

16. See e.g., the importance attached to a harmonious domestic reputation in gaining household credit in earlymodern England in Craig Muldrew, The Economy of Obligation: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations



in Early Modern England (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), p. 158; or the need to establish a householdto obtain full manhood in Anthony Fletcher, Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500–1800 (NewHaven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 97.

17. Tosh, ‘The Old Adam’, p. 219.18. Anna Clark, The Struggle for the Breeches (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p. 203.19. William Roberts, The Portraiture of a Christian Gentleman (London, 1820), p. 88.20. Philip Carter, Men and the Emergence of Polite Society, Britain 1660–1800 (Harlow: Routledge, 2001),

p. 5.21. Roberts, Portraiture of a Christian Gentleman, p. 66. The importance of male independence of opinion

and action has been emphasised by Matthew McCormack in The Independent Man.22. Isaac Taylor, Character Essential to Success in Life (London, 1824), p. 1.23. See Genesis 2: 24: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and

they will become one flesh’.24. Henry Mozley, The New Whole Duty of Man (London, 1819), p. 210.25. Mozley, New Whole Duty of Man, p. 212.26. Times, 25 September 1820.27. William Gadsby, A Sermon Shewing the Nature and Design of the Marriage Union . . . Occasioned by the

Late Proceedings in the House of Lords Against the Queen (Manchester, 1820), p. 10. See also WilliamJohnson Fox, A Funeral Sermon for Queen Caroline of England (London, 1821).

28. Queen Caroline and the British Trio (London, 1820). This pamphlet went through at least five editions in1820.

29. Henry Venn, The Complete Duty of Man (London, 1820), p. 210, and quoting Ephesians 5: 25.30. London Magazine, August 1820, reprint of letter from the Prince of Wales to Princess Caroline, from

Windsor Castle, dated 30 April 1796.31. The Queen’s Case Stated, p. 11.32. The King’s Treatment of the Queen [1820?].33. Gadsby, A Sermon Shewing, p. 6.34. Roberts, Portraiture of a Christian Gentleman, p. 71.35. Charles Phillips, ‘Letter of Mr Phillips to the King’, in The Speeches of Charles Phillips Esq. (London,

1821), p. 237. See Ephesians 5: 25–33.36. Times, 6 July 1820.37. Mozley, New Whole Duty of Man, p. 211. See the same message also in Venn, Complete Duty of Man,

p. 207.38. David, Prince of Pleasure, p. 33.39. Anon., Divine and Moral Maxims, Rules and Queries etc for the Perusal of Kings and Others (London,

1820), p. 2.40. Times, 8 July 1820.41. Robert William Chapman (ed.), Jane Austen’s Letters to Her Sister Cassandra and Others (London:

Oxford University Press, 1952), p. 504.42. John Walker, The National Joy on the Abandonment of the Bill of Pains and Penalties Vindicated (London,

1820), p. 17.43. Walker, National Joy, p. 20.44. Gadsby, A Sermon Shewing, p. 20.45. The Trial of the Queen of England in the House of Lords (London: Thomas Kelly, 1820), p. 20.46. C. D. Yonge Macmillan, The Life of Lord Liverpool, vol. 3 (London, 1868), p. 115.47. John Mackinnon, The Public and Private Character of Our Late Sovereign George III Considered in a

Sermon (Newark, 1820), p. 9. See also Alfred Barker, The Character of a Good King (Taunton, 1820),p. 15; Roberts, Portraiture of a Christian Gentleman, p. 135; Thomas Madge, The Character of GeorgeIII (London, 1820); Memoirs of George III Illustrative of His Private, Domestic and Christian Virtue(London, 1820).

48. Linda Colley, ‘The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation 1760–1820’, Pastand Present 102 (1984), pp. 124–5.

49. Mackinnon, Public and Private, p. 19.50. The Queen’s Case Stated, p. 26.51. Morning Chronicle, 5 August 1820.



52. See e.g., T. Dolby, A New Royal Alphabet by Peter Pangloss (London, 1820); Anon., The King’s Treatmentof the Queen Shortly Stated to the People of England (London: William Hone, 1820). This pamphlet wentthrough at least three editions in 1820. The Queens Case Stated (London, 1820), which was dedicated to‘the memory of Anna Boleyn, the martyr’d consort of Henry the Eighth’; Thomas Harral, Anne Boleyn andCaroline of Brunswick Compared (London, 1820); Anon., Divine and Moral Maxims, Rules and Queriesetc for the Perusal of Kings and Others (London, 1820).

53. The King’s Treatment of the Queen.54. Anon., Advertisement Extraordinary, Strayed and Missing (London, 1820).55. See William Hone, The Green Bag: A Dainty Dish to set before a King (London, 1820); A Spy upon Spies

(London, 1820); The Pig of Pall Mall (London, 1820); The Royal Italian Jugglers (London, 1820); TheGreat Milan Leech (London, 1820); A’ The Rogues are Swearing at Her (London, 1820).

56. The King the Avowed Enemy of the Queen: A New Royal Game of Chess, played for Half-Crown Stakes.By Philoi-D’Or (London, 1820), p. 5.

57. A Peep at the P∗v∗∗∗∗n, or Boiled Mutton with Caper Sauce (London, 1820), p. 6.58. William Benbow, Kouli Khan, or the Progress of Error (London, 1820). This pamphlet went through at

least six editions in 1820. Anon., Sultan Sham (London, 1820).59. William Hone, The Queen that Jack Found (London, 1820). This pamphlet went through at least ten

editions in 1820.60. Times, 23 August 1820.61. Morning Chronicle, 7 October 1820.62. Morning Chronicle, 7 October 1820.63. Times, 27 September 1820, quoting the New York Commercial Advertiser, 17 August 1820.64. See The Kettle Abusing the Pot. By the Black Dwarf (London, 1820); or The Queen and Her Pawns against

the King and His Pieces (London, 1820).65. Thomas Harral, Henry the Eighth and George the Fourth, or, The Case Fairly Stated (London, 1820),

p. 228. This pamphlet went through at least two editions in 1820.66. John Croker, A Letter from the King to his People (London: William Sams, 1821), p. 6.67. Jonathan Fulcher, ‘The Loyalist Response to the Queen Caroline Agitations’, Journal of British Studies

34 (1995), pp. 481–502, here p. 487.68. John Bull, Ode to George the Fourth and Caroline his Wife (London, 1820). This pamphlet went through

at least two editions in 1820.69. Times, 27 June 1830.70. ‘Address to the Queen from the Men of Norwich’, Times, 12 August 1820.71. The Second Address presented to Her Majesty from the Inhabitants of Limehouse (London, 1820).72. Morning Chronicle, 27 September 1820.73. A Report of the Speeches and Proceedings at the Meeting of the County of Northumberland (Newcastle,

1821), p. 6.74. The King’s Treatment of the Queen, p. 31.75. Hugh Cunningham, ‘The Language of Patriotism’, in Raphael Samuel (ed.), Patriotism: The Making and

Unmaking of British National Identity, vol. 1: History and Politics (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 57–89,here p. 59.

76. Walker, National Joy, p. 6.77. ‘Address from the Gentlemen of Suffolk, Freeholders and Principal Inhabitants’, quoted in the Times,

4 September 1820.78. England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty (London, 1820).79. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London, 1793), pp. 126–7.80. The Female Aegis; or, The Duties of Women from Childhood to Old Age and in Most Situations of Life

Exemplified (London, 1798), p. 7; Times, 4 July 1820.81. The Queen’s Case Stated, p. 7.82. The King’s Treatment of the Queen, p. 4.83. Editorial in the London Magazine, July 1820.84. Editorial in the London Magazine, July 1820.85. The King’s Treatment of the Queen, p. 32.86. Carter, Men and the Emergence, pp. 213–14; Clark, Scandal, p. 218; Gerald Newman, The Rise of English

Nationalism: A Cultural History 1740–1830 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), pp. 96, 133–9.87. ‘The Queen’s Reply to an Address from the Inhabitants of Spitalfields’, printed in the Morning Chronicle,

26 September 1820. The majority of the queen’s replies were drafted by William Cobbett.88. Newcastle Magazine 111, September 1820, p. 20.



89. Morning Chronicle, 8 September 1820. This may have been Jonathan Wooler, the editor of the BlackDwarf .

90. James McKown, An Essay on Politeness (London, 1820), p. 24.91. Robert W. Connell, Masculinities (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), pp. 76–80; Robert W. Connell, Gender

(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), pp. 142–4.92. Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, p. 56.93. See the Times, 21 August 1820; 12 October 1820; 7 September 182; 4 August 1820. See also Selections

from the Queen’s Answers to Various Addresses (London, T. Hatchard, 1821).94. The Queen’s Case Stated, p. 12.95. William Carey, Two Congratulatory Addresses to the Queen from the Parish of Westminster (London,

1820), The Second Address, p. 30.96. Hansard, 24 January 1821, pp. 86–94.97. ‘The Queen’s Reply to a Loyal Address from British Seaman’ (ghostwritten by William Cobbett), in

Robert Huish, Memoirs of her Late Majesty, p. 592.98. See e.g., Mary Wollstonecraft, Maria or the Wrongs of a Woman (1798; repr. London and New York: W.

W. Norton, 1978) p. 74, in which the plight of a woman in distress is presented as an opportunity for menof feeling to demonstrate their superior sensibility by coming to her aid rather than taking advantage ofher vulnerability.

99. The Address of the Male and Female Inhabitants of Limehouse to the Queen (London, 1820).100. Laqueur, ‘The Queen Caroline Affair’, p. 482; Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, p. 52.101. Laqueur, ‘The Queen Caroline Affair’, p. 482.102. Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, p. 52; Clark, Scandal, pp. 177–207.103. Newman, Rise of English Nationalism, pp. 123–7. See also Michele Cohen, ‘Manliness, Effeminacy and

the French: Gender and the Construction of the National Character in Eighteenth-Century England’, inHitchcock and Cohen (eds), English Masculinities, pp. 44–61.

104. ‘Address from the Householders of Westminster’, quoted in the Times, 5 July 1820.105. The original provisions of the Bill of Pains and Penalties did technically include a death penalty (if Caroline

was found guilty of treason against the King), but this was quickly removed by ministers. Nonetheless,some pamphlets such as Proposal to Murder the Queen (London, 1820) continued to claim that there wasa threat against Caroline’s life.

106. Burke, Reflections, p. 126.107. The King’s Treatment of the Queen, p. 32,108. Morning Chronicle, 4 June 1796.109. ‘The Queen’s Reply to an Address from the Inhabitants of Ross’, printed in the Morning Chronicle,

16 September 1820.110. Anon., Fair Play, or, Who are the Adulterers, Slanderers, and Demoralisers? by Shandy Sinecure, Esq.

(London, 1820). This pamphlet went through at least two editions in 1820.111. ‘Address of the Female Inhabitants of Nottingham’, Traveller, 26 July 1820.112. Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, p. 54.113. Times, 14 July 1820.114. For the role of women in the debate, see Colley, Britons, pp 265–6; Clark, ‘Queen Caroline’, pp. 58–60;

Laqueur, ‘The Queen Caroline Affair’, pp. 459–64.115. Carter, Men and the Emergence of Polite Society, p. 5; Tosh, ‘The Old Adam’, p. 219; Clark, Scandal,

p. 218.116. Paul Langford, ‘Politics and Manners from Sir Robert Walpole to Sir Robert Peel’, Proceedings of the

British Academy 94 (1997), p. 118; Clark, Scandal, pp. 217–18.117. Connell, Masculinities, pp. 76–80; Connell, Gender, pp. 142–4.118. See e.g., James Hammerton, Cruelty and Companionship: Conflict in Nineteenth Century Married Life

(London: Routledge, 1992); Clark, The Struggle for the Breeches; John Gillis, For Better, For Worse:British Marriages 1600 to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Elizabeth Foyster, MaritalViolence: An English Family History, 1660–1857 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

119. Connell, Gender, pp. 142–4.


British Masculinities on Trial in the Queen Caroline Affair of 1820

Documents

Transcript of British Masculinities on Trial in the Queen Caroline Affair of 1820